Exclusive Psalmody vs Free Hymnal Worship

[MChase]

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.

Every element stands or falls on its own, so asking which it is more similar to is a moot point. Every element is regulated on its own. Preaching something outside of the explicit words of scripture is not optional, it is a command. Praying our own words and composing our own prayers is a command. We have a command to read scripture. We have a command to sing psalms. Where is the command to compose new songs?

Undoubtedly they immediately refer to the OT scriptures, but do they not give warrant for NT preaching as well? Or do you think that preaching NT texts is a mere human ordinance and not of divine command?

 

[MChase]

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).

I mean that God has not relaxed his standards to do what he requires. Surely what he has required as far as external forms has almost entirely vanished as NT worship is characterized by Spiritual and not carnal worship, but to put it crassly the overton window for acceptable worship has not widened.

 

[JH]

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?

You mean how are the Psalms of David not ceremonial? The singing of inspired praise was never tied to the sacrifices, so I'm not sure why anyone would think that. They're the most quoted book in the New Testament, the apostles sang them, Jesus sang them, James and Paul commanded them to be sung. I'm not sure how anyone could imagine them to be ceremonial, as the rites of the temple were. On a practical level, I think people who enjoy singing uninspired praise more than Psalms (whether they are willing to confess it or not, that's a different story) truly do not understand the depth of the Psalms themselves.

If you're asking why are we limited to the Psalms of David seeing we are in the New Testament, MChase has handled that well in his above posts. The standards of what God commands and desires in his worship are not loosened, and God has never given divine warrant for uninspired praise in his worship, it's truly that simple. God is the one who puts a song in our mouths, and directs our affections and thoughts how he would have them by "giving us words" as in Hosea.

 

[83r17h]

God has not relaxed his standards to do what he requires

Of course not. But as @Taylor mentioned, no one debates that here. All sides of this argument affirm the RPW. But if this is what you mean, then surely the standard has not decreased, but neither has it risen. And so "the standards have risen" would be incorrect. If the RPW is what you mean by "the standards" then they have remained constant, and the question of what songs are acceptable is a different question than that of "the standards."

On the other hand, maintaining both

what he has required as far as external forms has almost entirely vanished

and

the overton window for acceptable worship has not widened

seems to be an intrinsic tension in what you have put forward, and possibly a contradiction.

To offer a different example: the location of worship. The external requirement of temple location has vanished, and this necessary implies a widened range of acceptable worship practice concerning location. That is only the aspect of location, and is not necessarily paralleled in music. Yet it provides a counterexample to your proposed general principle that there is no "widening" of the acceptable range of worship practices.

So do you mean that there is no widening 1) as a general principle, or 2) as an exegetical conclusion on the topic of acceptable songs?

 

[JH]

Albert, where do you get warrant in the Bible for uninspired praise in God's public worship?

 

[Before]

View attachment 9867

Is this your response to my question posted in #48?
I'm asking because it follows on the heels (8min later) to my question and is not quoting any particular person.
If so, perhaps you can provide me the link where the answer to my question can be found.
If not, I get your hint.

 

[83r17h]

Albert, where do you get warrant in the Bible for uninspired praise in God's public worship?

I'm not attempting to put that perspective forward. My goal is not to advocate for uninspired praise (or even inspired non-Psalm praise). Rather, my goal is to inquire after more precision and better arguments. I don't think that EP needs to use logically flawed arguments, and I think that it hurts the EP case when poor arguments or overstated rhetoric is used.

Hence, I am challenging specifically the argument that "the standards have risen" which I see as a poor argument made with overstated rhetoric. I think the better argument is that the standard is the same (the RPW), followed by an exegetical argument against each case proposed for warrant of non-Psalms. And I think the better way forward in discourse is to address exegetical arguments about other cases and other elements, rather than keep returning to the point about the RPW which everyone agrees on. The IP objections being put forth are usually just discounted instead of being used as an occasion to offer better clarification of the exegetical case. Clearly the EP exegesis is not self-evident to all, and to rely on bad or false systematic arguments to substitute for the lack of exegetical articulation is counterproductive.

