Psalmody to Hymnody Question

[Eyedoc84]

Not the case. Not everyone agrees that the given passage in the WS is EP, because not everyone on the PB agrees with Winzer's arguments. Some of us agree more with the Needham arguments he purports to answer.

I don’t want to derail again and debate Needham v. Winzer here, but it seems a core piece of Needham’s argument is that content/genre belongs to circumstance, not element. That is not what you have argued here. Furthermore, Winzer demonstrates several areas where Needham is materially wrong, not just disputing Needham’s interpretation/application. Other than the non-EP conclusion, it surprises me that you say you agree more with Needham.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

While I am an amateur historical sleuth, or as Chad Van Dixhoorn kindly put it, a private scholar, I am absolutely convinced the minimal case is that the Westminster Assembly was practically EP (practically meaning in practice). I've been maintaining this since joining this board in early 2005. I've worked with the minutes, some of the mansuscripts (WLC, DfPWofG, WSC, WCF) and seen the individual views prior to, during, and after the assembly. So I disagree, strongly and not without great preponderance of evidence In my humble opinion, with those such as Dr. Van Dixhoorn and others who see ambiguity in the assembly's prescription of "psalms." The assembly was not knowledgeable of any current controversy or somehow being prescient seeing a later controversy over hymns and using psalms in some wiggle room fashion. The main interpretive fact is that having spoken of psalms, what did they actually prescribe? The 150 Psalms in a Psalter to be imposed by authority. Committees by and large don't deal with stuff they don't know they need to deal with! If you follow the assembly's work from their practice of only authorizing the psalms in their original directory for the public worship of God, their toiling over a new Psalter purged of anything other than psalms which had been customary thentofore, the quest for uniformity in having one Psalter with that fixed content, I think it is crystal clear they had no thought whatsoever of anything other than the 150 psalms when they used the term psalms in their various productions.

 

[greenbaggins]

At some point, I will point out the errors in Winzer's article. For now, it is sufficient simply to state that Mason's claim that everyone agrees that the WS had only the Psalms in mind is not agreed on by all, contrary to their claim.

 

[MChase]

While I am an amateur historical sleuth, or as Chad Van Dixhoorn kindly put it, a private scholar, I am absolutely convinced the minimal case is that the Westminster Assembly was practically EP (practically meaning in practice). I've been maintaining this since joining this board in early 2005. I've worked with the minutes, some of the mansuscripts (WLC, DfPWofG, WSC, WCF) and seen the individual views prior to, during, and after the assembly. So I disagree, strongly and not without great preponderance of evidence In my humble opinion, with those such as Dr. Van Dixhoorn and others who see ambiguity in the assembly's prescription of "psalms." The assembly was not knowledgeable of any current controversy or somehow being prescient seeing a later controversy over hymns and using psalms in some wiggle room fashion. The main interpretive fact is that having spoken of psalms, what did they actually prescribe? The 150 Psalms in a Psalter to be imposed by authority. Committees by and large don't deal with stuff they don't know they need to deal with! If you follow the assembly's work from their practice of only authorizing the psalms in their original directory for the public worship of God, their toiling over a new Psalter purged of anything other than psalms which had been customary thentofore, the quest for uniformity in having one Psalter with that fixed content, I think it is crystal clear they had no thought whatsoever of anything other than the 150 psalms when they used the term psalms in their various productions.

In a similar vein, I think it’s striking that the Particular Baptists (1689) felt the need to change ‘psalms’ to ‘psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs’ in chapter 22.

 

[MChase]

At some point, I will point out the errors in Winzer's article. For now, it is sufficient simply to state that Mason's claim that everyone agrees that the WS had only the Psalms in mind is not agreed on by all, contrary to their claim.

Not everyone agrees with Muller’s historical analysis of the continuity between Calvin and the Reformed Orthodox. That doesn’t mean there is not good reason to believe it is so.

I think the Scots practice after adopting the confession speaks for itself.

 

[Tom Hart]

Sure thing. I think there's some talking past each other, so I'll provide quotes with a bit of discussion.

Thank you for taking the time to go through this. I really do appreciate the attempt to bring more clarity to the conversation.

"False" and "Contradicts the RPW" are distinct. The proposition "a carbon atom weighs 1 kg" is false, but does not contradict the RPW.

