Exclusive Psalmody

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:f324f89c7f="puritansailor"][quote:f324f89c7f="fredtgreco"]The far better analogy is prayer. We are commanded to pray, we are given many, many prayers in the Scripture - from a far greater range of redemptive history, I might add - and no one advocates that we only pray Scripture.[/quote:f324f89c7f]

Prayer and song are not the same. [/quote:f324f89c7f]

I agree that prayer and song are not the same, and are not a good analogy.

In the PCA Book of Church Order, prayer is treated in an analagous fashion to preaching in corporate worship, 1) it is to be done by ministers alone, and 2) it is to be done after much study and preparation.

"It is proper to begin the public worship in the sanctuary with the Doxology followed by a short prayer, in which the minister shall lead the people, ..." (52-1)

"Ministers are not to be confined to fixed forms of prayer for public worship, yet it is the duty of the minister, previous to entering upon his office, to prepare and qualify himself for this part of his work, as well as for preaching." (52-4)

The BCO pattern for corporate prayer is scriptural prayer, e.g., "It is appropriate that this [opening] prayer conclude with the Lord"(tm)s Prayer in which all may unite." (52-1)

Granted that BCO 52 is only advisory in the PCA, but it speaks well to the various responsibilities in corporate worship.
 
Tom,

Right on. Prayer is led and the congregation agrees to it. In congregational singing there must be an agreed upon text to sing. Everyone doesn't just start humming and tonally reciting praises (unless we're dealing with the "charismatic" abberation), rather the congregation takes up their hymnal and sings in unison...or 4-part harmony. :bs2:
 
[quote:960f77dc71="blhowes"]I was wondering if anybody knew what was sung during the worship services before David and others wrote the Psalms? Were they limited to just the songs that are mentioned in the scriptures, which include (though probably not exhaustibly) the following scriptures?
[/quote:960f77dc71]

There were other psalms written before David. Some were written by the Sons of Korah. One was written by Moses. Just to name a few. But David by far was the most prolific.
 
Ian,

You know I despise dispensationalism.

Do you think there is a difference between progressive revelation, and dispensationalism? I know you would say yes.

That still leaves us with the dilemma of singing about Aaron's beard anointed with oil, ceremonial sacrifices, etc. For example:

Psalm 118:3 Let the house of Aaron now say, "His mercy endures forever."

Now, I aqm not in the house of Aaron, nor am I a Levitical Preist.

Or,

Psalm 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!

Etc.

What needs to happen is an INTERPRETATION of these verses to make them intelligible to us, and have a hermeneutical shift take place. How could we take that hermeneutical shift without NT interpretation? So the road to making it EP doe snot seem to fit the exegetical framework either.
 
[quote:9d0ab6003c="webmaster"]Ian,
What needs to happen is an INTERPRETATION of these verses to make them intelligible to us, and have a hermeneutical shift take place. How could we take that hermeneutical shift without NT interpretation? So the road to making it EP does not seem to fit the exegetical framework either.[/quote:9d0ab6003c]

Interpretation perhaps, but this is not grounds for new un-inspired texts. What really needs to happen is for the congregation to be instructed by the ministers about the meaning of those difficult psalms. That way when they do sing them they can sing with understanding.
 
Just curious,

What do the EP adherants who are members of non-EP churches do when the congregation stands to sing "Holy, Holy, Holy"? Do you sit with your arms folded? Do you stand and not sing?
 
I can't speak for others, but when I am visiting a hymn-singing church, I stand respectfully yet quietly when the hymn is sung.

This points out yet another problem with the hymns -- they divide rather than unite. All Christians ought to be able to sing the Psalms, which are the Word of God. The same cannot be said of hymns, which reflect the time, place and bias of the composer, and often carry corresponding theological baggage. The unity of the brethren is to be found in the Word of Christ not the word of man, however well-intentioned.
 
