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?

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

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.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

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

__________________
Michael Daniels
Reformed, RPCNA
Denton, Maryland

[i][b]As For Me And My House, We Will Serve The Lord[/i][/b]

[SIZE="1"][I][FONT="Century Gothic"]Unum Deum in Trinitate: Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus [RIGHT]Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide - Solus Christus - Soli Deo gloria - Solum psalterium - Lex talionis[/RIGHT][/FONT][/I][/SIZE]

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

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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

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

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...

Which Bible version must be used when singing Psalms?

Anything that's not a paraphrased translation.

Why, the Hebrew one, of course!

__________________
-JD

A faithful translation suitable for singing.

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

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).

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

__________________
Sean P.M. McDonald
Communicant Member of Lisbon Reformed Presbyterian Church, Lisbon, NY
Infantryman (SGT), 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY
Husband to Laura, father to Olivia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lex praescribit, evangelium inscribit." (The law prescribes, the gospel inscribes.)

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.

__________________
Patrick
MDiv, RTS Jackson
Pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church (OPC), Lisbon, NY

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.
"Let us not please ourselves that we have deep understandings, but let us shew our understandings by our practice." Richard Sibbes

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

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.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

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.)

__________________
Independent Reformed Baptist Church (NE England, nr. Durham)

From the link RJS posted above:

__________________
Conscience may lash us, but it cannot replenish a languishing life. Conscience may be God's word and minister to you, telling you of your faults and your follies and your destitution. It may point out, but it will never supply you. Christ must give you new life. Hart has well expressed it: "He to the feeble and the faint, His mighty aid makes known; and when their languid life is spent, supplies it with His own." - J. K. Popham

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.

Great point Matthew.

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.").