# Donald Poundstone on Partial Psalmody



## Logan (May 6, 2014)

I was reading this article today by Donald Poundstone, found on the OPC website:
Orthodox Presbyterian Church

In it, he critiques the "radical" move by the General Assembly to publish a new psalter-hymnal with the _entire_ book of psalms in it. Essentially he argues that the "overwhelming consensus within the OPC since her founding" has been "that God nowhere directs his people—either in the Old or the New Testament—to sing all the biblical psalms in worship."

Why only sing psalm selections and paraphrases? "Briefly—and maybe too bluntly—not all the psalms as originally written are suitable for corporate _Christian_ praise and prayer."

The first question one would seemingly have to address then is this: if not all psalms are appropriate, who is the authoritative arbiter of which psalms are? 

I have not read it yet, but Denny Prutow has a response on his blog:
Denny Prutow – A Response to Donald Poundstone


----------



## Logan (May 6, 2014)

As an additional note, this part bothered me, perhaps because I've encountered this in my own upbringing:



> Herein lies a serious problem with the Psalter-Hymnal project. The committee was tasked with producing a complete collection of psalms with “as much accuracy” as possible. In other words, it was charged with *denying* David a clear Christian voice! I hesitate to use such an inflammatory word, but—to speak frankly—this makes a *fetish* of the Psalter. Why should we think God is most highly pleased when we sing his praise in words belonging to what the Epistle to the Hebrews calls an “old” and now “obsolete” covenant (8:13)? We possess, thankfully, accurate and reliable translations of the Psalms in our English Bibles. But there’s nothing wrong with infusing old covenant songs and prayers with new covenant truth, insight, and understanding.



Would not this view relegate the entire Old Testament to being of mere historical interest? His treatment of the imprecatory psalms was disappointing to me as well.


----------



## Hamalas (May 6, 2014)

That article was terrible. Fortunately _New Horizons_ had a good rebuttal on the very next page.


----------



## Logan (May 6, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> That article was terrible. Fortunately _New Horizons_ had a good rebuttal on the very next page.



I didn't see that, was that the one by Peter Wallace?

Orthodox Presbyterian Church


----------



## au5t1n (May 6, 2014)

Logan said:


> I have not read it yet, but Denny Prutow has a response on his blog:
> Denny Prutow – A Response to Donald Poundstone



In particular, Mr. Prutow's reference to Rev. 6:10 ("And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?") unravels Mr. Poundstone's entire case with regard to imprecation.

I am very sorry to see such poor reasoning and poor esteem for Scripture from someone associated with the OPC. I am glad that clearly not everyone in the OPC agrees with him, and that many of our non-exclusive psalmody brethren do not employ this kind of reasoning.


----------



## Logan (May 6, 2014)

au5t1n said:


> I am glad that clearly not everyone in the OPC agrees with him, and that many of our non-exclusive psalmody brethren do not employ this kind of reasoning.



Likewise. I was interested in this new project and have been following Pastor Wallace's blog posts as he analyzes their new versions/translations. I hope it is a blessing both inside the denomination and out.


----------



## JML (May 6, 2014)

au5t1n said:


> I am glad that clearly not everyone in the OPC agrees with him



I agree this is true but my question is why would they even give the article the time of day on the denominational website. That shows that although it is not a universally accepted position by each individual in the OPC, it is somewhat supported by the denomination itself.


----------



## R Harris (May 6, 2014)

au5t1n said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> > I have not read it yet, but Denny Prutow has a response on his blog:
> ...



Not to mention also the imprecations by Christ in Matthew 23 against the Pharisees, His driving out the money-changers from the temple with a _whip_ (oh my!!), Peter telling Simon he could perish with his gold and silver in Acts 8, Paul blinding Elymas in Acts 13, Paul pronouncing an imprecation upon Alexander the Coppersmith in 2 Tim. 4:14 (literally in the Greek optative tense, "MAY the Lord repay him according to his deeds" - The KJV and NKJV are the only translations I have seen which get that verse right), Paul wanting the judaizers in Galatians to be accursed if they preach a different gospel than he (Gal. 1), and even that they might be emasculated! (Gal. 5:12). One does have to wonder if Mr. Poundstone has even rudimentarily pondered these verses.