[quote:ac2c5e3bec="VirginiaHuguenot"]This points out yet another problem with the hymns -- they divide rather than unite. All Christians ought to be able to sing the Psalms, which are the Word of God. The same cannot be said of hymns, which reflect the time, place and bias of the composer, and often carry corresponding theological baggage. The unity of the brethren is to be found in the Word of Christ not the word of man, however well-intentioned.[/quote:ac2c5e3bec]

Well, under that perspective, the same can be said of sermons.
 
[quote:b1d98ba9d8="Ianterrell"]John,

you know the nt texts well enough they are 5:18,19; Col 3:16; James 5:13. That for me is sufficient as a command to obey. There is more of course but you seem to want an exhaustive argument. I've already provided a fine article by Mr. Williamson which begins what you are demanding. I'd invite you to invest time in it, its not tedious reading.

As to your claim that no one is dealing with the scriptures I really cannot agree. All along the scriptures have been appealed to! I think that we might be observing an all together different thread. [/quote:b1d98ba9d8]

No, Ian, I am not asking for an exhaustive argument. I am asking for it to established just like doctrine is, if it is going to be a doctrinal issue. And that is how this is being presented, as a doctrine.

Last night I was frustrated over many things, mostly of a personal nature. I said more in my post than I should have. I usually don't get this way, but it happens from time to time. I want rather to be willing to let the EP-ers make their case as best they can, and then look into it to the best of my limited ability. But it is true that I am not convinced by a long shot, and mostly because of the nature of the arguments presented, Williamson and Bahnsen notwithstanding. In the meantime, please accept my apologies for getting my dander up. I'll try to behave from now on.
 
Sermons that are preached with faithfulness to the Word of God indeed should unite God's people; sermons that are not faithful to God's Word will also divide the brethren. It can also be said that truth will divide itself from error.

As has been noted before, there is a fundamental difference between the ordinance of preaching and that of singing. The minister is to preach from God's Word and give the sense of it. There is flexibility but faithfulness to the revealed will of God is required. The Psalter is given to us that we (the congregation) might praise God in song with words that are suitable, which we know to be the case because they were indited by the Holy Spirit. God Himself has paved the way for us to approach Him in the song of praise. He has not written sermons ahead of time for the minister to preach in a rote manner, but He has written psalms for the congregation to sing to His praise. Those psalms cover the tremendous range of human experience. We have flexibility to choose which psalms we will sing and when, but not whether to sing God's Word versus man's.

God's command for us to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is in the context of the admontion to let the word of Christ dwell in us richly (Col. 3.16). This makes sense in the context of using the Psalter which is indeed the Word of Christ.

What else can promote true unity besides the Word of Christ?
 
[quote:142c418a29="VirginiaHuguenot"]Sermons that are preached with faithfulness to the Word of God indeed should unite God's people; sermons that are not faithful to God's Word will also divide the brethren. It can also be said that truth will divide itself from error.[/quote:142c418a29]

Indeed - and we believe that hymns that are written with lyrics faithful to the Word of God will unite as well, whereas both sermons and hymns that are not faithful to the Word of God will divide.

[quote:142c418a29="VirginiaHuguenot"]The minister is to preach from God's Word and give the sense of it. There is flexibility but faithfulness to the revealed will of God is required.[/quote:142c418a29]

And we believe that the hymnist is likewise to compose lyrics that are soundly based on God's Word, and that while flexibility is allowed, faithfulness to Scripture is required.

[quote:142c418a29="VirginiaHuguenot"]The Psalter is given to us that we (the congregation) might praise God in song with words that are suitable, which we know to be the case because they were indited by the Holy Spirit. God Himself has paved the way for us to approach Him in the song of praise. He has not written sermons ahead of time for the minister to preach in a rote manner, but He has written psalms for the congregation to sing to His praise.[/quote:142c418a29]

Not true. He has indeed written sermons in Scripture. For one thing, we have the sermon on the mount. Furthermore, many lengthy, topic-specific portions of the Pauline epistles can rightly be considered sermons just as well as the Psalms are songs. God indeed gives us examples of preaching in the Bible - but no one tries to confine our preaching to those words exactly, but only with their guiding principles. EP adherants change that standard when consideration shifts from biblical sermons to biblical songs.

