Sam Waldron's Blog Series on EP

Status
Not open for further replies.
How can you say the Scriptures are the only rule for faith and life and then sing uninspired hymns in worship? To me it doesn't seem to be reconcilable with chapter 1 of the WCF.
 
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 …”

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. But the argument itself is defective because of its failure to take into account the nature of the Apocalypse and the way it conveys its message. The symbolism does not refer to literal space-time events but presents an idealist picture of the state of affairs which has been ushered in by the coming of Christ. This explains the inclusion of imagery from Old Testament forms of worship like the use of incense. Moreover, "new song" is explained in another vision as being something other than literal. In 14:3 we read, "they sung as it were a new song," which shows that the reference to "new song" is being used to present something more abstract than the concrete worship setting of the local congregation.
 
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.
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?
 
A passage showing the church singing songs besides the Psalms (with approval)? A passage showing the church singing songs that the church composed?

There is such approved example in 1 Corinthians 14, together with the qualifications necessary for it -- the extraordinary revelatory gift of the Holy Spirit. Yet even here only one was to sing and the rest were to judge, not to sing along.

The very existence of "holy" Scripture militates against binding the church to worship in unison according to an uninspired written form. There is no doubt that the uninspired form usurps a place in the devotions and affections of the Lord's people which should belong to "holy" Scripture alone.
 
Here is Dr. Waldron's fourth argument against EP:

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

Waldron's argument is that EP is out of accord with the requirements God makes with regard to other parts of worship, such as singing and prayer. This is a pretty common view held by those opposed to EP so I don't think much discussion is needed. Here's the summary of Waldron's point on this matter

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.

He addresses the argument that some parts of worship are free (like preaching and praying), but others are fettered like singing and Scripture reading) by appealing to Nehemiah 8:8, in which Scripture reading was accompanied with interpretation. His final conclusion is

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.

There is one sense in which the typology of the OT was intended for the OT saints, and another sense in which it was also intended to help NT saints understand spiritual things better than they would if they did not have that typology; if the Church had not gone through that typological stage.

This may be why the psalms were written for the OT saints and the NT saints, rather than having an inspired Psalter in both the OT and a different one in the NT. The Lord wants us to familiarise ourselves with this typological ABC by means of the use of the Psalter. Even a professor in any subject never outlives the alphabet but uses it every day. The mature Church/Israel of God cannot outlive the ABC of typology even as she has a greater understanding than the OT Church/Israel.

E.g.
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.

In the New Testament we have Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures with the express testimony that they are the words and mind of the Holy Spirit. So this argument falls on its face before the presence of the Lord.

As for the different parts of of worship, congregational singing in unison requires a set form of composition, which is not imposed upon the congregation when an individual prays or preaches. The rule of Scripture is that one should speak and the rest should keep silent and judge.
 
It may be too late, but earlier you had said:

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)?
 
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)?

As noted earlier, there are two ways in which Scripture functions as a rule. So far as all of life is concerned, we are given moral rules by which we are to live, and we must not act contrary to these rules in any situation. So far as worship is concerned, positive institution is required. It is not enough to not act contrary to the rule of Scripture, the mode of worship must not even be beside Scripture. This being the case, the appeal to scriptural authority still begs the question as to whether the mode of worship itself is instituted by God in Scripture.

The canonicity of the Psalms is one part of the argument for positive institution. God Himself has given songs for His worship, and has not made any other provision to supplement or substitute them.
 
Here is Dr. Waldron's fifth (and final) argument against EP:

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

Here, Waldron presents his exegesis of Ephesians 5:19-20 and Colossians 3:16-17. Regarding the EP position, Waldron writes

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).

In response, Waldron asserts that it is improbable that the meaning of "spiritual" means inspired because of its varied use throughout the NT and its use in the immediate context. Waldron states that

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.

Next, Waldron argues that it's improbable that the phrase "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" refers strictly to the Book of Psalms based on four arguments. First, he notes that the Book of Psalms is never elsewhere in NT reference by such language (comparing with Luke 20:42, Luke 24:44, Acts 1:20, and Acts 13:33). Second, he notes that the definite article is missing in phrase "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs". The third argument is based on the use of the word "spiritual" to modify song. Waldron notes

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?

