I am wondering how a certain observation fits in with the fact that only what God orders is permitted in worship: there are no written songs in the Bible, only lyrics.

This really is quite puzzling, as it seems to mean that we are commanded to sing, yet we must necessarily bring in a song's musical notation from outside the text. How is this not some form of will-worship? And how far does it allow outside influences to go?

Also, how does the fact that we can sing psalms in a different language from the original tie in with the RPW?

Thanks for the response. And before I go on, I want to say that I am not arguing for the falsity of the RPW, but rather I want to know how it stands against certain objections. I am not very knowledgeable about it, and I therefore request that my questions are not taken as attacks but are only from curiosity and for my discernment.

Originally Posted by Joshua

The tune of a song is circumstantial. There are no specific commands to sing a Psalm in such and such a tune (although there are some Psalms that indicate that said song is to the tune of such and such). However, we are commanded to sing Psalms, "making melody in the heart," which implies a tune. And in order to sing we have to have a tune of sorts. Since said parameters are not given as to precisely what that tune should be, I would say it's a matter of circumstance.

What else qualifies as circumstantial?

Are the psalms that do indicate a tune only to be sung in that tune?

Does the Bible state anywhere that we are only to sing psalms specifically?

I have to go now, but I have some more questions that I need to articulate. Thank you.

My friend,

Tunes are circumstances of psalm singing, it should be easy to sung at the corporate worship.

The Bible records singing of psalms as an element of worship and commands us to sing praises to God, and there cannot be found any record in Bible about uninspired pieces be sung at the worship of God.

The question of tunes has been answered, but this is also interesting:

Originally Posted by packabacka

Also, how does the fact that we can sing psalms in a different language from the original tie in with the RPW?

Please consult Hebrews 3:7-11, where the Hebrew text of Psalm 95 is rendered in Greek (English in our translation), and is still credited with being the speech of the Holy Ghost.

Thanks for the answers so far, guys. I just got a few more questions...

Does "circumstantial" essentially entail some part of a command (explicit or implicit) in which the details are not given, but which must be present?

What else qualifies as circumstantial?

(From before) What are the psalms that indicate a tune? Are these psalms only to be sung in that tune?

This thread may be of interest:

Circumstances vs. Elements of Worship as per RPW

We are commanded to be taught by the Psalms.
The Psalms command new songs.
We are commanded to sing new (uninspired) songs.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

We are commanded to be taught by the Psalms.
The Psalms command new songs.
We are commanded to sing new (uninspired) songs.

The brother has stated that he is seeking to understand the RPW -- "that only what God orders is permitted in worship."

According to this understanding of the RPW, if we were commanded to sing "new" songs, then we would not be at liberty to sing "old" songs.

non sequitur - we are commanded to sing the Psalms and be taught by the Psalms, which command new songs.

All perfectly aligning to the RPW.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

non sequitur - we are commanded to sing the Psalms and be taught by the Psalms, which command new songs.

It is only a non sequitur on your understanding of the RPW which allows for freedom to do or not to do. On the traditional understanding -- which it is the brother's desire to understand -- if God orders it then that is what we are to do and we are not at liberty to do otherwise. If God had have ordered us to sing new songs in the way you understand it, then we would not be at liberty to do otherwise, and therefore would not be at liberty to sing "old" songs.

Let's be kind to our brother and help him with his enquiries regarding the traditional understanding of the RPW.

Presuppositions aside, the RPW states negatively that "what is not commanded is forbidden" and positively "what is commanded is required" in worship.

The previous statements support both and allow for old/inspired song as well as new/uninspired song.

Also - I do not believe it kind to leave out credible arguments, even if they challenge beloved traditions. 1 Thess 5:21

To the question of translations of the psalms. Just as we translate the scriptures into all tongues to go out to all nations, so we also translate the psalms to go out to all nations.

1 Corinthians 14:15
What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Presuppositions aside, the RPW states negatively that "what is not commanded is forbidden" and positively "what is commanded is required" in worship.

