Exclusive Psalmody vs Free Hymnal Worship

[iainduguid]

It’s helpful to remember that Christ = messiah/anointed and Jesus = salvation, so he is sung about directly throughout the Psalms. Psalm 2 immediately in the Psalter sets up the reality of everything else to follow: “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his anointed…”

Jerry, surely it is a far looser paraphrase to say "salvation = Jesus" that to say "the anointed = Jesus". Besides, it is simply poor interpretation to say that the anointed always simply represents Jesus in the psalms, as Psalm 18:50 makes clear. There are some hermeneutical gymnastics going on here that some of us have difficulty following. Namely, according to your position, it seems that when we sing the psalms we are mentally to think about Jesus and fill in his name in our minds whenever we see "The anointed" or "salvation", but we are in sin if his name ever actually crosses our lips in song. You can't have it both ways: either Jesus is not explicitly named in the psalms, or he is. But if he is, it's hard for some of us to see why it is wrong to sing Psalm 72 as "Jesus shall reign where'er the sun doth his successive journeys run" out loud when you assure us that that is exactly what we should be meaning in our minds when we sing the metrical psalm. These are not "man's words" but exactly what you (rightly) tell us the psalm means. If "the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God" (2nd Helvetic Confession), so too may the singing of the Word of God in the form of accurate paraphrases of Scriptural teaching.

 

[JH]

And, yes, the church is in a state of declension, and worship is a big part of it, but I think some folks drastically overestimate the effect of this particular worship issue in that declension, and often come dangerously close to the slippery slope fallacy.

Call it a fallacy if you like, but small departures in either doctrine or practice are what lead to greater error, that's a fact. The Second Commandment pertaining to God's worship, and how he is to be worshipped, I would say is pretty important. Though disagreements are to be handled in Christian charity, it's a first table issue.

 

[Taylor]

Call it a fallacy if you like, but small departures in either doctrine or practice are what lead to greater error, that's a fact. The Second Commandment pertaining to God's worship, and how he is to be worshipped, I would say is pretty important. Though disagreements are to be handled in Christian charity, it's a first table issue.

I agree with all of this, and so does everyone else on this board. I think some EP folks are quick to forget this.

By the way, the slippery slope fallacy does not say that there is no such thing as small errors leading to bigger ones. It says we cannot say something is in error merely because it might lead to bigger errors. The truth or falsity of a proposition must be demonstrated on more objective grounds. In my experience, in all the dozens of threads on this topic, I have yet to see the EP position demonstrated logically or exegetically to a convincing degree, leading some to resort to the “but the church is in decline” route, which is too simplistic and subjective to hold really any weight.

 

[Steve Curtis]

That may be true. But I did not in any way mention the issue of the name "Jesus" not being in the Psalms. Yes, I have had people bring that up, but after a brief conversation and showing them that Christ ( מָשִׁיחַ / messiah) is specifically mentioned multiple times (whether we translate it that way or not - Psalm 2 comes to mind: "The kings of the earth band themselves, and the Princes are assembled together against the Lord, and against his Christ." v.2, Geneva Bible; see also Psalms 18, 20, 28, 84, 89, 105, 132), along with all the other arguments you already know, they admit that their conscience would not trouble them to sing Psalms instead of hymns, your incredulity aside. I've never understood the "but Jesus isn't mentioned in the Psalms" argument from those who sing uninspired hymns that don't all mention Christ...

Again, hard to believe! As has been noted already, so many protracted conversations have been had here on the PB on this matter - among many who are serious students of God's Word, mind you - and relatively few who hold to contrary positions are swayed by such arguments to EP. Yet, in your experience with this subject, you have "never had anyone say their conscience would trouble them to sing Psalms instead of hymns"? My, we must certainly interact with a radically different group of professing Christians (fellow PBers, notwithstanding)!

 

[Northern Crofter]

Jerry, surely it is a far looser paraphrase to say "salvation = Jesus" that to say "the anointed = Jesus". Besides, it is simply poor interpretation to say that the anointed always simply represents Jesus in the psalms, as Psalm 18:50 makes clear. There are some hermeneutical gymnastics going on here that some of us have difficulty following. Namely, according to your position, it seems that when we sing the psalms we are mentally to think about Jesus and fill in his name in our minds whenever we see "The anointed" or "salvation", but we are in sin if his name ever actually crosses our lips in song. You can't have it both ways: either Jesus is not explicitly named in the psalms, or he is. But if he is, it's hard for some of us to see why it is wrong to sing Psalm 72 as "Jesus shall reign where'er the sun doth his successive journeys run" out loud when you assure us that that is exactly what we should be meaning in our minds when we sing the metrical psalm. These are not "man's words" but exactly what you (rightly) tell us the psalm means. If "the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God" (2nd Helvetic Confession), so too may the singing of the Word of God in the form of accurate paraphrases of Scriptural teaching.

