A United True Kirk

More Talk on Instruments

2008-02-09T03:00:00.000Z

Over at Backwoods Presbyterian they are discussing the use/non-use of Instruments. Take a Gander.

Charles Hodge on Creation

2008-02-05T04:14:00.001Z

§ 6. The Mosaic Account of the Creation.

There are three methods of interpreting this portion of the Bible. (1.) The historical. (2.) The allegorical. (3.) The mythical. The first assumes it to be a veritable history. The second has two forms. Many of the Fathers who allegorized the whole of the Old Testament without denying its historical verity, allegorized in like manner the history of the creation. That is, they sought for a hidden moral or spiritual sense under all historical facts. Others regarded it as purely an allegory without any historical basis, any more than the parables of our Lord. The mythical theory, as the name imports, regards the record of the creation as a mere fable, or fabulous cosmogony, designed to express a theory as to the origin of the universe, of man, and of evil, of no more value than the similar cosmogonies which are found in the early literature of all nations. In favour of the historical character of the record are the following considerations, (1.) It purports to be a veritable history. (2.) It is the appropriate and necessary introduction or an acknowledged history. (3.) It is referred to and quoted in other parts of the Bible as the true account of the creation of the world; especially in the fourth commandment, where, as well as in other parts of Scripture, it is made the foundation of the institution of the Sabbath. (4.) The facts here recorded, including as they do the creation and probation of man, lie at the foundation 569of the whole revealed plan of redemption. The whole Bible, therefore, rests upon the record here given of the work of creation, and consequently all the evidence which goes to support the divine authority of the Bible, tends to sustain the historical verity of that record.

Objections to the Mosaic Account of the Creation.

The principal objections to the Mosaic account of the creation are either critical, astronomical, or geological. Under the first head it is objected that the account is inconsistent with itself, especially in what is said of the creation of man; and that it is evidently composed of independent documents, in one of which God is called אֱלֹהִים, and in the other יְהוָה. The former of these objections is answered by showing that the two accounts of the creation are not inconsistent; the one is a concise statement of the fact, the other a fuller account of the manner of its occurrence. As to the second objection, it is enough to say that, admitting the fact on which it is founded, it creates no difficulty in the way of acknowledging the historical character of the record. It is of no importance to us whence Moses derived his information, whether from one or more historical documents, from tradition, or from direct revelation. We receive the account on his authority and on the authority of the Book of which it is a recognized and authentic portion.

The astronomical objections are, (1.) That the whole account evidently assumes that our earth is the centre of the universe, and that the sun, moon, and stars are its satellites. (2.) That light is said to have been created and the alternation between day and night established before the creation of the sun; and (3.) That the visible heavens are represented as a solid expanse. The first of these objections bears with as much force against all the representations of the Bible and the language of common life. Men instinctively form their language according to apparent, and not absolute or scientific truth. They speak of the sun as rising and setting; of its running its course through the heavens, although they know that this is only apparently and not really true. The language of the Bible on this, as well as on all other subjects, is framed in accordance with the common usage of men. The second objection is founded on the assumption that the fourteenth verse speaks of the creation of the sun and other heavenly bodies. This is not its necessary meaning. The sense may be that God then appointed the sun and moon to the service of measuring and regulating times and seasons. But even if the other interpretation be adopted, there need be no conflict between the record and the 570astronomical fact that the sun is now the source of light to the world. The narrative makes a distinction between the cosmical light mentioned in the earlier part of the chapter, and the light enanating from the sun, specially designed for our globe. The third objection is met by the remark already made. If we speak of the concave heavens, why might not the Hebrews speak of the solid heavens? The word firmament applied to the visible heavens is as familiar to us as it was to them.

Geology and the Bible.

The geological objections to the Mosaic record are apparently the most serious. According to the commonly received chronology, our globe has existed only a few thousand years. According to geologists, it must have existed for countless ages. And again, according to the generally received interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, the process of creation was completed in six days, whereas geology teaches that it must have been in progress through periods of time which cannot be computed.

Admitting the facts to be as geologists would have us to believe, two methods of reconciling the Mosaic account with those facts have been adopted. First, some understand the first verse to refer to the original creation of the matter of the universe in the indefinite past, and what follows to refer to the last reorganizing change in the state of our earth to fit it for the habitation of man. Second, the word day as used throughout the chapter is understood of geological periods of indefinite duration.

In favour of this latter view it is urged that the word day is used in Scripture in many different senses; sometimes for the time the sun is above the horizon; sometimes for a period of twenty-four hours; sometimes for a year, as in Lev. xxv. 29, Judges xvii. 10, and often elsewhere; sometimes for an indefinite period, as in the phrases, “the day of your calamity,” “the day of salvation,” “the day of the Lord,” “the day of judgment.” And in this account of the creation it is used for the period of light in antithesis to night; for the separate periods in the progress of creation; and then, ch. ii. 4, for the whole period: “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.”

It is of course admitted that, taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary 571sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other. Now it is urged that if the word “day” be taken in the sense of “an indefinite period of time,” a sense which it undoubtedly has in other parts of Scripture, there is not only no discrepancy between the Mosaic account of the creation and the assumed facts of geology, but there is a most marvellous coincidence between them.

The cosmogony of modern science teaches that the universe, “the heaven and the earth,” was first in a chaotic or gaseous state. The process of its development included the following steps: (1.) “Activity begun, — light an immediate result. (2.) The earth made an independent sphere. (3.) Outlining of the land and water, determining the earth’s general configuration. (4.) The idea of life in the lowest plants, and afterwards, if not contemporaneously, in the lowest or systemless animals, or Protozoans. (5.) The energizing light of the sun shining on the earth — an essential preliminary to the display of the systems of life. (6.) lntroduction of the systems of life. (7.) Introduction of mammals — the highest order of the vertebrates, — the class afterwards to be dignified by including a being of moral and intellectual nature. (8.) Introduction of man.”⁵²⁸⁵²⁸Manual of Geology. By James D. Dana, M. A., LL. D., Silliman Professor of Geology and Natural History in Yale College, p. 743.

Professor Dana further says, “The order of events in the Scripture cosmogony corresponds essentially with that which has been given. There was first a void and formless earth: this was literally true of the ‘heavens and the earth, if they were in the condition of a gaseous fluid. The succession is as follows: —

“1. Light.

“2. The dividing of the waters below from the waters above the earth (the word translated waters may mean fluid).

“3. The dividing of the land and water on the earth.

“4. Vegetation; which Moses, appreciating the philosophical characteristic of the new creation distinguishing it from previous inorganic substances, defines as that ‘which had seed in itself.’

“5. The sun, moon, and stars.

“6. The lower animals, those that swarm in the waters, and the creeping and flying species of the land.

“7. Beasts of prey (‘creeping’ here meaning prowling).

“8. Man.

572

“In this succession, we observe not merely an order of events, like that deduced from science; there is a system in the arrangement, and a far-reaching prophecy, to which philosophy could not nave attained, however instructed.

“The account recognizes in creation two great eras of three days each, — an Inorganic and an Organic. Each of these eras open with the appearance of light; the first, light cosmical; the second, light from the sun for the special uses of the earth.

“Each era ends in ‘a day’ of two great works — the two shown to be distinct by being severally pronounced ‘good.’ On the third day, that closing the Inorganic Era, there was first the dividing of the land from the waters, and afterwards the creation of vegetation, or the institution of a kingdom of life — a work widely diverse fromn all that preceded it in the era. So on the sixth day, terminating the Organic Era, there was first the creation of mammals, and then a second far greater work, totally new in its grandest element, the creation of Man.

“The arrangement is, then, as follows: —

“I. The Inorganic Era.

“1st Day. — Light cosmical.

“2d Day. — The earth divided from the fluid around it, or indvidualized.

“3d Day. —	{	“1. Outlining of the land and water.
		2. Creation of vegetation.

“II. The Organic Era.

“4th Day. — Light from the sun.

“5th Day. — Creation of the lower order of animals.

“6th Day. —	{	1. Creation of mammals.
		2. Creation of man.”

“The record in the Bible,” adds Professor Dana,⁵²⁹⁵²⁹Page 745. “is therefore profoundly philosophical in the scheme of creation which it presents. It is both true and divine. It is a declaration of authorship, both of creation and the Bible, on the first page of the sacred volume.”⁵³⁰⁵³⁰Page 746. To the same effect he elsewhere says: “The first thought that strikes the scientific reader [of the Mosaic account of the creation] is the evidence of divinity, not merely in the first verse of the record, and the successive fiats, but in the whole order of creation. 573There is so much that the most recent readings of science have for the first time explained, that the idea of man as the author becomes utterly incomprehensible. By proving the record true, science pronounces it divine; for who could have correctly narrated the secrets of eternity but God himself?”⁵³¹⁵³¹Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1856, p. 110.

The views given in his “Manual of Geology” are more fully elaborated by Professor Dana in two admirable articles in the “Bibliotheca Sacra” (January and July, 1856). He says, in the former of those articles, “The best views we have met with on the harmony between science and the Bible, are those of Professor Arnold Guyot, a philosopher of enlarged comprehension of nature and a truly Christian spirit; and the following interpretations of the sacred record are, in the main, such as we have gathered from personal intercourse with him.”⁵³²⁵³²The views of Professor Guyot are presented at some length by the Rev. J.O. Means, in the numbers of the Bibliotheca Sacra for January and April, 1855.

Professor Dana of Yale and Professor Guyot of Princeton, belong to the first rank of scientific naturalists; and the friends of the Bible owe them a debt of gratitude for their able vindication of the sacred record.

As the Bible is of God, it is certain that there can be no conflict between the teachings of the Scriptures and the facts of science. It is not with Facts, but with theories, believers have to contend. Many such theories have, from time to time, been presented, apparently or really inconsistent with the Bible. But these theories have either proved to be false, or to harmonize with the Word of God, properly interpreted. The Church has been forced more than once to alter her interpretation of the Bible to accommodate the discoveries of science. But this has been done without doing any violence to the Scriptures or in any degree impairing their authority. Such change, however, cannot be effected without a struggle. It is impossible that our mode of understanding the Bible should not be determined by our views of the subjects of which it treats. So long as men believed that the earth was the centre of our system, the sun its satellite, and the stars its ornamentation, they of necessity understood the Bible in accordance with that hypothesis. But when it was discovered that the earth was only one of the smaller satellites of the sun, and that the stars were worlds, then faith, although at first staggered, soon grew strong enough to take it all in, and rejoice to find that the Bible, and the Bible alone of all ancient books, was in full accord with these stupendous revelations 574of science. And so if it should be proved that the creation was a process continued through countless ages, and that the Bible alone of all the books of antiquity recognized that fact, then, as Professor Dana says, the idea of its being of human origin would become “utterly incomprehensible.”

Return to Theological Formulations

2008-01-25T04:13:00.000Z

I want to get away from the Continental/Westminster divide for a second and refocus us on a vital theological question. This having to do with the question of Creation. Now I know many Presbyteries and other local bodies have made declarations requiring ordinands to hold a certain position vis-a-vis Genesis 1-2. Now the question I have is should a United Kirk make a declaration that is strict on this issue (i.e.- 7/24-literal only) or be this a place for Christian Liberty? Below I have placed the OPC's declaration and the PCA's statement on the issue. What say you?

Question:

Does the OPC have a statement or decision regarding the length of the days of creation?

Answer:

The OPC, as a denomination, has no statement or decision regarding the length of the days of creation. Though General Assembly denied the appeal of a ruling elder who taught the animal ancestry of Adam (determining that such teaching was contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith), it has thus far had no judicial case with regard to the length of the days of creation, and therefore has rendered no ruling on the matter. OPC ministers and elders are divided on the issue. Those who hold to literal 24-hour days appeal to the words "in the space of" in Shorter Catechism question 9 ("The work of creation is God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good"). On the other hand, those who hold to the day-age theory or framework hypothesis argue that the biblical text is inconclusive as to the length of the days, and the phrase "in the space of" is not determinative. The OPC is a confessional church, and therefore the Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechisms must always be the standard by which to determine an officer's orthodoxy. Unless it is determined by a judicial ruling that our doctrinal standards teach a particular position, there must be latitude in this area.

The Following is the opening statement of the PCA Report on the Creation question. The rest of the report can be found here.

REPORT OF THE CREATION STUDY COMMITTEE

I. Introductory Statement

We thank our God for the blessings of the last two years. We have profited personally and together by the study of God’s Word, discussion and hard work together.

