Exclusive Psalmody and Biblical Inerrancy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
First of all let me say that I realise that not all people who are not convinced of EP would use the arguments that I hope to interact with.

After that qualification, let me get to the point. Does it not surprise you to hear opponents of EP, and this includes Reformed ministers, say things like we can't be EP because the Psalter does not tell us enough about Christ (Iain Murray), or that its wrong to be EP because of the imprecatory psalms (like Ps. 137) that speak of dashing the offspring of the wicked against the stones (Isaac Watts et al).

How are such views consistent with believing in the inerrancy of Scripture?

:murray::rutherford:
 
They are not really being consistent with believing in the inerrancy of Scripture.... But I think it has alot to do with the dispensational theology which is permeating churches. Many, many people have come to "Reformed" Churches or to "Reformed" Theology but with previous theological baggages left over from their Arminian, Dispensational Days. They may have left dispensationalism but still have some aspects of its theology left over... I know I did for the past couple of years with regards to the Spirit dwelling permanently in OT Saints, Exclusive Psalmody, etc... I have worked through those issues but I am sure I still have some latent aspects from my bygone years that will arise....

As for Watts.. He was an extremist and a heretic in my books... He was more then dispensational to even denying some or the whole of the Psalms themselves and called them unfit for Christians.. :wow:

He was not even Trinitarian which pulled him outside of Orthodoxy....


First of all let me say that I realise that not all people who are not convinced of EP would use the arguments that I hope to interact with.

After that qualification, let me get to the point. Does it not surprise you to hear opponents of EP, and this includes Reformed ministers, say things like we can't be EP because the Psalter does not tell us enough about Christ (Iain Murray), or that its wrong to be EP because of the imprecatory psalms (like Ps. 137) that speak of dashing the offspring of the wicked against the stones (Isaac Watts et al).

How are such views consistent with believing in the inerrancy of Scripture?

:murray::rutherford:
 
For most it probably has more to do with sufficiency than errancy.

Probably, but if the psalms are insufficient then why hasn't God added to them?

I guess that's the big question for the non-EPer. It would need to be shown that, while God gave the OT Church an inspired hymnal, he has now left the composition of praise songs up to us. Or it would need to be shown somehow that the Psalter was not the OT Church's inspired hymnal, I guess, in which case we'd really be in trouble since there's still no command for us to compose our own songs.
 
For most it probably has more to do with sufficiency than errancy.

Probably, but if the psalms are insufficient then why hasn't God added to them?

I must ask the question then, why should He? Are they to be a sufficient hymnal in themselves, is that what they were intended to be? If so, then I think this question could be asked, but it must be established first that they are necessarily a hymnal of their own and then we can ask questions over their sufficiency. For if they are not intended to be the hymnal of the church, then there isn't any reason for them to be sufficient to that end, nor is there any reason for the Sovereign to add to them in order to take them there.

Just my :2cents: :p
 
For most it probably has more to do with sufficiency than errancy.

Probably, but if the psalms are insufficient then why hasn't God added to them?

I must ask the question then of why should He? Are they to be a sufficient hymnal in themselves, is that what they were intended to be? A sufficient hymnal of their own? If so, then I think this question could be asked, but it must be established first that they are necessarily a hymnal of their own and then we can ask questions over their sufficiency. For if they are not intended to be the hymnal of the church, then there isn't any reason for them to be sufficient to that end, nor is there any reason for the Sovereign to add to them in order to take them there.

Just my :2cents: :p

So do the psalms not have tune names at the beginning, unlike any other part of scripture? Were not "the words of David and Asaph the Seer" used during congregational worship?
 
That doesn't mean that they are to be our hymnal or our only hymnal. If it did, then it would be necessary for them to be sufficient. To say that they are not sufficient as our sole hymnal when they aren't clearly meant to be is not a denial of the infalliability of Scripture, merely a statement of fact.
 
