Psalmody to Hymnody Question

[Deleted member 9611]

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

For Isaiah 6, Psalm 99 for sure. Far, far better than Holy, Holy, Holy. For Exodus 15, Psalm 40 or 46 would fit rather well.

We do come from different perspectives. I start with the premise that I have to prove each step out as follows, starting with zero and needing scriptural warrant for each. I’m convinced I need to move from 0 to 1, but am not convinced that we have warrant for anything beyond that.

0. No singing
1. Psalms only
2. Other scripture songs
3. Other inspired material
4. Uninspired material

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Last year I quoted from a Welsh friend :

Let me explain the key issue here. The esteemed Welsh pastor, the late Graham Harrison (a personal friend) made this comment in the preface to his hymnbook 'Christian Hymns' (1977 ed): "The progressive nature of biblical revelation imposes a necessary historical limitation upon the Psalmist"

For example, the beloved Scottish Psalter 118:27 reads:

Bind ye unto the altar’s horns
with cords the sacrifice.

But due to the progressive nature of Biblical revelation my conscience is free to sing with Bonar -

"No blood, no altar now,
The sacrifice is o'er!
No flame, no smoke ascends on high,
The lamb is slain no more,
But richer blood has flow'd from nobler veins,
To purge the soul from guilt, and cleanse the reddest stains."

 

[Eyedoc84]

I see EP as a subset of “inspired words only”. Uninspired hymnody is not. Therefore I don’t see it as a “two-way” stepping stone unless all non-EP positions are given equal footing.

If I understand the EP position properly, the existence of Exodus 15 and other non-Psalm songs is not contradictory because the major premise is “sing only what God has commanded”. God gave specific songs at specific times in the OT that didn’t make it into the Psalter because they were not intended for continued use. Similarly, Abraham was right to take Isaac up the mount. We are not then given license to take our sons and do likewise.

I think the uninspired hymnody position, to be consistent with RPW, must assert either that 1) God has commanded singing but not its verbal content, similar to prayer and preaching. Or, 2) The Eph/Col passage amounts to a worship command and “hymns” and “odes” unequivocally include songs of all type, including ones of our own composition. I don’t think it quite cuts the mustard to say these terms may allow Newton and the Gettys.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I see EP as a subset of “inspired words only”. Uninspired hymnody is not. Therefore I don’t see it as a “two-way” stepping stone unless all non-EP positions are given equal footing.

If I understand the EP position properly, the existence of Exodus 15 and other non-Psalm songs is not contradictory because the major premise is “sing only what God has commanded”. God gave specific songs at specific times in the OT that didn’t make it into the Psalter because they were not intended for continued use. Similarly, Abraham was right to take Isaac up the mount. We are not then given license to take our sons and do likewise.

I think the uninspired hymnody position, to be consistent with RPW, must assert either that 1) God has commanded singing but not its verbal content, similar to prayer and preaching. Or, 2) The Eph/Col passage amounts to a worship command and “hymns” and “odes” unequivocally include songs of all type, including ones of our own composition. I don’t think it quite cuts the mustard to say these terms may allow Newton and the Gettys.

This comment gets to the heart of the issue. The issue of inspired songs v. exclusive psalmody is not as simple as some are presenting it here. For instance, I believe that only inspired songs are ever acceptable in the praise of God, but I do not believe that we will sing the psalms in heaven (for various reasons that I will not go into now). Just because it will not be sinful to sing other inspired songs in heaven, does not mean that we are currently authorised to sing inspired songs outside of the Psalter here on earth. The confusion on this point arises from a deeper failure to understand that the ordinances of worship are governed by moral-positive law as opposed to natural-moral law.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The confusion on this point arises from a deeper failure to understand that the ordinances of worship are governed by moral-positive law as opposed to natural-moral law.

This is precisely the argument that Reformed Baptists use for believer baptism.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is precisely the argument that Reformed Baptists use for believer baptism.

A mistaken application of the distinction does not render the distinction itself mistaken.

 

[Eyedoc84]

More in line to thread title, is everyone here in agreement that WCF XXI.5 is EP?

 

[Deleted member 9611]

More in line to thread title, is everyone here in agreement that WCF XXI.5 is EP?

That is the case.

http://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Winzer-NeedhamReviewf.pdf

 

[Tom Hart]

There is a positive command to sing psalms.

Do we need a positive command to sing man-made songs?

