(Redux) Exclusive Psalmody Debate

[Kaalvenist]

Goodness, I can't leave this Board for a minute! I drive to Canada for my best friend's wedding, and look at the debates that take place in my absence! (The wedding's tomorrow, btw; he's marrying the daughter of a Reformed Baptist minister.)

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

The Apostle Paul is quite fond of synonymy in his writing. Take the following examples:

Ephesians 1.21: Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

Ephesians 2.2: Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Ephesians 6.12: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

There are others. But, when one considers that the LXX uses these very terms in the Psalter referring to itself, it is no exegetical leap to interpret these synonyms, each having its own shade of meaning, as terms describing different selections in that Divine Psalter.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Very good Todd; certainly more succinct than what I linked to.

 

[MW]

As i am the one who brought up the objection that the EP argument leads to the tautology of "Psalms, Psalms, and Psalms," I wanted to thank you for correcting my understanding.

Larry, it is a pleasure to find someone so ready to learn, and makes discoursing with you a real joy. Blessings!

 

[Davidius]

CC, not sure about your context - singing a new song does not require one to write a new song - one can write down the new song or not...

Oh forgive me for being so opaque...by "write" I meant "compose."

 

[KMK]

The purpose of drawing attention to the parallels was merely to show there is no tautology in taking the terms as referring to the same compositions. The terms simply point to different qualities within the corpus of song to which the apostle is referring. As for what the apostle's terminology is designed to invoke in the reader's mind, I think the terms themselves are so unmistakeably linked to the Psalter that no 1st century Christian could have missed the connection.



Yes, the words are grammatically correct. Should Paul have chosen to qualify psalmos instead of odes he would have used a masculine form of the adjective. My point was merely that the adjective *could* have been inserted anywhere and the effect would have been the same. Taking the terms as synonyms, "spiritual" effectively qualifies all three, just as the "spiritual" qualification of "understanding" would have naturally been associated with "knowledge" and "wisdom" in Col. 1:9.

Thank you Rev. Winzer! That is very enlightening.

 

[panta dokimazete]

so - in order to deduce Exclusive Psalmody one must (among other things):

1. Consider Paul to be utilizing synonymy both times he mentions psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, even though there is no clear contextual reason he would do so. So much easier to say "the Psalms" or "the psalms of David" - he is not describing an attribute of God or some spiritual mystery. BTW - his normative use of the conjunction was to differentiate, not synonymize.

2. Disregard that hymns were a known freely composed non-Psalmic form that would have been very familiar to the Hellenized Jews and Gentiles of early Christianity. Remember - Pliny described the christians' sung worship of Christ as a hymn. I guarantee you HE did not know what a Psalm was.

3. Disregard the basic meaning of "new song" both in the Psalms, Isaiah, and as it relates to the meaning of "new song" in Revelation

4. Disregard the fact that there is no command ANYWHERE to sing ONLY the Psalms of David.

It just strains credibility too greatly for me to be EP - too many hoops to jump through - why would this subject be more complicated to understand than election? Not that there is no mystery remaining to election - but the principle is plainly laid out in Scripture. EP is not.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Oh forgive me for being so opaque...by "write" I meant "compose."

no worries...but composition is at the heart of new.

 

[MW]

It just strains credibility too greatly for me to be EP - too many hoops to jump through - why would this subject be more complicated to understand than election? Not that there is no mystery remaining to election - but the principle is plainly laid out in Scripture. EP is not.

The Arminian creates as many imaginary hoops towards understanding election as you have created for understanding EP. It is all very simple if you start from the posture of "Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth." The servant does not go where he is not bidden and hastens to fulfil when the Word beckons. If you start from the premise that you will serve in your own way unless the Lord's word tells you otherwise, your path will be very tortuous indeed.

 

[panta dokimazete]

The Arminian creates as many imaginary hoops towards understanding election as you have created for understanding EP. It is all very simple if you start from the posture of "Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth." The servant does not go where he is not bidden and hastens to fulfil when the Word beckons. If you start from the premise that you will serve in your own way unless the Lord's word tells you otherwise, your path will be very tortuous indeed.

You know - with all due respect - it seems like exactly the same rationale from where I stand.

I believe when God says new - He means new, unless context proves otherwise. There are very, very few places in Scripture where this is not the case.

When God says all, I believe He means "completely all" unless it is contextually proven otherwise - and I can see the context of all as "every type" easily and logically in many places in Scripture.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Thunaer,

Thanks for your defence of ES. I've been enjoying reading the thread. Here's a few of my thoughts concerning methodology.