That doesn't mean that they are to be our hymnal or our only hymnal. If it did, then it would be necessary for them to be sufficient. To say that they are not sufficient as our sole hymnal when they aren't clearly meant to be is not a denial of the infalliability of Scripture, merely a statement of fact.

But then you will need to come up with the subjective grounds on which they are insufficient. The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God. So if God chose to inspire prophets to write songs in the Old Testament and then collect them into a book, and then command that they be sung, and then not do anything remotely similar in the NT, that does mean that they are meant to be our only hymnal.
 
I never argued that they were insufficient, I was just saying some of what has been said begs a few questions. ;)

I am not fit at this point to argue over the Regulative principle. I will leave that to those more well versed. :popcorn:
 
The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God.
WCF 21.1. 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.​
A "positive command" is not necessary. There is no "positive command" to baptize infants, and yet we do it. ;)
 
But then you will need to come up with the subjective grounds on which they are insufficient. The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God. So if God chose to inspire prophets to write songs in the Old Testament and then collect them into a book, and then command that they be sung, and then not do anything remotely similar in the NT, that does mean that they are meant to be our only hymnal.

Where does God command us to sing the Psalms as an element of worship in the Scripture?
 
The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God.
WCF 21.1. 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.​
A "positive command" is not necessary. There is no "positive command" to baptize infants, and yet we do it. ;)

And how will you differentiate between that which is "revealed in his own will" and that which is constituted of "the imaginations and devices of men?" Of course we need a positive command. We certainly don't look just for negative commands. There are an innumerable number of things that we could do under the auspices of worship and if we don't need positive commands then we could logically do any of those things.

We do have a positive command to put the sign of the covenant on our offspring. This is the substance of the command. "Baptism" and "Circumcision" are accidents.
 
A positive command is necessary... However, I am an Exclusive Psalmist Reformed Baptist so I will agree with your stance on no positive command to baptize infants....... :p


The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God.
WCF 21.1. 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.​
A "positive command" is not necessary. There is no "positive command" to baptize infants, and yet we do it. ;)
 
But then you will need to come up with the subjective grounds on which they are insufficient. The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God. So if God chose to inspire prophets to write songs in the Old Testament and then collect them into a book, and then command that they be sung, and then not do anything remotely similar in the NT, that does mean that they are meant to be our only hymnal.

Where does God command us to sing the Psalms as an element of worship in the Scripture?

Here are a few in the OT:

1 Chronicles 16:9 said:
Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;Talk of all His wondrous works!

2 Chronicles 29:30 said:
Moreover King Hezekiah and the leaders commanded the Levites to sing praise to the LORD with the words of David and of Asaph the seer. So they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshiped.

Nehemiah 12:8 said:
Moreover the Levites were Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, and Mattaniah who led the thanksgiving psalms, he and his brethren.

Psalm 95:2 said:
Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving;Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.

Psalm 105:2 said:
Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;Talk of all His wondrous works!
 
There is a positive command that we sing more than the psalms...

[bible]col 3:16[/bible]

And comparing that to...
[bible]eph 5:18-19[/bible]
we see that Paul draws a distinction between the pagan singing and Christian singing. Those sung by the heathen were from drunkenness and were sung for entertainment.

You can't really show that Col 3:16 refers exclusively to Psalms unless you use the Septuagint as your authoritative Scripture. And the confession of faith is clear that we should not use the Septuagint, but rather the original Hebrew as our authority.
 
There is a positive command that we sing more than the psalms...

[bible]col 3:16[/bible]

And comparing that to...
[bible]eph 5:18-19[/bible]
we see that Paul draws a distinction between the pagan singing and Christian singing. Those sung by the heathen were from drunkenness and were sung for entertainment.

You can't really show that Col 3:16 refers exclusively to Psalms unless you use the Septuagint as your authoritative Scripture. And the confession of faith is clear that we should not use the Septuagint, but rather the original Hebrew as our authority.

