The Devil's Success in Getting the Church to Sing Just About Anything Other than the Psalms

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings pilgrims,

I'm considering coauthoring a book on the Psalms.
A possible subtitle, etc., could be the title of this thread.

Here’s the first draft of a concept to present the positive future view of the Psalms.
We have gone beyond this, but the opening salvo has begun.
~~~~~~~

Positive Future in the Psalms – Project Setup and Discussion​

This document captures the early planning and dialogue between Ed Walsh and ChatGPT (GPT‑5) regarding a biblical research project titled *Positive Future in the Psalms*. The goal is to identify every verse in the Book of Psalms with a forward-looking, optimistic, or eschatologically positive view of the future, including references to Christ’s dominion, the spread of the Gospel, and the triumph of righteousness.

Project Plan and Methodology​

The Psalms will be reviewed in their entirety. Each verse with a positive connotation of the future will be categorized under one of three headings:

1. Direct Divine Promise — God Himself speaking or clear prophetic statements.

2. Prophetic / Messianic Hope — pointing forward to Christ or Gospel triumph.

3. Faith-Wishes of the Saints — personal or corporate prayers and hopes for future blessing.

Division of the Psalms​

Following Ed’s insight, the Psalms will be studied according to their canonical five-book division:

Book I — Psalms 1–41

Book II — Psalms 42–72

Book III — Psalms 73–89

Book IV — Psalms 90–106

Book V — Psalms 107–150

Output Format​

Each Book will include the following layers:
• Quick Reference Concordance — verse references under each category.
• Full Verse Text — primarily KJV, with ESV included where helpful.
• Commentary Notes — concise theological or eschatological insights.
• Historical Commentary — occasional notes from Calvin, Spurgeon, Puritans, and modern scholars.

Workflow Agreement​

It was agreed that each Book of the Psalms would be treated as a self-contained study, complete with text, categorization, and commentary. This approach allows easy navigation and sequential study.

Personal Context and Motivation​

Ed Walsh shared that the inspiration came from a question posted in a Psalm-singing Facebook group:
“Limiting your conclusion to the Complete Book of the Psalms, what is your eschatological view of the future of this earth in time and before the actual return of Christ?”

Many respondents reflected a hopeful, postmillennial tone, seeing the Psalms as testifying to Christ’s ultimate dominion and the triumph of grace across the world. This confirmed the value of the current study.

Next Step​

The next step is to produce the complete analysis for Book I (Psalms 1–41), identifying every verse with positive or eschatological significance, grouped under the three categories. Each will be accompanied by brief commentary, and the result will form the template for Books II–V.


Prepared for: Ed Walsh (Walsh Estimating Service)
By: ChatGPT (GPT‑5)

 

[retroGRAD3]

I agree with the title of this thread 1000%. Very sad to see.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

I'll be looking forward to this!

 

[LadyCalvinist]

Your work is sorely needed. Godspeed my brother!

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Sounds good, Ed. Consider including in your plan and methodology that it's Christ Himself speaking in the Psalms, of Himself and for His people.

 

[erickinho1bra]

As one who loves the Psalms and singing them in worship (although I am not fully convinced of exclusive psalmody), I see it as a wonderful joy and win that even contemporary evangelical singers like Steffany Gretzinger has made a Psalms album:

 

[TheInquirer]

So if the church sang the book of Ephesians it would be the devil’s work?

 

[davejonescue]

As one who loves the Psalms and singing them in worship (although I am not fully convinced of exclusive psalmody), I see it as a wonderful joy and win that even contemporary evangelical singers like Steffany Gretzinger has made a Psalms album:

My favorite song by her is "No one ever cared for me like Jesus."

 

[Ed Walsh]

So if the church sang the book of Ephesians it would be the devil’s work?

Who, if anyone, are you responding to?

Ed

 

[Dkshotwell]

We sing a lot of the great old hymns in my church, it’s wonderful worship. Is that devilish? I think not.

 

[erickinho1bra]

Who, if anyone, are you responding to?

Ed

I think he is addressing the question to you and the other exclusive-psalmody supporters in this thread

Post automatically merged: Oct 6, 2025

We sing a lot of the great old hymns in my church, it’s wonderful worship. Is that devilish? I think not.

I think this guy is doing the same thing

 

[TheInquirer]

I am responding to the title of your thread and proposed subtitle of your book. It is the kind of question you should anticipate if you decide to publish. Better to deal with it here and now.

