Casey
Puritan Board Junior
No. (You guys just love this subject, don't you?)Do the Westminster standards teach Exclusive Psalmody? Explain why if you like.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. (You guys just love this subject, don't you?)Do the Westminster standards teach Exclusive Psalmody? Explain why if you like.
The OPC does not require exception to be taken, because it's not an exception -- and I'm quite sure that the OPC Directory says that Psalms should/ought (don't know which) "to be sung frequently." There are, incidentally, already plans in the making for the creation of a Psalter/Hymnal (so that all the Psalms would be placed in the front, like what our Dutch brethren have been doing for years).Related to this issue, of those presbyterian bodies which are de facto hymn singers, have any of them authorized de jure the use of hymns in addition to the Psalms? (Do the PCA or OPC require hymn-singing office holders to take an exception to WCF 21?)
The PCA BCO states in chapter 47 that the proper elements of worship include "singing of psalms and hymns,.", but chapter 47 does not have "full constitutional authority" according to the preface to the Directory of Worship.
The PCA reaffirmed its commitment to (non-exclusive) psalmody when it encouraged congregations to sing psalms, and authorized the production of the Trinity Psalter.
I can't believe this is even being debated.
I'm just waiting for the thread title: "The air we breathe as proof for EP."
Section 1 of chapter 23 of the WCF provides a clear statement of the regulative principle. What follows are the "ordinary parts" of worship which the divines believed to be warranted by the holy Scriptures; and these are distinguished from other parts that are special. There can be no doubt that the divines were providing a complete list of all that they thought was warranted by the Word of God to be done in public worship. There was no need to add the word "only" in order to indicate exclusivity. Does anybody seriously think the divines intended to leave open the possibility that the Apocrypha could be read in public worship because they didn't put the word "only" before "the reading of the Scriptures?"
I don't mind a church or person arguing for EP as a temporary rule, on the authority of the RPW, to keep good order and purity of worship during a time of great musical saturation and/or ignorance. It is quite proper.
Call me ignorant if you like, but the above is my basis for EP.
It has come.
I believe that Psalm singing is prudent and a safer option for the man of God.
So, I have a question about the RPW then: Is it permissible to invoke a new rule, one which is not in the Word or the Confessions, based upon the tenet that "what is not commanded is forbidden"? May we say, "Well, this is not commanded, therefore we may make a commandment that this is forbidden, even though it is not explicitly in the Bible, because our reasoning dictates it to us"? Is this the intent of the RPW, when it says, "what is not commanded is forbidden"?
John...I'm going to have to agree with Jeff that it doesn't seem like you understand the RPW. The RPW is explicitly taught in Scripture, so applying that principle would mean that if it isn't commanded to be used in worship then it is forbidden.
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Interesting -- that's the same reasoning the Jews employed regarding the Third Commandment and the Lord's Name.I believe that Psalm singing is prudent and a safer option for the man of God.
.John...I'm going to have to agree with Jeff that it doesn't seem like you understand the RPW. The RPW is explicitly taught in Scripture, so applying that principle would mean that if it isn't commanded to be used in worship then it is forbidden.
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
.
Does the RPW allow the adding of commandments by men on the basis that some things are not explicitly commandd in the Bible? Does the RPW endorse a breaking of itself in order to enforce itself? Is that what it was meant to do?
Well, maybe. Let's give it a try; again, no offense to anyone.Is this a new standard? It sounds like quite a novel idea.
If I can explain my question some. I have no problem recognizing that the Westminster Standards authorize the exclusive use of the Psalms of David in public worship. The question I ask is do the Stds "teach" the position of exclusive psalmody as the reason for this?
Well, I tend to agree with "No"; that they could not be intent on defending an EP theory that didn't fully develop till much later. And I do agree that the question is the meaning of psalm. If I've begged that question, you need to show that to me; I'm pretty sure I have not.And the correct response is...no. The principle question we must deal with is what was the 17th century definition of Psalm as used by the Divines? Did they use it as a 'term of art' to mean any "Holy Metre" as Poole clearly did (and many others) or did they use it as so many PB members use it to mean "only Psalms of David".
This is the question. And repeatedly begging it adds much heat but little light.
I agree.Quoting this or that divine or puritain blasting contemporary hymns is not germaine. Everyone is in agreement that hymnody was a unpopular option at the time (to say the least). Citing long lists of quotes about the superiority of Psalms also does nothing for your view. We also all agree that the overwhelming majority of 17th century reformers loved the Davidic Psalter and held it in the highest regard.
Maybe so. Again, I do not, nor do I think the position I hold falls into this.What we must learn is what did they mean by "Psalm"? Many EP advocates take this as a tautology; Psalm = Psalm.
The primary question to ask and answer first, is whether it is even necessary to go beyond the context of the Assembly's documents and work to determine what they meant by the term psalm. If Nick Needham is persuasive that it is, then it may well be the burden you indicate rests on those who say psalm must be used in the specific sense rather than the general. If he is unpersuasive, then it is not.So start by reading Nick Needham in 'Westminster confession of faith into the 21st century vol 2" deal with his sources. A glance down the list whilst saying to yourself "He agrees with me, so does he, so does he..." is not a proper handling of sources. I realise that this could (will) take months. The 70 to 100 page article that you produce at the end will be worth it.
In your article you can show how Needham misused his sources, and establish that every time a Divine used the word 'psalm' with a degree of latitude that includes more than the Davidic Psalter there exist good reasons to doubt either the authenticity of the source or put forward your own theory as to why he used "psalm" to mean "hymn" in this place but in the WCF he only used "psalm" to mean "psalm of David"
I look forward to reading it.
Case closed!