Thread: Reformed Liturgys and EP

I have a collection of Reformed Liturgys (Luther's, Bucer, Calvin's, Mittleburg etc) and it struck me that in Bucer's and Calvin's they sand more than just psalms including the decalogue, creed, lord's prayer and the magnificat.

How does this impact upon the case for exclusive psalmody?

Originally Posted by AV1611

I have a collection of Reformed Liturgys (Luther's, Bucer, Calvin's, Mittleburg etc) and it struck me that in Bucer's and Calvin's they sand more than just psalms including the decalogue, creed, lord's prayer and the magnificat.

How does this impact upon the case for exclusive psalmody?

I don't hold to EP because Calvin or Bucer may or may not have. It doesn't sound like this would really impact the case. Recently I listened to a debate between Ivan Foster and Angus Stewart in which the former spent all of his time making the point that Calvin had the singing of the Decalogue and Apostle's Creed, etc. in his liturgy. Mr. Stewart's argument was focused almost entirely on the testimony of scripture. It's available here. When Stewart pointed that out, Foster just became angry (he was rather rude throughout the entire exchange).

Historical arguments have their place but they certainly don't make or break doctrines.

I have read a quote that Calvin changed over from singing the Decalogue to reciting them later in Geneva...

I believe that Lord's Prayer and Creed was also recited..

He did allow for New Testament Canticles to be sung.. "The Magnificicat" – Luke 1:46-55, "Benedictus" Luke 1:68-79, "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" (Luke 2:14), "Nunc Dimittis" (Luke 2:29-39). But even allowing them they would still be inspired new testament (so-called) songs and would not break the EP argument.

I would hold that they are not songs, so are not to be sung but Calvin believed that they were New Testament Psalms that was inspired and so was to be sung...

It is still not a straw to break the camels back..

Michael

Originally Posted by AV1611

I have a collection of Reformed Liturgys (Luther's, Bucer, Calvin's, Mittleburg etc) and it struck me that in Bucer's and Calvin's they sand more than just psalms including the decalogue, creed, lord's prayer and the magnificat.

How does this impact upon the case for exclusive psalmody?

Isn't it true that Calvin would only sing the Magnificat while bowling with friends on Sunday afternoons?

Also Luther was not Exclusive Psalmody, though was a big fan of singing of the Psalms..

Alot of his Hymns were paraphrases of the Psalms, badly done at that, but never the less Psalm Paraphrases.... A Mighty Fortress is our God is a Paraphrase of Psalm 46. Personally I prefer the Psalm 46 to the Tune of the Luthers Hymn over his words anyday.....

Michael

Originally Posted by AV1611

I have a collection of Reformed Liturgys (Luther's, Bucer, Calvin's, Mittleburg etc) and it struck me that in Bucer's and Calvin's they sand more than just psalms including the decalogue, creed, lord's prayer and the magnificat.

How does this impact upon the case for exclusive psalmody?

Calvin would die before bowling on the Sabbath....

Originally Posted by KMK

Isn't it true that Calvin would only sing the Magnificat while bowling with friends on Sunday afternoons?

Originally Posted by thunaer

A Mighty Fortress is our God is a Paraphrase of Psalm 46. Personally I prefer the Psalm 46 to the Tune of the Luthers Hymn over his words anyday.....

I find Psalm paraphrases to be particularly silly. If you're going to use a Psalm for paraphrasing why not just sing God's word as it is? It seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too. What if I paraphrased 1 Peter and read that during worship?

Like I said, I prefer the real Deal, not the fake McCoy... Paraphrasing is sorta like the The Living Bible... just gross...

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

I find Psalm paraphrases to be particularly silly. If you're going to use a Psalm for paraphrasing why not just sing God's word as it is? It seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too. What if I paraphrased 1 Peter and read that during worship?

Which Bible version must be used when singing Psalms?

Originally Posted by KMK

Which Bible version must be used when singing Psalms?

Anything that's not a paraphrased translation.