We have found a profound unity among ourselves on the issues of vital importance to our Reformed testimony. We believe that the Scriptures, and hence Genesis 1-3, are the inerrant word of God. We affirm that Genesis 1-3 is a coherent account from the hand of Moses. We believe that history, not myth, is the proper category for describing these chapters; and furthermore that their history is true. In these chapters we find the record of God’s creation of the heavens and the earth ex nihilo; of the special creation of Adam and Eve as actual human beings, the parents of all humanity (hence they are not the products of evolution from lower forms of life). We further find the account of an historical fall, that brought all humanity into an estate of sin and misery, and of God’s sure promise of a Redeemer. Because the Bible is the word of the Creator and Governor of all there is, it is right for us to find it speaking authoritatively to matters studied by historical and scientific research. We also believe that acceptance of, say, non-geocentric astronomy is consistent with full submission to Biblical authority. We recognize that a naturalistic worldview and true Christian faith are impossible to reconcile, and gladly take our stand with Biblical supernaturalism.

The Committee has been unable to come to unanimity over the nature and duration of the creation days. Nevertheless, our goal has been to enhance the unity, integrity, faithfulness and proclamation of the Church. Therefore we are presenting a unanimous report with the understanding that the members hold to different exegetical viewpoints. As to the rest we are at one. It is our hope and prayer that the Church at large can join us in a principled, Biblical recognition of both the unity and diversity we have regarding this doctrine, and that all are seeking properly to understand biblical revelation. It is our earnest desire not to see our beloved church divide over this issue.

Question 5: What are the Major Differences between the "Continentals" and the "Westminsters"?

2008-01-21T13:18:00.000Z

Polymathis said in the post below,

"However, it might be better to start out small: try to unite those within the WCF tradition or Continental first, before tackling that."

I know next to nothing about the North American "Continental" denominations. What are the Major Differences between the "Continentals" and the "Westminsters"? And how do these divisions manifest themselves?

Fourth Question: Good Faith vs. Strict Subscription of the Westminster Standards

2008-01-11T16:23:00.000Z

A fourth issue that has been brought up to discuss is how should we treat our relationship with the Westminster Confessions. Do we hold to an almost divine (pun intended) belief in the WCF and catechisms or should we treat the WCF as nothing more than a guide? The question also for our TFU friends is in a united kirk does Westminster trump the Canons of Dordt or the Belgic Confession? Do we follow some sort of new TFU or have a PC (USA) style Book of Confessions? Feel free to interject other questions that this may cause to arise.

From the website of the PCA in regards to the "Good Faith" subscription to the Westminster Confessions.

While our Constitution does not require the candidate's affirmation of every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, it is the right and responsibility of the Presbytery to determine if the candidate is out of accord with any of the fundamentals of these doctrinal standards and, as a consequence, may not be able in good faith sincerely to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures (cf. BCO 21-5, Q. 2; 24-5, Q.2).

Therefore, in examining a candidate for ordination the Presbytery shall inquire not only into the candidate's knowledge and views in the areas specified above, but also shall require the candidate to state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their statements and/or propositions. The court may grant an exception to any difference of doctrine only if in the court's judgment the candidate's declared difference is not out of accord with a fundamental of our system of doctrine because the difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion.

Selection from the RPCUS (rest can be found in Gary's post):

Strict subscription does not mean that one must adopt every wording of the Standards as the best explanation of the system of doctrine. Of course, we must be careful with any modification of words seeing that words are the vehicles that convey thought. Moreover, we must be careful not to twist the meaning of words in order to create a different sense than originally intended. This type of perversion was done by the 1972 PCUS General Assembly pertaining to the meaning of the phrase, “containing the system of doctrine.” The General Assembly said with reference to the Standards, “On the other hand, since they are said to contain the system rather than to be equated with it, allowance is made for the possibility that they may incorporate elements which neither belong to it nor are essential to it” (quoted in Morton Smith, How Is The Gold Become Dim, p. 224). The 1972 PCUS General Assembly further stated, “none of us will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those that differ from us in these extraessential and not necessary points of doctrines” (Ibid.). Even though this wording is in the 1729 Adopting Act, the meaning of the words “extra-essential” and “not necessary points of doctrine” came to be so broadly interpreted that it would embrace non-Reformed doctrine and heresy. It became the agenda of the PCUS to act as if it was committed to the Westminster standards, but functionally it abandoned its foundational tenets. By its own admission, the PCUS in its later days confessed to being a loose subscriptionist denomination.

The doctrines and wording of the Westminster Standards are clear. The RPCUS expects all of its officers to give allegiance to every doctrine of every chapter of the Confession. This doctrinal allegiance applies only to elders and deacons -- not to church members. All that is required to become a member in any church of the RPCUS is to give a credible profession of faith to the church session. In essence, there is nothing extraordinary about the RPCUS’ expectations. We simply believe in subscription to our Constitution. There are undoubtedly some of our Reformed brethren who think we are too narrow because we are presuppositional, theonomic, postmillennial, and limit congregational voting to male heads of households. The RPCUS insists that these particular distinctives are not extraneous doctrines to the Standards; rather, they are the doctrines of the Standards

Is It Right To Stay?

2008-01-05T13:50:00.000Z

Rev. Carpenter brought up in the purpose post (which may now be off the main page) a question on whether or not it was right to stay in a denomination that continues to move farther and farther away from Biblical Christianity. He quoted two sections, one from the Scots Confession and one from the WCF that I would like to re-post here in full. I would like to focus the discussion on this particular post if possible strictly to this question of connectional church membership.

Scots Confession 18.7-9

The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the Word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, with which must be associated the Word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God's Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.

Westminster Confession of Faith Ch. 25

CHAPTER XXV.

Of the Church.

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated as to become apparently no Churches of Christ. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.

Minor Off-Topic

2008-01-03T01:52:00.000Z

Have any of you seen this? I found it on Tim Baly's Blog and have ordered it. Fantastic...

http://www.monstrousregiment.com/

Civil Government

2008-01-01T16:25:00.000Z

A question has come up concerning the role of Civil authority in the nature of the Sabbath and I wanted to highlight a post made by the Rev. Brian Carpenter quoting John Calvin on the nature of the civil magistracy and its relation to the Christian person. Also I will post Westminster's view on Civil Government:

Calvin, "Institutes of the Christian Religion"

Here it is necessary to state in a brief manner the nature of the office of magistracy, as described in the word of God, and wherein it consists. If the Scripture did not teach that this office extends to both tables of the law, we might learn it from heathen writers; for not one of them has treated of the office of magistrates, of legislation, and civil government, without beginning with religion and Divine worship. And thus they have all confessed that no government can be happily constituted, unless its first object be the promotion of piety, and that all laws are preposterous which neglect the claims of God, and merely provide for the interests of men. Therefore, as religion holds the first place among all the philosophers, and as this has always been regarded by the universal consent of all nations, Christian princes and magistrates ought to be ashamed of their indolence, if they do not make it the object of their most serious care. We have already shown that this duty is particularly enjoined upon them by God; for it is reasonable that they should employ their utmost efforts in assertion and defending the honour of him, whose viceregents they are, and by whose favour they govern. And the principal commendations given in the Scripture to the good kings are for having restored the worship of God when it had been corrupted or abolished, or for having devoted their attention to religion, that it might flourish in purity and safety under their reigns. On the contrary, the sacred history represents it as one of the evils arising from anarchy, or a want of good government, that when "there was no king in Israel, every man did that which was right in his own eyes." These things evince the folly of those who would wish magistrates to neglect all thoughts of God, and to confine themselves entirely to the administration of justice among men; as though God appointed governors in his name to decide secular controversies, and disregarded that which is of far greater importance—the pure worship of himself according to the rule of his law. But a rage of universal innovation, and a desire to escape with impunity, instigate men of turbulent spirits to wish that all the avengers of violated piety were removed out of the world. . ."

Westminster Confession of Faith

CHAPTER XXIII.

Of the Civil Magistrate.

I. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions.

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

IV. It is the duty of the people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from their obedience to him: from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted; much less hath the Pope any power or jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and least of all to deprive them of their dominions or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.

My Apologies

2007-12-31T20:11:00.000Z

I forgot to let you all know that I was going to be gone all weekend. Looks like we had lots of traffic and a whole lot of messages for me to sift through.

Happy New Year!!!

Second Question For Unification

2007-12-27T13:15:00.001Z

A suggestion was made that we move on from EP to another question that may cause tension in the seeking of a unified body. The Question that we will now take a look at is the observation of the Sabbath. Now it is of my knowledge that until at least 50 years ago in the United States practically all people, religious or not, were made by civil law to abstain from doing certain things on the Sabbath. I do not know what part this has to play in this particular discussion but I thought it was worth noting. Below I have posted two articles, one pro and one con from sources that fit the mold of the direction that we want to take. AS I did with EP I will create a section in the margin where you can visit other links and denominational positions on the subject.

Here is an Article from Pulpit Magazine, John MacArthur's work, arguing against a strict Sabbatarian viewpoint.:

Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today?

We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses’ law that prefigured Christ.

Here are the reasons we hold this view:

In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is included, with the phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refering to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11).

The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:7-13), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. On the other hand, each of the other nine commandments are reiterated in the New Testament.

In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.

There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.

When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.

The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.

In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).

In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).

The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).

Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord’s Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).

So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord’s people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as “the Sabbath.”

John Calvin took a similar position. He wrote,

There were three reasons for giving this [fourth] commandment: First, with the seventh day of rest the Lord wished to give to the people of Israel an image of spiritual rest, whereby believers must cease from their own works in order to let the Lord work in them. Secondly, he wished that there be an established day in which believers might assemble in order to hear his Law and worship him. Thirdly, he willed that one day of rest be granted to servants and to those who live under the power of others so that they might have a relaxation from their labor. The latter, however, is rather an inferred than a principal reason.

As to the first reason, there is no doubt that it ceased in Christ; because he is the truth by the presence of which all images vanish. He is the reality at whose advent all shadows are abandoned. Hence St. Paul (Col. 2:17) that the sabbath has been a shadow of a reality yet to be. And he declares elsewhere its truth when in the letter to the Romans, ch. 6:8, he teaches us that we are buried with Christ in order that by his death we may die to the corruption of our flesh. And this is not done in one day, but during all the course of our life, until altogether dead in our own selves, we may be filled with the life of God. Hence, superstitious observance of days must remain far from Christians.

The two last reasons, however, must not be numbered among the shadows of old. Rather, they are equally valid for all ages. Hence, though the sabbath is abrogated, it so happens among us that we still convene on certain days in order to hear the word of God, to break the [mystic] bread of the Supper, and to offer public prayers; and, moreover, in order that some relaxation from their toil be given to servants and workingmen. As our human weakness does not allow such assemblies to meet every day, the day observed by the Jews has been taken away (as a good device for eliminating superstition) and another day has been destined to this use. This was necessary for securing and maintaining order and peace in the Church.

As the truth therefore was given to the Jews under a figure, so to us on the contrary truth is shown without shadows in order, first of all, that we meditate all our life on a perpetual sabbath from our works so that the Lord may operate in us by his spirit; secondly, in order that we observe the legitimate order of the Church for listening to the word of God, for admin-istering the sacraments, and for public prayers; thirdly, in order that we do not oppress inhumanly with work those who are subject to us. [From Instruction in Faith, Calvin’s own 1537 digest of the Institutes, sec. 8, “The Law of the Lord”].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here is a Pro-Sabbatarian message delivered by Dr. John Murray

The Fourth Commandment

According to the Westminster Standards

John Murray

A perusal of the statements of the Westminster Confession of Faith and of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms bearing upon the fourth commandment will show that the position taken in these Standards is that of the universal and perpetual obligation of the Sabbath and that this obligation rests upon divine commandment. The commandment to which reference is made is, of course, what we know as the fourth in the decalogue. These Standards, however, imply that the Sabbath law, expressed in the fourth commandment, was not first instituted when the ten commandments were promulgated to the children of Israel at Sinai. We know that the Sabbath institution goes back to creation; we know that there is explicit allusion to the observance of the Sabbath and of divine commandment bearing upon that observance prior to Sinai. Of such facts these Standards are not forgetful, and so the language is carefully framed to include and guard these facts. Nevertheless, the law that had been instituted at creation did receive at Sinai formal enunciation and promulgation. It was included in the ten words given to Moses and written with the finger of God upon the two tables of stone.

At Sinai, then, the Sabbath law was set forth with fullness and explicitness and we do not have evidence that it had before then received similarly full and formal pronouncement. So, for our knowledge of what the content and import of the Sabbath institutions are, we are largely dependent upon the fourth commandment. What is this law or institution?

