Why EP?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
N.B. Not all those who argue or argued for Exclusive Psalmody make hymns completely off limits for edification. So you will find differeing views on this now, and in the past. John Brown of Wamphray for instance limits his argument for the singing of the 150 Psalms to the public worship of the church. Brown was one of the leading covenanter writers during the killing times and a very early defender of EP; a translation of his writing on the subject found in his huge Latin work defending the Christian Sabbath, concludes in the 2009 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian journal (forthcoming this Fall, D.V.).
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Again, no one has been able to answer what the Israelites sang before the Psalms were written.
Sarah, I'll jump in quickly just so you don't think everyone is ignoring this question. Asking this is equivalent to asking what mode of baptism was used before John/Christ instituted baptism, or what Abraham preached from to his family before there was scripture to preach. We simply do not know what they did: it has not been revealed to us, just as we do not know when, or how God instituted sacrifices after the fall, and yet we know he did since we find Cain and Abel bringing them.

Also, I'm not sure that singing is ever found to be an element of worship before the psalms were written? I could be mistaken on this, but I can't think of any scripture where singing is prescribed in the tabernacle before David.


Where does He instruct us to sing the Psalms only?
I think this may be the wrong question: this is the same as asking "Where are we commanded not to sing anything else?" We would argue that the proper question is "Where are we commanded to sing everything/anything, over and above that which has been provided, commanded and approved?"

Do these help at all?
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Again, no one has been able to answer what the Israelites sang before the Psalms were written.
Sarah, I'll jump in quickly just so you don't think everyone is ignoring this question. Asking this is equivalent to asking what mode of baptism was used before John/Christ instituted baptism, or what Abraham preached from to his family before there was scripture to preach. We simply do not know what they did: it has not been revealed to us, just as we do not know when, or how God instituted sacrifices after the fall, and yet we know he did since we find Cain and Abel bringing them.

Also, I'm not sure that singing is ever found to be an element of worship before the psalms were written? I could be mistaken on this, but I can't think of any scripture where singing is prescribed in the tabernacle before David.


Where does He instruct us to sing the Psalms only?
I think this may be the wrong question: this is the same as asking "Where are we commanded not to sing anything else?" We would argue that the proper question is "Where are we commanded to sing everything/anything, over and above that which has been provided, commanded and approved?"

Do these help at all?
Thank you for answering, but I'm afraid that I am not making myself clear because your answers don't help me.

I understand that we don't know what the Israelites sang before the Psalms were written and I don't even have to know at this point. But what we do know is that they didn't sing the Psalms. This would be a clear indication to me that God has not commanded the singing of the Psalms as the only way to worship Him.

The fact that Scripture is silent on "singing is ever found to be an element of worship before the psalms were written?" can be equivalent to "Asking this is equivalent to asking what mode of baptism was used before John/Christ instituted baptism, or what Abraham preached from to his family before there was scripture to preach. We simply do not know what they did: it has not been revealed to us," so just because we are not told that they sang doesn't mean they didn't.
 
Last edited:

uberkermit

Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you for answering, but I'm afraid that I am making myself clear because your answers don't help me.

I understand that we don't know what the Israelites sang before the Psalms were written and I don't even have to know at this point. But what we do know is that they didn't sing the Psalms. This would be a clear indication to me that God has not commanded the singing of the Psalms as the only way to worship Him.

The fact that Scripture is silent on "singing is ever found to be an element of worship before the psalms were written?" can be equivalent to "Asking this is equivalent to asking what mode of baptism was used before John/Christ instituted baptism, or what Abraham preached from to his family before there was scripture to preach. We simply do not know what they did: it has not been revealed to us," so just because we are not told that they sang doesn't mean they didn't.
Why worry about these things? Is it not good enough for you that our Lord Jesus himself sung Psalms, as well as the Apostles? Furthermore, since we have the command of the Apostle Paul what we are to do *now*, why worry about what the practice was before the Psalter was completed?
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Sarah,

I believe you are still misunderstanding our argument.

1. Elements don't have to be universal with respect to time. Baptism and the Supper are elements of worship, but these were not done in every age; also, the reading of scripture is an element of worship, but again, this could not have been done in every age. Just because the Psalms were not always sung does not mean that they therefore cannot be an element of worship, and the only songs by which we are to worship him in stated worship now.

