# Letham's "Trinity" and its implications for EP



## Archlute (Oct 21, 2005)

I am interested in hearing your thoughtful evaluations regarding a statement which comes from Robert Letham's _The Holy Trinity_. On p. 422 of that work he writes:




> There is a need to refocus Western Hymnody. We need more Trinitarian hymns. There was an outpouring of such hymns following the Trinitarian crisis, but by the high Middle Ages this had slowed to a trickle, eventually to dry up altogether. Our brief summary at the start of the chapter shows how far short the common stock of Western hymnody falls of the fulness of the biblical teaching about God, let alone the identity of the triune God we worship. This applies to the argument for exclusive use of the Psalter in church worship. The Psalms are the word of God in human words, and so should feature strongly in the worship of the NT church, as they did in the latter part of the OT. In this, we share in Christ's use of the Psalter in praise to the Father. _However, the Psalms do not explicitly reflect the full range of Trinitarian revelation, and so cannot be the sole diet of the church without truncating its worship_.



Letham is a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and therefore being familiar with the writings of Gerhardus Vos I believe that he is taking this argument from the "unfolding of redemptive revelation in Scriptures" angle. 

What do you think? Is he onto something? Is there a weakness in his argument? What do we do with the fact that the Holy Spirit chose to reveal more fully the Trinitarian nature of God in the NT than when He inspired the Psalms to be written for the OT church? How does this argument affect the foundations of the EP defense, foundations that some would accuse of holding onto an underlying biblicism?

Let 'er rip (but rip with all temperance and brotherly kindness, please...)!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 21, 2005)

I think he's right on.


----------



## Peter (Oct 21, 2005)

I just think it ironic that this man thinks we need to compose trinitarian hymns b/c the psalms arent trinitarian enough yet when the early church struggled to formulate and defend the trinity it was the arian heretics that were hymn singers and the catholics EPers.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 21, 2005)

> The Psalms are the word of God in human words, and so should feature strongly in the worship of the NT church, as they did in the latter part of the OT. In this, we share in Christ's use of the Psalter in praise to the Father. However, the Psalms do not explicitly reflect the full range of Trinitarian revelation, and so cannot be the sole diet of the church without truncating its worship.



I also agree with predominant Psalmody over EP.

But, for the record, I would attend an EP church if the entire oeuvre of Psalters were not: a) Mostly paraphrased and extremely innacurate renditions of the hebrew, and b) pathetic Hallmark card rhyming that is wholly unworthy of God's great majesty. I would prefer to sing in latin, hebrew, greek, or even the KJV.


----------



## yeutter (Oct 21, 2005)

Historically, before the introduction of large numbers of hyms inot the Western Church, the chanting of the Psalter selection was always concluded with the Gloria Patri. The Gloria Patri was also sung after the reading of the Old Testament Lesson.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 21, 2005)

Am I wrong, or does it seem that we find positive references hymns throughout NT church history?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 22, 2005)

"However, the Psalms do not explicitly reflect the full range of Trinitarian revelation, and so cannot be the sole diet of the church without truncating its worship."

If we cannot find the Father, Son and Spirit in the Psalms, then it is simply a problem with our hard hearts, not the evaluation of the Psalms.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 22, 2005)

I certainly agree that there is no fundamental challenge to the Exclusive Psalmody position based on Letham's observation. His observation makes sense within his position. It _confronts_ the EP position by way of disagreement, but it does not _assail_ the EP position at all, not being directed at its fundamental principles.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

> If we cannot find the Father, Son and Spirit in the Psalms, then it is simply a problem with our hard hearts, not the evaluation of the Psalms.



True, the Trinity is there, although somewhat veiled. However, what I find harder about the Psalms is the lack of references to the resurrection.

The resurrection is our hope. I enjoy singing praises to the risen Christ.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > If we cannot find the Father, Son and Spirit in the Psalms, then it is simply a problem with our hard hearts, not the evaluation of the Psalms.
> ...



