chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
No former "song" appointed to be sung in corporate worship can be proved to exist. On the basis that there is no other song appointed for use in "public worship," the limiting function of the regulative principle indicates exclusive psalmody.
Actually, I believe it can be so proved -- though it is not necessary for the OP that I prove it. Rather, the burden is upon you. So I'll give you what I regard as proof of it, but the real onus is on you to demonstrate that my exegesis is incorrect and not even plausible.
2 Chr 29:28 says:
And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished.
Then in v. 30, which begins with a narrative preterit (best translated, "then" or "next" -- but "moreover" is okay), it says:
Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped.
The point is, even under the reformer's watch, there was signing that was not the Psalms, and after that, Hezekiah had the Psalms sung. V. 30 would not make sense if v. 28's singing were Psalms.
2 Sam. 23 indicates the "inspired" nature of the songs we know were appointed for public worship; we do not know of any other songs appointed for public worship; hence all the songs appointed for public worship were "inspired." The "exclusivity" of the argument comes from the fact that Scripture is silent as to the use of any other compositions.
But it is not silent, as I have just demonstrated.
It clearly shows temple singing that was not from the Psalms (2Chr 29:28).
Try as one may, one cannot draw that conclusion from that text as it states nothing concerning the matter sung.
While it does not say what the song was, it quite clearly could not have been the Psalms, or v. 30 would make no sense.
Last edited: