(Redux) Exclusive Psalmody Debate

[JohnOwen007]

Dear JDWiseman,

You raise an interesting point:

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.

Can you show that Scripture itself actually teaches this method? For example, where does Scripture say that only Scripture "explicitly approves" what we should do in public worship? There is much in that phrase "explicitly approves". (Indeed where does the NT speak of the gathering as "worship")?

It's very often the hidden method that determines EP or not EP.

Every blessing in Christ,

Marty.

 

[Ravens]

JOwen,

"Explicitly approves" is just my version of "what is not commanded, is forbidden", or the RPW. I would assume we agree there.

Do you agree with the RPW? If so, do you think I'm misunderstanding it by boiling it down to "what is not commanded, is forbidden"?

I take that as a rule. And the God that saved me is the very particular God of the tabernacle, temple, and Leviticus. Not as though those ceremonial ordinances have continued; but it still reveals the character of a God who sets forth in a very precise and regulated manner how He is to be approached. And in light of the seriousness of approaching Him, I want to have an explicit command, and not a dubious or debateable one.

Like I said, still thinking things through.

 

[Herald]

Joshua - you never answered Marty's question.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Dear JDWiseman,

You raise an interesting point:



Can you show that Scripture itself actually teaches this method? For example, where does Scripture say that only Scripture "explicitly approves" what we should do in public worship? There is much in that phrase "explicitly approves". (Indeed where does the NT speak of the gathering as "worship")?

It's very often the hidden method that determines EP or not EP.

Every blessing in Christ,

Marty.

Mod. The above is basically introducing a discussion of the Reformed Regulative Principle of Worship. I would advise starting a new thread rather than engaging that discussion on this one. On the other hand, you could also search for the many old threads already on the topic of the RPW.

 

[Ravens]

Joshua - you never answered Marty's question.

Which one? It wasn't intentional. I'm just multitasking, not having a PB theme-day.

 

[Herald]

Which one? It wasn't intentional. I'm just multitasking, not having a PB theme-day.

Marty asked: "Can you show that Scripture itself actually teaches this method?"

In my humble opinion you danced around his question.

 

[Ravens]

Well, respectfully I don't think I danced around his question; however, I'm a novice, and still learning about this particular issue, so maybe there was some unconscious Irish jig going on.

Regardless, my statement was:

Originally Posted by JDWiseman View Post
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.

To which he responded:

Can you show that Scripture itself actually teaches this method? For example, where does Scripture say that only Scripture "explicitly approves" what we should do in public worship?

The "blank slate" was simply a metaphor I was using to illustrate this point: Namely, we do not start out with a list of things we think are appropriate for worship, and then go through them with a Sharpie and "cross out" the ones God has forbidden.

Rather, we start out thinking, "Dear Father, you have prescribed how you should be worshiped, and I will only approach you in the ways you have commanded." Thus, we need a clear warrant to approach the Father or worship the Father in a particular manner.

I think I touched on that by asking him if he agreed with the RPW, or felt that I was misinterpreting the RPW.

Does that answer your question, or, rather, his? It might be a disagreement on the RPW.

 

[sotzo]

Let's break down Michael Daniels' post:

I would say that the bible defines what a hymn is, and it does. When Paul was writing “Psalms , Hymns, Spiritual Songs” the context of the day was “Psalms” There is no evidence that any man-made hymn was ever made in Paul’s Day.

This fails. At most, what you have shown is that there is no evidence that man-made hymns were made in Paul's day. What you need to demonstrate from the Scriptures is that the latter forbids the writing and singing of such hymns. Until you show that evidence, there is not even a need to address your exegesis of this passage where Paul refers to "Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs". So, can you show where the Scripture forbids man-made hymns?

On a side note, you are dangerously close to destroying every catechism which is, in essence, a "man-made" systematic memorization tool for doctrine.

The first Hymns did not appear until between 256 and 336 A.D. when Arius wrote hymns to teach untarianism.