Originally Posted by KMK

Which Bible version must be used when singing Psalms?

Why, the Hebrew one, of course!

Originally Posted by KMK

Which Bible version must be used when singing Psalms?

A faithful translation suitable for singing.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

A faithful translation suitable for singing.

One reason why I love the Psalms sung according in Anglican plainsong...it is the AV being sung (almost, I think it is infact the Bishops' but they do not differ very much at all save the odd word here and there).

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

I don't hold to EP because Calvin or Bucer may or may not have.

Not saying you do brother however if our spiritual fathers saw it was fully in accordance with Scripture and the RPW to sing Psalms plus then does that not suggest we need be careful how we interpret the RPW?

Why not sing the Magnificat, Benedictus and Nunc dimittis?

I have heard this argument against EP, but it fails..

There is a BIG difference between a Translation out of the original tongues and Paraphrasing..

Granted there has been some Paraphrasing of the Psalters in the past, but most Psalters today are a wonderful translation out of the original tongues... The book of Psalms for Singing, and the Trinity Psalter not paraphrasing but translations....

But even if the psalter was a paraphrased or even a badly translation of the psalms, that is still not reason enough to not do EP. Our command is to "Sing Psalms" not improve the Psalms... So if we find a lacking translation of the Psalter then make it better then throw it out for Human composed Songs.

Michael

Originally Posted by KMK

Which Bible version must be used when singing Psalms?

Originally Posted by thunaer

would not break the EP argument.

Are they then a part of the Book of Psalms?

There is a debate of whether they are songs that are meant to be sung or are prayers and just recited praise.

Some say that they are Hymn fragments, but nothing in the passage leads us to believe that... It fact many of them are said to be spoken or prayed....

Like I said earlier, even if one can prove they are songs to be sung, they are still inspired by the Holy Spirit and so would fall under EP of only singing Divinely Written Songs (Psalms). But I disagree with those who call them Hymn Fragments, and instead believe them to be prayers or spoken praise.... Not meant to be sung....

Michael

Originally Posted by AV1611

Why not sing the Magnificat, Benedictus and Nunc dimittis?

There are basically three positions, Inspired praise, Inspired praise but only from the Book of Psalms, and of course the position taken that praise can be from inspired or uninspired material.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

There are basically three positions, Inspired praise, Inspired praise but only from the Book of Psalms

What are the arguments pro and contra these views? Articles will be fine although I have a large number of pro-EP articles/books

Originally Posted by AV1611

What are the arguments pro and contra these views? Articles will be fine although I have a large number of pro-EP articles/books

Many proponents of EP use the "inspiredness" of the Psalms as an argument to sing them. This doesn't prove EP but is only an argument for one of the other categories Chris mentioned: Inspired Praise. The real issue of the RPW is about authorization, not inspiration, and EPers should understand that. The RPW teaches that what God has commanded (authorized) is acceptable. Therefore, singing the "Magnificat" (which was actually spoken by Mary, not sung), would be an infringement of EP.

That said, I'm not aware of the arguments for Inspired Praise but not Exclusive Psalmody. One may be the appearance of certain compositions such as the (first) Song of Moses.

Thats what I said already....



Michael

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

Therefore, singing the "Magnificat" (which was actually spoken by Mary, not sung), would be an infringement of EP.
\

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

The real issue of the RPW is about authorization, not inspiration, and EPers should understand that. The RPW teaches that what God has commanded (authorized) is acceptable.

Personally I adhere to EP and would only recite the Magnificat, Benedictus and Nunc dimittis. I just found it strange that other Reformed men did not adhere to the EP.

http://www.the-highway.com/exclusive...ody_Morey.html

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF...vePsalmody.pdf

I would say that Calvin believe in EP with other Inspired Songs from Scripture... not just any inspired text, nor other uninspired works but inspired songs from scripture that is not included in the book of Psalms..

Again the argument over the Lukan Passages would be Sung or Spoken.. I would say Spoken...

