What would it take to get the Reformed churches to unite?

[pastorway]

then why can't we just sing psalms for the sake of unity?It satisfies both sides.

because it would be sacrificing truth for the sake of unity and it does not satisfy those who believe that the Bible teaches us to sing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs as three distinct categories of songs.

We know for certain psalms are sound, we don't know for certain that uninspired hymns are for sound.

We can know about the soundness of any song as long as the elders are fulfilling their duty in the way they lead worship and our people are thinking and using discernment as they worship. We do not have to embrace nor sing questionable songs. Who does this? We do not sing songs with shoddy theology.

Uninspired hymns are what needs more light to justify.

This is your opinion. One can sing a Scripture song and not interpret the Scripture correctly and believe a lie (twisted Scripture)! It is not just about the words, or order of words - but about the content and meaning of what we sing.

So why must we have them? Why must they replace psalms?

No one I have heard is arguing to REPLACE the Psalms. This may be your problem - believing that nonEPers REPLACE the Psalms and never sing them. This is nonsense. We sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. You sing Psalms only. Fine. We just believe that we have a wider range of songs available to us to sing to God's glory. This does not detract from the Bible, but enhances the truth - just as a good sermon enhances the meaning and application of the text for us to live out and obey. Singing good solid hymns helps us better understand, apply, and obey right doctrine.

In fact, singing is much like preaching. We are to "adminish one another" with Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. We sing to God and EACH OTHER - giving praise to God and instructing each other in truth.

Would you limit your pastor to preaching only Bible verses? Or is he allowed to explain the text? A good hymn is an exposition of Biblical truth.

As for Spurgeon, by the way, I have a copy of a book that he published (copyright 1883) for the members of his church for family worship. It contains readings and devotions for every day with prayers and then a suggestion of hymns to sing. In the back of the book he included a compilation of "Songs for Home Worship" that were taken out of the hymnal he put together for his church to use in worship. It is not EP and in fact there is not one single "inspired" hymn in the whole list.

That is all I will say on the matter.

For the whole thread in general, unity requires teachability and growth in grace. Be unified as best you can, "be at peace as much as depends upon you", don't go looking for the differences, and learn to listen. Put others first while standing for and speaking the truth in love. And pray for Christ to come again soon!

Phillip

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

Ok you didn't answer the question though. Can I get a response to this:

then why can't we just sing psalms for the sake of unity? It satisfies both sides. We know for certain psalms are sound, we don't know for certain that uninspired hymns are for sound. Uninspired hymns are what needs more light to justify. So why must we have them?

btw pastorway, you claimed Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Wesley, and several apostolic church fathers as well as weaker brothers.

The historic position of the Continental Reformed Churches was not EP. Again, I have referenced this stuff over and over again in the other EP threads. Only Scotland maintained the practice and the doctrine. The New England Puritans did for a short time until Watts appeared. Calvin was not EP. He allowed other hymns (i.e. apostles creed, 10 commandments, Lord's Prayer). See his Genevan liturgy. The Dutch did the same. See the Dort liturgy, which included the same songs Calvin allowed, along with the NT "songs" (i.e. Mary, Zach. etc.). Luther certainly was not EP at all. His own hymns were sung right along with the psalms. Even the Westminster Divines were not unanimous on this issue, as some argued that "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" refereed to more than just psalms (i.e. Poole, Baxter, etc.). I suggest you do a little more research. The EP argument will not be won on the grounds of history. [/quote]

I will do some more research. Did Calvin sing uninspired hymns? I looked back to the quotes and I have quotes for all of them refuting the use of instruments, not uninspired hymns, so forgive my weak assertion as it can only involve instruments. I will do more research on this. I've never heard of apostolic church fathers nor reformers (until now where you claim Luther, Baxter, and Poole) supporting uninspired hymns.

[Edited on 3-10-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

Originally posted by pastorway

then why can't we just sing psalms for the sake of unity?It satisfies both sides.

because it would be sacrificing truth for the sake of unity and it does not satisfy those who believe that the Bible teaches us to sing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs as three distinct categories of songs.

Explain how it sacrifices truth? Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are all contained in the book of Psalms. Just becuase the book is named "psalms" doesn't mean every form is a psalm. From past arguments, I wonder about your Biblical interpretation. You seem to define things that were written in a certain historical and cultural context from an modern and American context.

We know for certain psalms are sound, we don't know for certain that uninspired hymns are for sound.

We can know about the soundness of any song as long as the elders are fulfilling their duty in the way they lead worship and our people are thinking and using discernment as they worship. We do not have to embrace nor sing questionable songs. Who does this? We do not sing songs with shoddy theology.

This doesn't make it any more certain than pure scripture.

Uninspired hymns are what needs more light to justify.

This is your opinion. One can sing a Scripture song and not interpret the Scripture correctly and believe a lie (twisted Scripture)! It is not just about the words, or order of words - but about the content and meaning of what we sing.

What I meant by the above statement was justifying their ordination by God in worship. As for misinterpreting scripture as they sing it to God... that seems like a stretch. Were there uninspired psalms in temple worship?