Nice try Larry, but the Confession teaches exclusive psalmody. Moreover, the Septuagint was the Bible used in the apostolic church, and so since the terms psalms, hymns and songs are all used in the LXX to describe psalms then we have no reason to presume that they refer to human inventions. Furthermore, please explain to me from Scripture what the difference is between a hymn and a song? And how can the words of mere men be described as the "word of Christ". Why is there not a gift of hymn writing mentioned in the NT? Who is now authorised to compose hymns? :scratch:
 
The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God.
WCF 21.1. 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.​
A "positive command" is not necessary. There is no "positive command" to baptize infants, and yet we do it. ;)

You are confusing a positive command with an explicit command, which is a straw man version of the RPW, a positive command includes what can be deduced by good and necessary consequence (i.e. can include infant baptism, women coming to the Lord's Supper etc.).
 
First, Col. 3 and Eph. 5 are known as Triadic Expression very common to Hebrew Culture and First Century Christians... We must think like a First Century Christian and not put our modern terminology onto the scripture...

Second, Personally I have NO trouble using the Septuagint which is dated 3rd Century B.C. and the Masoretic Hebrew Text is dated 4th century A.D. Which came first? Plus Christ used the Septuagint and quoted from it..



There is a positive command that we sing more than the psalms...

[bible]col 3:16[/bible]

And comparing that to...
[bible]eph 5:18-19[/bible]
we see that Paul draws a distinction between the pagan singing and Christian singing. Those sung by the heathen were from drunkenness and were sung for entertainment.

You can't really show that Col 3:16 refers exclusively to Psalms unless you use the Septuagint as your authoritative Scripture. And the confession of faith is clear that we should not use the Septuagint, but rather the original Hebrew as our authority.
 
There is a positive command that we sing more than the psalms...

[bible]col 3:16[/bible]

And comparing that to...
[bible]eph 5:18-19[/bible]
we see that Paul draws a distinction between the pagan singing and Christian singing. Those sung by the heathen were from drunkenness and were sung for entertainment.

You can't really show that Col 3:16 refers exclusively to Psalms unless you use the Septuagint as your authoritative Scripture. And the confession of faith is clear that we should not use the Septuagint, but rather the original Hebrew as our authority.

Oh, man...I really don't want to get into this again, but I'll make a few short comments.

First of all, you should be an Exclusive Psalmodist if you want to talk about the Confession. Thankfully, there are honest individuals (like, as I have been told, our own Fred Greco) who don't pretend that the Confession allows for hymns and take exception to it in this matter.

Next, the Confession also says that we are to interpret Scripture with Scripture. Therefore please tell me what "hymns" and "spiritual songs" are, if the terms are being used as anything other than a form of Triadic Expression, and please use Scripture.

Next, the phrase says "sing" them, not "write" them. So it seems that Paul is talking about an extant body of material. If you disagree, please bridge that gap for me, too, with Scripture.
 
Nice try Larry, but the Confession teaches exclusive psalmody. Moreover, the Septuagint was the Bible used in the apostolic church, and so since the terms psalms, hymns and songs are all used in the LXX to describe psalms then we have no reason to presume that they refer to human inventions. Furthermore, please explain to me from Scripture what the difference is between a hymn and a song? And how can the words of mere men be described as the "word of Christ". Why is there not a gift of hymn writing mentioned in the NT? Who is now authorised to compose hymns? :scratch:

Please show where the Confession teaches "exclusive" psalmody.

Yes, the LXX describes Psalms as you have posted. But no, we are not to look to the Septuagint for settling disputes.

The difference between a hymn and a song...
A "hymn" would be much more simple, while a "song" would be a more structured metrical composition.

The "word of Christ" is not a reference to songs, but to the preaching of the word of God. And yes, preaching is done through the words of mere men.

For your last question you are presuming that there needs to be authorization to make praise songs to God.

