To those who reject Exclusive Psalmody

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was dialogue between their two blogs. Unfortunately, Dr. Clark's side was lost when the original Heidelblog died but you should be able to find Pastor Lane's arguments on his blog still. Just have to search his archives.

Thanks, Andrew. I may have to spend some time trying to find it. So much to read, so little time here on Earth!

I believe this may be what is being referred to by Andrew: Worship | Green Baggins

yes, that's it. Thank you brother.
 
I think Colossians 3:16 negates any validation upon requiring Pslams to be sung exclusively.

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Colossians 3:16 [ESV])

Is the Word of Christ inspired or uninspired?

If Paul just mean to reference the inspired, "Psalms" then why did he use three terms with the term, "psalms" being in lowercase, which to me suggests a more universal term than a distinctive, "Psalms"?
 
This is a very thought provoking thread for me. I am challenged. Thanks.

First, does your church sing "hymns" exclusively without any Psalm singing at all? If so, then why does your church categorically reject the singing of the Psalms? Do you think that God does not want you to sing Psalms?

We sing both Psalms and uninspired hymns. I believe God commands us to sing uninspired hymns, psalms, and uninspired spiritual songs. I think Paul could've directed me to the psalm book of the OT much more easily than using three different words to describe one book. Psalms headings do not change my mind either because I haven't heard a convincing argument. What I believe could be wrong; but so could what you teach be wrong.

Second, If your church sings both hymns and psalms, then what is the ratio? Are there times in your worship where you sing only hymns during the day? Are there days where you only sing psalms? Does God only want you to sing psalms part-time?

We only sing one Psalm on the Lord's Day. If God commands us to sing uninspired hymns, psalms, and uninspired spiritual songs, then he has given us the duty and privilege to sing psalms whenever we like. Therefore, I think it is unbiblical to not sing psalms. Could it be said that it is unbiblical to only sing Psalms? Very thought provoking.

Third, Do you feel that the idea of singing only psalms somehow intrudes upon your Christian liberty? If so, then how so?

Yes. I believe God gives us the freedom to sing uninspired hymns and uninspired spiritual songs too.

Hymns of human composition are not inspired and
therefore cannot dwell in us richly , nor teach us, as many contain error.

Sermons are of human composition and are not inspired, but we are taught the truth by them weekly; inasmuch as they accurately communicate the word of Christ.

Personally, I have been blessed by many sermons containing error (do men preach perfectly?).

In addition to all this, uninspired sermons are one of the means we use to help us let the word of Christ dwell in us richly.

So, if the word of Christ may dwell in us richly through the teaching of uninspired sermons containing errors, the word of Christ may also dwell in us richly through the teaching of uninspired hymns containing errors.
 
Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs in the Septuagint | The Heidelblog
26 Puritans signed on to the Preface to the 1673 London edition of the Scottish Metrical Psalter: “… to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of ‘psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,’ which the apostle useth (Eph. 5.19; Col. 3.16)” (signers include John Owen, Thomas Manton, Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, Thomas Vincent and William Jenkyn).
I think Colossians 3:16 negates any validation upon requiring Pslams to be sung exclusively.

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Colossians 3:16 [ESV])

Is the Word of Christ inspired or uninspired?

If Paul just mean to reference the inspired, "Psalms" then why did he use three terms with the term, "psalms" being in lowercase, which to me suggests a more universal term than a distinctive, "Psalms"?
 
Greetings:

What is your objection to singing the Psalms of David? I will ask this question gradually in three parts:

First, does your church sing "hymns" exclusively without any Psalm singing at all? If so, then why does your church categorically reject the singing of the Psalms? Do you think that God does not want you to sing Psalms?

Second, If your church sings both hymns and psalms, then what is the ratio? Are there times in your worship where you sing only hymns during the day? Are there days where you only sing psalms? Does God only want you to sing psalms part-time?

Third, Do you feel that the idea of singing only psalms somehow intrudes upon your Christian liberty? If so, then how so?

Blessings,

Rob

1. No. No.
2. No defined ratio. Usually one or two Psalms or Psalm-based songs per service. The last question of number 2 is asked in such a way that no matter how I answer, I'm implying that I believe God has commanded us to either sing only psalms or has specified some ratio. I believe God commands us to include Psalms in our worship, but not exclusively. There is no specified ratio in Scripture.
3. No. It has nothing to do with "Christian Liberty." I don't think Scripture commands us to sing only Psalms, but actually encourages us to sing "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs."
 
Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs in the Septuagint | The Heidelblog
26 Puritans signed on to the Preface to the 1673 London edition of the Scottish Metrical Psalter: “… to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of ‘psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,’ which the apostle useth (Eph. 5.19; Col. 3.16)” (signers include John Owen, Thomas Manton, Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, Thomas Vincent and William Jenkyn).
I think Colossians 3:16 negates any validation upon requiring Pslams to be sung exclusively.

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Colossians 3:16 [ESV])

Is the Word of Christ inspired or uninspired?

If Paul just mean to reference the inspired, "Psalms" then why did he use three terms with the term, "psalms" being in lowercase, which to me suggests a more universal term than a distinctive, "Psalms"?

Unfortunately, while their teaching does carry weight, the men listed are still affected by the noetic effects of sin.

While the the EP's would desire to see their view win in scripture, there are good reasons for not jumping on the band-waggon. For instance, as we allow scripture to interpret scripture, we see that an ode (Greek) in Colossians 3:16 is not limited to Psalm headings. It shows up in Revelation 15:3; and the song (ode) they sing is "un-Exclusively" accompanied with harps in verse 2.

There are other verses that do not appear to support EP. As we look at 1 Corinthians 14:26, we see that each had a Psalm.

While piety might lead me adopt EP, the lack if supporting scripture makes it a doubtful matter. While the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs appear to fall under the circumstantial, the content of them appear to fall under the essential (RPW). That is to say, while we are given freedom to sing a variety of songs, they must all be scriptural. In the same way, we are given the freedom to preach what sermons we will, but they must all be scriptural.

1 Corinthians 14:26, How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

Revelation 15:2-3, And I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God. 3 They sing the song [Greek, ode] of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying:
“Great and marvelous are Your works,
Lord God Almighty!
Just and true are Your ways,
O King of the saints!

Colossians 3:16, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs [Greek, ode], singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
 
I was simply pointing to an explanation for the words that fits with usage; I can't doing anything about whether it was satisfactory to anyone or not, but only note that it has been for many not too shabby folk in the past, that it is not some insanely farfetched view.
 
Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs in the Septuagint | The Heidelblog
26 Puritans signed on to the Preface to the 1673 London edition of the Scottish Metrical Psalter: “… to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of ‘psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,’ which the apostle useth (Eph. 5.19; Col. 3.16)” (signers include John Owen, Thomas Manton, Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, Thomas Vincent and William Jenkyn).
I think Colossians 3:16 negates any validation upon requiring Pslams to be sung exclusively.

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." (Colossians 3:16 [ESV])

Is the Word of Christ inspired or uninspired?

If Paul just mean to reference the inspired, "Psalms" then why did he use three terms with the term, "psalms" being in lowercase, which to me suggests a more universal term than a distinctive, "Psalms"?

Unfortunately, while their teaching does carry weight, the men listed are still affected by the noetic effects of sin.

While the the EP's would desire to see their view win in scripture, there are good reasons for not jumping on the band-waggon. For instance, as we allow scripture to interpret scripture, we see that an ode (Greek) in Colossians 3:16 is not limited to Psalm headings. It shows up in Revelation 15:3; and the song (ode) they sing is "un-Exclusively" accompanied with harps in verse 2.

There are other verses that do not appear to support EP. As we look at 1 Corinthians 14:26, we see that each had a Psalm.

While piety might lead me adopt EP, the lack if supporting scripture makes it a doubtful matter. While the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs appear to fall under the circumstantial, the content of them appear to fall under the essential (RPW). That is to say, while we are given freedom to sing a variety of songs, they must all be scriptural. In the same way, we are given the freedom to preach what sermons we will, but they must all be scriptural.

1 Corinthians 14:26, How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

Revelation 15:2-3, And I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God. 3 They sing the song [Greek, ode] of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying:
“Great and marvelous are Your works,
Lord God Almighty!
Just and true are Your ways,
O King of the saints!

Colossians 3:16, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs [Greek, ode], singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Very nicely put. Like you said, the men listed are pious brothers, but just because they signed off on something does not qualify it as inspired. Just don't see enough scriptural data to support the EP position.
 
Not to repeat myself, but if the question were a for a full argument for EP, then I'd point to the many other threads where the various questions are argued. You had asked simply about the one verse and why folks think it is to the book of Psalms. The folks adduced were to show it is not a view of the ignorant. Of course they could be wrong, and so can those who disagree with them; what kind of argument is that?!
Very nicely put. Like you said, the men listed are pious brothers, but just because they signed off on something does not qualify it as inspired. Just don't see enough scriptural data to support the EP position.
 
