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.
The cheerleading is getting a bit old.
Why should you care? Unless you feel he is presenting a heretical, unScriptural or illogical counter-argument?
Well, I do think he's presenting an illogical counter-argument but I mostly care because it's annoying to see "go team go!" after almost every one of his posts in the thread (and others). Nothing personal, JD. I know you mean well. I'd be bothered by it if someone were doing it to Sean or Rev. Winzer, as well.
Then consider this a "setting right."JohnV said:The position that I see you proposing is:
- the majority, and perhaps even a great majority, were of a certain opinion, and
- therefore that opinion is the default or the de facto position of the Church, even though that position is not explicitly stated, and
- therefore that position is authoritative, and
- therefore it is what the Bible teaches,
If this misrepresents your position at all, please set me right about it.
Hmmm... all good, except for the last part. Your line, "therefore, to require EP as necessary for worship must demonstrate express, clear, and plain (words that the WCF uses) revelation of the Bible; any other source is not sufficient as authority to require it," is rather misleading.JohnV said:In the meantime, I'll state my position in like manner:
The Bible teaches a particular proposition, and
- therefore the Church may authoritatively state it, and
- therefore the individual members of the Church must adhere to it, and
- therefore the writings of even the holiest and most highly regarded of the men of the Church must be judged by it, and
- therefore the only authority for determining what God requires is the Word of God only, with all other authority subservient to it, and
- this is what the confessional standards of the Church also assert and reflect.
- therefore, to require EP as necessary for worship must demonstrate express, clear, and plain (words that the WCF uses) revelation of the Bible; any other source is not sufficient as authority to require it.
In other words, I don't believe that it is necessary that a teaching of Scripture must be, as you say, "express, clear, and plain," in order to be believed or practiced. We may use "good and necessary consequence" in contrast to the "express" teaching of Scripture, which Scripture consequences are just as binding. Those things necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are here said to be "clear," whereas other things taught in Scripture may not necessarily be "plain" in themselves, or "clear" unto all -- and I would not class exclusive psalmody as necessary to salvation. So, no. If exclusive psalmody can be deduced from Scripture (regardless of whether or not it gives the express statement, "Thou shalt sing only the songs contained in the Book of Psalms in public worship"), then it is just as binding on us as if it gave such a statement -- similar to the fact that we deduce the doctrine of infant baptism from Scripture, although there is no express declaration that we should baptize our infant children.The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I. Of the Holy Scripture.
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either EXPRESSLY set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture...
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike PLAIN in themselves, nor alike CLEAR unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so CLEARLY propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more CLEARLY.
John,
Begging the question? You mean like presuming the Divines could not possibly mean “X” because of their teaching on “Y”?
I've been in worse spots. But, no, I don't feel alone.I can certainly understand how lonely you feel on this matter.
It seems to me you want to run everything in the Standards through WCF chapter 1, assigning the Divines some level of perfection in upholding that chapter throughout their own work, rather then letting the documents speak for themselves and judging them according to Scripture. Ok. Which is worse? Saying the Divines prescribed a worship practice you won’t presume due to their “integrity” they should be interpreted as laying on the churches, because it lacks clear Scriptural warrant, or prescribing a doctrine to be believed, like that the Pope is that Antichrist, that man of sin? Now, that is pretty clear; but many do not see Scriptural warrant for that teaching. Do you? If you do not, then will you say that the Divines went beyond Scripture at that point? Or will you insist on interpreting this in a way that suits your measure of what is and is not in keeping with the integrity of the Westminster Standards?
Then consider this a "setting right."
John, it is two separate questions, whether Scripture teaches something, and whether the Confession teaches something. I do not consider anything to be true because the Confession says it. The Confession derives its subordinate authority from the Word of God, which is of supreme authority. Doctrines or practices are true because Scripture says so. If the Confession says the same, the Confession is true as well.
That would be consistent with your precommitment. I agree that this is what you would initially think. I think that you would agree that we should go on from there to see whether our precommitments are true precommitments, and not try to place these over the Scriptures on our own.I believe that the Confession accurately sets forth the teaching of Scripture, not because it is in the Confession, but because it is in Scripture. If you were able to convince me that the Confession allows for the singing of songs other than the Psalms, or relegates the issue of exclusive psalmody to "liberty of conscience," you would simultaneously persuade me that the Confession is wrong on that point; because I am persuaded that exclusive psalmody is mandated by Scripture (regardless of whether or not that teaching is contained in the Confession).
