# EP and the early Church hyms of the NT scripture



## Mayflower (Aug 1, 2005)

I was wondering for those who hold to EP, if that means that you are only against singing uninspired hyms, or that that you only for singing for Psalms. Iam asking this because i read somewhere, that foreample passages like Ephesians 1:3-14, Philipains 2:5-11 & some verses in Colossians 1 where used as a hyms in the early church ?


----------



## New wine skin (Aug 1, 2005)

While its not the NT church, Ambrose used hymns per Augustine (Confessions)... cant remember which chapter he talks about it... I think it was the chapter with his conversion???


----------



## Mayflower (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> This has been discussed, but no one can substantiate the claim that those passages are hymns which were sung by the early church. The texts themselves do not make the claim.



Can you give me the link ?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by joshua_
> ...



Here is the link to a recent discussion of this subject. This issue is covered well in Michael Bushell's _The Songs of Zion_ as well. I would argue that the assertion that uninspired hymn "fragments" exist in the NT epistles is speculative and unsubstantiated.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

Justin Martyr, using the term  Ï…Ì”Î¼Î½Î¿Î¹  to refer to pagan Greek songs:



> But since, ye men of Greece, the matters of the true religion lie not in the metrical numbers of poetry, nor yet in that culture which is highly esteemed among you, do ye henceforward pay less devotion to accuracy of metres and of language; and giving heed without contentiousness to the words of the Sibyl, recognise how great are the benefits which she will confer upon you by predicting, as she does in a clear and patent manner, the advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ;85 who, being the Word of God, inseparable from Him in power, having assumed man, who had been made in the image and likeness of God, restored to us the knowledge of the religion of our ancient forefathers, which the men who lived after them abandoned through the bewitching counsel of the envious devil, and turned to the worship of those who were no gods. And if you still hesitate and are hindered from belief regarding the formation of man, believe those whom you have hitherto thought it right to give heed to, and know that *your own oracle*, when asked by some one to utter a *hymn *of praise to the Almighty God, in the middle of the *hymn *spoke thus, "Who formed the first of men, and called him Adam." And this *hymn *is preserved by many whom we know, for the conviction of those who are unwilling to believe the truth which all bear witness to. If therefore, ye men of Greece, ye do not esteem the false fancy concerning those that are no gods at a higher rate than your own salvation, believe, as I said, the most ancient and time-honoured Sibyl, whose books are preserved in all the world, and who by some kind of potent inspiration both teaches us in her oracular utterances concerning those that are called gods, that have no existence; and also clearly and manifestly prophesies concerning the predicted advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and concerning all those things which were to be done by Him. For the knowledge of these things will constitute your necessary preparatory training for the study of the prophecies of the sacred writers. And if any one supposes that he has learned the doctrine concerning God from the most ancient of those whom you name philosophers, let him listen to Ammon and Hermes:86 to Ammon, who in his discourse concerning God calls Him wholly hidden; and to Hermes, who says plainly and distinctly, "that it is difficult to comprehend God, and that it is impossible even for the man who can comprehend Him to declare Him to others." From every point of view, therefore, it must be seen that in no other way than only from the prophets who teach us by divine inspiration, is it at all possible to learn anything concerning God and the true religion. (_Hortatory Address to the Greeks, XXXVIII_



There is also the _phos hilarion_, a hymn that was cited by Justin in his dialogue with Trypho (c. 150) and is described by Basil (in 350) as being so old that he did not know who wrote it.

Does anyone have any citation or sources from Church history regarding the "hymn fragment issue." Call me crazy, but the possibility does exist that Mr. Bushell has a preconceived notion. Maybe it is in the fact that he has his discussion of it in the midst of a polemic for EP.