[quote:142c418a29="VirginiaHuguenot"]God's command for us to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is in the context of the admontion to let the word of Christ dwell in us richly (Col. 3.16). This makes sense in the context of using the Psalter which is indeed the Word of Christ.[/quote:142c418a29]

But you can't consistently use the command to let the word of Christ dwell in us as a support for only singing the Psalms, since you say that the other portions of Scripture that are equally "the word of Christ" are not to be sung.

[quote:142c418a29="VirginiaHuguenot"]What else can promote true unity besides the Word of Christ?[/quote:142c418a29]

The exposition and interpretation of that Word by godly men - both in word and in song.
 
[quote:cdfe63bdaa="VirginiaHuguenot"]I can't speak for others, but when I am visiting a hymn-singing church, I stand respectfully yet quietly when the hymn is sung.

This points out yet another problem with the hymns -- they divide rather than unite. All Christians ought to be able to sing the Psalms, which are the Word of God. The same cannot be said of hymns, which reflect the time, place and bias of the composer, and often carry corresponding theological baggage. The unity of the brethren is to be found in the Word of Christ not the word of man, however well-intentioned.[/quote:cdfe63bdaa]

Andrew:
There are those who have considered all this very deeply, and can sing a hymn with all their heart. It is not meant to divide, and so should be seen in the light of the meat offered to idols issue taken up by Paul: our concern should be for the brethren, not to offend anyone by stepping all over their scruples. But in the end of the discussion, whether or not you or I are offended has little to do with the right and wrong of it.

As to the cultural settings for composed hymns, I'm sure you read Matt's post on that. This is not to equate the Psalms with recently composed songs, but to show that time-bound and culture-bound lyrics, containing the particular bias of the composer are not necessarily a detriment to worship in and of themselves. Your final statement, therefore, can be taken by either side of this debate.

What is important to me in your post, as well as the posts of others, is that this is what you believe with all your heart, obviously. And I must respect that. So I don't mean any disrespect when I say that this is not convincing. As a person who has been involved in music all my life, especially in worship, and who has been brought up with a bias in favour of hymnody, I recognize well the arguments for and against EP. I have acknowledged and accounted for my own bias to myself long ago. This is important in order to hear the arguments for EP with an open mind. I have read Girardeau's accounting, I have read Williamson's, and I have read others as well. The arguments are unconvincing, but I do not question the intentions or the uprightness of the people making the arguments.
 
A few questions that I have always had with regard to EP:

If the argument is based on the fact (which, when I have heard it presented, it has been) that the Septuagint titles to the Psalms contain the words "Psalms", "hymns" and "songs" and therefore Paul is referring to the Psalter then,
1. By what right do you include Psalms that either do not have a title or have none of those words in the title?
2. If Paul is referring to the titles of the Psalms, why does he feel it necessary to add "spiritual" before "song"?
3. By what right is Habakkuk 3 excluded when it contains a musical reference at the end of v.19?
4. Is it true that Thomas Manton in his commentary on James states that for him, at any rate, EP is only a preference?
5. Is it true that Calvin wrote an hymn for congregational use?
6. Do you sing the doxology at the end of Psalm 100 or Psalm 117?

By the way, I have read G.I. Williamson's article.

While I do not agree with EP I think it is a terrible weakness and sin in the church at large that we do not sing Psalms as we have been commanded to do. I think that any book of songs for congregational use ought to include a complete Psalter, and that those who conduct worship should be careful to ensure that we sing all of the Psalms. This isn't the only area, but it is definitely one glaring area, where the church at large needs reformation.
 
Chris,

I'm having trouble with the quote feature, but I'll try to respond.