If you have found a world where you can meet the requirement to sing a "new" song by singing an "old" song I wish you all the happiness that world has to offer; in this context, however, let's try and help the brother with his enquiries.

- I am going to abandon this discussion, as I know where this invariably leads, but any serious inquiry into details of singing Psalms, such as alignment of tunes and language to the RPW, seem to indicate an interest in the validity of EP claims, thus the posting of the EP rebuttal.

The brother may now take the rebuttal into account, and, if he finds merit in it, the other inquiries are moot.

Blessings!

Alright, this has been going remarkably smooth for me -- earlier, when I was trying to discern what exactly the RPW entailed, I could not decide on anything, but after reading a couple of Rev. Brian Schwertley's articles and clearing up some other things (thanks to you guys!), I am convinced that instruments ought be withheld in worship and that exclusive psalmody is true. The counter-arguments of my own and of others did not seem adequate.

My sinful rebellion against God's Word was evident before me now. I had thought that these ideas were ridiculous, and I tried reconciling them to my feelings before searching for what Scripture taught, rather than the other way around. I wanted to see what "felt right" and was in line with "common sense" before seeing what was in line with God's Word. By God's grace I prayed before this search, and He enlightened me rather quickly.

Otherwise, I am sifting through some nuances of the RPW, namely, if and how God can be corporately worshiped on days other than His instituted Lord's Day. For example, is it alright to meet on Wednesday nights with about 10-15 Christians for praise and worship (I'm assuming yes)? If so, does the regulative principle of worship apply to such a meeting?

To answer this question, I am making my way through this previous thread I created and the links which are branched from there, but I would appreciate any extra input.

Thank you guys again. Thank you so much.

Originally Posted by packabacka

I am convinced that instruments ought be withheld in worship and that exclusive psalmody is true. The counter-arguments of my own and of others did not seem adequate.

Amen brother, Praise His name. May the Lord raise up a new generation of those who fear him.

When you sing uninspired songs you are singing what some man "thinks" about God. When you sing Psalms you are singing what God says about Himself. I believe that God gives us explicit instructions on how He is to be worshipped. Has a singer of uninspired hymns for many years I have only begun to see this in the last year.
If Psalms are the best for singing and showing praise unto God why would you want to use anything else? I fear we have been guilty of offering "strange fire" before the Lord. Has Brian Schwertley said in one of his messages on this subject: "Why can't you just do what your told to do?"
Why do you have to rebel against God?

Originally Posted by packabacka

Alright, this has been going remarkably smooth for me -- earlier, when I was trying to discern what exactly the RPW entailed, I could not decide on anything, but after reading a couple of Rev. Brian Schwertley's articles and clearing up some other things (thanks to you guys!), I am convinced that instruments ought be withheld in worship and that exclusive psalmody is true. The counter-arguments of my own and of others did not seem adequate.

My sinful rebellion against God's Word was evident before me now. I had thought that these ideas were ridiculous, and I tried reconciling them to my feelings before searching for what Scripture taught, rather than the other way around. I wanted to see what "felt right" and was in line with "common sense" before seeing what was in line with God's Word. By God's grace I prayed before this search, and He enlightened me rather quickly.

Otherwise, I am sifting through some nuances of the RPW, namely, if and how God can be corporately worshiped on days other than His instituted Lord's Day. For example, is it alright to meet on Wednesday nights with about 10-15 Christians for praise and worship (I'm assuming yes)? If so, does the regulative principle of worship apply to such a meeting?

To answer this question, I am making my way through this previous thread I created and the links which are branched from there, but I would appreciate any extra input.

Thank you guys again. Thank you so much.

Here is a note from the Geneva Bible on Psalm 150:3

150:3 Exhorting the people only to rejoice in praising God, he
maketh mention of those instruments which by God’s commandment
were appointed in the old Law, but under Christ the use
thereof is abolished in the Church.

Upon reading through the other thread, I am still unsure of how to make distinctions between regulations for public, family, and private worship. Andrew Meyers and Rev. Winzer explained the distinction between specific/stated and general worship, but I still find the distinction fuzzy.

