An Examination of Exclusive Psalmody
- Thread starter SolaGratia
- Start date
- Status
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Reading that as we speak Joshua...
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
My friend at church just sent me the above article. Thanks for the ammo!
Neogillist
Puritan Board Freshman
I read Brian Schwertley's essay, I am was not particularly convinced. If you have ever listened to sermons by him, you may notice how he sees everything as black and white. I consider it to be a lack of maturity to fall into dogma too quickly, and when one is ready to label virtually all mainline Reformed denominations as "not truly Reformed" I think that somewhat lacks humility. I myself was about to sink into a form of Reformed dogma over many such secondary issues when suddenly I saw a friend of mine whom, having held to all those fine points, became totally apostate and rejected all of Christianity althogether. Then I realized that the Christian faith is about a heart transformation, not about keeping a set of rules and standards handed down to us by John Calvin.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
So when is it okay to "fall into dogma"? At some point, everything becomes black and white.
Either the mainline denominations are truly reformed or they are not. Both sides are being equally dogmatic.
CT
Neogillist
Puritan Board Freshman
The funny thing is that according to Schwertley, your denomination is not truly Reformed because they celebrate Christmas and allow musical instruments... Oh, and by the way, some people from my denomination would not consider you to be truly reformed either.
asc
Puritan Board Sophomore
thanks for the article; i enjoyed the clarity of its presentation.
i've never thought about the topic very much or examined it closely.
i also looked through the article Joshua posted.
i'm surprised at the fact that both sides claim Reformed history is on their side.
sorry if i'm too much of a newb to know already, but does anyone care
to say which claim is truthful? as a matter of (relatively) recent history, i'd think
it'd be fairly straightfoward to be able to say whether or not the early Reformers,
Puritans, etc. practiced EP or not.
thanks.
--alex
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
All of the early magisterial Reformers and the vast majority of the Puritans were EP.
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
This is just the musing of a hillbilly. It seems the current trend of stupid, shallow and downright blasphemous church music and hymnody can be traced to the introduction of musical intruments and songs written outside of the scripture itself. I read "Songs of Zion" courtesy of brother Andrew sending it to me and it has nearly convinced me of the EP postion. I am not an authority on the suject nor am I ready to castigate those who do not hold to the EP position. However, I have made a couple of observations after reading that book and this short essay:
1. The more you depart from the Psalms the more you put yourself at risk of
singing heresy or singing the song of an apostate from the faith (maybe
Watts himself).
2. The more you allow musical intruments the more you can fall prey to the
modern "praise band" mentality with mundane lyrics on a screen
accompanied with loud electric guitars, banging drums and 16 yr. old
scantily clad young ladies doing a belly dance. Afterall, if you allow
a piano why not a saxaphone and a Fender Telecaster with a
wah wah pedal.
I don't have all the anwsers brethren. Help me out. pray for me. Your musing hillbilly signing out.
1. The more you depart from the Psalms the more you put yourself at risk of
singing heresy or singing the song of an apostate from the faith (maybe
Watts himself).
2. The more you allow musical intruments the more you can fall prey to the
modern "praise band" mentality with mundane lyrics on a screen
accompanied with loud electric guitars, banging drums and 16 yr. old
scantily clad young ladies doing a belly dance. Afterall, if you allow
a piano why not a saxaphone and a Fender Telecaster with a
wah wah pedal.
I don't have all the anwsers brethren. Help me out. pray for me. Your musing hillbilly signing out.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
The funny thing is that according to Schwertley, your denomination is not truly Reformed because they celebrate Christmas and allow musical instruments... Oh, and by the way, some people from my denomination would not consider you to be truly reformed either.
My denomination is not truly Reformed
CT
asc
Puritan Board Sophomore
So then Morey's statements of:
>A. 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.
completely false?
--alex
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
My beloved brother, BB. You know I agree with the Psalms as our ultimate guide to worship, but your statement could just as well be applied to preaching not being aligned with Scripture, right?
For example, the more you are exhorted and taught by pure Scripture, the less likely you are to fall under corrupted teaching, right? So, we should only preach the words of inspired Scripture without any uninspired additions.
In the same way, the more one prays the Scripture alone, the less likely one is to fall under uninspired alignment to the will of God, or to entreat Him for ungodly things. So, we should only pray the words of inspired Scripture without any uninspired additions.