You said that God has written sermons in the Scriptures, such as the sermon on the mount, but then went on to say that no one tries to confine modern sermons to those words exactly. That is my point. That is part of the difference between preaching and singing. When I said that God has not written sermons for the minister to preach I meant that the examples of preaching in Scripture as well as all of God's Word are the basis for sermons today, but simply reading God's Word is not the same as preaching it. Exposition is necessary. Rote reading of the text of God's Word is not sufficient, which is what I meant to convey earlier. The same might be said of the Lord's Prayer - it is a model, not meant to be prayed in rote manner. The Psalms are different. We are commanded to sing them and God has given them to us for that very purpose. Isaac Watts had no authorization from God to "christianize" the psalms when he wrote his hymnal. Indeed it is an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture to add to God's Psalter. You also mentioned that it is inconsistent to say that exclusive psalmody is based on letting the Word of Christ dwell in us richly when the Word of Christ is more than just the Psalms. In the very same verse the command is given to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. I and others have indicated above that this applies to the Psalter and to the Psalter alone. There is no inconsistency. The Psalter is the Word of Christ and that is what we are commanded to sing. The rest of Scripture is the Word of Christ too, but we are not commanded to sing the rest of Scripture.

John,

I appreciate that you have considered EP and are not convinced. I don't expect to convince anyone through a debate in this forum. Emotions are often attached to both sides of the argument. I am not the greatest debater in the world either. You have read some good defenses of EP it seems - have you read Michael Bushell's [i:ed71bbf499]The Songs of Zion[/i:ed71bbf499]? It is the best modern work on the subject that I know of. If not, I commend it to you if you are interested. I don't question the sincerity of any hymn-singer. I do appeal to those who desire to worship God in spirit and in truth, and especially those who hold to the WCF and the RPW, to praise Him with the singing of psalms which is God-inspired, God-approved, God-ordained, and God-commanded. Isaac Watts does not have those credentials; the Psalter does.
 
[quote:effe3c6ecb="py3ak"]While I do not agree with EP I think it is a terrible weakness and sin in the church at large that we do not sing Psalms as we have been commanded to do. [/quote:effe3c6ecb]

Ah, the universal lament.

I think this gets to the heart of the issue, which is, man's heart. The reason we are to guard the worship of God is because man's natural tendency is to cast off the things that God's has commanded in favor of what we devise.

Why is it that we wring our hands over the fact that the Psalms are not used more readily in Reformed congregations? It is precisely because we have permitted the hymns of men to compete with the spiritual songs found in God's Word. I'm sure it started off innocently enough, perhaps with a man-made hymn at the occasional Sunday evening service. The tune was right and the Words were scrupulously compared to the Bible for theological suitability. Surely no one could complain about Isaac Watts. Or Fanny Crosby?

But like a run-away train, the Psalms were overpowered. After all they are so hard to sing, and no one quite gets the words. These other songs we hear all the time, on the radio and certainly when we visit other "evangelical" churches. They are familiar to us and to our children. The congregation demands that the elders do something to make the worship more relevant.

Are we really surprised when congregations end up with an imbalance of human-devised songs over God"(tm)s songs?
 
[quote:85d021a8fb="webmaster"]Ian,

You know I despise dispensationalism.

Do you think there is a difference between progressive revelation, and dispensationalism? I know you would say yes.

That still leaves us with the dilemma of singing about Aaron's beard anointed with oil, ceremonial sacrifices, etc. For example:

Psalm 118:3 Let the house of Aaron now say, "His mercy endures forever."

Now, I aqm not in the house of Aaron, nor am I a Levitical Preist.

Or,

Psalm 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, Happy the one who repays you as you have served us!

Etc.