For instance, the RPW mandates that everything commanded in Scripture pertaining to worship is necessary, and everything not commanded is forbidden. Therefore, in public worship, if we subtract the sermon or the sacraments, we are obviously violating the RPW. Yet, we are not violating the RPW if we do not administer such parts of worship in family or private worship. One could argue that these are simply impractical (as we don't have ordained persons to do such things), but does that really excuse a blatant absence? That is, even if such a reason actually excuses the absence of these things, in effect the criteria are being lessened. "Do whatever I command you, as long as it's pragmatic," or "as long as you're comfortable doing so." Where do we draw the line? We need more clear-cut rules between the three different spheres of worship.

Implicit in the blurry distinction is the question, When am I engaging in private worship? A question raised in one of the threads linked from the "Extent of the RPW" thread asked if one would be sinning for simply picking up his guitar and singing a praise song. When exactly does specific private worship begin and general worship end? If I am on my to class and I start singing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," am I profaning God's worship by bringing in human inventions? If I make myself so that I'm not singing towards God but merely singing the song for my enjoyment, am I better off than singing an uninspired song directly to God?

Sorry, but I really want to nail down the intricacies of the regulative principle.

Come on, guys...

Alright, this has been really bugging me, as there are two separate extremes to be avoided: strict adherence to the RPW in non-public worship (which would then include a sermon, sacraments, etc.), and a NPW which would open the floodgates for incense, etc. I can't find a way to balance this.

It is obvious that public worship ought to strictly adhere to the RPW. It is not so obvious for the other two.

For instance, it would be impossible for family and private worship to have the sacraments if no family member were ordained. But how exactly does that play into the RPW? Where is Scriptural justification for removing that aspect of it, even for such an obvious removal?

It seems that part of the solution is to understand that private worship is synonymous with general worship, although I'm not too sure how many would agree with that. Then, it is at least possible for a non-ordained person to worship God by himself, since if an ordained person had to join him to administer the sacraments it would no longer be private worship; therefore, private worship by a non-ordained person could not exist if strict adherence to the RPW were required. But if private worship is equated with general worship, then what forbids us from incense, shrines, etc.?

This leads to another question: in general worship, are we allowed to offer incense and do other things allowed by the NPW? I'm assuming part of that solution is that as soon as one begins to have any type of ceremony at all, it ceases to be general worship and becomes specific, private worship. But with this distinction back in the fold, it seems that private worship cannot exist strictly under the RPW, and therefore we have to find some justification either explicitly or implicitly from Scripture that allows for RPW "reductions."

Can anyone help me sort through this?!

Originally Posted by packabacka

If I am on my to class and I start singing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," am I profaning God's worship by bringing in human inventions?

It makes for an informative study to look at the difference between the Hebrew words generally translated "meditation" and "worship." Meditation is not merely mental, but verbal also. The Hebrews did not simply think things through, but they uttered their deep thoughts. Worship, on the other hand, is a prostrating of oneself before a superior. According to Scripture, it is an exercise of the whole man, soul and body, not just a meditation. I would classify singing A Mighty Fortress as one walks to class as a meditation, not as worship.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by packabacka

If I am on my to class and I start singing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," am I profaning God's worship by bringing in human inventions?

It makes for an informative study to look at the difference between the Hebrew words generally translated "meditation" and "worship." Meditation is not merely mental, but verbal also. The Hebrews did not simply think things through, but they uttered their deep thoughts. Worship, on the other hand, is a prostrating of oneself before a superior. According to Scripture, it is an exercise of the whole man, soul and body, not just a meditation. I would classify singing A Mighty Fortress as one walks to class as a meditation, not as worship.

Thank you so much for this distinction!

When exactly would you say that meditation becomes worship? Would it be when a certain time is planned? Am I not prostrating myself in a sense whenever I am singing of God's greatness on my way to classes?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by packabacka

If I am on my to class and I start singing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," am I profaning God's worship by bringing in human inventions?