That's right...Arius wrote hymns to spread heretical teaching. And the Church responded with orthodox hymns to purposely counteract the teaching's Arius and other heretics were spreading. Here's one, "O Gladsome Light", that was obviously written to counteract the Arians' wrongheaded Christology:

"O Gladsome light, O Grace
Of God the Father's face,
The eternal splendour wearing
Celestial, holy, blest,
Our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Joyful in thine appearing."


In your view, would Paul have told these orthodox men to stop writing hymnody to counteract the spread of the Arian views? That it was better to let heresy spread and infect the Church than to sign hymnody other than the Psalms? I would think the myriad of passages/contexts where Paul urges preservation of the Gospel and its benefits (II Tim 1:14, titus 1:10-16, Col 2:4, 7 are just a few) along with no passages that prohibit non-Psalms hymnody would lead you to a resounding "no".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing pragmatism over true doctrine. But you have yet to show (as we'll see below) a clear exegesis of Paul's use of "Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs" as a prohibition to create and recite non-Psalms hymnody. In light of no clear exegesis that would prohibit non-Psalm hymnody AND Paul's urge to preserve sound doctrine I would think you would view post-apostolic (or as you call it "man-made") hymnody as a very high, holy undertaking.

Finally, even if post-apostolic hymnody did not originate to combat heresy (which it did), it is a non-sequitur to argue that because Arius originated such hymnody, it is therefore, prohibited. That would be tantamount to saying John was prohibited from using "logos" in his prologue because Philo had used it to describe a pagan idea.

So when Paul wrote “Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Song” he only had the Psalms in mind.

Here's where we put the brakes on the exegesis...you've gone from:

P1) When Paul was writing “Psalms , Hymns, Spiritual Songs” the context of the day was “Psalms”
P2) There is no evidence that any man-made hymn was ever made in Paul’s Day.
P3) The first Hymns did not appear until between 256 and 336 A.D. when Arius wrote hymns to teach untarianism.

to

C) So when Paul wrote “Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Song” he only had the Psalms in mind.

Am I not following or misrepresenting your case?? If so, please show me where. If not, please show how this is a valid argument.

The Psalms are broken up into Sub sections.. Some are Psalms, some are Hymns, and some are Songs. Some are a combination of two, or all three. But here we have the context of that era and that the bible defines what a Hymn is. Psalm 45 is called a Hymn of David, Psalm 82 is called a Psalm of Asaph and Psalm 125 is called a Song. So here the Bible defines the “Book of Psalms” as Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. That is what Paul is referring to.

And where is the prohibition to create and recite non-Psalms hymnody?

Now the burden of proof must lie on the non-ep person to show that the bible means anything other then the Book of Psalms or proof that allows us to write our own praises by implict or explict command in the worship of God.

Here's your proof in the absence of any prohibition:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Gal 5:1.

 

[Coram Deo]

Ok, I am back... Let me try to get to a few of these posts... There have been many since I left....

First...

Larryjf. Cadash does not mean new thing, or something new.. Strongs 2318 says "To be new", to renew, to repair which leads to 2319 fresh....

So the New Song in Isaiah and in the Psalms are talking about the Psalms in a light of renewal, freshness and newness... Not new in Quantity....

As for the New Testament, besides Revelation (We will get to it), WE HAVE NO COMMAND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TO WRITE NEW SONGS. In fact WE ARE NOT even told to SING a New Song... Ah OH, what will we do.. If we do not have a command to sing new Songs what will we sing... I guess the Old Songs.. And given Strong's definition We sing the Old Songs in the New Light or in Newness....

What about the command in Revelation? Well for starters this is heavenly worship NOT the New Testament Church. We MIGHT get to Sing new songs in heaven when we get there because of new revelation, but we do not know.. If we do get to Sing new Songs in heaven we will not be writing them, they will be inspired by the Holy Spirit as is all songs made for worship in Scripture. But it is more plausible that we will still be singing the Old Songs... I heard this from one of my Elders, but I need to studied it more.. He said that of all the Songs in Revelation mentioned all of them are repeated in the Psalter minus 2 but those two might have a connectional language with two other Psalms..

Let me more on to some more post.....