Agreed.

Principle and application are distinct. Since the RPW is a principle, it might be abused in application, but an abuse of the principle is not a contradiction of the principle.

Agreed.

Some language used has been less than clear, and less than ideal. When IP folks say "show me the limitation" it is poor language because it looks at a quick glance like they are presuming universal acceptability in the absence of limitation. The actual position is that they view their as having been a command, and EP as more restricted than the command, and to go narrower than what God has commanded at one time requires another positive command from God.

I think this is perhaps too kind. Where you say “less than clear,” I might say “problematic.” Where you say “poor language,” I might say “lacking in critical detail.” If a hymn-singer says, merely, “show me the limitation,” without specifications, then we must address the apparent incongruity with the RPW. This is why I have taken the approach of asking questions of the other participants. I want to know - I do not want to assume - what position they take. It would be helpful for us all to know what is meant by such an expression as “show me the limitation.” Most of the time, my questions to this effect have gone unanswered. At times, the assertions have only been repeated.

But again, if the RPW is framed as a "principle," then both IP and EP are agreed in not adding to God's command. They disagree only about what God has commanded.

I accept this also.

There is more I wish to add; however, I do not have the time at present. I aim to reply more fully soon.

 

[greenbaggins]

Not everyone agrees with Muller’s historical analysis of the continuity between Calvin and the Reformed Orthodox. That doesn’t mean there is not good reason to believe it is so.

I think the Scots practice after adopting the confession speaks for itself.

That is not the point of my comment. Your interlocutor asked if everyone agreed that the specific passage in WS taught EP. You said, in effect, that everyone did agree. I did not appreciate having words put in my mouth with which I did not agree.

 

[Eyedoc84]

That is not the point of my comment. Your interlocutor asked if everyone agreed that the specific passage in WS taught EP. You said, in effect, that everyone did agree. I did not appreciate having words put in my mouth with which I did not agree.

So Rev. Keister, do you think “psalms” in WCF includes song extra-the 150, or do you think Psalms was agreed upon minimalistically, leaving extra material up to church discretion?

 

[greenbaggins]

So Rev. Keister, do you think “psalms” in WCF includes song extra-the 150, or do you think Psalms was agreed upon minimalistically, leaving extra material up to church discretion?

I haven't really considered this particular question before, and I would need to give that some thought before giving an answer.

 

[MChase]

That is not the point of my comment. Your interlocutor asked if everyone agreed that the specific passage in WS taught EP. You said, in effect, that everyone did agree. I did not appreciate having words put in my mouth with which I did not agree.

I simply put “that is the case.” Mainly referring to the simple fact that the WCF is an EP document. If I was asked if everyone agrees that the WCF teaches 6 day creationism and sabbatarianism I would probably say “that is the case” as well, even though when I was in the OPC office bearers ridiculed John Murray on the sabbath and the OPC has an atrocious study committee on the meaning of 6 days. But I should probably bow out at this point, because it seems like I have really gotten under your skin.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I haven't really considered this particular question before, and I would need to give that some thought before giving an answer.

I would like to know what you think. Either you interpret it one of the ways I have suggested, or you take exception to this paragraph in the confession (as I believe @fredtgreco does). I admit I’m a little confused as to how you take a seemingly firm stance against the confession being EP yet you haven’t considered this question before w/r/t this paragraph.

Regardless, I’m interested in your take on it.

 

[BertMulder]

That decision of the Synod of Dordt 1578 was never abided by however. Case in point, Church Order of Dordt 1618-19 says 'psalmen en enige gezangen' - psalms and some hymns - which are named... song of Mary, Simeon, Zacharias, etc...

 

[Grant]

As of late I have been wrestling with EP. I still hold acapella only, but have been slowing moving away from EP over the past several months. The AO argument seems much more cut and dry in my eyes. I do feel the Westminster Standards were originally an EP document and found Reverend Winzer’s argument of such to be convincing. Over my years of reading Matthew Henry commentary, he may be the only reformed guy I know of who was against the use of instruments in worship, but was not EP.

