Exclusive Psalmody vs Free Hymnal Worship

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Edward Bryant

Mr. Edward Bryant

Puritan Board Freshman
Greetings fellow Christians,

Around a year ago, I stumbled upon this debate topic. I never really gave it much thought until the most previous October. Many of my associates were debating the issue between Exclusive Psalmody and Free Hymnal Worship. I was never fully interested in the debate until I realized that we should indeed take into deep consideration how we worship God, especially during the Christian Sabbath (Sunday).

With this, I am going on a little personal journey to see what people think of this debate (and what arguments they provide).

In this discussion, if you chose to answer, I ask you to give me your overall stance over this debate and tell me why you think that way.
 
1) The only songs ever sung by God's people were songs given by prophets, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The office of prophet is ceased under the New Testament.
2) There is but one book in the Scriptures that is comprised of songs, that is the Psalms; this book of 150 inspired songs, is brimming with Christ. In Luke 24:44, Jesus says the Scriptures speak concerning him. There is only one book he singles out, that is, the Psalms.
3) These Psalms tell us what and how we are to think about Christ, not what we desire to think about him.
4) When Hezekiah restored true worship (2 Chron. 29), he appointed the people to sing the words of David, that is, the Psalms.
5) There is no commandment explicit nor by good and necessary consequence, that we have authority as uninspired men (c.f. point 1) to write and introduce new songs for the public worship of God.
6) If the Psalms aren't brimming with Christ, why did Arius desire to supplant them with his own uninspired songs?

Honestly, the more I sing and see the fullness of the Psalms, the more I pity uninspired praise.
 
Once I came to the realization that I could go the rest of my life not singing even one more uninspired hymn, and that this would be completely within biblical order, and offer zero dishonor to God, that was a major jolt to my thinking. Uninspired hymns are not needed for the praise of God's people in the church. You cannot say the same about the psalter.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Edward Bryant said:
Greetings fellow Christians,

Around a year ago, I stumbled upon this debate topic. I never really gave it much thought until the most previous October. Many of my associates were debating the issue between Exclusive Psalmody and Free Hymnal Worship. I was never fully interested in the debate until I realized that we should indeed take into deep consideration how we worship God, especially during the Christian Sabbath (Sunday).

With this, I am going on a little personal journey to see what people think of this debate (and what arguments they provide).

In this discussion, if you chose to answer, I ask you to give me your overall stance over this debate and tell me why you think that way.
Click to expand...
I believe an overlooked as a reason for singing Psalms is the potential for unity amongst all the nations all singing the same inspired hymns, songs, and psalms. I often mention in answering queries from non-EP folk that I could not in good conscience sing their hymns instead of the Psalms and ask if they feel the same in reverse. I have never had anyone say their conscience would trouble them to sing Psalms instead of hymns. I think such a question strips bare this issue of unity.

At the end of introducing or defending EP, I also usually end by offering this thought: the best argument for singing the Psalms is singing the Psalms. This was my experience - the theological rationale came later. There is an experiential aspect that is overlooked (or discounted for being too "touchy-feely" an argument for Reformed folk?). It is rare to find someone who tries singing Psalms and then wants to go back to uninspired verse.

I have recently posted on this topic - here is the link: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/psalmody-to-hymnody-question.109708/post-1321091
 
JH said:
1) The only songs ever sung by God's people were songs given by prophets, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The office of prophet is ceased under the New Testament.
2) There is but one book in the Scriptures that is comprised of songs, that is the Psalms; this book of 150 inspired songs, is brimming with Christ. In Luke 24:44, Jesus says the Scriptures speak concerning him. There is only one book he singles out, that is, the Psalms.
3) These Psalms tell us what and how we are to think about Christ, not what we desire to think about him.
4) When Hezekiah restored true worship (2 Chron. 29), he appointed the people to sing the words of David, that is, the Psalms.
5) There is no commandment explicit nor by good and necessary consequence, that we have authority as uninspired men (c.f. point 1) to write and introduce new songs for the public worship of God.
6) If the Psalms aren't brimming with Christ, why did Arius desire to supplant them with his own uninspired songs?