[Edited on 8/1/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Call me crazy, but the possibility does exist that Mr. Bushell has a preconceived notion. Maybe it is in the fact that he has his discussion of it in the midst of a polemic for EP.
> 
> [Edited on 8/1/2005 by fredtgreco]



Fred, Respectfully, where should have Mike Bushell treated this issue that would have made his argument more valid to you? Because someone is answering objections posed to the EP position, that does not negate his response as somehow invalid any more than it means we should assume whatever you or others say on this issue (in the midst of a polemic against EP, I might add) to have arisen out of a "preconceived notion" and therefore dismiss your comments out of hand. The fact remains, Bushell's arguments (as well as those of Charles Hodge, which I put forth in the other thread) are not lightly dismissed by any open-minded student of the issue at hand.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



You are correct - what I say should not have any more weight on this particular issue. That is why I asked for information from an unbiased source. I did not suggest that Bushell not offer his arguments- that would be ridiculous. But I dd suggest that your offering them as proof is of little to no help.

As for your last sentence, I guess I would say that if it is true, there are incredibly precious few open minded students in the entire worldthe vast majority of the Reformed world have rejected them.

[Edited on 8/1/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> You are correct - what I say should not have any more weight on this particular issue. That is why I asked for information from an unbiased source. I did not suggest that Bushell not offer his arguments- that would be ridiculous. But I dd suggest that your offering them as proof is of little to no help.
> 
> As for your last sentence, I guess I would say that if it is true, there are incredibly precious few open minded students in the entire worldthe vast majority of the Reformed world have rejected them.
> ...



I know that you have read Bushell and disagree with him. Most people in the Reformed world have never read Bushell or Charles Hodge or any other scholar on this issue (supposed hymn fragments). Therefore, I don't think your comment is warranted. The hymn fragment theory coincides historically with the rejection of the RPW and EP, so I think it is a self-serving, unsubstantiated theory, which is ultimately unprovable and untenable.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> This has been discussed, but no one can substantiate the claim that those passages are hymns which were sung by the early church. The texts themselves do not make the claim.



I did quote from Vincent's Word Pictures, I believe, the Jewish Antiquities in the other thread.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I know that you have read Bushell and disagree with him. Most people in the Reformed world have never read Bushell or Charles Hodge or any other scholar on this issue (supposed hymn fragments). Therefore, I don't think your comment is warranted. The hymn fragment theory coincides historically with the rejection of the RPW and EP, so I think it is a self-serving, unsubstantiated theory, which is ultimately unprovable and untenable.



Andrew,

First, I believe that you are incorrect about the hymn fragment theory - I thought it arose well after the debates about EP were "live," and the scholarship surrounding them was for the vast part completely uninvolved and unaware of the EP issue (and the entire RPW issue, for that matter). To say that many in non-Reformed Christendom raised a theory to defeat a doctrine taught by a minute portion of a Reformed world that they were not aware of is, I believe fallacious.

Second, while I believe that you are correct about the level of study on these matters, I would ask an honest question: can you give an example of another doctrine/controversy that has so completely dropped off the map as the EP one has? There must be some reason that every Reformed denomination of any substantial size (the largest, the RPCNA, has 6,000 worldwide members) has rejected EP. Each had to do so at some ecclesiastical body level.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

> I would ask an honest question: can you give an example of another doctrine/controversy that has so completely dropped off the map as the EP one has?



Just think baout the lack of books written over the last 200 years on a given subject:

Presumptive Regeneration.
The Lord's Day.
The Reformation view of the Lord's Supper (Calvin's View)
The Puritan Law/Gospel Distinction
Covenant Theology.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 1, 2005)

Is numbers (as far as church membership is concerned) a sign of God's approval?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > I would ask an honest question: can you give an example of another doctrine/controversy that has so completely dropped off the map as the EP one has?
> ...



Deservedly so.




> The Lord's Day.



A thousand fold more relevant a topic. And if we include churches that confess the Lord's Day principle, the numbers are 100,000 fold that of EP. (Likely more like 1,000,000 fold because one should include non-Americans)



> The Reformation view of the Lord's Supper (Calvin's View)



Again, the vast majority of all Reformed Christendom professes this. There may not be orthopraxy, but there is orthodoxy. With EP, there has been a rejection _not just of practice_ but of doctrine.



> The Puritan Law/Gospel Distinction
> Covenant Theology.



Each of these issues are incredibly more mainstream. Every major reformed seminary teaches them. There are dozens of books on the subject. So far as I am aware, the only seminary that teaches EP is the official RPCNA seminary, and the only book is Bushell's.

