bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Interesting: they seem to be clustered mostly in New England (the "burned-over district") and the Mid-West.
Singing Uninspired songs--Non EP answers only
- Thread starter BG
- Start date
- Status
Interesting: they seem to be clustered mostly in New England (the "burned-over district") and the Mid-West.
Jesse, I have no intention of arguing for EP in this thread, I genuinely am interested in how others think about the topic. As I said before this is an issue for me right now and this thread was a way for me to see how people answer and react to my questions. I have already learned i need to take greater care in how i ask my questions. BTW where did I make a straw man argument?
D
Deleted member 7239
Guest
I am just telling you why I don't see the Psalms as the Songbook by Jesus. I don't think that all of the Psalms, like the example is Ps. 3, would be appropriate for us to sing. There are Psalms that only make sense in their context.
So that is why I can't see the EP arguments as making any sense for me and my family.
The straw man argument was the one about songs written by cult members. I don't think that we can prove that anyone is truly saved or writing Christian music with correct motives, but that's irrelevant. The content agreeing with scripture is what makes it a worship song.
D
Deleted member 7239
Guest
straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
- 1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
To be honest I had only heard of EP after joining this board. The SBC congregation I left to join the OPC sang out of a Baptist Hymnal, and now I sing out of the Trinity Hymnal. I posted that link to a map of churches in North America that are EP to illustrate how difficult it would be for someone to find an OPC congregation that is EP unless they were willing to leave their home state and move lock, stock and barrel. Anyone have any thoughts on that ? Why are there so few OPC congregations that practice EP in the USA ? I'm not for it, nor against it, just an inquiring mind.
Moderating. Folks, take Bill at his word that he is not being intentionally inflammatory. Let's try to move this back to the OP. If you have an another topic like why so few EP OPCS, why some psalms should not be sung or why even as a hymn singer you think all of them should be, start a new thread. Maybe Bill can take a stab at rephrasing what he's after since he doesn't want this to involve the basis for EP or not (it seems doubtful this can be avoided but I would rather give an opportunity to proceed rather than shut a thread down). Any non EPs who are interested still, interact with Bill; explain why you think the questions are the wrong ones and what the questions/answers should be from your perspective, etc. EPs, let the non EPs answer.
I'll take a stab at it. As an aside, I am not EP, but I am very much MP (mostly psalms) in my outlook.
Some of us regulative principle adherents take Col. 3:16 to be plain and straightforward. Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. We are to sing all of them.
I personally prefer singing Psalms. I accept singing what we call "hymns" because I treasure some amount of heritage and peaceful fellowship with my brethren. I know first hand the delicate balance that choice of music can have on a congregation.
I am well aware of the EP argument regarding the three categories. The most I can say is that I am not fully persuaded of it, certainly not to the extent that I would initiate controversy in a local body over it.
I'm not saying it's necessarily a right or proper justification, but when I read Godly men from the past (like Machen) treasuring particular hymns, or when I see Calvin in his commentaries describing the three types of songs in a way that can include songs composed by men that avoid "worthless trifles" (see Calvin on Col. 3:16), I at least weigh it all toward the inclusive view rather than exclusive.
As Chris noted, it is very difficult to discuss the topic without falling into an argument pro or con. The above is my best try at this point.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
I am still wading through this issue. I heard a question that I believe is fair: Why would you sing only in types and shadows (Psalms) when we now have the reality? I freely admit I am no exegete and need further light. I believe the ultimate question is this: Does the RPW require the Psalter? We sing more Psalms than hymns at Westminster and I am glad for that. There is no question in my mind as to what is inspired and what is not. As a Presbyterian, I leave this matter to the session.....it is they who are responsible to God for His worship. It is they who will face the more strict judgment. I will continue to study and to pray for their faithfulness. Though I am a perverse man, I don't know of a better way to honor or benefit those men than to pray for them.....
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
The first concern is that the words are true. Balaam blessed Israel, though he was an enemy of Israel. Paul was thankful for those who preached Christ even from envy and strife (Phil. 1).
I'm not sure the relevance here. Do you have examples of this?
The Wesleys wrote some wonderful hymns, though they denied unconditional election. When necessary, if some of the words are inaccurate, it is an option to change some of the words. Being a non-EP advocate is never an excuse to sing whatever we want to. Our singing, like preaching and praying, should be carefully evaluated and accurate.
