Psalmody to Hymnody Question

[timfost]

Again, as @greenbaggins keeps pointing out, EP proponents keep pivoting to inspired only arguments. We're not going to be able to cover every possible range of praise in this thread. Here is the question: is EP biblical? If one says no, this does not necessarily mean that uninspired hymns are appropriate in worship. Can we focus on this one question? Lane makes a great challenge with which no one EPer seems to be able to answer.

 

[greenbaggins]

My position is EP, but one has to contend for the necessity of inspired song vs man-made song as a basis in the worship of God. Since most on the board who aren’t EP allow for man-made songs, this is a big issue to address.

My point is that arguing for inspired words only is a double-edged sword. From your perspective, you seem to see it as a stepping stone to EP. From where I stand, it is a refutation of the EP principle, and could actually be seen as a stepping-stone the other direction. Arguing for inspired words only is actually an argument against EP, since it is an argument for all of Scripture to be used, a position which is contradictory to the EP position. So I am suggesting that the person sliding between these two positions in the midst of argument is arguing in an incoherent way.

Rev. Keister, this is not the regulative principle. This is making an assumption based on the semantic range of a word, not a good and necessary consequence of any one of the three terms employed by Paul. As @TylerRay pointed out, since these 3 words can refer to the contents of the Psalter, it must be proven in context that Paul meant for us to sing something other than the Psalms. To put it in a current context, if I meet someone an unbeliever and they ask what we do at church I might say, "we pray to God, we sing songs to him, we read scripture, and we hear a sermon." Now of course the semantic range of many of these terms are far wider than what I mean by them, but the semantic range is not the only determining factor of the sentence.

We can talk about inspired praise, and I have quite a bit of respect for the position even if I could not in good conscience go all the way. But that does not really matter at this point. Proving a perceived inconsistency in singing only psalms does not prove uninspired hymn singing. Even if I were to grant singing the Song of Solomon, it does not prove the singing of Fanny Crosby.

If Paul had been thinking restrictively, he would have said "sing from the book of Psalms," or even shorter "sing a Psalm," like he effectively does in 1 Cor 14:26. One doesn't have to define the three terms to know that Paul is thinking expansively, not restrictively. If he only had the Psalms in mind, he used a rather unclear way of saying it. This formulation proves that he had more than the Psalms in mind. A second exegetical point usually missed in these discussions is the immediately preceding command "let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly." In fact, the phrase "singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" is an explanation of how to let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. He doesn't say, "Let the psalms dwell in you richly, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." Instead, the phrase about singing is an explanation of how to let the Word dwell in you richly. The contextual factors here point inevitably to a broader scope than the Psalms. Now, in this particular argument, I am only arguing against EP, which makes your second paragraph irrelevant. I am well aware that proving Paul had more in mind than the Psalms in Colossians 3:16 does not prove uninspired hymns are acceptable. In fact, I have actually been belaboring the point, because EPers so often misinterpret the critics on this very point. So your second paragraph seems to be making an assumption about my argument that is wide of the mark. EPers look at an argument that says "more than the Psalms are acceptable" as an automatic argument for uninspired hymns. Again, as I pointed out in one of my first posts in this thread, IPers have not always been clear what they are arguing against. That is one reason I have tried to say explicitly "this is only an argument against EP, not an argument for uninspired hymns," or "this is an argument for uninspired hymns." Apparently, even trying to be crystal clear on that point is not sufficient to prevent misunderstanding.

I am not sure what I think of it just yet, but an argument for uninspired hymns could be made from the word "richly." If "richly" means "much," then it could be inferred that any way of getting the Word into people is what Paul has in mind. This would include summaries of the Word that fall within the category of "the whole counsel of God." It is not a super-strong argument, but it does seem suggestive. This would hardly be the only argument for uninspired hymns that I would advance (indeed, I have already made others in this thread). That the three terms "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" refers to more than the Psalter, however, is on firm ground.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Again, as @greenbaggins keeps pointing out, EP proponents keep pivoting to inspired only arguments. We're not going to be able to cover every possible range of praise in this thread. Here is the question: is EP biblical? If one says no, this does not necessarily mean that uninspired hymns are appropriate in worship. Can we focus on this one question? Lane makes a great challenge with which no one EPer seems to be able to answer.

