kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Why does no one want to discuss the Revelation 5 passage? It seems very pertinent to the whole issue.
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.
1. For my own part, I would like to know how Revelation 5 gives authority to compose and sing uninspired songs in worship. I have read various pamphlets and posts relying upon that text, but not one made a logical deduction from that text to the conclusion that non-canonical songs should be employed in praising God (since this is, by all appearances, an inspired, canonical song).Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Why does no one want to discuss the Revelation 5 passage? It seems very pertinent to the whole issue.
Calvin didn't believe this though if I remember right. That was more an earlier myth of Roman Catholicism.Originally posted by Kaalvenist
As I recall, Bushell explained that in the last chapter of his book. At that time, many still regarded the Apostles Creed as having been actually written by the Apostles (the "Twelve Articles" having been each written by the Twelve). Hence, being authored by the Apostles would give it Apostolic authority.Originally posted by puritansailor
Would the Apostle's Creed be considered an inspired song? If not then Calvin didn't hold to "inspired only" either. In the Genevan liturgy the Apostle's Creed was sung.
How can singing psalms be considered "reading Scripture" when they were all paraphrases back then? I would like to see some evidence regarding that "historic" position.But the singing of Psalms has been regarded as parallel to the reading of Scripture (by the historic Reformed, anyway), since they were singing from the inspired text.Originally posted by puritansailor
It was page 14 by the way where Bushell acknowledges that "psalms" may refer to compositions outside the Book of Psalms as we have it. He then assumes in the next sentence or two that these compositions were inspired. His reasoning of course was that only inspired songs were approved for worship, the point he is suppose to be proving....
As to "sufficiency" I have no disagreement with him that the Psalms are adequate and sufficient for worship. But where is the connection to all-sufficient for worship? I think that link is lacking in the argument. He basically concludes the chapter saying, because the psalms are so great for worship, why do we need anything else? But that is not an argument. That is an assumption. Just because the psalms are adequate for worship doesn't exlude the possibility for new compositions. The Continental Reformers and several of the British Reformers, though having high views of the psalms, never made the leap to exclusivity.
And how is a theologically correct (though uninspired) song a product of human imagination?
[Edited on 5-2-2006 by puritansailor]
You may as well ask, "Where do you make the leap of 'sufficiency' of Scripture to the 'sole sufficiency' of Scripture? This doesn't exclude the possibility of new books." I'm not trying to present a straw-man, or belittle your position; but you should understand that this is how it looks from the exclusive psalmody position. If the Bible-songs are not sufficient, and may be supplemented by uninspired compositions; why should we conclude that the Bible itself is sufficient, and not to be supplemented by uninspired books?
Now we're both going off memory. In any case, Calvin sang predominantly Psalms, a few inspired songs, and the Apostles Creed (which we're now trying to remember if he held to its Apostolic authority or not). He did not believe in exclusive psalmody, but certainly believed that Psalms should have the primacy -- which does not occur when uninspired hymns are introduced at large in worship. Even though certain Dutch Reformed churches, following Article 69 of the Dordt Church Order, sing a few songs other than the Psalms, I definitely prefer their position over the en masse uninspired hymnody of other churches.Originally posted by puritansailor
Calvin didn't believe this though if I remember right. That was more an earlier myth of Roman Catholicism.
You consider them "paraphrases"; they considered them to be translations. They never, as far as I know, advocated the singing of "paraphrases," but the singing of "Psalms." From Calvin onward, they spoke of the singing of "Psalms," not "Psalm-paraphrases that aren't really Psalms." Just look at the attention that was paid to creating an accurate translation in "The Psalms of David in Metre."Originally posted by puritansailor
How can singing psalms be considered "reading Scripture" when they were all paraphrases back then? I would like to see some evidence regarding that "historic" position.
The preface was signed by numerous Puritan luminaries, including Thomas Manton, John Owen, William Jenkyn, Thomas Watson, Thomas Lye, Matthew Poole, Matthew Meade, Thomas Dooelittle, Thomas Vincent, Edmund Calamy, William Carslake, James Janeway, and Richard Mayo. As can be seen, they considered themselves to be singing "Psalms," not "paraphrases"; they considered it to be a "translation," not a "paraphrase"; and they particularly contrasted songs where "the matter and words are of immediately Divine inspiration," with "spiritual songs of mere human composure."Preface to "The Psalms of David in Metre," 1673 ed.
Now though spiritual songs of mere human composure may have their use, yet our devotion is best secured, where the matter and words are of immediately Divine inspiration; and to us David's Psalms seem plainly intended by those terms of Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs, which the Apostle useth, Ephes. 5.19, Col. 3.16. But then 'tis meet that these Divine composures should be represented to us in a fit translation, lest we want David, in David; while his holy ecstasies are delivered in a flat and bald expression. The translation which is now put into thy hands cometh nearest to the Original of any that we have seen, and runneth with such a fluent sweetness, that we thought fit to recommend it to thy Christian acceptance; Some of us having used it already, with great comfort and satisfaction.
Understood. And this is why, historically, the Psalms would be expounded or explained before sung. Your preaching does not add books to the Bible; why should our explanation of them add Psalms to the Psalter?Originally posted by puritansailor
The sufficiency of Scripture does not nullify the need for preaching and teaching the Scripture. Just because we have a finished Bible doesn't mean I understand it.
I only had time to glance at Bushell last night, but I'm not sure that you were citing him fairly, or considering the context within which he was writing. Hopefully, I'll have more time this afternoon or evening to examine it more carefully.Originally posted by puritansailor
Regarding the psalms, I noted how Bushell even admitted that "psalms" in the OT can refer to other psalms which are not in the finished Canon. He just assumes they are inspired. It is an argument from silence. Either way, that can certainly be grounds to argue that both the inspired psalms and some other songs are "adequate" or even commanded. Hence the idea of EP even in the OT seems questionable.
And that means that just as Scripture can be explained, but not added to; likewise the Psalms can be explained, but not added to.Originally posted by puritansailor
But still, that doesn't answer the question of sufficiency vs. all-sufficency. Even if we are to equate sufficiency with inspiration, that still doesn't nullify the need to explain the psalms with more instructive songs (just as preaching doesn't deny the sufficency of Scripture). The Scriptures are the complete revelation of God but they still require explanation.
1. I understand the argument from the greater revelation of the New Testament. But it is a stretch to argue from that greater revelation, that the inspired, authorized songs of the Old Testament are to be supplemented by uninspired, unauthorized songs of the New Testament. The one does not logically follow from the other.Originally posted by puritansailor
The psalms command us to praise God for who He is and what He has done for His people. I think we all would agree that the superior self-disclosure of God and what he has done is revealed in the NT. If we are to praise God for who he is, as the psalms command, then why can't we do that using terms of the Trinity? How about the cross? Union with Christ? The Incarnation? All these are clearer revelations that we are suppose to praise God for. So I can certainly agree that the psalms are adequate to worship God (just like reading Scripture), but I can also see that they can be built upon in order to further explain the truths they praise God for. We have only a shadow of imputation in the psalms. But why not a song explaining that psalm reference further? We have shadows of the resurrection in the psalms. Why not expand upon that with the NT light? Would this not be a possible meaning to Paul calling us to "teach and admonish" one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs? Doesn't teaching and admonishing require more than recitation?
Let's not get hung up on the phrase "product of human imagination." My question is, Is it inspired? Is it canonical? The best of preaching may be in error; a sermon and the inspired text are worlds apart. The Puritan position was that the Scripture read is more accurate and authoritative, but the Scripture preached is more effectual. And with the Reformers and Puritans, I sing "Psalms," not "paraphrases." I do not sing the words of Isaac Watts and Augustus Toplady set to music; I sing the Word of God set to music. As in the case of the text of a sermon and the text of Scripture, the two are worlds apart.Originally posted by puritansailor
You would not call faithful preaching a product of human imagination would you? How is singing in more detail about God's self-disclosure in the Psalms a product of human imagination? Why are psalm paraphrases not a product of human imagination?
