Thread: Argument against exclusive Psalmody

Last sunday I was talking with one of the deacons at church about exclusive Psalmody. His view on it was that although the Psalms are rich material they do not take into account the new testament perspective of Christ or our future hope. The Psalms look ahead and in his opinion saw these realities rather dimly at times while many of our classic hymns using new testament perspectives/truths can capture these realities much better. Thus, he advocated a mix of psalms and hymns with the latter being sung more.



Is anyone familiar with this argument? I'd like to hear some responses.

Thanks

Well, this argument is far from new. You may take up reading Dabney on the topic. He is very thorough in his treatment of it.

I believe that this argument is seriously deficient in that it fails to remember the eternality of God. Even now, God knew what we needed as an infallible hope, that we might sing in spirit and in truth. The dispensation that is divided by Christ's life, death, and resurrection is no limit to God, who has taken it up to give us already-formulated infallible and timeless content for use in worship.

Christ is not a vague reference in the Psalms, but a living hope that even David was able to cling to. He is the eternal word that caused David, Asaph, the sons of Korah, and others to have hope just as you and I do today. He is present in the Psalms in a very real sense.

Also, the mention of the "future hope" is an interesting one. Most who ascribe to exclusive psalmody, at least that I am aware of, will speak of the imbalance in men's songs as they focus too heavily on "heaven". Yet Christ said that eternal life (i.e. our ever present and increasing hope) is to know God and Christ (i.e. John 16), which we do even now. We ought not to put our hope in something hollow of meaning, and yet this is what is often meant by "heaven". The Psalms see God lifted up before the nations as the Holy One and speak of his truth being obeyed in honor in this life. This is the hope of the exclusive psalmodist. That the very petitions we present in the Lord's prayer would come to be true (i.e. that God's name would be hallowed, that his kingdom would come, and that his law would be obeyed) and that God's church would conquer its enemies through understanding truth. When the Psalms are sung with understanding, they are an antidote from the imbalanced view of fallen man and his lapse toward meaningless worship.

I could only add to the excellent comments posted by Mr. Goodrich by saying that we sing the Psalms in the light of New Testament revelation--which is to say that we see Christ there presented--His life, death, resurrection, and present session more fully in those revealed and inspired songs than the Old Testament saints did. This is not to disparage their understanding, but only to show "the glory which excelleth" of the New Testament, as it reveals and sheds greater light upon the Psalms, and for that matter, the rest of the OT.

When I hear this objection presented, I refer the objector to an older commentary on the Psalms, and there are many, which show how the Psalter points to Christ. David Dickson, Bp. George Horne, William Plummer, and even Keil and Delitzsch refer their readers time and again to Christ, in His suffering, death, obedience, intercession, resurrection, yea, His whole work of redemption on behalf of His own, and also His fierce wrath upon His enemies, which no uninspired hymn-writer has yet properly to show.

EP in my view is legalistic and fails to come to grips with incarnational Theology.But as an Anglican I am thankful it is not something I have to worry about.

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

EP in my view is legalistic and fails to come to grips with incarnational Theology.But as an Anglican I am thankful it is not something I have to worry about.

If EP is required by the law of God, then EP is not "legalism" -- hymn-singing would be antinomian. And I wasn't aware of any connection in Scripture between "incarnational theology" and the singing of uninspired, non-canonical hymns. If you could demonstrate such a connection, it would be appreciated.

And if you think this has no relevancy to Anglicanism, you ought to read "An Essay on Psalmody," by William Romaine (a life-long Anglican).

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

EP in my view is legalistic and fails to come to grips with incarnational Theology.But as an Anglican I am thankful it is not something I have to worry about.

It would be prudent of you to define what you mean by "legalistic" as not to overly offend anyone here.

Some of the Reformed on the board takes this epithet as the greatest of insults as it denies Christ's perfect complete sacrificial atonement and continual intercession for his redeemed.

Originally Posted by mangum

It would be prudent of you to define what you mean by "legalistic" as not to overly offend anyone here.

Some of the Reformed on the board takes this epithet as the greatest of insults as it denies Christ's perfect complete sacrificial atonement and continual intercession for his redeemed.

Perfect! You just gave a nice borderline "fundie" definition of legalism.

{Mod on}

Let's keep the discussion on-track with the original issue, and not let it slip into a debate on whether or not EP is "legalistic," and what different people mean by that term.