As for other songs, where I disagree with Calvin would be that God through the Holy Spirit gave us a Psalter to Sing from. To Sing Psalms.. Not those others temporary Inspired Songs.. If God wanted us to sing them he would have included them in the Psalter, but since he has not we have not command to sing them....

Michael

Originally Posted by AV1611

Personally I adhere to EP and would only recite the Magnificat, Benedictus and Nunc dimittis. I just found it strange that other Reformed men did not adhere to the EP.

http://www.the-highway.com/exclusive...ody_Morey.html

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF...vePsalmody.pdf

This is funny... I almost wrote a blog post about the issue of "psalms only" vs. "inspired songs only" just yesterday. I still might.

Mr. Foster was rather disingenuous throughout that debate. It is a big difference between inspired songs only, or the Psalter with a few select hymns; and his church's practice of having a full hymnal. (I'd also like to examine the question of Thomas Manton's views on the subject sometime, which he likewise skewered and misrepresented; but that would have to occupy a separate discussion.)

Three different Dutch Reformed denominations of which I am aware follow this practice, or something similar to it.

1. The Netherlands Reformed Churches still use the Church Order of Dordt, and follow Article 69: "In the Churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Twelve Articles of the Faith, the Song of Mary, that of Zacharias, and that of Simeon shall be sung. It is left to the individual Churches whether or not to use the hymn, 'Oh God! who art our Father.' All other hymns are to be excluded from the Churches, and in those places where some have already been introduced, they are to be removed by the most suitable means."

2. The Protestant Reformed Churches have changed it to, "In the churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, the Songs of Mary, Zacharias, and Simeon, the Morning and Evening Hymns, and the Hymn of Prayer before the sermon shall be sung."

3. The Free Reformed Churches have, "In the worship services only the metrical version of the 150 Psalms (contained in the Psalter published through Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965 edition and the Dutch Psalms, 1773 edition) and the 9 hymns composed of portions of Scripture, which have been approved by Synod, shall be sung. The approval of Synod shall be required before any other hymns composed of portions of Scripture shall be used in the worship services."

But it is noteworthy that individuals from the Protestant Reformed Churches have recently arisen as defenders of exclusive psalmody (Mr. Stewart among them); and that a young lady at my church back in Colorado Springs was raised in a Free Reformed Church, and they only sang from the Psalms, never from the few Scripture songs in the back of the Psalter; and that Joel Beeke of the Netherlands Reformed said in Semper Reformanda several years ago that they do not sing the Apostle's Creed or that other Dutch hymn (and that his Reformation Heritage Publications carries works specifically arguing for exclusive psalmody). There is a great deal of overlap between the two positions; and although I disagree with having any songs other than the Psalms sung in public worship, I have more essential agreement with them than with a church that uses Trinity Hymnal or something worse. It is a world of difference between a church that uses a hymnal primarily composed of man-made hymns, and a church whose songbook is "The Psalter," which happens to have a few non-Psalter material in the back of the book, which may or may not get sung.

That having been said, I would argue against the position, because,

1. We have neither precept nor example from Holy Scripture for the singing of any of those pieces in public worship.

2. Several of them are recognized to have not been songs, and there is question as to whether the "Songs" of Mary, Simeon, and Zacharias were actually songs; which would overthrow their appointment for singing God's praise in public worship.

3. For what purpose were the Psalms put together into a single book, but to constitute the full, complete, perfect hymnbook of God's people? The fact that certain songs appear outside of the Psalter which were also included in it, and that other songs appear outside the Psalter which were not included in it, demonstrates that these songs were selected for the purpose of singing God's praise in corporate worship to the end of time, while the others were not.

Originally Posted by Kaalvenist

1. The Netherlands Reformed Churches still use the Church Order of Dordt, and follow Article 69: "In the Churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Twelve Articles of the Faith, the Song of Mary, that of Zacharias, and that of Simeon shall be sung. It is left to the individual Churches whether or not to use the hymn, 'Oh God! who art our Father.' All other hymns are to be excluded from the Churches, and in those places where some have already been introduced, they are to be removed by the most suitable means."