Apples and oranges.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 1, 2005)

uninspired oranges and charismatic bananas....


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Is numbers (as far as church membership is concerned) a sign of God's approval?



Not strictly, but one wonders if God promised to grow His church, and to provide teachers to instruct, and if worship is important, why He would keep 99.99% percent of His Church in the dark (or rebellion).


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



*2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 "œLord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." 4 But what is God's reply to him? "œI have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal."*


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 1, 2005)

=edit==Reread your post more carefully; late for me and misunderstood you. Still I don't think "numbers" is where we want to go as far as from the perspective of the few of us that hold to the regulative principle in the Presbyterian world in general is concerned.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by NaphtaliPress]

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

"Not strictly, but one wonders if God promised to grow His church, and to provide teachers to instruct, and if worship is important, why He would keep 99.99% percent of His Church in the dark (or rebellion)."

I don't know the answer to this in any age of the church. Think about the "dark ages" on theology alone. God has His reasons not necessarily disclosed to us. Rebellion among the many causes.


----------



## Augusta (Aug 1, 2005)

Headcovering is something that went out along with EP in the modern era. Neither if very "popular." Both have to do with worship. 

If the OT is any indicator, when worship got corrupted the people were not far behind. When it was restored the people were also not far behind. Could the lack of reverent worship be not a symptom but part of the cause of the state of the modern church?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Headcovering is something that went out along with EP in the modern era. Neither if very "popular." Both have to do with worship.
> 
> If the OT is any indicator, when worship got corrupted the people were not far behind. When it was restored the people were also not far behind. Could the lack of reverent worship be not a symptom but part of the cause of the state of the modern church?



Wonderful point. As R.C. Sproul says in his series "From Dust to Glory", every failure of Israel as a people followed a lack of reverence in and the corruption of their worship of God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Headcovering is something that went out along with EP in the modern era. Neither if very "popular." Both have to do with worship.
> 
> If the OT is any indicator, when worship got corrupted the people were not far behind. When it was restored the people were also not far behind. Could the lack of reverent worship be not a symptom but part of the cause of the state of the modern church?



I know people who do head coverings. I actually believe it has been practiced more in the last centuries than you understand.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Second, while I believe that you are correct about the level of study on these matters, I would ask an honest question: can you give an example of another doctrine/controversy that has so completely dropped off the map as the EP one has? There must be some reason that every Reformed denomination of any substantial size (the largest, the RPCNA, has 6,000 worldwide members) has rejected EP. Each had to do so at some ecclesiastical body level.



Exclusive psalmody was the position and practice of the Scottish Covenanter and Puritan Reformation. It was taught in Reformation-era colleges and universities (of much higher scholarly and theological caliber than any around today that I know of) and practiced in Reformation-era churches. Psalmody was a vital element of the Reformation, in fact, which viewed worship as of the highest priority. The Pilgrims brought the Psalter, not a hymnal, on the Mayflower. Even Harvard taught EP at one time! :bigsmile: In 1858, the Associate Synod and the Associate Reformed Synod merged to form the United Presbyterian Church. Article XVIII of their declaration of union says:



> We declare, that it is the will of God that the songs contained in the Book of Psalms be sung in His worship, both public and private, to the end of the world; and in singing God's praise, these songs should be employed to the exclusion of the devotional compositions of uninspired men.



In 1902 the UPC had over 134,000 members in 1,019 congregations. At the same time, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (EP) had 12,000 members in 136 congregations; the Old School RPCNA (EP) had 10,000 members in 115 congregations; the General Synod of the RPCNA (EP) had 5,000 members; and the Associate Presbyterian Church (EP) had 1,000 members in 31 congregations. That's just in the US. Today, the RPCNA, PRC (both of them), American Presbyterian Church, Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Free Church of Scotland, Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Reformed Presbyterian Church of Australia, Evangelical Presbyerian Church of Australia are among the EP denominations around at present. Patrick Millar's _Four Centuries of Scottish Psalmody_ speaks to the history of EP in Scotland, which was even more prevalent than the US. 

As for modern writers who are pro-EP, how about John Murray, William Young, G.I. Williamson, Brian Schwertley to name a few? 