I don't quite follow the part I have bolded. Jesus is explicitly named in the Psalms.

Do you interpret verses such as Philippians 2:10 to read "at the name, Jesus" or "at the name of Jesus"? All throughout Acts, for example, when Divine power is called upon (healing, casting out demons) it is done "in the name of Jesus Christ..." There seems to be this idea that the name "Jesus" is some magical name, but it is just a common Hebrew name ("Yeshua" - see also the common use of it by our Spanish-speaking brethren). Consider Hebrews 4.8: "For if Yeshua had given them rest, then would he not after this have spoken of another day." The writer is referring to Joshua, not Jesus Christ, even though it could be translated/Anglicized "Jesus" (as some English translations do). Names matter. Consider the YHVH conundrum. I have no problem with someone naming their son Jesus anymore than I have an issue with them calling their child Joshua or Josiah. But I would have a problem with someone naming their son Christ or Messiah.

I suggest that "the name of Jesus" is not Jesus but Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One. There are many Jesuses in Scripture (Josiah, Joshua, Jesus - it's all the same name), but there is only one Messiah. Is the clamoring to have the name "Jesus" in the songs sung in worship really valid? Aren't we missing the many references to the Anointed One (Eng) /Messiah (Heb) /Christ (Gr) if we don't sing the Psalms?

I hear a lot of "Jesus" in the uninspired hymns and songs, but very little "Christ." When we sing the psalms, we should be thinking about Christ the whole time - why wouldn't we? (As an aside, I do wish our English Psalters used "Christ" or "Messiah" instead of "anointed" in their versification)

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

I agree with all of this, and so does everyone else on this board. I think some EP folks are quick to forget this.

By the way, the slippery slope fallacy does not say that there is no such thing as small errors leading to bigger ones. It says we cannot say something is in error merely because it might lead to bigger errors. The truth or falsity of a proposition must be demonstrated on more objective grounds. In my experience, in all the dozens of threads on this topic, I have yet to see the EP position demonstrated logically or exegetically to a convincing degree, leading some to resort to the “but the church is in decline” route, which is too simplistic and subjective to hold really any weight.

If I may, given the RPW, I've yet to see any evidence that the Lord anywhere requires us to compose our own songs of praise to supplement or replace those songs of praise He has given us and required us to use.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Again, hard to believe! As has been noted already, so many protracted conversations have been had here on the PB on this matter - among many who are serious students of God's Word, mind you - and relatively few who hold to contrary positions are swayed by such arguments to EP. Yet, in your experience with this subject, you have "never had anyone say their conscience would trouble them to sing Psalms instead of hymns"? My, we must certainly interact with a radically different group of professing Christians (fellow PBers, notwithstanding)!

Not in direct conversation (yes, I've read the arguments of others on the topic, but I've never encountered it in flesh and blood), or as I've said above, if the issue was raised, the conversation did not end with the other person still maintaining that position. I'm sorry you find that hard to believe, but I would appreciate if you worded your responses in a way that don't seem to be questioning my truthfulness.

 

[Polanus1561]

This thread feels like deja vu. An OP opens a thread without delineating any boundaries of specific points of discussion. OP then stops interacting after the first page leaving a free for all for older members to discuss things they have discussed elsewhere. Same thing with TR discussions. Most would do better by collating posts like what @jerusalemblade does to let new members study.

 

[Before]

Friend, people may find benefit in discussing these questions and seeing for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of a position and its conformity to scripture.

Yes, this is new to me, even if it is beating a dead horse to others here.

 

[Taylor]

If I may, given the RPW, I've yet to see any evidence that the Lord anywhere requires us to compose our own songs of praise to supplement or replace those songs of praise He has given us and required us to use.