So why must we have them? Why must they replace psalms?

No one I have heard is arguing to REPLACE the Psalms. This may be your problem - believing that nonEPers REPLACE the Psalms and never sing them. This is nonsense. We sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. You sing Psalms only. Fine. We just believe that we have a wider range of songs available to us to sing to God's glory. This does not detract from the Bible, but enhances the truth - just as a good sermon enhances the meaning and application of the text for us to live out and obey. Singing good solid hymns helps us better understand, apply, and obey right doctrine.

I sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, you sing psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, and human inspired songs. Preaching is prone to error yet ordained by God, are psalms meant for teaching? Or are they meant to praise God? Wouldn't inspired songs praise God accurately? They may not be intended to replace hymns but they have unintentionally done in my Church at least, and I assume most other PCA churches.

In fact, singing is much like preaching. We are to "adminish one another" with Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. We sing to God and EACH OTHER - giving praise to God and instructing each other in truth.

Where is this verse and where does scripture explain this?

Would you limit your pastor to preaching only Bible verses? Or is he allowed to explain the text? A good hymn is an exposition of Biblical truth.

A good hymn is not the same element as preaching. It has different regulations and a different end.

As for Spurgeon, by the way, I have a copy of a book that he published (copyright 1883) for the members of his church for family worship. It contains readings and devotions for every day with prayers and then a suggestion of hymns to sing. In the back of the book he included a compilation of "Songs for Home Worship" that were taken out of the hymnal he put together for his church to use in worship. It is not EP and in fact there is not one single "inspired" hymn in the whole list.

I'll investigate this. He didn't like instruments however for some reason...

That is all I will say on the matter.

For the whole thread in general, unity requires teach-ability and growth in grace. Be unified as best you can, "be at peace as much as depends upon you", don't go looking for the differences, and learn to listen. Put others first while standing for and speaking the truth in love. And pray for Christ to come again soon!

Phillip

Phillip I appreciate your challenging remarks. Basically you brought up a few questions that I'm going to investigate farther.

1.) Does the verse that claims "Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs" mean songs outside of scriptural inspiration?
2.) Are psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs intended for God primarily or for God and the Christian primarily
3.) Is misinterpreting a psalm the same as singing an uninspired song? (This seems like a stretch yet worth investigating.)

Again thank you for your challenging statements, however they don't convince me that uninspired hymns as certain nor worthy. At least not as of now. I do wonder about your hermeneutics however...

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus

Originally posted by pastorway

then why can't we just sing psalms for the sake of unity?It satisfies both sides.

because it would be sacrificing truth for the sake of unity and it does not satisfy those who believe that the Bible teaches us to sing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs as three distinct categories of songs.

Explain how it sacrifices truth? Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are all contained in the book of Psalms. Just becuase the book is named "psalms" doesn't mean every form is a psalm. From past arguments, I wonder about your Biblical interpretation. You seem to define things that were written in a certain historical and cultural context from an modern and American context.

We know for certain psalms are sound, we don't know for certain that uninspired hymns are for sound.

We can know about the soundness of any song as long as the elders are fulfilling their duty in the way they lead worship and our people are thinking and using discernment as they worship. We do not have to embrace nor sing questionable songs. Who does this? We do not sing songs with shoddy theology.

This doesn't make it any more certain than pure scripture.

Uninspired hymns are what needs more light to justify.

This is your opinion. One can sing a Scripture song and not interpret the Scripture correctly and believe a lie (twisted Scripture)! It is not just about the words, or order of words - but about the content and meaning of what we sing.

What I meant by the above statement was justifying their ordination by God in worship. As for misinterpreting scripture as they sing it to God... that seems like a stretch. Were there uninspired psalms in temple worship?

So why must we have them? Why must they replace psalms?

No one I have heard is arguing to REPLACE the Psalms. This may be your problem - believing that nonEPers REPLACE the Psalms and never sing them. This is nonsense. We sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. You sing Psalms only. Fine. We just believe that we have a wider range of songs available to us to sing to God's glory. This does not detract from the Bible, but enhances the truth - just as a good sermon enhances the meaning and application of the text for us to live out and obey. Singing good solid hymns helps us better understand, apply, and obey right doctrine.

I sing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, you sing psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, and human inspired songs. Preaching is prone to error yet ordained by God, are psalms meant for teaching? Or are they meant to praise God? Wouldn't inspired songs praise God accurately? They may not be intended to replace hymns but they have unintentionally done in my Church at least, and I assume most other PCA churches. As for teaching one another with the WORD of Christ using psalms, hymns and spiritual songs to teach one another, it is certain that scriptural songs are the word of Christ, it is not certain that past hymn composers words are the word of Christ.

In fact, singing is much like preaching. We are to "adminish one another" with Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. We sing to God and EACH OTHER - giving praise to God and instructing each other in truth.

Where is this verse and where does scripture explain this?

Would you limit your pastor to preaching only Bible verses? Or is he allowed to explain the text? A good hymn is an exposition of Biblical truth.

A good hymn is not the same element as preaching. It has different regulations and a different end.