2. This is a question to help me understand what you're arguing: can you please show me where it is in scripture it is that you're referring to where singing is commanded as an element of worship before the Psalms were composed? This shows my ignorance that I can't think of what you're referring to. I'm not asking about occasional instances of singing, such as when Moses led the congregation by the sea, etc., but about singing as a prescribed, normative element of formal worship.

Hopefully these will help us clarify ourselves to each other.
 
Last edited:

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
The Psalms were written over at least a 400 year period. Psalm 90 is attributed to Moses, probably around 1400 BC. Many others are attributed to David, around 965 to 1000 BC.

I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion here but thought it interesting to note that the Psalms, in their fullness, were written over many, many generations of God's people.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Thank you for answering, but I'm afraid that I am making myself clear because your answers don't help me.

I understand that we don't know what the Israelites sang before the Psalms were written and I don't even have to know at this point. But what we do know is that they didn't sing the Psalms. This would be a clear indication to me that God has not commanded the singing of the Psalms as the only way to worship Him.

The fact that Scripture is silent on "singing is ever found to be an element of worship before the psalms were written?" can be equivalent to "Asking this is equivalent to asking what mode of baptism was used before John/Christ instituted baptism, or what Abraham preached from to his family before there was scripture to preach. We simply do not know what they did: it has not been revealed to us," so just because we are not told that they sang doesn't mean they didn't.
Why worry about these things? Is it not good enough for you that our Lord Jesus himself sung Psalms, as well as the Apostles? Furthermore, since we have the command of the Apostle Paul what we are to do *now*, why worry about what the practice was before the Psalter was completed?
If singing the Psalms is an element, then I don't believe this would change from one generation to the next. We look to the Ten to show us how to worship God, we look to Aaron's sons as an example of God's wrath when we don't do it correctly. Why wouldn't I look here to see what they sang? Here are some verses showing what they did sing before God:

Ex 15, Num 21, Judges 5, 2 Chronicles 29 states they sang the Psalms but that they also used many different instruments which is against the EP right or am I wrong about that?, Ezra 3 they sang with instruments as David commanded but they didn't sing a Psalm. Also, I know that Jesus sang with His disciples but I cannot find where....do you know the verse?
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Sarah,

I believe you are still misunderstanding our argument.

1. Elements don't have to be universal with respect to time. Baptism and the Supper are elements of worship, but these were not done in every age; also, the reading of scripture is an element of worship, but again, this could not have been done in every age. Just because the Psalms were not always sung does not mean that they therefore cannot be an element of worship, and the only songs by which we are to worship him in stated worship now.

2. This is a question to help me understand what you're arguing: can you please show me where it is in scripture it is that you're referring to where singing is commanded as an element of worship before the Psalms were composed? This shows my ignorance that I can't think of what you're referring to. I'm not asking about occasional instances of singing, such as when Moses led the congregation by the sea, etc., but about singing as a prescribed, normative element of formal worship.

Hopefully these will help us clarify ourselves to each other.
I think you have a valid point in respect to baptism and the Supper. Elements can be changed and I agree with that I guess.

I listed some verses where it was commanded that people sing songs of worship to God. Can I prove they were elements? I don't know. Can you prove the Psalms are elements?

-----Added 4/7/2009 at 11:06:50 EST-----

If singing the Psalms is an element, then I don't believe this would change from one generation to the next. We look to the Ten to show us how to worship God, we look to Aaron's sons as an example of God's wrath when we don't do it correctly. Why wouldn't I look here to see what they sang? Here are some verses showing what they did sing before God:

Ex 15, Num 21, Judges 5, 2 Chronicles 29 states they sang the Psalms but that they also used many different instruments which is against the EP right or am I wrong about that?, Ezra 3 they sang with instruments as David commanded but they didn't sing a Psalm. Also, I know that Jesus sang with His disciples but I cannot find where....do you know the verse?
First, Sarah, let's see what you're trying to ascertain.