There are numerous other problems with Mr. Poundstone's article that I care not to address here; I am sure that Denny probably did, even though I have not read his blog yet. Yes, it is disturbing that an OPC minister can exhibit such ignorance.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 6, 2014)

The RP and APs answered some of this succinctly many many years ago (actually citing previous material in an appendix):
8. 'That the Psalms contain sentiments adverse to the spirit of the gospel; abounding with sharp invectives against personal enemies, and being, in many instances, expressive of revenge, etc'
_Answer._—It is blasphemy. 
The true psalmody; or, The Bible psalms the Church's only manual of praise - Reformed and united presbyterian churches of Philadelphia - Google Books


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 6, 2014)

John Lanier said:


> That shows that although it is not a universally accepted position by each individual in the OPC, it is somewhat supported by the denomination itself.



John:

Mr. Poundstone's position is, in no way, supported by the denomination itself. It was published, as articles are from time to time in the _New Horizons_, because it is part of our history as a denonimation to air views about issues before the church that may not be held by many but are held by one or a few. His position, as noted above, was disputed in this issue and in those that have followed. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (May 6, 2014)

John, the article is on the denomination's website because it was published in the monthly denominational magazine. I believe the purpose, as attested by some OPC ministers, was to show the spectrum of opinion on the issue at hand. I found nearly the entire article to be theologically and confessionally troubling. It is a shame that those opinions can go unchecked by editors, and more importantly, presbyters. New Horizons has included letters to the editor in the last few monthlies regarding the article.

The article raises all sorts of questions, one of which is the subject of the OP. Personally, I find comments like those expressed in the Poundstone article to be foolish. I am sorry I didn't answer your question, Logan. As an OPC member and EP adherent, it is difficult to take seriously a view that foolish.


----------



## au5t1n (May 6, 2014)

John Lanier said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad that clearly not everyone in the OPC agrees with him
> ...



I would be inclined to hope that the denomination's publishing of the Psalter-Hymnal in question, including all 150 psalms, is more representative of the general sentiment on the Psalms than this one article.


----------



## Hamalas (May 6, 2014)

Logan said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> > That article was terrible. Fortunately _New Horizons_ had a good rebuttal on the very next page.
> ...



That's the one! I read it in print so they were right next to each other.


----------



## Logan (May 6, 2014)

Ryan J. Ross said:


> I am sorry I didn't answer your question, Logan.



It was a rhetorical one anyway. It seems like it would be very difficult to defend the position that we are commanded to sing psalms, and yet that we have determined some are inappropriate and should exclude those.


----------



## JML (May 6, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> John:
> 
> Mr. Poundstone's position is, in no way, supported by the denomination itself. It was published, as articles are from time to time in the New Horizons, because it is part of our history as a denonimation to air views about issues before the church that may not be held by many but are held by one or a few. His position, as noted above, was disputed in this issue and in those that have followed.
> 
> ...






Ryan J. Ross said:


> John, the article is on the denomination's website because it was published in the monthly denominational magazine. I believe the purpose, as attested by some OPC ministers, was to show the spectrum of opinion on the issue at hand. I found nearly the entire article to be theologically and confessionally troubling. It is a shame that those opinions can go unchecked by editors, and more importantly, presbyters. New Horizons has included letters to the editor in the last few monthlies regarding the article.




I definitely did not mean to offend or accuse. I have lots of friends in the OPC and none of them share the opinions stated in the article. I just don't understand why the OPC would even want it on their site where it could possibly be thought to be associated with their views.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (May 6, 2014)

It stands to reason, doesn't it, that there will come immediate undermining and attacks on serious attempts to revive exclusive psalm singing. That is surely the last thing (along with teaching God's people why we are to sing Psalms) that Satan and his minions (including false teachers in the church) would want.


----------



## Free Christian (May 6, 2014)

I have sometimes found the opposing of singing Psalms with those I have in the past personally spoken to (no one here), to have disturbingly spiritual opposing undertones as opposed to just reason. Sort of like they say with their mouth they want to sing "newer songs" but under it is like "no, we're not singing THEM"


----------



## MW (May 7, 2014)

The imprecations are based on the covenant curses and blessings whereby unbelieving Jews were cut off and believing Gentiles were grafted into the covenant community. Without these imprecations Gentiles would have no place to sing anything in worship to God.


----------



## JP Wallace (May 7, 2014)

This article would seem to be in error in many areas, but fundamentally it is wrong in that misses the point of covenant theology as revealed throughout Scripture and the history that the Spirit describes in Scripture. I was just re-reading O Palmer Robertson's 'The Christ of the Covenants' and in the paragraph below he pretty much shows the fundamental theological flaw in the article and thinking behind it.

"Inherent in the imagery of the accomplishment of redemption through the victorious overthrow of the seed of Satan lies a principle of God's dealings which has continued throughout the ages. The deliverance of God's people always comes through the destruction of God's enemies." (CoftheC page 103).