I would also point out that Paul actually quoted from hymns and songs that were sung in his time and outside of the book of Psalms (Phil 2:6-11; Eph 5:14; 2 Tim 2:11-13)
 
Since thread has started, just a fair warning, that since the EP debate will begin in the next week or two or so, DV, pursuant to how the debate rules are set, this thread or any others will get closed for the duration of the formal debate and there will be a moratorium on all things EP as far as new threads as well.:cheers:
 
The difference between a hymn and a song...
A "hymn" would be much more simple, while a "song" would be a more structured metrical composition.

Those are interesting definitions. In which passages did you find them? I asked that you use scripture to interpret scripture.

Also, I didn't say "song," I (and Paul) said "spiritual song." When the word "spiritual" is used in other contexts, does it have to do with man or with the Holy Spirit? Paul says the "law" is spiritual. Is it from man? He talks about "spiritual gifts." Who gives those? Are "spiritual blessings" from man? Why are people spiritual? Because they are indwelt by the Spirit. Just do a search for "spiritual" at biblegateway.
 
Those are interesting definitions. In which passages did you find them? I said to use scripture.

Also, I didn't say "song," I (and Paul) said "spiritual song." When the word "spiritual" is used in other contexts, does it have to do with man or with the Holy Spirit? Paul says the "law" is spiritual. Is it from man? He talks about "spiritual gifts." Who gives those? Are "spiritual blessings" from man? Why are people spiritual? Because they are indwelt by the Spirit. Just do a search for "spiritual" at biblegateway.

I wasn't answering your post, i was answering Daniel Ritchie.

Your ideas on the word "spiritual" are interesting, but have nothing to do with the debate. You would have to show that "spiritual" always meant that it was written in the Scripture for it to have anything to do with the questions at hand.
 
Those are interesting definitions. In which passages did you find them? I said to use scripture.

Also, I didn't say "song," I (and Paul) said "spiritual song." When the word "spiritual" is used in other contexts, does it have to do with man or with the Holy Spirit? Paul says the "law" is spiritual. Is it from man? He talks about "spiritual gifts." Who gives those? Are "spiritual blessings" from man? Why are people spiritual? Because they are indwelt by the Spirit. Just do a search for "spiritual" at biblegateway.

I wasn't answering your post, i was answering Daniel Ritchie.

Your ideas on the word "spiritual" are interesting, but have nothing to do with the debate. You would have to show that "spiritual" always meant that it was written in the Scripture for it to have anything to do with the questions at hand.

It has to do with the debate because of, once again, the allegory of faith. We must deal with the issue of defining terms. In important matters such as these we, in accordance with the Confession, allow scripture to interpret itself. It would require strong evidence, indeed, to take a word that means one thing in many other occurrences and give it a new definition (that, of course, helpfully reinforces your conclusion already) in this one place. I encourage you again to look at the usage of the word "spiritual" in the New Testament.

And this takes us back to your assertion that "hymn" and "spiritual song" are something other than the 150 Psalms. If this is so, then you must demonstrate what these things are from Scripture if you agree with me that the Regulative Principle of Worship is a true guide. If you attempt to define them yourself, apart from the allegory of faith, then you are saying that God has commanded us to do something but has given us no guidelines for that thing in His revelation. The EPers are at least trying to maintain the allegory of faith by a) providing other examples of Triadic Expression in scripture and thereby showing that this literary device is by no means awkward, mysterious or uncommon for the biblical authors, b) looking at the titles of the Psalms, c) pointing out that scripture gives us no definition of those words, d) pointing to passages like the one where Jesus and the disciples "sing a hymn (lit. they "hymn")" after the Passover meal, i.e. the Hillel psalms (113-118).

And with that I shall bow out. We could round and round about this for days, as has happened many a time, but I don't think that we would cover any new ground. I know that these positions have been much more ably defended by more learned men in other threads.
 
The Reformed (Regulative) Principle of Worship requires a positive command for any element of worship offered to God.
WCF 21.1. 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.​
A "positive command" is not necessary. There is no "positive command" to baptize infants, and yet we do it. ;)

And how will you differentiate between that which is "revealed in his own will" and that which is constituted of "the imaginations and devices of men?" Of course we need a positive command. We certainly don't look just for negative commands. There are an innumerable number of things that we could do under the auspices of worship and if we don't need positive commands then we could logically do any of those things.