The Sanctity of the Day

First, and most elementally and centrally, it is that one day in seven is distinguished from the other six. That day is to be sanctified, and at the heart of the word sanctify is the idea of distinction and separation. This one day is set off, it is placed in a distinct category. This import of the word cannot be evaded and it is to be very carefully marked, for on it depends the whole notion of what we may and must call the sanctity of the Sabbath.

It is not, however, the bare notion of distinction or separation that is expressed in the commandment. The command to sanctify occurs in a context. “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God.” And it is not only in the context of the remainder of the commandment, but also in the context of the other commandments. “Thou shall have no other gods before me.” “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.” “Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” It is separation, therefore, to God, to the specific purpose of contemplation upon Him and specific occupation with His work in contrast with their own work. In this kind of distinction or sanctity the meaning of the fourth commandment resides. Abolish it, and the essence of the commandment is destroyed. There is no purpose in contending for the moral obligation of the commandment unless this sanctity is recognized and preserved, for it is the core around which all else is formed and without which all else disintegrates. Just as there is an ineradicable distinction between the six days of creation and the day of rest by which they were followed, so it is here. And it is precisely with this reminder that the commandment itself ends, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

Israel truly was a holy people; they were separated unto God Jehovah. It might, then, be supposed that the sanctification of one day in seven was inconsistent with the totality of their devotion to God. Yet it is an inescapable fact that this kingdom of priests and holy nation was in the most direct way commanded to separate one day from the other six for a specific purpose. And unless our conception of devotion to God, and of time as it is related to Him, can embrace and appreciate this notion, together with the divine wisdom embodied in it, we can have no understanding of the fourth commandment.

Every Recurring Seventh Day

But second, the law or institution of the Sabbath implies that every recurring seventh day is to be sanctified. It is not simply a seventh of our time, not simply one day out of every seven, but it is every recurring seventh day in regular succession.

The controversy that has turned on the question as to whether or not, in the Christian dispensation, the Sabbath is the first day of the week or the seventh, and as to whether we can be said to observe the fourth commandment when we substitute the first day of the week for the seventh, has too often been allowed to obscure the central principle, namely, that every recurring seventh day was by divine ordination distinguished from every other day. The difficulty that may be encountered in determining which day of the week is the Sabbath should never be used as a subterfuge to escape from the central and straightforward import of the commandment, that every recurring seventh day is specifically holy to God. At the cost of repetitiousness, may we say, that the principle should never be perplexed or prejudices by the further question: which day in the succession of days should be accorded that distinction? We may not minimize the importance of this latter question. But we must not allow the difficulties that may attend this question to unsettle what is antecedent and even more central, the obligation, so far as the fourth commandment is concerned, to recognize the divine distinctiveness of every recurring seventh day. And it must be said that the position taken by the Westminster Standards, to wit, that with the advent of the New Testament dispensation there was signalized the change from the seventh day of the week to the first, in no way interferes with the strictest fulfillment of this principle in the Christian Lord’s Day.

The Sabbath a Perpetual Obligation?

But some will say, “All this is conceded with respect to the meaning of the fourth commandment. But of what practical concern is that to us? The fourth commandment does not obligate the Christian.” This objection we must now face.

If the fourth commandment is not binding in the Christian dispensation, then we have to take one of two positions. We have either to take the position that the fourth commandment occupies a different position from the other nine commandments in the decalogue, or to take the position that the whole decalogue has been abrogated in the Christian economy. We shall now discuss the former of these two alternatives.

If we say the fourth commandment is abrogated and the other nine are not, we must understand what we are saying. It would indeed be an amazing phenomenon that in the heart of the decalogue there should be one commandment — and one given such prominence and meticulous elaboration — that is totally different from the others in this regard that they are permanent and it is not. Surely no one will dispute that in the Old Testament the ten commandments constitute a well-rounded and compact unit. And surely no one will dispute that the Old Testament is itself throughout conscious of that fact. If the ten commandments were a loose and disjointed collection of precepts, there would be nothing very extraordinary about the supposition we are now discussing. But that is precisely what the decalogue is not. And so to establish this supposition that the fourth commandment is abrogated, when the other nine are not, would require the most explicit and conclusive evidence.

As we read the Old Testament we do not find any warrant for discrimination between the fourth and the other nine. Nor indeed do we find any intimation in the Old Testament that in the Messianic age the Sabbath law would cease. If any commandment is emphasized it is the fourth. Obedience to it is a mark of faithfulness and severe retribution follows its breach. The text we are about to quote epitomizes the Old Testament outlook and emphasis. “If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” (Isa. 58:13-14). If there had been in the Old Testament some evidence that would create a presumption in favour of discrimination, if there had been even something that would justify a strong suspicion that in the Messianic age the Sabbath law would no longer bind, then, of course, even slight confirmation from the New Testament might clinch that suspicion and warrant the inference that the fourth commandment had been abrogated. But no such suspicion is created and the evidence is altogether against such a supposition.

So nothing short of compelling and conclusive evidence from the New Testament would warrant the position that the fourth is to be discriminated from the other nine.

Abrogated in the New Testament

When we come to the New Testament, do we find such evidence? A good deal has sometimes been made of the alleged silence of the New Testament. It must be admitted that the argument from silence may be made to appear very plausible. But it will have to be said at the outset that an argument from silence is not the compelling and conclusive evidence that would in this case be required. In the Old Testament we have continuous and accumulating emphasis upon the Sabbath law that in no way suggests any distinction in the matter of morality between the fourth commandment and the other nine. Indeed, as we found, the emphasis upon the fourth mounts to a degree that constitutes the very opposite presumption. It is with that manifold of emphasis that we are placed on the threshold of the New Testament economy. Silence on the part of the New Testament will not fulfil the exigencies of the kind of evidence required for abrogation.

We must not, however, conclude that the New Testament exhibits the silence alleged. It is not necessary now to enter into a detailed discussion of the implications of all the allusions found in the four gospels to the Sabbath. We need not deal in detail with the implications inherent in our Lord’s attitude to the Sabbath. The proper insight and care should show that in the very rebuke that our Lord gave to the unwarranted accretions and impositions with which pharisaic tradition had obscured and perverted the Sabbath institution, there is implicit the same kind of sanction for the Sabbath law in itself as there is in similar episodes of His example and teaching for other commandments. Suffice it to refer to the one affirmation of His, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28).

The Sabbath Made for Man

In this affirmation, contrary to much glib but wanton appeal to it, there is not the least hint that the Sabbath law was about to be abrogated. What Jesus was combating on this occasion was the travesties of application by which the Jews had made void the law of God. Jesus’ unsparing condemnation of those artificialities that had turned a beneficent institution into an instrument of tyranny no more argues the abrogation of the institution itself, than does His condemnation of the traditions by which the Jews had made void the fifth commandment argue for the abrogation of the fifth (cf. Mark 7:8-13). If His condemnation and correction of the tradition by which the Jews of His day had made void the Word of God in the fifth commandment in no way relieves but rather reinforces the divine obligation of this commandment itself, so His statement with reference to the Sabbath quoted above furnishes no support for the abrogation of the fourth commandment. But let us examine Mark 2:27-28 more closely.

“The sabbath was made for man.” Of course, when it is said that it was made, there is but one meaning, namely, that God made it. It is not a device of human expediency or utility. It is a divine creation. It is God’s day. The reasonable inference is that this is an allusion to the primeval institution as recorded in Genesis 2:2-3. We know that the Sabbath institution existed prior to the promulgation of it at Sinai. So the making of it referred to by our Lord cannot reasonably refer simply to the giving of the law at Sinai. And since we must go back to something that antedates Sinai, what is there that more naturally or perfectly suits the allusion than that referred to in Genesis 2:2-3?

It was “made for man.” Perhaps the fact that Jesus says it was made for man and not simply for Israel has sometimes been unduly pressed to establish the universality of the Sabbath law. But recoil from exaggeration must not be allowed to obscure the real force of what is meant. The Sabbath, after all, was made for man, and in that word man there inheres a reference to what man’s very nature as man and man’s highest need as man require. When we bear in mind that the point of time referred to in the making of the Sabbath antedates all ethical distinction, we are constrained to find in this simple statement confirmation of the universality of the obligation and blessing of the Sabbath institution.

Jesus’ Lordship and the Sabbath

But Jesus in this passage also asserts His own Lordship over the Sabbath. “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” The title Son of man is distinctly Messianic and points to the dominion which He in His capacity as the Messiah exercises. It is in His capacity as the Son of man that He exercises this Lordship over the Sabbath. And this simply means that, within the universal Lordship and authority that is His as the one to whom all authority in heaven and earth has been committed, the Sabbath has its proper place and function. Abolition of it is, as B.B. Warfield says, “as far as possible from the suggestion of the passage.”

Further we must observe that Jesus says “even of the Sabbath.” The presence of the word even serves to show the extent of Jesus’ Lordship. This Lordship is so comprehensive that it even includes the Sabbath, and surely such an emphasis discloses the high conception of its sanctity and authority Jesus entertained.

Finally, the reason assigned for this Lordship over the Sabbath is the fact that the Sabbath was made for man. It was for the sake of man that Jesus came into the world, it was for man’s sake that He died and rose again, it is for man’s sake that He is exalted as the Messiah to supreme mediatorial sovereignty. But it was also for man’s sake that the Sabbath was made. If then, it was for man’s sake that Jesus came, and suffered, and died, and rose again to ascend up where He was before, is it possible that that which was made for man — the Sabbath — should be annulled and abrogated by that which He became and did for man’s sake? There is complete congruity between His Messianic work and Lordship on the one hand and the Sabbath ordinance on the other. They both serve the same purpose. And so His Lordship embraces the Sabbath institution, embraces it too for the purpose of preserving it, confirming it and blessing it. He is Lord of the Sabbath too.

Author

Professor John Murray was born in Scotland and was at the time of this writing a British subject. He was a graduate of the University of Glasgow (1923) and of Princeton Theological Seminary (1927), and he studied at the University of Edinburgh during 1928 and 1929.
In 1929-1930 he served on the faculty of the Princeton Theological Seminary. After that he taught at the Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia where he served as Professor of Systematic Theology.
He was a frequent contributor to theological journals and is the author of Christian Baptism (1952), Divorce (1953), Redemption Accomplished and Applied (1955), Principles of Conduct (1957, The Imputation of Adam's Sin (1960), Calvin on the Scriptures and Divine Sovereignty (1960), The Epistle to the Romans, Vol I, Chapters I-VIII (1960) and The Atonement (1976).

This article appeared in The Calvin Forum, May 1941.

Another Look at Exclusive Psalmody

2007-12-26T21:47:00.000Z

The two responses on EP I have posted below are quite lengthy and involve many issues. So I thought it would be best to concentrate on one item at a time. First we will look at Calvin's thoughts on Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 which both contain the phraseology of hymns and spiritual songs.

Ephesians 5:19. To psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. These are truly pleasant and delightful fruits. The Spirit means “joy in the Holy Ghost,” (Romans 14:17;) and the exhortation, be ye filled, (ver. 18,) alludes to deep drinking, with which it is indirectly contrasted. Speaking to themselves, is speaking among themselves. Nor does he enjoin them to sing inwardly or alone; for he immediately adds, singing in your hearts; as if he had said, “Let your praises be not merely on the tongue, as hypocrites do, but from the heart.” What may be the exact difference between psalms and hymns, or between hymns and songs, it is not easy to determine, though a few remarks on this subject shall be offered on a future occasion [the text links to the text from Colossians 3:16]. The appellation spiritual, given to these songs, is strikingly appropriate; for the songs most frequently used are almost always on trifling subjects, and very far from being chaste.

Colossians 3:16. Let the word of Christ dwell. He would have the doctrine of the gospel be familiarly known by them. Hence we may infer by what spirit those are actuated in the present day, who cruelly interdict the Christian people from making use of it, and furiously vociferate, that no pestilence is more to be dreaded, than that the reading of the Scriptures should be thrown open to the common people. For, unquestionably, Paul here addresses men and women of all ranks; nor would he simply have them take a slight taste merely of the word of Christ, but exhorts that it should dwell in them; that is, that it should have a settled abode, and that largely, that they may make it their aim to advance and increase more and more every day. As, however, the desire of learning is extravagant on the part of many, while they pervert the word of the Lord for their own ambition, or for vain curiosity, or in some way corrupt it, he on this account adds, in all wisdom — that, being instructed by it, we may be wise as we ought to be.