In other words no serpent crushing, no salvation, no imprecation, no redemption.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (May 8, 2014)

R Harris said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> > Logan said:
> ...



But do you have any examples?


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (May 8, 2014)

Smacks of the archheretic Isaac Watts and the postmodern liberal CS Lewis.

"I have been long convinc’d, that one great Occasion of this Evil arises from the Matter and Words to which we confine all our Songs. Some of ‘em are almost opposite to the Spirit of the Gospel: Many of them foreign to the State of the New‑Testament, and widely different from the present Circumstances of Christians. Hence it comes to pass that when spiritual Affections are excited within us, and our souls are raised a little above this earth in the beginning of a Psalm, we are check’d on a sudden in our Ascent toward Heaven by some Expressions that are more suited to the Days of Carnal Ordinances, and fit only to be sung in the Worldly Sanctuary. When we are just entring into an Evangelic Frame by some of the Glories of the Gospel presented in the brightest Figures of Judaism, yet the very next Line perhaps which the Clerk parcels out unto us, hath something in it so extremely Jewish and cloudy, that darkens our Sight of God the Saviour: Thus by keeping too close to David in the House of God, the Vail of Moses is thrown over our Hearts. While we are kindling into divine Love by the Meditations of the loving kindness of God, and the Multitude of his tender Mercies, within a few Verses some dreadful Curse against Men is propos’d to our lips; That God would add Iniquity unto their Iniquity, not let ‘em come into his Righteousness, but blot ‘em out of the Book o f the Living, Psal. 69, 16, 2’7, 28. which is so contrary to the New Commandment, of Loving our Enemies. Some Sentences of the Psalmist that are expressive of the Temper of our own Hearts and the Circumstances of our Lives may compose our Spirits to Seriousness, and allure us to a sweet Retirement within our selves; but we meet with a following Line which so peculiarly belongs to one Action or Hour of the Life of David or Asaph, that breaks off our Song in the midst; our Consciences are affrighted lest we should speak a Falshood unto God: Thus the Powers of our Souls are shock’d on a sudden, and our Spirits ruffled before we have time to reflect that this may be sung only as a History of ancient Saints and perhaps in some Instances that Salvo is hardly Sufficient neither." Watts

"For why should I now address God my Saviour in a song, with Burnt Sacrifices of Fatlings, and with the Incense of Rams? Why should I pray to be sprinkled with Hysop, or recur to the Blood of Bullocks and Goats?…Where the Psalmist has described Religion by fear of God, I have joined Faith and love to it.” Watts

Some of his reworking of God's holy Word.

Psalm LXVII:

"Shine, mighty God, on Britain shine… 
God the Redeemer scatters round His choicest favors here…
Sing loud with solemn voice, 
While British tongues exalt his praise,
And British hearts rejoice!”

Watts mangled Psalm LXXV into government propaganda entitled: “Power and government from God alone, Applied to the Glorious Revolution by King William, or the happy accession of King George to the throne.” King George II is a “royal saint,” and gets a line in his honor:

"‘Tis George the Blest remounts the throne,
With double vigor in his son."

Watts Psalm C:

"Sing to the Lord with joyful voice
Let every land his name adore;
The British Isles shall send the noise
Across the ocean to the shore . . . ."

He renders Psalm CXLVII:

"O Britain, praise thy mighty God …. 
He bid the ocean round thee flow; 
No bars of brass could guard thee so."


Psalm CVII: “Colonies planted; or Nations blest and punish’d; A Psalm for New Eng land.”
"Where nothing dwelt but beasts of prey,
Or men as fierce and wild as they,
He bids th’oprest and poor repair,
And builds them towns and cities there.

Thus they are blest; but if they sin,
He lets the heathen nations in,
A savage crew invades their lands,
Their princes die by barb’rous hands."

He's a known Unitarian, neo-dispensationalist, and a denier of the inerrancy of God's Word. Flip through the Trinity Hymnal and see how many of his "Psalms" and hymns are there. That might give you a hint as to why the OPC would allow this on their website/denominational magazine. Every OPC minister (or any other Trinity using body) gives tacit approval by not screaming from the housetops that this mess should have never made it in front of the sheep they are called to shepherd. They give overt approval every time one is sung in their congregations (or are ignorant, in charity I will hope that.)