{/Mod off}

Oh Man........

Good thing I looked before posting....... I was about to type my "Pharisee" clause to the Non-Eppers to counter their Legalism Clause to us Eppers........

I will refrain.......

Originally Posted by Me Died Blue

{Mod on}

Let's keep the discussion on-track with the original issue, and not let it slip into a debate on whether or not EP is "legalistic," and what different people mean by that term.

{/Mod off}

I'm non-EP too, but I don't think I would give an answer like which the deacon gave. I would say the same thing, but I would insist on saying it differently. I would labour to avoid the track that the deacon seemed to be on, as if arguing directly against EP as if they were singing the OT Psalms. Todd rightly points out that when EPers sing the Psalms, they're singing the Psalms in light of the NT revelation, and that they fully know that there is no going back on the revelation of the mystery of faith revealed in Christ. In other words, I would not argue like that because I think he has the "either/or" in the wrong place.

I do think, though, that the remark about legalism is not really off the track of this discussion. I am a bit inclined to say that the question itself is a bit baiting in that direction. But at the same time, it is not helpful to go there.

I can well understand the deacon's response. Maybe its Josiah's rendition of what the deacon said, and maybe not. I know what's behind that kind of response, and I think it suffers from being engineered too much by the polemical atmosphere than by sound grounding. What he says is right; how he says it is too geared to the present debate, and is not very helpful.

Just my two cents.

Greetings:

I read everywhere in the New Testament that we should be singing Psalms. I do not read anywhere in the New Testament that we should be singing uninspired songs.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Thank you very much for your replies. If any of you could recommend a website or book which might go further into this issue in general and my earlier question specefically; that would be great.

Thanks.

As I began to study the issue more, in light of the Regulative Principle of Worship, I realized that it is not about what I think is best. The question is: what has God authorized? That's why I don't think that issues such as these are even helpful; they rely on the opinions of men, what they think will please God. It's somewhat of a red herring, a non issue. We are certainly in no position to degrade the value of God's hymnal if it is what He has prescribed for use in worship. If God commands us to cluck like chickens in worship, then we must do that even if we don't immediately see why. Even though I'm convinced of Exclusive Psalmody because of the issue of authorization, I am learning more and more about the superiority and sufficiency of the Psalter daily. In discussions I prefer to begin with the former and move to the latter, showing after the foundation of authorization has been laid that objections raised about superiority and sufficiency are invalid.

This topic is oft-discussed on PB with little to no resolution or understanding from either side...are there any representatives from either side that would be willing to debate the resolution below in the new, bright and shiny debate forum?

Here is the resolution I would propose:
"Exclusive Psalmody is the clear teaching of Scripture such that those who do not practice it are sinning."

Any other proposed resolutions from the crowd?

peace

A debate is in the works; but life intervenes and I'll get back on getting it going when I can. If we do this we do want to "do it right."

Originally Posted by sotzo

This topic is oft-discussed on PB with little to no resolution or understanding from either side...are there any representatives from either side that would be willing to debate the resolution below in the new, bright and shiny debate forum?

Here is the resolution I would propose:
"Exclusive Psalmody is the clear teaching of Scripture such that those who do not practice it are sinning."

Any other proposed resolutions from the crowd?

peace

Originally Posted by JohnV

I'm non-EP too, but I don't think I would give an answer like which the deacon gave. I would say the same thing, but I would insist on saying it differently. I would labour to avoid the track that the deacon seemed to be on, as if arguing directly against EP as if they were singing the OT Psalms. Todd rightly points out that when EPers sing the Psalms, they're singing the Psalms in light of the NT revelation, and that they fully know that there is no going back on the revelation of the mystery of faith revealed in Christ. In other words, I would not argue like that because I think he has the "either/or" in the wrong place.

I do think, though, that the remark about legalism is not really off the track of this discussion. I am a bit inclined to say that the question itself is a bit baiting in that direction. But at the same time, it is not helpful to go there.

I can well understand the deacon's response. Maybe its Josiah's rendition of what the deacon said, and maybe not. I know what's behind that kind of response, and I think it suffers from being engineered too much by the polemical atmosphere than by sound grounding. What he says is right; how he says it is too geared to the present debate, and is not very helpful.

Just my two cents.

Dear John V,

You offer no insight into what your argument against exclusive psalmody is. If it is borderline legalism, then explain how it is so.

