D
Deleted member 12919 by request
Guest
Similar to my other thread regarding head coverings, how did we get from near universal psalms-only worship at the time of the Reformation, to where we are now?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't think we can be definitive. Fashion, poor views of the psalms as sub Christian, growing worldliness in the church, preferring sentimentality, doctrinal decline. I don't know, but it is simply the case that the introduction of hymns drove out the predominant use of psalms, at least in the Presbyterian tradition.That much is clear. But why? How? Why also in solid Reformed churches? What was the reasoning?
“The actual transition from the old Psalmody… into the new Hymnody, was a gradual one, proceeding through the eighteenth century. It was effected not by a formal displacement of the metrical Psalter, but by the admission of the Hymn Book to an equal status and the churches’ preference of the hymns.” Louis Fitzgerald Benson, “John Calvin and the Psalmody of the Reformed Churches.”Hymns drove out psalms.
Lectio continua preaching is undoubtedly best and therefore preferred, but that doesn't mean we should never preach topically. (This is not an objection on my part; just thinking out loud.)It seems as though by saying that Psalms are preferred, we have also said they are "better". If they are "better", then why do we not always sing the best?
It seems like a valid point. I'm not saying our church order is wrong....I'm saying I don't understand their position.Lectio continua preaching is undoubtedly best and therefore preferred, but that doesn't mean we should never preach topically. (This is not an objection on my part; just thinking out loud.)
At the same time, I think your point is valid, too. I hadn't considered it. I will have to think on this.It seems like a valid point.
The Psalms are undoubtedly far superior to any man made songs as the Psalms are inspired by God. Holding to the regulative principle it is evident that no uninspired songs belong in the meeting of the church.I am in the URC. I have to admit, I am not convinced of EP but would be perfectly happy in an EP church. It has also struck me that the position of our own federation doesn't make sense.
Our church order states that the 150 Psalms of David are to be given the priority in our worship. But we also allow the singing of doctrinally sound hymns approved by the consistory.
My question, that has never been answered is this: if both are acceptable, why do we prefer Psalms? It seems logically inconsistent. If it is just as acceptable to sing "How Great Thou Art" and Psalm 150, why do we have any rule whatsoever as to Psalms being "preferred"? It seems as though by saying that Psalms are preferred, we have also said they are "better". If they are "better", then why do we not always sing the best?
The EP literature on this can be a bit simplistic and reductionistic. You're on the right track with the qualifier "near universal" though.Similar to my other thread regarding head coverings, how did we get from near universal psalms-only worship at the time of the Reformation, to where we are now?
I would imagine because the church wanted to sing explicitly about Jesus.That much is clear. But why? How? Why also in solid Reformed churches? What was the reasoning?
See this chapter in the link Claudiu provided. https://ccel.org/ccel/benson/psalmody/psalmody.title.c11.html“An example of some historical factors: over time the French lost their militancy and didn't feel the need to sing the imprecatory psalms as part of their holy war and instead desired to sing other scripture songs.”
Eh?
I read and speak French with some fluency. I have never studied early modern French. Apart from occasional odd vocabulary (comparable to the experience of an English-speaker reading the Geneva Bible) I have no trouble reading the text of the old Genevan Psalter. To say that the Genevan Psalter became “unintelligible” - and in 50 years! - is something of a stretch.Furthermore, the language of the GP itself proved problematic. The language changed significantly in just 50 years that the GP grew increasingly from antiquated to unintelligible.
All the EP’s are thinking it, I’m just saying it:I would imagine because the church wanted to sing explicitly about Jesus.
All the EP’s are thinking it, I’m just saying it:
The Psalms are explicitly about Jesus.
Exactly. If the saints in heaven, with whom we worship when we ascend to the heavenly Mt. Zion, aren't singing the Psalms exclusively...Perhaps this is a better way to put it: I don't have a citation ready, but one of the arguments used in the ARP church when hymnody was allowed was a desire to sing about the completed work of Christ in fulfilled language, such as is seen in Revelation 5:9 (where a "new song" was "sung" including the language of "for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood").
What is your argument? That because saints in heaven do not sing the psalms exclusively we therefore have license (or perhaps we are commanded?) to compose our own songs for worship?Exactly. If the saints in heaven, with whom we worship when we ascend to the heavenly Mt. Zion, aren't singing the Psalms exclusively...
Sorry, Chris.Moderating. Gentlemen, keep to the OP, which is an historical matter, and save arguing or high fiving the arguments against or for EP for an EP forum thread (which this isn't).
In keeping with the reminder to keep to the question of the original post, I appreciated and wanted to highlight what Jake posted because in threads about this historical question and others like it the tone and tenor is the usual assumption that, since the time of the Reformation, those who may not hold to the exact position as it was historically practiced have just compromised, sought out many schemes, etc. when there are in fact biblical arguments that the we are not required to only sing the Psalms.What is your argument? That because saints in heaven do not sing the psalms exclusively we therefore have license (or perhaps we are commanded?) to compose our own songs for worship?
It is clear from church history that a variety of practices were adopted early in the Reformation era (see my joint article with Andrew Myers on Calvin's amended practice) but the standard amongst Reformed and Presbyterian churches was always Psalmody of some sort and often exclusively so (as in the Dutch Reformed churches and as I think has been conclusively shown in the Westminster standards). After that came a time where churches gradually departed from that practice (as per the Benson quote above) to the point we are today where in many Reformed and Presbyterian churches, psalms will not be sung at all and where they are they are no longer exclusively or predominantly so.In keeping with the reminder to keep to the question of the original post, I appreciated and wanted to highlight what Jake posted because in threads about this historical question and others like it the tone and tenor is the usual assumption that, since the time of the Reformation, those who may not hold to the exact position as it was historically practiced have just compromised, sought out many schemes, etc. when there are in fact biblical arguments that the we are not required to only sing the Psalms.