Tim, in answer- and using several declarative statements while knowing there's disagreement- yes, EP is the biblical position. The Psalms themselves specifically command God's people to sing Psalms and declare over and over the prophet's intention to sing them. We do not see a command to sing any other type of song in worship. We see the obedience to God's command to David and the other prophets worked out in the writing and singing of the Psalms in worship. We see the unfolding of God's will in the setting up of instituted worship in the temple with these songs. We see Christ singing these Psalms in the days of his flesh (those Psalms described by the Greek "hymeo.") Christ is the singer of the Psalms and he has declared that he will sing them to the Father and among his people (and among the Gentiles, Romans 15:9). Nothing in Scripture abrogates all this, though attempts are made via both the wording of the Ephesians and Colossians passages, and the command in the Psalms to sing a new song, both of which have been answered. The Psalter is the songbook of the Church by design.

 

[Deleted member 9611]

If Paul had been thinking restrictively, he would have said "sing from the book of Psalms," or even shorter "sing a Psalm," like he effectively does in 1 Cor 14:26. One doesn't have to define the three terms to know that Paul is thinking expansively, not restrictively. If he only had the Psalms in mind, he used a rather unclear way of saying it. This formulation proves that he had more than the Psalms in mind. A second exegetical point usually missed in these discussions is the immediately preceding command "let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly." In fact, the phrase "singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" is an explanation of how to let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. He doesn't say, "Let the psalms dwell in you richly, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." Instead, the phrase about singing is an explanation of how to let the Word dwell in you richly. The contextual factors here point inevitably to a broader scope than the Psalms. Now, in this particular argument, I am only arguing against EP, which makes your second paragraph irrelevant. I am well aware that proving Paul had more in mind than the Psalms in Colossians 3:16 does not prove uninspired hymns are acceptable. In fact, I have actually been belaboring the point, because EPers so often misinterpret the critics on this very point. So your second paragraph seems to be making an assumption about my argument that is wide of the mark. EPers look at an argument that says "more than the Psalms are acceptable" as an automatic argument for uninspired hymns. Again, as I pointed out in one of my first posts in this thread, IPers have not always been clear what they are arguing against. That is one reason I have tried to say explicitly "this is only an argument against EP, not an argument for uninspired hymns," or "this is an argument for uninspired hymns." Apparently, even trying to be crystal clear on that point is not sufficient to prevent misunderstanding.

I am not sure what I think of it just yet, but an argument for uninspired hymns could be made from the word "richly." If "richly" means "much," then it could be inferred that any way of getting the Word into people is what Paul has in mind. This would include summaries of the Word that fall within the category of "the whole counsel of God." It is not a super-strong argument, but it does seem suggestive. This would hardly be the only argument for uninspired hymns that I would advance (indeed, I have already made others in this thread). That the three terms "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" refers to more than the Psalter, however, is on firm ground.

Paul's command to 'word of Christ dwell in you richly' is one of the chief reasons I cannot in good faith see any way this is a command to sing uninspired songs. As @Jeri Tanner has pointed out, I am completely unconvinced that the word of Christ and singing with Christ necessitates singing the words of a fallible human.

I do continue to think we are on different grounds here - and I do not say that in any disrespect. You admitted Paul is not thinking restrictively, but that is exactly what the regulative principle is; if it is not commanded it is forbidden. There is no clear command to sing anything else but the psalter from Paul's language, therefore I remain unconvinced that I am to do such.

As for singing inspired songs/inspired writings - I do not see anything laid down in scripture as normative for continuing such. We have a canonical hymn book and many psalms certainly capture the message if not the exact words of the scripture song. One can think of Song of Solomon and Psalm 45 and Hannah's song and Psalm 113. So I have to go with John Murray and the minority report and conclude, "In view of uncertainty with respect to the use of other inspired songs, we should confine ourselves to the Book of Psalms."