If you mean ordained ministers, then no. Could a woman write a systematic theology, even though she is not qualified to preach? Sure. Could her theological formulations be helpful to a pastor and congregation? Why not? Likewise, the author of a hymn is not in a place of authority in the church, but the words should be reviewed and approved by those in authority and the music to be sung in worship is chosen by those who do have authoritty in the church
That they are theologically accurate. Again, same criteria for preaching and prayer-- preaching should be theologically accurate, and praying should be acccording to the will of God.
We believe that the RPW calls for singing praises. In scripture, praises are not only Psalms, nor are they only scripture. We believe that we are to sing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. EP advocates limit Paul by stripping away any vocabulary he could have used to include uninspired words. What should Paul have said? He even adds the adjective "spirituaI" to odes (songs), in my view, because "odes" itself was not a reference to the Psalter. I am less concerned with someone being offended and more concerned with obeying God.
Tim, thanks for your answers I would like to probe a little deeper into your last point about a brother who is offended by singing songs other than psalms.
What if a brother says to you I cannot sing this song because it violates my conscience and my conviction?
What if a brother says to you I cannot sing songs written by Isaac Watts because it violates my conscience and convictions because Isaac Watts was antitrinitarian and a universalist?
Please answer freely with no fear of getting into a debate on the issue I only want to know your thoughts on this issue and how you or your church might handle these problems thanks in advance.
What if a brother says to you I cannot sing this song because it violates my conscience and my conviction?
What if a brother says to you I cannot sing songs written by Isaac Watts because it violates my conscience and convictions because Isaac Watts was antitrinitarian and a universalist?
Please answer freely with no fear of getting into a debate on the issue I only want to know your thoughts on this issue and how you or your church might handle these problems thanks in advance.
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Thank you for your interest and questions. 
If it violates because of an EP conviction, no one would require that brother to sing. If the conviction is due to theological error in the music, he should bring that before the elders. I know that the elders don't want error in the singing.
I know that Watts had some idiosyncrasies, particularly concerning the Person of Christ. I haven't read enough to affirm or deny your statement, though I know that overall he was Calvinistic. As for universalist, he affirmed at least the classic sufficient/efficient formula. This does not in any way equal universalism.
All this aside, it may be wise for a spiritual counsel to not use an author if they feel that a large portion of the congregation would have a problem with it. This is not because the words are necessarily unfit for worship, but simply because it's not helpful for the sheep entrusted to their care.
Instead of making an overreaching rule, it should be dealt with case by case.
I really do appreciate this.
Blessings, brother.
If it violates because of an EP conviction, no one would require that brother to sing. If the conviction is due to theological error in the music, he should bring that before the elders. I know that the elders don't want error in the singing.
I know that Watts had some idiosyncrasies, particularly concerning the Person of Christ. I haven't read enough to affirm or deny your statement, though I know that overall he was Calvinistic. As for universalist, he affirmed at least the classic sufficient/efficient formula. This does not in any way equal universalism.
All this aside, it may be wise for a spiritual counsel to not use an author if they feel that a large portion of the congregation would have a problem with it. This is not because the words are necessarily unfit for worship, but simply because it's not helpful for the sheep entrusted to their care.
Instead of making an overreaching rule, it should be dealt with case by case.
I really do appreciate this.
Blessings, brother.
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
Not replying for Tim, of course, but as I read your question, the quote popped into my mind: all truth is God's truth.
If the habitual blasphemer stumbling out of the pub avoids getting hit by a bus and stammers, "God is good!" I can in good conscience acknowledge the truthfulness of his words, even if the source (and even the intention or motivation) is dubious. I can even say after him, "Indeed, God is good."
I am not sure how beneficial this will be but this Covenant Radio episode was very beneficial to me years ago.
I took a class Barry York taught which followed a lot of Dr. Prutow's understanding. If you truly want good answers a few lines on a discussion forum are going to be found lacking. I recommend anyone with questions to get Denny's book. It is very well done and friendly to all.
http://dennyprutow.com/public-worship-101/
I took a class Barry York taught which followed a lot of Dr. Prutow's understanding. If you truly want good answers a few lines on a discussion forum are going to be found lacking. I recommend anyone with questions to get Denny's book. It is very well done and friendly to all.
http://dennyprutow.com/public-worship-101/
I understand. It took me many years to become EP and I was introduced to it by vigilant EPer's who didn't know how to communicate effectually. That was in the 80's. As another tool I would recommend Frank Smith's booklet. The Joy of Rediscovering God's Hymnbook. http://www.heritagebooks.org/produc...salter-into-congregational-worship-smith.html
D
Deleted member 7239
Guest
Yes it clearly does. (I am trying to understand the EP perspective), but my understanding is that the term "psalm" isn't solely the 150 psalms in our bible. Doesn't the term "psalm" refer to praise songs? Like the ones the church would sing before the life of David?