For example: I think the question about the Song of Songs is a good question. I think it points out the difference in exegesis used about the phrase "Psalms, Hymns, Songs." To say "it's not the kind of song intended" is a bad argument, because it is self-defeating by placing the concept of a song in general in the verse, apart from Psalms and Hymns (it is an inspired only argument, but self-defeating for EP which rejects inspired-only). To say " 'songs' in the verse doesn't stand alone as a concept, but is part of a proper name 'Psalms, Hymns, Songs' that refers to the Psalter" is a good argument. Regardless of which (if either) exegetical conclusion on the phrase is correct, the question offers the opportunity to clarify that exegetical point and support/challenge the varying interpretations. So I am trying to redirect to those points, and challenge what I see as misdirected rhetoric from counterproductive and logically flawed arguments.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

For a discussion on the exegetical basis that Paul is not referring to the Book of Psalms in Col 3:17, and the warrant to compose new hymns, see my comments and interactions on this thread here, beginning on post #97.

Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

EP is a doctrine that places a veil over the revealed works and deeds of Jesus in sung worship. see post directly above yours So your two beefs are you think Jesus name isn't being sung along with the new song issue. I think you have sufficiently been answered. But... Here is Denny...

www.puritanboard.com

 

[MChase]

For a discussion on the exegetical basis that Paul is not referring to the Book of Psalms in Col 3:17, and the warrant to compose new hymns, see my comments and interactions on this thread here, beginning on post #97.

Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

EP is a doctrine that places a veil over the revealed works and deeds of Jesus in sung worship. see post directly above yours So your two beefs are you think Jesus name isn't being sung along with the new song issue. I think you have sufficiently been answered. But... Here is Denny...

www.puritanboard.com

I just read your first post, so forgive me if you addressed this later on in the thread. I am not convinced that you are arguing from a consistent regulative principle framework. For instance, you state: "The fact is there is not a command to sing the book of Psalms exclusively." No one, and I mean no one who understands and defends the Presbyterian & Puritan view of worship, believes the Bible commands the exclusive use of Psalms as a positive command. In other words, we do not go to the scripture to see commands such as "you shall only do X." Rather, we see the command to sing Psalms and no clear and unambiguous reason to sing anything else.

You also state:
The EP advocates try to make that case by arguing that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" in (Col. 3:16, Eph 5:19) refers the "book of Psalms". Those arguing for inclusive psalmody (singing Psalms but not exclusively) argue that there is no evidence within these texts to deduce Paul meant "the Book of Psalms only".

This is also a misunderstanding of our position. We do not argue positively from Col. 3 & Eph. 5 as proof for exclusive psalmody divorced from the canonical context. Rather, we see these three phrases used in the psalms themselves so there is no definitive proof that any of these three terms must mean an uninspired hymn.

Also:
The inclusive psalmody advocates are not persuaded that the argument for EP can be deduced by good and "necessary" consequence, either by what is commanded, or by the natural use of grammar or context into which Paul spoke there.

The burden of proof is not on the Psalm singer to prove the exclusivity of the Psalter. The burden of proof is on the Hymn singer to prove that singing uninspired hymns is necessitated by the NT text.

The boundaries for the content of our song is "the Word"

Amen. Carry this out consistently. The content of our song is limited by our song leader. In Christ, we sing with Christ and to Christ. He leads his people with his praise to the glory of his own name. The Word of Christ in this life is nothing other than the inspired praises of scripture.

Another unhelpful argument is trying to make "singing" an entirely separate category of worship.

Can a congregation be faithful to the commands of scripture if they never sing at all? If not, then it is admitted that sung praise is a separate element and must be regulated and defended on its own. Surely there is overlap in all of the means of grace, but the overlap does not overshadow the distinctions. Women are to sing psalms in the midst of the congregation, but that does not mean women are to pray on behalf of the congregation.

 

[JH]

For a discussion on the exegetical basis that Paul is not referring to the Book of Psalms in Col 3:17, and the warrant to compose new hymns, see my comments and interactions on this thread here, beginning on post #97.

