Rationale for use of hymns and music by EPers

[Peairtach]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the standard RPW rationale from Scripture - or otherwise? - for the occasional or informal writing of hymns, singing of hymns or using instruments in worship or "worship" ?

Is the standard argument that the worship isn't really worship, or that it's a different sphere of worship, or that the RPW only applies to certain kinds of worship, or something else?

 

[py3ak]

The standard argument is that Ephesians and Colossians indicate more than the Psalter to be used in sung praise.
Many times it also depends on regarding singing as one particular way of praying or teaching, and so the content of song is bounded by the same rules as praying and teaching, which are of course not bound to particular set words.

Instruments - you have the word "Psalm" etymologically referring to something sung with instrumental accompaniment; the use of instruments in the OT; and the status of instruments as a circumstance.

 

[Peairtach]

I was looking for the argument from the point of view of an EPer, who occasionally uses hymns or instruments, as some do, but eschews them at the stated services.

What you seem to be giving, Reuben, is the standard non-EP arguments.

 

[JP Wallace]

I'd imagine the main argument would be that the regulative principle applies only to the gathered corporate worship of the Church, i.e the psalter is the only permitted songbook for corporate worship because it is appointed as such by Scripture, however since no such regulation is given for outside the gathered church there is greater freedom - material may be used which falls within the more general guidelines of biblically informed discerment and prudence.

 

[py3ak]

Sorry, Richard, I misunderstood what you were asking.

 

[Peairtach]

I'd imagine the main argument would be that the regulative principle applies only to the gathered corporate worship of the Church, i.e the psalter is the only permitted songbook for corporate worship because it is appointed as such by Scripture, however since no such regulation is given for outside the gathered church there is greater freedom - material may be used which falls within the more general guidelines of biblically informed discerment and prudence.

What is the standard RPW biblical rationale for this? I know I have one myself, but I just wanted to hear any more "classical" arguments for it.

 

[Peairtach]

Thank you for that, Joshua.

 

[J. Dean]

There are some who have arguments against RPW but do not base their arguments from mere rebellion. Here is an argument made against RPW by a Reformed person by using Scripture, and to be frank he makes some very good points: Messiah's Covenant Community Church & Messiah's Ministries - RPW Series (Part 1)

Say what you want about agreeing or disagreeing with him, but it's hard to dispute his points, particularly about Leviticus 10: 1-11 and its tie in with Exodus 30:9

 

[TylerRay]

At my church we often sing an uninspired hymn before the call to worship. Between the bookends of the call to worship and the benediction, it is strictly the Songs of Zion (i. e., the 150 Psalms). So for us, the hymn is more like a meditation in preparation for worship than a part of the worship itself.

 

[TylerRay]

There are some who have arguments against RPW but do not base their arguments from mere rebellion. Here is an argument made against RPW by a Reformed person by using Scripture, and to be frank he makes some very good points: Messiah's Covenant Community Church & Messiah's Ministries - RPW Series (Part 1)

Say what you want about agreeing or disagreeing with him, but it's hard to dispute his points, particularly about Leviticus 10: 1-11 and its tie in with Exodus 30:9

Steve Schissel is hardly reformed. He is one of the "Auburn Avenue Four," and has LOTS of deviant views on things like the law and gospel distinction.

Brian Schwertley responds to his articles on worship here: A Brief Critique of Steven M. Schlissel

 

[py3ak]

There are some who have arguments against RPW but do not base their arguments from mere rebellion. Here is an argument made against RPW by a Reformed person by using Scripture, and to be frank he makes some very good points: Messiah's Covenant Community Church & Messiah's Ministries - RPW Series (Part 1)

Say what you want about agreeing or disagreeing with him, but it's hard to dispute his points, particularly about Leviticus 10: 1-11 and its tie in with Exodus 30:9

Three things, Jeremy.

[Moderator] 1. This is a confessional board. Whatever Schlissel or anyone else may feel about the RPW, we will not tolerate advocacy against it, or for the normative principle of worship on the board.[/Moderator]

2. Saying "this is an acceptable Reformed position because such and such Reformed people hold to it" is not a legitimate approach. The Reformed faith has been developed and codified, and incorporated into constitutional documents. Departure from those constitutional documents doesn't broaden the Reformed tradition - it constitutes a departure (on that point anyway) from the Reformed view.

3. Schlissel's point from Leviticus 10 is quite easy to answer. His polemic against the RPW rests on misunderstanding why Leviticus 10 is brought up. Yes, Exodus 30 prohibits the offering of strange incense. But is the word choice in Leviticus 10:1 deliberate or not? Did God choose to say that they were not commanded to do this? Does God know the difference between not commanding and commanding not to? Obviously the answers to all of the above are yes. But then Exodus 30 compared to Leviticus 10 actually becomes a very strong argument for the RPW. How? Well simply in this, that the text treats the two statement as functionally equivalent. If God in Leviticus can say "I did not command this" whereas in Exodus in reference to the same thing he says, "Which I commanded them not to" you see that they amount to the same thing. In other words, as the RPW maintains, "whatever is not commanded is forbidden." The argument is straightforward, but it is hardly as puerile as Schlissel's representation of it. It's not like Calvin, Gillespie, et al had never read Exodus!