by Sam Waldron | Jul 16, 2014 | Exclusive Psalmody
What are the major arguments against it?
First, the exclusive psalmodists themselves do not actually sing inspired psalms.
The writings of exclusive psalmodists are littered with the claim that they only sing inspired psalms. Nevertheless, I have to begin my critique of their position by saying that they do not actually do this. That may seem like an unbelievable or audacious thing to say. The fact is, however, that we do not believe in the inspiration of any English translation of the Bible. We certainly do not believe in the inspiration of any English version of the Psalms as they have been arranged for singing.
The issue here is not merely that many words have been added and phrases re-arranged in all the English metrical arrangements of the Psalms and that this raises great questions about the claim of singing inspired psalms. That is, as far as I am concerned, a true and valid critique of the claim to sing inspired psalms. As Gary Crampton writes (in the Trinity Review):
Fourth, another question that must be posed to the exclusive Psalmodists is this: “What constitutes a metrical Psalm?” How faithful must the Psalms sung be to the Scriptures? Some of the metrical psalms are at best rough paraphrases of the Hebrew text. Exclusive Psalmodists would not tolerate such looseness in their Bibles. Singing these psalms is far from singing “inspired Scripture.” Does the exclusive Psalmodist violate the regulative principle when he does not sing the Psalms in the exact language of the Hebrew?
Bob Morey (in An Examination of Exclusive Psalmody) notes: “Is it not a fact that the Psalter so rearranges the words of Scripture, adds words, and subtracts words from Scripture that there is clear evidence that the Psalter is actually a product of human composition?” Morey shows that the answer to this question is certainly yes.
But this problem is only the tip of the iceberg. The deeper issue is that verbal plenary inspiration is only true of the Scriptures in the original languages in which they are written. Evangelicals today only affirm that the original autographs of the Bible are inspired, infallible, and inerrant. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy asserts in its section on transmission and translation:
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the original autographs. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15).
That is right and true according to our confession of faith. Chapter 1, paragraph 8, reads:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
This means that all their talk of singing only inspired psalms is based on a fundamental confusion. The English translations of the Bible and the metrical Psalms are not inspired. Does this mean that we cannot trust our English translations of the Scriptures? Of course not! Does it mean that we do not have the Word of God in English? Again, of course not! We have the Word of God in faithful English translations. But those English translations are not themselves inspired.
But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
Now the exclusive psalmodist may argue that we still can and should sing the Word of God. I completely agree and have no argument with him on this score. But, as I said, the writings of exclusive psalmodists are littered with assertion that we must sing the inspired psalms. Listen to Brian Schwertley in his Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense: “The singing of divinely inspired songs in worship is not only an Old Testament worship ordinance, but also a new covenant era ordinance. …. we must reject their attempt to circumvent God’s requirement of the singing of inspired songs in public worship.” Unless we are willing to learn Hebrew, we cannot sing the inspired psalms. We can only sing faithful English translations of them, but this is not the same as singing inspired psalms.
It seems to me that there is an important consequence of understanding and admitting that no one actually sings inspired psalms. It is to suggest that the right thing to say on this matter is that our singing must be carefully scriptural and not that we must sing inspired psalms. There are, however, many hymns that are carefully scriptural that are not verbatim English metrical psalms or even verbatim Scripture.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Jul 14, 2014 | Exclusive Psalmody
How must the question be answered?
What do I mean by this question? I mean, On what basis must the question be answered? What rule should govern us when we try to answer the question of exclusive psalmody? What in the context of this series on the question, How then should we worship? should be our basis for answering this question? It must, of course, be the regulative principle itself. That principle requires that we have warrant in the Word of God for every element of our worship.
But there is a difficult question here. How exactly does the regulative principle apply to this issue? Is the application of the regulative principle to this issue that the exclusive psalmodist must provide clear, scriptural warrant for exclusive psalmody? Or is the application that the non-exclusive psalmodist must provide warrant for singing uninspired compositions?
As I said, this is a difficult issue. It is also, however, an important issue because it relates to the crucial issue (for this and all other arguments) of the burden of proof. Upon whom falls the burden of proof? Does the burden of proof fall on the advocate of exclusive psalmody? Then the question will be, Do we have warrant in Scripture for the doctrine of exclusive psalmody? Or does the burden of proof fall on the one who rejects exclusive psalmody? Then the question would be, Do we have warrant in Scripture for singing something other than the inspired psalms found in the Bible?
Obviously, the one who holds exclusive psalmody will usually argue that the burden of proof rests on the one who wants to sing something other than the biblical psalms. He will say that it is clear that we should sing the biblical psalms and that we have clear warrant for that. He will say that it is safe to sing inspired, biblical psalms, but that it is not safe to sing other uninspired hymns unless we have clear warrant for that in the Bible.