My current wrestling:

1. I know that each element of Worship needs to be considered separately, but I also know that each element has things in common. Preaching, Prayer, and Singing are unique elements, but they also share commonality. As of late, I have found warrant by good and necessary consequence and by proscriptive examples that the saints have freedom to express praise to God using song both within and without the 150 Psalms. The Psalms themselves give testament to the similarities of Prayer and Sing. The EP argument that I have been wrestling with is those who say “show me an example of an uninspired song used as worship?”. Well that would be impossible would it not considering you are asking for an example from scripture that’s is non-inspired, and we all here on PB confess the scriptures to be the inspired word of God? Is there an example in scripture of a non-inspired prayer…if so, how is this proven? Same question raises for sermons.

Why is this same “test” not used for rejecting non-inspired prayer? Or non-inspired preaching? As we have the same general admonitions to sing and to pray and to listen to the word.

2. Further, I also see the opinion shared “ well why would I ever choose a hymn of over inspired song?”. The answer would be similar for “well why would I ever offer up my own non-inspired prayer or listen to a non-inspired sermon when I can pray scripture or read sermons recorded in scripture?”, would it not? Further, the whole premise is wrong on these types of comments. It doesn’t matter what you or I would rather do, it matters what God has commanded explicitly or can be deduced by good and necessary consequence for how He desires to be worshiped.

These two examples have been recent hold-ups for me on the EP position. Please don’t assume I am new to EP argument and lodge the “prayer is not singing… and is not preaching” discussion”. I KNOW. Preaching is done by an ordained minister and not by the entire congregation. Prayer involves one person speaking at a time…and etc. My family has been practicing EP in family worship for the past 2-3 years and still do because we want to know the PSalms more. I did practice EP in Public Worship up until the past 4-5 months.

P.S. I hear you that EP is within the umbrella of inspired praise, BUT EP (if consistent) would say that it is sinful to sing ANYTHING outside the 150 Psalms, so the specific EP position doesn’t get to have cake and eat it too . Both EP and IP would have to argue against the Scripture Songs Only position and the inspired praise only position.

P.S.S. I am still chewing on EP

 

[Taylor]

Over my years of reading Matthew Henry commentary, he may be the only reformed guy I know of who was against the use of instruments in worship, but was not EP.

I am very interested in this. Can you provide quotes or passages?

 

[Jake]

I am very interested in this. Can you provide quotes or passages?

The following are from his complete commentary.

Henry on James 5:13 --

In a day of mirth and prosperity singing psalms is very proper and seasonable. In the original it is only said sing, psalleto, without the addition of psalms or any other word: and we learn from the writings of several in the first ages of Christianity (particularly from a letter of Pliny's, and from some passages in Justin Martyr and Tertullian) that the Christians were accustomed to sing hymns, either taken out of scripture, or of more private composure, in their worship of God. Though some have thought that Paul's advising both the Colossians and Ephesians to speak to one another psalmois kai hymnois kai odais pneumatikais—in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, refers only to the compositions of scripture, the psalms of David being distinguished in Hebrew by Shurim, Tehillim, and Mizmorim, words that exactly answer these of the apostle. Let that be as it will, this however we are sure of, that the singing of psalms is a gospel ordinance, and that our joy should be holy joy, consecrated to God. Singing is so directed to here as to show that, if any be in circumstances of mirth and prosperity, he should turn his mirth, though alone, and by himself, in this channel. Holy mirth becomes families and retirements, as well as public assemblies. Let our singing be such as to make melody with our hearts unto the Lord, and God will assuredly be well pleased with this kind of devotion.

Henry on Ephesians 5:19 --

By psalms may be meant David's psalms, or such composures as were fitly sung with musical instruments. By hymns may be meant such others as were confined to matter of praise, as those of Zacharias, Simeon, etc. Spiritual songs may contain a greater variety of matter, doctrinal, prophetical, historical, etc. Observe here, (1.) The singing of psalms and hymns is a gospel ordinance: it is an ordinance of God, and appointed for his glory. (2.) Though Christianity is an enemy to profane mirth, yet it encourages joy and gladness, and the proper expressions of these in the professors of it. God's people have reason to rejoice, and to sing for joy. They are to sing and to make melody in their hearts; not only with their voices, but with inward affection, and then their doing this will be as delightful and acceptable to God as music is to us: and it must be with a design to please him, and to promote his glory, that we do this; and then it will be done to the Lord

Henry on Colossians 3:16 --

We must admonish one another in psalms and hymns. Observe, Singing of psalms is a gospel ordinance: psalmois kai hymnois kai odais—the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the scripture, and suited to special occasions, instead of their lewd and profane songs in their idolatrous worship. Religious poesy seems countenanced by these expressions and is capable of great edification. But, when we sing psalms, we make no melody unless we sing with grace in our hearts, unless we are suitably affected with what we sing and go along in it with true devotion and understanding. Singing of psalms is a teaching ordinance as well as a praising ordinance; and we are not only to quicken and encourage ourselves, but to teach and admonish one another, mutually excite our affections, and convey instructions.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The following are from his complete commentary.

