Regulative principle of worship

[hermanchauw]

Just like to know how many of your churches practice the following:

1) Psalms only singing

2) No musical instruments

 

[A New Dawn]

Not mine. But we do make a joyful noise unto the Lord!

[BIBLE]Psalm 100:1-5[/BIBLE]

What about

Psalm 98:5-6
5 Sing unto the LORD with the harp; with the harp, and the voice of a psalm.
6 With trumpets and sound of cornet make a joyful noise before the LORD, the King.

 

[Beoga]

Not mine (both my PCA church back home and the community church where I am going to school).
Have you spent much time at the www.puritanboard.com ?

 

[Iosias]

Just like to know how many of your churches practice the following:

1) Psalms only singing

2) No musical instruments

We don't although that is the position that I hold to.

 

[Iosias]

Not mine. But we do make a joyful noise unto the Lord!

[bible]Psalm 100:1-5[/bible]

What about

Psalm 98:5-6
5 Sing unto the LORD with the harp; with the harp, and the voice of a psalm.
6 With trumpets and sound of cornet make a joyful noise before the LORD, the King.

Psalm 96 and 98 both contain the phrase "new song" and neither refers to constructing new songs. What is being exhorted is the singing of songs that are new to that person. Psalm 96 is a core missionary psalm and is eschatological looking forward to the gospel dispensation. Here, Israel is sounding forth the encouragement to gentiles to forsake their idols and turn to Jehovah. God is, through Israel, calling upon the gentiles to sing a new song, a song that as heathen, and strangers to the covenants and commonwealth, they have never sung before. The gentiles are being urged to sing unto Jehovah, i.e. to submit to the king (note these psalms fall in the block of Psalms 90-100 where the focus is on God's kingship over all nations) and take his praise upon their lips.

Simply: the phrase "new song" is "repent, have faith in Christ" in poetic form. All the earth is exhorted to be converted and so "sing unto the LORD a new song".

The inscription in the Syriac version for Psalm 96 is, "a Psalm of David, a Prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, and of the calling of the Gentiles that believe in him''. The inscription of the Syriac version calls Psalm 98 "a Psalm of David, concerning the redemption of the people out of Egypt, when they conquered and triumphed;'' adding "but spiritually a prophecy concerning the coming of Christ, and the calling of the Gentiles unto the faith.''

 

[david01]

Contrary to current popular thinking, the Regulative Principle of Worship was never intended to be merely limited to restricting the music of the church to the Psalms without instrumental accompaniment. Unfortunately, many have come to associate these two so closely that most of the great value of the Regulative Principle has been lost.

To answer the OP, yes and no. In my church we sing the Psalms on Sunday evenings without musical accompaniment. In other services we also sing hymns and spiritual songs (hymns and odes in the Greek, cf. Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16) with and without instrumental accompaniment.

 

[Iosias]

Contrary to current popular thinking, the Regulative Principle of Worship was never intended to be merely limited to restricting the music of the church to the Psalms without instrumental accompaniment.

The RPW is of course far broader than these two elements, but the RPW does remove instruments from the public worship and it also restricts praise to inspired songs.

 

[A New Dawn]

The RPW is of course far broader than these two elements, but the RPW does remove instruments from the public worship and it also restricts praise to inspired songs.

And who is to determine what is "inspired"? I think that lots of modern songs have brought people to Christ, and, IMO, that makes them "inspired".

 

[Iosias]

And who is to determine what is "inspired"?

The Church which it has done and the canon is now closed.

I think that lots of modern songs have brought people to Christ, and, IMO, that makes them "inspired".

Are you saying that the writers of these songs are writing 'God-breathed' songs?

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm

 

[A New Dawn]

I don't want to debate the definition of inspired in this thread, but if one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit is to lead people to Christ, then He has to be alive today doing His work. If you are implying that only the closed canon can be inspired, then I disagree with you. And if you are implying that if something is inspired it has to be in the canon, then I disagree with you again.

 

[Iosias]

I don't want to debate the definition of inspired in this thread, but if one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit is to lead people to Christ, then He has to be alive today doing His work. If you are implying that only the closed canon can be inspired, then I disagree with you. And if you are implying that if something is inspired it has to be in the canon, then I disagree with you again.