Not to repeat myself, but if the question were a for a full argument for EP, then I'd point to the many other threads where the various questions are argued. You had asked simply about the one verse and why folks think it is to the book of Psalms. The folks adduced were to show it is not a view of the ignorant. Of course they could be wrong, and so can those who disagree with them; what kind of argument is that?!
Very nicely put. Like you said, the men listed are pious brothers, but just because they signed off on something does not qualify it as inspired. Just don't see enough scriptural data to support the EP position.

Your charity and humility shows. Thanks.

I realize I haven't heard all there is to know about EP. I tremble at the thought of becoming convinced just as I trembled at the thought of becoming convinced about paedobaptism. Our son will be baptized this Lord's Day at Staunton OPC. Our congregation does not practice EP.
 
Congratulations in advance.:up:
Our son will be baptized this Lord's Day at Staunton OPC. Our congregation does not practice EP.
I don't think it is as significant a shift as the baptism issue; and it does not require any ecclesiastical change (all things otherwise hunky-dory). In any event, one thing at a time, line upon line, etc. Books and articles probably will be more key than any thread here, though they may point to such sources, pro and contra.
I realize I haven't heard all there is to know about EP. I tremble at the thought of becoming convinced just as I trembled at the thought of becoming convinced about paedobaptism.
 
Sermons are of human composition and are not inspired, but we are taught the truth by them weekly; inasmuch as they accurately communicate the word of Christ.

I have heard this used many times to try and argue against EP. However, this argument doesn't work for the reason that there was never a collection of inspired sermons that the church was supposed to preach exclusively. No matter the position on EP the truth is that at least at one time the church was limited to singing the inspired psalms in worship. The argument is whether this is still the case or is no longer the case. What must be proven is that even though at one time, the church was to sing psalms exclusively, that the New Testament allows uninspired hymnody. Saying that we are allowed to compose uninspired sermons is not evidence toward proving that case.
 
Jon
While the the EP's would desire to see their view win in scripture, there are good reasons for not jumping on the band-waggon. For instance, as we allow scripture to interpret scripture, we see that an ode (Greek) in Colossians 3:16 is not limited to Psalm headings. It shows up in Revelation 15:3; and the song (ode) they sing is "un-Exclusively" accompanied with harps in verse 2.

There are other verses that do not appear to support EP. As we look at 1 Corinthians 14:26, we see that each had a Psalm.

While piety might lead me adopt EP, the lack if supporting scripture makes it a doubtful matter. While the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs appear to fall under the circumstantial, the content of them appear to fall under the essential (RPW). That is to say, while we are given freedom to sing a variety of songs, they must all be scriptural. In the same way, we are given the freedom to preach what sermons we will, but they must all be scriptural.

1 Corinthians 14:26, How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

Revelation 15:2-3, And I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God. 3 They sing the song [Greek, ode] of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying:
“Great and marvelous are Your works,
Lord God Almighty!
Just and true are Your ways,
O King of the saints!

Colossians 3:16, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs [Greek, ode], singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

These points are answered quite straightforwardly elsewhere on the PB, Jon.
 
Sermons are of human composition and are not inspired, but we are taught the truth by them weekly; inasmuch as they accurately communicate the word of Christ.

I have heard this used many times to try and argue against EP. However, this argument doesn't work for the reason that there was never a collection of inspired sermons that the church was supposed to preach exclusively. No matter the position on EP the truth is that at least at one time the church was limited to singing the inspired psalms in worship. The argument is whether this is still the case or is no longer the case. What must be proven is that even though at one time, the church was to sing psalms exclusively, that the New Testament allows uninspired hymnody. Saying that we are allowed to compose uninspired sermons is not evidence toward proving that case.

My quote merely proves that we may be taught by uninspired material. However, you are correct that what I said does not disprove EP. With that I agree.
 
Very nicely put. Like you said, the men listed are pious brothers, but just because they signed off on something does not qualify it as inspired. Just don't see enough scriptural data to support the EP position.

Yes, but even as a non-EP person, I'm most impressed to see the continuity of interpretation and the quality of the people who have supported it. John Owen is arguably the greatest theological writer in the English language of all time. That pedigree doesn't make it "right," but it does make it worth considering.
 
Very nicely put. Like you said, the men listed are pious brothers, but just because they signed off on something does not qualify it as inspired. Just don't see enough scriptural data to support the EP position.

Yes, but even as a non-EP person, I'm most impressed to see the continuity of interpretation and the quality of the people who have supported it. John Owen is arguably the greatest theological writer in the English language of all time. That pedigree doesn't make it "right," but it does make it worth considering.