As for Spurgeon, by the way, I have a copy of a book that he published (copyright 1883) for the members of his church for family worship. It contains readings and devotions for every day with prayers and then a suggestion of hymns to sing. In the back of the book he included a compilation of "Songs for Home Worship" that were taken out of the hymnal he put together for his church to use in worship. It is not EP and in fact there is not one single "inspired" hymn in the whole list.

I'll investigate this. He didn't like instruments however for some reason...

That is all I will say on the matter.

For the whole thread in general, unity requires teach-ability and growth in grace. Be unified as best you can, "be at peace as much as depends upon you", don't go looking for the differences, and learn to listen. Put others first while standing for and speaking the truth in love. And pray for Christ to come again soon!

Phillip

Phillip I appreciate your challenging remarks. Basically you brought up a few questions that I'm going to investigate farther.

1.) Does the verse that claims "Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs" mean songs outside of scriptural inspiration?
2.) Are psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs intended for God primarily or for God and the Christian primarily
3.) Is misinterpreting a psalm the same as singing an uninspired song? (This seems like a stretch yet worth investigating.)

Again thank you for your challenging statements, however they don't convince me that uninspired hymns as certain nor worthy. At least not as of now. I do wonder about your hermeneutics however...

 

[wsw201]

Getting back to the topic, EP and using or not using instruments is not the issue regarding unity. It never has been and never will be. The number of Reformed denominations who are EP and do not use instuments are few and far between.

I think the issue of unity within the Reformed camp has to do with trust. As far as the OPC and The PCA uniting, I don't think they trust each other. Most of the mis-trust I suspect is based on perceptions. The OPC in general looks at what is going on in the PCA and sees a mess. And the PCA looks at the OPC and sees a bunch of fundementalists.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by wsw201
Getting back to the topic, EP and using or not using instruments is not the issue regarding unity. It never has been and never will be. The number of Reformed denominations who are EP and do not use instuments are few and far between.

I think the issue of unity within the Reformed camp has to do with trust. As far as the OPC and The PCA uniting, I don't think they trust each other. Most of the mis-trust I suspect is based on perceptions. The OPC in general looks at what is going on in the PCA and sees a mess. And the PCA looks at the OPC and sees a bunch of fundementalists.

How could we build that trust?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Ok you didn't answer the question though. Can I get a response to this:

then why can't we just sing psalms for the sake of unity? It satisfies both sides. We know for certain psalms are sound, we don't know for certain that uninspired hymns are for sound. Uninspired hymns are what needs more light to justify. So why must we have them?

Sorry, I had a couple thoughts in my head and forget to add this. I basically agree with Phillips response. To impose restricting the psalms upon one whom understands the element of song differently would be just as much a violation. It doesn't satisfy both sides. The non-EP looks at you and says, "what's the problem? This hymn perfectly illustrates the work of Christ on my behalf in much more detail than any psalm. We are commanded to sing forth His praise are we not?" And the testimony of church history is filled with hymns, not just psalms. Many have not survived into our hymnbooks today or have not crossed over into English, but they are still there. Hymns were not just some recent innovation by revivalists. One puritan stood up in the Westminster Assembly and stated he would sing the Gloria Patri in heaven (not a psalm but an old old hymn). The issue is not a clear cut as you would like. That is why for the sake of denominational unity, I would leave it as a matter for the congregation to peacefully decide.

I will do some more research. Did Calvin sing uninspired hymns? I looked back to the quotes and I have quotes for all of them refuting the use of instruments, not uninspired hymns, so forgive my weak assertion as it can only involve instruments.

Unless you can find the Apostles Creed in the book of Psalms, yes Calvin allowed uninspired hymns. And the Genevan liturgy included other Scripture songs outside the psalter. The Dort liturgy did as well.

I will do more research on this. I've never heard of apostolic church fathers nor reformers (until now where you claim Luther, Baxter, and Poole) supporting uninspired hymns.

Luther wrote many hymns for the German church. Baxter, Poole, and Flavel all supported the Westminster Assembly, yet if you read their expositions on "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" they differ from the majority. Flavel and Baxter both included hymns in their church liturgies. I would encourage you to study more and debate less. You are new to the Reformed faith, correct? I have been Reformed for almost 10 years now and I am still learning, even on this issue of EP. So, I would exhort you to put your new found zeal into study and humble learning with your brothers, rather than debating. Ask questions of differing points of view rather than making assertions against them.

 

[wsw201]

That's a good question Patrick. I think it comes down to being of like mind (1 Cor 1:10). An interesting point that was made by the OPC committee that worked on the issue of Creation noted that when the OPC first started virtually all the pastors came out of WTS PA and everyone new pretty much what everyone else believed about any particular issue because they all learned the same thing. Now the OPC has guys coming from a variety of seminaries and have differing views on a number of theological issues (the Standards, ecclesiology, the sacraments, take your pick). A guy coming out of Covenant Seminary will have differing views compared to someone coming out of Greenville. The Assoc Pastor from my old church use to be an OPC pastor and felt that he did not quite fit in since he did not graduate from WTS. All of this may sound silly (and it does) but unfortunately its true.