I am advocating the Reformed position concerning inspiration. There are no inspired writings save those contained in the Scriptures.

 

[david01]

The Church which it has done and the canon is now closed.



Are you saying that the writers of these songs are writing 'God-breathed' songs?

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm

If one were to take an extreme position on the RPW, one might conclude that sermons are forbidden unless they were the mere reading of scripture without any explanation or comment, because such things are outside the canon of scripture.

The reality is that the canon of scripture does contain those two troubling verses (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16). If God, the Holy Spirit, intended His church to sing only the Psalms, why did He also mention odes and hymns? In the Greek there is a clear distinction between the three. Sadly, the modern church has interpreted these verses to refer to either hymns, hymns, and hymns, or odes, odea, and odes. The case is extremely weak that these thress distinct words are actually repetitions of one of them,

 

[Iosias]

If one were to take an extreme position on the RPW, one might conclude that sermons are forbidden unless they were the mere reading of scripture without any explanation or comment, because such things are outside the canon of scripture.

Not at all, and if someone was to argue along those lines then they clearly do not understand the RPW. There are a number of different elements of worship - prayer, preaching, reading the word, singing. These are distinctive elements and are regulated in accordance with their type. So the minister is to preach using his own words but he is to preach Scripture not what happened in The Daily Telegraph two days ago. Prayer is also free in terms of wording but we have been given the Lord's Prayer to help us pattern our prayers. Singing has been restricted to psalms as God has made clear.

The reality is that the canon of scripture does contain those two troubling verses (Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16). If God, the Holy Spirit, intended His church to sing only the Psalms, why did He also mention odes and hymns?

The titles "psalms", "hymns" and "songs" are all titles of the Psalms. “Psalms” refer obviously to psalms; “hymns” refer to psalms for as
John Gill wrote, "I take hymns to be but another name for the book of psalms; for the running title of that book may as well be, the book of hymns, as of psalms" but what of “spiritual songs”? A simple glance at the titles of a number of psalms will find them called songs as are Psalms 18, 30, 45, 46, 48, 65-68, 75, 76, 83, 87, 92, 108, and 120-134. They are called “spiritual” because they were written by the Spirit of God (2 Peter 1:21) and composed for spiritual edification. Do you find it odd that St. Paul would use three different words in one sentence to describe the same thing? I would point out that this is done in a number of places including Genesis 26:5, Exodus 34:7, Deuteronomy 8:11, 1 Kings 2:3, Nehemiah 1:7 and Acts 2:22. The use of three different terms to describe the same thing is a common Hebraic linguistic form:

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Deu 8:11 Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day:

1Ki 2:3 And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:

Neh 1:7 We have dealt very corruptly against thee, and have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the judgments, which thou commandedst thy servant Moses.

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

In both Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 we find it written that “when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.” What does it mean by “hymn”? This was a part of the Egyptian Hallel which begins at Psalm 113 and ends with Psalm 118 and which the Jews sang at the Feast of the Passover.

 

[david01]

Not at all, and if someone was to argue along those lines then they clearly do not understand the RPW. There are a number of different elements of worship - prayer, preaching, reading the word, singing. These are distinctive elements and are regulated in accordance with their type. So the minister is to preach using his own words but he is to preach Scripture not what happened in The Daily Telegraph two days ago. Prayer is also free in terms of wording but we have been given the Lord's Prayer to help us pattern our prayers. Singing has been restricted to psalms as God has made clear.



The titles "psalms", "hymns" and "songs" are all titles of the Psalms. “Psalms” refer obviously to psalms; “hymns” refer to psalms for as
John Gill wrote, "I take hymns to be but another name for the book of psalms; for the running title of that book may as well be, the book of hymns, as of psalms" but what of “spiritual songs”? A simple glance at the titles of a number of psalms will find them called songs as are Psalms 18, 30, 45, 46, 48, 65-68, 75, 76, 83, 87, 92, 108, and 120-134. They are called “spiritual” because they were written by the Spirit of God (2 Peter 1:21) and composed for spiritual edification. Do you find it odd that St. Paul would use three different words in one sentence to describe the same thing? I would point out that this is done in a number of places including Genesis 26:5, Exodus 34:7, Deuteronomy 8:11, 1 Kings 2:3, Nehemiah 1:7 and Acts 2:22. The use of three different terms to describe the same thing is a common Hebraic linguistic form:

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Deu 8:11 Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day:

1Ki 2:3 And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:

Neh 1:7 We have dealt very corruptly against thee, and have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, nor the judgments, which thou commandedst thy servant Moses.

