Sam Waldron's Blog Series on EP

[gjw1684]

For those who are interested, Sam Waldron started a blog series on exclusive psalmody last week on the Midwest Center for Theological Studies (MCTS) blog page. His blog series seeks to answer four questions:

1) What is exclusive psalmody?
2) Why should we take the time to deal with it?
3) How must the question be answered?
4) What are the major arguments against it?

So far, there have been 3 blog posts

Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY > Blog > A Consideration of Exclusive Psalmody
Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY > Blog > What is Exclusive Psalmody and Why Should We Take the Time to Deal With It?
Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY > Blog > How Must the Question of Exclusive Psalmody be Answered?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

It seems to me that Dr. Waldron has not spent much time reading EP arguments, to be charitable.

This from the "How Must the Question..." post is muddled at best and illustrates the point:

Let me illustrate this from Scripture. In order to prove exclusive psalmody from sola scriptura the advocate of [the EP] view must show that passages like 1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:19-20; and Colossians 3:16-17 only refer to the Book of Psalms. The fact is they do not make this claim. Their argument is rather that these passages clearly include the Book of Psalms, but not that this is only, totally, and certainly all to which they refer. Rather, they say that it is uncertain whether other songs are in view. Thus, to be on the safe side we must only sing the Book of Psalms or at most inspired songs.

The underlined/italic part is demonstrably untrue, for instance. I'm not sure what Dr. Waldron is referring to. He quotes from Lachman and Smith and Brian Schwertley's work in the "What is exclusive psalmody?" post, so he must have done some research.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Needs less grandstanding and more argument. Maybe he will do so in his part four, but I think one would be impressed if Bushell is interacted with. If I read him right, I also do not like what amounts to reading EP folks' minds about thinking the battle is lost if we must argue our case and assume the burden of proof. If it were true then EP folk are liars to themselves about the worship of God.

 

[Rom]

Hey, the more they kick at the goads, the more people are exposed to the very idea that one can sing the Psalms. There has been a real excitement for singing the Word of God as of late. Keep on writing these shoddy articles against EP, all that will happen is that the Word of God will get more of the rightful glory it deserves. This week we had a family show up from a Pentecostal Church, who were enamored by the fact that they could sing the Word of God. They thought it was really neat, and were really excited that they could sing the Word of God.

God promises that when the Word of God goes forth, it will not return void. He makes no such promises for the compositions of mere men.

 

[gjw1684]

Thanks for the response, brothers. I assume (although I admit this may be speculative) that Dr. Waldron is attempting to purposely attract attention to his blog series - which is why the first three posts have been cursory at best. My hope is that he will interact with the relevant material (Bushell and Schwertley specifically). I'll post the subsequent post on here when they arrive.

 

[Jake]

It seems to me that Dr. Waldron has not spent much time reading EP arguments, to be charitable.

This from the "How Must the Question..." post is muddled at best and illustrates the point:

Let me illustrate this from Scripture. In order to prove exclusive psalmody from sola scriptura the advocate of [the EP] view must show that passages like 1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:19-20; and Colossians 3:16-17 only refer to the Book of Psalms. The fact is they do not make this claim. Their argument is rather that these passages clearly include the Book of Psalms, but not that this is only, totally, and certainly all to which they refer. Rather, they say that it is uncertain whether other songs are in view. Thus, to be on the safe side we must only sing the Book of Psalms or at most inspired songs.

The underlined/italic part is demonstrably untrue, for instance. I'm not sure what Dr. Waldron is referring to. He quotes from Lachman and Smith and Brian Schwertley's work in the "What is exclusive psalmody?" post, so he must have done some research.

Although I have seen Presbyterian and Puritan authors going back several centuries showing these passages refer only to the Psalms (e.g., in The Puritans on Exclusive Psalmody, ed. C. Matthew McMahon), I have not seen it argued by Calvin, who seems to skirt around the issue moreso in his commentaries. Perhaps that is where he is getting this idea? Certainly plenty of modern commentators have argued this, so I am a bit confused as to why he would claim this even so.

 

[MW]

Regrettably some have argued from "sola scriptura" and have thereby failed to set the view in its proper biblical light. There are two different ways in which Scripture functions as a rule, as shown in WCF 20.2. When it comes to faith and worship positive institution is required. This does not mean that one must find warrant in Scripture for a mode of worship. It means that the particular mode of worship is positively and divinely instituted in Scripture. The exclusive psalmodist contends that not simply singing, but the thing to be sung is instituted in Scripture, namely, the Psalms, and that there is no institution for singing anything else.