So to build trust we must take the Scriptures seriously and start acting like Christians; exhibiting the gifts of the Spirit, especially humility towards one another and being of one mind. As it says in Hosea, how can two walk together less they agree? Eph 4 give us all the answers the church needs for unity so its about time we start doing it.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Just a couple of thoughts...

1) As an EP'er, I would greatly love to see unity build upon reformation amongst different denominations in the area of worship. It ought to a major concern of all Christians how we worship God. That said, it is true that the EP portion of the Reformed Church is pretty small. Yet, there are divisions between EP denominations. Some churches are EP but use musical instruments. If EP churches can't unite then the issue of unity has to be larger than EP v. non-EP. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the original Westminster Confession without exceptions is in my view the best basis for denominational doctrinal unity amongst Reformed and Presbyterian Churches (because I believe it to be the soundest exposition of systematic Biblical teaching available anywhere in Confessional form). But I recognize that human nature being what it is unity on paper is not enough. The real reason for disunity lies in the human heart and the sinfulness of man. Pride, in particular, leads to division. Why do Presbyterian churches split? Sometimes its over doctrinal or practical controversies, sometimes its personalities. We ought to be on our knees beseeching the Lord for forgiveness for the hardness of our hearts, and desiring that the Lord's prayer in John 17 might be fulfilled. And indeed God will rebuild the walls of Zion. He has so promised and there is a Reformation to come that will make the 1500-1700s look like a small thing in comparison. Even so, may it be Lord.

2) Patrick - I'd be interested if you have any documentation on the subject to review any sources that discuss individual members of the Westminster Assembly who were non-EP. It's my belief that the Confession teaches EP, and that at least the majority of members practiced it, but as with many doctrines and practices addressed by the Confession, I'm sure it wasn't by complete consensus. So any references on this point would be greatly appreciated for my own personal study.

 

[lwadkins]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
The real reason for disunity lies in the human heart and the sinfulness of man. Pride, in particular, leads to division.

We have found it impossible to submit to our God until He made it possible, how much more difficult have we found it to submit one to another!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
2) Patrick - I'd be interested if you have any documentation on the subject to review any sources that discuss individual members of the Westminster Assembly who were non-EP. It's my belief that the Confession teaches EP, and that at least the majority of members practiced it, but as with many doctrines and practices addressed by the Confession, I'm sure it wasn't by complete consensus. So any references on this point would be greatly appreciated for my own personal study.

This is just off the top of my head at the moment. Read Horton Davie's books Worship of the American Puritans, and Worship if the English Puritans. In the second in particular he compares the Westminster liturgy to other Reformed liturgies. Also, there's an article in by Needham (?) in vol. 2 of the The Westminster Confession in the 21st Century, addressing the EP debate as well as instruments, including some non-EP puritans. Iain Murray's recent pamphlet on Exclusive Psalmody as well points out some non-EP Westminster Divines and how they applied the RPW related to song.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by wsw201
That's a good question Patrick. I think it comes down to being of like mind (1 Cor 1:10). An interesting point that was made by the OPC committee that worked on the issue of Creation noted that when the OPC first started virtually all the pastors came out of WTS PA and everyone new pretty much what everyone else believed about any particular issue because they all learned the same thing. Now the OPC has guys coming from a variety of seminaries and have differing views on a number of theological issues (the Standards, ecclesiology, the sacraments, take your pick). A guy coming out of Covenant Seminary will have differing views compared to someone coming out of Greenville. The Assoc Pastor from my old church use to be an OPC pastor and felt that he did not quite fit in since he did not graduate from WTS. All of this may sound silly (and it does) but unfortunately its true.

So to build trust we must take the Scriptures seriously and start acting like Christians; exhibiting the gifts of the Spirit, especially humility towards one another and being of one mind. As it says in Hosea, how can two walk together less they agree? Eph 4 give us all the answers the church needs for unity so its about time we start doing it.

So, if we had an emphasis seminary wide on the necessity of unity would that help?

 

[wsw201]

Couldn't hurt! But I think you would really need to have all the seminaries teaching the same thing. You would also need more scriptually educated congregations to make sure the officers remained of one mind.

Patrick, regarding the Divines and EP, I read that chapter you mentioned. He did a pretty good job of fleshing out how some of the divines viewed "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs". In fact I would recommend both volumes (though the chapter on Baptism was way off base).

 

[JohnV]

Andrew:

You wrote to Patrick,

2) Patrick - I'd be interested if you have any documentation on the subject to review any sources that discuss individual members of the Westminster Assembly who were non-EP. It's my belief that the Confession teaches EP, and that at least the majority of members practiced it, but as with many doctrines and practices addressed by the Confession, I'm sure it wasn't by complete consensus. So any references on this point would be greatly appreciated for my own personal study.

