"An Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody"

Status
Not open for further replies.

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
Lane Keister has an interesting post up at his blog (www.greenbaggins.wordpress.com, top post, under that title). He's not trying to cover all the bases, but wants to make one specific point. I think it's interesting (and I agree with him).

Read the comments. They're interesting, too.
 
The argument has been made numerous times, and it has been answered by the proponents of exclusive psalmody as many times if not more.

The fallacy of the argument lies in thinking that inspiration is washed out in translation. It is not. Hebrews 3 clearly demonstrates that the Psalms, even when translated into Greek, and into English as we translate them, are the speech of the Holy Ghost.
 
I don't understand how those arguments, if granted, wouldn't also undermine the other elements of worship. When we read or preach from translations of Scripture, are they not still the inspired Word? If we insist on preaching and reading in public worship from the Bible itself instead of uninspired Christian books, is that committing the word-concept fallacy?
 
I think, as I posted on Lane's blog, that it is quite appropriate that we also sing hymns, in addition to Psalms and other parts of Scripture. I won't repeat here the link that I posted there to a current article addressing the use of hymns as well as psalms.

I do think, as was noted at GB and here in this thread, that the first part of Lane's argument (not the latter part in re: the word-concept fallacy, with which I fully agree) argues too much. I do say to the congregation in reading Holy Scripture words of this sort: "Hear now the verbally inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of the Lord, the very Word of the living and true God." I believe that we properly speak of our English translations as the Word of God, period.

Peace,
Alan
 
Moving to EP sub forum. And yes; it proves too much. And I repeat a comment I made on when another prominent blogger went after EP recently. EP is the minority. That folks in the majority think they have to take time to address this is all good press for EP. I am not in an EP church. I have never made an issue of it. Today I finished proofing the layout for a full psalter for our church to use (in conjunction with the Trinity Hymnal) and this project was not from any instigation of myself. To quote or paraphrase Carl Trumen, folks are crazy to go after EP. What in the world is wrong with singing the songs that God actually calls his own?
 
I think, as I posted on Lane's blog, that it is quite appropriate that we also sing hymns, in addition to Psalms and other parts of Scripture. I won't repeat here the link that I posted there to a current article addressing the use of hymns as well as psalms.

I do think, as was noted at GB and here in this thread, that the first part of Lane's argument (not the latter part in re: the word-concept fallacy, with which I fully agree) argues too much. I do say to the congregation in reading Holy Scripture words of this sort: "Hear now the verbally inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of the Lord, the very Word of the living and true God." I believe that we properly speak of our English translations as the Word of God, period.

Peace,
Alan
Would you mind defining from scripture what you mean by the term hymn.

Are you deriving your understanding of that term from scripture or from secular sources .
 
Last edited:
Dear Rev. Strange, if I might also ask a question based on your New Horizons article, since you have brought it up.

Did the apostles use compositions other than the Psalms for sung praise in their worship?

I'm sure you understand this is the crux of the matter for the exclusive psalmodist. Historical theology is great as far as it goes, but without apostolic warrant for a worship element, authorization through historical theology is extrapolation.

Indulge me as someone who takes an archaic, literal view of the RPW. Where can I receive clear instruction, whether by explicit command or observable worship practice, that the appointed apostles of my Lord would have me imitate them in their use of non-canonical sung praise in worship?
 
Hebrews 3 clearly demonstrates that the Psalms, even when translated into Greek, and into English as we translate them, are the speech of the Holy Ghost.

With Dr. Strange, I completely agree with this; however, does that extend also to the metrical adaptation of the Psalms? How far can we 'stretch' the original (Hebrew and, accordingly, English) text to make it 'fit' the meter/tune/etc. before we have moved away from "the speech of the Holy Ghost" and toward merely the consistent, biblical language, for which Lane would seem to be arguing must undergird all that we sing in corporate worship?
 
A bit off topic, but I have to ask: Does Carl Trueman hold to exclusive Psalmody?
I don't think so but am not sure of his earlier views. Here is the article where he comments incredulously on the time spent on anti EP pieces. https://www.monergism.com/marcions-have-landed-warning-evangelicals The footer says this comes from a Themelios v28#1 but I didn't see it in the online version of that which dates to 2003.
Then, in our church practice, we need to take the Old Testament more seriously. It astounds me, given the overwhelming use of psalms as central to gathered worship in the first four centuries, the absolute importance given to psalmody for the first two centuries of the post-Reformation Reformed churches, and the fact that the Book of Psalms is the only hymn book which can claim to be universal in its acceptance by the whole of Christendom and utterly inspired in all of its statements - it astounds me, I say, that so few psalms are sung in our worship services today.