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

In both Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 we find it written that “when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.” What does it mean by “hymn”? This was a part of the Egyptian Hallel which begins at Psalm 113 and ends with Psalm 118 and which the Jews sang at the Feast of the Passover.

You have made a number of points which I would like to address.

There is, unfortunately, a great divergence of thought concerning what it means to "preach scripture." One extreme, which is attracting some interest today, is the mere reading of scripture, albeit with dramatic inflection. At the other extreme we find many whose sermons virtually exclude scripture in an effort to be "relevant." Even the best of sermons (e.g. Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of Angry God") are open to question when the application is made to the audience. Likewise, prayer covers a wide range of possibilities such as worship, thanksgiving, supplication, petition, etc. In petitioning God for personal needs one walks a fine line indeed. Likewise, the entire concept of Sunday School lies entirely outside of the canon of scripture and there are some who condemn it as a result.

There is a difference between the Regulative Principle of Worship and the Restrictive Principle of Worship. The initial impetus for the RPW was the NPW, which is the principle practiced (generally, unwittingly) in most churches today. The Normative Principle, briefly stated, is that anything that is not condemned is scripture is permitted. That opens the door widely to a range of things such as veneration of Mary and the saints and reinstatement of priests and other clerical offices. The Regulative Principle, by contrast, simple states that whatever is not given in scripture is not to be followed. This wise principle eradicates much that is questionable, at best.

However, it has been taken to extremes. The Puritans forebade the use of a lighted fire on the Sabbath in the meeting house or in the home because such work broke the Sabbath. This was not a difficulty in England, but in New England it resulted in cases of frostbite. Later, when umbrellas were invented, they were condemned using the same principle, with the argument being that rain, like God's grace, is not to be hindered.

The interpretation of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs as being the Psalms (which are hymns and spiritual songs) is grammatically unsupportable. It is little different than that used to create the office of pastor/teacher from Ephesians 4:11. Likewise, the exclusion of instrumental accompaniment in the singing of the Psalms is especially egregious in light of the use of such accompaniment given within the Psalms themselves. To assert that instrumental accompaniment ceased by the first century requires extrabiblical revelation which flies in the face the RPW and transforms it into a genuinely restrictive principle which selectively chooses portions of scripture to fit a pattern.

To believe that the early church did not use instrumental accompaniment but had an office of "teaching elder" (in contradistinction to ruling elder) is contradictory, at best. On one hand a scriptural precedent (instrumental accompaniment) is eliminated while maintaining the use of the Psalms and on the other an office for which there is absolutely no scripture basis is created.

 

[Iosias]

There is, unfortunately, a great divergence of thought concerning what it means to "preach scripture."

When we look at Scripture the meaning is quite simple.

Nehemiah 8:4 -7 "And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people and when he opened it, all the people stood up: And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place."

Likewise, prayer covers a wide range of possibilities such as worship, thanksgiving, supplication, petition, etc.

Not sure what your point is here.

The Regulative Principle, by contrast, simple states that whatever is not given in scripture is not to be followed.

The RPW teaches that "the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited to His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture ".

The Puritans forebade the use of a lighted fire on the Sabbath in the meeting house or in the home because such work broke the Sabbath.

Not too sure where you got this from. Some Puritans may have done this but none of which I am aware of.

Later, when umbrellas were invented, they were condemned using the same principle, with the argument being that rain, like God's grace, is not to be hindered.

Evidence? Further, the Puritans taught that the RPW governed worship and that alone.

The interpretation of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs as being the Psalms (which are hymns and spiritual songs) is grammatically unsupportable.

Unfortunately (a) scholars disagree with you includng Professor John Murray who was at Westminster Theological Seminary, and (b) you offer no evidence to support your claim.