Honestly, the more I sing and see the fullness of the Psalms, the more I pity uninspired praise.
Click to expand...
To your second point, is not the Song of Songs comprised of a song? That would make two books.....
 
Ben Zartman said:
To your second point, is not the Song of Songs comprised of a song? That would make two books.....
Click to expand...
There is but one book in the Scriptures that is comprised is songs, as in a multiplicity and coalition of songs, the Song of Solomon is but one song. I mentioned this because I'm setting Exclusive Psalmody over against an inspired praise only position. e.g. Which songs ought we sing in God's worship? Is there a book given to us in the Scriptures wherein are contained nothing but songs for this very purpose? Yes, God has given us the book of Psalms for that very purpose.
 
JH said:
There is but one book in the Scriptures that is comprised is songs, as in a multiplicity and coalition of songs, the Song of Solomon is but one song. I mentioned this because I'm setting Exclusive Psalmody over against an inspired praise only position. e.g. Which songs ought we sing in God's worship? Is there a book given to us in the Scriptures wherein are contained nothing but songs for this very purpose? Yes, God has given us the book of Psalms for that very purpose.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But not only this, we are not commanded to sing the Song of Solomon in the Bible. Whereas the Psalms are a different story (Colossians 3:16)
 
Mr. Edward Bryant said:
Agreed. But not only this, we are not commanded to sing the Song of Solomon in the Bible. Whereas the Psalms are a different story (Colossians 3:16)
Click to expand...
Where are you currently at on the subject, brother? Personally this issue took me about a year of development in total to be convicted about.
 
JH said:
Where are you currently at on the subject, brother? Personally this issue took me about a year of development in total to be convicted about.
Click to expand...
I have known the debate for about a year. It took about 8 months worth of private debates with two Reformed Puritans from the Puritan Reformed Church of Phoenix (www.puritanphx.com) for me to change from a Free Hymnal Worshiper to a Exclusive Psalomd-ier. Currently, I stand with Exclusive Psalmody as, from what I see, is really the only logical interpretation of the Bible's multiple commands of singing during worship service.
 
John The Baptist said:
real question:
What about the ‘hymns’ and ‘spiritual songs’ mentioned in this verse?
Click to expand...
Both internal and external witnesses point to the coalition of songs found in the Psalter, of which the superscription and body of the text attribute to themselves. Scripture interprets Scripture. Greek (and Hebrew) parallelisms often denote similar or the selfsame things. e.g. Sin, iniquity, transgression. Laws, statues, judgements. Miracles, signs, wonders. etc.

Some who hold Inspired Praise Only position (I don't) would set forth the other plain songs of Scripture — Habakkuk, Song of Solomon, etc. All of which were songs given by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Paul didn't say to the churches of Collosae and Ephesus to write new uninspired compositions, but to sing them, which implies they already had them in possession; not to mention, why would Paul think it a good idea to command churches fresh out of heathenry (Great is Diana of the Ephesians!) to be the authors of new uninspired praise?

What evidence is there that "hymns" and "spiritual songs" refer to uninspired NT era songs that uninspired men should write, and bring into public worship? That is the real question. The burden of proof lies upon those who would introduce something foreign and unheard of in redemptive history.
 
John The Baptist said:
real question:
What about the ‘hymns’ and ‘spiritual songs’ mentioned in this verse?
Click to expand...
The key questions in regard to this are:

1) what did hymn and spiritual song mean to Paul and the Colossians/Philippians? Is there any evidence of a hymnbook in the 1st century church? Mission Praise? (spoiler: No). Even the supposed "hymn fragments" are far from being proved to be so.
2) What does spiritual mean? Is it an informal quality, of a spiritual nature - i.e a New Age song would be spiritual for some people. Or does it have a formal theological meaning? Benjamin B. Warfield has rather conclusively shown, and a quick study will prove him correct, that in all but one other case "spiritual" means coming from the Holy Spirit. Unless our text is another odd outlier then Paul is referring to inspiried songs revealed by the Holy Spirit.
3) All three terms are in fact qualifying a previous statement, Colossians 3:16 ESV “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”. The Word of Christ dwells in us riching when we teach and admonish one another in wisdom singing psalms hymns and spiritual songs. How can we let the Word Christ dwell is us in our singing if we precisely use men's words?