Where is the burden of proof? The exclusive psalmodist does not shift the burden of proof on his "opponent." The burden of proof is on any person who seeks to introduce any mode into the worship of God. The exclusive psalmodist has already met the burden of proof so far as his contention is concerned. God has instituted the singing of Psalms. Should one desire to introduce another mode of worship he is obliged to meet the burden of proof required by the principle that nothing is to be added to the worship of God but what is warranted by scriptural institution.

It is irrelevant to argue, as the article has attempted to argue, that the Scriptures never say the Psalms are to be "the only source of Christian praise." Such an argument is not required to satisfy the regulative principle. It only needs to be shown that the Psalms are positively and divinely instituted in the Scriptures and that no other composition has the stamp of positive institution placed upon them.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

(why does this sub forum not have the thanks thumbs up? )

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

to Rev. Winzer

 

[eqdj]

Dr. Waldron's blog post is based on his Sunday Evening Sermon Series, "How Then Shall We Worship"
He has already taught against "Exclusive Psalmody"
I respect Dr. Waldron but I was disappointed in his lead-off argument (EP'ers themselves don't practice what they believe because they don't sing in Hebrew/Aramaic) - I didn't bother listening to the rest of the sermon.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I suppose then that Dr. Waldon understands that by that kind of reasoning he cannot possibly be reading the Word of God to his congregation because it is in English?

 

[eqdj]

I suppose then that Dr. Waldon understands that by that kind of reasoning he cannot possibly be reading the Word of God to his congregation because it is in English?

My first thought exactly.

 

[gjw1684]

Here is Dr. Waldron's first argument against EP

Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY > Blog > My First Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody

It seems that Enrique was correct about Waldron's lead-off argument. It appears that Waldron is arguing against EP because we do not have the original autographs. Hence, in his view, it's impossible to sing inspired psalms since the English translations of the Bible and the metrical Psalms aren't inspired. So, his first argument hinges on the fact that the transmission of Scripture is never promised to be inerrant (here, he quotes from the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy). His basic arguments can be summed up in two quotations:

The English translations of the Bible and the metrical Psalms are not inspired. Does this mean that we cannot trust our English translations of the Scriptures? Of course not! Does it mean that we do not have the Word of God in English? Again, of course not! We have the Word of God in faithful English translations. But those English translations are not themselves inspired.

And again

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the original autographs. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”

His basic conclusion is as follows:

It seems to me that there is an important consequence of understanding and admitting that no one actually sings inspired psalms. It is to suggest that the right thing to say on this matter is that our singing must be carefully scriptural and not that we must sing inspired psalms. There are, however, many hymns that are carefully scriptural that are not verbatim English metrical psalms or even verbatim Scripture.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Do exclusive Psalm singers use paraphrased Psalms for lyrics? And what do you think of the Psalm project? I list Ps 1 -Ps 8 here
These do use instrumental accompaniment

Ps 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MNj3N9F3F4
Ps 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgKOyJNuhqc
Ps 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w_uWP2jD5A
Ps 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTJcnuGMyr0
Ps 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLuFY8DYq7o
Ps 6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v8aLMcv3-Y
Ps 7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idmA7a0KS1s
Ps 8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zumk_5uemkI

Although I am not an exclusive Psalm singer, I do think Psalms are too often ignored and underpreached
It took me 3 years to memorize Ps 119 but it was worth it

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

God promises that when the Word of God goes forth, it will not return void. He makes no such promises for the compositions of mere men.

+1View attachment 3944
Psalm singing... More Word, Less Man.
God's Psalms are not like man's uninspired hymns.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

God promises that when the Word of God goes forth, it will not return void. He makes no such promises for the compositions of mere men.

You think that this scripture passage is talking about EP in Corporate Worship?

Certainly not an interpretation I'd ever heard before.

 

[hammondjones]

God promises that when the Word of God goes forth, it will not return void. He makes no such promises for the compositions of mere men.

+1View attachment 3944
Psalm singing... More Word, Less Man.
God's Psalms are not like man's uninspired hymns.

So you're saying that you don't subscribe to this magazine?

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

God promises that when the Word of God goes forth, it will not return void. He makes no such promises for the compositions of mere men.

+1View attachment 3944
Psalm singing... More Word, Less Man.
God's Psalms are not like man's uninspired hymns.