Murray writes:

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica]Paul specifies the character of the songs as "Spiritual" — odais pneumatikais. If anything should be obvious from the use of the word pneumatikos in the New Testament it is that it has reference to the Holy Spirit and means, in such contexts as the present, "given by the Spirit." Its meaning is not at all, as Trench contends, "such as were composed by spiritual men, and moved in the sphere of spiritual things" (Synonyms, lxxviii). It rather means, as Meyer points out, "proceeding from the Holy Spirit, as theopneustos" (Com. on Eph. 5:19). In this context the word would mean "indited by the Spirit," just as in I Corinthians 2:13 logois . . . pneumatikois are "words inspired by the Spirit" and "taught by the Spirit" (didaktois pneumatos).[/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] The question, of course, arises: why does the word pneumatikos qualify odais and not psalmois and humnois? A reasonable answer to this question is that pneumatikais qualifies all three datives and that its gender (fem.) is due to attraction to the gender of the noun that is closest to it. Another distinct, possibility, made particularly plausible by the omission of the copulative in Colossians 3:16, is that "Spiritual songs" are the genus of which "psalms" and "hymns" are the species. This is the view of Meyer, for example.[/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] On either of these assumptions the psalms, hymns and songs are all "Spiritual" and therefore all inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bearing of this upon the question at issue is perfectly apparent. Uninspired hymns are immediately excluded.[/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] But we shall have to allow for the distinct possibility that the word "Spiritual," in the grammatical structure of the clause, is confined to the word "songs." On this hypothesis the "songs" are characterized as "Spiritual," and therefore characterized as inspired or indited by the Holy Spirit. This, at least, should be abundantly clear.[/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] The question would arise then: is it merely the "songs" that need to be inspired while the "psalms" and "hymns" may be uninspired? The asking of the question shows the unreasonableness of such an hypothesis, especially when we bear in mind all that has already been shown with reference to the use of these words. On what conceivable ground would Paul have insisted that the "songs" needed to be divinely inspired while the "psalms" and "hymns" did not need to be? In the usage of Scripture there was no hard and fast line of distinction between psalms and hymns, on the one hand, and songs on the other. It would be quite impossible to find any good ground for such discrimination in the apostolic prescription.[/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] The unreasonableness of such a supposition appears all the more conclusive when we remember the Scripture usage with respect to the word "psalms." There is not the least bit of evidence to suppose that in such usage on the part of the apostle "psalm" could mean an uninspired human composition. All the evidence, rather, goes to establish the opposite conclusion.[/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] We see then that psalms are inspired. Songs are inspired because they are characterized as "Spiritual." What then about the hymns? May they be uninspired? As already indicated, it would be an utterly unreasonable hypothesis to maintain that the apostle would require that songs be inspired while psalms and hymns might not. This becomes all the more cogent when we recognize as we have established, that the psalms and songs were inspired. It would indeed be strange discrimination if hymns might be uninspired and psalms and songs inspired. But it would be strange to the point of absurdity if Paul should be supposed to insist that songs had to be inspired but hymns not. For what distinction can be drawn between a hymn and a song that would make it requisite for the latter to be inspired while the former might not be? We, indeed, cannot be sure that there is any distinction so far as actual denotation is concerned. Even if we do maintain the distinct colour of each word there is no discoverable reason why so radical a distinction as that between inspiration and non-inspiration could be maintained.[/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] The only conclusion we can arrive at then is that "hymns" in Eph 5:19, Col. 3:16 must be accorded the same "Spiritual" quality as is accorded to "psalms" by obvious implication and to "songs" by express qualification, and that this was taken for granted by the apostle, either because the word "Spiritual" would be regarded as qualifying all three words, or because "Spiritual songs" were the genus of which "psalms" and "hymns" were the species, or because in the usage of the church "hymns" like "psalms" would be recognized in their own right and because of the context in which they are mentioned to be in no other category, as respects their "Spiritual" quality, than the category occupied by psalms and songs.[/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] In reference to these two passages, then, we are compelled to conclude:[/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] (a) There is no warrant for thinking that "psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs" can refer to uninspired human compositions. These texts provide us with no authorization whatsoever for the singing of uninspired songs in the worship of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] (b) There is warrant for concluding that "psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs" refer to inspired compositions. These texts provide us, therefore, with warrant for the singing of inspired songs in the worship of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]
[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] (c) The Book of Psalms provides us with psalms, hymns and songs that are inspired and therefore with the kind of compositions referred to in Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] [/FONT]

Likewise, the exclusion of instrumental accompaniment in the singing of the Psalms is especially egregious in light of the use of such accompaniment given within the Psalms themselves.

