Best Hymnody Inclusive Arguments

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those that take Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 to refer the Psalms are at least in good company in their folly, with a Perkins, an Ainsworth, a Manton, a Gill, an Owen, an Edwards, and a Murray. This has been discussed numerous times in this forum (do a search); below are a few quotations.

William Perkins (1558-1602), the “father of English Puritanism:” “[The Book of] Psalms contains sacred songs suitable for every condition of the church and its individual members, composed to be sung with grace in the heart (Col. 3:16)” (The Art of Prophesying, p. 14).

Henry Ainsworth (1571-1622), English Puritan, scholar in Hebrew and Rabbinics, commenting on Psalm 3: “There be three kinds of songs mentioned in this book: 1. Mizmor, in Greek psalmos, a psalm: 2. Tehillah, in Greek humnos, a hymn or praise: and 3. Shir, in Greek ode, a song or lay. All these three the apostle mentioneth together, where he willeth us to speak to ourselves with ‘psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,’ Ephesians 5:19.”

John Robinson (c.1576-1625), the minister of many of the Congregationalist settlers who journeyed to Plymouth Colony, New England: “What is required touching singing of psalms in the church? That they be such as are parts of the Word of God, formed by the Holy Ghost into psalms or songs, which many may conveniently sing together, exhorting and admonishing themselves mutually with grace in their hearts (Matt. 26:30; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).”

John Cotton (1584-1652), New England Congregationalist theologian: “In both which places (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16), as the apostle exhorteth us to singing, so he instructeth us what the matter of our song should be, to wit, Psalmes, hymnes, and spirituall Songs. Now these three be the very titles of the Songs of David, as they are delivered to us by the Holy Ghost himself: some of them are called Mizmorim, that is Psalmes; some Tehillim, that is Hymnes; some Shirim, that is Songs, spirituall Songs. Now what reason can be given why the apostle should direct us in our singing to the very titles of David’s Psalms, if it were not his meaning that we should sing them? … The words of David and Asaph, as they were the words of Christ in the mouth of David and Asaph: so they were the words of Christ also in the mouths of the sonnes of Corah, or any other singers in the Temple.”

The Annotations of the Dutch Bible (1637) ordered and appointed by the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619) on Ephesians 5:19: “These three sorts of spiritual singing serve for one end. Namely to recreate the spirit; and are by some thus distinguished, that Psalms are all kind of spiritual songs, which are exercised, not only with the voice, but also with stringed instruments of music. Hymns, thanksgivings unto God, or metrical celebrations of God’s grace to us: and spiritual songs such indicting as contains all manner of spiritual doctrines. See also Col. 3:16, and these several names seem to be taken from the several inscriptions of the Psalms of David” (spelling modernized).

The Preface to The Bay Psalm Book (1640), the first book to be printed in New England: “… the whole Church is commanded to teach one another in all the several sorts of David’s psalms, some being called by himself Mizmorim: psalms, some Tehillim: hymns, some Shirim: spiritual songs. So that if the singing of David’s psalms be a moral duty and therefore perpetual; then we under the New Testament are bound to sing them as well as they under the Old: and if we are expressly commanded to sing Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), then either we must sing David’s psalms, or else may affirm they are not spiritual songs: which being penned by an extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, for the sake especially of God’s spiritual Israel, not to be read and preached only (as other parts of holy writ) but to be sung also, they are therefore most spiritual, and still to be sung of all the Israel of God: and verily as their sin is exceeding great, who will allow David’s psalms (as other scriptures) to be read in churches (which is one end) but not to be preached also, which is another end so their sin is crying before God, who will allow them to be read and preached, but seek to deprive the Lord of the glory of the third end of them, which is to sing them in Christian churches.”

Thomas Manton (1620-1677), English Puritan, commenting on Ephesians 5:19: “The learned observe, these are the express titles of David’s Psalms, mizmorim, tehillim, and Shirim, which the Septuagint translate, psalmoi, humnoi, and odai, ‘psalms, hymns, and songs,’ [and] seem to recommend to us the book of David’s Psalms.”

The twenty-six Puritan signatories of the Preface to the 1673 London edition of the Scottish Metrical Psalter: “… to us David’s Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of ‘psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,’ which the apostle useth (Eph. 5.19; Col. 3.16)” (the signatories include John Owen, Thomas Manton, Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, Thomas Vincent and William Jenkyn).