However, the merits of EP are not based on a numbers game or popularity contest. Purity of worship has gone downhill incredibly in the last couple of hundred years, by most any standard. The PCA, for example, as we all know, from many discussions on this very Board and in our own experience, condones Sabbath-breaking and images of Christ on a wide scale. It is typical of most modern Reformed churches which adhere to the historic Confessions and Creeds in name only or when it suits them. The PCA is not a bastion of orthodoxy or orthopraxy with respect to worship. Worship in general is poorly understood and practiced in modern Reformed churches. This historical fact does not serve well as an argument against EP. If we lived in a more Reformed age, and the majority of Reformed churches were against EP, I would listen to the argument (albeit, the whole controversy, as I'm sure you agree, rests squarely on what the Scriptures teach, not how many people hold to this or that at a given time); but frankly, appealing to modern views on worship in opposition to Puritan views and the teaching of the Westminster Confession just doesn't have any weight with me, personally.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 2, 2005)

I'm only just beginning to get acquainted with this topic which gets a few of you so excited. One question that comes to mind is this. The New Covenant sees a great shift or rather the institution of a whole new set of distinctives. Baptism replaces circumcision, the Lord's Day replaces the Sabbath, Temple worship and sacrifice are discontinued, the people become the priesthood, etc. 

Why wouldn't the New Covenant be characterized by new songs that are distinctive to the New Covenant?

Nine times in scripture we are told to sing a new song. Psalm 33:3, Psalm 40:3, Psalm 96:1, Psalm 98:1, Psalm 144:9, Psalm 149:1, Isaiah 42:10, Revelation 5:9, Revelation 14:3.

New in what way. Obviously we're not speaking of style. What is a "new" song.

New in nature, content, purpose? Why shouldn't we be singing from the perspective of the redeemed instead of the perspective of those who looked forward to the mystery of redemption? - singing 'spiritual songs' based in the amazing doctrines of the New Testament?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> I'm only just beginning to get acquainted with this topic which gets a few of you so excited. One question that comes to mind is this. The New Covenant sees a great shift or rather the institution of a whole new set of distinctives. Baptism replaces circumcision, the Lord's Day replaces the Sabbath, Temple worship and sacrifice are discontinued, the people become the priesthood, etc.
> 
> Why wouldn't the New Covenant be characterized by new songs that are distinctive to the New Covenant?
> ...



Good questions, Bob. Indeed, there is a sense which we are to sing new songs unto the Lord. Not new in content, but new in perspective. The Psalms are full of Christ. We ought to see that more clearly given the NT emphasis on quoting the Psalms more than any other book of the Bible. The Psalms are truly the voice of Christ. There is nothing of Christ lacking in the Psalms. They are fully sufficient as to the reality of Christ in the words of David. Psalm 110 is a perfect example. So is Psalm 22. It is all the word of Christ (Col. 3.16). The disciples on the road to Emmaus needed special enlightenment to see that (Luke 24.27) but we of the era of the completed canon ought to see that clearly (by God's grace). 

So, in what sense "new"? Was the commandment to love one another (John 13.34) really "new" (see Lev. 19.18; 1 John 2.7; 2 John 5)? Was Jesus' teaching on marriage (Matt. 19) really "new"?

Michael Bushell:



> In the same way the "newness" in song of which the New Testament is heir does not have to do with content _per se_ but with newness of perspective. So even if the passages in Isaiah 42:10 and Revelation 5:19 and 14:3 are seen as having pre-consummation significance, there is still no warrant to see in them a mandate for the production of uninspired songs for worship. If in fact the concept of eschatological "newness" is seen in its proper context, quite the opposite is the case. Newness in the sential presupposition lying behind of the necessity of a "new heavens," a "new earth," a "new Jerusalem," a "new covenant," and a "new song" is the fact that the old order had been thoroughly corrupted by the touch of man's sinful hand. God is therefore to be the sole craftsman of the new order, even in its proleptic manifestations.
> 
> The Old Testament Psalms may therefore in a particular sense be seen as "new songs" because they have all taken on new significance in the light of their fulfillment in Christ and in the interpretive light that the New Testament sheds upon them. Seen in this way, the Psalms serve quite sufficiently as a proleptic realization of the need for "new songs" in the worship of God. Because of their divine origin and their organic connection with the rest of Scripture, they serve this purpose in a way not to be matched, much less excelled, by the composition of uninspired men.