I'm saying that this betrays a contrary notion to what you said before. But let me go on to show this to you from the next part...;John, the Confession and Catechisms were not created in a vacuum. They were drawn up by men, and adopted by a national church, that used only the Psalter in worship. How does that not determine the meaning of the phrase "singing of psalms with grace in the heart"?
Let me use an illustration. Suppose I draw up a brief confession of my faith, affirming my belief in "the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement." But 360 years from now, after more and more heresies have crept in, men argue in presbyteries and synods (and on Internet forums!) as to how my words should be interpreted. Should they interpret them to mean that the efficacy of Christ's death is limited, or the sufficiency? Should they not turn to the writings of this period, now, to see how we understand this phrase, and see how I personally use this phrase; rather than take their (perhaps heretical) understanding of what Scripture teaches, and force such an interpretation upon my words?
Hmmm... all good, except for the last part. Your line, "therefore, to require EP as necessary for worship must demonstrate express, clear, and plain (words that the WCF uses) revelation of the Bible; any other source is not sufficient as authority to require it," is rather misleading.
How does WCF use these words?
In other words, I don't believe that it is necessary that a teaching of Scripture must be, as you say, "express, clear, and plain," in order to be believed or practiced. We may use "good and necessary consequence" in contrast to the "express" teaching of Scripture, which Scripture consequences are just as binding. Those things necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are here said to be "clear," whereas other things taught in Scripture may not necessarily be "plain" in themselves, or "clear" unto all -- and I would not class exclusive psalmody as necessary to salvation. So, no. If exclusive psalmody can be deduced from Scripture (regardless of whether or not it gives the express statement, "Thou shalt sing only the songs contained in the Book of Psalms in public worship"), then it is just as binding on us as if it gave such a statement -- similar to the fact that we deduce the doctrine of infant baptism from Scripture, although there is no express declaration that we should baptize our infant children.
Rom. 15:5, 6. -- "Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
John,I don't think I missed it, Sean. What you're saying, in effect, is that "RPW => EP" because the Church of Scotland practiced EP, and that's good enough authority for us.
You're saying that the Church of Scotland must have understood the Confessions to be saying that EP is required of all churches because the Bible requires it. That's how they understood it, so that is authoritative for determining what the WCF actually says, and for what the Bible actually says.
You're saying that we don't have to look for internal consistency in the Confessions, but that Chapter I, for example, is quite separate from Chapter XXI: we do not have to understand Chapter XXI in light of Chapter I.
I don't think I missed that.
You're saying that church councils can take precedence over Scripture's limitations, by decreeing as doctrinal what the Scriptures do not require.
You're saying that the limitation which the RPW enforces may be broken by the RPW, by commanding what the Bible does not command.
You're saying that some commandments which are determined by the light of nature and Christian prudence, for worship and governance, may be taken as direct commands of Scripture, even though the Bible does not command them, nor are derived at by good and necessary consequence, but instead by the understandings of men.
I believe I answered that specifically, in stating how I believe the Confessions state the order of authority. I think this order is self-evident, and forced by good and necessary consequence. But maybe if I expand on it a bit, it may be clearer that this was what I addressed.
Because of the unity of truth, therefore in matters of doctrine:
- what is plain may not be violated;
- what is less plain is open to explanation only by what may not be violated;
- what cannot be explained may only be understood to the best of our ability without violating the plain, the clear, the express texts.
- what is in the Bible can only be cleared by the Bible, because there is no higher authority;
- what is in the Bible cannot be cleared up by external sources, not the writings of men, however holy they may be, nor church councils, nor tradition, nor by historical evidence or example.
This pertains to matters of doctrine, the thing that the Standards deal with. The light of nature is given its place in matters of governance, circumstance, prudence, and conscience, matters beside that of doctrine. None of these may violate or be normative to doctrinal matters beyond appeal to the plain meaning of words in the vulgar languages of the people. This means that the teachings of the Bible for what is necessary for the glory of God, the salvation of man, faith and life, are simple enough so that they are ordinarily understood by the learned and unlearned alike.
So the order of importance in determining doctrine is stated clearly enough in the WCF. Let me put it another way, if it helps:
- Councils of the church are subject to correction, if it can be shown they are in error, by appeal to the secondary standards (the Orders and Forms), or by appeal to the Confessions, or by appeal to the Word of God.
- The secondary standards may be corrected by appeal to the Confessions, and by appeal to the Word of God.
- The Confessions may be corrected only on appeal to the Word of God.
- The Word of God can only be correctly understood by appeal to the Word of God.