Dr. John Gill (1697-1771), English Baptist, commenting on Ephesians 5:19: “By psalms are meant the Psalms of David, and others that compose the book that goes with that name; and by hymns we are to understand, not such as are made by good men, without the inspiration of the Spirit of God; since they are placed between psalms and spiritual songs, made by men inspired by the Holy Ghost … but these are only another name for the book of Psalms, the running title of which may as well be the book of Hymns, as it is rendered by Ainsworth … and by spiritual songs are meant the same Psalms of David, Asaph, etc. and the titles of many of them are songs … These three words answer to Mizmorim, Tehillim, and Shirim, the several titles of David’s Psalms …”

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758): “Another thing God did towards this work at that time was His inspiring David to show forth Christ and His redemption in Divine songs, which should be for the use of the Church in public worship throughout all ages. This was also a glorious advancement of the office of redemption, as God hereby gave His Church a book of divine songs for their use in that part of their public worship–viz., singing His praises throughout all ages to the end of the world. It is manifest the Book of Psalms was given of God for this end. David is called the “sweet Psalmist of Israel” (II Sam. 23:1), because he penned Psalms for the use of the Church of Israel; and we find the same are appointed in the New Testament to be made use of in their worship: ‘Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs’ (Eph. 5:19).”

John Brown of Haddington (1722-1787), Scottish Presbyterian, author of the Self-Interpreting Bible: “The Holy Ghost hath, under the New [Testament], plainly directed us to the use thereof [i.e., of the Psalms], Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19. The Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs, there recommended, are plainly the same with the Mizmorim, Tehillim, and Shirim, mentioned in the Hebrew titles of David’s Psalms, 3, 4, 5, etc.; 145, 120, 134.”

John Murray (1898-1975), professor at Westminster Theological Seminary: “Paul’s usage will show that the word ‘Spiritual’ is derived from the Holy Spirit. ‘Spiritual words’ (I Cor. 2:13) are words taught of the Holy Spirit. The ‘Spiritual man’ (I Cor. 2:15) is the man indwelt and controlled by the Holy Spirit. ‘Spiritual songs’ (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) are songs indicted by the Holy Spirit. ‘Spiritual understanding’ (Col. 1:9) is the understanding imparted by the Holy Spirit (cf. also Rom. 1:11; I Cor. 3:1; 10:3-4; 12:1; 15:44, 46; I Pet. 2:5)” (Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1, p. 254).

These and others are found at this link.
 
Those that take Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 to refer the Psalms are at least in good company in their folly, with a Perkins, an Ainsworth, a Manton, a Gill, an Owen, an Edwards, and a Murray. This has been discussed numerous times in this forum (do a search); below are a few quotations.

William Perkins (1558-1602), the “father of English Puritanism:” “[The Book of] Psalms contains sacred songs suitable for every condition of the church and its individual members, composed to be sung with grace in the heart (Col. 3:16)” (The Art of Prophesying, p. 14).

Henry Ainsworth (1571-1622), English Puritan, scholar in Hebrew and Rabbinics, commenting on Psalm 3: “There be three kinds of songs mentioned in this book: 1. Mizmor, in Greek psalmos, a psalm: 2. Tehillah, in Greek humnos, a hymn or praise: and 3. Shir, in Greek ode, a song or lay. All these three the apostle mentioneth together, where he willeth us to speak to ourselves with ‘psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,’ Ephesians 5:19.”

John Robinson (c.1576-1625), the minister of many of the Congregationalist settlers who journeyed to Plymouth Colony, New England: “What is required touching singing of psalms in the church? That they be such as are parts of the Word of God, formed by the Holy Ghost into psalms or songs, which many may conveniently sing together, exhorting and admonishing themselves mutually with grace in their hearts (Matt. 26:30; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).”

John Cotton (1584-1652), New England Congregationalist theologian: “In both which places (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16), as the apostle exhorteth us to singing, so he instructeth us what the matter of our song should be, to wit, Psalmes, hymnes, and spirituall Songs. Now these three be the very titles of the Songs of David, as they are delivered to us by the Holy Ghost himself: some of them are called Mizmorim, that is Psalmes; some Tehillim, that is Hymnes; some Shirim, that is Songs, spirituall Songs. Now what reason can be given why the apostle should direct us in our singing to the very titles of David’s Psalms, if it were not his meaning that we should sing them? … The words of David and Asaph, as they were the words of Christ in the mouth of David and Asaph: so they were the words of Christ also in the mouths of the sonnes of Corah, or any other singers in the Temple.”

