Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

[panta dokimazete]

Exclusive Psalmody (EP) is a doctrine that has been adopted by some historically reformed churches. In brief, EP adherents claim that the 150 Psalms of the Old Testament (OT) are the only Biblically warranted songs allowed in worship. This supposedly aligns with the reformed Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) that is summarized as "if commanded, required - if not commanded, prohibited".

The argument against EP and aligned to the RPW is as follows:

1. The Psalms are a trustworthy guide to proper worship.

2. The Psalms command that we sing of the works and deeds of the Lord:

[Psalm 9:11 ESV] Sing praises to the LORD, who sits enthroned in Zion! Tell among the peoples his deeds!

[Psalm 105:2 ESV] Sing to him, sing praises to him; tell of all his wondrous works!

[Psalm 107:22 ESV] And let them offer sacrifices of thanksgiving, and tell of his deeds in songs of joy!

3. The works and deeds of the Lord Jesus are most fully revealed in the New Testament.

4. The Psalms command new songs (Psalms 33:3, Psalms 40:3, Psalms 96:1, Psalms 98:1, Psalms 144:9, Psalms 149:1)

Therefore, new songs concerning the works and deeds of Jesus from the NT are commanded and required for proper worship.

Therefore, EP is an erroneous doctrine.

Edited to add: The New Testament is replete with the revealed and explicit works and deeds of Jesus that the Psalms only obscurely reference in "types and shadows", thus the church is commanded to sing new songs of this newly revealed truth. EP demands we exclude in sung worship the revealed works and deeds of Jesus as clearly revealed in the NT.

Remember, to invalidate the conclusions, you must first invalidate the premises or prove non sequitur.

“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New" - St. Augustine

*I reserve the right to tune the wording/format for (hopefully) additional clarity. Just be aware if you are quoting this or see different verbiage in quotes later in the thread.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

It impossible to fully sing of the works and deeds of Jesus without including the content of the New Testament.

Therefore, new songs concerning the works and deeds of Jesus for proper worship are commanded.

Therefore, EP is in error.

No it's not.

No they aren't.

No it's not.

 

[Taylor]

Isn’t this like the third or fourth thread you’ve started on this topic in the last week? I know it’s been at least three, because two were shut down virtually immediately.

Dude…

 

[panta dokimazete]

Isn’t this like the third or fourth thread you’ve started on this topic in the last week? I know it’s been at least three, because two were shut down virtually immediately.

Dude…

Yessir - but this is a different approach - hopefully the mods and admins will allow it.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Isn’t this like the third or fourth thread you’ve started on this topic in the last week? I know it’s been at least three, because two were shut down virtually immediately.

Dude…

I am very passionate about exposing practice that I believe harms the church and the Lord's worship, which I believe EP does.

 

[Taylor]

I am very passionate about exposing practice that I believe harms the church and the Lord's worship, which I believe EP does.

I get that. But it just seems…obsessive.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I get that. But it just seems…obsessive.

Yeah, I can see that but for me it's really more about presenting a well-reasoned argument that does not seem uncharitable. I think my earlier approaches may have inadvertently seemed that way.

 

[beloved7]

I don’t agree with EP at all but I suppose it is better than the modern churches that forsake the psalms (and hymns) altogether for the KLOVE stuff.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I don’t agree with EP at all but I suppose it is better than the modern churches that forsake the psalms (and hymns) altogether for the KLOVE stuff.

I don't disagree that there is some awful stuff out there, but it doesn't excuse an unbiblical doctrine.

 

[JH]

Your argument still lacks. Would you please make it appear how "It impossible to thoroughly and completely sing of the works and deeds of Jesus" from the Psalter?

 

[retroGRAD3]

Your argument still lacks. Would you please make it appear how "It impossible to thoroughly and completely sing of the works and deeds of Jesus" from the Psalter?

I think the argument from other threads is that the name of Jesus (proper name) is not present.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Your argument still lacks. Would you please make it appear how "It impossible to thoroughly and completely sing of the works and deeds of Jesus" from the Psalter?

It is self-evident. Show me how Jesus is explicitly named as Lord and all His works and deeds are explicitly covered in the Psalms. Neither the spirit or the letter is met by EP.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

This is basically a doctrine of the insufficiency of scripture. The argument is that God's inspired songs about the person and work of Christ (the book of Psalms) aren't enough, so we need to compose uninspired ones of our own to "fully" sing about Christ. As arguments go, it certainly doesn't seem to be one based on a Reformed view of scripture.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

It is self-evident. Show me how Jesus is explicitly named as Lord and all His works and deeds are explicitly covered in the Psalms. Neither the spirit or the letter is met by EP.

I'm hardly sure if you're being serious (or why your seemingly arbitrary criterion is as important as you think it is), bit since you asked, Psalm 45:11 for a start.

 

[JH]

It is self-evident. Show me how Jesus is explicitly named as Lord and all His works and deeds are explicitly covered in the Psalms. Neither the spirit or the letter is met by EP.