 

[greenbaggins]

Mason, I can't seem to make you see my point about the different arguments addressing different positions.

IP: "Colossians 3:16 says more than Psalms are acceptable in worship."

EP: "But that doesn't mean uninspired hymns."

IP: "I didn't say that argument was in favor of uninspired hymns."

EP: "But that is what I am going to make you say, regardless of how many times you say otherwise."

IP: "The argument for uninspired hymns doesn't lie in the three words Paul uses."

EP: "But the three words don't prove uninspired hymns."

IP: "I didn't say they did."

EP: "But that is your actual position."

IP: *bangs head against wall*

If Paul is not thinking restrictively, then you are setting the RPW against what Paul says here. Not solid ground, Mason.

 

[timfost]

Tim, in answer- and using several declarative statements while knowing there's disagreement- yes, EP is the biblical position. The Psalms themselves specifically command God's people to sing Psalms and declare over and over the prophet's intention to sing them. We do not see a command to sing any other type of song in worship. We see the obedience to God's command to David and the other prophets worked out in the writing and singing of the Psalms in worship. We see the unfolding of God's will in the setting up of instituted worship in the temple with these songs. We see Christ singing these Psalms in the days of his flesh (those Psalms described by the Greek "hymeo.") Christ is the singer of the Psalms and he has declared that he will sing them to the Father and among his people (and among the Gentiles, Romans 15:9). Nothing in Scripture abrogates all this, though attempts are made via both the wording of the Ephesians and Colossians passages, and the command in the Psalms to sing a new song, both of which have been answered. The Psalter is the songbook of the Church by design.

Jeri,

You've avoided answering Lane's very specific objections. You've avoided my objections as well. The Psalms were not the only songs that were sung by the Levites, for example, and this is a major problem for the EPer that is being avoided. Declarative statements do not answer specific questions or valid, biblical objections.

Thank you in advance for hearing me.

 

[JH]

Rev. Keister, no person of the EP persuasion is going to concede that "more than Psalms are acceptable in worship", otherwise they would not be deemed EP. On top of that, post #92 is filled with arguments from silence such as "If Paul meant X, he would've said X, therefore he clearly meant Y."

I also find it ironic that the position you're taking on "the word of Christ" is precisely the point EP adherents take for their position; and how could anyone argue prescription to write songs of our own devising from the word "richly", really? @Tom Hart 's post #69 already hit the nail on the head. Since we are not under any divine command to go out of our way to write songs of our own devising for public worship, they are forbidden.

 

[greenbaggins]

Paul's command to 'word of Christ dwell in you richly' is one of the chief reasons I cannot in good faith see any way this is a command to sing uninspired songs.

In specific answer to this objection, look at the specific items in the passage. Would teaching and admonishing involve only the ipsissima verba? No. Why would it require wisdom simply to quote Scripture verbatim as the teaching and admonishing? So, ipsissima verba are not required here in the teaching and admonishing, but in the very next phrase, you import ipsissima verba in a place it does not belong. It is arbitrary to enforce ipsissima verba on one of the items in the list, but not all of them.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Jeri,

You've avoided answering Lane's very specific objections. You've avoided my objections as well. The Psalms were not the only songs that were sung by the Levites, for example, and this is a major problem for the EPer that is being avoided. Declarative statements do not answer specific questions or valid, biblical objections.

Thank you in advance for hearing me.

Tim, I am not sure what songs sung by the Levites you (or Rev. Keister) are referring to. But whatever they were, if not found in the book of Psalms, they join the other prophetic songs found in the OT that weren't collected into the Psalter for the singing of the church. I don't see it as a major problem.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

My point is that arguing for inspired words only is a double-edged sword. From your perspective, you seem to see it as a stepping stone to EP. From where I stand, it is a refutation of the EP principle, and could actually be seen as a stepping-stone the other direction. Arguing for inspired words only is actually an argument against EP, since it is an argument for all of Scripture to be used, a position which is contradictory to the EP position. So I am suggesting that the person sliding between these two positions in the midst of argument is arguing in an incoherent way.

I'd like to address this, since it's been brought up several times now.