The Annotations of the Dutch Bible (1637) ordered and appointed by the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619) on Ephesians 5:19: “These three sorts of spiritual singing serve for one end. Namely to recreate the spirit; and are by some thus distinguished, that Psalms are all kind of spiritual songs, which are exercised, not only with the voice, but also with stringed instruments of music. Hymns, thanksgivings unto God, or metrical celebrations of God’s grace to us: and spiritual songs such indicting as contains all manner of spiritual doctrines. See also Col. 3:16, and these several names seem to be taken from the several inscriptions of the Psalms of David” (spelling modernized).

The Preface to The Bay Psalm Book (1640), the first book to be printed in New England: “… the whole Church is commanded to teach one another in all the several sorts of David’s psalms, some being called by himself Mizmorim: psalms, some Tehillim: hymns, some Shirim: spiritual songs. So that if the singing of David’s psalms be a moral duty and therefore perpetual; then we under the New Testament are bound to sing them as well as they under the Old: and if we are expressly commanded to sing Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), then either we must sing David’s psalms, or else may affirm they are not spiritual songs: which being penned by an extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, for the sake especially of God’s spiritual Israel, not to be read and preached only (as other parts of holy writ) but to be sung also, they are therefore most spiritual, and still to be sung of all the Israel of God: and verily as their sin is exceeding great, who will allow David’s psalms (as other scriptures) to be read in churches (which is one end) but not to be preached also, which is another end so their sin is crying before God, who will allow them to be read and preached, but seek to deprive the Lord of the glory of the third end of them, which is to sing them in Christian churches.”

Thomas Manton (1620-1677), English Puritan, commenting on Ephesians 5:19: “The learned observe, these are the express titles of David’s Psalms, mizmorim, tehillim, and Shirim, which the Septuagint translate, psalmoi, humnoi, and odai, ‘psalms, hymns, and songs,’ [and] seem to recommend to us the book of David’s Psalms.”

The twenty-six Puritan signatories of the Preface to the 1673 London edition of the Scottish Metrical Psalter: “… to us David’s Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of ‘psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,’ which the apostle useth (Eph. 5.19; Col. 3.16)” (the signatories include John Owen, Thomas Manton, Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, Thomas Vincent and William Jenkyn).

Dr. John Gill (1697-1771), English Baptist, commenting on Ephesians 5:19: “By psalms are meant the Psalms of David, and others that compose the book that goes with that name; and by hymns we are to understand, not such as are made by good men, without the inspiration of the Spirit of God; since they are placed between psalms and spiritual songs, made by men inspired by the Holy Ghost … but these are only another name for the book of Psalms, the running title of which may as well be the book of Hymns, as it is rendered by Ainsworth … and by spiritual songs are meant the same Psalms of David, Asaph, etc. and the titles of many of them are songs … These three words answer to Mizmorim, Tehillim, and Shirim, the several titles of David’s Psalms …”

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758): “Another thing God did towards this work at that time was His inspiring David to show forth Christ and His redemption in Divine songs, which should be for the use of the Church in public worship throughout all ages. This was also a glorious advancement of the office of redemption, as God hereby gave His Church a book of divine songs for their use in that part of their public worship–viz., singing His praises throughout all ages to the end of the world. It is manifest the Book of Psalms was given of God for this end. David is called the “sweet Psalmist of Israel” (II Sam. 23:1), because he penned Psalms for the use of the Church of Israel; and we find the same are appointed in the New Testament to be made use of in their worship: ‘Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs’ (Eph. 5:19).”

John Brown of Haddington (1722-1787), Scottish Presbyterian, author of the Self-Interpreting Bible: “The Holy Ghost hath, under the New [Testament], plainly directed us to the use thereof [i.e., of the Psalms], Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19. The Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs, there recommended, are plainly the same with the Mizmorim, Tehillim, and Shirim, mentioned in the Hebrew titles of David’s Psalms, 3, 4, 5, etc.; 145, 120, 134.”