As far as a new debate on EP vs. non EP please review the regulative principal of worship. There are tons of threads about that on the board.

Originally Posted by Nse007

Dear John V,

You offer no insight into what your argument against exclusive psalmody is? If it is borderline legalism, then explain how it is so.

As far as a new debate on EP vs. non EP please review the regulative principal of worship. There are tons of threads about that on the board.

The OP was a question about a certain argument, and I spoke to that.

I spoke also to Max's inclusion of the word "legalistic".

I made no statements either for or against EP itself. I did not intend to.

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

As I began to study the issue more, in light of the Regulative Principle of Worship, I realized that it is not about what I think is best. The question is: what has God authorized? That's why I don't think that issues such as these are even helpful; they rely on the opinions of men, what they think will please God. It's somewhat of a red herring, a non issue. We are certainly in no position to degrade the value of God's hymnal if it is what He has prescribed for use in worship. If God commands us to cluck like chickens in worship, then we must do that even if we don't immediately see why. Even though I'm convinced of Exclusive Psalmody because of the issue of authorization, I am learning more and more about the superiority and sufficiency of the Psalter daily. In discussions I prefer to begin with the former and move to the latter, showing after the foundation of authorization has been laid that objections raised about superiority and sufficiency are invalid.

, except for the underlined portion...

Seriously though, I think you hit the nail on the head in that the EP debate comes down exclusively to what God has commanded. Our thoughts, no matter how well meaning, do not bear upon the matter if God has already addressed it.

Hence if God has commanded EP, than arguments regarding not using the name of Christ in worship, being overly focused on the OT etc etc are all irrelevant.

On the other hand, if God has not commanded EP, than arguments regarding the superiority of the psalms to man-made hymns or songs are equally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by satz

, except for the underlined portion...

Seriously though, I think you hit the nail on the head in that the EP debate comes down exclusively to what God has commanded. Our thoughts, no matter how well meaning, do not bear upon the matter if God has already addressed it.

Hence if God has commanded EP, than arguments regarding not using the name of Christ in worship, being overly focused on the OT etc etc are all irrelevant.

On the other hand, if God has not commanded EP, than arguments regarding the superiority of the psalms to man-made hymns or songs are equally irrelevant.

All except the underlined portion. I agree with it but would go further. If God has not commanded EP, we still have to show that he has commanded us to write our own songs. If he has done neither, then we're in some real trouble!

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

All except the underlined portion. I agree with it but would go further. If God has not commanded EP, we still have to show that he has commanded us to write our own songs. If he has done neither, then we're in some real trouble!

I would argue that the bible does in fact command neither. Correct me if I am wrong, but the EPer does not argue that the Scripture specifically commands "sing only Psalms," but says that the Scripture says to sing Psalms, and that the absence of commands to sing anything else, per the RPW, constitutes a restriction.

In order to prove his case, an EPer needs to show:
1) That "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" must mean the 150 Psalms of the Psalter exclusively, and cannot be inclusive of any other songs, in Scripture or otherwise.
2) That, in absence of a specific command regarding worship in the New Testament, it is sin to include anything as an element of worship (RPW).

Failing either of these destroys the EP argument.

Originally Posted by elnwood

I would argue that the bible does in fact command neither. Correct me if I am wrong, but the EPer does not argue that the Scripture specifically commands "sing only Psalms," but says that the Scripture says to sing Psalms, and that the absence of commands to sing anything else, per the RPW, constitutes a restriction.

In order to prove his case, an EPer needs to show:
1) That "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" must mean the 150 Psalms of the Psalter exclusively, and cannot be inclusive of any other songs, in Scripture or otherwise.
2) That, in absence of a specific command regarding worship in the New Testament, it is sin to include anything as an element of worship (RPW).

Failing either of these destroys the EP argument.

***edited***

Nevermind. It's not worth it.

Here's an interesting follow-up, though. Why are people who outright reject the RPW even allowed on the board if they aren't interested in reforming? Isn't a desire to move toward greater confessionalism a requirement for membership?

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

Here's an interesting follow-up, though. Why are people who outright reject the RPW even allowed on the board if they aren't interested in reforming? Isn't a desire to move toward greater confessionalism a requirement for membership?

Censorship.........commrade David? If I happen to be a Christian who disagrees (strongly) on the subject of EP I should be out on my ear? Shame.