1. If yes, where is it?

2. If no, why not?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

There is a positive command to sing psalms.

Do we need a positive command to sing man-made songs?

1. If yes, where is it?

2. If no, why not?

A mistaken application of the distinction does not render the distinction itself mistaken.

This is the logic of the 1689 Baptist Confession and a Reformed Baptist argument

There is a positive command to sing baptise Believers.

Do we need a positive command to baptise Infants?

1. If yes, where is it?

2. If no, why not?

 

[Tom Hart]

This is the logic of the 1689 Baptist Confession and a Reformed Baptist argument

There is a positive command to sing baptise Believers.

Do we need a positive command to baptise Infants?

1. If yes, where is it?

2. If no, why not?

I am not in fact making an argument. I am trying to make sense of the range of positions that have been expressed in this thread. So far, the hymn-singer’s position has not been consistently stated; meanwhile, more than one of its proponents have been challenged for their views seemingly not according with the Regulative Principle. Those challenges have not been met.

I ask the above question in order to tease out a more clearly defined position.

 

[MarrowMan]

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

Unhelpful comment is unhelpful. No, we don't, your caricature notwithstanding. We say, demonstrate that Scripture commands (either explicitly, by example, or through good and necessary consequence) anything to be sung in addition to the Psalms.

Of course, I think all of this misses the actual point of the RPW, which for far too many focuses on the 1st greatest commandment to the exclusion of the 2nd.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is the logic of the 1689 Baptist Confession and a Reformed Baptist argument

There is a positive command to sing baptise Believers.

Do we need a positive command to baptise Infants?

1. If yes, where is it?

2. If no, why not?

Do you understand the distinction between commands that are natural-moral and those that are moral-positive?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Do you understand the distinction between commands that are natural-moral and those that are moral-positive?

How would that distinction help in this situation?

 

[83r17h]

meanwhile, more than one of its proponents have been challenged for their views seemingly not according with the Regulative Principle. Those challenges have not been met.

Can you articulate what you understand the various views to be in syllogistic format, with the RPW as one of the premises? It is difficult for me to understand how the IP arguments are actually contradicting the RPW, instead of just arguing that the substance of God's command is inclusive. To argue the substance of God's command appears in line with the RPW.

This comment gets to the heart of the issue. The issue of inspired songs v. exclusive psalmody is not as simple as some are presenting it here. For instance, I believe that only inspired songs are ever acceptable in the praise of God, but I do not believe that we will sing the psalms in heaven (for various reasons that I will not go into now). Just because it will not be sinful to sing other inspired songs in heaven, does not mean that we are currently authorised to sing inspired songs outside of the Psalter here on earth. The confusion on this point arises from a deeper failure to understand that the ordinances of worship are governed by moral-positive law as opposed to natural-moral law.

This is interesting. Would you view the general command about song to be modified by a positive restriction to Psalms for this era of redemptive history?

 

[MarrowMan]

This is the logic of the 1689 Baptist Confession and a Reformed Baptist argument

There is a positive command to sing baptise Believers.

Do we need a positive command to baptise Infants?

1. If yes, where is it?

2. If no, why not?

No, it's not the same. The RB asks for a positive command under the assumption of discontinuity. We find the positive command in the continuity between OT and NT. The RB issue is not one of positive command, but of continuity.

 

[Taylor]

This is going around in circles.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

meanwhile, more than one of its proponents have been challenged for their views seemingly not according with the Regulative Principle. Those challenges have not been met.

Tom, as a former Reformed Baptist I saw Reformed Baptists using the same argument. Their argument was that there is no positive command in the Bible to baptise infants, therefore infant baptism violates the RPW.

The difference between the WCF and the 1689 Confession comes down to this:
1689 Confession 1:5 argues for a 'positive command'
WCF argues for a good and necessary consequence.

You are arguing for a positive command like the 1689 Confession.

I argued in an earlier post that there are historic-redemptive considerations to consider as a good and necessary consequence. See my post #122

 

[MarrowMan]

This is going around in circles.

What is? Please supply a referent for "this", given there are a number of different arguments being employed. I might well agree with you, but for different reasons. It's impossible to tell, though.

Point blank, until we begin to deal with the heart of the RPW, we will continue to pursue fruitless lines of argumentation. That's not to say that we'll come to agreement. It is to say that we'll actually discuss the issue from the appropriate starting point.