Are you wanting to ascertain if it's permissible to sing non-canonical hymns, or are you trying to ascertain if one may sing, in addition to the Psalms, other canonical songs?
I guess I'm trying to ascertain if one may sing, in addition to the Psalms, other canonical songs.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
The RP applies to all worship, not just corporate worship. EPers believe that nothing but the 150 inspired psalms of scripture are to be sung in worship whether in family or private worship.
Chris has already responded to this historically (i.e., this is not the opinion of every EPer), but I will add to it anecdotally. I have known of at least one EPer (RPCNA), who will not even sing psalms when they are set to music, who will sing hymns (including Christmas carols!) if they are not being sung in a corporate/congregational worship setting. So there are different opinions on this matter, even among EPers (but perhaps it would still apply to family and private worship settings, but not other types of religious gatherings).

And I would add that the nation of Israel had at least one psalm available to them prior to the completion of the 150 (Psalm 90). Maybe they sung that exclusively. :D
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Taken from Brian Schwertley's book Exclusive Psalmody
Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16

Two passages which are crucial to the exclusive Psalmody debate are Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. These passages are important because they are used as proof texts by both exclusive Psalm singers and those who use uninspired hymns in worship. Paul writes,

And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:18-19).

Let 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. (Colossians 3:16).

Before we consider the question of how these passages relate to public worship, we first will consider the question “what does Paul mean by psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?” This question is very important, for many advocates of uninspired hymnody (who claim to adhere to the regulative principle) point to this passage as proof that uninspired hymns are permitted in public worship by God. When examining passages such as Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, one should not make the common mistake of importing our modern meaning or usage of a word, such as hymn, into what Paul wrote over nineteen hundred years ago. When a person hears the word hymn today, he immediately thinks of the extra-biblical non-inspired hymns found in the pews of most churches. The only way to really determine what Paul meant by “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” is to determine how these terms were used by Greek-speaking Christians in the first century.

When interpreting religious terminology used by Paul in his epistles, there are certain rules of interpretation which should be followed. First, the religious thinking and world view of the apostles was essentially from the Old Testament and Jesus Christ, not Greek heathenism. Therefore, when Paul discusses doctrine or worship, the first place to look for help in understanding religious terms is the Old Testament. We often find Hebrew expressions or terms expressed in koine Greek. Second, we must keep in mind that the churches that Paul founded in Asia consisted of converted Jews, Gentile proselytes to Old Testament Judaism (God-fearers), and Gentile pagans. These churches had a Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. When Paul expressed Old Testament ideas to a Greek-speaking audience, he would use the religious terminology of the Septuagint. If the terms hymns (humnois) and spiritual songs (odais pheumatikais) were defined within the New Testament, then looking to the Septuagint for the meaning of these words would be unnecessary. Given the fact, however, that these terms are rarely used in the New Testament and cannot be defined within their immediate context apart from a knowledge of the Old Testament, it would be exegetically irresponsible to ignore how these words are used in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

When we examine the Septuagint, we find that the terms psalm (psalmos), hymn (humnos), and song (odee) used by Paul clearly refer to the Old Testament book of Psalms and not to ancient or modern uninspired hymns or songs.

Bushell writes:

Psalmos occurs some 87 times in the Septuagint, some 78 of which are in the Psalms themselves, and 67 times in the psalm titles. It also forms the title to the Greek version of the psalter. Humnos occurs some 17 times in the Septuagint, 13 of which are in the Psalms, six times in the titles. In 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah there are some 16 examples in which the Psalms are called ‘hymns’ (humnoi) or ‘songs’ (odai) and the singing of them is called ‘hymning’ (humneo, humnodeo, humnesis). Odee occurs some 80 times in the Septuagint, 45 of which are in the Psalms, 36 in the Psalm titles.

In twelve Psalm titles we find both psalm and song; and, in two others we find psalm and hymn. “Psalm seventy-six is designated ‘psalm, hymn and song.’ And at the end of the first seventy two psalms we read ‘the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended’ (Ps. 72:20). In other words, there is no more reason to think that the Apostle referred to psalms when he said ‘psalms,’ than when he said ‘hymns’ and ‘songs,’ for all three were biblical terms for (the) psalms in the book of psalms itself.” To ignore how Paul’s audience would have understood these terms and how these terms are defined by the Bible; and then instead to import non-biblical modern meanings into these terms is exegetical malpractice.