What needs to happen is an INTERPRETATION of these verses to make them intelligible to us, and have a hermeneutical shift take place. How could we take that hermeneutical shift without NT interpretation? So the road to making it EP does not seem to fit the exegetical framework either.[/quote:85d021a8fb]

Matt,

I do know that you hate dispensationalism. But you are enforcing a principle of discontinuity as to the value of the psalms for congregational singing, without clear biblical support this is over and against in my opinion the teachings of our Lord that the Psalms speak of him:

 Then He told them, "These are My words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. He also said to them, "This is what is written: the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead the third day, and repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46-47)

We know that the prophets were serving us by presenting these pictures of the Messiah (1Peter 1:12). Certainly the worth of the Psalms cannot be denied as their Messianic nature is declared by Jesus himself, as well as the Apostle Peter. So we do not overstep our bounds by declaring the Psalms in their entirety as a Messianic book.

Cutting to the quick this argument does not begin to deal with the core issue at hand, that God has given explicit commands to use them all in their Messianic entirety as the sole hymn book of the church. The non-EPers who hold to the RPW must produce a statement that sanctions the use of "hymns" outside of the canonical Psalter. This simply cannot be done. Hence the overwhelming testimony of history that shows the Psalter being used faithfully for years and years. Lo and behold the first groups to introduce uninspired hymnody are heretics all together Donatists, and Arians.

No one would deny that the Psalms were written by people describing specific conflicts, none of this does away with their relevence to us as NT beleivers because we are the same church you see. Again this does not begin to deal with the sanction of psalm singing and the unsanctioned "hymnody". Arguing that EP is not a good idea is not the same as arguing that the scriptures sanction uninspired songs in congregational singing, or worse that the Psalms are completely insufficient which I would like to remind you especially has been the Baptistic opinion not the CTer opinion.
 
]"And we believe that the hymnist is likewise to compose lyrics that are soundly based on God's Word, and that while flexibility is allowed, faithfulness to Scripture is required."

Chris,

But that's the problem you see. You have yet to prove that there is sanction in the scriptures that flexiblity is allowed. In fact most of the arguments presented, if not all are more like applications from an anti-Ep sermon, not actual refutations of the claims of EP to biblicism. Again, arguing that EP is not a good idea is not the same as arguing that the scriptures sanction uninspired songs in congregational singing, or worse that the Psalms are completely insufficient for NT believers.
 
Andrew:
Is Michael Bushell's [u:d418f0d9f4]The Songs of Zion[/u:d418f0d9f4] available online? Right now I can't afford books. But I'm interested.

Others:
The reason I am participating is in the hope that some of my concerns about it could be addressed. Once I get some energy again I'll point out what I think is not good argumentation in the way of the use of words, such as "inspired" and "uninspired", or "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned", and why this seriously undermines the arguments for EP. Right now, though, I am going to have to audit for a while. I'll participate, but my arguments have been made.
 
John,

looking forward to your full participation. Thanks for clarifying your position earlier. I must admit I am at a loss as to why you don't more clearly state your opinion regarding the usage of Psalms in congregational singing. If you could in the future apply the same stricture to your own position as you do to mine by providing a defense of using other songs not included in the Psalter, showing where they are sanctioned in the scriptures.
 
[quote:c4232170b2="Ianterrell"]
But that's the problem you see. You have yet to prove that there is sanction in the scriptures that flexiblity is allowed. In fact most of the arguments presented, if not all are more like applications from an anti-Ep sermon, not actual refutations of the claims of EP to biblicism. Again, arguing that EP is not a good idea is not the same as arguing that the scriptures sanction uninspired songs in congregational singing, or worse that the Psalms are completely insufficient for NT believers.[/quote:c4232170b2]

I think you are right on here Ian. You may try to shoot holes into EP all you want, but the non-EP position still has to set forth their case. The RPW requires a divine command to include that element in worship. We are told how to preach and pray. But with singing, we are told to sing "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." The content of our singing element is specified. We are not commanded to compose new hymns. We are not given a standard by which to write new hymns. Until that command can be produced, we must stick with the songs the church used in that time, the psalms. There were no Christian "hymns" back then, at least none that have survived. You would think that if the apostles had composed new hymns they would have been carefully preserved by the Church to commemorate the final revelation of our Savior, a truly great moment to sing about. But they didnt need to. The songs were already written long ago. So, again, the proof for the non-Ep position which stills claims the RPW is to show a command to compose new hymns. And again it will come down to the hermenuetics of Eph. and Col....
 
