Is it Sinful to Sing Hymns Other than the Psalms in Worship?

There is more to the Scripture than the Psalms...

What about hyms derived from other parts of the Scriptures?

Best to read about the matter:

http://www.puritanshop.com/shop/the-puritans-on-exclusive-psalmody-edited-by-c-matthew-mcmahon/

The insistence on exclusive psalmody violates the regulative principle because it imposes the convictions of a few on everyone. There's nothing within Scripture that binds the conscience to exclusive psalmody, so to insist upon it violates the regulative principle. This is the very sort of thing that the regulative principle was formulated to guard against.

Tree of Life said:

The insistence on exclusive psalmody violates the regulative principle because it imposes the convictions of a few on everyone. There's nothing within Scripture that binds the conscience to exclusive psalmody, so to insist upon it violates the regulative principle. This is the very sort of thing that the regulative principle was formulated to guard against.

Click to expand...

Touche!

I don't think that God really minds what style of music he is praised with. Ironically, Psalms 33 and 150 suggest that it is good to praise Him on musical instruments. I don't really understand how the question really arises. God is more interested in what is in your heart.

QUOTE="Tree of Life, post: 68564012, member: 325007"]The insistence on exclusive psalmody violates the regulative principle because it imposes the convictions of a few on everyone. There's nothing within Scripture that binds the conscience to exclusive psalmody, so to insist upon it violates the regulative principle. This is the very sort of thing that the regulative principle was formulated to guard against.[/QUOTE]

Exclusive Psalmody is not the position that psalms are a preferred form for the Church's element of worship in song, but that they are the elemental content (I.e. singing specifically the psalms is an element of the Church's worship). If the EP position is biblical, then it is not an unwarranted imposition of a minority position to call churches to sing the psalms exclusively in worship. The regulative principle would mandate that we do so, and that we encourage churches to orthopraxy in worship.

The burden of proof lies on those opposing exclusive psalmody, to find a biblical text which explicitly sets forth, or necessarily implies that the Church's singing may include that which is other than Scripture. Perhaps locating hymn singing as prayer and not the prescribed singing of Eph. 5/Col. 3?

HeraldOfTheHolyOne said:

QUOTE="Tree of Life, post: 68564012, member: 325007"]The insistence on exclusive psalmody violates the regulative principle because it imposes the convictions of a few on everyone. There's nothing within Scripture that binds the conscience to exclusive psalmody, so to insist upon it violates the regulative principle. This is the very sort of thing that the regulative principle was formulated to guard against.

Click to expand...

Exclusive Psalmody is not the position that psalms are a preferred form for the Church's element of worship in song, but that they are the elemental content (I.e. singing specifically the psalms is an element of the Church's worship). If the EP position is biblical, then it is not an unwarranted imposition of a minority position to call churches to sing the psalms exclusively in worship. The regulative principle would mandate that we do so, and that we encourage churches to orthopraxy in worship.

The burden of proof lies on those opposing exclusive psalmody, to find a biblical text which explicitly sets forth, or necessarily implies that the Church's singing may include that which is other than Scripture. Perhaps locating hymn singing as prayer and not the prescribed singing of Eph. 5/Col. 3?[/QUOTE]

Thank you for answer your own challenge by citing Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3. In both verses three forms of singing are specifically mentioned. Those who are enamored with exclusive psalmody usually end up tieing themselves into linguistic knots in an effort to assert that Paul actually was telling these people to sing Psalms, Psalms, and Psalms.

Thank you for answer your own challenge by citing Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3. In both verses three forms of singing are specifically mentioned. Those who are enamored with exclusive psalmody usually end up tieing themselves into linguistic knots in an effort to assert that Paul actually was telling these people to sing Psalms, Psalms, and Psalms.[/QUOTE]

Trouble is, all three of those categories are used as superscriptions in the Septuagint Psalter. It's not out of the question that Paul could be covering the entirety of the Psalter by using the 3-fold phrase. I've heard arguments both ways. I'm still undecided (I recently posted a thread without realizing the issues were being taken up here. Woops!). In either case, those two passages do mandate that churches actually sing from the book of Psalms. The question is whether we are to sing exclusively from it. I'd challenge the non-EP guys to locate a text which necessitates that we not only can but ought to sing songs which are not Scripture.

Guy's, are we really suggesting that people that stand in church singing their hearts out on Sunday morning to the Lord are committing sin and displeasing God?

Wolftone said:

Guy's, are we really suggesting that people that stand in church singing their hearts out on Sunday morning to the Lord are committing sin and displeasing God?

Click to expand...

Some very sincere people bow before crucifixes and light candles before them. We can lovingly correct those who do so because such worship practices are not sanctioned in Scripture. Sincerity is a beautiful thing, but it cannot be what determines what are and are not elements in corporate worship. Thats not to say we shouldn't be sincere in our worship though!

What did they sing before the Psalms were written? Wouldn't writing the Psalms themselves be in violation of the very same principle?

Soyeong said:

What did they sing before the Psalms were written? Wouldn't writing the Psalms themselves be in violation of the very same principle?

Click to expand...