While I certainly admire the desire to worship "purely" and "safely", I am much more passionate about worshipping in spirit and truth.
The truth is, until Christ's return, there will be always be false worship, just as there will always be false teachers. We are exhorted to examine and test and "work out our own salvation" according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit which is always aligned to the Word of God.
Therefore we should not let our worship be less than what Scripture commands, just as we must not allow it to be more. And by that, I mean not allowing our worship to become a contra-reaction to the excesses and errors of others, thus risking the equal error of falling into dogmatic subscription to the uninspired ideas of Man.
A holy life and holy worship, fully aligned to the will of God is not easily accomplished, nor should it be, lest we have reason to boast. Resting on the path of rigid exclusivism is not the answer, anymore than unbounded inclusivism is.
Blessings!
Last edited:
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
Bygracealone
Puritan Board Sophomore
Here we go again...
I don't see how we can pit "purity" in worship against worshipping in "Spirit and in truth." The two go together. That worship which is pure is going to be in Spirit and in truth.
The RPW applied to the element of song prescribes the Psalms alone to be sung in worship. I would say there's no better way to worship in song in Spirit and in truth than to worship singing what the Spirit Himself has written in His Word of Truth.
If God prescribes something to be done in worship, we're to do it. Whether we think His commandments as exclusivistic or inclusivistic (are those even real words?
) really doesn't make a difference.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Here we go again...
Well, it is the weekend!
"Purity" is somewhat subjective in terms of worship - I like "holy"
I'd say if we worship in spirit and truth and in the spirit of holiness, our worship will approach "purity". That is, purity is the result, not the means.
That is an incomplete understanding - the Psalms are certainly to be sung, but they are also to teach and admonish us in the way of worship, among other things. And they do not teach exclusive psalmody.
And I can't image better sermons or prayers that those the Spirit Himself has written in His Word of Truth, so where does that lead us?
If God prescribes something to be done in worship, we're to do it. Whether we think His commandments as exclusivistic or inclusivistic (are those even real words?
His commandments are clearly exclusive (thou shalt not) and inclusive (thou shall) - my contention is that we should be no more or less so than God commands.
Last edited:
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
And I would suspect anyone that did!
I love "iron sharpening iron" - what a blessing it is!
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Greetings:
Of all of the objections to Exclusive Psalmody that I have ever read I have found Dr. Morey's arguments to be the most clever. However, it is not convincing. Such will be shown in the points below.
Before we get into his arguments, though, it has to be noted that the historical innaccuracies of Dr. Moray's statements needs to be examined. He claims that it was only a small group of Scots who came up with the idea of Exclusive Psalmody during the 18th century. To anyone who is familiar with the history of EP this type of extreme statement appears like a stretch of the imagination rather than a sober acknowledgement of the facts.
The Reformed Church in Geneva adopted Exclusive Psalmody (I will deal with early editions of the Geneva Psalter later), the Reformed Church in France enthusiastically endorsed Exclusive Psalmody, the Reformed Church in the Netherlands also embraced Exclusive Psalmody. However, the most damaging fact that reduces Dr. Morey's statement to fiction is that the Westminster Assembly as a whole (which included Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians) accepted Exclusive Psalmody in the Book of Church Order.
Now, to specific points of Dr. Morey's theology:
1) Dr. Morey claims that there is no specific command in the OT to sing exclusively the Psalms in public worship. Either he does not understand the nature of a divine command, or, he is glossing over this point intentionally.
Note: There is no specific command in the NT for us to change the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday. Yet, the Church believes it has Divine warrant to do so.
That God gave to the Church in the OT a book of Psalms, and then requires the Church to sing praise to Him indicates a divine command to sing from the Book of Psalms.
Prior to the Book of Psalms being completed songs sung in worship were composed only by Prophets. Moses, Miriam, and Deborah were all Prophets. Dr. Morey claims that Isaiah 51 is a "song," yet, I fail to see anywhere in the whole chapter a claim that Isaiah is singing? (Verse 11 refers to "singing" but it does not say that Isaiah is singing) I am not willing to grant that Dr. Morey is right, but even if he is, was not Isaiah a Prophet?
Those examples that Dr. Morey gives of "hymns" do not fit his definition of them. The "hymns" sung by the Church were given by God through His inspired prophets.
In the NT we find the same pattern: The Magnificat of Mary is 10 verses long and contains 10 references to the Psalms. We assume that she sang these Psalms, but the Bible states that she "spoke" or "said" them.