 

[MarrowMan]

Tom, as a former Reformed Baptist I saw Reformed Baptists using the same argument. Their argument was that there is no positive command in the Bible to baptise infants, therefore infant baptism violates the RPW.

The difference between the WCF and the 1689 Confession comes down to this:
1689 Confession 1:5 argues for a 'positive command'
WCF argues for a good and necessary consequence.

You are arguing for a positive command like the 1689 Confession.

I argued in an earlier post that there are historic-redemptive considerations to consider as a good and necessary consequence. See my post #122

Why are you separating good and necessary consequence from positive command? I think you mean explicit command.

 

[Tom Hart]

Can you articulate what you understand the various views to be in syllogistic format, with the RPW as one of the premises? It is difficult for me to understand how the IP arguments are actually contradicting the RPW, instead of just arguing that the substance of God's command is inclusive. To argue the substance of God's command appears in line with the RPW.

Once again (for the third time, I think), I am not making an argument. I am trying to understand the others’. Seemingly, various views in favour of hymn-singing, etc. have been represented. They have not been clearly defined, and they contradict each other. Some statements even from the same keyboards have been contradicting. To answer my questions would be fairly helpful, I think, in determining what position or positions are being argued.

 

[Tom Hart]

Tom, as a former Reformed Baptist I saw Reformed Baptists using the same argument. Their argument was that there is no positive command in the Bible to baptise infants, therefore infant baptism violates the RPW.

The difference between the WCF and the 1689 Confession comes down to this:
1689 Confession 1:5 argues for a 'positive command'
WCF argues for a good and necessary consequence.

You are arguing for a positive command like the 1689 Confession.

I argued in an earlier post that there are historic-redemptive considerations to consider as a good and necessary consequence. See my post #122

I consider this to have been more than adequately answered by @MarrowMan.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I consider this to have been more than adequately answered by @MarrowMan.

Not at all. The historic redemptive argument has not been addressed.

 

[MarrowMan]

Not at all. The historic redemptive argument has not been addressed.

And it never will be to an RBs satisfaction based on continuity vs discontinuity. That's the argument you haven't addressed. The RB argument is rooted in the continuity issue, not positive command. We hold to a positive command by good and necessary inference.

 

[83r17h]

Once again (for the third time, I think), I am not making an argument. I am trying to understand the others’. Seemingly, various views in favour of hymn-singing, etc. have been represented. They have not been clearly defined, and they contradict each other. Some statements even from the same keyboards have been contradicting. To answer my questions would be fairly helpful, I think, in determining what position or positions are being argued.

Maybe I should clarify what I'm asking.

You say this:

its proponents have been challenged for their views seemingly not according with the Regulative Principle. Those challenges have not been met.

From my reading, it seems like the challenge has been met. So I am asking for your explanation of why you believe it hasn't been met, in syllogistic form. I would hope to see something along the lines of:

Major premise 1: RPW argument looks like <x>
Major premise 2: Anything not <x> is not RPW
Minor premise A: IP argument looks like <y>
Minor premise B: <y> is not <x>
Conclusion: IP is not RPW.

The reason I'm looking for that from you is because you are the one making the critique. From my perspective, the IP argument does seem to have met the challenge, and so I'm wondering how you're understanding the RPW. Here's what I see as the IP argument:

Major premise: What God has commanded is not to be added to or subtracted from.
Minor premise: God has commanded more than Psalms.
Conclusion: IP.

The major premise there is the RPW. So I either understand the RPW wrong, or the IP argument has met the challenge of not following the RPW. The real debate is the minor premise (the substance of God's command), but everyone is following the RPW. To contest the minor premise of the IP argument is different than saying that the IP argument isn't RPW.

Following the RPW doesn't make the IP argument correct. But there's a difference between "false" and "contradicts the RPW." So from my perspective again, to argue that the IP position set forth here is violating the RPW is both logically false, and rhetorically overblown. The better argument is that the IP argument is wrong (either exegetically, or redemptive-historically). But again, neither of those issues are issues of the RPW.

 

[Tom Hart]

From my reading, it seems like the challenge has been met.

I must have missed this. Would you care to direct me to it?

 

[83r17h]

I must have missed this. Would you care to direct me to it?

Sure thing. I think there's some talking past each other, so I'll provide quotes with a bit of discussion.

@De Jager has given some statements of clarification along these lines. Especially post #71.