Farther, he gives a short definition of this wisdom — that the Colossians teach one another Teaching is taken here to mean profitable instruction, which tends to edification, as in Romans 12:7 — He that teacheth, on teaching; also in Timothy — “All Scripture is profitable for teaching.” (2 Timothy 3:16.) This is the true use of Christ’s word. As, however, doctrine is sometimes in itself cold, and, as one says, he adds at the same time admonition, which is, as it were, a confirmation of doctrine and incitement to it. Nor does he mean that the word of Christ ought to be of benefit merely to individuals, that they may teach themselves, but he requires mutual teaching and admonition.

Psalms, hymns. He does not restrict the word of Christ to these particular departments, but rather intimates that all our communications should be adapted to edification, that even those which tend to hilarity may have no empty savor. “Leave to unbelievers that foolish delight which they take from ludicrous and frivolous jests and witticisms; Pleasantries full of vanity and silliness.” and let your communications, not merely those that are grave, but those also that are joyful and exhilarating, contain something profitable. In place of their obscene, or at least barely modest and decent, songs, it becomes you to make use of hymns and songs that sound forth God’s praise.” Farther, under these three terms he includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way — that a psalm is that, in the singing of which some musical instrument besides the tongue is made use of: a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; while an ode contains not merely praises, but exhortations and other matters. He would have the songs of Christians, however, to be spiritual, not made up of frivolities and worthless trifles. For this has a connection with his argument.

The clause, in grace, Chrysostom explains in different ways. I, however, take it simply, as also afterwards, in Colossians 4:6, where he says, “Let your speech be seasoned with salt, in grace,” that is, by way of a dexterity that may be agreeable, and may please the hearers by its profitableness, so that it may be opposed to buffoonery and similar trifles.

Singing in your hearts. This relates to disposition; for as we ought to stir up others, so we ought also to sing from the heart, that there may not be merely an external sound with the mouth. At the same time, we must not understand it as though he would have every one sing inwardly to himself, but he would have both conjoined, provided the heart goes before the tongue.

First Question For Unification

2007-12-25T20:44:00.000Z

As has been highlighted in the conversation between the Rev. Brian Carpenter and Gary in the comments section of the first post of this blog the first question seems to be focused upon the Reformed Presbyterians focus upon Acapella and Exclusive Psalmody. I will posit here first a contemporary argument for Exclusive Psalmody and no instruments then a statement refuting this position. Please read both articles before commenting.

This first article was written by the Rev. Professor R.J. George in 1947.

Why Psalms Only
Rev Professor R J George, DD, Alleghany, Pa, USA

“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” – Col. 3 : 16.

When there are differences in belief among Christians on any subject, it is always helpful to inquire how far they agree, and thus ascertain the exact point at which opinions begin to diverge. In regard to the songs to be employed in the praise of God, there are several points of general agreement.

It is agreed that the Psalms were given by divine inspiration, and are the very word of God. “David, the son of Jesse, said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel said, the spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue” (2 Sam 23:1-2) “Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas which was guide to them that took Jesus” (Acts 1:16) (See also Acts 4:25; Heb 3: 7 etc). Men should be careful how they speak against the Book of Psalms. The Holy Ghost is its author. This is the first point of agreement.
It is agreed that these inspired Psalms were appointed by God to be used in His worship. “Sing unto Him; sing Psalms unto Him” (1 Chron. 16:9). “Moreover Hezekiah the king, and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the lord with the words of David and of Asaph the seer” (2 Chron. 29:30). “Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto Him with Psalms” (Ps. 95:2). Bible expositors and Church historians alike agree that the inspired psalms were exclusively used in the worship of the Old Testament. God appointed them to be used and no one but God can change the appointment. This is the second point of agreement.
It is agreed that so far as the record goes our Lord Jesus Christ used the Psalms exclusively in worship. Only on one occasion is our Lord referred to as singing. This was in Connection with the observance of the Passover. It is said, “And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives” (Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26). Biblical scholars are not misled by the use of the word “hymn” in our translation of this verse. The original simply states the fact that they sang the praises to God. In the margin it reads, “When they had sung a psalm.” It is a well-known fact that the Jews were accustomed to sing at the Passover the great Hallel which consisted of Psalm 113 to 118 inclusive. Certainly our Lord and His apostles did not depart from this usage. Strange indeed it would have been if the Lord Jesus, who always exalted and honoured the Holy Spirit, had put aside the sacred songs which He had indited for this very purpose. But He did not. Those who would follow closely in the footsteps of Jesus should sing Psalms. Jesus did. This is the third point of agreement.
It is agreed that we have express authority for the use of the Old Testament Psalms in the New Testament Church. “Let the word of God 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 unto the Lord” (Col. 3:16). Whatever differences of view there may be as to the “hymns and spiritual songs,” all agree that the psalms here spoken of are the inspired Psalms of scripture. The passage therefore contains an express warrant for the continued use of the Psalter in the New Testament church. This is not denied by any one. This is the fourth point of agreement.

It is not affirmed that there are no opinions contrary to one or another of these four points, held by individuals, but that there is a general agreement among all classes of evangelical Christians on these points.

We have now reached the exact point of divergence. While all agree that the psalms referred to in Col. 3: 16. are the Bible Psalms, there are many who maintain that the “hymns and spiritual songs” are mere human compositions; and that the new Testament Church is hereby authorized and instructed to add to her book of praises the writings of uninspired men. This is the crucial text on this subject. If this text contains a clear warrant for the use of uninspired hymns, other passages may lend it support; but if that warrant is not found here, it is not found anywhere. The advocates of hymn-singing will admit the truth of this statement.

It is now undertaken to show that not only does this passage not authorize the use of uninspired songs in worship, but that it enjoins the exclusive use of the Psalms of the Bible.

First. No warrant can be found for the use of uninspired songs, in the words, “hymns and spiritual songs.” At first view these words seem to be conclusive in favour of the advocate of hymn-singing. In the Greek text it is “psalmois, humnois, odais pneumatikais,” “psalms, hymns, songs spiritual.” Now these three Greek names are all found in the titles to the psalms in the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was in use among the people to whom Paul wrote this epistle. They occur many times in the titles to the various psalms. The word ”psalmois,” about sixty-nine times, the word “humois” six times, and another word “alleluia,” which has precisely the same import, about twenty times, and the word “odais,” mostly in the singular form, “ode,” thirty-four times. With the fact before us that these three words are all actually found many times in the titles to the inspired Psalms – and when we all agree that the word “psalmois” does refer to inspired songs – is it not most unreasonable to insist that “humnois and odais” mean uninspired songs. As if to remove all possible doubt the word “spiritual” is used to qualify the words. Thayer in his Lexicon of the New Testament, referring to this passage and the similar one, Ephesians 5:19 defines the word spiritual” as divinely inspired and so redolent of the Holy Spirit.”

Albert Barnes in his commentary on 1 Cor. 10:3, “And did all eat of the same spiritual meat, and drink of the same spiritual drink,” says, “The word spiritual is evidently used to denote that which is given by the Spirit, by God; that which was the result of His miraculous gift; that which was not produced in the ordinary way,” Again, “The word “spiritual” must be used in the sense of super-natural or that which is immediately given by God.” Hence “spiritual songs” are songs produced in a supernatural manner, those given immediately by the Spirit of God. It is just as if it read, “Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and songs given by the Holy Spirit.” What songs are these? The sweet psalmist of Israel answers, “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and his word was in my tongue.” These very names, therefore, which have been relied upon as furnishing a warrant for the use of uninspired, we find to be well known titles for Psalms of the Bible, and that as qualified by the word “spiritual” they cannot be used to designate uninspired songs, but furnish a warrant for the exclusive use of the songs of the Spirit.

Second. The Psalms are in an eminent sense “the word of Christ.” “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom. This is the condition of being able to “teach and admonish.” How are the psalms “The Word of Christ?”

Christ by His Spirit is the author of them. This has been fully shown above.
Christ is the speaker in many of them. For instance, “I will declare the decree, the Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (Psalm 2:7). “Then said I, Lo, I come, in the volume of the book it is written of me” (Psalm 40:7). “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1). Such Psalms as these are the word of Christ in the same sense that the Sermon on the Mount is His word. He and no one else is the speaker in them.
Christ alone is the subject of many of them. The most ignorant and senseless objection ever made to the Psalms is the charge that they are “Christless.” The truth is that no book in the bible reveals Christ with such fullness as is done in the book of Psalms, not excepting the gospel by John or the Epistle to the Hebrews.

What may we learn from this wonderful book?

His divinity. Psalm 45:6, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.” In Heb. 1:8, this is quoted as the address of the Father to the Son, “But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” Psalm 110:1, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool,” In Matt. 22:42-45, this is quoted by our Lord to prove His divinity.
His eternal Sonship. Psalm 2:7, “I will declare the decree, the Lord said into me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” In Heb. 1:5, this is quoted as the address of the Father to the Christ. See also Psalm 2:7 compared with Acts 13:33.
His incarnation. Psalm 8:5, “For thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned Him with glory and honour.” In Heb. 2:7 this is quoted and in verse 9 is applied to the incarnation. “But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” Psalm 40:7, “Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me.” In Heb 10:7, we read “The said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.” And in Heb 10: 5, “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, He saith Sacrifice and offering thou woudest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:” The incarnation and its purpose, being introduced by the words, “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, He saith.”
His mediatorial offices.
1. His prophetical office. Psalm 40:9,10, “ I have preached righteousness in the great congregation; lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord, thou knowest. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation; I have not concealed thy loving kindness and thy truth from the great congregation.” What a matchless description of the prophetical office! Heb. 10: 5-7, shows conclusively the speaker as Christ. See also Psalms 22:22 compared with Heb. 2:12.
2. His priestly office. Psalm 110:4, “The Lord has sworn and will not repent. Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” In Heb. 7:17-21, this is quoted to prove the superiority of the priesthood of Christ, as it is said, “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”
3. His kingly office. Psalm 45:6, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.” In Heb. 1:8 this is quoted as the address of the Father to the Son. Psalm 110:1, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” In Matt. 22:44, 45, our Lord referred this directly to Himself, and in Hebrews 1:13, it is quoted to prove the exaltation of Jesus above the angels. See also Psalms 2 and 72 throughout and Psalm 22:28.
His betrayal. Psalm 41:9, “Yea, mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” In John 13:18, Jesus says, “But that the scripture may be fulfilled. He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heal against me.”
His agony in the garden. Psalm 22:2, “O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not and in the night season and am not silent. But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.” Also verses 11 and 19, compare with these Matt. 26:36-44, Mark 14:32-42, Luke 22:41-44, and Heb. 5: 7.
His trial. Psalm 35:11, “False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.” In Matt. 26: 59-60, we read, “Now the chief priests and elders and all the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none; yea though many false witnesses came yet found they none. At the last came two false witness.”
His rejection. Psalm 22:6, “but I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men and despised by the people “; compare with this Matt 27: 21-23 and Luke 23:18-23. “ And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man and release unto us Barabbas: (who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.) Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. But they cried, saying, Crucify Him, crucify Him.” Psalm 118:22, “ The stone which the builders refused is become the headstone of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.” In Matt. 21:42, our Lord quotes these very words against the Jews for their rejection of Him. And the Apostle Peter in Acts 4:11, says, “This is the stone which is set at nought of you builders which is become the head of the corner.”
His crucifixion. Psalms 22 and 69 describe the scenes of the crucifixion with a minuteness almost equal to that of the four gospels. The mockery, the shaking of the head and parting the garments, the casting lots on the vesture, the thirst, the vinegar and the gall, the pierced hands and feet, the cry of the forsaken, the committing of His Spirit to God. Psalm 22 opens with the cry, “ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” and the closing words have been rendered, “ It is finished.”
His burial and resurrection. Psalm 16:9-11, Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life; in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.” Peter, the apostle, after quoting these words, says: “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are witnesses” (Acts 2:29-32)
His ascension. Psalm 47:5, “God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet.” In Acts 1:11, it is said, “This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” And in 1 Thes. 4:16, the manner of his second coming is thus described: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God.” This is the very terms of the Psalm. Psalm 68:18: “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive; thou hast received gifts for men, yea for the rebellious also that the Lord God might dwell among them.” In Eph. 4:8-10, the Apostle Paul quotes these verses to prove the ascension of our Lord, and his ascension gifts to his church. “Wherefore, he saith, When he ascended up on high he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.” And he gave some apostles and some prophets,” etc. See also Psalm 24:7-10 as compared with Rev. 5:6-14.
His second coming. Psalm 1:3-6, “Our God shall come and shall not keep silence. A fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him. He shall call to the heavens from above and to the earth that he may judge his people. Gather my saints together unto me, those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice. And the heavens shall declare his righteousness, for God is judge himself.”