Moreover, often nothing seems to earn the scorn and derision of others more than the suggestion that more psalms should be sung in worship. Indeed, the last few years have seen a number of writers strike out against exclusive psalmody. Given that life is too short to engage in pointless polemics, I am left wondering which parallel universe these guys come from, where the most pressing and dangerous worship issue is clearly that people sing too much of the Bible in their services. How terrifying a prospect that would be. Imagine: people actually singing songs that express the full range of human emotion in their worship using words of which God has said explicitly said 'These are mine!​
 
I will chime in here with a couple of points. Firstly, I wish more congregations sang more Psalms. And, furthermore, since the EP position has such a long and honored pedigree in the Reformed position, I hope I am treating it with respect, even though I disagree with it. I have my own reasons for blogging on EP at the moment, which I would rather not divulge, but it is not because I see EP as some kind of "threat." I can assure this board that no such motivation exists, and I would appreciate not being imputed with having such a motivation. Nor would I say that this is the most pressing and dangerous issue in worship. I never said that, either, nor do I mean to imply such.

That being said, I would also challenge the idea that the inspiration idea proves too much. See this comment for my reply.
 
Ramon, that would depend on how it is formulated. If the argument goes, "Since the Psalms don't mention the name of Jesus, then therefore the Psalms are not about Jesus, and therefore EP is Jesus-less in character," that would be a clear example of the word-concept fallacy. The Psalms are just as much about Jesus as any part of Scripture is (as John 5 and Luke 24 clearly say). There might be other ways of formulating the argument that wouldn't fall into that trap, though I would have to think long and hard about that. I don't use that argument against EP.
 
Lane:

I appreciate your clarifications at GB. I, of course, agree with your position on EP and have heard the inspiration argument used in a way that did indeed argue too much. Your refinement of the argument, which I have also heard, is helpful.

Peace,
Alan
 
With Dr. Strange, I completely agree with this; however, does that extend also to the metrical adaptation of the Psalms? How far can we 'stretch' the original (Hebrew and, accordingly, English) text to make it 'fit' the meter/tune/etc. before we have moved away from "the speech of the Holy Ghost" and toward merely the consistent, biblical language, for which Lane would seem to be arguing must undergird all that we sing in corporate worship?

Lutheran and Anglican churches actually chant the psalms as they (relatively) are, with no metrical variation. In that way (if not in others) they are more faithful
 
That being said, I would also challenge the idea that the inspiration idea proves too much. See this comment for my reply.
Rev. Keister,

I read the comment to which you linked. However, I am still left with the question: do you believe that our prose translations of the Scriptures can be called inspired, or the Word of God, in a sense that metrical translations of the Psalms cannot? If so, why?
 
Tyler, I would say that we are dealing with a continuum of "closeness" or "literalness." Regular English translations of the Scriptures can be called "inspired" in the looser sense that the content of the translation is the Word of God. But the Reformed tradition has fairly consistently said that there is another definition of "inspired" which only applies to the autographs. There are mistakes in the copies. There are mistakes in translations. These mistakes are not present in the autographs. These mistakes never rise to the level of forcing us to tell someone that their English Bible is not the Word of God. So, we may say that there definition 1 of "inspired": the original autograph, straight from the mouth of God through the prophet or apostle, and down on paper, or papyrus. Then there is definition 2 of "inspired": the way in which the original autograph can "shine" through a translation such that we can tell people that they have the inspired Word of God. We should not confuse these two definitions of inspiration. So what I am arguing is that if EP advocates do not believe that definition 1 inspired Psalms as being necessary in terms of what we sing, then the whole ball game is really given away at that point. I would say that English metrical Psalters are less literal translations than the ESV Psalms would be. That doesn't mean that the English metrical Psalters would be less inspired in the looser sense, necessarily. But what it does say is that the exact wording of the Psalm is not required in order to sing the Psalm. It is sufficient if the content is biblical, as the Psalms are a mini-Bible. To put it another way, Psalm 22-23 and "Amazing Grace" get at the same thing. They are far closer together than the EP advocates would say they are. Some metrical Psalters I have seen move in the direction of "good and necessary consequence" rather than a literal translation. That is where Amazing Grace is, too.
 