 

[davejonescue]

I had posted this, and deleted it. But it also might be well to deal with in the book, since the question is posed, that, do churches who claim Exclusive Psalmody, even sing the Psalms? By that, I mean in my observance, most churches who claim to sing the Psalms, are instead many times singing reworded metric compositions of Psalms instead of the Psalms themselves. It may be good to deal with the reason the written Psalms are not sufficient for corporate worship, and why they need to be "re-imagined," converted to rhyme, or expanded/abridged? This isn't an attempt to debate. I don't think Psalms in meter are wrong at all. I just don't think they are the Psalms as written; and therefore not the Psalms on the same level as Scripture.

 

[EvanF]

I had posted this, and deleted it. But it also might be well to deal with in the book, since the question is posed, that, do churches who claim Exclusive Psalmody, even sing the Psalms? By that, I mean in my observance, most churches who claim to sing the Psalms, are instead many times singing reworded metric compositions of Psalms instead of the Psalms themselves. It may be good to deal with the reason the written Psalms are not sufficient for corporate worship, and why they need to be "re-imagined," converted to rhyme, or expanded/abridged? This isn't an attempt to debate. I don't think Psalms in meter are wrong at all. I just don't think they are the Psalms as written; and therefore not the Psalms on the same level as Scripture.

The psalms as written were Hebrew poems composed for song. Word for word translations of them without poetry are no more the psalms as written than metrical translations are. However, if you compare to the original languages, metrical translations are generally quite close to literal translations, even if they might use more or less words to express the same literal meaning.

Any translation of a psalm that isn't made with song in mind, like the original Hebrew was, is a small failure in my opinion. You've certainly demonstrated before that it's possible to set even the most unpoetic translations to music, but I don't think such translations can truly be held up as more essentially scripture than metricated or otherwise intentionally poetic translations where there is a literal correspondence of meaning, nor can they be said to be more suitable for their intended use in corporate worship.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

So if the church sang the book of Ephesians it would be the devil’s work?

Can scripture be used in an ungodly, inappropriate manner? I think Satan quoting scripture to tempt Christ answers in the affirmative.

Anything not commanded in worship is sin. We are not commanded to sing the book of Ephesians. We are however, at bare minimum commanded to sings Psalms 1/3 of the time according to Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19. And in the interpretation of many learned men of God those passages are talking about Psalms and only the psalms, which is the stance I would hold to.

God deserves our best in worship. How anyone can compare uninspired hymns and the inspired psalms and say they are on the same level when it comes to worship.....

"The most celebrated hymns of uninspired men were, like Job’s friends, ‘miserable comforters,’ when compared with the experience of Christ, in the days of humiliation of which the Book of Psalms is the true prophetic picture.”

-Henry Cooke

 

[davejonescue]

The psalms as written were Hebrew poems composed for song. Word for word translations of them without poetry are no more the psalms as written than metrical translations are. However, if you compare to the original languages, metrical translations are generally quite close to literal translations, even if they might use more or less words to express the same literal meaning.

Any translation of a psalm that isn't made with song in mind, like the original Hebrew was, is a small failure in my opinion. You've certainly demonstrated before that it's possible to set even the most unpoetic translations to music, but I don't think such translations can truly be held up as more essentially scripture than metricated or otherwise intentionally poetic translations where there is a literal correspondence of meaning, nor can they be said to be more suitable for their intended use in corporate worship.

What do you make of this then?


Doesn't this seem then that historic translations of the Psalms are correct, and that attempts to put them into meter, are instead attempts to make them hymns as we would consider them? That is why I asked, if one is going to write a book on the Psalms not being sung in church, one might want to include an apologetic as to why Metrical Psalms are to be considered Psalms instead of our Bible translations?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

I had posted this, and deleted it. But it also might be well to deal with in the book, since the question is posed, that, do churches who claim Exclusive Psalmody, even sing the Psalms? By that, I mean in my observance, most churches who claim to sing the Psalms, are instead many times singing reworded metric compositions of Psalms instead of the Psalms themselves. It may be good to deal with the reason the written Psalms are not sufficient for corporate worship, and why they need to be "re-imagined," converted to rhyme, or expanded/abridged? This isn't an attempt to debate. I don't think Psalms in meter are wrong at all. I just don't think they are the Psalms as written; and therefore not the Psalms on the same level as Scripture.

If you read most any work advocating for EP they deal with this objection. It's been around for a while. Sometimes it gets repetitive to see it dealt with in each EP book, but it's good idea to address it, even in small way, in this potential book.

 

[Ploutos]

If you read most any work advocating for EP they deal with this objection. It's been around for a while. Sometimes it gets repetitive to see it dealt with in each EP book, but it's good idea to address it, even in small way, in this potential book.

Indeed, one could make a book - albeit a rather tedious book - solely out of the PB threads where this topic has come up.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Indeed, one could make a book - albeit a rather tedious book - solely out of the PB threads where this topic has come up.