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
1. For my own part, I would like to know how Revelation 5 gives authority to compose and sing uninspired songs in worship. I have read various pamphlets and posts relying upon that text, but not one made a logical deduction from that text to the conclusion that non-canonical songs should be employed in praising God (since this is, by all appearances, an inspired, canonical song).
2. I do not believe that the book of Revelation provides us with either precept or example for how we are to conduct our worship on this earth, in this dispensation; and the appeal to a passage dealing, not with ecclesiology, but with eschatology, simply shows the paucity of argument being employed.
3. Is there any record that the early Christians, following the time of the writing of John's Apocalypse, actually sang this song? Or did they, with all other Christians, simply regard it as an integral part of the Revelation, and not obliging our singing thereof?
5. Let us assume, for a moment, that this song should be sung, and that exclusive psalmody is therefore false (since this song, which does not appear in the Psalter, should also be sung). We will have then actually confirmed a major point in the argument for exclusive psalmody, viz. that God appoints the particular songs that are to be used in His worship, and has not given a broad approval for us to compose and sing whatever songs we choose, as long as they are theologically accurate. This would therefore confirm our most basic position (particular songs are appointed), and overthrow your most basic position (particular songs are not appointed), even if our "larger" position of singing only the Psalms were overthrown.
1. Actually, as I have said repeatedly on this thread, we treat the content of song in worship in a way remarkably similar to the element of reading of Scripture. Prayer, preaching, singing, and reading are all distinct elements, with their own distinct requirements. But it seems that, when considering this subject, hymn-singers forget that reading of Scripture is also a distinct element of worship (prayer and preaching are the only others that get mentioned).Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
1. For my own part, I would like to know how Revelation 5 gives authority to compose and sing uninspired songs in worship. I have read various pamphlets and posts relying upon that text, but not one made a logical deduction from that text to the conclusion that non-canonical songs should be employed in praising God (since this is, by all appearances, an inspired, canonical song).
Your use of "inspired" and "canonical" troubles me. These are not synonyms. Nor does "inspired" apply to what we are singing, even if we are singing the Psalms. Inspiration applies to the autographs only. I'm sure you know that and what you mean is we ought to sing the Scriptures only.
Your comment goes back to my point that EP'ers treat singing as an element in a way that is totally different than the other elements.
1. The word is not hode: in Rev. 5:9 it is oden, in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 it is odais; and it translates as "songs" in the Eph./Col. passages, not "hymn."Originally posted by kevin.carroll
2. I do not believe that the book of Revelation provides us with either precept or example for how we are to conduct our worship on this earth, in this dispensation; and the appeal to a passage dealing, not with ecclesiology, but with eschatology, simply shows the paucity of argument being employed.
If it seems a poor arguement, it is because you haven't thought about the implications enough. The song the saints sing in Rev. 5 is called a hode, translated "hymn" in Eph. and Col., prooftexts that EP'ers use to find their "command" to sing Psalms exclusively. If the Rev. 5 song is not a Psalm (and it isn't) then the passage becomes highly relevant to the discussion. Being dismissive won't make it go away.
1. We know that the Psalms were sung. That is rather clear from the history of that period. Why don't we have any hymns surviving from that period? Why don't we have any record of anyone ever singing this as a song, until the post-Reformation period of hymnody?Originally posted by kevin.carroll
We don't know for sure what was sung, but we do know that hymnody was a very EARLY development in the church, as attested by Pliny...and just as cavalierly dismissed by EP'ers.3. Is there any record that the early Christians, following the time of the writing of John's Apocalypse, actually sang this song? Or did they, with all other Christians, simply regard it as an integral part of the Revelation, and not obliging our singing thereof?
Et tu? That's your response? I've been asserting for a while now that the most basic difference between Psalm-singers and hymn-singers is that hymn-singers believe God's regulation of song in worship only applies to the theological content, whereas we believe that it applies to which particular songs are sung. I would point to the particular appointment of the Psalms to be sung (in the OT, so ignore the Eph. and Col. passages for a second) as confirmation of this. If another song is particularly appointed in the NT to be sung, this shows that particular songs must still be appointed.Originally posted by kevin.carroll
5. Let us assume, for a moment, that this song should be sung, and that exclusive psalmody is therefore false (since this song, which does not appear in the Psalter, should also be sung). We will have then actually confirmed a major point in the argument for exclusive psalmody, viz. that God appoints the particular songs that are to be used in His worship, and has not given a broad approval for us to compose and sing whatever songs we choose, as long as they are theologically accurate. This would therefore confirm our most basic position (particular songs are appointed), and overthrow your most basic position (particular songs are not appointed), even if our "larger" position of singing only the Psalms were overthrown.