Christ's resurrection and exaltation is a major theme of the Psalter, along with his humiliation. 

His resurrection is foretold in Psalm 16.8-11 (compare Acts 2.25-28). Psalm 2.7-8; 22.27-31; 24; 45; 96; 98; 100; 110; 118.21-23; 145; 146; and others all speak to his entering into his kingship upon his resurrection and ascension and exaltation in glory. There is nothing lacking in the Psalms concerning praises to God for the resurrection and exaltion of Christ our King.

[Edited on 10-22-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 22, 2005)

I suppose this is a kind of argument against the sufficiency of the Psalms for NT worship. In the mid 19th century, an old standard EP book was published called _The True Psalmody._ At the back of the book is a list of 10 summary answers to arguments for the use of hymns, and to objections to the use of the Psalms in worship, taken from a condensed summary on the subject of Psalmody annexed to Rev. R. J. Dodd´s Reply to Morton. Some objections and answers which fall under this general objection of the insufficiency of the Psalms for the NT church are:



> 7. "˜That the Psalms are not adapted to New Testament worship.´
> 
> Answer. "“ (1.) God never changes, and of course his praise is always the same. (2.) The Spirit of God was better able, in the days of David, to prepare songs suited to New Testament worship, than men are now. (3.) The Psalms everywhere speak most clearly of Christ and his mediatorial work, kingdom and glory; and are, by the Apostles, copiously quoted in illustration of the way of salvation. (4.) They make less reference to the peculiarities of the old dispensation, than some books of the New Testament do. (5.) We have no Book of Psalms in the New Testament, and no command to prepare one.





> 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.





> 9. "˜That the Psalms are not sufficiently copious to furnish a complete system of psalmody.´
> 
> Answer. "“ (1.) God is no more glorious now than he was in Old Testament times; and if the Psalms were sufficient then for the expression of his praise, they are still sufficient. (2.) It is too much for any man to take upon himself to decide how copious a system of psalmody ought to be. (3.) The Book of Psalms actually contains an incomparably greater abundance and variety of matter than all the hymns which were ever composed by men.


See the ten objections/answers at
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/exclusive_psalmody_faq.htm
The True Psalmody complete in PDF format is at:
http://www.naphtali.com/pdf/trupsalm.pdf


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

> Christ's resurrection and exaltation is a major theme of the Psalter, along with his humiliation.
> 
> His resurrection is foretold in Psalm 16.8-11 (compare Acts 2.25-28). Psalm 2.7-8; 22.27-31; 24; 45; 96; 98; 100; 110; 118.21-23; 145; 146; and others all speak to his entering into his kingship upon his resurrection and ascension and exaltation in glory. There is nothing lacking in the Psalms concerning praises to God for the resurrection and exaltion of Christ our King.




Psalms that have veiled reference to the eschaton and afterlife do not have the same power and clarity as the N.T. epistles.




> 1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
> 1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
> 1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
> 1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
> ...





> Heb 8:1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
> Heb 8:2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man.
> Heb 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.
> Heb 8:4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.
> ...




The Levitical administration and the songs of that administration have been fulfilled. The Psalms point past the cross to be sure, but they do not restrain us to pre advent praise. Where did Mary get the authority to write the greatest New Testament hymn ? The angel did not tell her to do it. Therefore her Spirit-led song of worship violated the EP you claim is so clear. I doubt that. And the Apocalypse reveals a hymnody that inculdes ALL saints. We are all Psalmists of Israel now. If you would like to continue singing in the shadows that is fine, but I suggest you refrain from making the man-made commandement of EP a requirement of the gospel, and gospel worship. There is no straitforward command to baptize infants (a holy act of worship), yet you seem to have no problem practicing that.

[Edited on 10-22-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Psalms that have veiled reference to the eschaton and afterlife do not have the same power and clarity as the N.T. epistles.



The NT epistles are clear, it is true, but for those for whom the veil has been lifted, the christology of the psalms is just as clear. 