Ditto. If Owen were the Muffin Man I would probably tell his theology to fly a kite. But I can't ignore one who has plumbed the depths of sound theology without giving a good reason for so doing.

So? Considering…
 
Have we not gone far afield of the original intent of this thread? EP discussion is great but the author created it with the intent to ask those who do not support EP why they do practice it.
 
However, this argument doesn't work for the reason that there was never a collection of inspired sermons that the church was supposed to preach exclusively.

Yes; good point. Another point worth considering is that the congregation as a whole does not preach, but one preaches and the rest listen and judge what is said. The same applies to prayer. In sung praise, however, the congregation sings together as one. This necessitates having a form that all sincerely believe is warranted by the Word of God and can be followed wholeheartedly. As such, it is more akin to reading than to preaching or prayer. And what is read in public worship? The answer is, that which God has inspired -- the Scriptures.

As 1 Corinthians 14 has been mentioned, it is worth pointing out that the psalm being sung was obviously a solo effort, and that the extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit was pre-requisite to inspire it. If anything, the passage confirms the "inspired" nature of worship-song. But as there is no ground for making the extraordinary a pattern for ordinary worship, or individual actions a precedent for congregational actions, the activity mentioned in this passage provides no precept or precedent which bears on the issue of congregational singing.
 
Here is my short response dear Brother.

What is your objection to singing the Psalms of David? none.

First, does your church sing "hymns" exclusively without any Psalm singing at all? No. We sing both. If so, then why does your church categorically reject the singing of the Psalms? NA Do you think that God does not want you to sing Psalms? NA

* Even if I was in a Church that did not sing Psalms for whatever reason, I probably would speak up once than shut up about it because of Scripture's clear demand for order in the service and my belief that the Church's Elders (and ministers) to structure the service.

Second, If your church sings both hymns and psalms, then what is the ratio? The ratio is about 1-3 or 1-4 depending. We tend to use more hymns when the sacraments are used in the service because of very explicit trinitarian language in several hymns and direct references to the Lord's Supper as means of Grace in the Christian life. It is a way of explaining baptism as covenantal in song as opposed to a 3 minute theological lecture which kills the atmosphere.

Are there times in your worship where you sing only hymns during the day? I don't sing in my personal devotions. I have no musical tallent but I like to read them (both in metre and in scripture) for meditation. Are there days where you only sing psalms? See previous answer. Does God only want you to sing psalms part-time? No, because the Psalms testify to Christ (and our Lord said). So I generally used the Murray-M'Cheyne plan which always has a psalm and gospel section. I always to keep myself in the Gospels in my reading to keep my eyes directly on our Lord Jesus Christ.

Third, Do you feel that the idea of singing only psalms somehow intrudes upon your Christian liberty? If so, then how so?
It may, but not necessary. The Historic Reformed understanding of the Regulative Principle applies it to corporate worship, not private. That is an important distinction (see Clarkson's short essay at the end of vol. 3 of his works). Even if I was an exclusive psalmist, let's be frank: In my Canadian province there are a total of 6 Reformed Churches that are not a part of the mainline liberal denominations (and there music choice is the least of your problems). one of them is English and I'm convinced that ministry in Quebec ought to be in French for the most part, so that leaves me with my denomination the ERQ (Reformed Church of Quebec). So I'm in a city that has 2 Reformed Churches (well 1 in my city and another one across the river and accessible by bus). Both are a mixture of psalms and hymns. By options are thus: 1. I quit attending Church and forsake the gathering of the saints; which is a clearly violation of Scripture, plus i'd be denying myself the Lord's supper and Christian fellowship 2. I shut my mouth and deal with it, try someday become an elder or minister to try to change everything; which I find manipulative. 3. I overstep my boundaries and make life heck for my church's leaders- not a good thing to do in my opinion :) I rather like them and it would once again violate scripture. 4. I make the most out of a bad situation and remember that the liturgy is not what defines the church: it is the preaching of the Gospel and the proper administration of the sacraments (+ discipline being defined in that)- plus the puritans seemed to have considered Credo-baptist churches true churches (the phrase proper administration was more of a shoot at the Mass). I live my Christian life in my vocation, and I serve my church as best as I can participating in the Lord's Supper whenever I can.