That's your response: "I'm right...and even if I'm wrong, I'm right???"
"If the headings are part of the original, then the tunes are inspired..." doesn't follow. I assert that tunes are not inspired.Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Another challenge that EP'ers don't own up to is this: while they correctly hold that the words translated "psalms, hymns, and spirttual songs" appear in the headings of many of the Psalms, they ignore the fact that many of those headings instruct the Psalm to be sung to a particular tune. Those tunes are lost. So here is the conundrum: If the headings are part of the original, then the tunes are inspired and must, according to the RPW, be sung. We don't have them, so we can't. If the headings are NOT inspired, then you cannot appeal to them as a proof for EP when comparing them to Paul's commands, unless you want to argue purely on the basis of tradition. If that is so, we might as well all just be Roman Catholics.
[Edited on 5-4-2006 by kevin.carroll]
Probably not. We've been through this numerous times on the PB.Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Just out of curiosity, Do any other defenders of exclusive psalmody feel like entering the fray? I feel kind of alone out here...
I am a communicant member of Springs Reformed Church, part of the Midwest Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (Psalms Only, baby!). We meet at 229 S. Weber. (If you don't remember where Weber is, if you're going north on Nevada from the 140 exit off I-25, Tejon runs parallel on your left; and Weber runs parallel on your right. The building is on the corner of Weber and Vermijo; Vermijo is the street with all the government buildings downtown, like the DMV, etc.)Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Probably not. We've been through this numerous times on the PB.Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Just out of curiosity, Do any other defenders of exclusive psalmody feel like entering the fray? I feel kind of alone out here...
BTW, I notice you are in Ft. Carson. I lived in CS many years, and just out of the for too.
Where do you worship?
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Tell you what, Kevin... That's a lot of different items to cover. How about you pick one particular objection to exclusive psalmody, instead of your original four point argument that I replied to with ten points, and then you ask about Rev. 5, and I answer, and you respond bringing up a whole bunch of extraneous stuff, etc. etc. Let's look at one particular text, or one particular argument, or something, and we can beat that one to death.
[Edited on 5-4-2006 by Kaalvenist]
2. So you're going to rely upon the testimony of a pagan relying upon the hearsay of apostates (and that not even a clear testimony), forcing you to the assumption that the Psalms are not sung in honor of Christ as God, in order to assert something you can't actually argue from the text of Scripture?
I am a communicant member of Springs Reformed Church, part of the Midwest Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (Psalms Only, baby!). We meet at 229 S. Weber. (If you don't remember where Weber is, if you're going north on Nevada from the 140 exit off I-25, Tejon runs parallel on your left; and Weber runs parallel on your right. The building is on the corner of Weber and Vermijo; Vermijo is the street with all the government buildings downtown, like the DMV, etc.) [/quote]Originally posted by Kaalvenist
I know, I know. I couldn't resist. (Actually I could have, but I didn't want to.)Originally posted by kevin.carroll
On second thought I would like to circle back on one point:
2. So you're going to rely upon the testimony of a pagan relying upon the hearsay of apostates (and that not even a clear testimony), forcing you to the assumption that the Psalms are not sung in honor of Christ as God, in order to assert something you can't actually argue from the text of Scripture?
Ad hominem. You don't really think that only Christian's tell the truth do you?
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Here is the question.
Show me the verse that says sing the Psalms only.
Cause you can't. You have to import things into the text to do so. And therein is the heart of the diasgreement. Although, ironically, I agree that the Psalms should be sung!
Nope. I am simply saying, with the Westminster Confession of Faith (21.5), that "singing of psalms with grace in the heart" is an element of worship. I simply reject the view that the singing of uninspired hymns is an element of worship.Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Here is the question.