This is why I posted the video above. It isn't per se a video but an audio on Youtube. It explains that a bit. Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs would have reflected the 150 written Inspired selections sang by the Church that Paul would have meant when he used the phrase.
Believe me, I know how sensitive of a subject this is. I am an Anglo Saxon Hymns lover. I have many emotional attachments to them. Especially the hymn 'And Can It Be'. Hymns Triumphant vols 1&2 where used of God to help me have assurance, renew my mind, and persevere in the faith. I have a strong attachment to man's responses to the grace of God. But are they totally theological sound? Should we allow them to enter into a worship that should be totally centered around a Regulative Principle of Worship? That was a question I had to wrestle with. I do not see a difference for the believer of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant except that the Judicial and Ceremonial Laws have been abrogated. Those were Pedagogical. The Precatory fully belong to the Church also as St. Paul petitioned God for those who did much harm to him but hoped they would learn not to Blaspheme. To pronounce a deliverance unto evil is not a good thing. The Church should seek justice for her care here. Deliver us from evil.
Living in the World we live in...... How can the Precatory Psalm not be prayed Biblically from us? How could we progress in such an evil place but by God suppressing evil and proving his faithful protection at some level.
On another topic, Balaam Blessed God but I am not commanded to sing his words in worship as a post before strangely suggested unless God tells me to in that capacity. That was weird if I read it correctly.
Living in the World we live in...... How can the Precatory Psalm not be prayed Biblically from us? How could we progress in such an evil place but by God suppressing evil and proving his faithful protection at some level.
On another topic, Balaam Blessed God but I am not commanded to sing his words in worship as a post before strangely suggested unless God tells me to in that capacity. That was weird if I read it correctly.
As a side note... We have a Psalm explanation every week and then we sing the Psalm. I have been through the whole 150 quite a few times and I have never found them to be Old Testament vs. New Testament. We sing the substance of both. God, Christ, His people, the world, our hurts and hopes. It is a hermeneutical problem or a personal interpretation problem when someone can't see that. Sorry....
I know this battle.
I know this battle.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Psalm explanation is a good practice; I do that whenever I lead worship at an EP church. It seems to me that this provides an explanation of what the psalm means, from the perspective of our point of redemptive history. It certainly helps with the more difficult elements, such as imprecations. But to me there is a certain irony to explaining to everyone that Psalm 72 really means "Jesus shall reign where'er the sun doth his successive journeys run" and then singing the psalm while thinking that, but abominating singing Watts' paraphrase. If we are really thinking of Christ when we sing, we are not simply singing the psalm; mentally we have blended the psalm with the (uninspired) exposition to declare the reality toward which the psalm points. Which isn't really very different from singing a (theologically excellent) uninspired song!
Doesn't that make my point?
Watts had Problem's. God doesn't when he tells us what to sing. I think that is where the cultist heresey implications came in from. One is the best. The other isn't commanded.
D
Deleted member 7239
Guest
Since it is such a clear scriptural teaching from your perspective why do you think that so many reformed believers do not hold to it? Even among those on the PB?
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
These references include the Psalms. We need not make it one or the other. They are inclusive of all sung praises.
Continuing off of Iain's excellent point, consider:
"speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord..."
And:
"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord."
In conjunction with:
"Sing praises with understanding." (Ps. 47:7b)
And:
"What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.
EP advocates spend so much energy on the form. We are commanded to "sing with understanding." Would any EP take the position that his understanding is inspired? If this worship in the heart is with understanding, does the worship remain inspired? But God looks at the heart. The only consistent position that I can possibly understand is one that offers praises to God that contain both inspired words and uninspired interaction with the words, again, consistent with the other parts of worship.
It seems that since the understanding is not inspired (praise in the heart) but the words are, the EP logically promotes that which is external. The internal part is an inconsistency with its own dogmatic.
I do not believe that form is unimportant, but I have endeavored to explain the self-consistency between the form and the interaction with the heart in our sung praises.