Beyond that, do a google search on the subject and you'll find plenty of good material.
 
Polanus1561 said:
Isn’t the discussion so far easily researchable material from both sides? OP should go find the Shaw Schwertley debate that lays a foundation for the debate

Edit - https://www.sermonaudio.com/solo/gpts/sermons/69101027346/
Click to expand...
There is also an edited, shorter printed version of this debate in the form of an essay in favor of EP by Schwertley and a response by Shaw in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Worship-God-Reformed-Concepts-Biblical/dp/1845500555

With the benefit of some other excellent essays as well. You can probably find it cheaper off Amazon (I recently bought it from AbeBooks).
 
JH said:
There is but one book in the Scriptures that is comprised is songs, as in a multiplicity and coalition of songs, the Song of Solomon is but one song. I mentioned this because I'm setting Exclusive Psalmody over against an inspired praise only position. e.g. Which songs ought we sing in God's worship? Is there a book given to us in the Scriptures wherein are contained nothing but songs for this very purpose? Yes, God has given us the book of Psalms for that very purpose.
Click to expand...
So, the only quibble against the Canticle is that it is one song, not a coalition. Wouldn't it fall under the category of "Spiritual Song?" It was inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is Christ and His bride speaking to and about one another.
It seems inconsistent to single it out as forbidden simply because it's contained in a different place.
 
JH said:
Both internal and external witnesses point to the coalition of songs found in the Psalter, of which the superscription and body of the text attribute to themselves. Scripture interprets Scripture. Greek (and Hebrew) parallelisms often denote similar or the selfsame things. e.g. Sin, iniquity, transgression. Laws, statues, judgements. Miracles, signs, wonders. etc.

Some who hold Inspired Praise Only position (I don't) would set forth the other plain songs of Scripture — Habakkuk, Song of Solomon, etc. All of which were songs given by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Paul didn't say to the churches of Collosae and Ephesus to write new uninspired compositions, but to sing them, which implies they already had them in possession; not to mention, why would Paul think it a good idea to command churches fresh out of heathenry (Great is Diana of the Ephesians!) to be the authors of new uninspired praise?

What evidence is there that "hymns" and "spiritual songs" refer to uninspired NT era songs that uninspired men should write, and bring into public worship? That is the real question. The burden of proof lies upon those who would introduce something foreign and unheard of in redemptive history.
Click to expand...
JP Wallace said:
The key questions in regard to this are:

1) what did hymn and spiritual song mean to Paul and the Colossians/Philippians? Is there any evidence of a hymnbook in the 1st century church? Mission Praise? (spoiler: No). Even the supposed "hymn fragments" are far from being proved to be so.
2) What does spiritual mean? Is it an informal quality, of a spiritual nature - i.e a New Age song would be spiritual for some people. Or does it have a formal theological meaning? Benjamin B. Warfield has rather conclusively shown, and a quick study will prove him correct, that in all but one other case "spiritual" means coming from the Holy Spirit. Unless our text is another odd outlier then Paul is referring to inspiried songs revealed by the Holy Spirit.
3) All three terms are in fact qualifying a previous statement, Colossians 3:16 ESV “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”. The Word of Christ dwells in us riching when we teach and admonish one another in wisdom singing psalms hymns and spiritual songs. How can we let the Word Christ dwell is us in our singing if we precisely use men's words?

Beyond that, do a google search on the subject and you'll find plenty of good material.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your responses. One more question:

If the catechism is ‘men’s words’ and uninspired, why is it okay to use in worship, while uninspired songs are not? How are they qualitatively different, other than one is set to a tune?

Edit: Also, I’m thinking about how the hymn from Philippians 2 fits in this. It likely existed before Paul wrote it in the letter, which seems to complicate the matter. Same with the creed from 1 Corinthians 15.
 