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and *in the psalms*, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, *and to rise from the dead the third day*" (Luke 24.44-46)



> The Levitical administration and the songs of that administration have been fulfilled. The Psalms point past the cross to be sure, but they do not restrain us to pre advent praise. Where did Mary get the authority to write the greatest New Testament hymn ? The angel did not tell her to do it. Therefore her Spirit-led song of worship violated the EP you claim is so clear. I doubt that. And the Apocalypse reveals a hymnody that inculdes ALL saints. We are all Psalmists of Israel now. If you would like to continue singing in the shadows that is fine, but I suggest you refrain from making the man-made commandement of EP a requirement of the gospel, and gospel worship. There is no straitforward command to baptize infants (a holy act of worship), yet you seem to have no problem practicing that.
> 
> [Edited on 10-22-2005 by Saiph]



Mary's spirit-inspired statement (the text does not say that she sung the words, it says that she "said" the words) is not warrant to compose and sing uninspired songs in worship. We are not "all Psalmists of Israel now." The canon of the psalter is just as closed as the canon of Scripture. God has given us a complete book for musical praise that is sufficient and suitable for Christian worship. My confession of faith (WCF) teaches that only psalms are commanded in worship. I believe this is what the Bible teaches. It is what the Puritans practiced. It ought not to be thought strange on the Puritan Board that some do worship God as did the Puritans, by the singing of psalms only, not uninspired hymns.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

> We are not "all Psalmists of Israel now." The canon of the psalter is just as closed as the canon of Scripture. God has given us a complete book for musical praise that is sufficient and suitable for Christian worship.



I didn't mean Psalmists in the inspired canonical sense. 



> My confession of faith (WCF) teaches that only psalms are commanded in worship. I believe this is what the Bible teaches. It is what the Puritans practiced. It ought not to be thought strange on the Puritan Board that some do worship God as did the Puritans did, by the singing of psalms only, not uninspired hymns.



Actually, no OUR WCF does not say that.
You just like to emphasize the following phrase:



> Chapter XXI.
> 
> I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way *not prescribed in the Holy Scripture. *



And this one:



> V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, *singing of psalms* (Note that the word is not capitalized, it is generic) with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.



There simply is no biblical warrant for us to eliminate altogether the use of other hymns and songs, so long as they are scripturally sound. The three greek word distinctions of the LXX are not in the hebrew. And, I have yet to meet an EP advocate that sings Psalm 151 from the LXX.

I do not need to wait until I get to heaven to sing, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, early in the morning our song will rise to Thee."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Actually, no OUR WCF does not say that.
> You just like to emphasize the following phrase:
> 
> ...



Even folks opposed to EP like Fred Greco admit that the confession clearly teaches EP (he takes exception to the confession on this point). So your position about the confession is simply in error, historically and theologically. There is simply no Biblical warrant to sing anything in worship but exclusively the psalms commanded and provided by God, and instructed by my church's confession and directory for public worship.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

Then why didn't they capitalize the word Psalms ?

Look, I am not saying you are a heretic, or a legalist, or a pharisee. But your zeal certainly seems like you are disqualifying the majority of worship, in all of Christendom, over a vast period of history, as strange fire, over the Exclusive Psalms issue.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Then why didn't they capitalize the word Psalms ?
> 
> Look, I am not saying you are a heretic, or a legalist, or a pharisee. But your zeal certainly seems like you are disqualifying the majority of worship, in all of Christendom, over a vast period of history, as strange fire, over the Exclusive Psalms issue.



Who says it's necessary to capitalize "psalms"? I use lower case frequently and I'm EP. 

I am only testifying to the truth of God's word, and the witness of the WCF, the theological highwater mark of the Second Reformation and its precedents and heirs.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 22, 2005)

If the issue was that important, and you are writing a confession of faith for future generations, don't ya think you would be more careful in how you word it ? Maybe even say The Book Of Psalms. ?