Henry on James 5:13 --


Henry on Ephesians 5:19 --


Henry on Colossians 3:16 --

I think author writers did Romans through Revelation after Henry died.

 

[Jake]

I think author writers did Romans through Revelation after Henry died.

My understanding is the last part was compiled from his notes from Scripture expositions. I find it unlikely they could have completely changed his views on this topic.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

My understanding is the last part was compiled from his notes from Scripture expositions. I find it unlikely they could have completely changed his views on this topic.

I hadn't recalled that. Do you have a reference to how those books were completed?

 

[Jake]

I hadn't recalled that. Do you have a reference to how those books were completed?

Here is what the compilers said:
"Some of the relations and hearers of that excellent person have been at
the pains of transcribing the notes they took in short-hand of this part of the holy scripture, when
expounded by him in his family or in the congregation; they have furnished us with very good
materials for the finishing of this great work, and we doubt not but that the ministers who have
been concerned in it have made that use of those assistances which may entitle this composure to
the honour of Mr. Henry's name; and, if so, they can very willingly conceal their own"

Source is the first paragraph of the preface: https://m.biblestudyguide.org/ebooks/comment/mhc6.pdf

 

[Grant]

I am very interested in this. Can you provide quotes or passages?

@Taylor See Jake as he has answered better than I could. Also if you need section on Henry’s of instruments being ceremonial and thus their use needing to end, you can read on on various OT passages related to instrument use. Here is a short short snip of him on Psalm 150:

4. That, various instruments being used in praising God, it should yet be done with an exact and perfect harmony; they must not hinder, but help one another. The New-Testament concert, instead of this, is with one mind and one mouth to glorify God, Rom. 15:6.

 

[Grant]

@Taylor & @NaphtaliPress

Also see Matthew Henry on Psalm 149 that touches on “New Song” & instruments use being ceremonial. This might point to being non-EP and also is an OT book not having the questions of “who wrote it” as lingering:

We must by all proper ways show forth the praises of God: Sing to the Lord. We must entertain ourselves, and proclaim his name, by singing praises to him (v. 3), singing aloud (v. 5), for we should sing psalms with all our heart, as those that are not only not ashamed of it, but are enlarged in it. We must sing a new song, newly composed upon every special occasion, sing with new affections, which make the song new, though the words have been used before, and keep them from growing threadbare. Let God be praised in the dance with timbrel and harp, according to the usage of the Old-Testament church very early (Ex. 15:20), where we find God praised with timbrels and dances. Those who from this urge the use of music in religious worship must by the same rule introduce dancing, for they went together, as in David's dancing before the ark, and Jdg. 21:21. But, whereas many scriptures in the New Testament keep up singing as a gospel-ordinance, none provide for the keeping up of music and dancing; the gospel-canon for psalmody is to sing with the spirit and with the understanding.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I have never entered the EP debate on this forum, mostly because I cannot understand how those who claim to be confessional (British or Dutch - WCF 21.5 or Dort Article 69) could be anything other than EP or Inspired Only (or state an exception). But since someone else has brought that point up, I will make a few comments.