Concerning the same even Christ says: “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and then shall the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angles with a great sound of a trumpet and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt. 24:30, 31)

Well said Jesus, “It is written in the Psalms concerning me.” “The sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow,” are here unfolded, and these Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs are replete with Christ. If any one will examine and compare these passages he will readily believe that when Paul wrote, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom,” it was as if He said, “Memorize the Psalms.”

Third. Uninspired songs cannot be placed on a level with the songs of inspiration as the rule for “teaching and admonishing.” All agree that the “Psalms” of the text are the inspired Psalms, the very word of God. “Teaching” refers to doctrine, what we are to believe. “Admonishing” refers to practice, how we are to live. It is not conceivable that Paul would place the writings of uninspired men on a level with the Psalms of the Bible as a standard of doctrine and practice. “The scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, the only rule of faith and manners.”

Uninspired hymns abound in errors. Dr. Cook of Belfast, says, “ I never yet found a compilation of hymns that I could pronounce free from serious errors. In 1838 the Presbyterian General assembly, appointed a committee to revise their hymnbook. In their report they say, “On a critical examination we found many hymns deficient in literary merit, some incorrect in doctrine, and many altogether unsuitable for the sanctuary.” What an indictment to bring against the book which their own church had substituted for God’s book of praises! Does anyone suppose that Paul referred to such “hymns and spiritual songs” as these, and places them on a level with the Psalms of the Bible for teaching and admonition?

Fourth. The inspired Psalms alone are adapted to be the vehicles of grace to the heart and of the praise to the Lord. “Singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” Here are two things: the awakening of gracious affections in the heart, and the uplifting of the soul to God. Two characteristics of the inspired Psalms mark their adaptation to this two-fold purpose, viz.: their devotional spirit, and their objective nature.

The psalms are devotional. The Psalter is in a pre-eminent sense the devotional book of the bible. All Christians recognize this in their personal devotional reading. It occupies a large place in the services of liturgical churches. Ambrose says: “Although all divine scripture breathes the grace of God, yet sweet beyond all others is the book of Psalms.” It is sometimes objected that the psalms are not adapted to awaken gracious affections in revivals. Such a view is entirely mistaken.

Think for a moment of the contents of the book: its views of God: its views of man; its views of law; its views of sin; its views of Christ; its views of repentance; its view of pardon; its views of covenant relationship; its view of the new live; its views of judgement; its views of heaven; its views of hell. What is there that is needed for revival that it does not contain? And what book is more likely to be honoured by the Holy Spirit than his own Book? As Dr. J.W. Bain has said, “They will be found suitable for any revival that comes down; those revivals that are ‘gotten up’ may need something less divine.”

The fact is that the greatest revivals of religion the world has ever seen have been connected with the exclusive use of the Psalms. They were used exclusively in the great revivals in the days of Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezra and Nehemiah. The same was true in the revival at Pentecost when three thousand were converted in one day. The period of the Reformation was a grand revival period, and it was a glorious revival of psalm-singing.

The Calvinistic Reformers used them exclusively. All France was thrilled with their music in the days of the Huguenots. They, alone, were used in the Scottish church on that wonderful day at the Kirk of Shotts when under Livingstone, five hundred were converted by one sermon. In the times of Robert McCheyne, when they continued their meetings until near midnight, they made the seasons of the night glad singing the songs of Zion.

President Edwards bears this testimony as to their use in the great Northhampton revival in New England in his days. “One of the most observable features of the work was the singular delight which all the awakened appeared to take in singing psalms. In houses, in the fields, in the woods, alone and together, they spake forth the praises of their King; and even little children and aged persons who had never before learned to sing, came to sing praises with solemnity and sweetness.”

The Psalms are objective. In this regard the inspired songs are in striking contrast with human compositions. Hymns are Subjective. Men write about themselves, their states and experiences their high resolves. They are introspective. They are self-centred. But the Psalms are objective. They are God-centred. The soul looks outward and upward. They lead the soul reverently to adore God in the beauty of holiness and devoutly to bow before His throne as the hearer of prayer. This is true devotion. “Worship God.” It appears that the Psalms of the Bible are eminently adapted to be the vehicles of grace to the heart, and praise to the Lord. “Singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

We conclude, therefore, that this passage which has always been relied upon by the advocates of hymn-singing as containing a warrant for their practices has no such meaning. The titles ”Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,“ belong to the inspired Psalms, and as qualified by the word “spiritual” are not true of any other. The Psalms are “the word of Christ”; uninspired songs are not His word; the Psalms are a true standard for “teaching and admonishing”; uninspired songs are not; the Psalms are adapted to be the vehicles of grace to the heart and of praise to the Lord; uninspired songs are not. The passage furnishes no warrant for the use of uninspired songs in worship, but is an explicit apostolic injunction that in the praise service of the New Testament church the divinely authorized Psalmody should be continued.

We cannot close without an earnest appeal to the Christian heart on behalf of two things.

The restoration of God’s own Psalter to a place in the hymnals of all the Churches. A movement in this direction should have the hearty co-operation of every Christian. Its rejection has been in disregard of the divine appointment, and of the example of our blessed Lord, and of the apostolic authority contained in this passage. It should be restored to its place by the united voice of all Christendom and the joyous acclaim of all Christians. It would be the bringing back of the ark of God.
When the Psalter is restored to its place in the hymnals of the Churches it should be used exclusively in the worship of God. A place may be found for the use of uninspired songs, but not in worship. God must be served with His own. “But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing; for I am a great king, said the Lord of Hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen” (Mal. 1:14).

Rev. W.D. Ralston in his “Talks on Psalmody,” related the following story; “As I trudged homeward I stopped at an uncle’s and spent the night there. In the evening I brought out my hymnbook and had some singing with my cousins. After I laid it down, my uncle took it up, put on his glasses, and spent some time in looking through it. He was a firm believer in the exclusive use of the Psalms, and my book was the hymnbook of another denomination. It gave the hymns, and the music, with the names of the composers of each as far as known. Uncle read a hymn and naming the author, said, ‘I know nothing of him.’ He read another, and said, ‘I have read about the author of this one. He was a Roman Catholic priest,’ he read another and said, ‘I have often read of this author. He was a good man and an earnest Christian minister.’ He then said: ‘Now, John, if I were going to use one of these hymns in the worship of God to-night, which do you think I had best choose, the one about whose author I know nothing, the one by the Roman Catholic priest, or the one by the earnest Christian minister.’ I replied, ‘ The one by the minister.’ ‘True,’ said he, ‘we should select the one written by the best man; and I see by looking through your book that it contains many hymns written by good men; but if I should find in it one composed by God Himself, would it not be better to sing that one than one composed by any good man?” I replied, ‘It surely would.’ After a little, he said, ‘I have now carefully looked through your book, and I do not find one hymn in it marked ‘composed by God’; but I have here a little hymnbook and God by His Holy Spirit has composed every hymn in it; for Peter says, ‘Holy men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’ As he spoke he handed me one of our psalm books and the manner in which he presented his argument made an impression upon my mind that I never forgot.”

How conclusive the argument is. We ought to serve God with the best. God’s own book is the best. When Ingersoll (an American agnostic) said that he” could write a better book than the Bible,” Christians were shocked and denounced him as an “infidel blasphemer.” How then can we say that we can write a better book of praises than God’s Psalter? If it be true that hymn books are better than the Psalm book, it marks the highest achievement of the race; for then man has transcended God in His own field. If it be not true, then the displacing of God-made Psalter, by the man-made hymn books, in God’s worship, is an act of most daring presumption.

At a meeting of minister of various denominations in an eastern city had been read on church Hymnology. General discussion followed the reading. An advocate of the exclusive use of the inspired Psalms employed the following illustration with great effect. “ If I had an important message to send to one living in the upper districts of the city I might summon a messenger boy and say to him: ‘Can you carry this message for me to such a person living in such a part of the city?’ And the boy would answer doubtfully: ‘I think I can. It is true that I have never been in that part of the city, I was born near here. I have heard of the person to whom you wish to send the message, but I am not acquainted with him; but I think I can find him. I am willing to try.’ My message is a very important one, and while satisfied of the good intentions of this boy, I am not quite assured of his ability to fulfil the trust. So I call up another boy and ask him the same question. At once his face glows with intelligence as he answers, ‘Oh yes, I can carry your message directly to his home. I know all about that part of the city. I was born there. I came from there. In fact your friend sent me down here to find you and bear up any message you might desire to send to him.’ It would not be difficult to decide which of these messengers I should employ. This is an allegory. If I had a message of praise to send up to God and I employed a hymn to carry it, I would feel uncertain about it; it might reach Him and it might not. But if I employed a Psalm to carry it, I know that it would ascend to heaven. The Psalm was born there. It came from God to me; and indeed God sent it to me to bear any message of praise I might wish to send up to him.”

Endnotes:
1. Taken from the “The Young People’s Magazine” ( July 1947). The full title is; “Is the Use of Uninspired songs in the worship of God Authorized?”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the article refuting Exclusive Psalmody by Rev. Lee Irons an Ordained Minister in the OPC:

Exclusive Psalmody
or
New Covenant Hymnody?

By Lee Irons

One of the most important aspects of Reformed worship is its insistence that whatever God has not commanded to be done in worship is forbidden. This is known as the regulative principle of worship, a principle that is warranted by the second commandment.¹ On the surface, the second commandment seems only to forbid the use of images to worship God, yet the Reformed have correctly seen that it also contains a broader principle: God is the one who must dictate how he wishes to be worshipped. Worship is primarily the sacrificial offering of praise unto God (Heb. 13:15). But if worship is ascribing glory and honor unto our Creator and Redeemer (Ps. 29:1-2; Rev. 4:11; 5:12-13), then it is unthinkable that we would want to bring him any other sacrifice than that which he has revealed is pleasing to him. To take any other approach is to deny the fundamental nature of what it is that we are doing in worship. Therefore, the regulative principle correctly lays down the first rule of worship: we have no right to worship God in any other way than he has commanded in Scripture. Practices which may have "an appearance of wisdom" but which are not in fact prescribed by God must be rejected as "will-worship," for they are based on the commandments of men and are not based upon Christ (Col. 2:8, 22-23).

The Plausibility of Exclusive Psalmody

But does the regulative principle of worship demand that we sing only those hymns which God has authored and recorded for us in Scripture (viz., the Psalter)? It might seem that it does. If God has taken the care to preserve for us 150 inspired songs and collected them into a single book, which in the Hebrew Bible is called "Songs of Praise,"² would it not seem reasonable that these are the hymns God wants us to use in his worship and none other? Given this fact, why would we want to sing hymns authored by mere men, when we have ready-made a hymn book authored entirely by God himself?

I feel the force of this argument. It is an argument that we must not dismiss too quickly. Those who dismiss this argument out of hand do so usually for one of two reasons. First, it is dismissed by those whose dispensational hermeneutic has ingrained within their consciousness a deep-seated distrust of any appeal to the OT to find moral standards governing the NT believer. Since the Psalter belongs to the OT canon, it is assumed without argument that it cannot be binding on the NT church.

Second, others dismiss the argument for exclusive psalmody because they have little or no appreciation for the regulative principle we have briefly defined above. If there is nothing blatantly immoral or unorthodox in any given worship practice — whether it be the use of skits in worship or uninspired hymns - then any argument that these practices must be rejected will often be viewed as a personal attack by such people. The cry is that we have liberty and freedom to do anything that seems right to us, or that meets our particular felt-needs as a congregation, or that will help to make the service more effective for reaching the lost. To limit ourselves so precisely only to practices positively commanded in Scripture is too narrow and legalistic — "nit-picky" is the word often heard in such discussions.

Both of these attitudes ought to be totally alien to the Reformed mind. Our immediate impulse upon hearing the argument for exclusive psalmody for the first time ought to be, "This makes sense; it's worth investigating." Reformed folk have a high regard for the fundamental continuity between the OT and NT: many of our practices are defended by appealing to the context of the OT and assuming a high degree of continuity in the New (e.g., infant baptism, the Sabbath, and presbyterian church government). So the suggestion that the church should only sing the Psalms would sound plausible to us rather than outrageous.