So the whole idea of the presyberian church (a very small piece of the christian pie) offering continual strange fire hangs on a consonant.

Like I said in another post, at least you are a consistent regulativist like Jeff. I commend you for that and hope we can worship as our consciences, and our understanding of the scriptures dictate. _Pax vobiscum_.


[Edited on 10-23-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## JohnV (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Even folks opposed to EP like Fred Greco admit that the confession clearly teaches EP (he takes exception to the confession on this point). So your position about the confession is simply in error, historically and theologically. There is simply no Biblical warrant to sing anything in worship but exclusively the psalms commanded and provided by God, and instructed by my church's confession and directory for public worship.
> 
> [Edited on 10-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]



Would it not trouble you, Andrew, that if the Westminster Assembly was convinced of EP, being EP themselves, they would have stipulated it a little less vaguely? There was hymn singing in the churches at the time, as indictated in their own work Jus Divinum, where they reference a church that sang hymns, with neither a directly positive nor negative connotation to that reference. If they were adamant about it, and thought it important, surely they would have included something more specific than the words they wrote. In scholarly circles added songs too are sometimes referred to as psalms, according to the type; i.e., psalms, but not the Psalms. At least, that's what I learned from college, from the classes that I sat in on. 

And secondly, does it not bother you that the WCF could teach it, yet someone could take exception of it? Where then is the commandment? Is it so clear as all that, if that can be done and still retain office? 

I think that EP stands best when it stands on the Psalms being the best example of worship offered by man to God. It does not stand upon some ill-defined Scriptural warrant, but on the fact that these verses stand far above men's best and holiest attempts to do the same. For these come not from men, but through men by the Holy Spirit. That would make it necessary inference, but that would then include praise verses from other Scriptures as well; and if it could be ruled by that they do not represent also an example for men to emulate in praise to God.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 23, 2005)

> I think that EP stands best when it stands on the Psalms being the best example of worship offered by man to God.



JohnV, that is beautiful. I was humbled when I read it. AMEN.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



I don't think the WCF is vague at all. The directories for public and family worship are consistent with the WCF too in providing for only psalms in worship. 



> And secondly, does it not bother you that the WCF could teach it, yet someone could take exception of it? Where then is the commandment? Is it so clear as all that, if that can be done and still retain office?



Yes, that bothers me. I think it is sinful. 



> I think that EP stands best when it stands on the Psalms being the best example of worship offered by man to God. It does not stand upon some ill-defined Scriptural warrant, but on the fact that these verses stand far above men's best and holiest attempts to do the same. For these come not from men, but through men by the Holy Spirit. That would make it necessary inference, but that would then include praise verses from other Scriptures as well; and if it could be ruled by that they do not represent also an example for men to emulate in praise to God.



The EP position _does_ say that psalms alone are best suited for the Christian worship of God. Read any EP literature and you will see that. Only God's insipired word is acceptable to him in worship, as He has made clear. It is not an ill-defined principle. It is the application of the Second Commandment, as the Bible and WCF makes clear.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 23, 2005)

*For those who really don\'t think that the WCF is EP*

As Andrew mentioned, the Directory for Public worship (also penned by the Divines) only allows for Psalms to be sung in the public worship. Note the capital "P."


> Of Singing of Psalms.
> 
> IT is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.
> 
> ...



And EP was the prevelant view of the reformed churches at the time. From a previous thread:



> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_...
> As I understand it, the Dutch churches prior to the Great Synod of Dort (1618-19), with its Article 69 affirming the few other songs along with the 150 Psalms, actually held to exclusive psalmody.
> 
> 
> ...



Any good history book will tell you the same.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 23, 2005)

There is no explicit command in scripture to sing only the Psalms.
And many things are commanded in the Psalms that I hardly see obeyed in many churches.

For instance:



> Psa 150:1 Praise the LORD! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens!
> Psa 150:2 Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness!
> Psa 150:3 Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp!
> Psa 150:4 Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe!
> ...