Michael

I believe chadash simply means "new", "new thing", "something new."
And there are references to new songs being sung in Revelation where the words are quoted from us as not being in the Psalms...

[bible]Rev 5:9-10[/bible]

I have no problem with adhering to Scripture and singing "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." I do have a problem with adding to the Scripture so that it reads "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs as found in the book of Psalms alone."

 

[Coram Deo]

Wow, Lately I have been sadden by the fact that debating does not really lead anywhere and that most people will stay in what they believe regardless of what is said. That language seems to matter little.. So I was starting to think what is the point of debating.. But you have opened my eyes anew... You have given me hope back.....

I commend you...

Michael

Rev. Winzer,

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.

I certainly see what you are saying and how my deduction was erroneous.

Thanks again.

 

[Coram Deo]

jdlongmire, BaptistInCrisis, JohnOwen007, and sotzo

I have added all four of your questions into this one post since they all ask the same question...

What it boils down to is what Sotzo said "And where is the prohibition to create and recite non-Psalms hymnody?"

This is a Reformed Board, and the last time I check the doctrinal standards were the Westminister Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith and the Three Forms of Unity which all three Confessions hold to the Regulative Principal of Worship and is Summarized by our Confessions with the language:

"The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures."

To do other wise is to bring "Strange Fire" before the Lord, and the Lord will consume it by fire...

This is foundational to understanding Exclusive Psalmody. But I am not here to debate the regulative principle in this thread but Exclusive Psalmody...

What the Regulative Principle teaches is that UNLESS we have a direct command from God in his Word to do something in worship we are not allowed to bring it to worship...

We do not need a prohibition, or a command to not bring man-made songs to worship because our prohibition is founded in the word of God through the Regulative principle of Worship. If you hold to any of these confessions then you do not need a direct command not to, but if you need a direct command here it is.. "Do not offer strange Fires before the Lord".

With this understanding it falls to the non-epper to offer any evidence that we are ALLOWED to bring our own songs to worship....

We have no command anywhere to Sing any song we want to, which lead us to a logical conclusion that we have the command to ONLY sing the Psalms of David by deduction....

We Only bring what is Commanded!

If anybody wants to debate the regulative principle and the foundations of worship, maybe another thread can be started.. But this thread is about Exclusive Psalmody and the foundational work of the regulative principle is already acknowledged to be the truth....

Michael

jdlongmire

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

BaptistInCrisis

There is no scriptural mandate for EP only.

I'm still waiting for that one post that can adequately defend EP only.

Marty asked: "Can you show that Scripture itself actually teaches this method?"

JohnOwen007

Can you show that Scripture itself actually teaches this method? For example, where does Scripture say that only Scripture "explicitly approves" what we should do in public worship?


sotzo

What you need to demonstrate from the Scriptures is that the latter forbids the writing and singing of such hymns.

And where is the prohibition to create and recite non-Psalms hymnody?

 

[Coram Deo]

I agree, songs in Scripture are in the category of prophetic utterance. They were all uttered by prophets and are inspired. So the non-epper must show of a Worship Psalms or Hymn in scripture which was not by a prophet and is not inspired...

Michael

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.

 

[larryjf]

Wow, Lately I have been sadden by the fact that debating does not really lead anywhere and that most people will stay in what they believe regardless of what is said. That language seems to matter little.. So I was starting to think what is the point of debating.. But you have opened my eyes anew... You have given me hope back.....

I commend you...

Michael

I thank you (and Rev. Winzer) for your kind words.

I just wanted to point out that i am still not convinced of Exclusive Psalmody, but i am convinced that some of my arguments against it were invalid. This subject will take more prayer and study for me.

 

[JohnV]

I've been reading the posts, and have no intention of adding my comments to the debate itself. What I would like to say, though, is that I advocate a growing in the knowledge of music, and particularly worship music. I think that this debate, painful as it may be, has to happen for us to grow through it. These are some of the things we have to get through in order see clearly how to deal with the unconstrainable and autonomous growth in music in every area.

