# Watts on the Psalms



## Grillsy (Nov 24, 2009)

So, I am reading this "Psalter" from Isaac Watts.

He replaces Israel with Britain and the Jewish kings with British ones. He also seems to have taken some sort or proto-dispensational liberties when writing too.

Perhaps I am reading these wrong but it seems odd that someone held in so high esteem by many in the Reformed camp could be guilty of, if you'll excuse my verbiage, doctoring the Scriptures.

I cannot fathom that someone would do such a thing to the Psalter. Yet it seems that Watts has done so.

Am I reading him wrong?


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 24, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> Perhaps I am reading these wrong but it seems odd that someone held in so high esteem by many in the Reformed camp could be guilty of, if you'll excuse my verbiage, doctoring the Scriptures.



Wasn't Watt's view on the Trinity highly suspect? The following article even ventures to label Watt's as a heretic.

Watt's Unitarianism



> Finally was Watts an Arian or a Unitarian? Strictly speaking not. He always considered himself a Trinitarian and his views never fully coincided with the standard definitions of either of those errors. However, his redefinition of the Trinity, although unique, basically constituted a new variant of Arianism/Unitarianism. By denying that the Spirit and the Son were not fully and eternally God in the same sense as the Father he was essentially Unitarian. By proposing that the Son was some kind of deified created being, and more than mere man, he was essentially an Arian. And by reducing the Spirit to nothing more than a divine force he was agreeing with both. _No matter how you slice it, with respect to the Trinity, Watts was a heretic._


----------



## au5t1n (Nov 24, 2009)

I heard a disturbing story recently about Watts and his contempt for the music that was being sung in churches in his time, but I haven't been able to find the story. Here is a small portion of it I found:



> Isaac Watts (1674-1748) is known as the father of modern English hymn. As the story goes one Sunday a young Isaac complained to his father about the boring, moody metrical psalms that were sung in the English churches of that time. His father challenged him to write a hymn better suited for the congregation to sing. That day he did and it was sung in church the next Sunday. The masses loved it but the church elders saw it a different way. "Christian congregations have shut out divinely inspired psalms and taken in Watt's flights of fancy."
> Christian Music - Isaac Watts (1674-1748)



-----Added 11/24/2009 at 12:14:14 EST-----

From Wikipedia.org:



> Watts also introduced a new way of rendering the Psalms in verse for church services. The Psalms were originally written in Biblical Hebrew within the religion of Judaism. Later, they were adopted into Christianity as part of the Old Testament. Watts proposed that the metrical translations of the Psalms as sung by Protestant Christians should give them a specifically Christian perspective:
> 
> "While he granted that David [to whom authorship of the Psalms is traditionally ascribed] was unquestionably a chosen instrument of God, Watts claimed that *his religious understanding could not have fully apprehended the truths later revealed through Jesus Christ. The Psalms should therefore be "renovated" as if David had been a Christian*, or as Watts put it in the title of his 1719 metrical psalter, they should be "imitated in the language of the New Testament."[2]


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 24, 2009)

Watts is one of the many reasons why I'm beginning to think that Exclusive Psalmody is the more consistently biblical position.


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 24, 2009)

It certainly seems like he is, in many ways, the father of hymnody as we know it. Seems like his philosophy is more than a bit shaky.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 24, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> It certainly seems like he is, in many ways, the father of hymnody as we know it. Seems like his philosophy is more than a bit shaky.


Actually it is his theology that is questionable: his philosophy is sound. His work on Logic Logic: The Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry after Truth - Reformation Heritage Books continues to be of value


----------



## Tim (Nov 24, 2009)

It was an important discovery when I found out that Watts had not a high view of the Psalms, but a low view.


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 24, 2009)

yeutter said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> > It certainly seems like he is, in many ways, the father of hymnody as we know it. Seems like his philosophy is more than a bit shaky.
> ...



Touche. I meant philosophy in a more broad sense. Also, its hard to have bad theology and sound philosophy. He may have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's as far as textbook logic but his worldview was skewed.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Nov 24, 2009)

I can't remember off the top of my head where I read it, but I don't think Watts theology was troublesome until near the end of his life. In other words, there doesn't appear to be anything suspect in the theology of his hymns that appear in most of our hymnals. So if you are inclined to sing hymns then you sing these beautiful songs in worship to our God.

It does concern me that he replaced Britain and names of British monarchs for Israel/biblical kings, but I guess he (like us) was a child of his time.


----------



## markkoller (Dec 6, 2009)

Chippy said:


> Watts is one of the many reasons why I'm beginning to think that Exclusive Psalmody is the more consistently biblical position.



I always had a high view of Watts and his hymns. When I looked more into the motivation behind his hymn-writing, I was disappointed in myself that my knowledge of hymnody was so poor. Watts had a very low view of the Psalms, which to me means he had a low view of Scripture. This was helpful to me, however, in my study of and eventual conversion to EP.


----------



## Jon Peters (Dec 6, 2009)

Watts' view of the Psalms has nothing to do with whether singing uninspired songs in worship is Scriptural. It is a red herring.


----------



## Grillsy (Dec 6, 2009)

Jon Peters said:


> Watts' view of the Psalms has nothing to do with whether singing uninspired songs in worship is Scriptural. It is a red herring.



