In that case, are you referring to a historical argument (or arguments)? It would be germane to the OP (and informative to me, personally) if you could point to specific writers or documents that lay out such a view as the one above (which I understand to mean that certain texts in Revelation give Christians license to compose and offer as worship songs of their own making).
I'm primarily referring to biblical and exegetical arguments. Most commentators do not interpret Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 (cited by the divines as the the proof text for WCF 21.5) as referring exclusively to the canonical Psalms. If you do a deep dive in a wide variety of technical commentaries and you'll get a sample of the views, specific ones do not come to mind from when I studied it. Admittedly, I don't know the full development in the history of interpretation of those verses and when that view of the text became predominant. But as I've studied those passages and read the arguments I'm persuaded that though you can link the phrases translated 'hymns' and 'spiritual songs' to the canonical Psalter it's very hard to view them, in context, as limiting praise in worship to the canonical Psalter. That is sufficient biblical warrant for me, but this post is drifting too close to debating the position, and we've already been reminded this isn't the place to do that.
I'm not going to take the thread further off topic by debating this. All I am trying to point out, which you are proving by your response, is that most advocates of an exclusive Psalmody position like to uncharitably pretend that those of us who sing uninspired hymns do so without regard to the regulative principle or the need for biblical warrant. When we try to say that we do in fact follow the regulative principle and there is biblical warrant for offering uninspired praise in worship, we're told that we don't and that we do so without substantive argument.
Thank you for the information. The language bit was not my take on the history or my argument but that of the author I posted to.
I'll try to stick to the OP as best as I can.
Forgive me for being so blunt, but if you are not speaking of historical arguments (are you?) then I am puzzled at your contributions to this thread.
I understand you’re not here to debate, but it should be noted that the two statements above (in bold) are contradictory. (You don’t have to reply, of course. I am not trying to start a debate. I am interested merely in pointing out the contradiction, for the sake of others who may be reading this.)
I don’t think you need me to do any of that. I’m confident you’re familiar with the arguments. (In fact, I recall going into this exact discussion with you some time ago; it was hung up on definitions and went nowhere.) Anyway, that is not really what I was getting at with my post, so I am not sure why you address me in particular. I am an Exclusive Psalmodist, but my post is not a defence of Exclusive Psalmody.
Please elaborate. What criteria? What position have I stated in this thread?
Once again, it is not clear to me what you are talking about. Please be more specific. What are these criteria?
It follows, then, that Exclusive Psalmody is sin. Would you not say so?
This is obviously not true, it’s completely flipping the RPW on it’s head. The “exclusive” part is derived precisely from the RPW by definition. The RPW is that we exclusively do what is commanded in the context of worship. So if we have a command to sing Psalms (we do, dozens), then the RPW by definition supports exclusive psalmody, unless there is also a command to sing non-Psalms. If there is such a command then of course you would be right that exclusive Psalmody is contrary to the RPW. But saying that we need a positive command for exclusivity to practice a command exclusively is simply a roundabout way of stating the Normative principle. And talking about “binding the conscience” with reference to what is commanded in worship also suggests a NPW approach as opposed to an RPW one.
For many (fortunately), this isn't true. I know you are making a general statement that is unfortunately true in many sectors of the church. In the church I serve, though, we always have at least one Psalm in every service. I include a plan for singing through the Psalter systematically. I start at Psalm 1 for the morning, Psalm 76 for the evening, and then advance one for each service (2 and 77 the following week, etc). We often have a second Psalm that fits the subject matter of the sermon.
This point is well taken. I think I used to argue more along those lines until I saw it is not an RPW argument. I argue now that the Bible commands us to sing biblical-in-content hymns alongside the Psalms.
Clarification question, if you would, Tom. It has been my experience on the PB that the argument often runs like this:
Exactly. I’ve quoted this several times on Puritan Board, and it’s worth quoting again:
Correct; I was making a general historical statement for the last couple of centuries. Thankfully, there has been some progress in the last twenty years or so to recover psalm singing. But it does take a pastor's concerted conscience effort as you note. It was such an effort a long time ago in my church that laid the foundation for a predominate psalm singing in my church (say maybe 70% from the psalter, particularly given the current practice is all psalms in the evening service). I hope while it is duplication of effort, all the handful of new full psalters portend greater use of the psalms, particularly since times of persecution seem more and more likely, and the psalms have always been dear to God's people at such times.
Brothers, may I humbly suggest you start another thread for this? This will doubtless lead to needless escalation. We have been instructed to keep the thread restricted to the matter of the OP. This is far afield.