I enjoyed reading all those! It was those lively, heated sometimes tedious debates that helped convince me of EP!

 

[MW]

I am responding to the title of your thread and proposed subtitle of your book. It is the kind of question you should anticipate if you decide to publish. Better to deal with it here and now.

I agree with the sentiment behind Ed's language, but yes, he needs to approach it with sound categories. In what sense is it the Devil's work? I can think of a few things but Ed should make it clear from the outset, and be especially careful not to throw away any wheat with the chaff.

 

[davejonescue]

If you read most any work advocating for EP they deal with this objection. It's been around for a while. Sometimes it gets repetitive to see it dealt with in each EP book, but it's good idea to address it, even in small way, in this potential book.

Yes, I have read some on this board. Wasn't convinced as it is basically just saying since they are considered translations (with the intent to be metrical, which kind of seems eisegetical) they are to be considered equally inspired. I don't know. If that's what does it, so be it. Not a major issue for me. I could only hope my church would ditch all its contemporary worship songs, even for metrical Psalms. But its not a point of contention for me. Yet it should be highlighted with such a title, do any churches in fact sing the Psalms? If yes, in what way?

 

[MW]

they are to be considered equally inspired

Not equally inspired; but mediately through a faithful translation. The words are not inspired, but the sense of the words come through a faithful translation sufficiently so that we can hear the voice of the Spirit. Heb. 3:7, "as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice." They are the words of the Holy Spirit, immediately inspired in Hebrew, quoted in Greek, and we are reading them in English.

 

[davejonescue]

Not equally inspired; but mediately through a faithful translation. The words are not inspired, but the sense of the words come through a faithful translation sufficiently so that we can hear the voice of the Spirit. Heb. 3:7, "as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice." They are the words of the Holy Spirit, immediately inspired in Hebrew, quoted in Greek, and we are reading them in English.

OK.

 

[Ploutos]

Not equally inspired; but mediately through a faithful translation. The words are not inspired, but the sense of the words come through a faithful translation sufficiently so that we can hear the voice of the Spirit. Heb. 3:7, "as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice." They are the words of the Holy Spirit, immediately inspired in Hebrew, quoted in Greek, and we are reading them in English.

In quoting from Hebrews, wouldn't you say those words are also immediately inspired in Greek?

 

[MW]

In quoting from Hebrews, wouldn't you say those words are also immediately inspired in Greek?

To be sure, the penman (Paul) was immediately inspired. But the "words" generally speaking existed and were used in Greek prior to him. The choice to use them was certainly guided by inspiration. But the formal reason for accepting these words as inspired is the fact that they faithfully represent what was originally given. This is clear from the penman's appeal to an original form of the words and his historical appeal for the proper sense and application of them.

 

[Ploutos]

To be sure, the penman (Paul) was immediately inspired. But the "words" generally speaking existed and were used in Greek prior to him. The choice to use them was certainly guided by inspiration. But the formal reason for accepting these words as inspired is the fact that they faithfully represent what was originally given. This is clear from the penman's appeal to an original form of the words and his historical appeal for the proper sense and application of them.

What about situations where the original quotation is substantially modified, as in the notorious Psalm 68 quotation in Ephesians 4? Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems as if you're saying that parts of the New Testament might be differently inspired or mediately inspired because they're actually Old Testament quotations.

 

[MW]

What about situations where the original quotation is substantially modified, as in the notorious Psalm 68 quotation in Ephesians 4? Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems as if you're saying that parts of the New Testament might be differently inspired or mediately inspired because they're actually Old Testament quotations.

I should correct a potential misunderstanding. They are not "differently" or "less" inspired. As noted, inspiration selected the OT reference and the words in which to present it. It is all equally, fully, and verbally inspired. But the THING inspired might have a primary source. It could be the words of the Devil, of a heathen philosopher, or of the Holy Spirit speaking in the OT. We are dealing with that "second level" of revelation, not the primary level of inspiration.

On that second level of revelation the penman, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is not bound to a word for word "quotation." Speaking or writing to an audience he aims to bring out the sensus plenior. So he might include what is implied in it or something significant about it that goes beyond the mere words. In Eph. 4:8 there is a reversal of the action for the sake of adapting it to the fulfilment of the situation. In the work of redemption Christ has acted for us towards the Father. The entire movement of redemption is one of grace: from the Father, through the Son, to the Church. Christ, the Mediator, receives the victory and the Spirit from the Father so that He can give them as gifts to man. The OT event was a type; Christ is the antitype. The adaptation is not arbitrary; it is hermeneutically necessary to bridge the gap between the shadow and the reality.