Something that I've wanted to add to the discussion, that I think is important, is the same thing I've observed about the eschatology issue, an argument from antiquity used in that area. Someone argued that for the most part, if it was not unanimous, the Westminster Assembly was overwhelmingly Postmillennial in their view. But the problem with the argument, then, was that if this was so, then it is all the more significant they refused to say specifically what their views were; and, more importantly, refused to mandate their views on it, knowing full well the limitations of their authority.

Well, that applies to EP too, it seems to me. It is indeed Biblical to mandate the singing of Psalms, but if it was so important to them to strictly impose EP, then they would have said it overtly, and in a manner of importance too. And the more they were convinced of it, and practiced it, it becomes even more significant that it is not overtly mandated in the manner of importance that matters of such weight ought to be stated in a Confession. So in a way, the argument from antiquity in this particular case is worthy of carefull consideration, I would say.

But you know what? I would have absolutely no trouble being in the same church as you, singing the same songs as you, hearing the same Word preached as you, or praying under the same pastor as you. This is not really what is separating our denominations, if you ask me.


I can't sit in the OPC anymore, but that is because of particulars here at home. I would have trouble with the OPC if the OPC didn't do anything about it. But, would that include, then, the URC and the CanRC, which have a close relationship with the OPC, with each other, and are both represented in our area? You see, what I am saying is that at some point I have to leave these things alone and let God deal with it, because I can't hold the sins of one bunch of elders over the head of all the others. And what responsibility do the congregations play in this? They can't make my problems their business to the nth degree. We'd never get any real progress that way. God is going to have to deal with some of these matters on His own time. We have to look past even such major grievances for the sake of the unity of the body. I just have to be satisfied that I did all I could according to my vows, and leave it at that. (This has been my heavy personal struggle now for three weeks, making my appeal ready, and knowing what has to be ahead. )


I'm worshipping at a local CanRC in the meantime, and will likely seek transfer when this all blows over. But I don't like the fact that, in a manner of speaking, they've robbed me of my joy of singing with their difficult Genevan tunes. Even they can't seem to sing joyously, unless its one of their better known hymns at the back of the book, and played in a more conventional manner. Then you should hear some of those beautiful male voices they have in the congregation. Wow! I don't like their EP, (which is really Exclusive Genevan music, not EP) but I've learned that there are much more important things to consider. I may not be singing the hymns I miss singing, but I don't have someone else's conscience rammed down my throat, or have the elders think I'm full the the devil just because I don't like having someone's conscience rammed down my throat. I'm not publicly berated in front of my family for not being Presuppositional, Postmillennial, or Theonomist, or for thinking there's something wrong with being berated from the pulpit for not being of these persuasions. EP is a relatively minor issue, and not a matter of breaking fellowship over from a non-EP position.

So I understand that for EP-ers, it can be an issue of importance. From a non-EP position, it of course can't be, quite logically. For them it is more a matter of the RPW. So even though the minority may be EP, yet for the sake of unity it would bear the more weight for them, and we non-EP-ers would have to acknowledge that. So the real problem is not EP itself, but whether EP-ers are truly considerate of the non-EP position as a Biblical position, and vice versa, not a position of pride or arrogance. Anyways, its not the EP or non-EP position itself that would be a barrier to unity, it seems to me.

[Edited on 3-11-2005 by JohnV]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by JohnV
Andrew:

You wrote to Patrick,

2) Patrick - I'd be interested if you have any documentation on the subject to review any sources that discuss individual members of the Westminster Assembly who were non-EP. It's my belief that the Confession teaches EP, and that at least the majority of members practiced it, but as with many doctrines and practices addressed by the Confession, I'm sure it wasn't by complete consensus. So any references on this point would be greatly appreciated for my own personal study.

Something that I've wanted to add to the discussion, that I think it important, is the same thing I've observed about the eschatology issue, and argument from antiquity used in that area. Someone argued that for the most part, if it was not unanimous, the Westminster Assembly was overwhelmingly Postmillennial in their view. But the problem with the argument, then, was that if this was so, then it is all the more significant they refused to say specifically what their views were; and, more importantly, refused to mandate their views on it, knowing full well the limitations of their authority.

Well, that applies to EP too, it seems to me. It is indeed Biblical to mandate the singing of Psalms, but if it was so important to them the strictly impose EP, then they would have said it overtly, and in a manner of importance too. And the more they were convinced of it, and practiced it, it becomes even more significant that it is not overtly mandated in the manner of importance that matters of such weight ought to be stated in a Confession. So in a way, the argument from antiquity in this particular case is worthy of carefull consideration, I would say.

Actually John, they did mandate singing of psalms only. The authorized book by the Assembly for singing was a psalter not a hymnal. I only pointed out the non-EP puritans to demonstrate that they were not unanimous in the argument, but the Confession and immediate practice of the Assembly was certainly EP. Flavel and Baxter probably instituted their liturgies after the return of Charles. They were both independents too and therefore not accountable to higher church authorities for their liturgies.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
2) Patrick - I'd be interested if you have any documentation on the subject to review any sources that discuss individual members of the Westminster Assembly who were non-EP. It's my belief that the Confession teaches EP, and that at least the majority of members practiced it, but as with many doctrines and practices addressed by the Confession, I'm sure it wasn't by complete consensus. So any references on this point would be greatly appreciated for my own personal study.