Some prefatory comments:
1. "False" and "Contradicts the RPW" are distinct. The proposition "a carbon atom weighs 1 kg" is false, but does not contradict the RPW.
2. Principle and application are distinct. Since the RPW is a principle, it might be abused in application, but an abuse of the principle is not a contradiction of the principle.
3. Some language used has been less than clear, and less than ideal. When IP folks say "show me the limitation" it is poor language because it looks at a quick glance like they are presuming universal acceptability in the absence of limitation. The actual position is that they view their as having been a command, and EP as more restricted than the command, and to go narrower than what God has commanded at one time requires another positive command from God. If I am reading @Reformed Covenanter correctly, this is actually his argument - that the command about praise is generally broad to inspired words, but has been positively restricted for this period of redemptive history to the Psalms only (making it a redemptive-history argument, not an RPW argument). But again, if the RPW is framed as a "principle," then both IP and EP are agreed in not adding to God's command. They disagree only about what God has commanded.

Quotes with some discussion below:

one of the arguments used in the ARP church when hymnody was allowed was a desire to sing about the completed work of Christ in fulfilled language, such as is seen in Revelation 5:9 (where a "new song" was "sung" including the language of "for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood").

Minor premise: God has commanded singing in fulfilled language. The command is given via example in Rev. 5:9. RPW is not contradicted.

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.

Minor premise: God has commanded singing "Psalms, hymns, and songs." "Psalms, hymns, and songs" is an inclusive term. The command is given by precept. RPW is not contradicted.

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.

Explicit statement of the IP argument: "The Bible commands." RPW is not contradicted.

There are two parts in the argument against EP: 1. We are commanded to sing biblical material other than the Psalter; 2. We are commanded to sing uninspired hymnody. The arguments for these two steps are distinct from each other.

Same as above. "We are commanded." RPW is not contradicted.

While we certainly have disagreements here concerning the application of the RPW, we are after all, seeking to apply the same principle, for which I'm thankful.

Same again, in clarified form. The difference is "application," not the principle itself. It's a matter of minor premises (substance of command), not major premises (principles of worship).

The real debate is this: what are the extents of the regulations? Where is the fence? EP advocates essentially argue "God commanded x", wherein x is very limited in scope and there is no room within x for any kind of variance. IP advocates argue "God commanded x" wherein x is a bigger area, and wherein there is room to move around. I say, the IP advocate may be wrong in his premise on exactly what God commanded, but as long as he stays within the area which he believes God has commanded him to walk, he is at least being consistent to his opinion of the extent of the regulation. I really don't think it is fair to say that IP people don't understand the RPW or are proposing something contrary to it. I just don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation.

The real question is, what exactly has God commanded, and what are its limits?

This is post #71 I referred to above. Izaak helpfully distinguishes between the principle (RPW) and its application (substance commanded). As stated, the IP argument may be wrong about the substance of the command, but "he believes God has commanded." RPW is not contradicted.

if Colossians 3:16 (and its parallel in Ephesians 5) does not refer to the three divisions of the Psalter, and if even the term "psalmos" refers to more than the Psalter, and even to more than inspired texts, as I believe it does (Psalm 151 is a part of the Septuagint Psalter, has "psalmos" in the title, and is uninspired would be some of the outline of the exegetical argument), then it constitutes a text commanding uninspired songs in worship. That this does not mean "anything goes" is evident from the rule of faith.

Minor premise: "psalmos" in Col. 3:16 refers to a category including uninspired songs. God has commanded that psalmos. Command is by precept. RPW is not contradicted.

As for the three terms Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs referring to the Psalter and only the Psalter, that is eisegesis. It is certainly not in the text of Colossians 3:16 itself. All three terms refer to many other portions of Scripture. Psalmos, the most common title in the Psalms, is also present in 1 Samuel 16:18, 2 Samuel 23:1, Job 21:12, 30:31, Amos 5:23, Zechariah 6:14, Isaiah 66:20, Lamentations 3:14, 5:14. Humnos appears only seven times in the Psalter as a whole. It is difficult to see how that could represent an entire division of the Psalter. Only once does it occur by itself (Psalm 60). All other six occurrences in the Psalms are paired with psalmos, suneseos, or odais (Psalms 6, 53, 54, 64, 66, 75). Outside the Psalter it occurs in 2 Chronicles 7:6, Nehemiah 12:46, and Isaiah 42:10. The titles "suneseos" and "allelouia" both occur as titles far more often than hymnos does (the former twelve times, and the latter twenty times). Hymnos does not appear, therefore, to function as a title representing an entire section of the Psalter. Furthermore, there are plenty of Psalms that do not have any of these three titles in them, or indeed, have any title at all. Five of the Psalms have "a prayer" as the title (16, 85, 89, 101, 141). This makes the hard and fast distinction between praise and prayer hard to sustain, as if prayer and praise have completely different rules they go by. At least in these five Psalms, prayer and praise overlap almost entirely. The term odais, the third mentioned in Colossians 3:16 occurs seven times outside the Psalter: Exodus 15:1, Deuteronomy 31, Judges 5:12, Nehemiah 12:36, Amos 8:10, Habakkuk 3:1, and Revelation 15:3. It is difficult for me to comprehend how and why, at the very least, these outside-the-Psalms texts that have the words Paul uses are not to be used in musical praise.