The Song of Zacharias, Luke 1:67ff: it is said that Zacharias "prophesied, saying." Here, again, we are not told that Zaccharias sang, but that he "said" or "spoke." We assume that he sang these words, and, we also point out that this was prophetical in nature.
The argument about songs in the letters of Paul is not going to be considered. This argument is a product of Higher Criticism and cannot be found in any commentary prior to the 19th Century.
2) Dr. Morey asserts, but does not prove, that congregational singing in the OT included both Psalms and "hymns."
It would be difficult to prove this, because, during this time, God was still providing inspired revelation to His people through the Prophets. What would characterize an "uninspired hymn" at this point in redemptive history? We, also, have examples of prophecy coming from sources other than the "official" prophets: the donkey of Balaam Num. 22:22ff, or Saul of Kish, 1 Sam. 10:10.
Uninspired "hymns" were never used in the Temple worship. We are specifically told in 1 Chr. 25:7:
So the number of them, with their brethern that were instructed in the songs of the LORD, even all that were skilled, was two hundred fourscore and eight.
Only those who were "instructed in the songs of the LORD" were allowed to sing in the Temple. It would be hard to argue that these songs were not divinely appointed by God. And, it is not difficult to realize that these songs were recorded and placed in the Psalter, Ps 38 and 70 titles. If such were the command for one generation, then would it not also apply to succeeding generations?
After the destruction of the Second Temple, and Synagogue worship began to develop more fully, the Congregational singing was Exclusively the Psalms. The divine command concerning synagogue worship can be found in the fact that Jesus worshipped in one, Luke 6:6. Such was established by Moses of old, Acts 15:21.
What is left of his argument? We have seen that "Redemptive History" does not really substantiate his view concerning "uninspired" songs. He argues that Eph 5:19 and Col. 3:16 does not encompass formal worship only. He also argues that "no Reformed commentator" argues the points that Exclusive Psalmists argue concerning these passages.
Well, the challenge to Exclusive Psalmody did not arise until the mid to end of the 18th Century. Thus, Calvin, Poole, Henry, and other Reformed commentators would not be engaged in answering such arguments. John Gill's Commentary at Ep 5:19 states the EP understanding of "Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs." Consequently, Dr. Moray is not entirely correct when he says that "no Reformed Commentator" agrees with EP on this passage.
That the early editions of the Geneva Psalter included musical renderings of the Ten Commandments, The Lord's Prayer, and the Apostle's Creed does not argue against Exclusive Psalmody. Calvin was a strong advocate of Exclusive Psalmody, and the inclusions of these other songs in the back of the Psalter may have been for varioius reasons:
A) There is no indication that these songs were actually used in formal worship. Today, we have in the back of many "hymnals" and Psalters, "hymns" included for informal occasions. These may have been included in the Psalter for just such a reason - or - for the instruction of children and new converts.
B) Assuming that one does not believe #1 above, and claims that these songs were included in the formal worship services of Calvin's time, then, it can be pointed out that the first Genevean Psalter had about 15 Psalms translated into French. The paucity of these early Psalters would require additional songs that were already translated and well-known among the people. This argument is substantiated by the fact that once the Psalter was completed in Beza's time - the "hymns" were dropped out.
C) Finally, We are talking about the beginnings of the Reformation here, and not it's full development a century or two later. To claim that Calvin was working inconsistent with his beliefs would be unfair to say the least. These principles were under development, and needed time to be fleshed out.
The commands in the OT concerning Exclusive Psalmody have been carried over into NT worship through the institution of Synagogue worship. What we find in the NT is no specific command that recinds the use of Exclusive Psalmody in the formal worship services in the Church.
These are the major concerns I have in relation to Dr. Moray's arguments. There are several minor ones as well, but time does not allow me to continue.
Blessings,
Rob
Of all of the objections to Exclusive Psalmody that I have ever read I have found Dr. Morey's arguments to be the most clever. However, it is not convincing. Such will be shown in the points below.
Before we get into his arguments, though, it has to be noted that the historical innaccuracies of Dr. Moray's statements needs to be examined. He claims that it was only a small group of Scots who came up with the idea of Exclusive Psalmody during the 18th century. To anyone who is familiar with the history of EP this type of extreme statement appears like a stretch of the imagination rather than a sober acknowledgement of the facts.