Pagan Culture is always against God's Laws..

This is not true. Pagan cultures have both good and evil elements. Shaking hands, as a greeting, is a phenomenon of (Pagan) Western culture, but it's not necessarily evil per se. Paul can quote from a pagan poet in agreement (Acts 17:28) when speaking to pagans.

The issue is: what did Paul mean by the words "hymns" and "spiritual songs" to the readers of Colossians. We must understand the meaning of those words in that culture. That cannot be evil, otherwise we couldn't talk to non-Christians because any word we use from their culture is evil. (It's also impossible for Christianity to exist apart from a culture).

Hence, we have to look at what "hymns" and "songs" meant in the OT and also in the Graeco-Roman background (because the Colossians were not entirely Jewish and every word Paul uses is not necessarily according to it's OT meaning, which would be bizarre if it were true).

To complicate matters we now know from Qumran (1QH and 1QPsa) that 1st century Judaism composed new psalms (yes they called them "psalms") that they used in their worship. The NT can appeal to intertestamental Judaism in agreement (Jude quotes from the Testament of Moses in Jude 9).

Hence, what is critical is the immediate context of Paul's utterance; it will help us know whether he's drawing from OT, Graeco-Roman culture, or contemporary Judaism, or ...?

[BTW one can't just explain away a wiki article simply because it's from wiki. Wiki may not contain brilliant articles, however, that doesn't mean everything it says is wrong. You must explain away a wiki article ultimately by it's content.]

God bless,

Marty.

 

[satz]

I just have to ask...

Why is it the Eph 5 and Col 3 are seen as regulating worship? I always took it that way, but now that I look at them, there does not seem to be anything in the context to indicate public worship is in view.

Can anyone help ?

 

[Davidius]

Why is it the Eph 5 and Col 3 are seen as regulating worship? I always took it that way, but now that I look at them, there does not seem to be anything in the context to indicate public worship is in view.

Can anyone help ?

If Eph 5 and Col 3 are taken out of the question then the EP case grows even stronger, in my opinion. I know that doesn't really have much to do with your statement - just thought I'd throw it in.

 

[KMK]

Even if it's talking merely about private or family worship, how much more so ought these things be considered and obeyed in the realm of public and congregational worship.

Then you believe we may not sing hymns even in private worship?

 

[satz]

Even if it's talking merely about private or family worship, how much more so ought these things be considered and obeyed in the realm of public and congregational worship.

I wouldn't disagree.

 

[Davidius]

Then you believe we may not sing hymns even in private worship?

I've always found it a little odd to be EP but only for public worship. It sounds to me like saying "images are wrong during corporate worship but fine at home by yourself" or "build a golden calf at home all you want; just don't bring it to church on Sunday!" Maybe there's something I just don't get but most Presbyterians I know who are strong on the RPW see it as an extension of the 2nd Commandment. Nothing else about that commandment or any of the other commandments is squeezed into one sphere.

Perhaps someone who holds to "public EP" could explain this.

 

[satz]

I've always found it a little odd to be EP but only for public worship. It sounds to me like saying "images are wrong during corporate worship but fine at home by yourself" or "build a golden calf at home all you want; just don't bring it to church on Sunday!" Maybe there's something I just don't get but most Presbyterians I know who are strong on the RPW see it as an extension of the 2nd Commandment. Nothing else about that commandment or any of the other commandments is squeezed into one sphere.

Perhaps someone who holds to "public EP" could explain this.

I am not EP, but wouldn't the logic go something like this:

Milk and Cookies is forbidden in the Lord Supper, but we are free to eat it at home. The idea being that formal, congregational worship is regulated but what you do at home is not.

While singing to the Lord at home might well be called 'worship' I do not see that such activities are regulated by scripture in the same way public worship is.

 

[MW]

Perhaps someone who holds to "public EP" could explain this.

I don't know what "public EP" is, but I think it is OK for one of the Lord's people to write words for their own use. The problem arises when their own private devotion is made the pattern and rule for others.

 

[Davidius]

I am not EP, but wouldn't the logic go something like this:

Milk and Cookies is forbidden in the Lord Supper, but we are free to eat it at home. The idea being that formal, congregational worship is regulated but what you do at home is not.

While singing to the Lord at home might well be called 'worship' I do not see that such activities are regulated by scripture in the same way public worship is.