Until David musical instruments were not included in the public worship of God. Musical instruments were introduced by the direct commandment of God and restricted to temple worship.

On Psalm 4 Dickson writes:

From the inscription of this Psalm, which is the first wherein mention is made of the chief musicians, or musical instruments: learn 1. The praise of God and the joy of his Spirit, allowed on his people, surpass all expression which the voice of words can make; for this was signified by the plurality, and diversity of musical instruments (some of them sounding by being beaten, some of them by being blown,) superadded to the voice of singing in the prædagogy of Moses. 2. Albeit the ceremonial, figurative, and religious use of musical instruments be gone, with the rest of the Levitical shadows, (the natural use of them still remaining yet the vocal singing of Psalms in the church is not taken away, as the practice and doctrine of Christ and his apostles make evident; and so the voice of a musician in the public worship still is useful. 3. The Psalms are to be made use of with discretion, as the matter of the Psalm, and edification of the worshippers may require. And in the public, it is the called minister of the congregation's place, to order this part of the worship with the rest; for this, the direction of the Psalms to the chief musician giveth ground.
​

On Psalm 150, verses 3-5 David Dickson comments:

Here are other six exhortations, teaching the manner of praising God under the shadow of typical music, appointed in the ceremonial law. Whence learn,
1. Albeit the typical ceremonies of musical instruments in God's public worship, belonging to the pedagogy of the church, in her minority before Christ, be now abolished with the rest of the ceremonies; yet the moral duties shadowed forth by them, are still to be studied, because this duty of praising God, and praising him with all our mind, strength, and soul, is moral, whereunto we are perpetually obliged.
2. The variety of musical instruments, some of them made use of in the camp, as trumpets; some of them sounding by lighter touching of them, as stringed instruments; some of them by beating on them more sharply, as tabrets, drums, and cymbals; some of them sounding by touching and blowing also, as organs: all of them giving some certain sound, some more quiet, and some making more noise: some of them having a harmony by themselves; some of them making a concert with other instruments, or with the motions of the body in dancing; some of them serving for one use, some of them serving for another, and all of them serving to set forth God's glory, and to shadow forth the duty of worshippers, and the privileges of the saints; - the plurality and variety, I say, of these instruments, were fit to represent divers conditions of the spiritual man, and of the greatness of his joy to be found in God, and to teach what stirring up should be of the affections and powers of our soul, and one of another, unto God's worship; what harmony should be among the worshippers of God, what melody each should make in himself, singing to God with grace in his heart, and to show the excellence of God's praise, which no means nor instrument, nor any expression of the body joined thereunto, could sufficiently set forth: and thus much is figured forth in these exhortations to praise God with trumpet, psaltery, harp, timbrel, stringed instruments, and organs, loud and high sounding cymbals.
​

To assert that instrumental accompaniment ceased by the first century requires extrabiblical revelation...

It is an historical fact and the reason was theological.

 

[heymikey80]

Not at all, and if someone was to argue along those lines then they clearly do not understand the RPW.

If they were to project the idea that all worship required only inspired texts as you just did for one part of worship, then prayer, preaching, and singing would all require texts direct from Scripture.

There are a number of different elements of worship - prayer, preaching, reading the word, singing. These are distinctive elements and are regulated in accordance with their type.

So demonstrate how Scripture distinguishes the song type as being specially preventive of nonScriptural text.

So the minister is to preach using his own words but he is to preach Scripture not what happened in The Daily Telegraph two days ago. Prayer is also free in terms of wording but we have been given the Lord's Prayer to help us pattern our prayers. Singing has been restricted to psalms as God has made clear.