Exclusive Psalmody is one of several possible "Scripture Only" positions. One may hold that any inspired words may be sung, that only inspired songs may be sung, or that only the Psalms may be sung. All three are species of "Scripture Only" views.

The Exclusive Psalmodist is not being inconsistent with his own position when he argues along the lines that the Bible never warrants the use of uninspired materials of praise. It's true, arguing for inspired materials only is not the same thing as arguing for Psalms only, but it certainly isn't inconsistent with it, and can be a step in a line of argumentation that goes something like this: 1) The Bible only warrants the use of songs written by prophets/inspired writers for the worship of God in any dispensation; 2) the only inspired songs that we have clear warrant to sing in the current dispensation are the ones collected in the Psalter; 3) therefore, we should only sing the Psalms.

 

[greenbaggins]

I'd like to address this, since it's been brought up several times now.

Exclusive Psalmody is one of several possible "Scripture Only" positions. One may hold that any inspired words may be sung, that only inspired songs may be sung, or that only the Psalms may be sung. All three are species of "Scripture Only" views.

The Exclusive Psalmodist is not being inconsistent with his own position when he argues along the lines that the Bible never warrants the use of uninspired materials of praise. It's true, arguing for inspired materials only is not the same thing as arguing for Psalms only, but it certainly isn't inconsistent with it, and can be a step in a line of argumentation that goes something like this: 1) The Bible only warrants the use of songs written by prophets/inspired writers for the worship of God in any dispensation; 2) the only inspired songs that we have clear warrant to sing in the current dispensation are the ones collected in the Psalter; 3) therefore, we should only sing the Psalms.

I am well aware of how EP uses this argument in the kind of context you mention. That is not how it has been used in response to my arguments. I will say that a certain passage advocates for more than the Psalter, and the EPer responds with "but still inspired." This is a shifting of the argument to inspired words only. It is not, in fact, a response to my point which was typically "more than the Psalms." If EP wants to say "inspired words only" is a step to EP, then they also need to be able to acknowledge that not all arguments by IPers are directed at promoting uninspired hymnody. This acknowledgement I have yet to see in the debate at all. So far from there being an acknowledgement of this distinction in arguments, the EPers who have responded continue to make the same error over and over again.

 

[Deleted member 9611]

Mason, I can't seem to make you see my point about the different arguments addressing different positions.

IP: "Colossians 3:16 says more than Psalms are acceptable in worship."

EP: "But that doesn't mean uninspired hymns."

IP: "I didn't say that argument was in favor of uninspired hymns."

EP: "But that is what I am going to make you say, regardless of how many times you say otherwise."

IP: "The argument for uninspired hymns doesn't lie in the three words Paul uses."

EP: "But the three words don't prove uninspired hymns."

IP: "I didn't say they did."

EP: "But that is your actual position."

IP: *bangs head against wall*

If Paul is not thinking restrictively, then you are setting the RPW against what Paul says here. Not solid ground, Mason.

Here is a more accurate representation of the back and forth.

IP: "Colossians 3:16 says more than Psalms are acceptable in worship."

EP: "No it does not. The semantic range does not determine Paul's usage here. In fact, we know that Psalms are often referred to as all three of 'songs', 'hymns', and 'songs'."

IP: "But hymn can mean something other than a Psalm."

EP: "Yes, prove it does in this scenario."

IP: "Other things are called hymns and songs besides the psalter."

EP: "Granted, prove that Paul's admonition means I must sing something other than the Psalter to fulfill his command."

IP: "Hymn does not mean psalm always."

EP: "Okay.. but why must it mean something other than the psalter in this scenario."

IP: "Hymn does not mean psalm always."

EP: *bangs head against wall*

 

[greenbaggins]

I sense a brick wall here, Mason. The arguments I posited from the connection of the three words to "let the word dwell in you richly," as well as the phrase "teaching and admonishing" are simply getting ignored in favor of the reductionistic version you seem to prefer. I will bow out of this argument.