Psalm 23:1-2, KJV: (Prose)
"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters."

Psalm 23:1-2, SMV: (Metrical)
"The Lord's my shepherd, I'll not want. He makes me down to lie in pastures green: he leadeth me the quiet waters by."

First two stanzas of "The King of Love My Shepherd Is", noted as being "From Psalm 23" in the Trinity Hymnal:
"The King of love my Shepherd is, whose goodness faileth never, I nothing lack if I am His And He is mine forever.

Where streams of living water flow my ransomed soul He leadeth, And where the verdant pastures grow, with food celestial feedeth."

The same is clear from more modern translations as well. Even using the NIV, it's closer than hymns purported to be based on the same passage of Scripture.

Psalm 23:1-2, NIV: (Prose)
"The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters"

Psalm 23:1-2, BPW: (Metrical)
"The LORD's my shepherd; I will lack nothing. He makes me lie down in pastures green. He leads by calm streams"
 
Sorry, Mr. Keister, I had deleted my post because I noticed after posting that my point had already been made. I had mostly made it because Dr. Strange had made that argument, even though he agreed with you on the word-concept fallacy in your post.

You position is still confusing. It sounds to me like you are jumping in your chain of logic from "inspired in the looser sense" to "anything which is biblically consistent." However, translations (which are inspired in the "looser sense") are not aiming to give "anything which is biblically consistent:" they are aiming to produce the word of God in the target language. Those who wish to sing psalms (not just EPers) wish to sing the words of the Holy Ghost; we are not aiming to sing the concepts, however formulated. It's a difference between interpreting words and interpreting ideas; or a translation and an exposition; or a literal translation and the Message.

Is Amazing Grace inspired in the looser sense? If you can distinguish between this and metrical versions, you have your answer to your word-concept fallacy argument. [Edited to ensure no unnecessary offense is given.]
 
Last edited:
To put it another way, Psalm 22-23 and "Amazing Grace" get at the same thing. They are far closer together than the EP advocates would say they are. Some metrical Psalters I have seen move in the direction of "good and necessary consequence" rather than a literal translation. That is where Amazing Grace is, too.

Is Amazing Grace inspired in the looser sense? If you can distinguish between this and metrical versions, you have your answer to your word-concept fallacy argument. (This is why I find your position confusing. I do not think you would intend to disrespect the Scriptures, but saying that singing Amazing Grace is morally equivalent to singing Psalm 22-23 sounds quite appalling [along with it being not true that they get at the same thing]; and saying that translations are a mere matter of continuum from "sufficient biblical consistency" sounds disrespectful to the words God has chosen to give us.)
I had been reluctant to offer any thoughts on this controversy, though I do have some experience with the discussion through a couple of members of my own congregation, I'm not really qualified to speak to it in general. But I will say in particular that Reverend Keister is in good company in his assessment of Amazing Grace.

The Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones preached a sermon on this very topic in which he states that some hymns are inspired. Whether MLJ meant inspired in the same sense described above you may judge for yourself in this sermon which speaks directly to the topic at hand. https://www.mljtrust.org/search/?q=songs
 
With Dr. Strange, I completely agree with this; however, does that extend also to the metrical adaptation of the Psalms? How far can we 'stretch' the original (Hebrew and, accordingly, English) text to make it 'fit' the meter/tune/etc. before we have moved away from "the speech of the Holy Ghost" and toward merely the consistent, biblical language, for which Lane would seem to be arguing must undergird all that we sing in corporate worship?

The argument related to metrical versions does not touch on the issue itself, but is a matter of practical application. Once it is granted that we are to sing Psalms it then becomes a question what form these Psalms are to take.

The case for the metrical version derives from the circumstance that this is adapted to the use of the common people singing together in unison in a way that is familiar to them. The intention is to sing the Psalms, and the version has been made with the aim of coming as close as humanly possible to that ideal.

Lane's argument does not take into account the "intent" of the composition. It uses the gap between the door and the doorjamb to prise the door open. It effectively says that because the door cannot be 100% sealed it should be flung all the way open. This method is often applied to the church with disastrous consequences. We are to strive towards perfection and to do what we can even though we cannot reach a state of perfection in this life.
 