For those of you who are not EP.
Proponents of EP say that the words psalms hymns and spiritual songs are three words that mean the same thing, what is it about this argument that you find lacking ?
What do you believe that the apostle Paul meant when he used the terms hymns and spiritual songs?
Do you believe that the Saints in the Old Testament were EP or at least sang only songs from Scripture?
If you believe that the Old Testament saints sang something other than songs from scripture what was it that they sang?
Do you believe that Christ and the apostles sang songs other than those found in Scripture and if so what were those songs?
Do you believe that the early church sang songs other than those found in Scripture if so what songs did they sing and is there any evidence for this that you can point to?
Thank you in advance for your answers.
My interest in this topic was sparked by the following :
There have been a few people recently leave my church over the issue of EP. Also some dear friends from our previous church recently told me that our church was a cult because we are EP.
Please feel free to answer questions without fear of being debated on the topic.
Proponents of EP say that the words psalms hymns and spiritual songs are three words that mean the same thing, what is it about this argument that you find lacking ?
What do you believe that the apostle Paul meant when he used the terms hymns and spiritual songs?
Do you believe that the Saints in the Old Testament were EP or at least sang only songs from Scripture?
If you believe that the Old Testament saints sang something other than songs from scripture what was it that they sang?
Do you believe that Christ and the apostles sang songs other than those found in Scripture and if so what were those songs?
Do you believe that the early church sang songs other than those found in Scripture if so what songs did they sing and is there any evidence for this that you can point to?
Thank you in advance for your answers.
My interest in this topic was sparked by the following :
There have been a few people recently leave my church over the issue of EP. Also some dear friends from our previous church recently told me that our church was a cult because we are EP.
Please feel free to answer questions without fear of being debated on the topic.
Last edited:
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
I tend to think that if Paul had meant Psalms he wouldn't have said, "Psalms hymns and spiritual songs.
I ask the question again, if EP is the true RPW why are there only 5 OPC congregations in the USA that practice it ? I'm not trying to be a 'wise guy', nor am I anti EP. It is simply a question that I feel is logical.
Currently the URC/OPC is publishing a Psalter/Hymnal, which I understand will combine Psalms and hymns in the one volume, but with the Psalms rewritten, and more of them than are in the Trinity Hymnal. Dr. Strange is one of the leading editors of this if I remember correctly. https://urcpsalmody.wordpress.com/urc-psalter-hymnal/
If EP is what conforms to the RPW why is the OPC including hymns with the Psalms ? Again, I'm neutral insofar as EP, or integrating Psalms and hymns. I merely ask these questions looking for logical answers.
The answer to why the OPC is not EP is an historical argument first, as they came out of the PCUSA which determined to open up song to other songs at their founding through their new directory for worship. Second, they subsequently did deal specifically with the question on their own. When the OPC hymnal was first proposed John Murray, a Scottish transplant, raised the issue of the propriety of singing songs other than the psalms. This resulted in a study committee which produced a concensus report on the RPW penned by Murray the next year, but a report on the actual question was delayed a year or two because Murray and Young (the minority) landed at EP and the majority took the non EP position. This by the way explains, while the majority endorsed the RPW report, the majority report penned by them at times runs counter to the piece by Murray. Thus the majority of the OPC has followed the practice they already had been practicing and are not persuaded of EP. These reports are online at the OPC site but there is also a text of the RPW report by Murray with notes on the differences in his original MS version. See "The Regulative Principle of Worship & Song in the Public Worship of God," The Confessional Presbyterian 11 (2015): 5-18.
Clearness has to do with perception. History gets blinded sometimes. We start to impose our understanding of words as we define things and we lose the intended definition and the historical context sometimes. When I first got into this discussion in the 80's Dr. Sproul noted that a portion of an epistle was sang as a Hymn. I had no concept that Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs were all types of music in the 150 we know as the book of Psalms. Later it was shown to me that Dr. Sproul's assumption had no proof or reference to back up his claim. So I had to research and overcome my cultural and literal bias' against the teaching. We all will have to unless we are raised with the knowledge behind the Regulative Principle and EP. The Regulative Principle of Worship is not widely known. It appears from recent discussions some are trying to make the Normative Principle look like the Regulative Principle. The Denominations have swerved farther away from our confessional heritages for the Normative Principle so that is also a big obstacle. Our cultural likes have flooded the Church. Does that answer your question?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Locked