Furthermore, the regulative principle is not a limiting, "nit-picky" practice but a glorious protection of our freedom from human traditions imposed upon the church. It is a direct inference from one of the Reformation's most important achievements, namely, the recovery of sola Scriptura. It was through much struggle and, in many cases, martyrdom that the sixteenth-century reformers bequeathed to us the principle that only Scripture can bind the conscience, not the traditions of men, no matter how ancient or how well-intentioned they may be. We would not consider fighting for the regulative principle to be legalistic or limiting, but a most necessary battle in order to make sure that the church is not only Reformed but constantly being reformed according to Scripture (reformata et semper reformanda).

So, since we are not dispensationalists with a knee-jerk revulsion to any appeal to the OT for grounding our New Covenant practice, and since we eagerly desire to constantly evaluate our current forms of worship against the touchstone of sola Scriptura, and are always willing to throw out anything not able to stand that test, we Reformed people should take the argument for exclusive psalmody seriously and not dismiss it out of hand.

Where the Debate Really Lies

Plausible though exclusive psalmody may be, I remain unconvinced. Before I explain my reasons, however, we need to make sure we understand where the debate really lies. Often in the literature defending exclusive psalmody one will find a distressingly common theme: only those who hold to exclusive psalmody really believe in the regulative principle, and the only way you can reject exclusive psalmody is by abandoning the regulative principle in the process.

I want to object vigorously to this line of reasoning. The issue is not whether the regulative principle is true. Both sides agree that it is. The issue is how Scripture regulates song in worship. Does it regulate song in the same way that it regulates the reading of Scripture - that is, are we limited to singing only canonical, inspired texts? Certainly the public reading of Scripture in worship is limited in this way. Even Biblically-sound and orthodox writings are excluded from this element of worship (e.g., we can't replace the Scripture reading with a selection from Calvin's Institutes). On the other hand, might it not be possible that the Scripture regulates song more like it regulates preaching? That is, are we limited to hymns that are Biblically sound and orthodox in their content but not necessarily inspired in their very words? If God does not require preachers to recite the canonical text, but gives them freedom to use their own words and sentences, as long as the content is an accurate and faithful exposition of Scripture, maybe the same goes for our hymns.

This point must be underscored. Both sides demand that anything not warranted by Scripture is excluded. They simply disagree on what kind of warrant is demanded for the element of song. The question is, What is the nature of song as an element of worship? Is it more like the reading of Scripture, or is it more like preaching and prayer? The fact that both positions are within the bounds of the regulative principle is indicated by the fact that even exclusive psalmodists agree that content of preaching and prayer must be Biblical but need not necessarily be the mere reading of canonical texts. To determine this question we cannot simply appeal to the regulative principle, because both sides agree that some elements of worship may be regulated by Scripture in a manner that allows uninspired language to be used in worship.

So if the real issue is not who holds to the regulative principle most consistently, but which position most faithfully reflects the Biblical teaching regarding the nature of song in worship, then we must examine that Biblical teaching. Scripture is not silent about this issue. It gives us infallible instructions about the nature of song as an element of worship and authoritatively dictates what the content of our songs of praise should be if they are to be acceptable to God. The question is, What are those instructions regarding the content of song?

I do not believe that those instructions include the limitation that we may only sing the 150 Psalms. My reasons are three-fold:

(1) The Presence of Other Hymns in the Canon

My first argument is that the presence of other hymns in Scripture, besides the Psalter, indicates that the church has never been restricted to the Psalter alone. Those in the exclusive psalmody camp place a great deal of weight on the existence of a "Book of Praises" in the canon. They argue, "There it is: the hymn book God has given to the church. If you don't stick exclusively to the 150 hymns in the inspired hymn book, then you are violating the regulative principle."

But the existence of the book of Psalms is not as significant as the exclusive psalmody position seems to think, because there are many other hymns included in the canon of Scripture that, for whatever reason, were not added to the book of Psalms. It is profitable to make this clear by giving some examples:

The Song of Moses and Miriam (Exod. 15)
Spring up, O well! (Num. 21:17-18)
The Mosaic Song of Witness (Deut. 31:19-32:44)
The Song of Deborah and Barak (Judges 5)
The statutes of the Law were sung (Ps. 119:54)³
The Song of the Vineyard (Isa. 5:1-7)
An Eschatological Song (Isa. 26-27)
The Prayer of Habakkuk "on shigionoth" (Hab. 3)

These hymns scattered throughout the OT are just as inspired and just as suitable for public worship as those in the Psalter. Would it have been wrong, for example, for the synagogue in the days of the exile to sing other canonical hymns not found in the Psalter (e.g., the Song of Moses)? To answer Yes seems absurd and arbitrary, especially since we have evidence that the Song of Moses was sung in the Temple.⁴ And it certainly would not have been wrong for the people of God to sing the Mosaic Song of Witness, since Moses explicitly commands Israel to memorize it and sing it (Deut. 31:19, 22). Yet it is not included in the Psalter. Likewise with Isaiah's Eschatological Song, which the prophet says will be sung in the future by God's renewed and reconstituted Israel in the post-exilic period, and ultimately in the New Covenant era (Isa. 26:1).

And what about the inspired hymns recorded in the NT? Although we cannot be sure, it seems reasonable to assume that the presence of these hymns in the NT canon indicates that they were sung in the worship services of the apostolic church. Again, it will be useful simply to list some of these hymns:

Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55)
The Song of Zechariah (Luke 1:67-79)
The Angelic Doxology (Luke 2:14)
Simeon's Nunc Dimittis (Luke 2:28-32)
A Pauline Christological hymn (Col. 1:15-20)
The Carmen Christi (Phil. 2:5-11)
A New Song (Rev. 5:9-10; 14:3)
The Song of Moses and of the Lamb (Rev. 15:3-4)
The Hallelujah chorus (Rev. 19:5-7)
Charismatic hymnody (1 Cor. 14:15, 26)⁵

Exclusive psalmody assumes that the Book of Praises is the God-ordained hymnal for use by the covenant community in worship.⁶ Thus, the very existence of the Psalter is interpreted as an implicit command by God to sing only those hymns found therein. For God's people to go outside that hymnal — even if they restrict themselves to canonical texts beyond the Psalter — is to reject God's implicit command. But this assumption cannot be correct if God commanded his people to sing other hymns (e.g., Deut. 32), and if the apostolic church did as a matter of fact sing other hymns besides the 150 Psalms, as 1 Cor. 14:26 indicates that they did, and as the presence of new songs in the NT suggests.

(2) Paul's Command in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19

Next, I want to argue that, according to Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19, the church is commanded to compose hymns as it is led by the Spirit into a fuller understanding of the wealth that is treasured up in Christ (Col. 2:2).

Some have attempted to make the exact opposite conclusion, for they assert that these verses contain a command to sing only the OT Psalms. But the arguments are weak:

Comparison with the Septuagint shows that the three terms psalms, hymns, and songs (or odes) are used in the superscriptions of many Psalms in the Psalter. However, this only proves that Paul may be referring to the Psalms, but it does not prove that he is. In 1 Cor. 14:26 the term psalm is used to refer to hymns other than those of the Psalter, and is accordingly translated hymn in some translations.⁷ This example shows that it would be unwarranted to assume without further argument that the psalms in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 must be the 150 Psalms of the Hebrew Bible. If Paul had wanted to make clear that he was referring to the canonical book of Psalms, he could have done so very easily by referring to "the book of Psalms" (biblion psalmon http://members.aol.com/ironslee/index.html cp. Luke 20:42; Acts 1:20).⁸

It has also been suggested that spiritual songs means songs inspired by the Spirit. But this is unlikely for two reasons. First, the usage of spiritual in Col. 1:9 (which is a parallel text to Col. 3:16) does not mean inspired, since it modifies wisdom, a virtue that all believers should have, not just those in the apostolic age who happened to be blessed with revelatory charismata.⁹ Second, the immediately preceding context of Eph. 5:19 shows that Paul isn't commanding the prophets to become inspired but he is exhorting all believers in general to be filled with the Spirit (v. 18) so they can produce songs that may be described as spiritual.

If there is no decisive proof that Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 restrict the church to singing the Psalter, I would argue that in both passages Paul is commanding us to use our own Spirit-led wisdom to write non-canonical songs for worship.

Consider the following points:

Why would Paul say that we must "teach and admonish one another with all wisdom in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs," if he simply wanted to urge us to sing the canonical Psalms? Do we need "all wisdom" to select say, Psalm 100 this Sunday, but Psalm 72 the following Sunday? That doesn't seem to be what Paul has in view. It seems more likely that "all wisdom" is needed to choose the proper words for teaching and admonishing one another in song.¹⁰

This interpretation is further supprted by the topic sentence of the entire verse: "Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly, as you teach, etc." The Word of Christ is the mystery Paul has been proclaiming in the epistle up to that point: the good news that we have been made complete in Christ by virtue of being united with him in his death/circumcision and resurrection. The book of Colossians as a whole focuses on the believers' need to be built up in this mystery and to grow into the fullness of life in Christ. Now, it is true that the Psalms speak of Christ (Luke 24:44). But surely Paul does not mean, "Let the Psalms' message about Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another by singing the Psalms." Rather, Paul is exhorting the Colossians to let the mystery, which has been kept hidden from previous generations but is now disclosed to the saints (Col. 1:26), dwell in them richly so that, through the songs that result from such reflection, they may teach and admonish one another in all the implications of that mystery. If that is Paul's intent, then the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs of Col. 3:16 cannot refer to the canonical Psalms.¹¹

Thus, Col. 3:16 commands us to let that Word of Christ dwell in us richly, so that as we meditate upon its message, we may be able, with all wisdom, to teach and admonish one another by composing New Covenant psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.¹²

Another important point picks up with an earlier issue we discussed above. Is the element of song in worship to be regulated the way the reading of Scripture is regulated (only the canonical text may be used)? Or is it more like preaching, where a certain amount of freedom is given with respect to the words, as long as the thoughts are Biblical?

We may make some progress toward answering this question by comparing Col. 3:16 with 1:28 ("and we proclaim him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ"). Notice that we have the exact same terminology in both cases ("admonishing … teaching … with all wisdom"). In Col. 1:28 Paul is describing his formal preaching ministry as an apostle and herald of the gospel; whereas in 3:16 Paul exhorting the Colossians to "preach" to one another in the general office of all believers. Thus, there appears to be an analogy between Paul's preaching and the exhortation that believers are to give one another as they sing in worship (it is a corporate setting, as the phrase one another indicates). This would suggest that song is more like preaching than the reading of Scripture.¹³

But we can take this a step further. Elsewhere Paul describes how edification occurred in the churches through songs and hymns: inspired hymns were constantly being produced by New Covenant prophets and prophetesses to edify the body of Christ in its formal assembly (1 Cor. 14:26). Spiritual songs were produced by spiritually-discerning men and women who, filled with all wisdom, had let the Word of Christ dwell in them richly so as to admonish and edify the church through hymns they had composed.

Now how does this apply to us in the post-apostolic age, after the revelatory gifts have ceased?¹⁴ I would argue that even though the extraordinary charismata have been withdrawn from the life of the church with the close of the apostolic age, we should still continue the early church's practice of developing New Covenant hymnody. The church still has the Spirit, not to inspire new songs, but to fill us with all wisdom and insight into the mystery of Christ. Col. 3:16 applies to the church of all ages, not just the apostolic age. Many have argued that a non-inspired gift of prophecy continues in the church today in the form of preaching.¹⁵ Although the special office of prophet itself is defunct, now that the foundation of the apostles and prophets has been laid (Eph. 2:20), yet ordained ministers of the Word have a prophetic office in the sense that they are given the task of teaching and edifying the body of Christ through Spirit-filled sermons (Eph. 4:11ff).

Our key text, Col. 3:16, when taken in conjunction with Col. 1:28, clearly implies that the production of hymnody is a sung form of the exposition of Scripture. "Hymnody is essentially meditation on God's Word. While a particular hymn is not always derived from a particular text of Scripture, the hymn's primary function is to reflect on what Scripture as a whole teaches. Hymnody … has a canonical orientation."¹⁶ Thus, if we acknowledge the existence of an analogy between inspired prophecy and uninspired preaching, we should also acknowledge one between inspired and uninspired hymn-writing.¹⁷

If hymnody is essentially meditation on God's Word as Col. 3:16 states http://members.aol.com/ironslee/index.html Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly http://members.aol.com/ironslee/index.html then it is not necessary to restrict ourselves to hymns that are inspired or canonical. In fact, we are being told to go beyond the text itself in a meditative and reflective way, just like the preacher goes beyond the literal text he is expounding and brings out its full implications for the edification, instruction, and admonition of the church. Of course, even this meditative "going beyond" is itself governed by Scripture and must be discerningly evaluated according to Scripture (just as with preaching/prophecy http://members.aol.com/ironslee/index.html 1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Jn. 4:1).