Last edited:
Ben Zartman said:
So, the only quibble against the Canticle is that it is one song, not a coalition. Wouldn't it fall under the category of "Spiritual Song?" It was inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is Christ and His bride speaking to and about one another.
It seems inconsistent to single it out as forbidden simply because it's contained in a different place.
Click to expand...
Ben, see post #13. I also previously addressed the Inspired praise only position. That still would not give warrant for uninspired praise.
 
John The Baptist said:
Thank you for your responses. One more question:

If the catechism is ‘men’s words’ and uninspired, why is it okay to use in worship, while uninspired songs are not? How are they qualitatively different, other than one is set to a tune?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean using the Catechism in worship, I presume you're referring to corporate recitation of it. My personal congregation doesn't do that in our worship.

Edit to your edit: I am not of the persuasion of hymn fragments. Even then, we are to interpret what is unclear in light of what is clear. What is clear is that there is not a shred of evidence in the entirety of the Scripture for uninspired praise in the public worship of God, in the whole of redemptive history.
 
JH said:
I'm not sure what you mean using the Catechism in worship, I presume you're referring to corporate recitation of it. My personal congregation doesn't do that in our worship.

Edit to your edit: I am not of the persuasion of hymn fragments. Even then, we are to interpret what is unclear in light of what is clear. What is clear is that there is not a shred of evidence in the entirety of the Scripture for uninspired praise in the public worship of God, in the whole of redemptive history.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how common it is, I was just chose an example of another element of worship (maybe?). I’ve been reading other threads about what people have said before, so I think I’m understanding the position.

Thank you!
 
JH said:
Ben, see post #13. I also previously addressed the Inspired praise only position. That still would not give warrant for uninspired praise.
Click to expand...
Re: post #13
We are commanded to sing "Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs."
Are you alleging that the SoS is NOT a spiritual song, although it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and called, by Him, a Song?
 
John The Baptist said:
If the catechism is ‘men’s words’ and uninspired, why is it okay to use in worship, while uninspired songs are not? How are they qualitatively different, other than one is set to a tune?
Click to expand...
Well in a sense they are different merely because one is a song and one isn't. One is obviously the element of worship of sung praise, one is a different element of worship, i.e. the catechism would be parallel with preaching/teaching probably. We do not recite non-biblical texts in worship so I can't comment beyond that. But we do believe that sung praise is regulated to God's Word while prayer, preaching are not so limited, being applications of God's Word and explanations of God's Word.
 
Ben Zartman said:
We are commanded to sing "Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs."
Are you alleging that the SoS is NOT a spiritual song, although it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and called, by Him, a Song?
Click to expand...
I would say that Song of Songs is not a spiritual song in the sense in which the Apostle Paul means it to be understood. Ditto any other songs in Scripture. However if someone wants to sing Song of Songs in worship I might well tolerate that. But if some one wants to sing "Shine Jesus Shine" as being a spiritual song I want them to explain what they mean by spiritiual and give a solid biblical argument for it. In addition I would want them to explain how such a song is the "word of Christ".
 
Ben Zartman said:
Re: post #13
We are commanded to sing "Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs."
Are you alleging that the SoS is NOT a spiritual song, although it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and called, by Him, a Song?
Click to expand...
I addressed that in post #12. Since you are interested in nitpicking this one point, do you have any other thoughts on points 1-6 I laid out in my original post? Inspired praise only still doesn't align with composition of uninspired praise in God's worship; so either position would not give warrant to the latter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dcomin
  • Locked
Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs - the case for Exclusive Psalmody
2 3
Replies
86
Views
17K
dcomin
dcomin
S
Question for exclusive psalmody opponents
4 5 6
Replies
176
Views
8K
alexanderjames
alexanderjames
panta dokimazete
Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms
14 15 16
Replies
464
Views
22K
Grant Van Leuven
Grant Van Leuven
M
  • Locked
Article: Consistency in Worship (exclusive Psalmody)
Replies
5
Views
2K
scottmaciver
scottmaciver
Tyrese
  • Locked
Exclusive Psalmody
Replies
5
Views
2K
Tyrese
Tyrese
Back
Top