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

[Tree of Life]

Three more questions:

1. Is the church free to use an instrument like a tuning key or a simple piano chord in order to inform everyone of the correct key?
2. Is the church free to tap their feet or create some other audible sound to keep rhythm?
3. Are there any time signatures that are unacceptable?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Three more questions:

1. Is the church free to use an instrument like a tuning key or a simple piano chord in order to inform everyone of the correct key?
2. Is the church free to tap their feet or create some other audible sound to keep rhythm?
3. Are there any time signatures that are unacceptable?

I can't wait to see the answers to your questions. There are going to be some "creative" "interpretations" of scripture.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

They are sung a capella.

For example:

Presbyterian Reformed Church Form of Government and Book of Discipline:

The Ordinances of Worship in a Particular Congregation

17. The ordinances in a single congregation are prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of Psalms, the word read (although there follow no immediate explication of what is read), the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing. In accordance with the simplicity and purity of worship provided for in the church's Basis of Union, the church's worship shall be without instrumental music, and only the Book of Psalms shall be used for singing in worship. The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.​

See also: http://psalm-singing.org/ to hear the Psalms


Various Hymnals:
Tinity Hymnal Red Cover (Psalms Section)
CRC Psalter-Hymnal (pre-revision version)
The Book of Psalms for Singing
Scottish Psamody - 1650 Scottish Metrical Version
The Psalms of David in Metre
The Psalms for Singing - A 21st Century Edition (Red Cover)

That's very interesting. Thanks. I recognize a couple of those melodies from my Baptist days. They also sound very similar to music I associate with Appalachia, which I guess makes sense since that is where so many Scots Presbyterians settled.

Mary

 

[AMR]

The Scripture (OT and NT) gives us a positive command to sing the psalms (Ps. 95:3, 105:2, Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16) to God in our worship. Given that there exists no other command in Scripture for what we are to sing in corporate worship, or for us to compose uninspired songs for use in the public worship of God, the positive command to sing the Psalms stands as binding according to the Regulative Principle of Worship (Deut. 12:32).

Setting the Psalms to different melodies is within the purview of the church as long as they are done so with the overriding principle of bringing glory to God (not shame or scandal).

We have been given by God a book of psalms that we were commanded to sing. We have not been given a book of prayers, rather we have a form of prayer (the Lord's prayer). We have not been given a book of sermons but an instruction to elders to "preach the word, in season and out of season... with patience and teaching" (2 Tim. 4:2).

We are commanded to come together to hear the word of the Lord. That word is what that church professes when it is so exhorted from the Pulpit by the properly ordained servant. To modify the word of the Lord (rhyming, adding refrains, mixing infelicitously, etc.) would stand in contradiction to the claim of the church that it is proclaiming the word of the Lord.

Accordingly, given that there is a command to sing a specific set of inspired songs (the Psalter) in the public worship of God, and nothing else, we should seek to be obedient to such as often as we are able.

 

[Tree of Life]

So @AMR should I not expect an answer to my questions?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

So @AMR should I not expect an answer to my questions?

Were you expecting one?

 

[Tree of Life]

I see now that there are some answers in @AMR 's post. You've just got to look for them.

So I notice that the Scottish Psalm book does employ the use of rhyme. Do you not use that one because it's sinful?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I see now that there are some answers You've just got to look for them.

With no biblical backing for any point, which is the irony of this POV. It cries that we must be strictly biblical, yet it cannot defend its position biblically.

Setting the Psalms to different melodies is within the purview of the church as long as they are done so with the overriding principle of bringing glory to God (not shame or scandal).

To modify the word of the Lord (rhyming, adding refrains, mixing infelicitously, etc.) would stand in contradiction to the claim of the church that it is proclaiming the word of the Lord.

. . .given that there is a command to sing a specific set of inspired songs (the Psalter) in the public worship of God, and nothing else, we should seek to be obedient to such as often as we are able.​

 

[AMR]

I see now that there are some answers in @AMR 's post. You've just got to look for them.

So I notice that the Scottish Psalm book does employ the use of rhyme. Do you not use that one because it's sinful?

I offered up several various hymnals, among and within which the local session or presbytery serves as to how they may be used.

 

[AMR]

With no biblical backing for any point, which is the irony of this POV. It cries that we must be strictly biblical, yet it cannot defend its position biblically.

Setting the Psalms to different melodies is within the purview of the church as long as they are done so with the overriding principle of bringing glory to God (not shame or scandal).

To modify the word of the Lord (rhyming, adding refrains, mixing infelicitously, etc.) would stand in contradiction to the claim of the church that it is proclaiming the word of the Lord.

. . .given that there is a command to sing a specific set of inspired songs (the Psalter) in the public worship of God, and nothing else, we should seek to be obedient to such as often as we are able.​

Asked and answered in my previous posts, for example:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...salms-in-worship.7904094/page-3#post-69714404

Tolle lege.

I would like to ask you to stop the attempts to bait me within the tenor of your responses. Your calls for support from Holy Writ have been amply answered in the short article I have cited in my responses. I see no need to extract the content from its surrounding contexts and possibly do a possible disservice to its author. After carefully reviewing the article, should you have something substantive to offer perhaps I or others will be moved to engage in further discussion.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Asked and answered in my previous posts, for example:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...salms-in-worship.7904094/page-3#post-69714404

Tolle lege.

I would like to ask you to stop the attempts to bait me within the tenor of your responses. Your calls for support from Holy Writ have been amply answered in the short article I have cited in my responses. I see no need to extract the content from its surrounding contexts and possibly do a possible disservice to its author. After carefully reviewing the article, should you have something substantive to offer perhaps I or others will be moved to engage in further discussion.

My belief is that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Yours may be different, and that's OK. That's your business, but I must be convince by scripture, so if the only proof you have to back your assertion that singing anything other than Psalms in a worship service is sinful is your article, and not the "genuine article", I will call this "debate" perfecta.

 

[AMR]

My belief is that the Christian Scriptures are the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Yours may be different, and that's OK. That's your business, but I must be convince by scripture, so if the only proof you have to back your assertion that singing anything other than Psalms in a worship service is sinful is your article, and not the "genuine article", I will call this "debate" perfecta.

Perhaps I am not being clear. No one would disagree with your view that Scripture is our norming norm. The article in question provides the convincing Scriptural proof and analysis thereof that you are seeking.