Like it or not this isn't the 17th century. The majority of Churches that preach the Gospel, and administer the sacraments arn't even paedobaptist in North America. They are baptists, charismatics of a variety of sorts, or non denominational evangelicals. If I am forced to choose no church just have exclusive psalmody for my songs or join xyz church, i'll pick a less perfect church because while I believe in the RPW, I also keep in mind that it is not a defining mark of the true Church. I'm very blessed to have a Reformed Church in such a location but I know many Reformed minded folk who have no reformed church or it is at least a 2 or 3 hour drive each way (some people in parts of Quebec 8 hour!) which defeats the entire purpose of the Sabbath/ Lord's day. I also believe (like many other sincere confessional reformed folk) that the RPW is open to some interpretation in how it is to be applied, and I am not convinced by the argument that "psalms hymns and spiritual psalms" some how ought to be interpreted as "psalms, psalms, psalms", and I do not see any direct command to exclusive psalmody in the NT. And I believe the idea of hymns can be warrented from Paul's expression "pattern of sound words". Literally this refers to words in preaching, and not confessions and catechisms in the direct context, but if people want to extend it to creeds and confessions (which I think is wise and just), why not express the idea to hymns as well?
 
It's been a while but I remember Rev Lane Keister and Dr. R. Scott Clark having a good discussion on the case for EP vs Non-EP. I thought Rev Keister brought up some interesting points for the non-EP side.
Is RSC non ep?
 
From a purely pragmatic perspective I wanted to share this story. We started singing the Psalms exclusively in family worship some months back. We picked up a couple Psalters from Crown and Covenant to use along with the App for the iPhone/iPad (it played the tunes for us until we were familiar with them). Around a month had gone by and I started to notice that everyone in my family would sing these as they went about their business. My oldest daughter (9) was cleaning her bathroom singing Psalm 23A - what a joy it was to hear that!. My middle daughter (7) would take the iPad out on the patio during the Lord's Day and find ones she enjoyed singing and suggest them for family worship - she would do this for hours sometimes. My son (3) would ask me to sing Psalm 47C to him before bed. Once I forgot a line and he promptly reminded me "Wha'bout da princes and da nobles"?! My children have whole chapters of the Bible memorized and we didn't have to do any sort of memorization or strict testing regiment to achieve this - it happened within the context of singing as family and very organically.

My wife and I were listening to some old songs from our youth the other night that we hadn't heard in over 10 or 15 years - yet as soon as they came on we could sing them almost word for word. I pray that by singing the Psalms and letting the Word's of Christ dwell in them richly - that it would have the same effect as listening to those old songs from the past did on us. No matter where God's providence takes them - in their brightest days or their darkest hours - His Word will be with them as a lamp to guide their feet.
 
If I recall correctly, Dr. Clark holds the Inspired Praise position which is not excusive psalmodist (except perhaps in practice).
 
I am realizing very quickly that wisdom concerning the RPW is quite necessary for any substantial response on this issue; a topic I have barely studied at all. What constitutes essential and circumstantial elements of worship? Singing is an essential element if worship. I get that. But is the content of our songs an essential element? Some say yes and some say no. We must have good ground upon which to stand if we are going to take sides on this issue. And right now I am realizing I do not have much of a leg upon which to stand. I am going over to the RPW threads for awhile. Until next time, its popcorn for me.

:popcorn:
 
If I recall correctly, Dr. Clark holds the Inspired Praise position which is not excusive psalmodist (except perhaps in practice).

I believe this is correct as well. In his book Recovering the Reformed Confession, I believe he argues in favor of singing other inspired portions of Scripture (e.g., the Song of Moses in Exodus 15).
 
Like your testimony Barry, similar in a way to mine. Having been brought up on hymns, then they become ingrained,
and spring readily to mind. How I envy (with a godly jealousy) many of the congregations in Scotland, who don't need
a psalm book either in Gaelic or English, particularly the elderly. It is true the line given out helps, but even when in private
conversation they can ream off metrical verses to support the discussion. It's wonderful to be so filled with the word of God
that it comes naturally to the lips. That's why it so important to lay this foundation in the young.
Now the material to prove EP is voluminous, but it boils down to this. Is it not better and more instructive to sing the
infallible Word of God, than to sing the fallible word of man? Without being in any way discourteous, my personal experience
is, that the difference between singing hymns and psalms is like reading the Koran and the Bible. The one has the ring of truth,
divine truth, the other the poetic imagination of man. Chalk and cheese!
The statutes of the Lord are right,
and do rejoice the heart;
The Lord's command is pure, and doth
light to the eyes impart.
They more than gold, yea much fine gold,
to be desired are;
Than honey, honey from the comb
that droppeth, sweeter far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top