 

[Deleted member 9611]

In specific answer to this objection, look at the specific items in the passage. Would teaching and admonishing involve only the ipsissima verba? No. Why would it require wisdom simply to quote Scripture verbatim as the teaching and admonishing? So, ipsissima verba are not required here in the teaching and admonishing, but in the very next phrase, you import ipsissima verba in a place it does not belong. It is arbitrary to enforce ipsissima verba on one of the items in the list, but not all of them.

I find this reply a bit astonishing. Some of the most comforting words that I have ever heard are scripture applied in season.

And yet again, the ground has shifted. You are asking me to prove why ipissima verba must be the case. That is not the regulative principle. I know I can sing the psalms. To prove I can sing more I need positive warrant, not a bare conjecture. Why is ipissima verba required for scripture reading? Can I substitute the Westminster Confession for the Old Testament reading?

 

[Deleted member 9611]

I sense a brick wall here, Mason. The arguments I posited from the connection of the three words to "let the word dwell in you richly," as well as the phrase "teaching and admonishing" are simply getting ignored in favor of the reductionistic version you seem to prefer. I will bow out of this argument.

That is fine Lane. I will note that I never recoiled back into an 'it must be inspired' position. I do not really understand your frustration at that point. I have firmly stated over and over again that you cannot prove in context that Paul's usage of the terms demands I sing something other than the Psalter to fulfill his command.

This is why us EP folks often get so frustrated on this point. We enjoy the defense of the regulative principle by many good men who differ with us on this point, but when the time comes to make a positive case for one's position the foundations are razed. No where in this thread has it been proven that non-psalms must be sung to fulfill Paul's command. You even concede you do not think EP is necessarily sinful. By that admission, you have proven the inconsistency of your own position as it relates to the RPW.

 

[Polanus1561]

I feel this is similar to baptism debates where both sides have different views to the methods to affirm X or Y.

 

[timfost]

I feel this is similar to baptism debates where both sides have different views to the methods to affirm X or Y.

Yes. Interestingly, EPers seem to use Baptist arguments ("show me an example"). I don't think I'll ever understand.

 

[Deleted member 9611]

Yes. Interestingly, EPers seem to use Baptist arguments ("show me an example"). I don't think I'll ever understand.

Example or good and necessary consequence

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

I have a question:

Leaving aside lawfulness, why would anyone ever choose hymns instead of psalms in corporate worship?

It doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I have a question: Leaving aside lawfulness, why would anyone ever choose hymns instead of psalms in corporate worship?

There are no sections in the Psalms for Advent, Nativity, Easter ....?

 

[greenbaggins]

Paul's command to 'word of Christ dwell in you richly' is one of the chief reasons I cannot in good faith see any way this is a command to sing uninspired songs.

That is fine Lane. I will note that I never recoiled back into an 'it must be inspired' position. I do not really understand your frustration at that point. I have firmly stated over and over again that you cannot prove in context that Paul's usage of the terms demands I sing something other than the Psalter to fulfill his command.

You did it in the above quotation. You just asserted that I haven't proven it, but you haven't answered my arguments about the connection among the three phrases in the verse. You might not find such arguments convincing. I daresay not. But you need to stop pretending I haven't made any arguments towards that point.

This is why us EP folks often get so frustrated on this point. We enjoy the defense of the regulative principle by many good men who differ with us on this point, but when the time comes to make a positive case for one's position the foundations are razed. No where in this thread has it been proven that non-psalms must be sung to fulfill Paul's command. You even concede you do not think EP is necessarily sinful. By that admission, you have proven the inconsistency of your own position as it relates to the RPW.

I have not come to a conclusion about whether EP is sinful. That is not the same as saying it is not necessarily sinful. And I have proven to my satisfaction (obviously not to yours) that Paul's words command at the least non-Psalmic content, and I have offered the beginnings of the argument for the further step of non-inspired hymnody by virtue of the word-concept distinction, the whole counsel of God, etc. Again, I'm sure you're not convinced. But stop pretending I haven't made any arguments for my position.

 

[greenbaggins]

I have a question:

Leaving aside lawfulness, why would anyone ever choose hymns instead of psalms in corporate worship?

It doesn’t make sense to me.