(3) The Progression of Redemptive History

My final argument is that every major epoch of redemptive history is marked by an outpouring of new songs, as well as the updating of old songs, to celebrate God's most recent mighty acts of redemption and deliverance for his people. Would we not expect the climactic epoch of redemptive history to which all the preceding ones had been leading to be similarly marked by new songs?

"In Scripture, new acts of God call for 'new songs' (Pss. 33:3; 40:3; 144:9; 149:1; Isa. 42:10; Rev. 5:9; 14:3). God delivers his people from Egypt, and they sing a new song (Ex. 15). He gives them water in the wilderness, and they sing (Num. 21:17). He renews the covenant and commits it to their memory with the song of Deuteronomy 32. Christ is conceived by the Spirit, and Mary responds with her Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55; compare 1:67-79; 2:14, 29-32). The picture is not one of a static hymnal given by God for all time; rather, it is the dynamic picture of God continually doing wonderful deeds and his people responding to them with shouts of praise. Just as God's deliverances elicit new prayers of thanksgiving and new subject matter for preaching, so they elicit new songs. In this regard, is it even remotely possible that the greatest divine deliverance of all, the redemptive work of Christ, should not evoke new songs?"¹⁸

Impossible! And as a matter of fact the historical record of the NT is clear: such "new songs" did flow from the lips of the New Israel of God in thankful praise for the New Exodus accomplished in Christ (Rev. 7:1-17). Paul reports that songs and hymns were composed by inspired New Covenant prophets to celebrate the dawn of the eschatological age of the Spirit in the person and work of Christ (1 Cor. 14:15, 26).

Now are we to argue that these "new songs" given by special, extraordinary revelation are no longer to be sung merely because the charismatic gifts have ceased after the close of the apostolic age? Is the New Israel forced to revert back to singing the hymns of the Old Israel exclusively? This would make no sense at all. It is utterly inconceivable that this New Covenant hymnody was meant only for use by the church during the age of the apostles, but that in the post-apostolic age we forbidden by the regulative principle from taking the name of Jesus upon our lips in song! "Let no one keep defrauding you of the prize" by limiting the church to the hymns of the Old Covenant (Col. 2:16-18).

Furthermore, the New Covenant church is in a different redemptive-historical context than the Old Covenant church. The people of God are no longer slaves in their minority, for now that the fullness of time has come, we have been adopted as God's sons (Gal. 4:1-7). Thus to insist on singing only the Psalms of the OT is to risk forgetting which covenant we are in.

"Certainly we cannot criticize their theology, since [the Psalms] are divinely inspired. And the Psalms do testify of Christ, as the New Testament shows in its use of the Psalter. But the Psalms present Christ in the 'shadows' (Col. 2:17), in terms of the incomplete revelation of the Old Testament period (Heb. 1:1-3). Indeed, to limit one's praise to the Psalms is to praise God without the name of Jesus on one's lips. But the completeness of redemption in Christ requires a whole new language of praise: about Jesus the God-man, his once-for-all finished atonement, his resurrection for our justification, and our union with him by faith as the new people of God. Doubtless there are anticipations of these doctrines in the Psalter, but Christian worship demands more than the language of anticipation. It demands the language of fulfillment and completeness, for that is what is distinctive about New Testament faith. It is precisely the accomplishment of God's mighty works that evokes praise in Scripture."¹⁹

In addition to their pre-Christian stance of anticipation, the Psalms frequently reflect the struggle of faith that the OT saints had due to the seeming conflict between the promises of God and the reality of his providence. On the one hand, God had promised the nation that they would have a king and a land. Yet in reality, they often had ungodly kings and at one point were removed from the inheritance during the exile. Thus the Psalms are full of the cry, "O Lord, how long?"²⁰ And the cry largely goes unanswered. To sing only the Psalms without updating them with the Christological solution is to say that we are still living under Old Covenant conditions.

"Our post-Resurrection position in history also makes our worship emotionally different from that of the Psalms. The longings, the laments, the questions, and the prayers for judgment in the Psalms find answers in Christ. Of course, we continue to long for the final end of sin and suffering. But the great fact of New Testament worship is the resurrection of Jesus, in which the last days have begun. We celebrate that great event … which the psalmists could only anticipate in the future. Surely there is rightly a greater dimension of joy in post-Resurrection worship, and a lesser emphasis on lament, complaint, and the delay of God's purposes."²¹

If we sing the OT Psalms alone, are we not putting a veil over the glory of the New Covenant rather than enjoying the liberty and boldness that is our birthright as those on this side of the resurrection (2 Cor. 3:12, 17)?²²

In addition, consider the general pattern of redemptive-historical transformation that occurs in the transition from Old to New Covenant worship. Although there is fundamental continuity between the worship of the two testaments, there is also change — change that reflects the newness of the New Covenant. For example, although the fourth commandment is an abiding element of the moral law and continues in the New Covenant, there is a change as well: we no longer worship on the seventh day but on the first day, to commemorate the resurrection of Christ. Note the pattern: there is both continuity and redemptive-historical transformation. The same applies to virtually all other aspects of worship. The passover has been transformed and fulfilled by the Lord's Supper (Mark 14:12-25; 1 Cor. 5:1-8); circumcision, by baptism (Col. 2:11-13). In view of this repeated pattern, would it not be odd if Israel's songs were brought over into the New Covenant without any redemptive-historical transformation? Nothing is taken from the Old Covenant and applied directly to the church without first being passed through a Christocentric hermeneutical prism. Just as light when passed through a prism is changed from a monochromatic flatness into all the dazzling spectra of the rainbow, so the Old Covenant forms of worship, when sent through the prism of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, are "transformed from glory to glory" (2 Cor. 3:18). This is exactly what we are doing when, in obedience to the command of Col. 3:16, we let the Word of Christ dwell in us richly so as to create a New Covenant hymnody reflective of the richness of that indwelling, Incarnate Word.

Exclusive psalmody does not sufficiently take these factors into account. It fails to reckon with (1) the presence of other hymns in the canon, (2) Paul's command in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19, and (3) the progression of redemptive history. For these reasons, then, I do not consider exclusive psalmody to be a Biblically-mandated implication of the regulative principle.

The Positive Value of the Canonical Hymns

To wrap up my argument, I want to conclude by affirming the positive value of the canonical hymns http://members.aol.com/ironslee/index.html something many of my fellow hymnodists do not always insist on. Although I am opposed to the position that only canonical hymns may be sung in worship if worship is to be acceptable to God, I believe the inspired hymns found in both the OT and NT must serve an important (and essential!) function in the life of the church today.

First of all, the inspired hymnody of Scripture ought to be sung in worship. This may seem like an obvious point, but it needs to be stressed — especially today, when our tastes in the area of song in worship seem to be dictated more by popular culture and tradition than by conformity to Scripture. We need to sing the Psalms more often in worship, just to get used to the language of the Psalter, to acclimate ourselves to the flavor and spirit of songs that we know God delights in. Only when we are steeped in the hymnody of Scripture will we be in any position to begin writing new hymns that breathe the spirit of Biblical hymnody in terms of their poetic form, emotional impact, thematic patterning, and redemptive symbolism. So, let's sing the Psalms and other canonical hymns!

But we need to maintain a balance between canonical and non-canonical hymns. The church errs when it swings like a pendulum from one extreme to the other in reaction against a previous practice. In the earliest centuries of the church there is evidence that the church maintained this balance. The Psalter of course was used in corporate worship, as the example of Acts 4:24-31 demonstrates. (Whether the early church is simply praying in unison using the words of Psalm 2 or whether it was being sung, we do not know for certain.) That other non-canonical hymns were also used in conjunction with the Psalter is evident from 1 Cor. 14:26, the songs of Revelation, and so on. We see a balanced use of both Old Covenant psalms and New Covenant hymns in the apostolic church.

This balance continues into the post-apostolic age. For example, in the Septuagint there is a collection of 42 hymns added to the Psalter called the Odes of Solomon, which scholars regard as the beginnings of a New Covenant psalter. The language of the Odes is heavily reminiscent of the canonical Psalms, but they are primarily a meditation on the fulfillment of the Old Covenant through the advent of the long-awaited Messiah.²³

Later in church history we find Isaac Watts continuing the tradition of the Odes. As he meditates on the Psalter from the perspective of its fulfillment in Christ, he produces New Covenant hymns which are psalm-like and psalm-based but which go beyond the original text of the Hebrew Psalter in their explicitly Christological reflection. "The hymnody springs from the psalmody; it is inspired by the psalmody. Watts' hymnody comments on, interprets, and continues the psalmody."²⁴ For example, Watts takes Psalm 72, filters it through a Christocentric hermeneutic, and ends up with a classic New Covenant hymn:

Jesus shall reign where'er the sun
Does his successive journies run;
His Kingdom stretch from shore to shore,
Till moons shall wax and wane no more.

But interestingly, the full impact of this hymn cannot be assessed unless the church already knows Psalm 72. It is only when we hear the echo of the Psalter in these hymns that their New Covenant hermeneutic can come home to us in its full force.

"One has to have the canonical text in mind when one hears the Christian interpretation. The beauty of this form is that in the movement from the text to the interpretation one catches sight of the movement from promise to fulfillment, which is of the essence of prayer. To glimpse this is an exciting experience … It is for this reason that psalmody should be balanced with hymnody and hymnody with psalmody. There is an important dynamic between the two … There is a sense in which Christian hymnody is the fulfillment of psalmody."²⁵

For this reason we should not go to either extreme. We should not exclusively sing the canonical Psalms, without complementing them with hymns that reflect the fullness of praise that flows from the climactic accomplishment of redemptive history in the person and work of Christ. But neither should we only sing New Covenant hymns, lest by such neglect we forget the original text of the Psalter that these new hymns are meant to be a Christological commentary upon. We will impoverish our own understanding and enjoyment of our hymns if we abandon the Psalms altogether.

What I have said above naturally leads me to the second vital function of the canonical hymns for the church today. The inspired psalmody preserved in Scripture (OT and NT) ought to serve as our model for the writing of hymns. The few examples of NT hymns all contain echoes of the language and style of the OT prayers, hymns and psalms (the Magnificat, the Song of Zechariah, the hymns of Revelation).²⁶ This provides us with a helpful clue: even though the hymnody of the New Covenant contains a clearer and fuller reflection upon the mighty acts of God displayed through the person and work of Christ "in these last days", and even though they contain greater insight and assurance due to progressive revelation, the poetic style still retains the stamp and flavor of the praise of the Old Covenant. I am convinced that new hymns written by non-inspired authors should seek to approximate this stamp and flavor.

As you can see, if we were to implement the standard that all hymns should be psalm-like in their character, we would probably be much more selective in our choice of hymns for use in formal worship. Many otherwise unobjectionable hymns from the standpoint of orthodox content would be unsuitable for formal, corporate worship. For example, "Dare to be a Daniel!" doesn't seem to be modeled on any Scriptural hymn that I am aware of! The Old Trinity Hymnal seems to recognize a distinction between hymns that are more suited for formal worship and those that should normally be used for other occasions. Hymns # 610 through # 662 are under the heading "Occasional Hymns" and include children's favorites. Hymns # 663 through the end are under the heading "Hymns for Informal Occasions" and include hymns that have a sort of revivalistic, "summer camp" flavor. Thus, the assumption is that Hymns # 1 through at least # 609 (and possibly even through # 662 in the editors' minds) may be used in formal worship. I am not sure I would agree with the editors' judgment in each case. However, it is valid to make some kind of distinction between hymns for formal worship (which should be psalm-based and psalm-like) and other hymns for informal gatherings such as fellowships, mid-week Bible studies, etc.

My suggestion that uninspired hymns should be psalm-like probably seems somewhat strange to a true Psalm-singer. From the perspective of an exclusive psalmodist, it seems bizarre to want to have uninspired "imitation" psalms, when you could just use "the real thing." If we are going to go to the extent of trying to write new hymns that are modeled on the canonical hymns, why even bother writing new ones. Besides, the degree of similarity or likeness to the Psalter will inevitably vary with each author's subjective tastes and opinions. One uninspired hymn-writer will approximate the Psalms more closely than another who feels free to take more liberties.