But to go back to the original point -- the phenomenon of quoting OT references in another language as the words of the Holy Spirit -- this appeal is used in dogmatics to establish the authority of translation. The fact the person was inspired does nothing to change the phenomenon itself. The Holy Spirit says it in the words of the text provided. The only question is whether the translation is faithful to the original.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

I’m Defense of Ed:

I don’t want to foist my opinions onto Ed, but I didn’t take his title as accusing those who are not EP, rather those who refuse to sing Psalms and instead sing the drivel that comes out of the pop-culture-prosperity-charismatic-music machines.

I may be wrong, and a title change may be warranted, but churches do scoff at singing the psalms and then turn around and sing the lamest stuff ever, often times written by non-Christians.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

I must not let friendship, respect, and affection – for Ed, and those of like mind with him – prevent me from speaking of a differing view. I do understand that what is promoted here is non-EP singing and worship = a success of the devil.

Banner of Truth puts out a small booklet, Should the Psalter Be the Only Hymnal of the Church?, by Iain H. Murray.
In the US it's available at BOT here for $3.60, and in the UK here for £1.50

Murray is a lover of Psalmody, but not exclusively – and he quotes many of the Puritans, and earlier divines of like mind, in an ample historical survey. He states the positive case for hymns on the basis that we in the NT era have a greater revelation of Christ, His suffering, His love, atoning sacrifice, ascension into Heaven, the fellowship with departed loved ones to be had there, and such. And he deals graciously with objections, as he does love Psalm-singing!

I have had the misfortune being a Christian for some 57 years and have never, in a church in America, heard a Psalm sung. I have some in a Welch hymnal, which we sing in our church. At Puritan Board I have heard via links some Psalms sung which were beautiful.

I think it an error – which damages the church – to say it must be only EP. It were far better to promote the view it should be both! The godly saints of the NT era, who have the Spirit of Christ indwelling them, and His word illumining their minds, are capable of praise truly honoring Christ and the Godhead, and Murray documents many saints agreeing.

It would be a great boon to the dwellers here at PB were some Psalm-singers to link YouTube or audio renditions of sung Psalms for us to hear, and love, and incorporate in our worship in our respective churches.

View attachment 12250View attachment 12251

Post automatically merged: Oct 7, 2025

A few pages of the booklet:

View attachment 12252View attachment 12253View attachment 12254

The problem is that it can't be both if you are convicted of EP. We do what God commands in worship and not beyond.

I dearly came to love many hymns as I grew into the reformed faith, but as I studied the Regulative Principal of Worship the position of Exclusive Psalmody because apparent and convicting to me. So I cannot sing the hymns I once thought to be worshipful because I find no positive command or necessary inference from Holy Writ to do so.

Murray references Watts, who seems to have had a very low view of the Psalms. So much so that he "Had to teach David to talk like a Christian". There are difficult parts to relate to and understand in singing the Psalms, but is that not true or many parts is scripture, that they are hard to under without diligent study and guiding of the Holy Spirit. Why would worship be any different?

J.G Vos deals with these ideas wonderful in a small article titled "The semetic roots of Christian Worship" Here is a relevant portion.

"We should not object to what bears the stamp of Israelitish origin. To do so is to rebel against the wisdom and goodness of God. God chose that the sons of Japheth, in the matter of religion, should dwell in the tents of Shem. We should respond: 'Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.'"

I deeply appreciate your sentiments though.

 

[erickinho1bra]

The problem is that it can't be both if you are convicted of EP. We do what God commands in worship and not beyond.

I dearly came to love many hymns as I grew into the reformed faith, but as I studied the Regulative Principal of Worship the position of Exclusive Psalmody because apparent and convicting to me. So I cannot sing the hymns I once thought to be worshipful because I find no positive command or necessary inference from Holy Writ to do so.

Murray references Watts, who seems to have had a very low view of the Psalms. So much so that he "Had to teach David to talk like a Christian". There are difficult parts to relate to and understand in singing the Psalms, but is that not true or many parts is scripture, that they are hard to under without diligent study and guiding of the Holy Spirit. Why would worship be any different?

J.G Vos deals with these ideas wonderful in a small article titled "The semetic roots of Christian Worship" Here is a relevant portion.

"We should not object to what bears the stamp of Israelitish origin. To do so is to rebel against the wisdom and goodness of God. God chose that the sons of Japheth, in the matter of religion, should dwell in the tents of Shem. We should respond: 'Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.'"

I deeply appreciate your sentiments though.

Regarding the RPW, that really comes down to how you interpret "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs".

I do find it interesting that there are those who hold to EP AND a cappella singing when many psalms tell us to worship the Lord with instruments (and even dancing!)