One of the most common objections against the idea that in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 Paul is speaking of the book of Psalms is that it would be absurd for apostle to say, “sing psalms, psalms, and psalms.” This objection fails to consider the fact that a common literary method among the ancient Jews was to use a triadic form of expression to express an idea, act, or object. The Bible contains many examples of triadic expression. For example: Exodus 34:7—“iniquity and transgression and sin”; Deuteronomy 5:31 and 6:1—“commandments and statutes and judgments”; Matthew 22:37—“with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (cf. Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27); Acts 2:22—“miracles and wonders and signs”; Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16—“psalms and hymns and spiritual song.” “The triadic distinction used by Paul would be readily understood by those familiar with their Hebrew OT Psalter or the Greek Septuagint, where the Psalm titles are differentiated psalms, hymns, and songs. This interpretation does justice to the analogy of Scripture, i.e., Scripture is its own best interpreter.”

The interpretation that says that “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” refers to the inspired book of Psalms also receives biblical support from the immediate context and grammar of these passages. In Colossians 3:16 we are exhorted: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” In this passage the word of Christ is very likely synonymous with the word of God.

In 1 Pet. 1:11 it is stated that ‘the spirit of Christ’ was in the Old Testament prophets and through them testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow. If, as is definitely stated, the Spirit of Christ testified these things through the prophets, then Christ was the real Author of those Scriptures. Prominent among those prophecies, which so testified concerning Christ, is the Book of Psalms, and therefore Christ is the Author of the Psalms.

After Paul exhorts the Colossian church to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly, he immediately points them to the book of Psalms; a book which comprehends “most beautifully and briefly everything that is in the entire Bible;” a book far superior to any human devotional book, which Calvin called “an anatomy of all parts of the soul;” a book which is “a compendium of all divinity.” Do we let the Scriptures, the word of Christ dwell within us when we sing uninspired human compositions in worship? No, we do not! If we are to sing and meditate upon the word of Christ, we must sing the songs that Christ has written by His Spirit—the book of Psalms.

The grammar also supports the contention that Paul was speaking of the book of Psalms. In our English Bibles the adjective spiritual only applies to the word songs (“spiritual songs”). In the Greek language, however, when an adjective immediately follows two or more nouns, it applies to all the preceding nouns.

John Murray writes,

Why does the word pneumatikos [spiritual] qualify odais and not psalmois and hymnois? A reasonable answer to this question is that pneumatikais qualifies all three datives and that its gender (fem.) is due to attraction to the gender of the noun that is closest to it. Another distinct possibility, made particularly plausible by the omission of the copulative in Colossians 3:16, is that ‘Spiritual songs’ are the genus of which ‘psalms’ and ‘hymns’ are the species. This is the view of Meyer, for example. 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.

If one wants to argue that spiritual does not apply to psalms and hymns, then one must answer two pertinent questions. First, why would Paul insist on divine inspiration for songs, yet permit uninspired hymns? We can safely assume that Paul was not irrational. Second, given the fact that psalms refers to divinely inspired songs, it would be unscriptural not to apply spiritual to that term. Furthermore, since we have already established that the phrase “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” refers to the divinely inspired book of Psalms, it is only natural to apply spiritual to all three terms. Since the book of Psalms is composed of divinely inspired (or spiritual) psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, we obey God only when we praise Him using the biblical Psalter. Uninspired hymns do not meet the scriptural criteria for authorized praise.

Another question that needs to be considered regarding these passages is: “Do these passages refer to formal public worship services or to informal Christian gatherings?” Since Paul is discussing the mutual edification of believers by singing inspired songs in private worship situations, it would be inconsistent on his part to allow uninspired songs in the more formal public worship settings. “What is proper or improper to be sung in one instance must be seen as proper or improper to be sung in the other. Worship is still worship, whatever its circumstances and regardless of the number of people involved. ” “If psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are the limits of the material of songs in praise of God in less formal acts of worship, how much more are they the limits in more formal acts of worship?”
I finally read this, PresReformed. It is very good and if no one can show faults with it I would be inclined to be a EP'er....I'm easily swayed?...I don't know. I would have to read non-EP'ers' objections to make my final decision. Also, even if I agreed with EP, I still have to submit to my pastor and sing what he instructs the congregation to sing.
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Also, even if I agreed with EP, I still have to submit to my pastor and sing what he instructs the congregation to sing.
Okay, let's assume that EP is correct/biblical. Then, by implication, the singing of anything else, is not correct/biblical. So, you think you should submit to a Pastor even if what he's commanding is not correct/biblical? I suppose, then, you'd have no problem if he commanded you to observe the "church calendar"?
I really don't know, Joshua. God has given me my pastor to be my covering. If he is wrong about hymns, he does it out of ignorance just like others do baptism incorrectly out of ignorance. Where should I go to worship? It took me forever to find my church which I love dearly. Should I not submit to my pastor? That seems wrong to me.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
This would probably be a very good separate thread.
Also, even if I agreed with EP, I still have to submit to my pastor and sing what he instructs the congregation to sing.
Okay, let's assume that EP is correct/biblical. Then, by implication, the singing of anything else, is not correct/biblical. So, you think you should submit to a Pastor even if what he's commanding is not correct/biblical? I suppose, then, you'd have no problem if he commanded you to observe the "church calendar"?
I really don't know, Joshua. God has given me my pastor to be my covering. If he is wrong about hymns, he does it out of ignorance just like others do baptism incorrectly out of ignorance. Where should I go to worship? It took me forever to find my church which I love dearly. Should I not submit to my pastor? That seems wrong to me.
 