John,
I don't know how many times I can say this. I get the feeling that you are either deliberately misrepresenting me, not reading what I am saying, or not understanding what I am saying -- and I believe I am being quite clear.
Thank you, Chris. I will rephrase myself and say, that while I believe I am being clear enough in my posts to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, I do assume the best of John, and believe that he is simply not understanding what I am saying. I spake in frustration, and do apologize, John. I forgot, for a moment, that charity "thinketh no evil" of others.Slight Mod hat on: We should strive to think nothing sinister is at play David; that would be evil surmising. We all get carried along by our views, particularly when we think they are of the utmost importance. At the same time, speaking as a participant, I think this thread is unprofitable, and those posts I have written, not yet posted, will die in my draft basket. Others feel free to carry on; that's my .
John,
I don't know how many times I can say this. I get the feeling that you are either deliberately misrepresenting me, not reading what I am saying, or not understanding what I am saying -- and I believe I am being quite clear.
I do not regard our doctrinal standards as having greater or equal authority to the Holy Scriptures. I believe that the Confession of Faith, the decisions of synods and councils, the opinions of men, etc. must all be corrected by the Word of God.
As I have understood it, there are two questions being examined here:
1. Does the Westminster Confession of Faith set forth exclusive psalmody?
2. Do the Scriptures set forth exclusive psalmody?
I answer "yes" to both of these. But that does not affect my understanding of confessional authority, and its subordination to Scripture. No council, church, confession, man or men, can decree beyond what Scripture has said. If Scripture does not teach exclusive psalmody, it is SIN on our part to require it.
I really do not see why we are addressing the question of confessional authority, in the first place. Scripture can require something not mentioned in Westminster, and we would still be bound by it (whether or not you voluntarily bind yourself to Westminster). And if Westminster requires something not required in Scripture, it is your duty to follow Scripture. The real question with regard to exclusive psalmody is, Does Scripture require it? As an "introductory" examination of that question, I introduced a syllogism which still has not been dealt with. I believe that we are getting rather off-topic in our examination of this other question (confessional authority). Let us examine this question (whether Scripture requires it), if that is okay with you.
John, I'm trying to tell you how I "understand things." I have consistently maintained a distinction between whether something is taught in Scripture, and whether it is taught in the Confession. I have never said that "antiquity or the writings of men are sufficient authority to ground EP as required."JohnV said:Sean:
My heart smote me after I posted my last post, and I'll tell you why. There are three reasons.
First, when I said all those, "you're saying...(such and such)" things, some of them were what you were directly saying, though perhaps not meaning to, by the way you understand things. Other things are not what you're saying, but are necessary logical conclusions of what you're saying. You are and you aren't overtly saying that antiquity or the writings of men are sufficient authority to ground EP as required. I thought that maybe I said too much. And yet also, when I thought about it, I was also convinced that I did not misrepresent your views. But though I believe I did not misrepresent you, I may still have been a bit too hard.
Agreed.JohnV said:What is needed to be able to say that EP is required of the Church by the Word of God is the Word of God requiring it. There are two ways to show that: express command; or good and necessary consequence.
So, if there was a decision of, let's say, the Church of Scotland that EP is commanded by the Word, then show to us the Church of Scotland's grounding of that decision, so that we may all likewise be convinced. That's what I'm saying about burden of proof. It's not good enough just to say that others were convinced; we need to know what they were convinced by, not just that they were convinced. And we are allowed to be convinced by only one source, the Bible.
I think I understand what you're saying here, but not entirely sure, since you don't really expand on this one that much. At least, up until the talk about "a sub-primary approach," etc.JohnV said:Next, you wonder in this last post exactly what I was thinking about. I had two purposes for this thread: I wanted to show exactly where the burden of proof lay for the "RPW => EP" position. There is another position that I did not address, but which came to me later. It goes like this: "p(RPW) ~=> ~EP". Sorry, but that's the best I can do for symbolizing it, for now. I'm still working on it. What it means is that "the propositional implication of the RPW does not imply non-EP. Very simply put, it means that there is a sub-primary approach that is yet open to a doctrinal EP that I have not fully covered in my argument. I'm working on it. So I'm not really done working through my first purpose yet.