Now I am not sure that the exclusive psalmodist is totally correct in placing the burden of proof on us his opponents. It surely would be an odd thing if exclusive psalmody as a doctrine could not be justified on the basis of the regulative principle. To put this in other words, it would certainly be strange if the doctrine of exclusive psalmody could not be proven on the basis of sola scriptura. Does not every doctrine of the church—including exclusive psalmody—need to be proven on this basis of sola scriptura? That is certainly the case. To quote the 1689 Baptist Confession chapter 1, paragraph 6a:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Every doctrine of the church must be based on Scripture or its good and necessary consequences. This is the meaning of the phrase, “either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.” It seems to me, therefore, that it is most difficult for the exclusive psalmodist to make the burden of proof rest on his opponent and to evade the necessity of showing that exclusive psalmody may be proved on the basis of Scripture alone.
But whether or not he can do that, it is certainly true that his cause is lost if the burden of proof rests on the exclusive psalmodist. It is clear that he cannot prove from Scripture that we must only sing inspired, biblical psalms. If the burden of proof rests on the exclusive psalmodist, then, (Let me repeat it!) his cause is lost. And, I think, he knows his cause is lost. Pastor Jeff Smith of Coconut Creek, Florida (in his unpublished paper entitled “Arguments Against Exclusive Psalmody”) remarks:
… the Scriptures never say anywhere that the O.T. book of Psalms was given to be the definitive hymnbook of the church for all time. Indeed the Scriptures are given to be our sole rule of faith and life but the Scriptures never say that the Psalter is to be our only source of Christian praise.
Let me illustrate this from Scripture. In order to prove exclusive psalmody from sola scriptura the advocate of this view must show that passages like 1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:19-20; and Colossians 3:16-17 only refer to the Book of Psalms. The fact is they do not make this claim. Their argument is rather that these passages clearly include the Book of Psalms, but not that this is only, totally, and certainly all to which they refer. Rather, they say that it is uncertain whether other songs are in view. Thus, to be on the safe side we must only sing the Book of Psalms or at most inspired songs.
Similarly, they suggest that the word, spiritual, may refer to the idea of inspiration. Nevertheless, it cannot be proven that this term means inspired in this context. In fact, as I will show later, another interpretation commends itself much more strongly.
All of this is just to say, then, that exclusive psalmody cannot be proved from sola scriptura. Thus, it may very well be proper to argue that we do not have warrant in the regulative principle for exclusive psalmody.
But for the sake of this argument, in my future blogs, I am willing to assume the burden of proof. I am willing to ask and answer the question, Do we have warrant in Scripture for singing something other than the inspired psalms found in the Bible? My answer is a resounding YES!
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Jul 9, 2014 | Exclusive Psalmody
What is exclusive psalmody?
I have used the phrase exclusive psalmody. Let me explain the phrase. There are those who believe that in the worship of God we should only sing the biblical psalms. There are two versions of this view. The stricter version of it says that only 150 psalms in the Book of Psalms may be sung. The less strict view allows that other portions of the Word of God may be sung, but still often and perhaps even usually concludes that to be on the safe side we should still sing only the psalms found in the biblical book called Psalms.
The last thing I want to do is caricature or misrepresent this position. It has been held by great and good men. It has been held by these men because of their strict regard for the regulative principle of worship. I honor them for this.
One of these men—and a man I greatly respect—is John Murray. With a little tongue in my cheek, I have sometimes described him as my “patron saint.” There are few or no men to whom I owe a greater debt theologically than Professor Murray. Here is his summary of the position. This is in Worship in the Presence of God, edited by Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman (Fellsmere, FL: Reformation Media and Press, 2006), 192.
- There is no warrant in Scripture for the use of uninspired human compositions in the singing of God’s praise in the public worship.
- There is explicit authority for the use of inspired songs.
- The songs of divine worship must therefore be limited to the songs of Scripture, for they alone are inspired.
- The Book of Psalms does provide us with the kind of compositions for which we have the authority of Scripture.
- We are therefore certain of divine sanction and approval in the singing of the Psalms.
- We are not certain that other inspired songs were intended to be sung in the worship of God, even though the use of other inspired songs does not violate the fundamental principle on which Scripture authorization is explicit, namely, the use of inspired songs.
- In view of uncertainty with respect to the use of other inspired songs, we should confine ourselves to the Book of Psalms.
Several comments on this remarkable summary of Murray are appropriate.
First, Murray here manifests a move that is, I think, fairly typical for exclusive psalmodists. On the one hand, they admit that singing “other inspired songs does not violate the fundamental principle on which Scripture authorization is explicit.” Nevertheless, they prefer to sing only the book of Psalms because of the alleged uncertainty with respect to whether these other inspired songs are to be used. This ends up being very similar to Brian Schwertley who gives this definition of exclusive psalmody: “Some churches sing ‘hymns’ of merely human composition; some churches sing uninspired hymns and inspired songs from the biblical Psalter, while some churches sing only from the 150 Psalms of the Bible. Using the book of Psalms alone as the manual of praise in the church is referred to as ‘exclusive Psalmody.’” (This is quoted from the online publication Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense by Brian Schwertley.) Thus, even though occasionally the singing of other parts of Scripture is theoretically entertained, practically speaking only the singing of the Book of Psalms is practiced.