Argument against Exclusive Psalmody from the Psalms

EP is a doctrine that places a veil over the revealed works and deeds of Jesus in sung worship. see post directly above yours So your two beefs are you think Jesus name isn't being sung along with the new song issue. I think you have sufficiently been answered. But... Here is Denny...

www.puritanboard.com

So your argument falls flat on more than one front. You ask where is the command to sing the Psalms exclusively, whereas for the Regulative Principle, that is not the question. The only way you can cram uninspired praise into the Bible is by presuming hymns and spiritual songs (Songs of the Spirit) refer to uninspired praise, of which we have not a single example in the Scriptures, Old or New.

I say this much in brief, if Ephesians 5:16 and Colossians 3:16 were not loaded with the presumption that modern Presbyterians load it with, they would have no argument; it would be as easy as kicking out a stool from underneath someone.

The only other argument really to appeal to is that prayer and singing and preaching have a lot in common, and therefore it's "reasonable" to think we can also sing uninspired praise in his worship; a favorite argument of Anglicans, mind you. But reason is not the measure of God's worship, the Second Commandment assumes we know not how to worship him, and therefore reason nor logic is to be the rule, but God's prescribed commands.

 

[Eyedoc84]

You mean how are the Psalms of David not ceremonial?

No. I'm asking specifically about how the text in 2 Chronicles is marshaled by EP/AO advocates. If Hezekiah's command to sing Psalms is the positive command required by RPW for us to sing Psalms, how can that selfsame passage simultaneously be used against instruments and sacrifices? All three (in this text) are specifically tied to temple worship. Only the principles of RPW can be pulled from this text, not the specific applications. The command to sing Psalms in the NT dispensation must come from elsewhere.

 

[MChase]

No. I'm asking specifically about how the text in 2 Chronicles is marshaled by EP/AO advocates. If Hezekiah's command to sing Psalms is the positive command required by RPW for us to sing Psalms, how can that selfsame passage simultaneously be used against instruments and sacrifices? All three (in this text) are specifically tied to temple worship. Only the principles of RPW can be pulled from this text, not the specific applications. The command to sing Psalms in the NT dispensation must come from elsewhere.

Sorry, what is AO?

 

[Eyedoc84]

Sorry, what is AO?

A capella only

 

[JH]

No. I'm asking specifically about how the text in 2 Chronicles is marshaled by EP/AO advocates. If Hezekiah's command to sing Psalms is the positive command required by RPW for us to sing Psalms, how can that selfsame passage simultaneously be used against instruments and sacrifices? All three (in this text) are specifically tied to temple worship. Only the principles of RPW can be pulled from this text, not the specific applications. The command to sing Psalms in the NT dispensation must come from elsewhere.

It's pretty clear from the text itself. The instruments ceased when the offering ceased. But the worship continued in singing the "words of David", that is the Psalms.

The arguments against instruments are more than simply 2 Chronicles 29, but without disregarding what you said, I truly think instrumental discussion is for another thread.

 

[JH]

I'm not attempting to put that perspective forward. My goal is not to advocate for uninspired praise (or even inspired non-Psalm praise). Rather, my goal is to inquire after more precision and better arguments. I don't think that EP needs to use logically flawed arguments, and I think that it hurts the EP case when poor arguments or overstated rhetoric is used.

Hence, I am challenging specifically the argument that "the standards have risen" which I see as a poor argument made with overstated rhetoric. I think the better argument is that the standard is the same (the RPW), followed by an exegetical argument against each case proposed for warrant of non-Psalms. And I think the better way forward in discourse is to address exegetical arguments about other cases and other elements, rather than keep returning to the point about the RPW which everyone agrees on. The IP objections being put forth are usually just discounted instead of being used as an occasion to offer better clarification of the exegetical case. Clearly the EP exegesis is not self-evident to all, and to rely on bad or false systematic arguments to substitute for the lack of exegetical articulation is counterproductive.

For example: I think the question about the Song of Songs is a good question. I think it points out the difference in exegesis used about the phrase "Psalms, Hymns, Songs." To say "it's not the kind of song intended" is a bad argument, because it is self-defeating by placing the concept of a song in general in the verse, apart from Psalms and Hymns (it is an inspired only argument, but self-defeating for EP which rejects inspired-only). To say " 'songs' in the verse doesn't stand alone as a concept, but is part of a proper name 'Psalms, Hymns, Songs' that refers to the Psalter" is a good argument. Regardless of which (if either) exegetical conclusion on the phrase is correct, the question offers the opportunity to clarify that exegetical point and support/challenge the varying interpretations. So I am trying to redirect to those points, and challenge what I see as misdirected rhetoric from counterproductive and logically flawed arguments.