And that’s fair. The issue, then, seems to be neither the RPW nor the relevant Scripture passages. Everyone here agrees that we should only do in worship what God commands, and everyone here agrees that God commands the singing of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” The issue, therefore, is, What does the command mean? So merely saying things like “RPW” and “church decline” essentially do nothing.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

And that’s fair. The issue, then, seems to be neither the RPW nor the relevant Scripture passages. Everyone here agrees that we should only do in worship what God commands, and everyone here agrees that God commands the singing of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” The issue, therefore, is, What does the command mean? So merely saying things like “RPW” and “church decline” essentially do nothing.

Yes indeed, so in light of a command to sing and the absence of any command, example, or inference to compose uninspired songs of praise, isn't it reasonable that we are to sing what God has composed and given alone, having no warrant to compose our own songs with which to supplement or replace His?

 

[Taylor]

Yes indeed, so in light of a command to sing and the absence of any command, example, or inference to compose uninspired songs of praise, isn't it reasonable that we are to sing what God has composed and given alone, having no warrant to compose our own songs with which to supplement or replace His?

Again, this issue has been hashed out ad nauseam on this board. Use the search feature and type in “sing a new song.” No need to go through it all again here.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Again, this issue has been hashed out ad nauseam on this board. Use the search feature and type in “sing a new song.” No need to go through it all again here.

I'm not sure how that is relevant if the requirement (and example) is to sing and not compose... but okay

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Again, this issue has been hashed out ad nauseam on this board. Use the search feature and type in “sing a new song.” No need to go through it all again here.

If you don’t want to participate in the thread, no one is forcing you.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Besides, it is simply poor interpretation to say that the anointed always simply represents Jesus in the psalms, as Psalm 18:50 makes clear

I do believe Christ is spoken of in all of Psalm 18! And Christ is both the greater David and the seed of David. "And he said unto them, 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. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."

 

[Taylor]

If you don’t want to participate in the thread, no one is forcing you.

I never said anyone was. But, if I am going to complain about people starting new threads on worn-out topics, shouldn’t I at least encourage folks to search previous material?

 

[JH]

I have yet to see the EP position demonstrated logically or exegetically to a convincing degree, leading some to resort to the “but the church is in decline” route, which is too simplistic and subjective to hold really any weight.

That's probably because:
1) you didn't actually read through the threads
2) you read through the threads, but are discontent with the position
3) the veil is still over your face, as when many of us were Reformed Baptists.

The position has been demonstrated logically in various threads, including this one, even if you don't agree. I would rather, hear some of you actually set forth the position for uninspired praise, and we'll see which position actually makes sense from the regulative principal, and logistically. Show me exegetically and logically where you get divine warrant for uninspired praise in the public worship of God. Show me.

 

[Taylor]

That's probably because:
1) you didn't actually read through the threads
2) you read through the threads, but are discontent with the position
3) the veil is still over your face, as when many of us were Reformed Baptists.

There you have it, folks. If you disagree with EP, it’s either because you don’t understand it, you don’t like it, or you’re simply blind.

That’s why I tire of these threads.

I’ve said my piece.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

There you have it, folks. If you disagree with EP, it’s either because you don’t understand it, you don’t like it, or you’re simply blind.

That’s why I tire of these threads.

I’ve said my peace.

Just ignore the weak arguments and deal with the best ones. Maybe you have in other threads, I don't know. I just didn't see how the requirement to sing a new song is relevant to the question of whether we have warrant to compose uninspired ones for use in worship.

 

[JH]

There you have it, folks. If you disagree with EP, it’s either because you don’t understand it, you don’t like it, or you’re simply blind.

That’s why I tire of these threads.

I’ve said my peace.

Not sure why that's controversial. Anytime we set forth a position, by logical consequence contrary viewpoints are eliminated. It seems like you're attempting to impress others honestly.

Engaging with points 1-5 in my original post, specifically #1 and #5 would be nice.

 

[JH]

I just didn't see how the requirement to sing a new song is relevant to the question of whether we have warrant to compose uninspired ones for use in worship.

Amen, that's exactly right. I addressed that in post #17, 3rd paragraph.

 

[iainduguid]

I do believe Christ is spoken of in all of Psalm 18! And Christ is both the greater David and the seed of David. "And he said unto them, 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. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures."

Of course Psalm 18 points forward to Christ. My point is that the psalm is explicit that it does not only point forward to Christ. To substitute "Anointed" with "Christ" on every occasion is to misread the psalms. That is even more true if, as you suggested, we mentally substitute Jesus for every time the psalm mentions salvation. Jesus is implicitly present in the psalms, not explicitly. Like many inclusive psalmists, I believe that our singing, along with our preaching and praying, should be explicitly Trinitarian. Suggesting that "Christ" = "Jesus" doesn't answer that objection.