Show me the verse that says sing the Psalms only.
Cause you can't. You have to import things into the text to do so. And therein is the heart of the diasgreement. Although, ironically, I agree that the Psalms should be sung!
This is the crux of the argument. In order for EP to be an element of worship it must be explicit.
Originally posted by Peter
Doesn't need to. Fundamental misunderstanding of the regulative principle. EP is not an element of worship, it is a negative statement about what singing is not. All EP is saying is that we dont sing uninspired hymns.
Where's the verse that says only to have preaching from the pulpit to the exclusion of 'drama teaching'? In order for Exclusive Preaching to be an element do you need an "explicit command"?
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Nope. I am simply saying, with the Westminster Confession of Faith (21.5), that "singing of psalms with grace in the heart" is an element of worship. I simply reject the view that the singing of uninspired hymns is an element of worship.Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Here is the question.
Show me the verse that says sing the Psalms only.
Cause you can't. You have to import things into the text to do so. And therein is the heart of the diasgreement. Although, ironically, I agree that the Psalms should be sung!
This is the crux of the argument. In order for EP to be an element of worship it must be explicit.
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
If one wishes to use Rev. 5 to support UH, then they should have no problem with the person who appeals to Revelation to support inscense in worship, slain lambs and all the rest.
I for one and unwilling to accept this.
Originally posted by Kaalvenist
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
On second thought I would like to circle back on one point:
2. So you're going to rely upon the testimony of a pagan relying upon the hearsay of apostates (and that not even a clear testimony), forcing you to the assumption that the Psalms are not sung in honor of Christ as God, in order to assert something you can't actually argue from the text of Scripture?
Ad hominem. You don't really think that only Christian's tell the truth do you?
But if you would like to focus upon the pertinent section of Pliny's letter to Trajan, I have no problem with that. We can both present our arguments based upon the text, and then examine each other's arguments. Focusing our attention on one particular of the issue could definitely be an improvement over our heretofore pursued "scattergun" method.
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by Peter
Doesn't need to. Fundamental misunderstanding of the regulative principle. EP is not an element of worship, it is a negative statement about what singing is not. All EP is saying is that we dont sing uninspired hymns.
Where's the verse that says only to have preaching from the pulpit to the exclusion of 'drama teaching'? In order for Exclusive Preaching to be an element do you need an "explicit command"?
Actually yes, you do need an explicit command for exclusive preaching and we have plenty. Plus, preaching is a well defined term with clear exegetical meanings and contexts. The same with prayer. But none clarifying the content of song. Psalms, hymns and songs, in both Greek and Hebrew, have broader usage than just the book of Psalms.
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
If one wishes to use Rev. 5 to support UH, then they should have no problem with the person who appeals to Revelation to support inscense in worship, slain lambs and all the rest.
I for one and unwilling to accept this.
While that is a false analogy (and we both know it!), one could argue quite convincingly, that the singining of Psalms was tied to OT ceremonial worship...
Actually yes, you do need an explicit command for exclusive preaching and we have plenty. Plus, preaching is a well defined term with clear exegetical meanings and contexts. The same with prayer. But none clarifying the content of song. Psalms, hymns and songs, in both Greek and Hebrew, have broader usage than just the book of Psalms.
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
To require an explicit "sola" for every element of worhip is nothing more than the NPW. If there was a "sola" for every element, there would be no division between NPW and RPW, for they would be the same.
You are asking us to demonstrate from the Scriptures (in one particular text, no less) that God commands that we sing nothing but Psalms.Originally posted by puritansailor
I'm not using the NPW. That is a strawman. I'm not trying to slip in something not forbidden. I'm asking something fairly simple. In order to make it an element, it must be a clear command. Where is that command? EP makes the assertion that only the Psalms are commanded for singing as an element of worship. Now prove it. Show me the command.
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Show me the verse that says sing the Psalms only.
2 Chronicles 29:30
Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the LORD with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped.
Originally posted by Kaalvenist1. The word is not hode: in Rev. 5:9 it is oden, in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 it is odais; and it translates as "songs" in the Eph./Col. passages, not "hymn."