Sorry, for some reason just now noticing your post.

 

[iainduguid]

It's pretty clear from the text itself. The instruments ceased when the offering ceased. But the worship continued in singing the "words of David", that is the Psalms.

The arguments against instruments are more than simply 2 Chronicles 29, but without disregarding what you said, I truly think instrumental discussion is for another thread.

This assertion is simply false no matter how often repeated. Sacrifices preceded the use of instruments, and instruments were used in worship outside the context of sacrifices. Nehemiah 12 demonstrates the point clearly. The instruments were not restricted to the time when sacrifices were offered (which must necessarily have been in the temple, not on the walls) but were used to support the praise of God's people as they marched around the walls of Jerusalem. Likewise in 2 Chron 29, although the instruments accompany the sacrifice, the songs of praise do not stop when the sacrifices stop and there is no reason to suppose that the musical accompaniment ceased either (vv. 29-30). There is no necessary connection between instruments of praise and sacrifice.

 

[JH]

This assertion is simply false no matter how often repeated. Sacrifices preceded the use of instruments, and instruments were used in worship outside the context of sacrifices. Nehemiah 12 demonstrates the point clearly. The instruments were not restricted to the time when sacrifices were offered (which must necessarily have been in the temple, not on the walls) but were used to support the praise of God's people as they marched around the walls of Jerusalem. Likewise in 2 Chron 29, although the instruments accompany the sacrifice, the songs of praise do not stop when the sacrifices stop and there is no reason to suppose that the musical accompaniment ceased either (vv. 29-30). There is no necessary connection between instruments of praise and sacrifice.

Iain, would you mind giving your thoughts on points 1-5 in my original post? I gave a brief explanation to someone who was asking an honest question, but the use of instruments does not apertain to this thread.

 

[MChase]

This assertion is simply false no matter how often repeated. Sacrifices preceded the use of instruments, and instruments were used in worship outside the context of sacrifices. Nehemiah 12 demonstrates the point clearly. The instruments were not restricted to the time when sacrifices were offered (which must necessarily have been in the temple, not on the walls) but were used to support the praise of God's people as they marched around the walls of Jerusalem. Likewise in 2 Chron 29, although the instruments accompany the sacrifice, the songs of praise do not stop when the sacrifices stop and there is no reason to suppose that the musical accompaniment ceased either (vv. 29-30). There is no necessary connection between instruments of praise and sacrifice.

I think another thread of a different title should be started if instruments are taken up. The issue, though related, is different. If OT the position is taken that the OT warrants instruments in the NT, and not the circumstantial type of argument put forward by the likes of Pipa, then it must follow that the same types of instruments must be used. Key word, must. Instruments are not optional in this scenario.

 

[JH]

it must follow that the same types of instruments must be used. Key word, must. Instruments are not optional in this scenario.

Uninspired praise would also be required as well, not circumstantial.

 

[iainduguid]

Hi Jerrod, I appreciate your question but my time is too short to address everything on this thread. I understand that this issue is more important to EP folk than it is to those of us who are IP, so that may be frustrating for you, but I generally try to restrict myself to correcting more obvious errors. There are so many problems with your assertions, but to take just one, in 4), you assert "When Hezekiah restored true worship (2 Chron. 29), he appointed the people to sing the words of David, that is, the Psalms." This is mistaken; what Hezekiah actually commands is that the people should sing the psalms of David and Asaph the seer. You assume that this means the Psalter, but of course the psalter as a completed collection does not exist at this point, so it cannot mean that. If you use this verse as your warrant to delimit what songs are permitted, then there is no basis for singing the songs of the sons of Korah, let alone the numerous other psalms that have no author ascribed to them. The reality is that there were many songs circulating in Israel throughout the OT period that were used in the worship of God, not all of which were eventually included in the psalter.

