Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 …”
What sort of "approved example" would provide that prescription (someone I know once appealed to these verses in Revelation saying that we have an approved example of the church here singing new songs that are not the Psalms, so the church today can sing new songs that are not the Psalms; since the only way to produce new songs is by human composition, the songs will be composed by the church)? A passage showing the church singing songs besides the Psalms (with approval)? A passage showing the church singing songs that the church composed?armourbearer said:So far as the argument goes, it proves too much. As observed, the "new song" has specific content and its words are recorded. It does not provide positive prescription for the church to compose new songs.
A passage showing the church singing songs besides the Psalms (with approval)? A passage showing the church singing songs that the church composed?
My point is that this view is inconsistent with the other parts of worship. The exclusive psalmody view says that in the church’s worship we may only sing translations of Scripture, but consider how inconsistent and strange this is. Exclusive psalmody does not restrict the preaching to the recitation or reading of Scripture translation. It does not and we do not restrict preaching to inspired sermons or translations of biblical sermons. We do not and exclusive psalmody does not restrict praying to the recitation or reading of biblical prayers. They do not and we do not restrict corporate prayer to inspired prayers or translations of biblical prayers.
Yet exclusive psalmody does restrict the singing of praise to the singing of inspired songs or translations of biblical hymns. We simply ask why? How can it be right to preach uninspired sermons, pray uninspired prayers, and yet wrong to sing uninspired hymns? Why should we restrict our hymnody to translations of Scripture when we do not so restrict our preaching or praying.
As suggested in my first argument, the reading of Scripture in English services requires the selection of an English translation. Every English translation of the Bible—even the most literal—involves interpretive decisions by the translators. This is not wrong, however, but finds its precedent in Nehemiah 8:8 . Thus, even the Scripture reading does not parallel the claim to sing inspired 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.
Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.(I Cor 10:11)
Every English translation of the Bible—even the most literal—involves interpretive decisions by the translators. This is not wrong, however, but finds its precedent in Nehemiah 8:8 . Thus, even the Scripture reading does not parallel the claim to sing inspired psalms.
I was wondering: What is meant by arguing from sola scriptura? And how does it differ from arguing from the sufficiency and canonicity of the Psalms (I think Bushell does this)?armourbearer said: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.
I was wondering: What is meant by arguing from sola scriptura? And how does it differ from arguing from the sufficiency and canonicity of the Psalms (I think Bushell does this)?
First, the exclusive psalmodist affirms that the phrase, “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” refers to the book of Psalms. It is common for them to point out that each of these three words is used frequently in the Psalms. In this exegetical point they are, absolutely correct. A quick count shows that 76 of the 99 uses of psalm occur in the LXX and GNT occur in the Psalms. 13 of the 34 uses of hymn are in the Psalms. 44 of the 95 uses song occur in the Psalms. Murray argues that “when Paul wrote “psalms, hymns, and Spiritual songs” he would expect the minds of his readers to think of … the Book of Psalms.” (Worship in the Presence of God, 187) Similarly, Frank Smith asserts that these words “refer specifically to the material of the Psalter.” (Worship in the Presence of God, 206). Schwertley similarly defends this position in his Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense.
Second, the exclusive psalmodists argue that the modifier, spiritual, in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 refers to these songs (and possibly also the psalms and hymns) as inspired. Spiritual means inspired in this passage for the exclusive psalmodist. Schwertley in Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense follows Murray who says: “On either of these assumptions the psalms, hymns, and songs are all ‘Spiritual’ and therefore all inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bearing of this upon the question at issue is perfectly apparent. Uninspired hymns are immediately excluded.” (Worship in the Presence of God, 188).
The meaning of “spiritual” in Ephesians 5:19 must be connected with the reference to the call to Christians in verse 18 to go on being filled with the Spirit. Verse 19 is directly connected to verse 18 by means of instrumental participle “speaking” at the beginning of verse 19. Consequently and assuredly, since being filled with the Spirit does not mean or in any way connote being inspired, this context directly implies that the meaning of spiritual in verse 19 is not inspired.
Similarly, the parallel language in Colossians 3:16 calling for Christians to allow the word of Christ to dwell in them richly is not calling them to be inspired. Thus, the call spiritual songs is not a call to sing inspired songs.
It would appear that the exclusive psalmodist position would require that each of the three words be a specific reference to the Psalter. The word, spiritual, however, is not used in the Old Testament and certainly not in the text of the Psalms. If song is a specific reference to the Psalter, why is it necessary to add the word, spiritual?
Exclusive psalmodists argue that the word, spiritual, may define all three words. This may be grammatically possible. (But not likely, spiritual is feminine agreeing with songs, but not with psalms and hymns.) Nevertheless, the problem pointed above remains. Why does the word, spiritual, (or inspired as they argue it means) need to be added if psalms and hymns already refer to the Book of Psalms?
First, let me repeat my love and respect for the brethren who hold exclusive psalmody. They are among my most beloved brothers. Second, let me nevertheless express my deep concern that their views not become prevalent among those who hold the important Reformed doctrine of the regulative principle. Exclusive psalmody runs so contrary to basic instincts of the Christian heart and life that I fear that its prevalence would bring (as it has brought) disrepute and suspicion on the regulative principle itself.
Exclusive psalmody runs so contrary to basic instincts of the Christian heart and life that I fear that its prevalence would bring (as it has brought) disrepute and suspicion on the regulative principle itself.
Exclusive psalmody runs so contrary to basic instincts of the Christian heart and life that I fear that its prevalence would bring (as it has brought) disrepute and suspicion on the regulative principle itself.
I don't understand his conclusion at all. What is more representative of the idea behind the regulative principle than exclusive psalmody? How is exclusive psalmody undermining the regulative principle? Wouldn't it be the opposite?
Anybody and some singular intemperate types can give a cause a bad name; but this turns history on its head and ignores who actually articulated, defended and put in practice the Regulative Principle of Worship. Psalm singing was the center of Puritan corporate and personal piety in England and in Presbyterian Scotland. Now, it is an extreme minority position, and psalm singers are the problem? What an overwrought and ridiculous worry.
Exclusive psalmody runs so contrary to basic instincts of the Christian heart and life that I fear that its prevalence would bring (as it has brought) disrepute and suspicion on the regulative principle itself.
I might be misunderstanding the posters here, but it appears to me that you're suggesting that the NUMBER ONE concern for the puritans, in holding to the RPW was EP.
Same here. If you re-read my post, I'm careful to say "representative", not that it's the primary part of the RPW. EP comes directly from holding to the RPW, it's very representative of the idea behind it and to say that EP undermines the RPW is very bizarre. Like Chris said, it's almost like someone saying that not eating at a restaurant on the Sabbath undermines observing the Lord's day.I might be misunderstanding the posters here, but it appears to me that you're suggesting that the NUMBER ONE concern for the puritans, in holding to the RPW was EP.
but you do see the practice of making up hymns condemned by Robert Baillie circa 1645