Second, Murray illustrates something of what might be called from one perspective the “rigidity” or from another perspective the “carefulness” of the exclusive psalmody position in this statement. He says, “We are not certain that other inspired songs were intended to be sung in the worship of God.” This is, whatever else you call it, astonishing. Murray is not certain that even some inspired songs are acceptable worship!
Third, Murray and Schwertley make clear that the issue is, then, not whether we should sometimes sing the psalms of Scripture. I believe we should sing the from the Book of Psalms. I will not argue against that. I believe, rather, that there are wise and good reasons to do that and include, as we do at our own church, biblical psalms in our singing as a church. They are full of comfort, very instructive, and present a view of Christian experience that is very much more biblical and realistic than much contemporary hymnody. The issue is not inclusive psalmody. The issue is exclusive psalmody. The issue is whether we should sing only biblical psalms.
Why should we take the time to deal with it?
Both in preaching on this subject in our church and in considering whether to blog about this subject, I have raised a question for myself which you may also have. Why should I trouble the minds of God’s people with this issue? There are thousands of theological and exegetical issues which do not and should not certainly make the cut for pulpit or perhaps not for a blog series. Here are my reasons for dealing with this issue. First, some of those with whom we would agree most strongly about the regulative principle and in other theological respects regard most highly believe that it directly leads to exclusive psalmody. John Murray is my case in point here. Second, one major practical objection to the regulative principle on the part of some people is that it involves exclusive psalmody, a doctrine which many find old-fashioned and rigid. Whether or not they are right about exclusive psalmody being old-fashioned and rigid, I think it is important to show that the regulative principle does not lead to this view in order to remove this unnecessary prejudice against the regulative principle.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | Jul 7, 2014 | Exclusive Psalmody
In the beginning God said, let there be singing. The act of creation is described as a time of singing. It was when “the morning stars sang together” (Job 38:7). Since that time God in His providence has said, Let the earth bring forth all kinds of singing and music. He has said, Let there be love songs, laments for the dead, ballads for the brave, and let there be hymns of praise to ME! He has also ordained that just as there should be a great variety of songs, there should be a great variety of music. Out of His creative providence have sprung all sorts of musical instruments and all sorts of musical geniuses. In the world we enjoy everything from brass bands to Bach and much more. Singing and music are wonderful gifts of God made for us to enjoy. Indeed, there is a great deal of Christian liberty with regard to this matter. Some may push this matter of their liberty way beyond what is good for them or glorifying to God or edifying to their brethren. Yet still without question there is great Christian liberty to enjoy these good gifts of God. Christians may enjoy sacred concerts, the singing of biblical psalms, the talents of great musicians, Southern gospel quartets, soloists, duets, trios. All these are good gifts to be enjoyed. Christians with discretion may also enjoy all sorts of secular music. Of course, care must be taken not to fill our minds with music that defiles us. But there is a place for all these sings in the rich life that God has given to His people.
But in my preaching for Grace Reformed Baptist Church in the series, How Then Should We Worship?, I am not dealing with the liberty Christians have to enjoy God’s good gifts in their own lives as they see fit. I am not speaking of what kinds of music they may bring into their own homes or concert halls. My concern is different. We are asking what God has appointed about this matter for His own house. There are many things that have a place in God’s world that do not have a place in God’s house. We have a liberty to order our own houses that we do not have in the house of God. The very essence of the regulative principle of the church is that God exercises a special rule over His own house that is different from His rules for life in general. This is the reason Paul said to Timothy I write so that you may know how one ought conduct Himself in the house of God (1 Timothy 3:15). In the world we have Christian liberty within the limits of His laws. In the church we have God dominating His own worship.
In this series, then, when I came to the required part of worship which the 1689 Baptist Confession describes as teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord, my intention was not to say much of anything about the music to be enjoyed outside of the church. We may do as we will in the world within the limits of God’s laws, but in His house God condemns will-worship or self-made religion (Col. 2:23). The question I set for myself was simply this: What has God said about the singing of His praise in His worship?
Now many important subsidiary questions arise in conjunction with this, but the one I want take up in this question has to do with the renewed push in some Reformed circles for exclusive psalmody. In taking up this question I am assuming the answers to two previous questions. The first of these had to do with the precedent for congregational singing in the formal worship of God. I believe there is such precedent on the basis of passages like Matthew 26:30; 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26; Ephesians 5:18-20, Colossians 3:16-17; and Revelation 5:9-10. The second question has to do with the purpose of congregational singing. Here, and this may be a little surprising, the New Testament makes clear that the purpose of such singing is not just the praising God, but also ministering to men! This is clearly emphasized in at least three of the five passages just cited (1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:18-20; and Colossians 3:16-17).
But assuming these things, I came to the practice of congregational singing in my preaching on this subject and confronted the question addressed in the title to this series. In this and following blog posts I will address four questions related to this subject:
- What is exclusive psalmody?
- Why should we take the time to deal with it?
- How must the question be answered?
- What are the major arguments against it?
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
