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

Tree of Life · Nov 26, 2015

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

I'm well familiar with the regulative principle. The regulative principle does not teach exclusive psalmody nor would it allow exclusive psalmody to be imposed upon the church. In fact, the regulative principle guards against such outrageous commandments of men.

bbbbbbb · Nov 26, 2015

Tree of Life said:
I'm well familiar with the regulative principle. The regulative principle does not teach exclusive psalmody nor would it allow exclusive psalmody to be imposed upon the church. In fact, the regulative principle guards against such outrageous commandments of men.

However, it has been (ab)used to command exclusive psalmody. I did not enounter the regulative principle until I attended a church was used exclusive psalmody. Strange, is it not?

Calvinist Dark Lord · Nov 26, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
However, it has been (ab)used to command exclusive psalmody. I did not enounter the regulative principle until I attended a church was used exclusive psalmody. Strange, is it not?

Not really all that strange. It seems to be a rather human trait to overcompensate for real abuses (like those possible in the permissive principle of worship). All facets of human society give evidence to such over compensation, not just the church. The Regulative Principle can --like all principles-- be used for such over compensation.

However, it does not follow that those who are using the principle in such a manner are correct.

bbbbbbb · Nov 27, 2015

Calvinist Dark Lord said:
Not really all that strange. It seems to be a rather human trait to overcompensate for real abuses (like those possible in the permissive principle of worship). All facets of human society give evidence to such over compensation, not just the church. The Regulative Principle can --like all principles-- be used for such over compensation.

However, it does not follow that those who are using the principle in such a manner are correct.

Thank you for picking up my irony. You have made my point quite well. The difficulty has always been to avoid misusing otherwise true and good principles.

jimmyjimmy · Nov 28, 2015

I'm PCA. No one I know would call me a liberal, but I don't hold (strictly)to the RP. Firstly, the argument for it is self-defeating. There is no RP in scripture, so we shouldn't go by the RP.. . . Having said that I agree with the spirit of the RP.

My faith and convictions are such that I defend and am unbending on are the issues at the heart of Christianity e.g. the gospel, deity of Christ, etc. On the other hand, the issues that are both non-essential and have less scriptural backing, I hold loosely. I don't argue for them dogmatically.

HeraldOfTheHolyOne · Nov 29, 2015

thatbrian said:
I'm PCA. No one I know would call me a liberal, but I don't hold to the RP. Firstly, the argument for it is self-defeating. There is no RP in scripture, so we shouldn't go by the RP.. . . Having said that I agree with the spirit of the RP.

My faith and convictions are such that I defend and am unbending on are the issues at the heart of Christianity e.g. the gospel, deity of Christ, etc. On the other hand, the issues that are both non-essential and have less scriptural backing, I hold loosely. I don't argue for them dogmatically.

Since when is the worship of God a "non-essential" issue? How is the worship of God not at the heart of Christianity? What do you suppose Nadab and Abihu, or Moses, the Levitical priesthood, or the Apostles (who clearly set forth the patterns of the New Covenant Church's worship of God) think about your statement, "There is no RP in Scripture"? The argument for the regulative principle is not self-defeating at all.

jimmyjimmy · Nov 29, 2015

HeraldOfTheHolyOne said:
Since when is the worship of God a "non-essential" issue?

What you believe about the regulative principle (for or against) is a non-essential. Regenerated people hold different views on this. It's not essential to salvation or a test of orthodoxy. Nothing worth fighting over, and nothing worth dividing over.

HeraldOfTheHolyOne said:
What do you suppose Nadab and Abihu, or Moses, the Levitical priesthood

We have no priests (except Christ) or a book of Leviticus under the NC. It's just not there. It's actually part of the good news that we don't!

HeraldOfTheHolyOne said:
The argument for the regulative principle is not self-defeating at all.

The RP says that we are to do nothing in worship that is not directly prescribed. Well . .. the RP is not directly prescribed in scripture, therefore it's self-defeating.