 

[iainduguid]

I think another thread of a different title should be started if instruments are taken up. The issue, though related, is different. If OT the position is taken that the OT warrants instruments in the NT, and not the circumstantial type of argument put forward by the likes of Pipa, then it must follow that the same types of instruments must be used. Key word, must. Instruments are not optional in this scenario.

Again, this is a common misconception of the RPW. Vows are a legitimate part of worship, but not every service must have vows. The same is true of baptism.

 

[JH]

You assume that this means the Psalter, but of course the psalter as a completed collection does not exist at this point, so it cannot mean that.

That's a non-sequitur, simply because the canonical content of the book of Psalms were not complete, it cannot possibly refer to the Psalter. What other book in the Canon contains in abundance inspired praise from David and Asaph? Even if I grant your premise, that still would not be any stumbling block to the position.

If you use this verse as your warrant to delimit what songs are permitted, then there is no basis for singing the songs of the sons of Korah, let alone the numerous other psalms that have no author ascribed to them.

Again, the argument from Exclusive Psalmody is both explicit and by good and necessary consequence, it is not simply derived from the text I mentioned.

The reality is that there were many songs circulating in Israel throughout the OT period that were used in the worship of God, not all of which were eventually included in the psalter.

As mentioned in points 2 and 3, the argument for seeing the Psalms as the God ordained book of praises that he desires us worship with, is one that is derived by good and necessary consequence. What's interesting though, is the reality that there was never an uninspired song of praise used in the public worship of God.

Echo'ing what was formerly mentioned in this thread, I long for the day where the debate comes down to the Inspired praise only position versus Exclusive Psalmody; but uninspired praise has no warrant whatsoever.

 

[Eyedoc84]

My intent was not to derail the thread in the direction of instruments. It was simply to clarify the interpretation of the EPer on the 2 Chr passage, which is of course linked to the instruments issue.

 

[JH]

My intent was not to derail the thread in the direction of instruments. It was simply to clarify the interpretation of the EPer on the 2 Chr passage, which is of course linked to the instruments issue.

No worries brother.

 

[MChase]

Again, this is a common misconception of the RPW. Vows are a legitimate part of worship, but not every service must have vows. The same is true of baptism.

So instruments are only sometimes required when singing? Not to be too snarky, but I missed “instruments” as an occasional element of worship in the Westminster standards.

If instruments are a required element of worship then the light of nature and Christian prudence doesn’t apply like it would for circumstances (WCF 1.6). If they are required, then the psaltery and the harp are required.

 

[John The Baptist]

Does the Psalter have all 150 Psalms? (Sorry, I am not familiar)

 

[TylerRay]

My intent was not to derail the thread in the direction of instruments. It was simply to clarify the interpretation of the EPer on the 2 Chr passage, which is of course linked to the instruments issue.

Denver,
For what it's worth, I wouldn't view 2 Chron 29 as a command applying directly to us today. It is, however, indicative of God's intent for worship song under the Old Covenant. It shows that the Jews didn't use uninspired hymns. The use of that fact in the case for EP is that there is no indication anywhere in God's word that he ever wanted anyone to praise him with words of merely human composition.

So, it's not irrelevant, but it's not a command for what we're to do in NT worship.

 

[TylerRay]

Does the Psalter have all 150 Psalms? (Sorry, I am not familiar)

The Psalter is another word for the Book of Psalms. So, yes, it consists of the 150 Psalms.

 

[John The Baptist]

The Psalter is another word for the Book of Psalms. So, yes, it consists of the 150 Psalms.

Right, I just thought some had arranged it a certain way, specifically for the worship in church.

Edit: and I reckon my question was along the lines of: Do those who subscribe to EP sing all 150 over a course of time?

Edit #2: and, who picks the tune? And is there any repeat or just sung straight through?

 

[MChase]

Right, I just thought some had arranged it a certain way, specifically for the worship in church.

Edit: and I reckon my question was along the lines of: Do those who subscribe to EP sing all 150 over a course of time?

Edit #2: and, who picks the tune? And is there any repeat or just sung straight through?

Some do some don’t. For instance, the M'Cheyne reading plan is good, but reading completely through the Bible every year or two isn’t a mark of orthodox practice.

Our ruling elder, who is also our precentor, picks the tune. Most psalms have a “popular” tune or two.