So you're saying that you don't subscribe to this magazine?

The presence of that rag is sad. Why is not the Church content with the hymnbook that God has given us? I have yet to see any respectable demonstration of the authorization of the introduction of non-inspired made-up hymns in the public worship of God demonstrated from the Word of God. I have seen many extra biblical arguments. I do see attacks on EP in promotion of non-inclusive singing being in direct opposition to the unity of the church.

I see much of the charge of omission being cast upon the psalms, the charge of insufficiency, the charge of obsolescence and antiquatedness, of lack of interest, and inability to minister. What is so saddening is the lack of the hearts which say Behold, I have longed after thy precepts: quicken me in thy righteousness. Let thine hand help me; for I have chosen thy precepts. O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.

 

[Afterthought]

What is meant by arguing from sola scriptura? How does it differ from arguing from the sufficiency and canonicity of the Psalms (I think Bushell does this)? If by arguing from sola scriptura is meant that some argue that sola scriptura implies the regulative principle (which is something I have seen before), why does sola scriptura not imply the principle, since the Scriptures say they are to equip us for every good work and worship is a good work?

(Edit: I figured out my last question. Scripture equips us for every good work, but that does not imply how every good work is to be done. It only means we should go to Scripture to see how these things are to be done. Further, if sola scriptura implied the regulative principle by this argument, the principle would apply to all good works, not just worship.)

You think that this scripture passage is talking about EP in Corporate Worship?

Certainly not an interpretation I'd ever heard before.

There's a difference between interpretation and application. I'm sure Rom was doing the latter.

Do exclusive Psalm singers use paraphrased Psalms for lyrics?

If by "paraphrase" is meant a metrical translation, then yes. If by "paraphrase" is meant what it usually means today, some might, but in my experience (including myself), I usually see a conscious desire to stay away from "paraphrases" and stick with metrical translations (or in some cases, chanting).

 

[Jake]

Do exclusive Psalm singers use paraphrased Psalms for lyrics? And what do you think of the Psalm project?

It depends on the church. Many American Dutch Reformed churches use the Psalter of 1912 as their main Psalter, which tends to be much more paraphrasic. Probably kind of like the New Living Translation. In the Free Church of Scotland Continuing, the 1650 Scottish Metrical Version is used, which is often as literal of a translation as the Authorized Version. I would say the RP psalters aim to be accurate translations as well, rather than paraphrases.

 

[bookslover]

Maybe he will do so in his part four, but I think one would be impressed if Bushell is interacted with.

Does anyone know what Michael Bushell is up to these days? I think the 4th edition of his book on EP came out 3 years ago, but haven't heard anything about him since.

 

[Rom]

God promises that when the Word of God goes forth, it will not return void. He makes no such promises for the compositions of mere men.

You think that this scripture passage is talking about EP in Corporate Worship?

Certainly not an interpretation I'd ever heard before.

No, I am saying that God has attached this *promise* to His Word. The Psalms are the Word of God. Therefore when the Psalms are used in corporate worship, they will not return void. This promise is not exclusive to the singing of the psalms, but surely includes them.

Also, this promise is not attached to the composition of men. Some of which we must be sure, God must despise. (See for instance, hymns that speak against the Limited Atonement, etc.).

This is how my statement was derived.

 

[gjw1684]

Here is Dr. Waldron's second argument against EP

Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY > Blog > My Second Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody

Here, Waldron argues against EP based upon his understanding of John 4:24 and its application to the regulative principle. Thus, Waldron sees a positive commandment for true NT worship based on this passage

Second, we are commanded to worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24), that is, we must worship in the light of gospel fulfillment and not Old Testament shadows.

In particular, Waldron examines the statement that NT worship should be done in truth. In this context, he states that truth is contrasted not with falsehood, but by the shadows of the OT:

Worship in spirit and truth is worship in terms of the gospel realities brought by the coming of the Messiah. It is, therefore, the opposite of the shadow worship of the Old Testament. The context of John 4:24 is filled with an emphasis on the coming of the new age of fulfillment in which the shadows of the temporary Old Testament order pass away (vv. 21, 23, and 25).

From this, Waldron argues that EP is inconsistent with the tenor of John 4:24. Here's the meat of his argument:

Let me explain what I mean. Of course, I am not saying that we should not sing the psalms of David. I believe we should. But they are to be understood and sung in light of the principle of John 4:24 . They are to be sung and understood in terms of their true meaning which finds their fulfillment in the worship in spirit and truth of the New Covenant. So, yes, we must preach, pray, and sing the 150 biblical psalms.