Music has taken on a life of its own, and it is intruding on the authority of the Church. We can say a lot about the masterful use the worldly realm is making of music to infiltrate the minds and hearts of young and old alike (former hippies are now starting to find rooms at nursing homes). But we should likewise say much about our own misconceptions and mistakes in the area of music.

As I said before, EP based on the RPW cannot be the answer; it is impossible to make the ends meet. But it still represents to us the "unpaid bills of the Church" (J.K. Van Baalen) as far as worship music is concerned. I think that much of both sides of the debate can be taken that way.

 

[panta dokimazete]

What the Regulative Principle teaches is that UNLESS we have a direct command from God in his Word to do something in worship we are not allowed to bring it to worship...

We are commanded to sing new songs. In the Psalms and Isaiah.

EP distorts the command.

Otherwise, where is that command rescinded?

 

[larryjf]

We are commanded to sing new songs. In the Psalms and Isaiah.

EP distorts the command.

I agree with this statement because as posted earlier, Jesus Himself says that the Isaiah passage is "Today" fulfilled (Lk 4:21).

 

[panta dokimazete]

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.

I think you have a good point - but I see EP as an extreme reaction to excess in church music. So - in some ways, both sides come to the table with an agenda.

Tabula rasa? hm - don't know if that is possible - atheists claim that they approach the God question tabula rasa...I am a presuppositionalist, so...

I know that:

P1] song is a prescribed element of worship
P2] new song is prescribed in the OT (Psalms and Isaiah)

C1] new songs are prescribed for worship singing

I also know that:

P1] song is a prescribed element of worship
P2] the Psalms of David are to be sung in worship

C1] the Psalms of David are prescribed for worship singing

Bottom line:

It is a both/and - not an either/or.

 

[sotzo]

What it boils down to is what Sotzo said "And where is the prohibition to create and recite non-Psalms hymnody?"

Agreed...this is what is boils down to...even (no, especially) in light of the following which you quoted from the confession:

"The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures."


Therefore, please show how the Scriptures prescribe the use of only the Psalms in worship. You have not come close.

My point about prohibition, is that if the Bible does not expressly direct us to worship via the Psalms alone, then you must find the converse to prove your point (ie, a prohibition in Scripture). Lacking neither, you may end up violating consciences (Rom 14) and making the Reg Principle into a divisive instrument it was never intended to be. Yes, it's a serious matter.

Please review the many posts above that address your interpretation of Paul and let's see where it goes.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I really wish Paul would have better defined his meaning on such an important point of scripture... had he done so, he could have kept the church from sinning on so many occasions.

Perhaps we have lost that letter sometime shortly after he had written it.

Actually, In my humble opinion, I think his silence speaks volumes.

Paul knew exactly what the difference was between Temple worship (instuments, choirs, etc) and synagogue worship (reading of the word, exhortation/preaching, prayer, corporate singing).

His audience would have known that as well. What was church like in Jesus' day, for example, when Jesus, the young lad, went to synagogue?

I think a very important question to ask in this is not simply what did God do in giving His people a Psalter to sing, but also what differecnes there are in Temple worship versus the synagogue worship that occurred at the same time and in his day. In other words, since the Apostle James instructs the church to "synagogue" together, understanding those differecnes would be key.

James 2:2 eva.n ga.r eivse,lqh| eivj sunagwgh.n u`mw/n avnh.r crusodaktu,lioj evn evsqh/ti lampra/|( eivse,lqh| de. kai. ptwco.j evn r`upara/| evsqh/ti(

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

One has to deal with "new songs." Just a note on this -

ESV Psalm 33:3 Sing to him a new song; play skillfully on the strings, with loud shouts.
ESV Psalm 40:3 He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God. Many will see and fear, and put their trust in the LORD.
ESV Psalm 96:1 Oh sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth!
ESV Psalm 98:1 A PSALM.Oh sing to the LORD a new song, for he has done marvelous things! His right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him.
ESV Psalm 144:9 I will sing a new song to you, O God; upon a ten-stringed harp I will play to you,
ESV Psalm 149:1 Praise the LORD!Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise in the assembly of the godly!
ESV Isaiah 42:10 Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise from the end of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that fills it, the coastlands and their inhabitants.
ESV Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,
ESV Revelation 14:3 and they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.