It makes for an informative study to look at the difference between the Hebrew words generally translated "meditation" and "worship." Meditation is not merely mental, but verbal also. The Hebrews did not simply think things through, but they uttered their deep thoughts. Worship, on the other hand, is a prostrating of oneself before a superior. According to Scripture, it is an exercise of the whole man, soul and body, not just a meditation. I would classify singing A Mighty Fortress as one walks to class as a meditation, not as worship.

If prostrating oneself before a superior is the entire meaning of worship, then shouldn't we all prostrate ourselves when we worship each week? (I really am not trying to be sarcastic, but am asking this honestly)

One thing that could help in determining the grasp of the RPW over different spheres of worship is the fact that the Lord's Supper is not administered in every public worship service. We are commanded to partake in it, but does that mean that we are commanded to partake in every instance? If so, the new observation doesn't really help much in my discerning; if not, it can help a ton.

Originally Posted by packabacka

When exactly would you say that meditation becomes worship? Would it be when a certain time is planned? Am I not prostrating myself in a sense whenever I am singing of God's greatness on my way to classes?

Worship contains the circumstance of time and place, which meditation is not restricted to. So it might be said that worship in the formal sense of the term requires the setting apart of time and place for the purpose of engaging in specific acts of devotion as prescribed by God.

Walking to class requires the exercise of the body and at least some part of the cognitive ability, and hence you cannot be prostrated before God; prostration requires the complete occupation of the individual so as to be fully at the disposal of God.

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

If prostrating oneself before a superior is the entire meaning of worship, then shouldn't we all prostrate ourselves when we worship each week? (I really am not trying to be sarcastic, but am asking this honestly)

Prostration per se is not required, but the full exercise of body and soul is fundamental to the act of worship.

So why would singing "A Mighty Fortress is our God" (a paraphrase of a Psalm) be meditation rather than worship if it is sung in a worship service?

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

So why would singing "A Mighty Fortress is our God" (a paraphrase of a Psalm) be meditation rather than worship if it is sung in a worship service?

It wouldn't be. I was asking if singing the song on the way to classes (for example) would be allowable within the RPW.

In a way, I knew it was, but not how, but Rev. Winzer graciously explained it.

Originally Posted by Blueridge Believer

When you sing uninspired songs you are singing what some man "thinks" about God. When you sing Psalms you are singing what God says about Himself. I believe that God gives us explicit instructions on how He is to be worshipped. Has a singer of uninspired hymns for many years I have only begun to see this in the last year.
If Psalms are the best for singing and showing praise unto God why would you want to use anything else? I fear we have been guilty of offering "strange fire" before the Lord. Has Brian Schwertley said in one of his messages on this subject: "Why can't you just do what your told to do?"
Why do you have to rebel against God?

Sorry for interjecting again, but this requires response:

Singing new songs is no more rebellion than praying or preaching with "uninspired" words.

God told us to be taught by the Psalms.

God teaches in the Psalms and elsewhere that we should sing new songs.

We should obey God's Word and sing new songs in the fullness of understanding as it regards the new covenant in Jesus Christ.

That does not mean, as some have tried to propose, that we should abandon or change the "old songs", no more than we abandon or change the "old prayers" or "old preaching".

We should obey God.

People have to be very, very careful here. Speaking on behalf of God is a serious thing. For someone to assert that the worship of His people is not acceptable to God, he had better have assured authority on his side.

The Psalms repeatedly demonstrate that God is pleased with the songs people sing in praise of Him, and it is He who calls that worship.

There are innumerable songs, such as "A Mighty Fortress", which are freely taken from the Psalms. Some cross over many Psalms, such as "Amazing Grace"; they are no less Psalmist than a song that versifies only one Psalm at a time.

And songs are to ascribe to God the things that are God's. If Israel was to sing of their redemption from slavery, from Egypt, how much more are we to sing of an immeasurably greater redemption from the bondage and condemnation of sin? If Israel was to sing about the acts of God in their history, even if only so as to remember them to their children but certainly in order to give praise to Whom it was due, how much more are we to praise God for the wonderful acts of salvation given to us, praise Him for the work of salvation done in His Church?