2. The Protestant Reformed Churches have changed it to, "In the churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, the Songs of Mary, Zacharias, and Simeon, the Morning and Evening Hymns, and the Hymn of Prayer before the sermon shall be sung."

I was not aware of this.

Even the Church of Scotland, after adopting the Westminster Confession, still permitted the Lord's Prayer to be sung, And soon after also sanctioned a minister named Simpson to write new hymns for use in worship. Doesn't sound EP to me.

Originally Posted by thunaer

I have heard this argument against EP, but it fails..

Who said I was arguing? I just asked a simple question! Which version is viewed as suitable for singing? Who decides?

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Even the Church of Scotland, after adopting the Westminster Confession, still permitted the Lord's Prayer to be sung, And soon after also sanctioned a minister named Simpson to write new hymns for use in worship. Doesn't sound EP to me.

I'm sure there are some facts mixed up somewhere in this statement, but it will take a fair amount of sifting to find them.

N Needham (see under Audio) addresses this issue, see http://www.calvinismonline.blogspot.com/
Alternatively read his book (2000 Years of Christ's Power, pt. 3, 228ff.)

From the link RJS posted above:

The Reformers and the Puritans who established this principle and fought for it, never understood it to mean the exclusion of uninspired hymns from church worship.

1. Did not Calvin include uninspired hymns in the Geneva Psalter? Yes.
2. Did not the first Scottish, English and Dutch Psalters include uninspired hymns? Yes.
3. Did not the Puritans who developed this principle actively engage in the writing of hymns (Baxter, Henry, Bunyan, etc.) and publish them (Owen)? Yes.
4. Even the great lights of the Evangelical Awakening were not opposed in principle to the singing of uninspired hymns in the services, (Whitefield, Romaine, Wesley, Toplady, Williams, etc.).

If the very framers and the greatest expounders of the regulative principle never derived exclusive psalmody from the regulative principle, this casts suspicion that the present use of the principle for exclusive psalmody is based upon a misunderstanding of the principle itself.

This misunderstanding arises out of a confusion between the essence of the act of worship and the circumstances attending worship. Dr. J.I. Packer has pointed out this distinction as being fundamental to the Puritan concept of the regulative principle of worship.

1. Scripture alone tells what make up the essence of worship. God has revealed to his people that there is to be (1) a gathering together for (2) the preaching and teaching of the Word, (3) the administration of the sacraments, (4) church discipline, (5) prayers, (6) singing. (7) fellowship, and (8) collection of offerings. The Romanists sought to add the Veneration of the Saints worship of Mary, masses for dead, adoration of images, auricular confession, penance, candles, rosaries, etc. The Reformers and Puritans refused to add any of these things to the essence of worship. Nothing is to be added except it be a rule of Scripture. This is the clear teaching of Chapter XXI in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

2. On the other hand, the circumstances of worship are a matter of Christian liberty and practicality. The early churches met in the temple and in synagogues until driven out by the Jews. Then the home was the place of the churches until the congregations grew too large, then they had to go into the fields to worship. When Christianity was legalized, believers built places of worship. The design of the building, the presence of pews and organs, even the clothing of the minister belongs to the ‘circumstances of worship. The vestment controversy of Owen’s day was not over the issue of whether or not a minister could wear vestments but whether or not the minister must wear vestments as part of the essence of worship.

Whether or not you have musical instruments accompanying your singing, or whether you sing the Psalms or uninspired hymns are issues belonging to the circumstances of worship.

Church History

Some exclusive psalmists have claimed that their position was held by the early church, the best fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans, and the leaders of the Evangelical Awakening. Some have even claimed Charles Spurgeon! But an examination of Spurgeon s “Our Hymnal” forever removes this claim.

We are warranted to ask, What is needed as evidence to demonstrate that someone in the past embraced and practiced exclusive psalmody?