You might have to clarify this a bit. Are you saying that, in their preaching, ministers cannot say anything that is not laid down explicitly or implicitly in the doctrinal standards of their church? See, even here, I'm not speaking clearly. Let me try again...JohnV said:But I had a second purpose for this thread. This was also a way to bring out the place and importance of Chapter I of the Confession. Things like FH, FV, and I can and have named a bunch of things elsewhere, are interesting topics, but have no place in the offices or the ministry until GA says so. So if a minister is preaching that FH is what the Bible teaches about creation, it's not the FH hypothesis that I am directly pointing to, but the fact that he said the Bible said or taught something that the Bible does not say or teach: whatever may be true or false about the FH, he is breaking with WCF I. I'm must picking one of the topics as an example. I thought that discussing the burden of proof for a doctrine was a good way to bring this out. So to me, this was an important point of what I was attempting to get across.
Agreed; and I believe whole-heartedly in good and necessary consequence.JohnV said:Lastly, I'm trying to show through the witness of the Church, i.e., the WCF, that all things that are necessary for the glory of God, man's salvation, faith and life are either expressly written in the Word, so that it is clear to the learned and unlearned, or deduced by good and necessary consequence. This last statement almost defines itself, since it is itself deduced by good and necessary consequence. You don't find that expressly stated in the Bible, do you? And yet it is Biblically true; it can be no other way. Our reason is subjected to it; it is not derived from our reason in addition to the Bible.
Now, I have to ask for some clarification here. This principle could be seen as working against both "sides" in this debate.JohnV said:To establish that the Bible teaches EP it has to be clearly and solely taught in the Bible. It can't come from somewhere else, like the FH does. It can't even come in part from somewhere else, not even a little. It came to me that maybe I hadn't stated that clearly enough.
I don't remember this; unless it was at "the beginning" of the Board itself. I would be happy to go through a discussion of the Scriptural ground of the position.JohnV said:Right from the start of the discussion on EP I asked for Scripture for it. Then I asked for good and necessary consequence. I still think we need that, one or the other, and those alone, to establish that the Bible requires EP.
Ummmm... I don't follow. You started off by distinguishing between Stivason's "ecclesiastical EP burden of proof" and a "doctrinal EP burden of proof"; but I don't remember how you clarified the latter, or upon whom that burden of proof rests, whether hymn-singers, psalm-singers, or both.JohnV said:By going at it from a burden of proof standpoint, I am allowed to skip over the may other arguments which, good as they may be, are not authoritative to establish EP as doctrinally required.
By all means, let us turn to Scripture on this subject. I am curious as to whether you are speaking of WCF 21.5, when you say "one that the WCF allows for"; or whether you are speaking of chapter 1 (or your understanding of chapter 20). But, regardless of whether it is "one that the WCF allows for," please let us turn to Scripture in this discussion.JohnV said:But now a third way has occurred to me, one that the WCF allows for. I don't think anyone has put that argument forward, but it is a possible answer. And I need to look at that. I'll need some time to sort through the texts for it.
John, I'm trying to tell you how I "understand things." I have consistently maintained a distinction between whether something is taught in Scripture, and whether it is taught in the Confession. I have never said that "antiquity or the writings of men are sufficient authority to ground EP as required."
In discussions on eschatology, I frequently mention the original of WCF 25.6 to show people the historic nature of belief that the Pope is the Antichrist; but I would never expect someone to believe such a doctrine because it is in the Confession, but only because it is in the Word of God. Likewise, I refer to 21.5 to show the historic nature of the practice of exclusive psalmody; but I do not expect you, or anyone else, to believe in and practice exclusive psalmody because it is in the Confession, but only because it is in the Word of God.
If I have ever spoken contrary to this, or in such a way as to confuse the two, I repudiate such statements right now. If it can be shown me that my statements logically, necessarily, and of their own accord lead to such a conclusion, let it be shown to me, so that I may likewise amend in my statements what needs to be amended.
I think I understand what you're saying here, but not entirely sure, since you don't really expand on this one that much. At least, up until the talk about "a sub-primary approach," etc.
You might have to clarify this a bit. Are you saying that, in their preaching, ministers cannot say anything that is not laid down explicitly or implicitly in the doctrinal standards of their church? See, even here, I'm not speaking clearly. Let me try again...
1. I do not believe in FH (if by "FH" you mean framework hypothesis) or FV. I believe that they are contrary to the Scriptures. So, I believe that it would be wrong to preach those doctrines, or argue for those doctrines, because they are contradicted by the Scriptures.