This is just off the top of my head at the moment. Read Horton Davie's books Worship of the American Puritans, and Worship if the English Puritans. In the second in particular he compares the Westminster liturgy to other Reformed liturgies. Also, there's an article in by Needham (?) in vol. 2 of the The Westminster Confession in the 21st Century, addressing the EP debate as well as instruments, including some non-EP puritans. Iain Murray's recent pamphlet on Exclusive Psalmody as well points out some non-EP Westminster Divines and how they applied the RPW related to song.

Thanks, Patrick. I will look into these sources. Much obliged.

 

[JohnV]

by Patrick
Actually John, they did mandate singing of psalms only. The authorized book by the Assembly for singing was a psalter not a hymnal. I only pointed out the non-EP puritans to demonstrate that they were not unanimous in the argument, but the Confession and immediate practice of the Assembly was certainly EP. Flavel and Baxter probably instituted their liturgies after the return of Charles. They were both independents too and therefore not accountable to higher church authorities for their liturgies.

As an Assembly, these things have to be taken in place. The Three Form, so to speak, are the primary secondary standards, and are less amendable than the secondary secondary standards, such as the Form for Government, Form for Worship, etc., which are more amendable. So to say "mandate" is a subjective term here. We have to ask whether the Assembly had the authority to "mandate" this, and to what degree, as also some godly men do when they take exception to this. This has been the persuasion of the churches in history since the WA. That also has weight, as the WA decisions are a reflection of the Church's witness in history, and not just their own authority. So this far from settles the matter.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by JohnV

by Patrick
Actually John, they did mandate singing of psalms only. The authorized book by the Assembly for singing was a psalter not a hymnal. I only pointed out the non-EP puritans to demonstrate that they were not unanimous in the argument, but the Confession and immediate practice of the Assembly was certainly EP. Flavel and Baxter probably instituted their liturgies after the return of Charles. They were both independents too and therefore not accountable to higher church authorities for their liturgies.

As an Assembly, these things have to be taken in place. The Three Form, so to speak, are the primary secondary standards, and are less amendable than the secondary secondary standards, such as the Form for Government, Form for Worship, etc., which are more amendable. So to say "mandate" is a subjective term here. We have to ask whether the Assembly had the authority to "mandate" this, and to what degree, as also some godly men do when they take exception to this. This has been the persuasion of the churches in history since the WA. That also has weight, as the WA decisions are a reflection of the Church's witness in history, and not just their own authority. So this far from settles the matter.

Well, the approved psalter also had the approval of Parliament too I believe (let me know if I'm off on this Virg Hueg.)

 

[pastorway]

Notes for reference from my earlier post and questions raised:

Tim,

1. Singing is to be directed to God and ONE ANOTHER in the congregation. It functions as a tool for worship, teaching, and even confronting sin (admonishment)! Singing is not designed for worship alone.

Ephesians 5
18And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, 19speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, 20giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21submitting to one another in the fear of God.

Colossians 3
16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

2. Hermeneutics - This is not a put down, but an observation: why quetion my hermeneutics when you did not seem to realize that the very verse that uses the phrase "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" is the same verse that instructs us to use them to teach and admonish one another with them!?

It cannot be assumed that my hermeneutics are bad simply based on the fact that I reach a different conclusion than you do! The interpretation of Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs as different types of songs (not only in the Book of Psalms) is the interpretation of all nonEPers.

The Geneva Bible notes the following about defining "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" - "By 'psalms' he means all godly songs which were written upon various occassions, and by 'hymns', all such as contain the praise of God, and by 'spiritual songs', other more special and artful songs which were also in praise of God, but they were made fuller of music."

Matthew Henry states that the Psalms are just that, Psalms. Then he identifies hymns as songs of praise and spiritual songs as songs about matters other than praise (doctrine, prophecy, history, etc).

To conclude, and to show that what I am saying is not in any way new or off the wall, John MacArthur, in his commentary on Ephesians, writes the following:

How do believers sing? When they are filled with the Spirit, they are to be speaking ... in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody. Speaking comes from laleo, an onomatopoeic word that originated from chatter or babble, probably of little children first learning to talk, saying sounds such as "la, la, la." It was also used of the chirp of birds or the grunts and other noises of animals. In its most basic sense, the term simply meant to make a sound.

Trumpets (Rev. 4:1) and even peals of thunder (10:4) are said to be speaking. The psalmist called God's people to join all the earth in shouting "joyfully to God" (Ps. 66:1). Speaking here includes any sound offered to God from a Spirit-filled heart. The music from an organ or choir is no more acceptable to God than the sounds of a guitar or home-made flute. The sound that pleases Him is the sound that comes as a result of a heart submissive to His Spirit and that sings or plays to His glory.

Psalms refers primarily to the Old Testament psalms put to music, but the term was also used of vocal music of any sort, such as solos and anthems. The early church did most of its singing directly from the psaltery, using various tunes familiar to the congregation-a pattern followed for hundreds of years by many European and American churches, and still used in some congregations today. The psalms primarily speak about the nature and work of God, especially in the lives of believers. Above everything else, they magnify and glorify God.