John Murray (1898-1975), professor at Westminster Theological Seminary: “Paul’s usage will show that the word ‘Spiritual’ is derived from the Holy Spirit. ‘Spiritual words’ (I Cor. 2:13) are words taught of the Holy Spirit. The ‘Spiritual man’ (I Cor. 2:15) is the man indwelt and controlled by the Holy Spirit. ‘Spiritual songs’ (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) are songs indicted by the Holy Spirit. ‘Spiritual understanding’ (Col. 1:9) is the understanding imparted by the Holy Spirit (cf. also Rom. 1:11; I Cor. 3:1; 10:3-4; 12:1; 15:44, 46; I Pet. 2:5)” (Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1, p. 254).

These and others are found at this link.

Yes, even great men are fallible.

I could reply to your other post that IP is contra Westminster, but I really appreciate how the OP discourages debate.

Thank you all for a great thread!
 
I hope not to spur debate but it has now been said multiple times that “there is no command to sing the Psalms exclusively”.

If that is what you believe EP claims or has to prove, then I do not believe you understand the position on this point, regardless of your own conclusions.

We should all agree that the Bible clearly and unapologetically commands the saints sing the Psalms. What EP advocates look for is a command for laymen to write their own songs and sing those songs as worship. Since EP advocates do not find this express command, they are left by a DEFAULT only with The Psalms.

Again not debating about whether you feel there is a command to write/use new songs but just adding a point of clarity for how the EP position has been portrayed above.

Yes EPers love psalter use in worship (as I hope we all do), but we would equally love newer theologically sound hymns as worship if we were compelled there was a command to write and use doctrinally sound uninspired (vs. scripture is inspired) words.

Mods feel free to delete if you feel I’m debating.
 
Last edited:
The biggest problem with EP lies in the insistence that the phrase, ψαλμοῖς, καὶ ὕμνοις, καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs) means nothing more than "psalms, psalms, and more psalms." It simply cannot be proven from Scripture that these three terms must be interpreted in such a manner.

Yes, and in conjunction with my point in post #10, rather than seeing these three terms as synonyms, we see them as comprehensive-- we sing all kinds of praises to God! This is completely consistent with the biblical example in both testaments.

And as for the LXX, we can find all three categories outside of the book of Psalms, so while we can concur that all three categories are used in the LXX translation of the Psalms, there is still no evidence for the exclusive in EP. In fact, the LXX's use further proves inclusivity, not exclusivity.
 
Yes, even great men are fallible.

I could reply to your other post that IP is contra Westminster, but I really appreciate how the OP discourages debate.

Thank you all for a great thread!
Great, but not foolish or so ignorant to conclude this I trust, which is the reason, not as an appeal to authority, that I posted this who's who of past theologians, to show it is not some group of rubes who held this opinion, but accomplished men. On the work of the Westminster assembly of divines, while I am not a trained scholar, I have walked the miles as far as looking in this subject in relation to the work of the assembly. It is simply more than a bit of a stretch to claim they left a door open for hymns in public worship in their work. Just disagree and take exception to their meaning like Fred did. Folks can search the archives on the case for what the Westminster divines work was and meant, coverage of the various arguments some have attempted, etc.
 
Not culled for relevance but here is a search that has most of what I've said (and consequently others with discussion) over the years on the Westminster Assembly's intent and meaning of psalms in their various productions (WCF, Catechism, Directory for Worship). Link.
 
It is simply more than a bit of a stretch to claim they left a door open for hymns in public worship in their work. Just disagree and take exception to their meaning like Fred did.

If I subscribed to Westminster as an elder, I suppose I would have to consider your point. Since I took an oath of subscription to the Three Forms, I don't have any skin in this game in relation to this particular issue.

Blessings!
 
Then maybe you shouldn't have opined and raised the doubt that the assembly did leave the door open if you have no serious interest in the question.
If I subscribed to Westminster as an elder, I suppose I would have to consider your point. Since I took an oath of subscription to the Three Forms, I don't have any skin in this game in relation to this particular issue.

Blessings!
 
Let’s not get too feisty, I have benefited from Tim’s challenges and I do gather that he is trying to be helpful for the OP.
 
Last edited:
I think we should stick to the no debate idea. I have my leanings and arguments but for now I really want to hear what people who are non ep think are the best arguments. So far it’s been varied.
 