Mr. Pell, I was not even educated on the RPW and was questioning all of the Messianic teachings I had had...actually struggling with it to out and out debate. It wasn't that I wasn't willing to reform...but without understanding, I literally had to be convinced, ie., convince me or I will continue to stand where I do.

I'm EP, btw After having been raised a hymn-singing baptist.

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

Mr. Pell, I was not even educated on the RPW and was questioning all of the Messianic teachings I had had...actually struggling with it to out and out debate. It wasn't that I wasn't willing to reform...but without understanding, I literally had to be convinced, ie., convince me or I will continue to stand where I do.

I'm EP, btw After having been raised a hymn-singing baptist.

Good point. It is like a courtroom David, if you could convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that EP is a NT COMMAND I will embrace it, otherwise it is fair game in tearms of debate.

Hmmmmm,

I am a Psalm Singing Presbyterial Reformed Baptist.....

After of course being raised a Hymn Singing (Which are really only 19th century gospel songs), 4 point Arminian, Dispensational, Fundamentalist, Independent, Antinomian Baptist....

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

All except the underlined portion. I agree with it but would go further. If God has not commanded EP, we still have to show that he has commanded us to write our own songs. If he has done neither, then we're in some real trouble!

That's fair enough.

I would respond, of course, that in the absence of a command to sing only the psalms, writing our own songs is implied by the command to sing, in the same way that making up our own prayers or sermons is implied.

And yes, I am aware this has been addressed previously on other threads.

Originally Posted by satz

That's fair enough.

I would respond, of course, that in the absence of a command to sing only the psalms, writing our own songs is implied by the command to sing, in the same way that making up our own prayers or sermons is implied.

And yes, I am aware this has been addressed previously on other threads.

Gotta agree. Burden here is on the pro-EP folk. By the way if you are EP this is not "personal" debate is a way to learn and sharpen our minds...........one of you good EP types might throw out a defense so solid that I accept EP. I used to be dispy....I admited that position was wrong and took up covenantal theology. What I am saying is I am not too proud to admit I am wrong I have done it before. It just has not happened in the EP realm yet. Grace and Peace.

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

Burden here is on the pro-EP folk.

Why is that? I ask just because the pro-EP folk would say that the burden is on you for similar reasons.

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

Why is that? I ask just because the pro-EP folk would say that the burden is on you for similar reasons.

Good question. The burden is not on me because I am not making a dogmatic claim(in this case EP), nor am I a making a dogmatic case for classic hymns as a sole expression. In classical debate burden is always on the one making an exclusive claim.

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

Censorship.........commrade David? If I happen to be a Christian who disagrees (strongly) on the subject of EP I should be out on my ear? Shame.

It doesn't have anything to do with EP, so drop the name-calling and sarcasm. If you had actually read my post instead of looking for a reason to vilify me, you would see that I was referring to the Regulative Principle, not Exclusive Psalmody. I understand that there are some different interpretations of the Regulative Principle on this board, but the LBCF and WCF do teach the principle, and if you're going to reject it altogether then you don't belong on the board, IMO, because this board is for people who want to learn. If you don't like the Regulative Principle, then you don't like the historic Reformed faith and this isn't the place for you.

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

Mr. Pell, I was not even educated on the RPW and was questioning all of the Messianic teachings I had had...actually struggling with it to out and out debate. It wasn't that I wasn't willing to reform...but without understanding, I literally had to be convinced, ie., convince me or I will continue to stand where I do.

I'm EP, btw After having been raised a hymn-singing baptist.

The problem is that "convince me or I will continue to stand where I do" is not the attitude that people who come to the PuritanBoard are supposed to have, at least if they want to contribute to the board. The mission statement is to return American evangelicalism to its confessional roots. I came here because I wanted to learn what it meant to be a confessional Presbyterian, not so I could argue with everyone about simple, basic confessional principles. If people, after hearing the arguments, don't want to embrace Reformed distinctives, it isn't fair for those of who do to have to respond to the same tired arguments over and over and suffer being called legalists. Those who join the board should join because they realize that confessionalism has something to offer, not because they're happy with their non-Reformed standpoints and want to argue with people who hold to the LBCF and WCF.