Moses and Miriam composed songs which were sung and recorded for us. However, there is no indication that any of the songs written prior to the Psalms were intended for use in the Temple (tabernacle). In fact, these songs seemed to have been one-offs written to commemorate a special event such as the drowning of Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea.

HeraldOfTheHolyOne said:

Thank you for answer your own challenge by citing Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3. In both verses three forms of singing are specifically mentioned. Those who are enamored with exclusive psalmody usually end up tieing themselves into linguistic knots in an effort to assert that Paul actually was telling these people to sing Psalms, Psalms, and Psalms.

Click to expand...

Trouble is, all three of those categories are used as superscriptions in the Septuagint Psalter. It's not out of the question that Paul could be covering the entirety of the Psalter by using the 3-fold phrase. I've heard arguments both ways. I'm still undecided (I recently posted a thread without realizing the issues were being taken up here. Woops!). In either case, those two passages do mandate that churches actually sing from the book of Psalms. The question is whether we are to sing exclusively from it. I'd challenge the non-EP guys to locate a text which necessitates that we not only can but ought to sing songs which are not Scripture.[/QUOTE]

There are snippets of poetry in some of Paul's epistles which are considered to be examples of some songs used in the church. It does seem a bit odd to write poetry in that culture and not sing it.

bbbbbbb said:

Trouble is, all three of those categories are used as superscriptions in the Septuagint Psalter. It's not out of the question that Paul could be covering the entirety of the Psalter by using the 3-fold phrase. I've heard arguments both ways. I'm still undecided (I recently posted a thread without realizing the issues were being taken up here. Woops!). In either case, those two passages do mandate that churches actually sing from the book of Psalms. The question is whether we are to sing exclusively from it. I'd challenge the non-EP guys to locate a text which necessitates that we not only can but ought to sing songs which are not Scripture.

Click to expand...

There are snippets of poetry in some of Paul's epistles which are considered to be examples of some songs used in the church. It does seem a bit odd to write poetry in that culture and not sing it.[/QUOTE]

Would you mind providing the examples? I'm curious and would love to study them. I'm sure the Philippians 2 "Christ-hymn" is among them(?).

I have a friend from the OPC who said they only sang Psalms. I asked about Psalm 137, in particular "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" He admitted they didn't necessarily sing all the Psalms.

HeraldOfTheHolyOne said:

There are snippets of poetry in some of Paul's epistles which are considered to be examples of some songs used in the church. It does seem a bit odd to write poetry in that culture and not sing it.

Click to expand...

Would you mind providing the examples? I'm curious and would love to study them. I'm sure the Philippians 2 "Christ-hymn" is among them(?).[/QUOTE]

Please accept my apologies for my delay in replying to your request.

Here are a couple I am aware of -

Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

I Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

bbbbbbb said:

Would you mind providing the examples? I'm curious and would love to study them. I'm sure the Philippians 2 "Christ-hymn" is among them(?).

Click to expand...

Please accept my apologies for my delay in replying to your request.

Here are a couple I am aware of -

Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

I Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.[/QUOTE]


For Ephesians 5:14, notice Paul says, "...it is said" (διο λεγει) not "...it is sung." Is there any evidence that 1 Timothy 3:16 is a song and not a confession of faith? Do you think the above is enough to necessitate that the Church may sing songs other than the Psalms in corporate worship?

HeraldOfTheHolyOne said:

Please accept my apologies for my delay in replying to your request.

Here are a couple I am aware of -

Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

I Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

Click to expand...

Paul also says speaking and singing to one another in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. It seems that the distinction between speaking and singing was not nearly as sharp as at present. In fact, in the seventeenth century Reformed churches typically read the Psalms and/or lined them out with the precentor singing each verse followed by the congregation repeating the verse back. It was Isaac Watts in the eighteenth century with his reworking of the Psalms into metrical stanzas that resulted in the general usage of sung Psalms exclusively in worship.

For Ephesians 5:14, notice Paul says, "...it is said" (διο λεγει) not "...it is sung." Is there any evidence that 1 Timothy 3:16 is a song and not a confession of faith? Do you think the above is enough to necessitate that the Church may sing songs other than the Psalms in corporate worship?[/QUOTE]

HeraldOfTheHolyOne said:

Exclusive Psalmody is not the position that psalms are a preferred form for the Church's element of worship in song, but that they are the elemental content (I.e. singing specifically the psalms is an element of the Church's worship). If the EP position is biblical, then it is not an unwarranted imposition of a minority position to call churches to sing the psalms exclusively in worship. The regulative principle would mandate that we do so, and that we encourage churches to orthopraxy in worship.

The burden of proof lies on those opposing exclusive psalmody, to find a biblical text which explicitly sets forth, or necessarily implies that the Church's singing may include that which is other than Scripture. Perhaps locating hymn singing as prayer and not the prescribed singing of Eph. 5/Col. 3?

Click to expand...

Well I suppose the only problem with the EP position is that it is unbiblical. The burden of proof is on the EP folks to show how Scripture explicitly binds the conscience to exclusive psalmody.

Tree of Life said:

Well I suppose the only problem with the EP position is that it is unbiblical. The burden of proof is on the EP folks to show how Scripture explicitly binds the conscience to exclusive psalmody.

Click to expand...

It is called the Regulative Principle of Worship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulative_principle_of_worship