Tyler, I would say that we are dealing with a continuum of "closeness" or "literalness." Regular English translations of the Scriptures can be called "inspired" in the looser sense that the content of the translation is the Word of God. But the Reformed tradition has fairly consistently said that there is another definition of "inspired" which only applies to the autographs. There are mistakes in the copies. There are mistakes in translations. These mistakes are not present in the autographs. These mistakes never rise to the level of forcing us to tell someone that their English Bible is not the Word of God. So, we may say that there definition 1 of "inspired": the original autograph, straight from the mouth of God through the prophet or apostle, and down on paper, or papyrus. Then there is definition 2 of "inspired": the way in which the original autograph can "shine" through a translation such that we can tell people that they have the inspired Word of God. We should not confuse these two definitions of inspiration. So what I am arguing is that if EP advocates do not believe that definition 1 inspired Psalms as being necessary in terms of what we sing, then the whole ball game is really given away at that point. I would say that English metrical Psalters are less literal translations than the ESV Psalms would be. That doesn't mean that the English metrical Psalters would be less inspired in the looser sense, necessarily. But what it does say is that the exact wording of the Psalm is not required in order to sing the Psalm. It is sufficient if the content is biblical, as the Psalms are a mini-Bible. To put it another way, Psalm 22-23 and "Amazing Grace" get at the same thing. They are far closer together than the EP advocates would say they are. Some metrical Psalters I have seen move in the direction of "good and necessary consequence" rather than a literal translation. That is where Amazing Grace is, too.
Rev. Keister,
Would you admit that some metrical translations of at least some Psalms are as close as, if not closer than, many of our good prose translations are to the original?
 
I had been reluctant to offer any thoughts on this controversy, though I do have some experience with the discussion through a couple of members of my own congregation, I'm not really qualified to speak to it in general. But I will say in particular that Reverend Keister is in good company in his assessment of Amazing Grace.
Jimmy, a lot of people are busy. Could you point to the approximate minutes where MLJ calls Amazing Grace "inspired"?

I would hope all could see the difference between Amazing Grace and a translation or careful metrification of the Scriptures. Amazing Grace is not the words of the Holy Ghost, although it contains much biblical content derived from meditating on the Holy Ghost's words. "Inspired" can be used in an even looser sense than (what I have perceived in this thread anyway) what has been used in the thread/blog thus far: that which is welled up from inside oneself based on various meditations, coming out in a fashion which causes such welling up in others that hear or read it. This is not the sense of "inspiration" being discussed.
 
Jimmy, a lot of people are busy. Could you point to the approximate minutes where MLJ calls Amazing Grace "inspired"?

I would hope all could see the difference between Amazing Grace and a translation or careful metrification of the Scriptures. Amazing Grace is not the words of the Holy Ghost, although it contains much biblical content derived from meditating on the Holy Ghost's words. "Inspired" can be used in an even looser sense than (what I have perceived in this thread anyway) what has been used in the thread/blog thus far: that which is welled up from inside oneself based on various meditations, coming out in a fashion which causes such welling up in others that hear or read it. This is not the sense of "inspiration" being discussed.
Indeed, a lot of people are busy. I'm glad you found time to post in reply to this thread, delete that post when you saw that 'the point had been made', and post a new reply, as well as this that I've quoted.
If I insinuated that Reverend D.M. Lloyd-Jones referred to Amazing Grace specifically as inspired I was not being clear. He rather states that some hymns are 'doggerel' , while some others may be by inspiration of the Spirit. Since his entire sermon, Ephesians 5:18-5:21, is on the subject of Psalmody and/or hymns, and the portion referred to is relatively brief, I don't think it fair to take that portion out of context. I would think someone interested in the topic would want to hear a man of his stature state his entire argument. Perhaps when you have more spare time it would be worth a listen.
 
The argument related to metrical versions does not touch on the issue itself, but is a matter of practical application. Once it is granted that we are to sing Psalms it then becomes a question what form these Psalms are to take.

If the issue is whether we are to sing Psalms, then I agree (and I agree that we are indeed commanded to do so!). However, if the issue is the manner in which we are to obey that command and whether there is room in that obedience for the inclusion of "hymns" derived from the "ideas" of the Psalms but using different words (which I do believe is the intent of the OP), then the metrical adaptation would seem to be at the heart of the issue.