Hymns refers primarily to songs of praise, which in the early church were probably distinguished from the psalms, which exalted God, in that they specifically praised the Lord Jesus Christ. Many biblical scholars believe that various New Testament passages (such as Col. 1:12-16) were used as hymns in the early church.

Spiritual songs were probably songs of testimony that covered a broad category that included any music expressing spiritual truth.

In the church today we could classify renditions of Psalms 23 and 84 as psalms, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" and "The Old Rugged Cross" as hymns, and "O How He Loves You and Me" and "I'd Rather Have Jesus" as spiritual songs. The intent of the writer here, however, is simply to give latitude for all kinds of musical expression to exalt the Lord.

Singing is from ado, which simply means to sing with the voice. But in the New Testament it is always used in relation to praising God (see also Col. 3:16; Rev. 5:9; 14:3; 15:3). The human voice is the most beautiful of all instruments. Its various tones, inflections, and moods seem almost limitless. Because it is itself human, it can speak to us as no other form of music. Yet the sound God is looking for in His children is the sound made out of a Spirit-filled heart-whether the voice that makes the sound is rough and unpolished or smooth and highly trained. That is why every believer is just as capable as any other believer of singing the praises that God puts in his heart.

Whether we sing alone in our home or car, sing with a few friends around the piano or with guitars, or sing in a large choir leading hundreds of people in worship, we should do it from a Spirit-filled heart that seeks no glory but God's.

Psallo (making melody) is related to the term from which we get psalm and literally means to pluck on a stringed instrument, particularly a harp, with the fingers. The word, however, came to represent the making of any instrumental music. The Spirit-filled heart expresses itself in any sort of vocal or instrumental music, in both singing and making melody.

Much music in the church today truly honors God and blesses those who hear it. And whether given as psalms about God's greatness, as hymns of Christ's redemption, or as spiritual songs of testimony of God's power, help, or comfort, such music is to be an expression of the Spirit-filled church. Whether given through the voice in singing or through instruments in making melody, that is the music that honors, glorifies, and pleases God.

Our Lord Himself will sing one day, and in our very midst. He said to His Father, "I will proclaim Thy name to My brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will sing Thy praise" (Heb. 2:12). But even now, when our hearts are filled with the Holy Spirit, Jesus sings songs of praise to the Father through us. Therefore when we quench the Spirit, we quench the song of Christ to the Father in our life.

Phillip

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by JohnV

by Patrick
Actually John, they did mandate singing of psalms only. The authorized book by the Assembly for singing was a psalter not a hymnal. I only pointed out the non-EP puritans to demonstrate that they were not unanimous in the argument, but the Confession and immediate practice of the Assembly was certainly EP. Flavel and Baxter probably instituted their liturgies after the return of Charles. They were both independents too and therefore not accountable to higher church authorities for their liturgies.

As an Assembly, these things have to be taken in place. The Three Form, so to speak, are the primary secondary standards, and are less amendable than the secondary secondary standards, such as the Form for Government, Form for Worship, etc., which are more amendable. So to say "mandate" is a subjective term here. We have to ask whether the Assembly had the authority to "mandate" this, and to what degree, as also some godly men do when they take exception to this. This has been the persuasion of the churches in history since the WA. That also has weight, as the WA decisions are a reflection of the Church's witness in history, and not just their own authority. So this far from settles the matter.

Well, the approved psalter also had the approval of Parliament too I believe (let me know if I'm off on this Virg Hueg.)

It is worth noting that prior to the completion of the Confession itself (in 1646), the Westminster Assembly produced its Form of Church Government and Directory for the Publick Worship of God (both in 1645). Reformation in both of those areas was of primary importance to the Assembly. The Directory for Publick Worship has much to say about psalm-singing but no where instructs anyone to compose or sing hymns.

As for the history of the Psalter in relation to the Assembly,

For a short period in England, presbyterian and parliamentary influence combined to allow the recommendation of a new Psalter for use in both England and Scotland. Initiated by the Westminster Assembly of 1643, it led to William Barton's The Book of Psalms in Metre (1644, 1646 and 1654), which was favoured by the House of Lords; and The Psalmes of David in English Meeter set forth by Francis Rous (1641/43), preferred by the House of Commons. The Westminster Assembly chose the latter, which was published with revisions in 1646. However, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was not satisfied with this; and a fresh Psalter was produced by a group of Scottish revisers, incorporating the work of Rous and other versions including the Psalter of 1564-5 . This led to the authorisation - in the year following the execution of Charles I and the establishment of the Commonwealth - of the 1650 version, which remained the official version for the next 280 years.