[Edited on 8-2-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 2, 2005)

Michael Bushell has a gift for words and can that boy dance. 

So he says 'new' means 'new perspective' and the 'new perspective' means 'old perspective'. It's like saying there are the old wineskins but think of them as new wineskins because we put new wine in them. I don't know Andrew. I guess what you're saying is no song is appropriate unless it is inspired. So why can't I takes Romans 7 and give it a meter and rhyme and sing it as part of worship provided I've only rearranged words to fit the measure.

I agree with Scott that there is safety in choosing to sing only the psalms, safe from the possibility of offending the Father but it reminds me of the man who buried his talent in the ground for fear of offending his master. It was safe but not profitable.

I want to hear songs that direct our thoughts to the atonement for example, the Trinity, the doctrines that the Apostle Paul was appointed to discover and explain.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by maxdetail]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 2, 2005)

The sufficiency of the Psalter will depend on how we understand the unity of the OT and the NT.

In the OT setting, the Psalms were prophetic to announce the Messiah to come.

In the NT setting they are realized.

So singing the psalms for the NT witness to the truth of their reality are even *more* appropriate today than they were in the OT.

Martin Luther: "The psalter ought to be a precious and beloved book, if for no other reason than this: it promises Christ's death and resurrection so clearly - and pictures his kingdom and the condition and nature of all Christendom - that it might as well be called a little Bible."

The psalms are *filled* with Jesus Christ. If we do not find Him there, then it is not because of a lack of the Holy Spirit's inspiration about Christ in the Psalter, but because our hearts are hard, and our hearing is dull.

That is the epitome of the dispensational argument against using the Psalter.


----------



## doulosChristou (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> In the OT setting, the Psalms were prophetic to announce the Messiah to come.
> 
> ...







> _Originally posted by webmaster_Martin Luther: "The psalter ought to be a precious and beloved book, if for no other reason than this: it promises Christ's death and resurrection so clearly - and pictures his kingdom and the condition and nature of all Christendom - that it might as well be called a little Bible."
> 
> The psalms are *filled* with Jesus Christ. If we do not find Him there, then it is not because of a lack of the Holy Spirit's inspiration about Christ in the Psalter, but because our hearts are hard, and our hearing is dull.



 I don't even lean in the pro-exclusivity direction, but I am very pro-psalter for these very reasons. There is not one song in the Trinity Psalter with which my church is not intimately familiar. We have sung them all, continue to sing them, and are the better for it.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 2, 2005)




----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 2, 2005)

That is a great quote by Luther. He prayed the psalter through in a week. I would like to emulate that and then he wrote 36 wonderful hymns, only 7 of which were based on the psalter.

Of course the entire Bible is Christocentric, without a doubt. But restricting our songs of praise to the psalter is like praying the prayer of Jabez or even the disciple's prayer exclusively.

I'm just learning to appreciate the Trinity Hymnal and now you guys are trying to tell me that it is an inferior form of worship. I'm not ready to buy that. "Its Just Like Jesus to Roll the Clouds Away" is inferior but don't take away my Rock of Ages and Mighty Fortress.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> That is a great quote by Luther. He prayed the psalter through in a week. I would like to emulate that and then he wrote 36 wonderful hymns, only 7 of which were based on the psalter.
> 
> Of course the entire Bible is Christocentric, without a doubt. But restricting our songs of praise to the psalter is like praying the prayer of Jabez or even the disciple's prayer exclusively.
> ...



The song I knew way back when was called "Jesus is the Rock and He rolls my blues away."  It was catchy and bluesy, but it remains uninspired. I am glad that Martin Luther and others wrote powerful compositions, based on the Psalms or not, and wouldn't want to stifle anyone's gifts in poetry or music. But I say keep them outside of stated worship. For me, it comes down to the Second Commandment and the Regulative Principle. Hath God said, ye shall sing uninspired hymns in my worship service? What saith the Scriptures? Bob, have you checked out the Trinity Psalter?


[Edited on 8-2-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------