For instance, in addition to his better-known hymns, Isaac Watts produced a Psalter. In it, he routinely invokes Christ by name and otherwise imports New Testament revelation into the text; yet, it was intended to be a fair restructuring of the biblical texts for use in corporate worship. I assume that you (and EP advocates, in general) would reject Watts' Psalter. But there's the rub. It seems that all of this debate about how close the lyrical content of this or that Psalter is to the biblical text boils down to a judgment call - and who gets to make that call? I am by no means sure of the answer to this question (or others raised in this thread), but if "words" and "concepts" may reasonably be said to intersect (to whatever degree) in a discussion of a Psalter, then why can't the same discussion be had concerning a "hymn," which reflects biblical (even Psalmic) concepts using words intending to convey those concepts in a way that
is adapted to the use of the common people singing together in unison in a way that is familiar to them.
?
 
If the issue is whether we are to sing Psalms, then I agree (and I agree that we are indeed commanded to do so!). However, if the issue is the manner in which we are to obey that command and whether there is room in that obedience for the inclusion of "hymns" derived from the "ideas" of the Psalms but using different words (which I do believe is the intent of the OP), then the metrical adaptation would seem to be at the heart of the issue.

For instance, in addition to his better-known hymns, Isaac Watts produced a Psalter. In it, he routinely invokes Christ by name and otherwise imports New Testament revelation into the text; yet, it was intended to be a fair restructuring of the biblical texts for use in corporate worship. I assume that you (and EP advocates, in general) would reject Watts' Psalter. But there's the rub. It seems that all of this debate about how close the lyrical content of this or that Psalter is to the biblical text boils down to a judgment call - and who gets to make that call? I am by no means sure of the answer to this question (or others raised in this thread), but if "words" and "concepts" may reasonably be said to intersect (to whatever degree) in a discussion of a Psalter, then why can't the same discussion be had concerning a "hymn," which reflects biblical (even Psalmic) concepts using words intending to convey those concepts in a way that
?

I was trying to demonstrate from my post above that there is often a very clear line between Scripture and not Scripture in metrical adaptations of the Psalms. I think we should be able to use the same standards to determine if something is Scripture from a metrical version as a prose version. Yes, there are a variety of different renderings of the Psalms that form a continuum, but there are also the same thing for Bible translations. The line starts to get blurry around the Living Bible and its re-working of doctrines in Romans and very loose translations in general, but the Living Bible is still far closer to the original text than many songs in theory based around Psalms. But even the Living Bible should be rejected from public worship. So if we want to sing a Psalm as a Psalm in public worship, we should hold it up to the same standard as the Scripture version we use in prose.

If it is truly impossible to make an accurate, faithful rendering of Psalms in meter, then we have no choice but to go back to chanting (see the Book of Common Prayer and Lutheran prayer book). I would say that's not the case, but the mode of singing/translation necessary should not lead to this confusion.
 
I think we should be able to use the same standards to determine if something is Scripture from a metrical version as a prose version.

Okay, but what are those standards? Or, more pertinently, who determines their application in a particular situation? I happen to agree with you regarding the Living Bible - but how is that case definitively made with regard to songs? Are churches who use the NASB free to use Watt's Psalter? Are churches who use the ESV free to employ Watts' hymns? Are churches who use the NIV to be at ease using Hillsong worship? I wish that the answers were cut and dried, but (at least at this point) they don't seem to me to be. For the most part, they seem pretty subjective.
 
Last edited:
Okay, but what are those standards? Or, more pertinently, who determines their application in a particular situation? I happen to agree with you regarding the Living Bible - but how is that case definitively made with regard to songs? Are churches who use the NASB free to use Watt's Psalter? Are churches who use the ESV free to employ Watts' hymns? Are churches who use the NIV to be at ease using Hillsong worship? I wish that the answers were cut and dried, but (at least at this point) they don't seem to me to be. For the most part, they seem pretty subjective.

The NASB, NIV, and ESV are WAY more similar to one another than the different song options you provided. If we can reliably discern what is a Bible translation and what is not, I think we can at least start to determine what is a translation of the Bible into meter and what is not. To re-quote from above, I think we can agree that these three, despite being a mix of a literal prose, a literal metrical, and a slightly less literal prose translation all are translating the same text in a way that songs inspired by the text are not. I can provide the same for any text from the Psalms, but I'm sticking to this well known one.

Psalm 23:1-2, KJV: (Prose)
"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters."

Psalm 23:1-2, SMV: (Metrical)
"The Lord's my shepherd, I'll not want. He makes me down to lie in pastures green: he leadeth me the quiet waters by."

Psalm 23:1-2, NIV: (Prose)
"The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top