Ian:
I take this brief interlude from the discussion to clarify:

I did state my position, Ian. The EP position is being asserted on the level of doctrine. For that to be the case, it has to be shown from Scripture alone, with proper reasoning, that it is such. Until then, it is my dedication to the Scripture that forbids it with equal importance to those who hold it as a Biblical mandate.

It is much like the baptism debates. The Paedos have not shirked from their burden of proof, and have shown great discretion and discernment in the approach taken, not disparaging the faith of those who hold differently because of their zeal for God.

Because of the fundamental Reformational tenet of Sola Scriptura, I can take no other stand until a proper EP argument is given. I may not; it is not allowed. The importance of this axiom is of greatest importance in our time, when we have NPP, A-4, Framework Hypothesis, Theonomy, Analagous Day Theory, militant Post-Mil and Presup, Dispensationalism, etc., etc, knocking on our doors constantly; and who knows what's around the corner. Sola Scriptura is our primary defense. EP does not fit in with those others exactly, but it sure is a good exercise for Sola Scriptura for our time. There has been a tendency toward the same errors, though. And that has been my main concern in every post of mine, almost two thousand of them by now: objectivity of Scripture, without man having to add his "interpretations" to it, either before or after. Man has to step out of his presuppositions, for they too are fallen. He has to come to terms with the fact that "Thus saith the Lord", has nothing to do with how I read it, or how you read it; but rather with whether you and I really read it for what it says.

Too many times have I seen Scripture brushed aside by a person's own interpretation of the text, forgetting all that has been achieved by the Holy Spirit through the men Christ has sent and equipped to lead His church. I have seen Christ's own words contradicted by a pastor in our Reformed churches, (and the elders backed him up, ) simply because he had his own interpretations superimposed on the Word. We have to be ten times more careful, if for no other reason than we have been given ten times as much to work with through what has been bequeathed us by our forefathers. It is not just that our undereducated brothers in the pew are making these mistakes; our leaders in the churches are making them, and propagating them through the printed page, and through ecclesiastical decisions.

EP is a kind of neutral ground for this kind of effort. I am not saying it is not important, for it is, especially if a Biblical case can be made. But it does not involve party lines directly, like it does in other disputes. So here is my chance to call us to a greater care in the use of Scripture, in the use of reason, and in the discipline of objectivity.

That is my position spelled out a bit more, Ian. It doesn't really belong in this thread. Mostly, I don't want to alienate people illegitemately, and that is why I have to take a backdoor approach to it. More important is the covenantal position of each of us, so I have to take care, and not take the "My way or the Highway" approach. This includes me as much as anyone else, for I am just as prone to stubbornness as anyone else.
 
Patrick, you said,

[quote:904bd99186="puritansailor"]The RPW requires a divine command to include that element in worship.[/quote:904bd99186]

In light of this statement on which we all agree, I wish to return to the example of the inspired songs that were sung by Old Covenant believers before the Psalter's completion. When they were brought up before, you replied by saying they were only for that time because the Psalter had not yet been completed. Then, from the fact of the Psalter's incompletion at that time, you inferred that God intended the singing of those other songs to cease once the Psalter [i:904bd99186]was[/i:904bd99186] completed. However, as we continually point out when arguing against credobaptism, [i:904bd99186]we are to assume that nothing instituted by God will cease unless He specifically predicts or indicates that it will[/i:904bd99186]. This is key to the point I'm trying to make: As an example, we hold that covenant inclusion of children [i:904bd99186]did not[/i:904bd99186] cease at the completion of the Old Covenant, since God gave no indication of its cessation. As a contrary example, we hold that the revelational gifts [i:904bd99186]did[/i:904bd99186] cease at the completion of the Scriptures, since God did indeed give a conditional indication of its cessation. Keeping these two examples in mind, you say that since the Psalter is an inspired compilation of songs for worship, we should assume that the other inspired songs sung by Old Covenant believers (before the Psalter's completion) are to cease after its completion. [i:904bd99186]The problem with this argument is that it parallels my first example, rather than my second; unlike the revelational gifts, of which God gave a conditional indication of cessation, no such indication was ever given for either the covenant inclusion of children or the singing of other songs sung before the Psalter's completion.[/i:904bd99186]