Waldron argues that since "songs" does not have this religious meaning in itself, it was necessary for Paul to add the word, spiritual, to make clear the kind of songs he had in mind. Finally, he notes that it's unlikely that the phrase "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" refers specifically to the Book of Psalms because the Bible records other worship songs by these names.

In concluding his short blog series, Waldron states

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.
 
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.
 
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.

One would have thought that the basic instinct of a Christian would be to sing with Christ, Heb. 2:11-12, Who is the apostle and high priest of his profession, Heb. 3:1, and a Son over God's house, ver. 6, Whose voice is heard in the Psalms TODAY, ver. 7.
 
I'm grateful for Psalmody's staunch defenders here- it's encouraging. This effort by Dr. Waldron makes me sad. And this is what brothers and sisters in Christ are missing: "One would have thought that the basic instinct of a Christian would be to sing with Christ, Heb. 2:11-12, Who is the apostle and high priest of his profession, Heb. 3:1, and a Son over God's house, ver. 6, Whose voice is heard in the Psalms TODAY, ver. 7." Indeed, if believers only understood this- What precious truths. I pray that this will again be taught and practiced in the churches. I also hope someone will publicly answer the arguments Dr. Waldron presented in his articles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
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. If that's the point, I'd humbly suggest that's going too far. It seems clear to me in reading the Westminster confession, and other puritan writings that the real concern to puritans of the day, in formulating the regulative principle of worship was to protect against Catholic practices. Mainly the use of "icons" (idols) and other non-biblical components of the mass. There is plenty of concern written in the confession against Catholic practices, not decrying hymn singing in worship services. True, it does only mention the singing of Psalms, but it doesn't dedicate space to argue the case against inclusion of hymns. The next big fight would involve the British Parliament in 1662 trying to pass the common book of prayer. Around this time, EP vs Hymns was not the number 1 concern on peoples minds, and I think we can all agree there was not 100% consensus on EP among the puritans holding to the RPW during the early stages of the reformation. Later, as Hymnody became more common and accepted, the arguments for EP began to really come together as we might know them, and most recently with a return of some churches to EP, the arguments have really begun to get fleshed out.

My point is not to give a "yay" or "nay" for EP, I simply think we should be careful not to project our current views, and concerns in the church as it relates to the RPW on our forefathers. Some (many even) would agree with the current arguments for EP, but not all would, and so I think it's unfair to link EP as the PRIMARY concern of the RPW in its early days.
 
I'm certainly not saying that. What I'm saying is that it is sort of histrionic to think that EP undermines the RPW when those who crafted it held to it. It is sort of like someone today saying folks who don't believe you should go out to eat on the Lord's day are going to destroy the WCF's teaching about observing the Lord's day. True EP was not a subject of debate at the Westminster Assembly, because the practice was not in dispute, but you do see the practice of making up hymns condemned by Robert Baillie circa 1645. You also begin to see the polemical argument starting to be made by WD Thomas Ford in the early 1650s and Brown of Wamphray later, the EP understanding of Col. 3:16; Eph 5:19 is the preface to the English version of the Scottish Meterial Psalter in the early 1670s. Even earlier EP was a recognized position the prefacer to the Constance Hymnbook acknowledged in 1540. So there was knowledge of the question and conscience adoption on behalf of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches of psalm books rather than Lutheran Hymn books.
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Baillie can be seen as the most consistent in an EP theory of those at the Westminster Assembly; he would have been happy to retain the scripture doxologies between certain psalms in the old Scottish psalter the assembly carefully and dileberately purged to retain nothing but the psalms in their psalter. However, that does not mean he approved of uninspired hymns. Baillie describes the public worship practice of the Independents' church in Arnhem in Holland of replacing the psalms with a hymn composed and sung solo by one individual "prophet". He gets this from Edwards Antapologia, p. 36. Dissuasive from the Errours of the Time (1646) 81.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top