Ex Nihilo

Puritan Board Senior
Also, even if I agreed with EP, I still have to submit to my pastor and sing what he instructs the congregation to sing.
Okay, let's assume that EP is correct/biblical. Then, by implication, the singing of anything else, is not correct/biblical. So, you think you should submit to a Pastor even if what he's commanding is not correct/biblical? I suppose, then, you'd have no problem if he commanded you to observe the "church calendar"?
I've thought about this, too. I'm currently a non-EPer in an EP congregation, but I'm not firmly convinced of either position. I would say that I'm divided something like 25% and 75% between EP and non-EP. If the balance should shift (as it plausibly may, after more time in an EP congregation) to something like 60% EP and 40% non-EP, could I still in good conscience submit to the judgment of a non-EP session at another church and sing hymns? I think I could, as long as I still thought both positions were biblically plausible. But at some point -- if, for example, I was 90% convinced of EP -- I would have to refrain from singing hymns. All that to say: I think it's a sliding scale.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
If singing the Psalms is an element, then I don't believe this would change from one generation to the next. We look to the Ten to show us how to worship God, we look to Aaron's sons as an example of God's wrath when we don't do it correctly. Why wouldn't I look here to see what they sang? Here are some verses showing what they did sing before God:

Ex 15, Num 21, Judges 5, 2 Chronicles 29 states they sang the Psalms but that they also used many different instruments which is against the EP right or am I wrong about that?, Ezra 3 they sang with instruments as David commanded but they didn't sing a Psalm. Also, I know that Jesus sang with His disciples but I cannot find where....do you know the verse?
Sarah consider that what was preached changed, the word of God was only the OT before the NT was written so doesn't it make sense that God grew His church with ONGOING revelation?

It was not all given at once so eventually as the psalms were added they became what God had the people sing. So by the time of Christ the only things sung in the synagogue were psalms

the second is a separate issue of instruments in worship and simply that is they were a part of the ceremonial temple practice, possibly uses in civil ceremony as well, but never a part of synagogue worship which is what remained.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
Until I came to the PB, I had only heard of this once or twice and thought it a very strange practice. Not that it is...I only thought it strange because I had never witness anyone in the reformed churches practicing it. To be honest, I thought it was practiced by legalistic Christians which had to be small in numbers. Ignorance is always frightening so bear with me.
Given the known impact of a perceived group concensus on an individual person's beliefs and values, I think it is important to remember that EPers ARE a small group... its just that many of them are here.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
Given the known impact of a perceived group concensus on an individual person's beliefs and values, I think it is important to remember that EPers ARE a small group... its just that many of them are here.
I think it is important to note it was the only view of the church until recent liberal years of a weak gospel or false gospel and seeker friendly appeals to the emotions of man to make an Arminian decision for Jesus

Seems interesting to me hymns became a part of worship as the false gospel began to take over to cloud the truth

But this is a lot the chew on so stick with one concept and wrestle with it until you have clarity then take on another like instruments.

But again it is the same principle, we continue with the practice of the worship at the time of Christ unless He reproved it and changed it.
If it was wrong He or the apostles would have said, but they went and worshiped in the synagogues.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
I think it is important to note it was the only view of the church until recent liberal years of a weak gospel or false gospel and seeker friendly appeals to the emotions of man to make an Arminian decision for Jesus

Seems interesting to me hymns became a part of worship as the false gospel began to take over to cloud the truth...
Go tell that to Luther.