Scripture did not restrict singing to psalms.

In point of fact, a psalm in the Greek language is an accompanied song -- depriving the argument for noninstrumentality.

The titles "psalms", "hymns" and "songs" are all titles of the Psalms. “Psalms” refer obviously to psalms;

They don't. Psalms in Greek are "songs accompanied with stringed instruments" -- they are very clearly not limited to the Psalms in Scripture. There are only a few places with contextual warrant for pointing to Old Testament Psalms (e.g. an Apostles allusion to "the Psalm"). "Hymns" and "songs" aren't simply titles for OT Psalms, and they wouldn't mean that to newbie Greek believers. These aren't religious words: you'd sing a psalm as readily at a play as at a worship service.

There are inspired songs in the Psalms and elsewhere. They are to be specially applied in worship, because of their place from the Spirit of God. They are not limitations on our worship.

They do constitute commands from the Spirit of God to the people of God to use instruments, to sing, dance, and construct new songs.

The reason why Calvin, following Bucer, said we should stop doing these things is that these are ceremony, which has been halted in the New Testament. They were used by Rome as a source for sacred ceremony. Calvin simplified worship and made it real, made it accessible, and made worship live again for people. But to convert that innovation into a tradition, to force the new ceremony of spartan worship, I think offends Calvin's basic point. When worship is converted to tradition and ceremony, it is invariably no longer worship.

 

[Iosias]

I haven't the time to go indepth into this so I will simply suggest you have a read of these when time permits:

On the RPW:
http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/sola.htm
The Scriptural Regulative Principle of Worship: Part I
The Scriptural Regulative Principle of Worship: Part II
The Scriptural Regulative Principle of Worship: Part III

On Psalm singing:
http://www.reformed.com/publications/psalteronlyhymnal.php
http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/psalms.htm
Song in the Public Worship of God: Part I
Song in the Public Worship of God: Part II
Song in the Public Worship of God: Part III
Song in the Public Worship of God: Part IV
The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God: Part I
The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God: Part II
The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God: Part III
The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God: Part IV

On instruments:
http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/music.htm
Instrumental Music in Worship: Commanded or Not Commanded?: Part I
Instrumental Music in Worship: Commanded or Not Commanded?: Part II

 

[Iosias]

John Calvin:

There is a distinction, however, to be observed here, that we may not indiscriminately consider as applicable to ourselves, every thing which was formerly enjoined upon the Jews. I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.xxxix.i.html

 

[heymikey80]

John Calvin:

There is a distinction, however, to be observed here, that we may not indiscriminately consider as applicable to ourselves, every thing which was formerly enjoined upon the Jews. I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.xxxix.i.html

I comprehend his view, sure. If you went to a Mass back then (even now in some groups) and saw its complexity and how badly the Gospel is obscured by ceremony, you'd come out agreeing with Calvin.

I've noticed these are arguments by degrees, though. They offer important points, that even Scripturally-recommended additions to worship should be carefully avoided when they obscure the great Object of our worship. That's what happened then; it also happens today. But it doesn't happen because of objects, it happens because those objects are not used aright.

Bucer, Zwingli and Calvin reduced public worship events back to their necessities so that real worship could be rediscovered.

Calvin and Zwingli both sang other devotional texts outside the Psalms though. Plus, adaptations like Luther's hymns also qualified in some services. While Reformed song at the time was predominantly from the Psalms, it was not exclusively so.

 

[Iosias]

Bucer, Zwingli and Calvin reduced public worship events back to their necessities so that real worship could be rediscovered.

But the Reformed position (incl. Calvin) regarding the issue of musical instruments has consistently been that musical instruments were tied to the shadows of the old dispensation, tied to the Levites and the worship of the Temple. With the ending of that by Christ's coming the old was done away with and instruments included.

Calvin and Zwingli both sang other devotional texts outside the Psalms though.

Calvin restricted song to inspired words as Scripture commands. Public worship was silent until David introduced instruments and psalmody (by God's command) into worship. That is not to deny that song had been used prior to David but it was not ordinary (Exodus 15; Judges 5) and take note, not once did public worship through song take place when the song was not by direct inspiration.