I think the parallel falls apart because I'm not comparing taking the Lord's Supper and eating a regular meal; I'm comparing singing praise to God with 40 people and singing praise to God with my family or by myself. Although it's not exactly the same, it's much more similar than eating cookies and milk for a snack and observing the sacrament. What makes singing at home different from singing at church? I'd be interested in knowing where the distinction originates biblically.

Case in point: I was at the GPTS spring conference and we sang some hymns and some psalms. Some EPers I know were willing to sing the hymns since it wasn't a "worship service proper." But, it was definitely a public event. The Word was being read and people were praying. As a person very new to the RPW and EP it was just a little confusing to me.

I don't know what "public EP" is, but I think it is OK for one of the Lord's people to write words for their own use. The problem arises when their own private devotion is made the pattern and rule for others.

I'm sorry; I didn't mean for the "public EP" to seem like I was taking a jab at anyone. I just didn't know how else to describe what I was trying to say and since that's not a common phrase I put it in quotations. I can see what you're saying about one difference in public worship being the binding of others' consciences through having them sing something with you. I'd be interested to know your thoughts about the situation I described above if you have the time to comment.

 

[MW]

Case in point: I was at the GPTS spring conference and we sang some hymns and some psalms. Some EPers I know were willing to sing the hymns since it wasn't a "worship service proper." But, it was definitely a public event. The Word was being read and people were praying. As a person very new to the RPW and EP it was just a little confusing to me.

My comments pertained to what an individual might do in his devotions. Personally I only sing psalms. There is an infinitude in them which cannot be exhausted. But I can't see anything stopping a person from composing a hymn of devotion to God. I believe we should sing psalms only in family and private gatherings as well as public worship; because we are "speaking to one another" in our songs, we should be regulated by what Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 dictate in this matter.

 

[bookslover]

It's a photograph of a book.

This is why you get the big money, Bill!

 

[KMK]

That wasn't the thrust of my post. I was trying to address Mark's concern about how the said passages would apply if it weren't talking specifically and particularly about public congregational worship. Regardless of one's interpretation (i.e. Psalms only, or Psalms, Praise Songs, Hymns etc.), it wouldn't matter if Paul were merely addressing those at Colosse and Ephesus about private worship; rather, it would only make the case stronger (for either interpretation mind you), by reinforcing a particular order and/or liberty in worship. Because if something is to be done in private/family worship, it certainly wouldn't be any looser in public worship.

Understood.

I wasn't pushing for a sentiment either way, as this issue is something with which I've struggled for a few years now. To be honest, I think most people dismiss the issue of EP too easily, without giving some substantial thought to the historical substance and defense thereof.

That is probably true. I hadn't even heard of it until a few years ago.

Of course, I'm just a simpleton, so it takes me a lot of time to trudge through these issues.

 

[KMK]

My comments pertained to what an individual might do in his devotions. Personally I only sing psalms. There is an infinitude in them which cannot be exhausted. But I can't see anything stopping a person from composing a hymn of devotion to God. I believe we should sing psalms only in family and private gatherings as well as public worship; because we are "speaking to one another" in our songs, we should be regulated by what Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 dictate in this matter.

Rev. Winzer, this has probably been dealt with in a different thread, but could you explain the EP position on this. How do Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 *dictate* the 150 psalms only? Why is it necessary to interpret 'psalmois', 'humnois' and 'odais pneumatikais' as referring to the 150 psalms in particular? I understand that it can be interpreted that way, but why is it necessary?

 

[satz]

Rev. Winzer, this has probably been dealt with in a different thread, but could you explain the EP position on this. How do Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16 *dictate* the 150 psalms only? Why is it necessary to interpret 'psalmois', 'humnois' and 'odais pneumatikais' as referring to the 150 psalms in particular? I understand that it can be interpreted that way, but why is it necessary?

That is the question I had as well.

While I think it has been shown in this thread that it is possible that these phrases refer exclusively to the Book of Psalms, with respect it seems to be that is only a possible interpretation and not even necessarily the most likely one.

The bible does show us that ‘Psalms’ can refer to the whole book of Psalms (Luke 20:42, 24:44, Acts 1:20) which would leave the other two phrases in Eph/Col referring to something else.

Again, while I believe it is possible that ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ is Paul’s way of referring to the Psalter, I don’t see it as the most obvious interpretation. The Psalms are not neatly divided into the three categories. Some Psalms have no ‘heading’ at all. To say that ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ refers obviously to the psalter does seem to me to be a stretch ( and I am not denying that sometimes the correct interpretation is not the most seemingly likely one).