Shedding tears on Jesus feet was an acceptable form of worship, but the Pharisees didn't think so. . .

HeraldOfTheHolyOne · Nov 29, 2015

Would you say that God elected people and redeemed them in order that they would worship Him as His people? How is worship a non-essential when it is the very ends to which we were redeemed? Perhaps we're understanding "essential" differently. No, I am not and have not been saying that your justification depends upon faith in Christ and the RPW alone! I am saying that it is essential for Christian life if we want to worship God. The very first question in both the Shorter and Larger Catechisms recognize that our purpose in life is to glorify God (and enjoy Him forever)! How is this not vitally important?

I'd much rather take the worship of God seriously as He is a holy God Who is worthy to be worshiped. He demands it and has prescribed His worship in His Word. Why would we relegate this to a non-essential for Christian life? In the past God literally killed people who chose to worship Him in ways He did not prescribe. Is that not enough evidence for you to conclude that the RP is crucial for godly living in His Church?

jimmyjimmy · Nov 29, 2015

HeraldOfTheHolyOne said:
Would you say that God elected people and redeemed them in order that they would worship Him as His people? How is worship a non-essential when it is the very ends to which we were redeemed? Perhaps we're understanding "essential" differently. No, I am not and have not been saying that your justification depends upon faith in Christ and the RPW alone! I am saying that it is essential for Christian life if we want to worship God. The very first question in both the Shorter and Larger Catechisms recognize that our purpose in life is to glorify God (and enjoy Him forever)! How is this not vitally important?

I'd much rather take the worship of God seriously as He is a holy God Who is worthy to be worshiped. He demands it and has prescribed His worship in His Word. Why would we relegate this to a non-essential for Christian life? In the past God literally killed people who chose to worship Him in ways He did not prescribe. Is that not enough evidence for you to conclude that the RP is crucial for godly living in His Church?

You haven't understood a word I wrote correctly, but I don't believe that more explanation will help, so I'll leave it.

HeraldOfTheHolyOne · Nov 29, 2015

thatbrian said:
You haven't understood a word I wrote correctly, but I don't believe that more explanation will help, so I'll leave it.

Well I believe I do understand what you've written its just that I disagree with what you've stated.

jimmyjimmy · Apr 27, 2016

SinnerInTheHands said:
Most Presbyterians [who this thread was solely intended for] would historically abide by what is called the regulative principle of worship.

"Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it." [Deuteronomy 12:32]

Thus, it argues that we are only to do in worship that which is set out in Scripture, and nothing more.

Following this logic, the content of all sermons should be nothing more than a reading of the text, word for word.

There simply is no equivalent to the book of Leviticus which instructs our worship today, and that is obviously intentional.

bbbbbbb · Apr 27, 2016

thatbrian said:
Following this logic, the content of all sermons should be nothing more than a reading of the text, word for word.

There simply is no equivalent to the book of Leviticus which instructs our worship today, and that is obviously intentional.

That then leaves one with the difficult task of determing the nature of worship in the church of God. There are several possibilities, as follow:

1. There is no authoritative teaching so that one is utterly free to devise any form of worship one considers to be appropriate. This seems to be the philosophy used in most of contemporary Christianity today.
2. Although no direct teaching exists in scripture, there are themes and examples which set guidelines for worship. For example, the ordinances of baptism and communion.
3. Direct teaching does exist in the New Testament as well as themes and examples. For example, I Corinthians contains much regarding the meeting of the church. The difficulty then becomes implementing these things in the worship of the church without violating scripture.

Dave-W · Apr 27, 2016

bbbbbbb said:
3. Direct teaching does exist in the New Testament as well as themes and examples. For example, I Corinthians contains much regarding the meeting of the church. The difficulty then becomes implementing these things in the worship of the church without violating scripture.