Same as above. This is really just more exegetical detail about the substance of God's command. It's premise: God has commanded "Psalms, hymns, and songs" by precept. Biblical data assembled to support the definition of those terms as broader than the Psalter. RPW is not contradicted.

If God commands and accepts praise and we have biblical warrant to sing outside of the Psalter (e.g. Moses, Deborah, Habakkuk, Hezekiah and the Levites), adding a restriction is indeed adding to what God prescribes, which itself is a violation of the RPW. We cannot argue that the more restrictive, the more pure, or else the Quakers who sit an hour in silence must be better off.

Minor premise: God commands praise that is not Psalms. Command is by example. RPW is not contradicted.

Paul commands the church in Colossians 3:16 to sing psalmoi. That would include the Psalter. I don't know of anyone who would claim that the Psalter is excluded from what Paul says. Therefore we can safely say that Paul commands the singing of the Psalter. Therefore evangelicals are wrong who never sing it. However, I would certainly dispute the claim that the three terms Paul uses refer only to the Psalms (arguing here against EP). In arguing for IP, I would also argue that psalmos, if it refers to the Septuagint Psalter (which most EPers argue), cannot be excluded from referring to Psalm 151, which has psalmos in the title, and was regarded as part of the LXX Psalter. Therefore, that offers clear evidence that Paul commanded non-inspired praise in worship.

Minor premise: God commands singing psalmoi. Psalmoi includes more than the Psalter. Command is by precept. RPW is not contradicted.

This formulation proves that he had more than the Psalms in mind. A second exegetical point usually missed in these discussions is the immediately preceding command "let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly." In fact, the phrase "singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" is an explanation of how to let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. He doesn't say, "Let the psalms dwell in you richly, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." Instead, the phrase about singing is an explanation of how to let the Word dwell in you richly. The contextual factors here point inevitably to a broader scope than the Psalms.

Minor premise: God commands the Word in its content, through singing. Command is by precept. RPW is not contradicted.

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

Minor premise: God commands more than Psalms in worship. Command is by precept. RPW is not contradicted.

The command to sing both the psalter and hymns is in Colossians 3:16, I believe, among other places.

Minor premise: God commands more than Psalms in worship. Command is by precept. RPW is not contradicted.


Now, every minor premise asserted by the IP advocates above might be false. It might be a misinterpretation of Scripture. But every single one proceeds from the grounds of the major premise that we are to do what God has commanded without addition or subtraction. So every single one seems to clearly have demonstrated its compatibility with the RPW, and its lack of contradiction with the RPW. The IP position can be false, and still not contradict the RPW.

But unless I'm really misreading what has been said, the argument proposed is very, very clearly on the ground of "God commands" and never on the ground of "God didn't forbid." I see three possibilities. 1) The IP argument has demonstrated its adherence to the RPW, and the critique of it should be exegetical or redemptive-historical. 2) I misunderstand the RPW. 3) I misunderstand the IP argument.

I think the case is (1). That doesn't make IP correct. It does make objections to it via the RPW wrong and rhetorically overblown.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

How would that distinction help in this situation?

As I hinted at earlier, the distinction is important for understanding why EP advocates do not maintain, as we are crudely caricatured as arguing, that the redeemed in heaven are sinning by singing inspired material outside of the Psalter and why we do not hold that it is inherently sinful in all circumstances to sing other inspired songs, since it falls within the bounds of a moral-positive command, not a natural-moral one.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Sure thing. I think there's some talking past each other, so I'll provide quotes with a bit of discussion.

@De Jager has given some statements of clarification along these lines. Especially post #71.