But Jesus’ words clearly indicate that even the psalms were part of the shadow worship of the Old Testament. It would be strange, indeed, in light of Jesus’ teaching to take the position that we may only sing the Psalms of the Old Testament, but that we cannot sing the words and truths in which they find their fulfillment in the New Testament. The church must be allowed to worship in spirit and truth and must not be restricted in its singing to the preliminary, typical, and shadowy revelation of the Old Testament in its worship. Think of what the exclusive psalmody position is really saying and how jarring it is. Jesus tells us to worship in the spirit and truth of New covenant revelation, but exclusive psalmody tells us that we can only sing the psalms of the Old Testament in that worship.

The conclusion must be that the book of Psalms is an inadequate hymnbook for the church of Jesus Christ. The exclusive psalmodist will certainly say that the psalms must be sung in light of New Testament revelation. That’s good. Yet even if it is sung in light of New Testament revelation, this still assumes that the Christian interpretations and understandings of the psalms are worthy to be sung. This further and also means, since there is no New Testament equivalent to the Psalms, that Christians are called to compose hymns that are faithful to the word of Christ.

His conclusion is

So what is my point? It is not sufficient to sing words that only make the identity of the Messiah, the doctrine of justification, and the doctrine of the Trinity implicit. The Christian heart cries out to say these things with the clarity of the New Testament revelation.

 

[fredtgreco]

God promises that when the Word of God goes forth, it will not return void. He makes no such promises for the compositions of mere men.

You think that this scripture passage is talking about EP in Corporate Worship?

Certainly not an interpretation I'd ever heard before.

No, I am saying that God has attached this *promise* to His Word. The Psalms are the Word of God. Therefore when the Psalms are used in corporate worship, they will not return void. This promise is not exclusive to the singing of the psalms, but surely includes them.

Also, this promise is not attached to the composition of men. Some of which we must be sure, God must despise. (See for instance, hymns that speak against the Limited Atonement, etc.).

This is how my statement was derived.

Does the preaching of God's Word go forth void?

 

[Rom]

If Dr. Waldron truly believes in the Regulative Principle, he will have to do better than appeal to "spirit and truth", that favored campground for the charismatic, used to enable all sorts of excesses. Using his same argument, I could argue for all sorts of bizarre things in worship.

Instead, to use the RPW correctly he must, in my estimation, show the command in Scripture to do two things:

1. The authorization of the composition of new songs.
2. The command for the congregation to sing these songs.

Establishing both of those would be a proper application of the Regulative Principle of Worship. Now, if he is not an adherent to the RPW, then we have a different discussion to have, and we really have no point in discussing EP until we establish the RPW as a framework for worship. I don't know, because I haven't read anything but these excerpts.

 

[Rom]

Does the preaching of God's Word go forth void?

My understanding is that the Reformed have held that insofar as what is being preached by a lawfully called minister, and is confirmed by the Word of God, that it is the Word of God being preached. Some quotes I've seen before, but you may correct my understanding if I am in error here.

Luther:
“Tis a right excellent thing, that every honest pastor’s and preacher’s mouth is Christ’s mouth, and his word and forgiveness is Christ’s word and forgiveness… For the office is not the pastor’s or preacher’s but God’s; and the Word which he preacheth is likewise not the pastor’s and preacher’s but God’s.”

John Calvin:
“When a man has climbed up into the pulpit… it is [so] that God may speak to us by the mouth of a man.”

Every sermon I've ever heard by a Reformed minister has been an exposition of the Word of God. I have not seen anything quite like this with hymnody.

 

[Christusregnat]

It may also be helpful to bear in mind that the distinct warrants for the various elements of worship are treated somewhat ambiguously in various otherwise confessional denominations.

For example, if singing is confused with prayer or preaching, the reasoning runs something like this:

The elements of preaching the Word and prayer permit content outside of a bare recitation of Scripture; Singing is an element of worship similar to preaching and prayer, and therefore singing permits content outside of God's Word.

The danger, from a biblical standpoint, is that we could also reason, with similar arguments as follows:

The elements of preaching the Word and prayer permit content outside of the bare recitation of Scripture; reading is an element of worship similar to preaching and prayer, and therefore reading permits a reading of Calvin's Institutes in worship.

Or, the entire congregation is commanded to sing, men, women and children; preaching is an element like singing, and therefore the entire congregation may preach, men, women and children.