LEWIS

"In reference the Psalmists, they were “ferocious, self-pitying, barbaric men.” (Reflections on the Psalms, 24)

“But of course the fatal confusion between being in the right and being righteous soon falls upon them [the Psalmists].... There is also in many of the Psalms a still more fatal confusion – that between the desire for justice and the desire for revenge.... Even more devilish [than Psalm 109] in one verse is the, otherwise beautiful, [Psalm] 137.... This [Psalm 23:5] may not be so diabolical as the passages I have quoted above; but the pettiness and vulgarity of it...are hard to endure.... One way of dealing with these terrible or (dare we say?) contemptible Psalms is simply to leave them alone.” (Ibid, 18-22)

“naiveté, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not ‘the Word of God’ in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God....” (Ibid, 94)


----------



## MW (May 8, 2014)

AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> Smacks of the archheretic Isaac Watts



Do you think it is wise to make such a judgment?


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (May 10, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> AlexanderHenderson1647 said:
> 
> 
> > Smacks of the archheretic Isaac Watts
> ...



Let me be careful about what I mean here. My scathing judgment was against Watts and as best I can read and understand the legacy he has left behind, it is only in keeping with calling out the evil and not concluding it good. Mr. Poundstone I, in charity, believe loves the Lord and the Lord's people. However, he has taken one almost directly from Watts' playbook. I am open to correction if you would offer it.


----------



## Kaalvenist (May 10, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The RP and APs answered some of this succinctly many many years ago (actually citing previous material in an appendix):
> 8. 'That the Psalms contain sentiments adverse to the spirit of the gospel; abounding with sharp invectives against personal enemies, and being, in many instances, expressive of revenge, etc'
> _Answer._—It is blasphemy.
> The true psalmody; or, The Bible psalms the Church's only manual of praise - Reformed and united presbyterian churches of Philadelphia - Google Books


The (Old and New Light) RPs and the UPs were drawing on Robert J. Dodds' (RP) work.


----------



## One Little Nail (May 10, 2014)

AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > AlexanderHenderson1647 said:
> ...



There was a good reason why Watts' paraphrased psalm book were referred to as Watts' Whims


----------



## MW (May 11, 2014)

AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> I am open to correction if you would offer it.



It is somewhat immoderate to call an evangelical of Watts' stature an "archheretic." He has been noted as teaching doctrines which border on heresy, or of espousing serious errors, or of being theologically short-sighted. But I haven't come across anyone alleging he was an archheretic.


----------



## jandrusk (May 12, 2014)

Before I transferred my membership from the OPC to the RPCNA I raised the question around EP and the Regulative Principle and I could never see the reasoning for reconciling the Trinity Hymnal with RP. How can you one the one hand confess that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and life and then what appears to me to be theological amnesia, embrace uninspired hymns and say you are consistent with RP?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 12, 2014)

What question(s) exactly did you want to see answered by them as far as justification for uninspired hymns in public worship?


----------



## JML (May 12, 2014)

I can agree to disagree with folks who see Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 as their reason for uninspired hymnody and appeal to those verses while using the regulative principle (but still believe in singing all of the Psalms). I do personally think that Paul is solely referring to the Psalms there. I don't understand treating songs as circumstantial, finding supposed hymns buried in the middle of chapters of the New Testament, appealing to emotions, the supposed necessity of using Jesus' name, or using the normative principle to justify hymnody.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647 (May 14, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> AlexanderHenderson1647 said:
> 
> 
> > I am open to correction if you would offer it.
> ...



Here are a few resources that you may want to consider. I am careful with that word and if I've demonized one of God's own, it is only because I very wrongly understood Watts' teachings. If they are what they seem to be, he preaches another Gospel.


----------



## MW (May 14, 2014)

AlexanderHenderson1647 said:


> Here are a few resources that you may want to consider. I am careful with that word and if I've demonized one of God's own, it is only because I very wrongly understood Watts' teachings. If they are what they seem to be, he preaches another Gospel.



I have read these articles. While I agree with most of the assessment, I disagree with the way the author draws conclusions which Watts himself did not draw. At any rate, he makes a distinction between the kind of speculations which Watts made and the dogmatic errors of people who were classified as arch-heretics. They also leave scope for concluding that Watts was quite out of his depth.


----------



## JP Wallace (May 15, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> They also leave scope for concluding that Watts was quite out of his depth.



I tend to think that about Watts and his assertions on the psalms as well. I think they have a flavour of stubborn, arrogance outbursts more that carefully thought out and expressed exegetical ideas. I think a sober and humble man would not have written what he wrote even if he concluded as Watts did. Maybe that's where Watt's errors lie, not in his theology 'per se'.


----------