The objection would be valid if it weren't for the fact that the NT commands us to produce our own New Covenant hymnody (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). And that command is not without reason: the hymns of the church must "teach and admonish one another" in the fullness of the mystery of Christ http://members.aol.com/ironslee/index.html a job that the OT psalms cannot adequately fulfill, since, as an integral part of the Old Covenant, the OT psalms speak of the mystery of Christ only in a veiled form (2 Cor. 3:5-18). To be sure, they testify of the coming Christ (Luke 24:44), but by their very nature they cannot celebrate the fact that Christ has come. For this reason the early Church was blessed with inspired prophets and prophetesses who produced new hymns to reflect the fullness of the New Covenant (1 Cor. 14:26). And Col. 3:16 commands the church of all ages, even after the cessation of the extraordinary gifts, to continue that practice for its edification as it strives to attain to the fullness of the stature of Christ (Col. 1:28; Eph. 4:13).

Undoubtedly, this position is somewhat less satisfying than the exclusive psalmody position. No subjective calls or debates need arise on that view. If it's not one of the 150, then it's not acceptable. End of story. The New Covenant hymnody position espoused here, on the other hand, allows for a lot more discussion, disagreement, and even potential abuse. Once we open the field to uninspired hymns, then we putting ourselves in a position of having to offend certain people — I'm sure there's someone out there that likes "Dare to be a Daniel!" But we must be careful not to be wiser than God. If God has commanded us to let the Word of Christ dwell in us richly so that we will be able to teach and admonish one another in hymns that the Spirit has prompted, then we must trust God's judgment that the church will be edified rather than injured in the process.

That doesn't mean we can't be discerning and have high Biblical and theological standards for all uninspired hymns. On the contrary, we must always "test everything, and retain that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). The Lord has given the church the fullness of the Spirit — the anointing (1 Jn. 2:20, 27) http://members.aol.com/ironslee/index.html which allows us to discern what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God (Rom. 12:2). The spiritual man discerns all things because he has the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:15-16). Exclusive psalmody would be the easy way out. No discernment is necessary, just obedience. But with Paul our prayer should be that we "may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that we may be able to discern what is best" (Phil. 1:9-10). This path is certainly more difficult, but I believe it is the one commanded by God in his Word.

ENDNOTES

Cp. the exposition of the second commandment in the Westminster standards (WCF XXI.1; WLC # 107-110). The literature on the regulative principle is vast, but a few references will be useful. W. Robert Godfrey, "Calvin and the Worship of God" (Escondido: Westminster Theological Seminary); G. I. Williamson, "The Scriptural Regulative Principle of Worship," The Presbyterian Advocate (February 1991), pp. 8-10; (March-April 1991), pp. 17-20. The most recent book-length treatment of the subject is John M. Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1996). However, Frame departs from the historic formulation of the regulative principle in several ways. For a helpful response to an earlier article by Frame, see T. David Gordon, "Some Answers About the Regulative Principle," Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993), pp. 321-29.

Heb. Tehillim. Tremper Longman III, How to Read the Psalms (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 45.

For more on this see Vern Poythress, "Ezra 3, Union with Christ, and Exclusive Psalmody," Westminster Theology Journal 37 (Fall 1974), pp. 74-94; (Winter 1975), pp. 218-35.

Hughes Oliphant Old, Guides to the Reformed Tradition: Worship (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984), p. 46.

The context makes it clear that the Corinthian "singing of hymns" (psallo in v. 15; psalmos in v. 26) was spontaneous, inspired utterance. "This can hardly mean one of the Psalms of the Old Testament." Charles Hodge, A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974 reprint), p. 300. Cp. also Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 671.

"But Scripture never says that that was the purpose of the Psalter, and that view has been challenged recently by some who have maintained that the Psalter was collected, not as a hymnbook, but as a book for meditation." Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth, p. 125. Frame cites J. McCann and G. Wilson.

E.g., NIV. Psalmos has two usages in the NT. The first usage is to refer to the OT Psalms. 1 Cor. 14:26 is classified under the second usage, "of Christian songs of praise," by BAGD, A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).

Stephen Pribble shows that these three terms are generic in The Presbyterian Advocate (Nov-Dec, 1993), pp. 25-30.

In Col. 1:9 Paul is thinking "of the wisdom of the Spirit as the daily need of every Christian, not a gift of revelation to bring the Word of Christ." Edmund P. Clowney, The Church (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), p. 136.

"It is the wisdom that is the enduement of the Spirit-filled church, taught by the Word of Christ, that enables them to admonish and teach one another; they do so in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Paul's expression shows that he is thinking of the wisdom that composes psalms, and therefore not of the Psalms of David." Clowney, p. 136.

Frame, p. 133 n3.

For a more detailed defense of this exegesis see Clowney, "Song in Worship: the Fruit of the Richly Indwelling Word of Christ" (Escondido: Westminster Theological Seminary); Peter T. O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary 44 (Waco: Word Books, 1982), pp. 207-10; Poythress, "Ezra 3 … (concluded)," WTJ 37 (Winter 1975), pp. 220-24.

"Hymns are a form of teaching in Colossians 3:16, and will thus require words different from those in Scripture." Frame, p. 127.

I am assuming a cessationist position here. For the case against the present continuation of the extraordinary gifts, see Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979); Gaffin, "A Cessationist View," in Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views, ed. by Wayne A. Grudem (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996); and O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1993).

E.g., Calvin, in his Commentary on Romans 12:6, writes, "Prophecy at this day in the Christian Church is hardly anything else than the right understanding of the Scripture, and the peculiar faculty of explaining it." The best book on the subject of early Christian prophecy is Thomas W. Gillespie, The First Theologians: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). In this ground-breaking work, Gillespie demonstrates that prophecy had four elements. Prophecy was (1) an exposition of the kerygma, or the gospel, (2) under the inspiration of the Spirit within the context of the church, (3) expressed in extended discourse that included the exposition of Scripture and logical argumentation, and (4) subjected to criticism and discerning evaluation "according to the analogy of the faith." Aside from the first half of the second element (inspiration), this could function as a definition of preaching.

Old, Leading in Prayer: A Workbook for Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 340.

1 Cor. 14:26 lists five possible forms of inspired speech in the assembly: the first three (a hymn, a teaching, a revelation) are connected with prophecy, and the last two (a tongue, an interpretation) are connected with tongues. The point is that the inspired hymn is considered to be a mode of prophetic utterance. (See E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), p. 25.) If so, then non-charismatic hymns could be considered a mode of non-charismatic teaching.

Frame, p. 125.

Frame, pp. 125-26. "It would be extremely odd … if, when redemptive history reaches its zenith, the covenant community's hymnody would be silent for the first time ever." Nicotene Theological Journal 1 (January 1997), p. 4.

It is true that we still cry, "How long?" as we look forward to and hasten the second coming of Christ (Rev. 6:10), but we have greater assurance and confidence that the cry will be answered because it has already been answered in principle through the first coming.

Frame, p. 137.

The liberty of New Covenant believers is enlarged "in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of" (WCF XX.1).

Scholars are not agreed on the date of the Odes. Possibilities range from the 1^st century through the 3^rd century. Still, despite the lack of consensus concerning their date, it is fairly certain that the Odes are Christian. James H. Charlesworth, "Solomon, Odes of," in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992). "The Odes of Solomon are of the greatest possible importance in helping us understand the origins of Christian hymnody … [They] have set the pace for true Christian hymnody." Old, Leading in Prayer, pp. 322-25.

Old, Guides to the Reformed Tradition, pp. 54-55.

Old, Leading in Prayer, p. 324.

This process of creating new hymns modeled on old ones occurs even within the OT itself. E.g., the song of Hannah (2 Sam. 2:1-11) is based on Psalm 113 (Longman, How to Read the Psalms, p. 48). And, of course, Mary's Magnificat is in turn based on the song of Hannah.

Your Voting

2007-12-24T18:34:00.000Z

I have yet to figure out exactly how to have a permanent post for comments that does not begin to move itself down the page so until that happens (any help would be much appreciated) I am going to keep this post on top.

Please let me know in a sentence or two in the comments section of this blog post why it is you have voted the way you have on the poll question to the right.

2007-12-24T14:17:00.000Z

Is Realignment a Biblical Option?

John M. Frame

On Jan. 15 of this year, New Life Presbyterian Church (OPC) of Escondido, California, took its second and deciding vote to leave the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for the Presbyterian Church in America. I serve on the session of that congregation. Our reason was as follows: Our congregation has gifts from God, a strategic location, a burden and, we believe, a calling, to plant churches in San Diego County. For various reasons (space precludes details) most of the more gifted potential church planters in this area have preferred to work in the PCA rather than in the OPC. Thus we believed that we had good reason, indeed a divine mandate of sorts, to switch denominations.

For this decision we have endured much criticism. Words like "disloyalty," "betrayal," "abandonment," even "schism" have been used to characterize our action. Nevertheless, I believe that our decision can be justified biblically.

The term "schismatic" was used in the early centuries of the church to describe groups such as the Novatians and the Donatists who rejected the government of the one true church to begin their own "churches," in effect, the first denominations. Jesus Christ had established a single church, one in organization as well as spirit. To break away from that body was to despise the leaders God had provided, rather than to "obey" them as scripture required (Heb. 13:17). Schismatics were people who wanted to obey only the leaders of their own party (cf. I Cor. 1:10-17, 3:1-23). They wanted to be their own bosses.

On the other hand, there was evidently no problem at all, in the NT period and later, when people wished to move from one part of the church to another. Priscilla, Aquila, Paul, Timothy, Silas, Barnabas, Mark and many others often moved from place to place in their missionary labors. Though there were some sad partings (as Acts 20:36-38), the missionaries moved on to spread the word.

Now today we live in a rather different situation. The church today is not organizationally one as in the first centuries, but is divided into many denominations. Often today, in order to "move from one part of the church to another," i.e., to work with other groups of Christians and benefit from their gifts, we must cross denominational barriers. That is how it is in our case. We want to work with some Christians who have developed an effective vision and plan for church planting; but we cannot work closely with them without crossing a denominational barrier. Is that "schism," or is it merely "moving from one part of the church to another?"

In some cases, such a move might be schismatic. Even today, it is possible that a church might want to switch denominations because of contempt for the government of his own denomination. Sometimes churches leave denominations and either become independent or start their own new denominations out of little more than a prideful desire to be their own bosses.

On the other hand, there are many situations where changing denominations is clearly not sinful. Church members often transfer from OPC to PCA and vice versa for many reasons: geography, better use of gifts, etc. Ministers of the one group have often accepted calls to the other group in order to follow God's calling and to make best use of their God-given gifts. When individuals make such transfers, no one ever seems to complain that they are being "schismatic," "disloyal" or whatever. It is well understood that these people are simply "moving from one part of the church to another" even though such a move involves crossing a denominational barrier.

But when a congregation moves, the response is often very different. People in the original denomination sometimes get very critical, even angry. But why should congregations be any different from individuals? Congregations, like individuals, have God-given gifts and God-given callings.

I honestly believe that New Life's action is not motivated by any contempt for the government of the OPC. Our action is provided for in the OPC Form of Government, and we are following that provision very carefully. In the very act of withdrawal, we are seeking to be subject to our OPC brethren. We have no desire for autonomy, to be our own bosses; on the contrary, we are joining another Presbyterian denomination which, just like the OPC, requires obedience to its standards and to its courts. Indeed, we have no real desire to be apart from our OPC brethren. Our fondest wish is that one day that denominational barrier (which, I believe, exists contrary to God's will) will be gone, and we will all be together in a united church. But until that happens, we must, in order to profit from the gifts of God's people in the other body, cross that barrier from time to time. But this is nothing more than "moving from one part of the church to another."

I earnestly hope that we will learn to take that denominational barrier less and less seriously until it disappears altogether. Certainly you who stay in the OPC have no right, in the absence of compelling evidence, to judge the motives of those who wish to cross that barrier. Let God's word temper your initial emotional reactions. There is no need at all for realignment to cause bitterness between us. We continue to love you, and we treasure your love and faithfulness to our Lord Jesus Christ. We pray that that love and respect will be mutual.

Purpose of This Blog

2007-12-24T12:33:00.000Z

The Final Goal of this Blog is to work towards the unification of the seceding denominations (and the one true original denomination) into a unified and public body of believers so as to properly fight the False Presbyterian Church (better known as the PC (USA)) and to subdue it from preaching a false gospel.

However the first goal is to bring members of the PCA, OPC, RPCNA, ARP, and other members of NAPARC into a place where dialogue can take place so as to move towards the final goal stated above and this is the place I hope where it can begin.