Some say that there is justification for singing "new songs" because Revelation says that redeemed saints sing a new song. We should not try to prove too much with the Psalter itself and "their" new songs, because the burden of proof is on the non-Epr to prove that the Psalter is not closed, and new songs can be sung. They have to show that new songs are not, in fact, the Psalms. Aside from that....

Revelation, though teaches (with Isaiah) that there is a new earth (Rev. 21:1); a new Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12); a new name (Rev. 2:17); and a new song (Rev. 5:9). But this is all when everything "will be made new." (Rev. 21:5). We certainly don't want to fall into an over-realized eschatology.

Worship, in Revelation falls into the category of new worship, not just worship. It is among the "new thinigs" that will take place THEN, in the future of the new heaven and new earth that will be overhauled. Creation, now, gorans for that time to come about. We should groan as well.

We do however, have tastes of that newness now in the new covenant, new man, and new creation we have been given in Christ. So is it "new content" that should be given to us in worship? Or is simply a "new perspective" that we have on what Christ has done fulfilling the prophecies?

It is, to me, a bit too simple, to just say "hey, we should write brand new songs". That is WAY over-simplified. John specifically told us in 1 John 2:7 and 2 John 5 that the OLD commandment was the NEW commandment. The law has a NEW PERSPECTIVE about it. But the law does not change. Worship has a NEW perspective about it, but it does not change. We sing those songs, those Psalms, with theologically rich content.

That is what the church did in synagoging together.​

 

[etexas]

If one holds to EP how does one avoid having to express the Psalter in the original(Hebrew)? If there is any deviation in translation how is it any better than sacred music other than that which we find in the Psalter?

 

[sotzo]

One more question to the EPer's here, in an attempt to understand your position.

If we apply your same reasoning to the reciting of catechisms in worship, should not we throw those out of worship as well? What about the Apostle's / Nicene Creeds? Nowhere in Scripture is the inclusion of any sort of man-made statement of faith or creed in public worship.

So it is sinful to recite these in worship right? (I'm asking with all genuine desire to understand your position.)

 

[Davidius]

If one holds to EP how does one avoid having to express the Psalter in the original(Hebrew)? If there is any deviation in translation how is it any better than sacred music other than that which we find in the Psalter?

That's like saying that since the Bible is the only text which may be preached from that we must read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. But you surely don't believe that; your question introduces a double standard.

One more question to the EPer's here, in an attempt to understand your position.

If we apply your same reasoning to the reciting of catechisms in worship, should not we throw those out of worship as well? What about the Apostle's / Nicene Creeds? Nowhere in Scripture is the inclusion of any sort of man-made statement of faith or creed in public worship.

So it is sinful to recite these in worship right? (I'm asking with all genuine desire to understand your position.)

In my congregation we do not recite catechisms or creeds during worship. We have the singing of Psalms, preaching of the Word, and the administration of the Sacraments. Nice and simple.

 

[etexas]

That's like saying that since the Bible is the only text which may be preached from that we must read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. But you surely don't believe that; your question introduces a double standard.



In my congregation we do not recite catechisms or creeds during worship. We have the singing of Psalms, preaching of the Word, and the administration of the Sacraments. Nice and simple.

No double standards David, I am making SPECIFIC application to EP.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Some say that there is justification for singing "new songs" because Revelation says that redeemed saints sing a new song. We should not try to prove too much with the Psalter itself and "their" new songs, because the burden of proof is on the non-Epr to prove that the Psalter is not closed, and new songs can be sung. They have to show that new songs are not, in fact, the Psalms. Aside from that....

Why does the Psalter have to be open to have new song? The Psalter is not just song - it is canon. Don't make a category error.

The burden of proof lies with the EPer to conclusively prove that the command to "sing to the Lord a new song" (Psalm 96:1, Psalm 98:1, Psalm 149:1, Isaiah 42:10) has somehow been rescinded.

 

[Davidius]

No double standards David, I am making SPECIFIC application to EP.