Source: http://www.dsg.freeispshares.co.uk/Enchiridion/Sbooks/scps.htm

On November 20, 1643, the Parliament sent down an order to the Westminster Assembly to take under their consideration Rous' metrical version of the Psalms, with a view to its use in public singing, instead of that hitherto employed, by Sternholds and Hopkins. The Independents were opposed to the use of any one Psalter, but the Presbyterians were in favor of such a measure, and the Scots commissioners appear to have entered warmly into the matter. Many alterations and amendments were suggested by the Assembly from time to time on the version of Rous. Baillie remarks in one place, 'The Psalter is a great part of our uniformity, which we can not let pass till our Church be well advised with it.' In another, 'The Psalms are perfyted; the best without all doubt that ever yet were extant.' Again, in urging attention to the revision on his friend Douglas: 'These lines are likely to go up to God from many millions of tongues for many generations; it were a pity but all possible diligence were used to have them framed so well as might be.' The version on which all this labor was bestowed both by the Westminster Assembly and by the Church in Scotland, is that which is still in use in Scotland, having been authorized by an act of the commission of the General Assembly, November 23, 1649, and confirmed by an order of the Committee of Estates, January 8, 1650.

-- William Hetherington, The Westminster Assembly of Divines

 

[Scott Bushey]

It cannot be assumed that my hermeneutics are bad simply based on the fact that I reach a different conclusion than you do!

This is so true. Unfortunately hermeneutics are (even) based upon presuppositions; another reason the reformed church isn't unified. Maybe this thread has the wrong unity in mind. We will possibly never be unified in that manner this side of Heaven. That which we are unified in, is what unites us. The other stuff is secondary.

I will quote David King (DTK) from another thread:

"I don't think our unity has to be defined by uniformity"

[Edited on 3-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

It cannot be assumed that my hermeneutics are bad simply based on the fact that I reach a different conclusion than you do!

This is so true. Unfortunately hermeneutics are (even) based upon presuppositions; another reason the reformed church isn't unified. Maybe this thread has the wrong unity in mind. We will possibly never be unified in that manner this side of Heaven. That which we are unified in, is what unites us. The other stuff is secondary.

I will quote David King (DTK) from another thread:

"I don't think our unity has to be defined by uniformity"

[Edited on 3-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Scott, Patrick and Andrew:

My last post above was a bit cryptic, and I'm sorry for being somewhat manipulative in it. Please accept my apologies. I was fishing, and hoping. I want to try to turn the discussion into the lines expressed by Scott above.

But I need to say this: what I said above I said in the hopes of enhancing the EP argument into what I think is the right direction. It does not do the EP positsion or my own interests any good at all for the arguments to take on an aura unbecoming to unity. And that was my point. I was just using EP as an example, and not really going into the debate itself. If I wanted to debate it I would go back to the insistance upon showing Biblical necessity. How, for example, could you overcome Phillip's points? Its not a small obstacle to the EP position. But my interest is more in how the debate is carried on, for this is the key to uniting those denominations that should, by rights, be united.

To use this example again: if the WA was predominantly, and some say unanimously, Postmillennial, then it is really important to the discussion on eschatology that they left it out of the Confession. In the same way, if EP was that important, and that universally held, then it is important that there is not a corresponding emphasis on it in the Confessions, to the degree that the EP-ers think it is important to worship. If it was grounded in the RPW it would, of necessity, make an overt statement mandatory in the Confession. In perspective, then, it is not demanded by the WA.

But what is really much more interesting to me is Girardeau's book on the topic, or more precisely, what is not in the book, if he were the Westminterian scholar he is purported to be. So its an open discussion, and not a closed one from one side. And the realization of that, of equal status from both sides, is important to carry on discussions relating to unity. I don't even take a less-than-equal approach to discussions on baptism, and I'm quite sure I know the end result of that one. Even where I am sure I am right, it is not that that drives the discussion. Rather it is that truth is right, and that in whatever form it is expressed to me, that I am ready and willing to bow to it, with all my heart. My own self is more a danger than others' views; the thing that bothers me is not whether you are right, but whether I am wrong. Either way, I can rejoice in your firm convictions.

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

I would like to point out that the discussion of this question here illustrates exactly why the
Reformed churches are not united.
we don't agree, doctrine is important, therefore there can be no visible unity without theological agreement. but we can't even agree about the ground rules for the discussion. it always degenerates into a vicious circle.
not a spiral moving inwards towards the truth....

read:
evangelical reunion by john frame

[Edited on 3-11-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]

 

[Presbyrino]

I haven't read Evangelical Reunion, but it looks like it is available via Third millennium Ministries:

http://thirdmill.org/magazine/search.asp/keyword/THchsac/category/th/site/iiim
(You'll have to scroll down about half-way to John Frame)

 

[RamistThomist]

(tongue-in-cheek)
Two words:

Reformed Catholicity

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

Originally posted by sntijerina
I haven't read Evangelical Reunion, but it looks like it is available via Third millennium Ministries:

http://thirdmill.org/magazine/search.asp/keyword/THchsac/category/th/site/iiim
(You'll have to scroll down about half-way to John Frame)

thank you very much. i read it when it first came out and had no idea it was online.
http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/FrameEvR.html
this will allow you to read it easily.....

[Edited on 3-12-2005 by rmwilliamsjr]