First, out of respect for the OP, which stated that this issue is similar to the head-coverings issue for him, my wife covers her head in worship because she fears God - maybe I Cor. 11 doesn't require it. But it might. Better safe than sorry. I sing only Psalms in public and private worship because I fear God. Maybe Paul is introducing the singing of uninspired songs in Colossians and Ephesians. But maybe he’s not. Again, I would rather be safe singing something I know God approves of (His Word) than something I am not absolutely (exclusively?) sure He approves of. The motif of our sacrifices to God having to be pure and strictly according to his revealed Word runs throughout all Scripture. In the previous dispensation it had to be a blood-flowing animal, not a plant (starting in Genesis 4 - or maybe 3.21 contra v.7?); it had to be the exact order set forth by God or it was considered strange fire (Leviticus 10 and elsewhere); it had to be a certain animal with no spot or blemish (pretty much all of Leviticus). Where is the evidence that God is now (in this current dispensation) willing to accept something that is less than pure as a sacrifice of praise? The fear of the Lord is not only the beginning of wisdom. The fear of the Lord is also the beginning of worship, as the WCF reflects in introducing Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day (Ch.21): “1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.” If you do not begin with the fear of God, your praise will not be unblemished. It is interesting that, by fearing God, I enter worship with no fear that my sacrifice of praise will not be acceptable.

Second, to one of the initial comments in this thread that the Psalter is insufficient and hymns are needed to speak explicitly about Christ - this, as has been noted, is a specious claim. I only add that, not only are the Psalms one of the Biblical texts most heavily laden with Christological content, and not only are they the most quoted by Christ Himself, but Christ’s name is literally all throughout the Psalter (Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ / mashiach = English the anointed one / Messiah / Christ = Greek Xριστός / Christos). Anointed One / Messiah / Christ is used throughout the Psalter - we just don’t translate/transliterate it consistently. But you can translate “anointed” in your Psalter to “Messiah” or “Christ” if it helps you (some Psalters and translations do - see Ps.2.2. in the current RPCNA psalter and in the Geneva). This would probably be preferable in Psalms that use this term and are directly quoted in the NT as referring to Christ (see Ps 18.50 = Rom 15.9; Ps. 45.7 = Hebrews 1.8-9; Ps. 89.20 = Acts 13.22).

Third, while I would not say I am strictly EP as I am comfortable with the Dutch and Calvin/Geneva’s singing of Scripture other than the Psalms (I believe the Colossians and Ephesians passages allow this by not saying just “Psalms” though I echo the thought that these passages are not both referring to public worship), I am more comfortable in an EP environment. As has been noted above, while there are inspired songs outside of the Psalter, when the latter was compiled by the Church in the previous dispensation, the Church included some (David’s song in II Samuel 22 = Ps. 18; Asaph song in I Chr. 16:7 = Ps 105) but not others (Moses’ song in Ps. 90, yes, Moses song in Deuteronomy 31-32, no). Solomon of course wrote over 1000 songs (I Kings 4:32) and the Song of Songs, but only 2 were included in the Psalter (72, 127). But there is no evidence that anything other than the Psalter (once it was compiled) was sung by our forefathers during communal worship in the previous dispensation. I am quite confident that Christ was singing from Psalm 118 and not the Song of Deborah on the night in which He was betrayed (the Talmud makes it clear that this was the tradition at the time, and this is not a modern opinion - you can find this idea in the opinions of numerous members of the Westminster Assembly, John Owen, Matthew Henry, Jonathan Edwards, David Brown, Alexander Hodge, to name a few).

Finally, to return to the original OP and the historical aspect, as someone who has spent most of their life in the US in the North, I have always felt (i.e. never had time to research) that the move away from the Psalter in the US was a direct result of the American Civil War. The South seemed to have the more theological conservative antebellum presbyteries (minus the obvious issue of chattel slavery - please don’t get this OP further off track with that topic) but then lost 1/2 million (out of less than 3 million) men in the conflict, including many who were devoutly presbyterian and reformed. I suggest that the vacuum left by these men’s deaths led to practical if not theological decline in the area of public worship (if anyone has resources/articles on this topic, I would be very glad to receive them) similar to what was happening in the North.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

I have never entered the EP debate on this forum, mostly because I cannot understand how those who claim to be confessional (British or Dutch - WCF 21.5 or Dort Article 69) could be anything other than EP or Inspired Only (or state an exception). But since someone else has brought that point up, I will make a few comments.