 

[Herald]

This is why you get the big money, Bill!

"...well you say there's nothing to it, but somebody's gotta do it..."

from "SuperStar Billy Brown" by Mac Powell and Third Day

 

[JohnOwen007]

While I think it has been shown in this thread that it is possible that these phrases refer exclusively to the Book of Psalms, with respect it seems to be that is only a possible interpretation and not even necessarily the most likely one.

Good point, and this also raises the issue of whether EP is a teaching over which Christians are free to disagree without it harming their salvation and godliness. If the Bible is not 100% crystal clear on it, and reformed brothers and sisters (who have so much in common) can't come to a common mind on it, then surely we can't judge others who come to a different conclusion.

Of course, each is to be made up in his own mind on the issue (Rom. 14:5), but surely we should not split churches or break fellowship over EP? What is sad is the heat, arguments, and fragmentation this topic can cause.

Every blessing,

Marty.

 

[Herald]

Good point, and this also raises the issue of whether EP is a teaching over which Christians are free to disagree without it harming their salvation and godliness. If the Bible is not 100% crystal clear on it, and reformed brothers and sisters (who have so much in common) can't come to a common mind on it, then surely we can't judge others who come to a different conclusion.

Of course, each is to be made up in his own mind on the issue (Rom. 14:5), but surely we should not split churches or break fellowship over EP? What is sad is the heat, arguments, and fragmentation this topic can cause.

Every blessing,

Marty.

Marty - and that is the very reason I chose not to participate in this debate. There is no scriptural mandate for EP only. A brother may have a strong preference, anything beyond that is contrived in the absence of scriptural mandate. I've read the posts in this thread and have seen many that support the singing of Psalms, and I agree with them. I'm still waiting for that one post that can adequately defend EP only. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a very long time.

 

[Ravens]

In light of the RPW, we don't need the qualifier "only" when it comes to singing Psalms. It seems like most people start out with a list; for instance, "Incense, prayer, psalms, instruments, images, preaching, tithes, dance, etc." and then look through Scripture to see which ones are forbidden. In that sense, EP might be a bit harder to prove.

But I think the Scriptural method would be to start out with a blank slate, and only write down those things that God has explicitly approved for public worship. In which case, the "only" (with reference to psalmody) wouldn't be necessary. What would be necessary is a clear command to sing hymns of human composure in public worship.

Personally I don't see the clear warrant for composing and singing our own hymns. Its harder to justify hymns if you start with a tabula rasa. I suppose that's where everybody disagrees.

 

[satz]

In light of the RPW, we don't need the qualifier "only" when it comes to singing Psalms. It seems like most people start out with a list; for instance, "Incense, prayer, psalms, instruments, images, preaching, tithes, dance, etc." and then look through Scripture to see which ones are forbidden. In that sense, EP might be a bit harder to prove.

But I think the Scriptural method would be to start out with a blank slate, and only write down those things that God has explicitly approved for public worship. In which case, the "only" (with reference to psalmody) wouldn't be necessary. What would be necessary is a clear command to sing hymns of human composure in public worship.

Good observation.

Let me ask a question that might border on sacrilegious.

Even if we were to prove that only the psalms were commanded to be sung in OT worship, is that enough to prove EP, given the great change in worship between the Old and New Testaments?

Personally I don't see the clear warrant for composing and singing our own hymns. Its harder to justify hymns if you start with a tabula rasa. I suppose that's where everybody disagrees.

I guess some, including myself, would see Eph 5 / Col 3 as that warrant. Which is why those passages get scrutinized over and over again in this debate.

 

[Ravens]

Right. I certainly don't think this subject is as clear as the Deity of Christ or anything like that, by any stretch. I still have foggy areas on it, and am still learning. But for myself, I think its very shady to base the composition and singing of hymns, and their introduction into the public, regulated worship of a regulating God, on a verse from Isaiah and two disputed verses in Eph. and Col.

Especially when those verses could just as easily (and in my opinion more likely) refer to the Psalter.

I mean, it should take a clear and thunderous warrant to introduce something into God's worship, not sketches and "maybe's."

Also, something Rev. Winzer said on here has stuck with me, namely, that songs in Scripture are in the category of prophetic utterance. Whether its the Song of Moses or the Psalms, they were uttered by prophets and inspired. Human hymns lack both of those qualifications.

But like I said; still learning and rather dumb. Those are just my thoughts.