Our brothers at the Church of Christ have developed a hermenutic called CENI which stands for Command, (approved) Example and Necessary Inference. By that they have deduced 5 necessary elements for a worship service: The preached Word, Communion, Prayer, (all from Acts 2.42) singing, (Eph 5.19) and taking up an offering. (2 Cor 9.7)

bbbbbbb · Apr 27, 2016

DaveW-Ohev said:
Our brothers at the Church of Christ have developed a hermenutic called CENI which stands for Command, (approved) Example and Necessary Inference. By that they have deduced 5 necessary elements for a worship service: The preached Word, Communion, Prayer, (all from Acts 2.42) singing, (Eph 5.19) and taking up an offering. (2 Cor 9.7)

In a parallel Christian universe, the Plymouth brethren developed a hermeutic based on Acts 2:42 -

42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

However, the application is not necessarily to all elements being contained within a single meeting; rather, they have a meeting primarily focussed on teaching, another for fellowship, another for the breaking of bread, and another prayer, in addition to other things such as Sunday School. All of these are done in the space of a week, although not all on the same day. For example, prayer is usually done in a mid-week meeting.

jimmyjimmy · Apr 27, 2016

bbbbbbb said:
That then leaves one with the difficult task of determing the nature of worship in the church of God. There are several possibilities, as follow:

1. There is no authoritative teaching so that one is utterly free to devise any form of worship one considers to be appropriate. This seems to be the philosophy used in most of contemporary Christianity today.
2. Although no direct teaching exists in scripture, there are themes and examples which set guidelines for worship. For example, the ordinances of baptism and communion.
3. Direct teaching does exist in the New Testament as well as themes and examples. For example, I Corinthians contains much regarding the meeting of the church. The difficulty then becomes implementing these things in the worship of the church without violating scripture.

I don't think it calls for anything more extreme than allowing songs other than Psalms.

Quid est Veritas? · May 20, 2016

Amongst my people, the Afrikaners, the question of whether or not to sing hymns versus Psalms resulted in a split of one of our churches. The Gereformeerde Kerk split from the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk (both Dutch Reformed Church in English unfortunately) over this very question.
The elders were outraged that Music was being allowed that wasn't biblical in Church service and left to form their own Church. They said "Net God se liedere in God se kerk" - 'Only God's music in God's Church'. They still only sing Psalms to this day.

If anyone is interested I mentioned it in the below post that I recently made.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...elgic-versus-westminster-confessions.7947833/

Tree of Life · May 26, 2016

I do agree that Scripture should regulate the content of our worship songs. But I do not think that this means exclusive psalmody.

jimmyjimmy · Jun 1, 2016

If the OP is true, it must also be sinful to shake hands, as we ought to "greet each other with a holy kiss", and without a tunic and cloak, how can I obey Jesus's command to give my cloak away?

AMR · Jun 7, 2016

SinnerInTheHands said:
A question for all of my Presbyterian friends.

The answer: Yes it is sinful.

Why:
http://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Winzer-NeedhamReviewf.pdf

jimmyjimmy · Jun 7, 2016

AMR said:
The answer: Yes it is sinful.

Why:
http://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Winzer-NeedhamReviewf.pdf

Wow. You guys are going to make me join the PCUSA (not in a million years) but be reasonable here.

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

Is it sinful to sing hymns other than the psalms in worship?

Yes, only unaccompanied psalms should be sung in worship.

Yes, only psalms should be sung in worship; accompaniment is acceptable.

No, it is not sinful to sing hymns other than the psalms is worship.

Hide The Pain

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Pardoned Rebel

יהוה יהוה אל רחום וחנון ארך אפים ורב חסד ואמת

Pardoned Rebel

יהוה יהוה אל רחום וחנון ארך אפים ורב חסד ואמת

Pardoned Rebel

יהוה יהוה אל רחום וחנון ארך אפים ורב חסד ואמת

Pardoned Rebel

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Pardoned Rebel

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Hide The Pain

Pardoned Rebel

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed

Pardoned Rebel

Similar threads