Some prefatory comments:
1. "False" and "Contradicts the RPW" are distinct. The proposition "a carbon atom weighs 1 kg" is false, but does not contradict the RPW.
2. Principle and application are distinct. Since the RPW is a principle, it might be abused in application, but an abuse of the principle is not a contradiction of the principle.
3. Some language used has been less than clear, and less than ideal. When IP folks say "show me the limitation" it is poor language because it looks at a quick glance like they are presuming universal acceptability in the absence of limitation. The actual position is that they view their as having been a command, and EP as more restricted than the command, and to go narrower than what God has commanded at one time requires another positive command from God. If I am reading @Reformed Covenanter correctly, this is actually his argument - that the command about praise is generally broad to inspired words, but has been positively restricted for this period of redemptive history to the Psalms only (making it a redemptive-history argument, not an RPW argument). But again, if the RPW is framed as a "principle," then both IP and EP are agreed in not adding to God's command. They disagree only about what God has commanded.

Quotes with some discussion below:


Minor premise: God has commanded singing in fulfilled language. The command is given via example in Rev. 5:9. RPW is not contradicted.

Minor premise: God has commanded singing "Psalms, hymns, and songs." "Psalms, hymns, and songs" is an inclusive term. The command is given by precept. RPW is not contradicted.

Explicit statement of the IP argument: "The Bible commands." RPW is not contradicted.

Same as above. "We are commanded." RPW is not contradicted.

Same again, in clarified form. The difference is "application," not the principle itself. It's a matter of minor premises (substance of command), not major premises (principles of worship).

This is post #71 I referred to above. Izaak helpfully distinguishes between the principle (RPW) and its application (substance commanded). As stated, the IP argument may be wrong about the substance of the command, but "he believes God has commanded." RPW is not contradicted.

Minor premise: "psalmos" in Col. 3:16 refers to a category including uninspired songs. God has commanded that psalmos. Command is by precept. RPW is not contradicted.

Same as above. This is really just more exegetical detail about the substance of God's command. It's premise: God has commanded "Psalms, hymns, and songs" by precept. Biblical data assembled to support the definition of those terms as broader than the Psalter. RPW is not contradicted.

Minor premise: God commands praise that is not Psalms. Command is by example. RPW is not contradicted.

Minor premise: God commands singing psalmoi. Psalmoi includes more than the Psalter. Command is by precept. RPW is not contradicted.

Minor premise: God commands the Word in its content, through singing. Command is by precept. RPW is not contradicted.

Minor premise: God commands more than Psalms in worship. Command is by precept. RPW is not contradicted.

Minor premise: God commands more than Psalms in worship. Command is by precept. RPW is not contradicted.


Now, every minor premise asserted by the IP advocates above might be false. It might be a misinterpretation of Scripture. But every single one proceeds from the grounds of the major premise that we are to do what God has commanded without addition or subtraction. So every single one seems to clearly have demonstrated its compatibility with the RPW, and its lack of contradiction with the RPW. The IP position can be false, and still not contradict the RPW.

But unless I'm really misreading what has been said, the argument proposed is very, very clearly on the ground of "God commands" and never on the ground of "God didn't forbid." I see three possibilities. 1) The IP argument has demonstrated its adherence to the RPW, and the critique of it should be exegetical or redemptive-historical. 2) I misunderstand the RPW. 3) I misunderstand the IP argument.

I think the case is (1). That doesn't make IP correct. It does make objections to it via the RPW wrong and rhetorically overblown.

This is helpful, and important for these in-house debates. Thank you for taking the time to tease this out.

I will note, however, that at least once in this thread (nothing you quoted above), and often in these types of discussions even amongst “scholars” (I’m thinking Letham, Frame), a non-EP‘er will argue in a way that if presented in a syllogism would effectively go like this:

M: Only what is commanded is allowed (RPW)
m: God has not commanded Psalms exclusively
C: EP is wrong and we can (should?) sing what we want along with Psalms as long as it’s not forbidden (i.e. unbiblical)

Not only does the conclusion not follow, it is explicitly the normative principle. Now, one can insert some additional minor premises to clean this up, but often it’s just window dressing to make the normative principle sound like the regulative principle.

 

[greenbaggins]

That is the case.

http://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Winzer-NeedhamReviewf.pdf

Not the case. Not everyone agrees that the given passage in the WS is EP, because not everyone on the PB agrees with Winzer's arguments. Some of us agree more with the Needham arguments he purports to answer.