The Reformed Church in Geneva adopted Exclusive Psalmody (I will deal with early editions of the Geneva Psalter later), the Reformed Church in France enthusiastically endorsed Exclusive Psalmody, the Reformed Church in the Netherlands also embraced Exclusive Psalmody. However, the most damaging fact that reduces Dr. Morey's statement to fiction is that the Westminster Assembly as a whole (which included Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians) accepted Exclusive Psalmody in the Book of Church Order.
Now, to specific points of Dr. Morey's theology:
1) Dr. Morey claims that there is no specific command in the OT to sing exclusively the Psalms in public worship. Either he does not understand the nature of a divine command, or, he is glossing over this point intentionally.
Note: There is no specific command in the NT for us to change the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday. Yet, the Church believes it has Divine warrant to do so.
That God gave to the Church in the OT a book of Psalms, and then requires the Church to sing praise to Him indicates a divine command to sing from the Book of Psalms.
Prior to the Book of Psalms being completed songs sung in worship were composed only by Prophets. Moses, Miriam, and Deborah were all Prophets. Dr. Morey claims that Isaiah 51 is a "song," yet, I fail to see anywhere in the whole chapter a claim that Isaiah is singing? (Verse 11 refers to "singing" but it does not say that Isaiah is singing) I am not willing to grant that Dr. Morey is right, but even if he is, was not Isaiah a Prophet?
Those examples that Dr. Morey gives of "hymns" do not fit his definition of them. The "hymns" sung by the Church were given by God through His inspired prophets.
In the NT we find the same pattern: The Magnificat of Mary is 10 verses long and contains 10 references to the Psalms. We assume that she sang these Psalms, but the Bible states that she "spoke" or "said" them.
The Song of Zacharias, Luke 1:67ff: it is said that Zacharias "prophesied, saying." Here, again, we are not told that Zaccharias sang, but that he "said" or "spoke." We assume that he sang these words, and, we also point out that this was prophetical in nature.
The argument about songs in the letters of Paul is not going to be considered. This argument is a product of Higher Criticism and cannot be found in any commentary prior to the 19th Century.
2) Dr. Morey asserts, but does not prove, that congregational singing in the OT included both Psalms and "hymns."
It would be difficult to prove this, because, during this time, God was still providing inspired revelation to His people through the Prophets. What would characterize an "uninspired hymn" at this point in redemptive history? We, also, have examples of prophecy coming from sources other than the "official" prophets: the donkey of Balaam Num. 22:22ff, or Saul of Kish, 1 Sam. 10:10.
Uninspired "hymns" were never used in the Temple worship. We are specifically told in 1 Chr. 25:7:
So the number of them, with their brethern that were instructed in the songs of the LORD, even all that were skilled, was two hundred fourscore and eight.
Only those who were "instructed in the songs of the LORD" were allowed to sing in the Temple. It would be hard to argue that these songs were not divinely appointed by God. And, it is not difficult to realize that these songs were recorded and placed in the Psalter, Ps 38 and 70 titles. If such were the command for one generation, then would it not also apply to succeeding generations?
After the destruction of the Second Temple, and Synagogue worship began to develop more fully, the Congregational singing was Exclusively the Psalms. The divine command concerning synagogue worship can be found in the fact that Jesus worshipped in one, Luke 6:6. Such was established by Moses of old, Acts 15:21.
What is left of his argument? We have seen that "Redemptive History" does not really substantiate his view concerning "uninspired" songs. He argues that Eph 5:19 and Col. 3:16 does not encompass formal worship only. He also argues that "no Reformed commentator" argues the points that Exclusive Psalmists argue concerning these passages.
Well, the challenge to Exclusive Psalmody did not arise until the mid to end of the 18th Century. Thus, Calvin, Poole, Henry, and other Reformed commentators would not be engaged in answering such arguments. John Gill's Commentary at Ep 5:19 states the EP understanding of "Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs." Consequently, Dr. Moray is not entirely correct when he says that "no Reformed Commentator" agrees with EP on this passage.
That the early editions of the Geneva Psalter included musical renderings of the Ten Commandments, The Lord's Prayer, and the Apostle's Creed does not argue against Exclusive Psalmody. Calvin was a strong advocate of Exclusive Psalmody, and the inclusions of these other songs in the back of the Psalter may have been for varioius reasons:
A) There is no indication that these songs were actually used in formal worship. Today, we have in the back of many "hymnals" and Psalters, "hymns" included for informal occasions. These may have been included in the Psalter for just such a reason - or - for the instruction of children and new converts.