I do not need arguments from historical precedent, or the microcosm of Presbyterianism.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> There is no explicit command in scripture to sing only the Psalms.
> And many things are commanded in the Psalms that I hardly see obeyed in many churches.
> 
> ...



Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to give you and argument from history, just trying to settle the argument that the WCF wasn't EP.

Now we can move on...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 23, 2005)

*EP at the WA*

To say that the Westminster Assembly was EP in their theory of worship song would be anachronistic as the controversies that further defined and brought forth EP theory as we have it today took place over the centuries since that time. At the time and prior to the Assembly we see individual views in print that fall into the camps of EP, IP -- Inspired praise (songs outside the Book of Psalms as well as Psalms), and UH--Uninspired Hymnody. Robert Boyd, the famous Scots theologian who taught theology to men such as the Scottish commissioner to the Westminster Assembly Robert Baillie, was UH. In his Latin lectures on Ephesians he complains that in Scotland all they sang were psalms and contended for the UH position. Baillie himself was apparently at least IP as he complains in his Dissuasive about Brownists who would compose and sing their own compositions in public worship. Covenanter John Brown of Wamphray seems to have been EP, whereas Rutherford´s student Robert M´Ward, who was also R´s amanuensis at the Westminster Assembly, was apparently not opposed to IP, or at least choose not to oppose it, though he wrote strongly against the UH position in 1671 defending the use of the Psalms as was Scottish practice at the time (See David Hay Fleming´s _Hymnology of the Reformation_ where he discusses M´Ward and Wamphray in opposing Bonar´s contention that hymns were sung in the Scottish church prior to the Westminster Assembly). A sizable percentage of the Scottish GA of the late 1640s must have been IP to have gotten the project for a new translation of the other scripture songs outside the Psalms to be undertaken, apparently with the intent to have it used in public worship along with the 1650 Psalter, though I have doubts about whether ultimately it would have been approved. But be that as it may, the project was still put forward; sadly we lack the Minutes of that time so we cannot see if there was any debate about theories of worship song.

In any event, all this being said, the Westminster Assembly was still EP in practice, as the only song they speak of and authorize are Psalms; or psalms, as capitalization rules were inconsistent at the time. And there does not seem to have been any controversy about this in the Assembly. Writing later, if I recall rightly, Westminster Divine Thomas Ford seems to imply the concept of singing something in addition to Psalms was something he had not really thought about, which indicates it was not an issue of discourse or debate at the Assembly.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 23, 2005)

> Now we can move on...




Yes.



May the Lord bless your worship on this Lord's day


----------



## JohnV (Oct 23, 2005)

Andrew:

My point was that rulers of the church may have instituted Psalms-only singing for various reasons, not necessarily because they believed it to be a direct command from Scripture. It is still the same today, as shown by the fact that we think the WCF is EP, but elders are allowed to opt out on that. That means that this ruling comes rather from an issue concerning peace and unity and denominational uniformity rather than command or element of worship. The Assembly may have preferred the Psalms-only view, but does that make them EP doctrinally? There was hymn singing, so one would think that this would most certainly have been a topic of concern at the Assembly, calling for Scriptural grounding and explicit teaching. As it is, the more you convince me that they were EP, the more this becomes a question as to why they still leave it for those following to figure it out instead of going into it themselves. Again, hymn singing was around then too.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > Now we can move on...
> ...



And you as well!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Andrew:
> 
> My point was that rulers of the church may have instituted Psalms-only singing for various reasons, not necessarily because they believed it to be a direct command from Scripture. It is still the same today, as shown by the fact that we think the WCF is EP, but elders are allowed to opt out on that. That means that this ruling comes rather from an issue concerning peace and unity and denominational uniformity rather than command or element of worship. The Assembly may have preferred the Psalms-only view, but does that make them EP doctrinally? There was hymn singing, so one would think that this would most certainly have been a topic of concern at the Assembly, calling for Scriptural grounding and explicit teaching. As it is, the more you convince me that they were EP, the more this becomes a question as to why they still leave it for those following to figure it out instead of going into it themselves. Again, hymn singing was around then too.