The truth is that the EP position was an historical anomaly. Christian hymns have been sung all along... we even have "hymn books" from the 2nd century.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
Seems interesting to me hymns became a part of worship as the false gospel began to take over to cloud the truth
This would include Ein' Feste Burg?
many hymn writers were exclusive psalmists.

They would never have their poetry put to music #! others would not have had it sung in worship

remember hymns were originally often just poetry not a hymn
some one else set it or adjusted it to music
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Given the known impact of a perceived group concensus on an individual person's beliefs and values, I think it is important to remember that EPers ARE a small group... its just that many of them are here.
I think it is important to note it was the only view of the church until recent liberal years of a weak gospel or false gospel and seeker friendly appeals to the emotions of man to make an Arminian decision for Jesus

Seems interesting to me hymns became a part of worship as the false gospel began to take over to cloud the truth

But this is a lot the chew on so stick with one concept and wrestle with it until you have clarity then take on another like instruments.

But again it is the same principle, we continue with the practice of the worship at the time of Christ unless He reproved it and changed it.
If it was wrong He or the apostles would have said, but they went and worshiped in the synagogues.
Don, this is an example of coincidence being taken for causality. And it is also patently untrue of many Reformed churches today, which preach the true Gospel and yet do not limit themselves to Psalms. Be careful what you say about the Reformed churches that do not practice exclusive Psalmody.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
Don, this is an example of coincidence being taken for causality. And it is also patently untrue of many Reformed churches today, which preach the true Gospel and yet do not limit themselves to Psalms. Be careful what you say about the Reformed churches that do not practice exclusive Psalmody.
I said nothing about them. Don't jump to conclusions or take offense. Esp where none is given.

I simply said it is interesting to note when this change shifted.

So please do not try to twist my words or impute things to me I did not say.

-----Added 4/7/2009 at 12:20:11 EST-----

No I do not. I'm sure if the Israelites had just set up little golden calves in their tents God would've been equally displeased as He was in their public idolatry. It is the Regulative Principle of Worship not the Regulative Principle of Public Worship.
So do you not listen to any music which isn't the Psalms or secular music?
Listening to music is not worship. All singing is not worship either, but when I lift up my voice in praise to God it is always one of the 150 inspired psalms. For instance, when I sing happy birthday to my daughter I am not engaging in worship.
It might also be useful for you to note that other people in the OT and NT sang songs that were not psalms. These I would say would certainly have some sense of worship or adoration or praise to them.
So they did not sing only psalms all the time.
They made up their own songs and these were not sin and have been canonized and recorded for us.

But they were not used in public "called" worship
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Don, this is an example of coincidence being taken for causality. And it is also patently untrue of many Reformed churches today, which preach the true Gospel and yet do not limit themselves to Psalms. Be careful what you say about the Reformed churches that do not practice exclusive Psalmody.
I said nothing about them. Don't jump to conclusions or take offense. Esp where none is given.

I simply said it is interesting to note when this change shifted.

So please do not try to twist my words or impute things to me I did not say.
First of all, I was not assuming that you were attacking. I was basically saying that you were on the edge. Secondly, why mention the connection of the Gospel going bad in direct proximity with the loss of EP if you didn't intend to suggest that they were connected causally? It would seem to me that if that was not what you intended to say, you chose one of the most unclear ways of presenting that idea that I could possibly imagine.
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
First of all, I was not assuming that you were attacking. I was basically saying that you were on the edge. Secondly, why mention the connection of the Gospel going bad in direct proximity with the loss of EP if you didn't intend to suggest that they were connected causally? It would seem to me that if that was not what you intended to say, you chose one of the most unclear ways of presenting that idea that I could possibly imagine.
Very simply.

It is a sign of the times. Much else dropped off and has lagged during that same time period. I am not implying it would be liberal to not be EP but to consider the practice was popularized by those who were Arminian and songs took on a different purpose.

The care needs to be used by those who would change from the majority position. To be sure they are not going along with the looser churches and that is not their reason. Or because they agree with the practicality of it.

In fact Almost exclusively to the man all ministers I know and have spoken to who use hymns or modern hymns or even more contemporary music have said as a main if not first reason for not using EP is that they would not be able to get people to come to church.
Not that they believe the psalms hymns Pneumatikos songs were uninspired songs used in the called public worship.