That fact is now the key issue of disagreement I have with exclusive psalmody. In fact, if you could show me to be wrong on that fact, I may well even end up being convinced of your position. Patrick, your pointing out and emphasizing of the fact that God requires a divine command to include something in worship made me really think about my stance. And from my perspective, we clearly see a divine command to sing the Psalms, yet we also see a divine command to sing other hymns - the songs sung by believers before the Psalter's completion. Your response to this latter case is that their use ceased at the Psalter's completion, and my main objection to your position at this point is that I don't think you have grounds to claim that, as I illustrated in my previous paragraph. If you could show me that God did in fact give an indication of those songs' cessation at the completion of the Psalms, and that it thus parallels my second example rather than my first, the only matter I would have to further investigate is the exegesis of the phrase "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." I've now laid out the primary objection I mentally have to your position at this point; the challenge is yours to dispel it from my mind.
 
Chris,
I don't remember saying that congregational worship used other songs. I do remember saying that there were some inspired songs sung for particular occasions to commemorate an act of deliverance (i.e. the song of Moses). But we are not told anywhere that those special songs were used in regular congregational worship. What we do know, is that God was jealous over his worship in the OT and that any innovations which were not commanded by Him, were despised. There were earlier psalms sung, which still survive, like Psalm 90 (which seems to have begun even as a prayer but later adapted to congregational singing, whether adapted by Moses himself, or the preists, or David who knows... ) or some written by the sons of Korah. But worship also went through it's developments over history. Before Moses, worship was very primitive. With Moses comes a huge leap in congregational worship. Then another with David. And then another it seems with the Exile and Ezra and the development of the synagogue type worship. In all these changes the one guiding principle is the RPW. God decides the new additions and developments, not man. Whenever man introduced innovations and polluted His worship, he was punished (i.e. Aaron's sons, Uzzah, Jereboam, Uzziah, the Corinthian church etc.) The principle hasn't changed. If there were other songs sung in congregational worship which have been discarded, it was done at the direction of God, (just as the temple worship was abolished with the sacrifice of Christ). So again, the argument comes back to where we have the command to add these innovations of to our worship in the NT by composing new songs. Then, once you produce this command, somehow you have to find guidelines to control these innovations in our worship song.
 
There would have to have been [i:1b12219236]some[/i:1b12219236] songs regularly used in congregational worship, say, before the Psalms were even written. And I totally agree with you on the importance and exactness with which God treated His commands on worship throughout that time. But still, the thing I don't see that seems to be the flaw in your position is: Where did God indicate that whatever songs were sung in congregational worship before the writing of the Psalms, would cease at the completion of the Psalter? Indeed, worship did go through its developments in history, but where is the cessation of former songs at the completion of the Psalter even hinted at as being one of them?
 
[quote:9724837535="Me Died Blue"]There would have to have been [i:9724837535]some[/i:9724837535] songs regularly used in congregational worship, say, before the Psalms were even written. And I totally agree with you on the importance and exactness with which God treated His commands on worship throughout that time. But still, the thing I don't see that seems to be the flaw in your position is: Where did God indicate that whatever songs were sung in congregational worship before the writing of the Psalms, would cease at the completion of the Psalter? Indeed, worship did go through its developments in history, but where is the cessation of former songs at the completion of the Psalter even hinted at as being one of them?[/quote:9724837535]
Chris, I don't think there was much congregational singing before the time of Moses. Certainly nothing is recorded of it that I can remember. It was later, after these great acts of deliverance that God began instituting or perhaps developing song, at least as recorded in Scripture. And Scripture is all we have to go by. We can speculate about pre-mosaic worship, but all we have are glimpses of it in the text. But we do know it was God who produced the songs through his prophets and jealously gaurded His worship from innovations of human imagination. I just don't see where that principle has changed in the NT. Hence, why I cannot justify the composing new hymns in our worship. We have no command to do so from Christ or the apostles.
 