For all the claims about the Christology of the Psalms (which I largely agree with), the Psalms do not equal the whole counsel of God. This is why.

 

[Deleted member 9611]

You did it in the above quotation. You just asserted that I haven't proven it, but you haven't answered my arguments about the connection among the three phrases in the verse. You might not find such arguments convincing. I daresay not. But you need to stop pretending I haven't made any arguments towards that point.

I have not come to a conclusion about whether EP is sinful. That is not the same as saying it is not necessarily sinful. And I have proven to my satisfaction (obviously not to yours) that Paul's words command at the least non-Psalmic content, and I have offered the beginnings of the argument for the further step of non-inspired hymnody by virtue of the word-concept distinction, the whole counsel of God, etc. Again, I'm sure you're not convinced. But stop pretending I haven't made any arguments for my position.

It is an argument from the stronger not a resorting to a different position.

I never said you did not make arguments, you did. You did not make regulative principle arguments. X could mean Y does not satisfy X necessarily means Y in context. If you were convinced of the latter, then EP is necessarily sinning by omission. That is precisely why I remain utterly unconvinced that we have the same basic foundation. If I don't include X in worship it is because I think X is sinful. If I do include Y in worship it is because I am convinced I must include Y. Your position logically leads to something being allowed but not commanded, which is not the RPW.

I will leave it here on hopefully a light note:
Two children ask their dad Dale, ‘dad, what do you want for your birthday?’ and he responds ‘I’d love a cake son’

The EP son goes home, and makes a nice, albeit simple, baked chocolate cake. He presents his cake to his dad.

The hymn singing son goes home, and grabs out of his pantry a firm rice-flour/tapioca concoction. He presents his cake to his dad.

Now we know Papa Dale, being a typical middle aged American, loves his diabetes inducing foods so he receives the chocolate cake with joy. Now, we are not so sure that Dale likes those new fangled vegan patties so the jury is still out on how happily Dale receives the rice-cake.

This is how us EPers think about it. We know God has commanded the psalms to be sung. We remain unconvinced that he has commanded other scripture songs or uninspired hymns in the perpetual use of Christ’s church. We present our Father the chocolate cake, knowing that he will be well satisfied.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

For all the claims about the Christology of the Psalms (which I largely agree with), the Psalms do not equal the whole counsel of God. This is why.

Thanks for the response, brother.

I guess I don’t see the newest Getty song as more “the counsel of God” than the psalms.

In choosing the one to fit into a slot in the worship service, you’re necessarily choosing not to have the other.

So in every instance, I can’t see picking the Getty song over the psalm in order to get the “whole counsel of God.”

 

[greenbaggins]

It is an argument from the stronger not a resorting to a different position.

IWO is not "the stronger," it is contradictory to the EP. The EP says only Psalms are commanded to be sung. The IWO position says "Not only Psalms are commanded to be sung." They are contradictory positions. You did indeed shift from defending EP to defending IWO as a direct result of misinterpreting my argument.

I never said you did not make arguments, you did. You did not make regulative principle arguments. X could mean Y does not satisfy X necessarily means Y in context. If you were convinced of the latter, then EP is necessarily sinning by omission. That is precisely why I remain utterly unconvinced that we have the same basic foundation. If I don't include X in worship it is because I think X is sinful. If I do include Y in worship it is because I am convinced I must include Y. Your position logically leads to something being allowed but not commanded, which is not the RPW.

Congratulations. You have mostly convinced me that I need to see EP as sinful. I had thought that the issue might be parallel to the Lord's Supper and Baptism, which are both commanded, but not required at every service. You think the only reason for not having something in a service is because you think it is sinful? Do you then believe in weekly communion? I think I would have preferred to think of psalms and hymns the same way as the Lord's Supper: commanded, but not necessarily for every service. Of course, my position I have already delineated as IP, which means both psalms and hymns in every service. Since I believe that psalms and hymns together represent the whole counsel of God, and are tied in certain ways to the preaching of the Word, my practice has always been to make the chosen psalms or hymns relevant to the subject matter of the sermon. I do not believe that Psalms can always do that. I have actually seen EPers try to argue that there is a Psalm for any and all occasions. I always want to ask them, "Then why not get rid of the rest of the Bible, and only preach on the Psalms?" If the Psalms is so completely equal to the whole counsel of God, then we don't need any of the rest of the Bible.