These acts which the people of Israel sang about are symbolic to us as Christians. They speak of the redemption that we now know about. If we are to sing about those acts, then the Psalms clearly indicate that we are to sing about a much greater redemption wrought in Jesus Christ.

It is utterly ridiculous to assert that someone is trying to trump the Psalms by writing another song. He is not trumping the Psalms; he is obeying what the Psalms so highly recommend and command: singing his praise to God. And the Psalms tell us that God is pleased with such praise.

Originally Posted by JohnV

It is utterly ridiculous to assert that someone is trying to trump the Psalms by writing another song. He is not trumping the Psalms; he is obeying what the Psalms so highly recommend and command: singing his praise to God. And the Psalms tell us that God is pleased with such praise.

I wouldn't say EP is derived from some belief that all non-psalms are inherently or absolutely evil, or that they are based in human pride, but they are relatively worse than the psalms. God has given us the largest book in the Bible, 150 flawless songs, with which to worship Him. Why would we want anything else? It's not that other songs are bad; it's that they are worse.

so is any sermon or prayer not verbatim from the Scriptures...relatively...

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

so is any sermon or prayer not verbatim from the Scriptures...relatively...

Well, prayer by its very nature must be mutable, since it is not possible to address God with our current burdens or praises if we speak the same words. And we are commanded to reason from the Scriptures, allowing for significant deduction in our sermons.

Worship, on the other hand, is descriptive of our immutable God, and He has not commanded us to change or add to the perfect psalms He has given us (unless I am mistaken).

I know that you argue in prescriptive psalmody that the psalms command us to sing new songs, but it does not seem that that is exactly what the text is telling us. Maybe you could elaborate?

Originally Posted by packabacka

Originally Posted by JohnV

It is utterly ridiculous to assert that someone is trying to trump the Psalms by writing another song. He is not trumping the Psalms; he is obeying what the Psalms so highly recommend and command: singing his praise to God. And the Psalms tell us that God is pleased with such praise.

I wouldn't say EP is derived from some belief that all non-psalms are inherently or absolutely evil, or that they are based in human pride, but they are relatively worse than the psalms. God has given us the largest book in the Bible, 150 flawless songs, with which to worship Him. Why would we want anything else? It's not that other songs are bad; it's that they are worse.

Here are your assumptions:
The Psalms are the best; they are flawless; they are from God;
Writing a song is wanting something else than the Psalms;
Therefore writing other songs demonstrate dissatisfaction with what God has given.

Do these assumption necessarily follow? Are you sure that you judge people's motives correctly? Or are they your motives superimposed on other people?

I am saying that one can write a song of praise, as John Newton did, with an esteem of the Psalms that is no less than a high reverence for them. And it out of obedience to what the Psalms so highlly recommend and command.

But that's not my main point. If the Psalms are so replete with recommendations and commendations from God concerning the joy and faith of God's people as expressed in their songs of worship, who are we to then say that God is not pleased with such praise and worship? God is pleased with joyful noise, how much more with organized music? If God repeatedly says that He is pleased with this, why should we doubt it?

I think that it is rather the other way around, that some men are trumping the Psalms by putting rules in place which the Bible never intended. The Psalms themselves are an answer to EP. All you have to do is read them yourself to see that. I'm barely halfway through the Psalms and I have page after page after page of references concerning what God has to say about the praise and worship that He approves in the form of song. John Newton putting his experience of redemption in the form of a song is one of the best approvals of the Psalms that has been penned in the last 500 years. It does exactly what the Psalms enjoin, and is a perfect illustration of a high reverence for God's Psalter.

The RPW nowhere denies the use of songs of worship. It is a misuse of the RPW to use it to forbid what the Psalms so widely and enthusiastically recommend to us as God-approved worship.

Where in Scripture would it seem as if singing a new song meant not singing some songs that were composed of new material?