I'm not sure this is so, considering Watts influence on hymnody. That is like saying Stalin's views should have no influence on how we view communism.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 6, 2009)

He may have influenced hymnody, but he is not the deciding factor in the validity of hymnody. The USA has had some bad presidents, that doesn't prove that a republican form of government is bad.


----------



## Grillsy (Dec 6, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> He may have influenced hymnody, but he is not the deciding factor in the validity of hymnody. The USA has had some bad presidents, that doesn't prove that a republican form of government is bad.



Very true, but Watts' motivations and influence should not be ignored in the debate in my opinion.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 6, 2009)

The RPW states that we get our doctrine of worship from the Bible only, not on someone else's theology or influence of a subject.


----------



## Grillsy (Dec 6, 2009)

chaplainintraining said:


> the rpw states that we get our doctrine of worship from the bible only, not on someone else's theology or influence of a subject.



*Exactly!* That is part of the point I am trying to make. But you cannot say that men's studies on subjects do not have influence on us. Therefore we should also look at what drove them. Sure, we base everything on Scripture alone but we still rely on teachers and leaders do we not?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 6, 2009)

But if Watts was not basing his beliefs of hymnody on Scripture, then it has no bearing on the argument. We should look at teachers who make for and against EP arguments based on Scripture, not those who choose one side or the other based on personal taste.


----------



## Grillsy (Dec 6, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> But if Watts was not basing his beliefs of hymnody on Scripture, then it has no bearing on the argument. We should look at teachers who make for and against EP arguments based on Scripture, not those who choose one side or the other based on personal taste.



I think this is the beginning of a good discussion, really. But I think we have wandered too far away from the OP.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Dec 6, 2009)

Watts is *the* reason why hymns are sung in Presbyterian churches today. Other churches may have had other influences; he was the influence in our churches. Yes, we are to examine the subject from Scripture (that's the reason why I hold to EP)... but after having done a bit of historical research, I find it quite telling that the only people that found the "need" to rehabilitate Watts as a Trinitarian were 19th-century hymn-singers (nobody from his own century came to his rescue). As the man responsible for the move in Congregationalism and Presbyterianism from psalmody to hymnody, his views have always occupied a prominent place in the discussion.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 6, 2009)

Kaalvenist said:


> Watts is *the* reason why hymns are sung in Presbyterian churches today. Other churches may have had other influences; he was the influence in our churches. Yes, we are to examine the subject from Scripture (that's the reason why I hold to EP)... but after having done a bit of historical research, I find it quite telling that the only people that found the "need" to rehabilitate Watts as a Trinitarian were 19th-century hymn-singers (nobody from his own century came to his rescue). As the man responsible for the move in Congregationalism and Presbyterianism from psalmody to hymnody, his views have always occupied a prominent place in the discussion.



I do not know Presbyterian history (only been one for about a year), so I cannot confirm or refute your statement on Watts being the reason for hymns. I do find it interesting though seeing how Luther was writing hymns about a century earlier. 

Even if Watts' theology was antiTrinitarian and completely off, I don't think we would say the same for Luther. So wouldn't Luther have set the precedent for future hymn writers? Without Luther would Watts have even been around? If not, wouldn't it be better to view Luther and his views of hymnody?


----------



## markkoller (Dec 6, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> > Watts is *the* reason why hymns are sung in Presbyterian churches today. Other churches may have had other influences; he was the influence in our churches. Yes, we are to examine the subject from Scripture (that's the reason why I hold to EP)... but after having done a bit of historical research, I find it quite telling that the only people that found the "need" to rehabilitate Watts as a Trinitarian were 19th-century hymn-singers (nobody from his own century came to his rescue). As the man responsible for the move in Congregationalism and Presbyterianism from psalmody to hymnody, his views have always occupied a prominent place in the discussion.
> ...



Reformed churches from the time of the Reformation followed Calvin regarding the (almost exclusive) use of Psalms in worship. Luther was a great influence in the beginnings of Protestant hymnody, but hymnody was never practiced to any degree in Reformed churches. Thus Luther was not much of an influence in the development of Reformed worship music aside from his influence in promoting congregational singing in general. By the time of Watts, many Reformed churches were beginning to move away from the use of the Psalms in worship (for a variety of reasons). Watts, therefore, ended up being by far the most influential figure in the replacement of the Psalms in Reformed churches with uninspired hymns.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 6, 2009)

markkoller said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > Kaalvenist said:
> ...



Thank you for the information.


----------



## Jon Peters (Dec 6, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> > Watts' view of the Psalms has nothing to do with whether singing uninspired songs in worship is Scriptural. It is a red herring.
> ...



Notice I said the Scriptural argument for singing uninspired songs in worship. Watts' views may be taken up when discussing the historical argument for uninspired hymnody.


----------



## Grillsy (Dec 7, 2009)

Jon Peters said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> > Jon Peters said:
> ...



Indeed. I'm sorry I overlooked where you said Scriptural my bad. You're right.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 7, 2009)

Not only you bad, but Piper too. 

[video=youtube;yhLCus0tsmw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhLCus0tsmw&feature=related[/video]


----------