 

[greenbaggins]

Thanks for the response, brother.

I guess I don’t see the newest Getty song as more “the counsel of God” than the psalms.

In choosing the one to fit into a slot in the worship service, you’re necessarily choosing not to have the other.

So in every instance, I can’t see picking the Getty song over the psalm in order to get the “whole counsel of God.”

So, after preaching on the actual salvation of the Israelites from the Egyptians at the Red Sea, you think a Psalm is more appropriate than the Song of Moses in Exodus 15 to sing? The Song of Moses was written to commemorate that very occasion.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

You’re right. I’m not EP, so I would not have a problem with the occasional singing of other parts of scripture.

I should have made the distinction between uninspired and inspired.

Does you “whole counsel” argument hold if we are talking inspired vs hymns?

 

[greenbaggins]

You’re right. I’m not EP, so I would not have a problem with the occasional singing of other parts of scripture.

I should have made the distinction between uninspired and inspired.

Does you “whole counsel” argument hold if we are talking inspired vs hymns?

The way I have used the term, it means that "the whole counsel of God" would include biblically sound hymns. Hymns that describe what can by good and necessary consequence be deduced from scripture constitute part of the whole counsel of God, just as we believe the confessional standards themselves do, and the sound preaching of the Word. The command to sing both the psalter and hymns is in Colossians 3:16, I believe, among other places. One of the flaws of the EP position is their nearly constant attempt to imply that if something is not inspired, therefore the content cannot be biblical when it comes to hymns. Sure, hold up the worst of the hymnic tradition (like the revivalist songs), and the psalms are a no-brainer in comparison. I see EPers do this all the time. I would challenge anyone, however, to look at "In Christ Alone," "Amazing Grace," "Rock of Ages," "For All the Saints," "Great Is Thy Faithfulness," "Holy, Holy, Holy," (for starters) and find for me the unbiblical content in those hymns. They state biblical truth. There are terrible hymns out there. They shouldn't be sung, because their content is not biblical. There are terrible psalm settings that grossly distort the meaning of the psalms. They shouldn't be sung, either!

 

[Deleted member 9611]

IWO is not "the stronger," it is contradictory to the EP. The EP says only Psalms are commanded to be sung. The IWO position says "Not only Psalms are commanded to be sung." They are contradictory positions. You did indeed shift from defending EP to defending IWO as a direct result of misinterpreting my argument.

Stronger was probably the wrong term, forgive me for that. Broader is probably better. I did not shift, I expanded the concentric circles as it were. Convincing me of singing uninspired lyrics entails singing other inspired songs too - maybe not logically, but that would be a rather safe assumption.

One does not necessarily need to know where the exact line within inspired praise is to conclude uninspired hymnody is wrong. I think there are some good reasons for singing other canonical songs; I remain unconvinced but I can see it. The reason for this is that we start from doing nothing in God's worship unless he commands it. So one could make an argument against hymn singing even if one did not know where the exact line was - the argument of the beard as it were.

Congratulations. You have mostly convinced me that I need to see EP as sinful. I had thought that the issue might be parallel to the Lord's Supper and Baptism, which are both commanded, but not required at every service. You think the only reason for not having something in a service is because you think it is sinful? Do you then believe in weekly communion? I think I would have preferred to think of psalms and hymns the same way as the Lord's Supper: commanded, but not necessarily for every service. Of course, my position I have already delineated as IP, which means both psalms and hymns in every service. Since I believe that psalms and hymns together represent the whole counsel of God, and are tied in certain ways to the preaching of the Word, my practice has always been to make the chosen psalms or hymns relevant to the subject matter of the sermon. I do not believe that Psalms can always do that. I have actually seen EPers try to argue that there is a Psalm for any and all occasions. I always want to ask them, "Then why not get rid of the rest of the Bible, and only preach on the Psalms?" If the Psalms is so completely equal to the whole counsel of God, then we don't need any of the rest of the Bible.