"It is self-evident" is not really the best way to establish a discussion in which there is obvious disagreement. In the Psalms we sing that Christ was eternally begotten of the Father, (Ps. 2) came into this world to save sinners (Ps. 2, 40:6-8), gave himself a living sacrifice (Ps. 118:22-27), ascended on high (Ps. 68:18), and on and on it goes. [Not being limited to the above references of course, these just come immediately to mind.]

As Neil said, ultimately most arguments come down to finding the Psalms insufficient, which just goes to show how deficient we are, seeing that Jesus himself said that the Psalms speak chiefly of him (Luke 24:44).

Would to God that more children in the visible church had in memory the book of praises that God has given us. It grieves me to the soul when I see many children catechized in songs of our own devising, but not in the songs that God himself has given us to be used world without end.

 

[Rom]

[Speaking of the psalms] Athanasius styles it, “An epitome of the whole Scriptures;” Basil, “A compendium of all theology;” Luther, “A little Bible, and the summary of the Old Testament;” Melancthon, “The most elegant work extant in the world”. (I lazily pulled this out of: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.ii.html)

It is used countless times in New Testament, from Jesus to the apostles to prove the person and works of Jesus Christ. The passion of our Lord is there (Psalm 22), the deity of our Lord is there (Psalm 110), the resurrection of the Lord is there (Psalm 16, Psalm 2), the ascension of our Lord is there (Psalm 68:18)

Consider how the apostles use the 2nd psalm in Acts 13:33:

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Consider how Paul demonstrates the ascension of Christ in Ephesians 4:8 (citing Psalm 68)

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

On and on, I do not have all day. But just read the book of Hebrews and see how much of the doctrine of Christ is lifted from the psalter by the apostle.

When preaching, I have yet to find a single doctrine not correlating in it. In contrast, those who neglect the psalms in worship, are the ones who neglect the works of Jesus Christ, and most especially the judgment of the wicked, the confession of their own sinfulness.

 

[No Other Name]

This is basically a doctrine of the insufficiency of scripture. The argument is that God's inspired songs about the person and work of Christ (the book of Psalms) aren't enough, so we need to compose uninspired ones of our own to "fully" sing about Christ. As arguments go, it certainly doesn't seem to be one based on a Reformed view of scripture.

Not EP here but I have no "error to expose" in those who are.

Your comment alarms as it seems to imply those who are not EP are adding to Scripture and in error.

As to the OP's argument, I would say he is claiming the Psalms are insufficient, but I do not think his conclusion as to EP being an erroneous doctrine is justifiable.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Not EP here but I have no "error to expose" in those who are.

Your comment alarms as it seems to imply those who are not EP are adding to Scripture and in error.

As to the OP's argument, I would say he is claiming the Psalms are insufficient, but I do not think his conclusion as to EP being an erroneous doctrine is justifiable.

Well, I do think using hymns in worship is adding to scripture and in error - it's fair that that should be alarming (as it's a fairly serious error) - but presumably you understand that is the EP view.

My point though was not actually about anti-EP in general, but more about the argument the OP was making, which is rather more explicit in that regard.

 

[panta dokimazete]

"It is self-evident" is not really the best way to establish a discussion in which there is obvious disagreement. In the Psalms we sing that Christ was eternally begotten of the Father, (Ps. 2) came into this world to save sinners (Ps. 2, 40:6-8), gave himself a living sacrifice (Ps. 118:22-27), ascended on high (Ps. 68:18), and on and on it goes. As Neil said, ultimately most arguments come down to finding the Psalms insufficient, which just goes to show how deficient we are, seeing that Jesus himself said that the Psalms speak chiefly of him (Luke 24:44). [Not being limited to the above references of course, these just come immediately to mind.]

Would you God that more children in the visible church had in memory the book of praises that God has given us. It grieves me to the soul when I see many children catechized in songs of our own devising, but not in the songs that God himself has given us to be used world without end.

I don't argue that the Psalms are worthy and messianic, but they and the OT in general only speak of Jesus in "types and shadows" vs the NT. His explicit works and deeds, as needed by the church and commanded for worship by the Psalms, are captured in the NT.

 

[beloved7]

I don't disagree that there is some awful stuff out there, but it doesn't excuse an unbiblical doctrine.

As a Reformed Baptist in the Northeast, it’s just not in my orbit. I tend to only focus on things such as this when they start to appear in our own circles. Like theonomy for example.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

This comes, surely, from an assumption of what (and who) Christ himself wants us to sing about when we assemble for worship. What do Psalm 22:22, and its repetition in Hebrews 2:12, teach us about this?

“Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee” (Psalm 22:21, 22)

“For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee” (Hebrews 2:12)

Many ramifications can be drawn from this, obviously.

 

[Rom]

I don't argue that the Psalms are worthy and messianic, but they and the OT in general only speak of Jesus in "types and shadows" vs the NT. His explicit works and deeds, as needed by the church and commanded for worship by the Psalms, are captured in the NT.

You must never have sat under a sermon series on Genesis then, perhaps preaching on a long book of the Old Testament which might last years is verboten to you.

Christ Himself, taught contrary to your principle. You must understand the Scriptures.