2. I happen to believe in Amillennialism. But most Presbyterian churches that I know are open to either Amillennialism or Postmillennialism. (I'm not even going to touch Premillennialism.) Some Presbyterian churches are exclusively Postmillennial; some other churches (I think mostly Dutch Reformed) are exclusively Amillennial. In a church that admits of either opinion, the church does not take a definite stance on either position, and understands the doctrinal standards so as not to preclude either one. Does this mean that pastors are forbidden from preaching either Amillennialism or Postmillennialism from the pulpit? Heck no. Although the church does not explicitly decide on the matter, and the doctrinal standards are not understood to explicitly decide on the matter, they are allowed to preach items that go beyond these decisions.
3. This last point could be multiplied indefinitely. Is it proper to argue for a certain doctrine from this or that text or Scriptural concept? For example, Calvin did not understand the OT statements of God, "Let US make man," etc., as providing proof for the Trinity. A Reformed pastor I know from Canada, David Linden, argues from a chiastic construction of John 1:1-18 that the passage is primarily concerned with setting forth the doctrine of our salvation being by faith alone. I have argued for a while now that the doctrine of infant baptism can be sustained by understanding that the principle of "covenanters and their children" exists in all divine-human covenants (covenant of redemption, covenant of works, covenant of grace). None of these things are mentioned in the Reformed creeds. Are we therefore forbidden from saying them, or are ministers forbidden from preaching them?
Agreed; and I believe whole-heartedly in good and necessary consequence.
Now, I have to ask for some clarification here. This principle could be seen as working against both "sides" in this debate.
1. Against hymn-singers, and for psalm-singers, this could be seen as deciding the interpretation of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. If we cannot turn to the pagan literature of the time in order to determine the interpretation of the three words there, but must turn only to Scripture (like the Septuagint available to Paul and the early churches), this would probably lead us to understand all three terms as referring to the psalms, hymns, and songs of the Psalter.
2. But against the psalm-singers, this could be seen as arguing against our interpretation of Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26; since we rely on external sources to determine the "hymn" that was sung (or more literally, what they "hymned"). But then I don't see how anyone could then determine what was sung on that occasion, since the text does not say.
I'm sure there are other points, but these readily spring to mind. Questions of linguistics, or how certain words are used, have ordinarily been understood to be allowed to examine similar extra-scriptural writings of that period, or a similar period, to assist in determining certain questions; and questions regarding certain points of custom or culture that appear in Scripture may also require extra-scriptural sources for clarification.
I don't remember this; unless it was at "the beginning" of the Board itself. I would be happy to go through a discussion of the Scriptural ground of the position.
Ummmm... I don't follow. You started off by distinguishing between Stivason's "ecclesiastical EP burden of proof" and a "doctrinal EP burden of proof"; but I don't remember how you clarified the latter, or upon whom that burden of proof rests, whether hymn-singers, psalm-singers, or both.
By all means, let us turn to Scripture on this subject. I am curious as to whether you are speaking of WCF 21.5, when you say "one that the WCF allows for"; or whether you are speaking of chapter 1 (or your understanding of chapter 20). But, regardless of whether it is "one that the WCF allows for," please let us turn to Scripture in this discussion.
I do believe that, following the syllogism I presented, the burden of proof rests upon hymn-singers to demonstrate either that (1.) each hymn or hymnbook that they employ is particularly appointed by God for use in public worship, or that (2.) the divine regulation in regard to the appointment of song in worship has been specifically relaxed, abrogated, or (insert some other altering-type word here). Failing at this, the only remaining controversy would be between those arguing for exclusive psalmody, and those arguing for "inspired songs only."
Appealing to other documents of the same era is quite helpful. It helps us understand how words were used at the time, and so also how they may be supposed to have been used in the Bible. But there is a problem with this too. A number of problems, in fact.1. Against hymn-singers, and for psalm-singers, this could be seen as deciding the interpretation of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. If we cannot turn to the pagan literature of the time in order to determine the interpretation of the three words there, but must turn only to Scripture (like the Septuagint available to Paul and the early churches), this would probably lead us to understand all three terms as referring to the psalms, hymns, and songs of the Psalter.
As you say, this goes both ways. This is a good point. I think that what is meant by the word “hymn” is to be understood by considering other parts of the Bible that are more clear. It won’t tell us what they sang, but it might tell us what they didn’t sing. Here the word is used by itself, as compared to the Eph. and Col. texts. This is problematic for those who believe that the three terms used in those texts all refer to the Psalms. Personally, I’ve got to see an appreciation of the problem on the part of EP proponents, otherwise I have to think they’re just shrugging it off. Why was not the word “psalm” used here, if the word “hymn” means the same thing? It’s a real toe-stubber, when you think about it.2. But against the psalm-singers, this could be seen as arguing against our interpretation of Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26; since we rely on external sources to determine the "hymn" that was sung (or more literally, what they "hymned"). But then I don't see how anyone could then determine what was sung on that occasion, since the text does not say.
Again, you have to distinguish between “assist” and “authority”. What we’re usually talking about when such questions come up is the less clear or less plain passages. Sometimes such passages cannot be cleared up through other more clear and plain passages. If that’s the case, appealing to word usage of the time might lend itself to a particular meaning, but I don’t recall that type of appeal ever being authoritative. If I’m wrong, please point it out to me.I'm sure there are other points, but these readily spring to mind. Questions of linguistics, or how certain words are used, have ordinarily been understood to be allowed to examine similar extra-scriptural writings of that period, or a similar period, to assist in determining certain questions; and questions regarding certain points of custom or culture that appear in Scripture may also require extra-scriptural sources for clarification.
The discussion is always open to such grounds. It would have been over a long time ago if it had been given.I would be happy to go through a discussion of the Scriptural ground of the position.
Stivason’s point was that EP did not hold the burden of proof. He was not arguing for an ecclesiastical position, but a doctrinal position. His position was conceded from the start, and we moved on from there.You started off by distinguishing between Stivason's "ecclesiastical EP burden of proof" and a "doctrinal EP burden of proof"; but I don't remember how you clarified the latter, or upon whom that burden of proof rests, whether hymn-singers, psalm-singers, or both.
I am referring to WCF, I, ix.I am curious as to whether you are speaking of WCF 21.5, when you say "one that the WCF allows for"; or whether you are speaking of chapter 1 (or your understanding of chapter 20). But, regardless of whether it is "one that the WCF allows for," please let us turn to Scripture in this discussion.
This is the reduction argument. It doesn’t hold. It just has too many question-begging conclusions in it. It already assumes many of the things that would follow from EP, such as a God-appointed book of praise, which is therefore exclusive: that’s what would follow from a proof text of EP. You’re just assuming that the psalm book of the OT was limited to the 150 Psalms.I do believe that, following the syllogism I presented, the burden of proof rests upon hymn-singers to demonstrate either that (1.) each hymn or hymnbook that they employ is particularly appointed by God for use in public worship, or that (2.) the divine regulation in regard to the appointment of song in worship has been specifically relaxed, abrogated, or (insert some other altering-type word here). Failing at this, the only remaining controversy would be between those arguing for exclusive psalmody, and those arguing for "inspired songs only."
John, do you think that the Scriptures do command believers to sing the Psalms?
John, what do you call a "Psalter-Hymnal," if not an adding of uninspired hymns to the Psalter? Is not the Psalter a book of the Bible? How is there a radical difference between adding songs to a music-version metrical Psalter, and adding songs to the Psalter in the middle of your AV, NKJV, NASB, etc.?JohnV said:No, Sean. In my way of thinking that would not follow. Absolutely not. We know that other songs were sung, and also know that the Scriptures are God-breathed, and were deemed holy by God's people. To propose another song is not like proposing another Scripture. Not at all.
You're begging the question. I might as well say, "When people propose additional songs to the Psalter, we know immediately that they aren't in the Psalter, therefore they're not of the Psalter." What would you call the Romish acceptance of the Apocrypha if not "books gradually making it into the Bible, when the churches were decaying spiritually"? And haven't you heard of Psalm 151, in the Septuagint?JohnV said:If someone were to propose an additional book to the Bible, we would know immediately that it's not in the Bible, therefore it's not of the Bible. Other books don't gradually make it into the Bible, even when the churches are decaying spiritually. Even the RCC, which has included the Apocrypha in their bibles, has not included any others besides what they regarded as the Word of God. Songs have changed, many times over, but the Word of God does not change.
You're not distinguishing carefully here, John. You say, "We have many VERSIONS of the Psalms for singing," etc.; and then say, "Yet we all have the same Word of God." I happen to use the AV (KJV) for a "regular" Bible version; the church I'm currently attending uses the old NASB; my church back in the Springs uses the ESV, etc. Yes, it's (generally speaking) the same Bible, but different versions. Likewise, in comparing different metrical or musical Psalters, we have the same Book of Psalms, but different versions.JohnV said:Even people who hold to EP have to admit that we're not singing the Psalms the same way that they were sung a thousand years ago, two thousand years ago, or more. We have many versions of the Psalms for singing in our churches now, both in music and words; it's not even the same from denomination to denomination. Yet we all have the same Word of God.