This is for JD (Panta) but anyone is invited to chip in. In this thread I want to assume the non-EP/non-NI position, that God approves of and blesses both the addition of songs besides the Psalms, and the use of instruments in the worship of Him. So if you're EP (Exclusive Psalmist) or NI (No Instruments) or both, you may also join in, but not to debate these issues. I ask that you take the assumption that the non-EP and non-NI take, if you can. The point at issue is whether the term "prescriptive" is the right term. I want to challenge the term "prescriptive". I'm having difficulty understanding it, and by this thread I want to take it out of the EP/NI context to see if it holds up on its own merits. JD, in another thread you were defending what you called a Prescriptive view of the Psalms. Now, I gave it some thought and at one point I was starting to agree with you, but then I had to back off. I mean, I agree with what you're trying to say, but I'm not so sure about some things that would follow in how you're saying it. It could just be overstating the case, but it could also be something else. So I have a couple of questions for you. 1. By "prescriptive" do you mean that, since (we assume) that God approves of instruments and other songs, we must use instruments and other songs, otherwise we aren't filling the prescription? 2. In a context outside the EP/NI discussions, would you still use the same term? Aren't you running the risk of adding something that wasn't there before, bringing in a new idea? 3. (Here's my point) Is not the term "prescriptive" a bit too strong a term?