B) Assuming that one does not believe #1 above, and claims that these songs were included in the formal worship services of Calvin's time, then, it can be pointed out that the first Genevean Psalter had about 15 Psalms translated into French. The paucity of these early Psalters would require additional songs that were already translated and well-known among the people. This argument is substantiated by the fact that once the Psalter was completed in Beza's time - the "hymns" were dropped out.
C) Finally, We are talking about the beginnings of the Reformation here, and not it's full development a century or two later. To claim that Calvin was working inconsistent with his beliefs would be unfair to say the least. These principles were under development, and needed time to be fleshed out.
The commands in the OT concerning Exclusive Psalmody have been carried over into NT worship through the institution of Synagogue worship. What we find in the NT is no specific command that recinds the use of Exclusive Psalmody in the formal worship services in the Church.
These are the major concerns I have in relation to Dr. Moray's arguments. There are several minor ones as well, but time does not allow me to continue.
Blessings,
Rob
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Also worth noting is the job Michael Bushell does in taking apart Morey's argument in The Songs of Zion.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The argument that songs in worship are to be exclusively prophetic\inspired does not hold anymore than preaching and praying are exclusively prophetic\inspired for the NT believer.
The term "prophesying" is applicable for all 3 types of utterances.
The term "prophesying" is applicable for all 3 types of utterances.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
JD:
You know, I was going to address this very objection, but time caused me to finish early.
Making an exact equation between singing, prayer, and preaching is too much a blurring of the lines. Would you say, for example, that preaching is exactly like prayer? or singing?
The major problem with such a position is that God has given us a Book of Psalms, and He has commanded us to sing them, 1 Ch 16:8; Ps 105:2.
We are told to preach the Whole Counsel of God, "...Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you," Mt 29:20a.
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself," Luke 24:27. Is this a command to "sing" the whole Bible?
God has not given us a "Book of Sermons" in the Bible and commanded us to "Preach only these Sermons."
Though Singing and Prayer are more closely related the commands regulating them are different. Again, we are not given a "Book of Prayers" and required to only pray these prayers. Jesus gives us a form of Prayer in the Lord's Prayer, but we are not given a "form of Singing" and told to sing "like this."
Thus, the Scriptures deal with each of these elements of Worship in different fashions. I, for one, would rather acquiesce to the Wisdom of God rather than the philosophies of man.
Blessings,
Rob
Bygracealone
Puritan Board Sophomore
Edit: I see Rob also answered this post. I guess I'm a little slow in my response time
But it looks like we were on the same page.PD,
You're mixing up the elements again and coming up with a concoction unfamiliar in the historic Reformed faith.
Preaching is not praying and praying is not preaching. Singing is not preaching and preaching is not the same as singing. If all these things were the same, then there would be no need to differentiate between them, we could then just have a worship service with only one element of worship; we could call it prophesying and just leave it up to the pastor to decide whether to pray, preach, or sing that day for the worship service.
We all know what preaching looks like and sounds like, we all know what singing looks like and sounds like, and we all know what prayer looks like and sounds like. They all look and sound different because they are different; they are distinct elements of worship.
Furthermore, God hasn't given us a book of inspired sermons to preach from; He hasn't given us a book of inspired prayers to pray from; but He has given to us an inspired Book of Praise to sing from.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
I am not by any means equating anyone on this thread with Claverhouse, but I was just reminded of a particular quote by John Brown of Priesthill before his death:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/john-brown-priesthill-6309/
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
There are several expensive copies available on Alibris and Amazon. As noted in another thread, I've been selling much, much cheaper copies to interested persons on the PB, but I'm all out of copies at present.
Bygracealone
Puritan Board Sophomore
Brother Dennis, I only have my personal copy, but I'm happy to lend it to you. I did a search and it looks like it's out of print for a while until the new revisions are made. I also noticed the used copies are selling for like $85; that's nuts!
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
exactly? no - but they are not completely distinctive from one another. All 3 have uninspired elements to them.
No one argues that the Psalms are to be sung - just as the Biblical sermons are to be preached and the Biblical prayers are to be prayed.
Have you never been taught or admonished through a prayer or a song?