1. There must be existing literature in which the person states that he believes that only the Psalms may be sung in public worship and thus he is opposed in principle to the introduction of any uninspired hymns

2. Thus evidence for exclusive psalmody cannot be drawn from:

a. Those whose practice it was to sing only the Psalms but who stated that they were not opposed in principle to the use of uninspired hymns in the worship service. (William Romaine and others like him practiced exclusive psalmody but declared that they were not opposed in principle to the use of uninspired hymns in the worship service.)

b. Those who included uninspired hymns in their psalters which were used in public worship. It is not enough to say that Calvin “virtually’’ or “practically” included only Psalms in the Geneva Psalter. Neither the Synod of Dort nor the Westminster Confession can be used as evidence for exclusive psalmody. The Synod of Dort and the framers of the W.C.F. knew that the psalters of the Reformed churches in Holland, France, Switzerland, England, Scotland all included uninspired hymns to be used in the worship service. To find just one uninspired hymn included in a psalter is enough evidence to demonstrate that the framers of that psalter were not exclusive psalmists.

With these things in mind, let us give a brief survey of church history in order to see the historical evidence.

Originally Posted by JM

From the link RJS posted above:
...

2. Did not the first Scottish, English and Dutch Psalters include uninspired hymns? Yes.

I cannot speak to the Dutch or English but on the Scottish practice if one hasn't interacted with the work of David Hay Fleming from 120 years ago where he disputes Bonar's contentions along the same lines, they have not done their homework.

David Hay Fleming, “The Hymnology of the Reformation,” Original Secession Magazine (January-June and September 1884); repr.in An Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature 4 (1991) 223–246.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I cannot speak to the Dutch or English but on the Scottish practice if one hasn't interacted with the work of David Hay Fleming from 120 years ago where he disputes Bonar's contentions along the same lines, they have not done their homework.

David Hay Fleming, “The Hymnology of the Reformation,” Original Secession Magazine (January-June and September 1884); repr.in An Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature 4 (1991) 223–246.

Thank you, I guess for now we'll have to deal with what we have access to.

Peace.

Well noted Chris. It should be pointed out that the reformation Bibles contained the Apocrypha, but such an inclusion does not entail the Apocrypha was accepted as divine Scripture and read as such in public worship. Clearly the mere inclusion of uninspired hymns in a Psalter requires additional information as to how such compositions were to be used.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Well noted Chris. It should be pointed out that the reformation Bibles contained the Apocrypha, but such an inclusion does not entail the Apocrypha was accepted as divine Scripture and read as such in public worship. Clearly the mere inclusion of uninspired hymns in a Psalter requires additional information as to how such compositions were to be used.

Great point Matthew.

Originally Posted by JM

Thank you, I guess for now we'll have to deal with what we have access to.

Peace.

Well, I guess I need to reprint some David Hay Fleming. He demonstrates IMO that it was mainly the printers who took it upon themselves to add the occasional hymn to their psalters and that it was not the practice to use this material in public worship. He also adduces a Scottish theologian who died in 1627, Robert Boyd, to support the contention the Scottish practice at the time did not include singing uninspired compositions, for which he argued. This was at the height of the time Scotland lay under the burden of the Articles of Perth, so if even at that time they were not sung, it is pretty clear uninspired song did not come into the public worship of Scotland until the mid to late 18th century, and was not common or pervasive till almost a century later (for some dates for various introduction points, see articles under "Hymnology, Scottish," "Paraphrases," "Psalms, Psalter," etc. in the Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology; see also David Lachman's entry on "Fleming, David Hay," where he writes, "His early literary endeavours, which included contributions to the Watchword and the Original Secession Magazine, exhibited much of the precision which characterized his work as a whole. ... Andrew Lang described Fleming's scholarship as 'remarkable for accuracy, judicious treatment, and research,' a judgment endorsed by the University of St Andrews, which conferred an LLD on him in 1898.").