First, out of respect for the OP, which stated that this issue is similar to the head-coverings issue for him, my wife covers her head in worship because she fears God - maybe I Cor. 11 doesn't require it. But it might. Better safe than sorry. I sing only Psalms in public and private worship because I fear God. Maybe Paul is introducing the singing of uninspired songs in Colossians and Ephesians. But maybe he’s not. Again, I would rather be safe singing something I know God approves of (His Word) than something I am not absolutely (exclusively?) sure He approves of. The motif of our sacrifices to God having to be pure and strictly according to his revealed Word runs throughout all Scripture. In the previous dispensation it had to be a blood-flowing animal, not a plant (starting in Genesis 4 - or maybe 3.21 contra v.7?); it had to be the exact order set forth by God or it was considered strange fire (Leviticus 10 and elsewhere); it had to be a certain animal with no spot or blemish (pretty much all of Leviticus). Where is the evidence that God is now (in this current dispensation) willing to accept something that is less than pure as a sacrifice of praise? The fear of the Lord is not only the beginning of wisdom. The fear of the Lord is also the beginning of worship, as the WCF reflects in introducing Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day (Ch.21): “1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.” If you do not begin with the fear of God, your praise will not be unblemished. It is interesting that, by fearing God, I enter worship with no fear that my sacrifice of praise will not be acceptable.

Second, to one of the initial comments in this thread that the Psalter is insufficient and hymns are needed to speak explicitly about Christ - this, as has been noted, is a specious claim. I only add that, not only are the Psalms one of the Biblical texts most heavily laden with Christological content, and not only are they the most quoted by Christ Himself, but Christ’s name is literally all throughout the Psalter (Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ / mashiach = English the anointed one / Messiah / Christ = Greek Xριστός / Christos). Anointed One / Messiah / Christ is used throughout the Psalter - we just don’t translate/transliterate it consistently. But you can translate “anointed” in your Psalter to “Messiah” or “Christ” if it helps you (some Psalters and translations do - see Ps.2.2. in the current RPCNA psalter and in the Geneva). This would probably be preferable in Psalms that use this term and are directly quoted in the NT as referring to Christ (see Ps 18.50 = Rom 15.9; Ps. 45.7 = Hebrews 1.8-9; Ps. 89.20 = Acts 13.22).

Third, while I would not say I am strictly EP as I am comfortable with the Dutch and Calvin/Geneva’s singing of Scripture other than the Psalms (I believe the Colossians and Ephesians passages allow this by not saying just “Psalms” though I echo the thought that these passages are not both referring to public worship), I am more comfortable in an EP environment. As has been noted above, while there are inspired songs outside of the Psalter, when the latter was compiled by the Church in the previous dispensation, the Church included some (David’s song in II Samuel 22 = Ps. 18; Asaph song in I Chr. 16:7 = Ps 105) but not others (Moses’ song in Ps. 90, yes, Moses song in Deuteronomy 31-32, no). Solomon of course wrote over 1000 songs (I Kings 4:32) and the Song of Songs, but only 2 were included in the Psalter (72, 127). But there is no evidence that anything other than the Psalter (once it was compiled) was sung by our forefathers during communal worship in the previous dispensation. I am quite confident that Christ was singing from Psalm 118 and not the Song of Deborah on the night in which He was betrayed (the Talmud makes it clear that this was the tradition at the time, and this is not a modern opinion - you can find this idea in the opinions of numerous members of the Westminster Assembly, John Owen, Matthew Henry, Jonathan Edwards, David Brown, Alexander Hodge, to name a few).

Finally, to return to the original OP and the historical aspect, as someone who has spent most of their life in the US in the North, I have always felt (i.e. never had time to research) that the move away from the Psalter in the US was a direct result of the American Civil War. The South seemed to have the more theological conservative antebellum presbyteries (minus the obvious issue of chattel slavery - please don’t get this OP further off track with that topic) but then lost 1/2 million (out of less than 3 million) men in the conflict, including many who were devoutly presbyterian and reformed. I suggest that the vacuum left by these men’s deaths led to practical if not theological decline in the area of public worship (if anyone has resources/articles on this topic, I would be very glad to receive them) similar to what was happening in the North.

Thanks for your comments. I agree with much of what you have said.

Once I get Reformed covenant theology adequately understood, I want to move on to this topic of psalms in worship in earnest.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

For your enjoyment:

 

[Tom Hart]

@83r17h,

I have really wanted to get back to this thread, but due to my son’s rather serious health problems I have not been able to. I am afraid I just cannot participate further, and likely won’t be able to for some time.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

@83r17h,

I have really wanted to get back to this thread, but due to my son’s rather serious health problems I have not been able to. I am afraid I just cannot participate further, and likely won’t be able to for some time.

Praying for you, brother.