Thankfully, this matter has already been settled by the Westminster Confession of Faith, which clearly distills the teaching of Scripture that the "singing of Psalms with grace in the heart" is the only commanded song in worship.

But if it weren't clear enough, the unlawfulness of blurring the distinction between preaching or prayer and singing is exemplified by women preachers or reading Calvin in worship in lieu of Scripture.

 

[MW]

But Jesus’ words clearly indicate that even the psalms were part of the shadow worship of the Old Testament.

If this were true the Psalms would have to be excluded from New Testament worship altogether along with all the other typical ordinances of the Old Testament. In fact, singing itself could then be construed as a typical ordinance which is fulfilled by Christ and abrogated. That this is not the case is obvious from the fact that our Lord sang with His disciples after the institution of the New Testament ordinance of the Lord's supper, that He sang an hymn which is generally considered to have been a Psalm, that the Psalms are quoted throughout the New Testament as either directly speaking of the Messiah or the direct words of the Messiah Himself, and that believers are exhorted to live in the fulness of the Spirit in singing Psalms. The Book of Hebrews very distinctly places the Psalms in the administration of the New Testament when it quotes the Psalms and states, "as the Holy Ghost saith, Today, if ye will hear his voice." This puts the matter beyond all controversy. It is impossible to relegate the Psalms to the Old Testament without contradicting the express testimony of Scripture and the Messianic witness of the apostles.

 

[TylerRay]

n. In the Free Church of Scotland Continuing, the 1650 Scottish Metrical Version is used, which is often as literal of a translation as the Authorized Version.

At times, it is closer to the Hebrew than any of our prose translations. For those unaware, this Psalter is also used in the Presbyterian Reformed Church, Australian Free Church, and in other denominations and congregations worldwide, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 

[gjw1684]

Here is Dr. Waldron's third argument against EP:

Midwest Center for Theological Studies: Owensboro, KY > Blog > My Third Major Argument Against Exclusive Psalmody

Here, Waldron argues against EP based upon his understanding of Revelation 5:9-10. From this passage, Waldron sees a positive commandment to sing new songs in keeping with the progressive revelation of God's redemption. He also addresses some of the arguments from Schwertley's Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense.

Schwertley argues that the new song is not an uninspired song, but an inspired song. This may be, but it still contradicts both Schwertley’s and Murray’s refusal to sing anything but the Psalms of David. They admit that the Scripture commands a new song to be sung, but they refuse to sing it even if it is inspired!

Schwertley alternatively suggests that the new song is simply an old song sung with new meaning. Perhaps this may be the case, though I doubt it, with regard to some of the Old Testament use of the phrase, “new song.” He also suggests that it could be one of the psalms in the book of Psalms, but one with which the people of God are not yet familiar. Again, perhaps this is the case. The problem is that neither of these speculations can apply to or explain the use of the phrase in Revelation 5:9-10.

His critique of Schwertley is based upon three clear features of Revelation 5:9-10

1) It fulfills a frequently repeated biblical command to make new songs, such as Psalm 33:3, Psalm 96:1; Psalm 98:1; Psalm 149:1; and Isaiah 42:10

2) It celebrates a new stage in and is carefully situated with regard to redemptive history. Waldron argues

In the previous context of Revelation 5:9-10 we are symbolically but clearly told the occasion of this new song. It is the ascension and enthronement of the Mediator, Christ Jesus. This was a new redemptive-historical event symbolized clearly in the Lamb approaching the throne and taking the book. There is to be a new song to celebrate this new event and new stage in redemptive history.

The words and theme of this new song—it must be noticed—are carefully situated with regard to redemptive. Not only is it a new song sung subsequent to the enthronement of the Mediator, but a new song reflecting a period prior to the time when the saints will reign on the earth.

3) This song (in Revelation 5:9-10) involves singing new words and has a new text. Again Waldron argues

In the text itself of Revelation 5:9-10 we are told the words of this song. It is not an old psalm sung with a new meaning. It is not a psalm from the biblical book of Psalms with which the people of God are unfamiliar. It is a song with new words conveying new thoughts and concepts. The Greek is clear. “They sang a new song saying …”

From this, his basic conclusion is

Here the new song is clearly a song with new words and thoughts. New revelation calls for new songs! And this calls for songs informed and permeated with the revelation given in the New Testament. It rebuts the idea that we can only sing in the language of the Old Testament.