Great, but not foolish or so ignorant to conclude this I trust, which is the reason, not as an appeal to authority, that I posted this who's who of past theologians, to show it is not some group of rubes who held this opinion, but accomplished men. On the work of the Westminster assembly of divines, while I am not a trained scholar, I have walked the miles as far as looking in this subject in relation to the work of the assembly. It is simply more than a bit of a stretch to claim they left a door open for hymns in public worship in their work. Just disagree and take exception to their meaning like Fred did. Folks can search the archives on the case for what the Westminster divines work was and meant, coverage of the various arguments some have attempted, etc.
And this leads to an another argument against EP. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You can find such authorities against EP as well.
 
And this leads to an another argument against EP. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. You can find such authorities against EP as well.
His appeal to other authorities was not to ground the EP doctrine, but rather to show that the position’s interpretation of Eph/Col. is not some lazy, new-age, foreign, or anti-confessional exegesis (I’m not implying yours is either mind you). In fact I know a few non-EP brothers who interpret those same verses to only be talking about the book of Psalms. So I’m not sure your categorization of “logical fallacy” is correct. I believe Chris was simply stating a fact as opposed to an attempt to provide sole reasoning for the EP stance.
 
Last edited:
The biggest problem with EP lies in the insistence that the phrase, ψαλμοῖς, καὶ ὕμνοις, καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs) means nothing more than "psalms, psalms, and more psalms." It simply cannot be proven from Scripture that these three terms must be interpreted in such a manner. . .But there simply is no express command in God's Word to sing the Book of Psalms exclusively.

Exactly. The strongest argument in favor of the use of uninspired hymns is that Scripture nowhere prohibits them. - OT or NT, either expressly or by implication.
 
Moderating.
Folks, when an OP asks for a narrow set of responses and no debate, that should be honored as much as possible with allowance for defenses and corrections when a post mischaracterizes something. EP is the closest thing analogous to the baptism division on the board as far as intensity, and with baptism, that resulted many years ago in the board having to set up “safe spaces” where each side can go and talk about their own view. While having to do this was not ideal and regrettable given the reason, this has worked out to date without resulting in giving spaces for one side to be able to criticize the other unfairly with impunity, which would require intervention by moderators. That by way of background to say, the moderators do not want to have to set up separate forums divided along disputes over the elements of worship like EP vs. non EP.

Threads like this one artificially in miniature create this sort of safe space environment, and requires more moderator attention, but nevertheless, when a member asks for responses to a question only from EP or non EP members (and this goes for any similar topic/request), that is not an invitation to "have at it" with the opposing view. That invites defenses and corrections, etc. Give dispassionate responses for the information requested. Otherwise, the life of such a thread will be rocky such as this one has been, and simply creates a situation the moderators have to spend time dealing with. We are down to very few moderators and admins who are on the board for any meaningful stretch of time (hence why I’m posting this note when someone not involved in the thread would have been preferable; but neither is it preferable to let this matter sit for days or not be addressed at all). Members should self moderate on such threads and use the report feature if necessary.

Now on top of this overall issue, far more serious on this thread, given the confessional nature of the board, is the insistence by some at the very least in a loose way of speaking, on a normative principle in justifying a practice like singing hymns in worship or being required for condemning hymns in worship. What is required to prove a public ordinance of worship is prescription in Scripture, a jus divinum (a divine establishment if you will). The regulative principle of worship is one of the bed rock doctrines of the Reformed faith and most certainly of Puritanism. See some of these old threads and an old admonition by Rich.

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/what-this-is-a-reformed-board.24779/

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/regulative-vs-normative-principle-mw-citing-jdre.98959/

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/regulative-principle-of-everything.81772/#post-1029185 See the full article now posted given at the link in this thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...vey-of-the-worship-views-of-frame-gore.81724/

and you can search and find many more threads here on the subject.

For worship song the argument is what is clearly prescribed and thus warranted to sing in public worship, psalms, or psalms+. The arguments and counter arguments flow from that question. It is not required by proponents of EP to show that hymns are explicitly forbidden. That gives hymns absolutely no standing as far as a divine prescription for their use. To say that is to adduce the normative principle (if it is not forbidden it is allowable in worship) and imposes an unbiblical burden of argument on one side in this debate.

Moderators will give this thread a rest unless the thread author thinks there are more answers yet to his OP still out there worthwhile to venture reopening, in which case he can contact a moderator to request it be reopened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top