These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44–45)

Your principle when consistently held leads beyond even the error of dispensationalism and straight to the heresy of Marcionism. Read this article from Carl Trueman:

The Marcions have landed. A warning for evangelicals | Monergism

By Carl TruemanWhen one asks the most influential thinkers in the modern evangelical church are, one might find names such as Jim Packer, John Stott, and Don

www.monergism.com

Here is an excerpt:

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 explicitly said, 'These are mine.' Back here on Planet Earth, however, there is generally precious little chance of overloading on sound theology in song in most evangelical churches as the Marcion invasion is pretty much total and unopposed in the sphere of worship. Yet I for one prefer Athanasius to Marcion as a patristic thinker and, in his letter to Marcellinus, he gives one of the most beautiful and moving arguments for psalms in worship ever penned (available at www.athanasius.com/psalms/ aletterm.htm). It is a pity more have not taken his words to heart

I will echo what Trueman said - life is too short for pointless polemics.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Without the revelation of the NT, the OT truth of Jesus is not fully revealed.

This comes, surely, from an assumption of what (and who) Christ himself wants us to sing about when we assemble for worship. What do Psalm 22:22, and its repetition in Hebrews 2:12, teach us about this?

“Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee” (Psalm 22:21, 22)

“For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee” (Hebrews 2:12)

Many ramifications can be drawn from this, obviously.

Yes, this supports my issue with EP - whose name will you declare? Lots of ways to say the Psalms declare the role and purpose of Jesus, but not His revealed name and His mighty works and deeds with the precision of the NT.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Christ Himself, taught contrary to your principle. You must understand the Scriptures.


Your principle when consistently held leads beyond even the error of dispensationalism and straight to the heresy of Marcionism.


I will echo what Trueman said - life is too short for pointless polemics.

The Scripture you quoted was a deed of Christ that the Psalms do not explicitly speak of.

You'll have to expand on how you came to the Marcionism conclusion.

And yet, your response seems very polemical.

 

[JH]

Without the revelation of the NT, the OT truth of Jesus is not fully revealed.

Yes, this supports my issue with EP - whose name will you declare? Lots of ways to say the Psalms declare the role and purpose of Jesus, but not His revealed name.

Should we then cast out the book of Esther, because we find not the name of God therein? The meaning behind names is more important than the name itself, and we know this considering the several names providentially given to characters in Scripture. Jesus is our saviour, Jehovah himself. We sing of how God is our saviour, and salvation times without number in the Psalms. If your argument truly boils down to "no explicit mention of the name of Jesus", then there isn't much more left to be discussed.

 

[jwright82]

It is self-evident. Show me how Jesus is explicitly named as Lord and all His works and deeds are explicitly covered in the Psalms. Neither the spirit or the letter is met by EP.

I'm not EP and I'm not KLOVE style songs either, Psalms and classic hymnal for me. But since worship is from the believing community to God than a good preacher in his sermons would be showing the congregation how the Psalms point to Christ so they would know what they're singing about.

 

[retroGRAD3]

This is basically a doctrine of the insufficiency of scripture. The argument is that God's inspired songs about the person and work of Christ (the book of Psalms) aren't enough, so we need to compose uninspired ones of our own to "fully" sing about Christ. As arguments go, it certainly doesn't seem to be one based on a Reformed view of scripture.

To play devil's advocate a bit. One thought I have always had to this argument then is why do we create our own prayers then? We have examples in scripture as well, we have one from Jesus himself. How about sermons? We have many examples of these in scripture as well.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Should we then cast out the book of Esther, because we find not the name of God therein? The meaning behind names is more important than the name itself, and we know this considering the several names providentially given to characters in Scripture. Jesus is our saviour, Jehovah himself. We sing of how God is our saviour, and salvation times without number in the Psalms. If your argument truly boils down to "no explicit mention of the name of Jesus", then there isn't much more left to be discussed.

Nice swing at ad absurdum. The argument is: The Psalms command we sing of all the works and deeds of Jesus. The Psalms do not include all the works and deeds of Jesus as recorded in the NT. This is self-evident.

 

[Rom]

The Scripture you quoted was a deed of Christ that the Psalms do not explicitly speak of.

You'll have to expand on how you came to the Marcionism conclusion.

And yet, your response seems very polemical.

How about the panting of the psalmist:
Psalm 119:18 - Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law."

I think the issue with most who deny the sufficiency of the psalter is that they refuse the instruction of the apostle: "I will sing with the understanding also". (1 Corinthians 14:15). They really have not studied it very well and do not know it very well.

You can read Trueman yourself on Marcionism.

If you want a better thinker than you or me, you can read Athanasius (the link in the Trueman article is broken).

450_Psalms_Athanasius_The_Interpretation_of_the_Psalms.docx

The best minds in the Church for hundreds of years defended the sufficiency of the psalter for every purpose.

 

[JH]

Nice swing at ad absurdum. The argument is: The Psalms command we sing of all the works and deeds of Jesus. The Psalms do not include all the works and deeds of Jesus as recorded in the NT. This is self-evident.

Seeing you didn't really engage with my post, and continue to reassert the unproven premise, I will be bowing out of the discussion.