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

It doesn't have anything to do with EP, so drop the name-calling and sarcasm. If you had actually read my post instead of looking for a reason to vilify me, you would see that I was referring to the Regulative Principle, not Exclusive Psalmody. I understand that there are some different interpretations of the Regulative Principle on this board, but the LBCF and WCF do teach the principle, and if you're going to reject it altogether then you don't belong on the board, IMO, because this board is for people who want to learn. If you don't like the Regulative Principle, then you don't like the historic Reformed faith and this isn't the place for you.



The problem is that "convince me or I will continue to stand where I do" is not the attitude that people who come to the PuritanBoard are supposed to have, at least if they want to contribute to the board. The mission statement is to return American evangelicalism to its confessional roots. I came here because I wanted to learn what it meant to be a confessional Presbyterian, not so I could argue with everyone about simple, basic confessional principles. If people, after hearing the arguments, don't want to embrace Reformed distinctives, it isn't fair for those of who do to have to respond to the same tired arguments over and over and suffer being called legalists. Those who join the board should join because they realize that confessionalism has something to offer, not because they're happy with their non-Reformed standpoints and want to argue with people who hold to the LBCF and WCF.

Why Dave Lad! You are going to give yourself a "spell" have a valium an seltzer and a good night sleep......you are getting cranky!

By the bye I do embrace the Heidelberg, it is a Reformed confession.

David, I did not come here to argue. I came here to learn. I really didn't realise what I was getting into when I came. My husband had become reformed and we were starting to attend a PCA church, then landed in a "reformed baptist" congregation (I put that in quotes as it doesn't even live up to Reformed in the minor sense...they are heading to FV, paedocommunion, and no membership or proper ordinations). I found the PB and he advised that I join it to learn more. But I ran into things that were new to me and that I did not have the understanding that I thought I had. Please note, I thought I knew more about what I was talking about than I did.

I've now gone from a new Reformed Baptist to an RPW Presbyterian.

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

David, I did not come here to argue. I came here to learn. I really didn't realise what I was getting into when I came. My husband had become reformed and we were starting to attend a PCA church, then landed in a "reformed baptist" congregation (I put that in quotes as it doesn't even live up to Reformed in the minor sense...they are heading to FV, paedocommunion, and no membership or proper ordinations). I found the PB and he advised that I join it to learn more. But I ran into things that were new to me and that I did not have the understanding that I thought I had. Please note, I thought I knew more about what I was talking about than I did.

I've now gone from a new Reformed Baptist to an RPW Presbyterian.

I understand, Colleen. I went through a similar transition. You know that nothing I said was directed at you, right? It had more to do with Don's rejection of the RPW and Max's statement that EPers are legalists. I don't understand why these things even have to be issues here.

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

Why Dave Lad! You are going to give yourself a "spell" have a valium an seltzer and a good night sleep......you are getting cranky!

What are you talking about? All I did was explain what I thought was the mission statement of the board.

Moderator hate ON. It is for the owner and moderators of this board to determine who doesn't belong here. Discuss nicely, with grace, or don't discuss.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Moderator hate ON. It is for the owner and moderators of this board to determine who doesn't belong here. Discuss nicely, with grace, or don't discuss.

Perhaps you can address Max's declaration of EPers as legalists.

Concerning who belongs here and who doesn't, could you, as a mod, just tell me if my understanding is incorrect? If this isn't a place for the Reforming to learn but is a venue for those who reject Reformed distinctives to argue and refuse to allow their understanding to develop, then just tell me and I'll change my expectations.

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

What are you talking about? All I did was explain what I thought was the mission statement of the board.

I am totally in line with the mission of this board, I hold the Heidelberg and the 39 articles and the three great creeds. I just happen to disagree with you on this thread....which is about EP, you I disagree and since I am not EP you want me thrown out. That is what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by I follow Jesus

I am totally in line with the mission of this board, I hold the Heidelberg and the 39 articles and the three great creeds. I just happen to disagree with you on this thread....which is about EP, you I disagree and since I am not EP you want me thrown out. That is what I am talking about.

Please drop the false accusations. I never said that I wanted you thrown out because you aren't EP. Many on this board aren't. You called EPers legalists. Exclusive Psalmody is a historically acceptable position for a Reformed Christian and you have no right to throw out such insults. Are you aware that many on this board hold the position? It was an offensive thing to do and you need to own up to it.

My other complaint was concerning Don's continued argumentation on this board against the RPW. That post was the one which caused me to bring up the question about board membership, not anything you said. I'm just trying to get straight in my mind what is acceptable on the board.