Certainly we are! - through His apostle - when we are commanded to be taught and admonished through the template of the Psalms - which themselves teach us that just as we may preach a new sermon or proclaim a new prayer, we may "sing to the Lord a new song".
Not really. We are given instructions in each that may be relevant to one another - particularly in that all should be saturated with Scripture.
And there we are in utmost agreement.
Blessings
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
John Gill on Ephesians 5:19:
Verse 19. Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,.... By psalms are meant the Psalms of David, and others which compose the book that goes by that name, for other psalms there are none; and by "hymns" we are to understand, not such as are made by good men, without the inspiration of the Spirit of God; since they are placed between psalms and spiritual songs, made by men inspired by the Holy Ghost; and are put upon a level with them, and to be sung along with them, to the edification of churches; but these are only another name for the Book of Psalms, the running title of which may as well be the Book of Hymns, as it is rendered by Ainsworth; and the psalm which our Lord sung with his disciples after the supper, is called an hymn; and so are the psalms in general called hymns, by Philo the Jew {n}; and songs and hymns by Josephus {o}; and twxbvwtw twryv, "songs and praises," or "hymns," in the Talmud {p}: and by "spiritual songs" are meant the same Psalms of David, Asaph, &c. and the titles of many of them are songs, and sometimes a psalm and song, and song and psalm, a song of degrees; together with all other Scriptural songs, written by inspired men; and which are called "spiritual," because they are indited by the Spirit of God, consist of spiritual matter, and are designed for spiritual edification; and are opposed to all profane, loose, and wanton songs: these three words answer to Myryv Mylht Myrwmzm the several titles of David's Psalms; from whence it seems to be the intention of the apostle, that these should be sting in Gospel churches;
Verse 19. Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,.... By psalms are meant the Psalms of David, and others which compose the book that goes by that name, for other psalms there are none; and by "hymns" we are to understand, not such as are made by good men, without the inspiration of the Spirit of God; since they are placed between psalms and spiritual songs, made by men inspired by the Holy Ghost; and are put upon a level with them, and to be sung along with them, to the edification of churches; but these are only another name for the Book of Psalms, the running title of which may as well be the Book of Hymns, as it is rendered by Ainsworth; and the psalm which our Lord sung with his disciples after the supper, is called an hymn; and so are the psalms in general called hymns, by Philo the Jew {n}; and songs and hymns by Josephus {o}; and twxbvwtw twryv, "songs and praises," or "hymns," in the Talmud {p}: and by "spiritual songs" are meant the same Psalms of David, Asaph, &c. and the titles of many of them are songs, and sometimes a psalm and song, and song and psalm, a song of degrees; together with all other Scriptural songs, written by inspired men; and which are called "spiritual," because they are indited by the Spirit of God, consist of spiritual matter, and are designed for spiritual edification; and are opposed to all profane, loose, and wanton songs: these three words answer to Myryv Mylht Myrwmzm the several titles of David's Psalms; from whence it seems to be the intention of the apostle, that these should be sting in Gospel churches;
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
John Calvin on Col 3:16
Even though I find the whole commentary on 16 interesting - particularly in what it omits, I bolded one part as a point of interest for the non-instrument folks.
When our finest exegetes cannot consistently agree, where does that leave us?
Even though I find the whole commentary on 16 interesting - particularly in what it omits, I bolded one part as a point of interest for the non-instrument folks.
When our finest exegetes cannot consistently agree, where does that leave us?
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
Cheer up!
Chrysostom Eph. 5:19:
Dost thou wish, he says, to be cheerful, dost thou wish to employ the day? I give thee spiritual drink; for drunkenness even cuts off the articulate sound of our tongue; it makes us lisp and stammer, and distorts the eyes, and the whole frame together. Learn to sing psalms, and thou shalt see the delightfulness of the employment. For they who sing psalms are filled with the Holy Spirit, as they who sing satanic songs are filled with an unclean spirit.
Chrysostom Eph. 5:19:
Dost thou wish, he says, to be cheerful, dost thou wish to employ the day? I give thee spiritual drink; for drunkenness even cuts off the articulate sound of our tongue; it makes us lisp and stammer, and distorts the eyes, and the whole frame together. Learn to sing psalms, and thou shalt see the delightfulness of the employment. For they who sing psalms are filled with the Holy Spirit, as they who sing satanic songs are filled with an unclean spirit.
- Status
