RPW & Exclusive Psalmody - main argument

Status
Not open for further replies.

nwink

Puritan Board Sophomore
Specifically in terms of the Regulative Principle of Worship (not the "sufficiency of the psalter"), I am trying to understand how EP-proponents seek to uphold the RPW in proving the doctrine of Exclusive Psalmody for the NT Church. Is the gist of the argument proved by: (1) pointing out that God does not command different content of worship song in the NT (other than the Psalms of the OT that had been sung already for a long time up to that point)...in other words, that God doesn't modify this command, or by (2) interpreting "psalms, hymns, songs" as referring to the 150 Psalms and thus being a specific command regarding the content of worship song in the NT. (another possible argument to add, #3, would be that God has always commanded inspired praise song in His worship in the OT and this wasn't modified in the NT, but this is similar to #1 above)

Is that the main thrust of the EP argument, specifically in terms of the RPW?
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
Bushell prefers to argue from the sufficiency and superiority of the Psalms, hence the latest edition of his Songs of Zion begins there. Once he takes up the regulative principle he states: "The argument for exclusive psalmody based on this principle states that since there is no clear command in Scripture to sing uninspired hymns in worship, we must limit ourselves to those songs which are commanded, namely, the Biblical Psalms." Songs of Zion (2011) p. 96. Of course part of the latter depends upon how the prescription for psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is understood.
Songs of Zion by Michael Bushell in Christianity
Songs of Zion by Michael Bushell in Christianity
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top