1) The Bible is the only thing to be preached in Christian worship.

2) The Book of Psalms is the only collection of songs to be sung in Christian worship.


Those are two distinct but related parts of worship. If the bible does not need to be read and preached from in the original languages, why couldn't the Psalms also be translated? I'm just not understanding the reasoning behind your original question.

 

[etexas]

1) The Bible is the only thing to be preached in Christian worship.

2) The Book of Psalms is the only collection of songs to be sung in Christian worship.


Those are two distinct but related parts of worship. If the bible does not need to be read and preached from in the original, why couldn't the Psalms also be translated? I'm just not understanding the reasoning behind your original question.

I had asked in an earlier thread why not get rid of sermons(just have NT readings) the answer I got back was that preaching was expounding the word of God, to a certain extent all translation from the original Biblical launguage does involve some exegesis since theological bias is to some degree unavoidable. I now make the application to EP. If you use it as an English speaker what translation do you use.......how do you know that it is correct.

 

[Davidius]

I had asked in an earlier thread why not get rid of sermons(just have NT readings) the answer I got back was that preaching was expounding the word of God, to a certain extent all translation from the original Biblical launguage does involve some exegesis since theological bias is to some degree unavoidable. I now make the application to EP. If you use it as an English speaker what translation do you use.......how do you know that it is correct.

The heart of the Regulative Principle is understanding that we need authorization from God's Word to do certain things in worship. We have authorization both to read the Word and to preach the Word. These are not the same thing and the scriptures make this clear in both didactic and narrative passages. The Apostles preached sermons in Acts and they also commanded us in the Epistles to "preach the Word." This is how we know that we don't need to get rid of sermons and only read the Word. The Apostles also used the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament. They spoke about the importance of having the Word of God given to the people in a language that can be understood (1 Cor 14). This is how we know that we don't need to have everyone learn Greek and Hebrew. The Muslims go in the opposite direction and say that their holy book can only be properly read in Arabic.

Therefore the question of what translation to use is not applicable only to Exclusive Psalmody. We must take care in translating the Psalms so that they can be sung "with understanding" just as we must take care in translating the entire Bible so that it may be read "with understanding."

Part of the issue is to realize that different modes of worship have different regulations in scripture. Everything that applies to one mode need not apply to them all.

 

[etexas]

The heart of the Regulative Principle is understanding that we need authorization from God's Word to do certain things in worship. We have authorization both to read the Word and to preach the Word. These are not the same thing and the scriptures make this clear in both didactic and narrative passages. The Apostles preached sermons in Acts and they also commanded us in the Epistles to "preach the Word." This is how we know that we don't need to get rid of sermons and only read the Word. The Apostles also used the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament. They spoke about the importance of having the Word of God given to the people in a language that can be understood (1 Cor 14). This is how we know that we don't need to have everyone learn Greek and Hebrew. The Muslims go in the opposite direction and say that their holy book can only be properly read in Arabic.

Therefore the question of what translation to use is not applicable only to Exclusive Psalmody. We must take care in translating the Psalms so that they can be sung "with understanding" just as we must take care in translating the entire Bible so that it may be read "with understanding."

Part of the issue is to realize that different modes of worship have different regulations in scripture. Everything that applies to one mode need not apply to them all.

This taken, what translation would a Presbyterian use in an EP construct. (is it a seperate book?)

 

[Davidius]

This taken, what translation would a Presbyterian use in an EP construct. (is it a seperate book?)

Yes, it is often a separate book. There are a couple popular translations available. Some of the EP denominations use the "Psalms of David in Meter," an English translation created in 1650. My denomination uses the Book of Psalms for Singing, a more recent translation.

The Psalms in the above-mentioned translations mostly differ from the prose versions in syntax, that is, word order. With the amount of synonyms available in the English language and the flexibility made possible with some creativity in moving words around, the Psalms are set to meter and made to rhyme. The translations are done, as far as I know, from the original languages. However, our Psalter does also include a handful of selections to be chanted. These are taken straight out of the KJV, completely unaltered.