The Assembly made it very clear that only those elements of worship which are specifically commanded are authorized. Their chapter on religious worship lists the commanded elements of worship. Psalms are the only type of musical praise listed. The RPW prohibits anything else. Their directories for worship are consistent with what they said in the confession: only psalms are commanded and therefore authorized. It is not the confession that is confusing on this issue, it is the loose subscription to the confession that is the problem. In my denomination, unlike many today, loose subscription is not tolerated. Officers in my denomination are required to adhere to the Westminster Standards, including the DPW, without exception, as subordinate standards which faithfully teach what Scripture teaches, including exclusive psalmody.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 23, 2005)

Andrew:

Elders rule in two areas: first and foremost, as to purity of doctrine in the defending and preaching of the Word of God, "as one who utters the very oracles of God" ( 1 Pet. 4:11 ), and second as to order in the church ( 1 Cor. 14:40 ). The second area allows for leeway and discretion. If the WA was that clear on it, then it must also be clear that they ruled this in the first sense and not in the second. As far as I know, every church that holds to it holds to it in the second sense. 

I don't know about the PRC, though. Your church is unfamiliar to me. I commend the form of subscription your church follows; it seems to me that it is more a defining of these doctrines into the eldership, as I think it should be, not on personal subscription only. This second form of subscription allows for elders to opt out even on some matters of doctrinal import, as opposed to discretionary matters, which ought not to be an option, I would think. So if your church holds to EP for the sake of denominational uniformity or other reasons of order, then I commend that. If it holds to EP as a matter of doctrine, then that would set your denomination apart from most all other denominations.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Andrew:
> 
> Elders rule in two areas: first and foremost, as to purity of doctrine in the defending and preaching of the Word of God, "as one who utters the very oracles of God" ( 1 Pet. 4:11 ), and second as to order in the church ( 1 Cor. 14:40 ). The second area allows for leeway and discretion. If the WA was that clear on it, then it must also be clear that they ruled this in the first sense and not in the second. As far as I know, every church that holds to it holds to it in the second sense.
> ...



John,

The PRC, like all EP denominations that I know of personally (I can count 12 besides mine off hand, as well as 3 seminaries which teach EP), holds to EP because it believes that EP is taught by the Scriptures and by the faithful subordinate standards of the church. It is believed that there is a command to sing psalms and psalms alone in worship, and therefore, EP is not a matter of discretion but a matter of adhering to the ordinances of worship which Christ has delivered to us. Our church does require uniformity in the version of the Bible that is read/preached from the pulpit and the version of the Psalter that is sung but, while certain principles are applied in the determination of which Bible/Psalter are used, that decision is a matter of discretion. The elements of worship, however, are not a matter of discretion. The Second Commandment requires that we keep the pure worship of God from extraneous human traditions, and uninspired hymns falls into that category. 

I don't know how far away you are from Chesley, but there is a PRC congregation in Ontario. You would be most welcome to visit if you have the opportunity one Lord's Day.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 24, 2005)

Andrew:

As you know, I am a bit careful about the "why's". I go to a church also that practices EP, but has included Biblical songs as well. My home church practices EP, and also limits the musical accompaniment to accompaniment. But the "why's" are not what they seem. My intention here is not only to understand, but also to seek to get past our present way of accounting for things. We are far too much sold on the idea that our presuppositions are worth more than they are, and we stand on them too much. 

I guess, though, that this discussion has run its course. I think there's much more to be done, but it doesn't have to be done right now. These ideas take time to take root, if they're true; and won't take root if they're not. It won't hurt us to give this a rest.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Oct 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> So if your church holds to EP for the sake of denominational uniformity or other reasons of order, then I commend that. If it holds to EP as a matter of doctrine, then that would set your denomination apart from most all other denominations.