 

[MChase]

But if he is, it's hard for some of us to see why it is wrong to sing Psalm 72 as "Jesus shall reign where'er the sun doth his successive journeys run" out loud when you assure us that that is exactly what we should be meaning in our minds when we sing the metrical psalm. These are not "man's words" but exactly what you (rightly) tell us the psalm means. If "the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God" (2nd Helvetic Confession), so too may the singing of the Word of God in the form of accurate paraphrases of Scriptural teaching.

Would you advocate for reading Westminster 8.2 instead of John 1 for the New Testament reading? It is in fact clearer and accurately teaches what scripture sets forth.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Your profile indicates you're baptist, so I presume your congregation sings uninspired praise, no? Where do you get the warrant for that? I have less of an issue with an inspired praise only position, but you aren't actually of that persuasion, are you? My real grub is with points 1 & 6 in my original post, of which you haven't engaged at all.

Sometimes a laser focus is required to get to the bottom of something. You said something completely new to me, and I'm trying to understand it, namely, that SoS is excluded because while, yes, it is a song, and yes, it is inspired, it's not part of a collection. Why not engage that, and answer it? The other points are of no interest to me at this time, having seen as many threads on this as Taylor has.

Also, if you wish for a thread on uninspired praise, you can begin one. My concern here is only this one thing.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Hezekiah commanded the people of Israel to sing the Psalms of David in public worship

Honest question: how is this particular command not part of the ceremonial law? If this passage is used to show that instruments were directly tied to sacrifice and therefore done away with in the NC dispensation, how can this very passage also be used to prove EP?

 

[iainduguid]

Would you advocate for reading Westminster 8.2 instead of John 1 for the New Testament reading? It is in fact clearer and accurately teaches what scripture sets forth.

Do you have any examples of Biblical sermons on NT texts? What's your warrant for that? The same kind of arguments that suggest we should only sing psalms would logically lead to only preaching from the OT. Since the OT is filled with Christ (and it is), why do we need to preach from NT texts at all? That way, we wouldn't trouble the consciences of our Jewish friends.

 

[MChase]

Do you have any examples of Biblical sermons on NT texts? What's your warrant for that? The same kind of arguments that suggest we should only sing psalms would logically lead to only preaching from the OT. Since the OT is filled with Christ (and it is), why do we need to preach from NT texts at all? That way, we wouldn't trouble the consciences of our Jewish friends.

I have a command to do that, 2 Tim. 3:16 & 2 Tim. 4:2, unless you do not apply such texts to both testaments.

No it would not. It is rather strange that you think the reason that we only sing the psalms is not to offend our Jewish friends... Not to mention, that if your preaching of the OT does not offend Jews, it probably is not Christian preaching.

 

[MChase]

Honest question: how is this particular command not part of the ceremonial law? If this passage is used to show that instruments were directly tied to sacrifice and therefore done away with in the NC dispensation, how can this very passage also be used to prove EP?

It shows that 'singing' is not a nebulous term devoid of content. If the precedent of the Old Testament is inspired praise, the burden of proof is upon the hymn singer to show how the standards have loosened as we have gotten closer to the heavenlies. If anything, the standards have risen (Heb 12.18ff).

 

[iainduguid]

I have a command to do that, 2 Tim. 3:16 & 2 Tim. 4:2, unless you do not apply such texts to both testaments.

No it would not. It is rather strange that you think the reason that we only sing the psalms is not to offend our Jewish friends... Not to mention, that if your preaching of the OT does not offend Jews, it probably is not Christian preaching.

And if your singing does not offend Jews? Here we see one of the key differences between us. Where does singing fit as an element of worship? Is it more like preaching and praying or like reading Scripture? By the way, 2 Tim 3:16 and 4:2 undoubtedly refer to the OT Scriptures in their original context, so don't give you the warrant you need.

 

[83r17h]

If anything, the standards have risen

By this, do you mean that the external precepts for the New Testament are stricter than those of the Old Testament?

If you would answer this question "no," can you explain what you mean by "the standards" and "risen"? Since the discussion is about external features of worship, I presume that it is standards of the external that we are talking about (the internal standards being the same in both testaments, as there is one covenant of grace).