Well I do not much appreciate the sarcasm, but I do appreciate the consistency. It is not like the Lord's Supper or Baptism - both of which will occur in the worship of God. From your point of view, the EP position never does something it should.

I do firmly believe there is a psalm for every occasion - certainly there is a psalm more fitting for any occasion than an uninspired hymn.

 

[greenbaggins]

Stronger was probably the wrong term, forgive me for that. Broader is probably better. I did not shift, I expanded the concentric circles as it were. Convincing me of singing uninspired lyrics entails singing other inspired songs too - maybe not logically, but that would be a rather safe assumption.

One does not necessarily need to know where the exact line within inspired praise is to conclude uninspired hymnody is wrong. I think there are some good reasons for singing other canonical songs; I remain unconvinced but I can see it. The reason for this is that we start from doing nothing in God's worship unless he commands it. So one could make an argument against hymn singing even if one did not know where the exact line was - the argument of the beard as it were.

The argument of the beard? I'm afraid you've lost me on that one. Maybe because we come from different positions, I can't understand why you don't see that arguing for IWO is contradictory to EP. If I were to make a guess, it is because you think both IWO and EP are opposed to uninspired hymnody, and because you think arguing for IWO is a step towards arguing for the other. From where I stand, however, it is the exact opposite. 1. Argue against EP by first showing that God has commanded other Scripture than the Psalms to be sung (this step has no inherent reference whatsoever to uninspired hymns). 2. Argue that biblical uninspired hymns constitute part of the whole counsel of God just like biblical preaching would or biblical prayers. 3. Argue that God has commanded that the whole counsel of God be both taught and sung. This I believe I have done. I don't expect any EPers to be convinced, because it is my belief that no possible even hypothetical argument could be convincing. The position is not open to correction. At least, I have yet to see a single EP advocate open to correction on any point whatsoever regarding the question. They simply ignore the best contrary arguments. I have never heard an EPer say to any critic, "You know, that's a good point, maybe I need to rethink some things." It wouldn't matter, therefore, whether I could prove Colossians 3:16 commanded uninspired hymns. There is no proof possible that could convince. Maybe it is because EPers think they are on safe ground, and have no desire to move past it. I don't know, I'm just speculating at this point. But know this: if God has commanded biblical material other than the Psalms to be sung, then EP is not safe ground. I have offered reasons why I believe Colossians 3:16 commands material other than the Psalms to be sung (the connection to the whole word of God earlier in the verse, as well as the nature of the teaching and admonishing in the immediately preceding clause). You have yet to address these two arguments at all.

Well I do not much appreciate the sarcasm, but I do appreciate the consistency. It is not like the Lord's Supper or Baptism - both of which will occur in the worship of God. From your point of view, the EP position never does something it should.

I do firmly believe there is a psalm for every occasion - certainly there is a psalm more fitting for any occasion than an uninspired hymn.

I wasn't being sarcastic, brother. I think you also missed my point. Baptism, of course, only happens once, not multiple times. However, the Lord's Supper is supposed to happen frequently. It is an element of worship. You said that the only reason something would not be in a service is if you think it is sinful, and that this is the RPW. That cannot possibly be correct. If Jesus has commanded it, then, on your own stated principle, you would have to have the LS every week. Otherwise, you would be forced to think it is a sin to have it every week (if non-weekly LS is your position), since that is the only reason not to have something in a service. My point is that not all the elements have to be present every week for a service to be still faithful to the RPW. There are other reasons why an element may not be present other than that the contemplated element is "sinful."

As for the Psalm for every occasion, I will raise two possibilities. One I already posed to another poster, and one new one. I just finished preaching on the deliverance of Israel at the Red Sea. The response of the people of Israel is what is recorded in Exodus 15. What Psalm would be more appropriate to that occasion than singing Exodus 15? Second example. I just finished preaching on Isaiah 6, of which the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy," is a direct summary. Please explain to me which Psalm would be more appropriate than singing a summary of the passage itself?