The Psalms themselves were new songs, prayers and prophecies written by David and others within the old Temple oriented covenant. When Scripture commands us to be taught by the Psalms in light of the new covenant in Christ, why would we not, along with preaching and praying, follow the teaching of the Psalms and sing new songs?

God is immutable, but He is also revelatory. He has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and accepts our worship of Him through the new covenant of Christ, so I will sing the Psalms and I will sing new songs that speak the revealed Name while I follow the guidance of the Psalms in singing and songwriting.

Originally Posted by JohnV

Here are your assumptions:
The Psalms are the best; they are flawless; they are from God;
Writing a song is wanting something else than the Psalms;
Therefore writing other songs demonstrate dissatisfaction with what God has given.

Do these assumption necessarily follow? Are you sure that you judge people's motives correctly? Or are they your motives superimposed on other people?

Well, I'm not denying anyone's sincerity, and -- please understand this -- I do not want to denounce anyone for not following the regulative principle. I think they are mistaken, but I am not going to call anyone a blasphemer or heretic for disagreeing with me. We are all trying to sort this thing out.

That being said, if people choose to add some uninspired song (even if it's really good), it still expresses some implicit dissatisfaction with the psalms. It is not malicious, it is probably not intentional, but it nonetheless is some sort of disapprobation. The best way to demonstrate this is through Leviticus 10:1-2:

Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.

They were killed by the LORD not because they were insincere, not because they had done something forbidden, but because they had done something which was not commanded. Likewise, we need to make sure we do what God commands. We are to worship in Spirit and in truth. We cannot forget the latter.

But that's not my main point. If the Psalms are so replete with recommendations and commendations from God concerning the joy and faith of God's people as expressed in their songs of worship, who are we to then say that God is not pleased with such praise and worship? God is pleased with joyful noise, how much more with organized music? If God repeated says that He is pleased with this, why should we doubt it?

God said He was pleased with them because they were following His commands by singing psalms and following His instituted ceremonial laws. That is what we are to do as well; therefore, a capella exclusive psalmody.

I think that it is rather the other way around, that some men are trumping the Psalms by putting rules in place which the Bible never intended. The Psalms themselves are an answer to EP. All you have to do is read them yourself to see that. I'm barely halfway through the Psalms and I have page after page after page of references concerning what God has to say about the praise and worship that He approves in the form of song.

Can you please cite whatever passages would refute exclusive psalmody?

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Where in Scripture would it seem as if singing a new song meant not singing some songs that were composed of new material?

Let's not make this abstract. Please cite the verses that speak of singing a new song, and then we can look at each one to determine the contextual evidences behind the meanings.

The Psalms themselves were new songs, prayers and prophecies written by David and others within the old Temple oriented covenant. When Scripture commands us to be taught by the Psalms in light of the new covenant in Christ, why would we not, along with preaching and praying, follow the teaching of the Psalms and sing new songs?

This all depends on whether the Psalms command us to sing new songs, which is the exact point in dispute. If yes, EP is false; if no, EP is true.

God is immutable, but He is also revelatory. He has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and accepts our worship of Him through the new covenant of Christ, so I will sing the Psalms and I will sing new songs that speak the revealed Name while I follow the guidance of the Psalms in singing and songwriting.

I understand your reasoning, and I will gladly change to prescriptive psalmody given convincing Scriptural evidence that the Psalms command us to sing and compose truly new songs and evidence that counters the other typical arguments for a stricter view of the RPW.

But for now, I would request that you not defend prescriptive psalmody with references to prayers and sermons not being verbatim from Scripture, as there is a clear qualitative difference among the three.

I'll address this first:

Originally Posted by packabacka

But for now, I would request that you not defend prescriptive psalmody with references to prayers and sermons not being verbatim from Scripture, as there is a clear qualitative difference among the three.

There is certainly a difference, but there are also similarities, particularly since there are prayers among the Psalms themselves. There is certainly preaching in them, as well, so I respectfully decline your request.