We do have a positive command to put the sign of the covenant on our offspring. This is the substance of the command. "Baptism" and "Circumcision" are accidents.
Where is this "positive command to put the sign of the covenant on our offspring"? Substance/accidence are philosophical/theological categories to help us understand what God requires, but God nowhere positively commands us "baptize your infants." Don't confuse good and necessary consequence with an explicit, positive command.
 
Probably, but if the psalms are insufficient then why hasn't God added to them?
He has, it's called the New Testament.

And where exactly is the additional hymnbook in the NT?
There isn't one. My concern is that you are applying a valid dogma of the church (the sufficiency of Scripture) to a situation it's not meant to address. Scripture is sufficient for all things, but it doesn't logically follow that therefore those who deny exclusive psalmody have denied the sufficiency of Scripture (which says that all Scripture is sufficient, and not that only the Psalms are sufficient). What John Frame has done with the regulative principle in applying it to all-of-life, you have done with the sufficiency of Scripture in regards to exclusive psalmody. The problem in both cases is that the doctrine (whether RPW or the sufficiency of Scripture) is being applied to an illegitimate situation, one that it was never intended to address.
 
WCF 21.1. 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.​
A "positive command" is not necessary. There is no "positive command" to baptize infants, and yet we do it. ;)

And how will you differentiate between that which is "revealed in his own will" and that which is constituted of "the imaginations and devices of men?" Of course we need a positive command. We certainly don't look just for negative commands. There are an innumerable number of things that we could do under the auspices of worship and if we don't need positive commands then we could logically do any of those things.

We do have a positive command to put the sign of the covenant on our offspring. This is the substance of the command. "Baptism" and "Circumcision" are accidents.
Where is this "positive command to put the sign of the covenant on our offspring"? Substance/accidence are philosophical/theological categories to help us understand what God requires, but God nowhere positively commands us "baptize your infants." Don't confuse good and necessary consequence with an explicit, positive command.

I'll respond to this since you and I were discussing a topic different than Larry and I.

The Abrahamic Covenant by nature is an "everlasting covenant" and God commanded Abraham to put a certain sign on his children, saying that this would be a part of what we do to remember the covenant forever. The removal of the foreskin and the consequent application only to males are accidents. The substance of both signs is the signification of new life, be it the removal of sin or the cleansing with water. They signify the same thing. This is what I mean when I say that we have a positive command to apply the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace on our offspring, which appears 'accidentally' in two forms throughout redemptive history.

He has, it's called the New Testament.

And where exactly is the additional hymnbook in the NT?
There isn't one. My concern is that you are applying a valid dogma of the church (the sufficiency of Scripture) to a situation it's not meant to address. Scripture is sufficient for all things, but it doesn't logically follow that therefore those who deny exclusive psalmody have denied the sufficiency of Scripture (which says that all Scripture is sufficient, and not that only the Psalms are sufficient). What John Frame has done with the regulative principle in applying it to all-of-life, you have done with the sufficiency of Scripture in regards to exclusive psalmody. The problem in both cases is that the doctrine (whether RPW or the sufficiency of Scripture) is being applied to an illegitimate situation, one that it was never intended to address.

We're not asserting a broad insufficiency. No one said that non-EPers completely deny the doctrine of sufficiency of scripture. We believe that the RPW only allows for the singing of Psalms. Others disagree with us, but many of them do not agree on grounds allowed by the RPW. They say things like "We don't believe that Christ is openly mentioned enough in the Psalms." They have their own idea about what worship is supposed to look like instead of extracting their understanding from Scripture. Then, when the Psalms don't match up to their preconceived requirements, they say that we must write our own songs. This is not an argument from the RPW, which is what is required in matters of worship. It is an argument of sufficiency within the context of worship based on a false understanding of what proper worship is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top