Strange that in the mind of a man schooled 3-4 years in theology and hopefully the RP, that the pragmatic would be uppermost in his mind to mention as a reason why not to do anything in worship, don't you think?

So I am not judging all in general. I was just pointing to the timing of the shift. Interesting to note what all else declined at a similar time.

Finney, to B Sunday, to B Graham to Campus Crusade gospels, and during the same time man left the EP for hymns then to modern hymns and songs that are inaccurate in doctrine to the contemporary bands and singing we see to day.
Decline of the 4th commandment, liberalism, taking over the seminary universities, to ...

Its not conclusive, but worthy of one to take notice.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
First of all, I was not assuming that you were attacking. I was basically saying that you were on the edge. Secondly, why mention the connection of the Gospel going bad in direct proximity with the loss of EP if you didn't intend to suggest that they were connected causally? It would seem to me that if that was not what you intended to say, you chose one of the most unclear ways of presenting that idea that I could possibly imagine.
Very simply.

It is a sign of the times. Much else dropped off and has lagged during that same time period. I am not implying it would be liberal to not be EP but to consider the practice was popularized by those who were Arminian and songs took on a different purpose.

The care needs to be used by those who would change from the majority position. To be sure they are not going along with the looser churches and that is not their reason. Or because they agree with the practicality of it.

In fact Almost exclusively to the man all ministers I know and have spoken to who use hymns or modern hymns or even more contemporary music have said as a main if not first reason for not using EP is that they would not be able to get people to come to church.
Not that they believe the psalms hymns Pneumatikos songs were uninspired songs used in the called public worship.

Strange that in the mind of a man schooled 3-4 years in theology and hopefully the RP, that the pragmatic would be uppermost in his mind to mention as a reason why not to do anything in worship, don't you think?

So I am not judging all in general. I was just pointing to the timing of the shift. Interesting to note what all else declined at a similar time.

Finney, to B Sunday, to B Graham to Campus Crusade gospels, and during the same time man left the EP for hymns then to modern hymns and songs that are inaccurate in doctrine to the contemporary bands and singing we see to day.
Decline of the 4th commandment, liberalism, taking over the seminary universities, to ...

Its not conclusive, but worthy of one to take notice.
Now you are adding to your coincidence fallacy a poisoned well fallacy. Some RP practitioners actually believe that non-inspired hymnody is proper to have in worship. But it doesn't matter where non-inspired hymnody came from (it was around a whole lot longer than Arminianism was, anyway, or don't you know the Lutheran tradition, the Anglican tradition, and the entire catholic tradition going back to the early church?).
 

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
Some RP practitioners actually believe that non-inspired hymnody is proper to have in worship. But it doesn't matter where non-inspired hymnody came from (it was around a whole lot longer than Arminianism was, anyway, or don't you know the Lutheran tradition, the Anglican tradition, and the entire catholic tradition going back to the early church?).
Popular, popular. It went from puritan worship in America Westminster Confessional to Arminain becoming the more popular which is wasn't earlier.

Change. This was a change.

As for the RCC you may, I choose not to consider what they do much as an indication of the Holy spirit guiding and preserving His church.

Luther was a newby. With all due respect, I am amazed he changed as much as he did but I do not look to him for my doctrine anymore than I looked to myself when God 1st opened my eyes to the D of G. I have a whole history of hundreds of years to look back on now, why would I think Luther was the most accurate, or more so than his followers?

God blessed of sure but how much change can one man be expected to initiate? Really? I don't even own his works, much prefer Calvin.
 
Last edited:

DonP

Puritan Board Junior
:popcorn: (having lunch) What happened to the original OP? :D
I think she got enough, started a new thread asking the non EP people to argue against Brian Schwertly's post that was here and she copied there.

Now Greenbaggins and I are arguing if I think my current pastor and elders are liberals and sinners because they don't hold to EP
 

Beth Ellen Nagle

Puritan Board Senior
:popcorn: (having lunch) What happened to the original OP? :D
I think she got enough, started a new thread asking the non EP people to argue against Brian Schwertly's post that was here and she copied there.

Now Greenbaggins and I are arguing if I think my current pastor and elders are liberals and sinners because they don't hold to EP

I don't think she had enough. She is probably rowing on Lakes Of Canada. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top