So Patrick,

Would we then be singing someone's interpretation of the Psalm, or the Psalm itself with no interpretation?

If we are singing an interpretation of it, then anything other than the Psalter plays a part in that interpretation, which means the meaning is more important than just the words. If that is the case, then we have left exclusive psalmody and have taken an exegeticfal approach to the interpretation of the psalms in light of the whole of Scripture and of the fulfillments we know about in Christ. Now we are singing fulfilled prophecy, not typological prophecy.

Woudl this not be the case? Otherwise, you woudl have to strictly sing the words of the Psalm without their interpretated meanings based on other biblical texts.
 
[quote:e3c6c461c0="webmaster"]So Patrick,

Would we then be singing someone's interpretation of the Psalm, or the Psalm itself with no interpretation?

If we are singing an interpretation of it, then anything other than the Psalter plays a part in that interpretation, which means the meaning is more important than just the words. If that is the case, then we have left exclusive psalmody and have taken an exegeticfal approach to the interpretation of the psalms in light of the whole of Scripture and of the fulfillments we know about in Christ. Now we are singing fulfilled prophecy, not typological prophecy.

would this not be the case? Otherwise, you would have to strictly sing the words of the Psalm without their interpretated meanings based on other biblical texts.[/quote:e3c6c461c0]

I think we should sing the texts as close to the Hebrew as possible. But we are also commanded to sing with understanding. Just because the psalm is difficult to understand does not justify adding to it. The minister should explain the correct understanding of the psalm before they sing it, so that the congregation does sing with understanding. The Isrealites didn't sing the psalms in a vacuum. They understood their meaning within the context of the revelation given them. And we also undertand them, even better than they because we have the fuller revelation of what the psalms speak of. Teach your people so they may sing with grace in the heart and with understanding.
 
I am in agreement with Patrick. :thumbup:

JohnV,


Thanks again for your honesty. I do not fault you with desiring to uphold Sola Scriptura. But you see as one who holds to the RPW I must do what I feel is sanctioned in scripture. I have shown what my scripture proofs are that lead me to EP convictions. All I was asking earlier is that you do the same.
 
Patrick,

I think I'm getting where you're coming from. You seem to be saying that even though there is no explicit command in the Bible to do away with the already-existing songs at the Psalter's completion, there is also no explicit indication in the Bible that such songs were ever regularly used in a congregational setting before the Psalter's completion in the first place. Am I reading you right?

If that is indeed your intended point, I see its relevance to your argument that the Psalms are the only songs which we have an explicit command in the Bible to sing. Still, I'm somewhat unsure of that claim as a whole. I did a search in the ESV for the word "psalms," and it found seven verses, the only two of which relate to the singing of psalms being Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. Earlier in this thread, I thought you gave good reasons for those commands being addressed to a people of Jewish mindset, but I also thought Fred gave good reasons for them being addressed to a people of Greek mindset. So at this point, I don't really know what to make of the phrase "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." Are there any online articles you would recommend that explore the exegesis of that phrase from either side?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tyrese
  • Locked
Exclusive Psalmody
Replies
5
Views
3K
Tyrese
Tyrese
M
  • Locked
Exclusive Psalmody?
Replies
27
Views
9K
Afterthought
A
C. Matthew McMahon
  • Locked
Exclusive Psalmody
2 3
Replies
64
Views
15K
JohnV
JohnV
kceaster
  • Locked
Exclusive Psalmody...
2
Replies
38
Views
9K
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Sailor
David Taylor
  • Locked
Why Exclusive Psalmody?
4 5 6
Replies
150
Views
21K
NaphtaliPress
NaphtaliPress
Back
Top