American Presbyterian Church
Associated Presbyterian Churches
Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia
Free Church of Scotland
Free Church of Scotland (continuing)
Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia
Presbyterian Reformed Church
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Australia
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland

Besides these, there are even smaller bodies (such as the Reformation Presbyterian Church, and the Reformed Presbytery of North America), as well as individual congregations in non-EP denominations, which believe in and practice EP (ARPC, OPC, etc.). There are even a few Reformed Baptist churches that practice EP. I met a young couple who happened to be in Colorado Springs on the Lord's Day, and who worshipped with us, whose home church (The Reformed Baptist Church of Topeka, KS) sings unaccompanied from the 1650 Metrical Psalms.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> And EP was the prevelant view of the reformed churches at the time. From a previous thread:
> 
> 
> ...



The Dutch were never EP as even these quotes display (i.e. "omitting the hymns one does not find in Holy Scripture", indication why there were non-psalm songs in their psalters). Please see my response to this quote in the thread you quoted it from. The only 2 groups in history to Confessionalize EP was the Church of Scotland and the New England Puritans.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 24, 2005)

Well, gentlemen, after a long weekend of study I have returned to read your posts, and while a number of you have certainly "let rip" along old wounds, only a scant few of you have actually engaged either Letham's quote, or any other part of that work which would would enlighten it. Are there any more thoughful evaluations of him to be given?


----------



## gwine (Oct 24, 2005)

> > And secondly, does it not bother you that the WCF could teach it, yet someone could take exception of it? Where then is the commandment? Is it so clear as all that, if that can be done and still retain office?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that bothers me. I think it is sinful.



Just so I am understanding you, Andrew, are you saying that it is sinful to take exception to something that man has written, as opposed to what God has written?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > > And secondly, does it not bother you that the WCF could teach it, yet someone could take exception of it? Where then is the commandment? Is it so clear as all that, if that can be done and still retain office?
> ...



I believe the WCF faithfully conveys what Scripture teaches, including exclusive psalmody. The specific exception that we were discussing here was an exception to the teaching of the WCF on exclusive psalmody, which I believe to be sinful because the exception contradicts Scripture very clearly. I am also persuaded that the 1646 WCF is 100% in accord with Scripture. That being the case, an exception to the 1646 WCF on the grounds that the WCF teaches something unbiblical is an exception to God's Word. That is not to say that the confession itself couldn't be refined or expanded (it is after all a subordinate standard based on God's Word), but as it is (speaking of the 1646 WCF, not the 1789 WCF) it is in accord with God's Word. I am also opposed to the practice of loose subscription or system subscription in general, which is something characteristic of American presbyterianism but which is something that my denomination does not permit, because it opens the door to a church's self-destruction. The confession is supposed to act as a gate-keeper to filter error out -- exceptions to the confession sow the seeds of a church's own ruin by allowing officers to enter the flock even though they reject what the church teaches on a particular point of faith, worship or practice. This can only lead to a house divided.

[Edited on 10-25-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## JohnV (Oct 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> Well, gentlemen, after a long weekend of study I have returned to read your posts, and while a number of you have certainly "let rip" along old wounds, only a scant few of you have actually engaged either Letham's quote, or any other part of that work which would would enlighten it. Are there any more thoughful evaluations of him to be given?



Adam:

I don't think you'll get much more of an answer than you've gotten. There are difficulties with this, some of which we would not address. Surely he is not suggesting that the Psalms do not have the full counsel of the triune God. And surely he is not suggesting that singing only the Psalms is all the diet worshippers would receive from that. So what does he mean? Do you see the difficulties we run into, if we do not want to unfairly judge him? 

As a non-EP-er, I would not take that approach at all. I would still uphold the Psalms as the best of the best, as far as being praise to God. Non-EP does not dispute that the Psalms are for worship; nor that it is Scripture; and therefore: nor that it is sufficient and perspicuous. But to know what he means I would have to go into detail as to what he is driving at.


----------

