The Regulative Principle, Part IV
For those who have not read my previous three installments in this series (I, II, III) please do so before commenting.
A concern that seemed to be raised after my last installment in the Regulative Principle post series indicated that I have probably not been as clear as I should have been. Let me clarify: I am by no means advocating that we cast aside the authority of Scripture, or put it second to tradition, or anything of the sort. I think worship should be determined by Scripture alone. Where I differ with the Regulative Principle is not on how much authority Scripture has, but on how we are supposed to discern, from Scripture, how to worship.
I did, however, make several arguments based on church tradition, etc. in my last post. I apologize - these could have given a false impression. These are not intended to be arguments that somehow counter the Scriptural arguments in favor of the Regulative Principle. These were instead intended to counter the idea that it has “always” been traditional in Reformed worship to practice the Regulative Principle.
I agree with every facet of the Regulative Principle except for its lack of explanation for the adiaphora. The Regulative Principle never seems to address the issue of Christian liberty that arises from Romans 14:1-10, a passage I cited last time.
There is no single passage in Scripture, to my knowledge, that supports or allows hymn singing. But I think we can infer such an allowance from Scripture. According to the Regulative Principle, we must sing Psalms only. After all, Psalms are the only hymn resources God gave in Scripture. Yet are these Psalms supposed to replace hymn-writing or rather found it, by being examples of what Christian hymns should be and by setting a standard of covenant faithfulness for hymns? Are Psalms not examples of how a hymn should be written - with doctrinal correctness and true sincerity - rather than replacements for hymns? Are they not, in nature, like the Lord’s Prayer, where “and this is how you shall pray” doesn’t mean “pray this specific prayer every time you pray”, but rather, “pray in a manner like this?” Do these things, rather than becoming the only allowed elements of worship, instead set standards for what worship should be like in covenant faithfulness?
These are the things that I mean when I say some things seem implied in Scripture - not that we can just infer anything we want. We can’t just infer that we can bring tamed tigers into worship and train them to roar before a sermon. But we can infer things from the standards set by Scripture, from the requirements of Covenant faithfulness - i.e., how to write a hymn, how to pray a prayer, how to preach a sermon.
Would not the logic for psalter-only worship apply to sermons? Would we not have to preach only sermons supplied by Scripture, such as Paul’s on Mars Hill etc.? It definitely seems so to me (feel free to object if I am wrong). After all, they are the only God-inspired sermons we have. But these sermons, for us, are not what we have to preach all the time, but rather examples and standards for how we should preach*. If we remain within the bounds of covenant faithfulness and keep our hymns, sermons, and prayers within the standards of these things in Scripture (a stance that still puts Scripture first, I might add), then do we not have a stance similar to the Regulative Principle in that it remains faithful to Scripture while still allowing some Christian freedom (a Scripture-endorsed idea) within the bounds of what God has allowed?
My issue with the Regulative Principle is not that it is inherently wrong, but rather that it insufficiently addresses the area of Christian freedom and the adiaphora. I believe that when Martin Luther wrote the hymn “A Mighty Fortress”, he was not trying to place humanly written hymn above Scripture, but rather trying to write something that would please God when used in worship. He wanted to write something, not to replace Scripture, but to be faithful to it. This is reflected in the fact that Luther’s hymn is based, in part, on a Psalm. Luther and many other hymn-writers used the Psalms as standards for how a hymn should be written. He remained covenantally faithful to Scripture by writing a hymn that was doctrinally sound as well as suitable for worship. I think Luther’s hymn would not be prohibited by Scripture, but rather allowed.
That is the basic rationale behind all my arguments. I am not arguing that the church cast aside everything, reject the Regulative Principle, and become more and more contemporary and wordly etc. I just think that the Regulative Principle is an insufficient description of how Scripture regulates worship. I think Scripture regulates at least certain areas of worship according to standards of covenant faithfulness, etc.
R.J. Gore outlined this idea of the Reformed or Covenantal Principle of worship in his volume, Covenantal Worship. I find that the Principle that he outlines (but did not author - he draws his arguments from Scripture and various Reformers) is worthy of consideration.
I welcome all comments in response to this - however, I hope to take a break from the Regulative Principle for at least a week so I can post my series on George Whitefield. Then I will return to the subject in blog posts.
Thanks for reading. I know many of you disagree with me, even strongly, and I respect your arguments. I am trying to state all my arguments, but I also want to remain as open-minded as I can towards your position, knowing I may be able to learn more on this or that I may have completely misunderstood something along the way. I just ask that you give my arguments similar consideration. Your comments are a great help to me, and I appreciate them.
In Christ,
Albert Shepherd
The Aspiring Theologian
*Of course, I am not saying that anything is wrong with preaching these sermons or preaching a sermon based in these texts. We should always preach sermons based in Scripture. But we can preach from texts that are narrative and not sermon in nature as well.
**Custom graphics provided by The Church Sign Generator.
...
27 comments
I'm not trying to be a smart alek here, but there are some things about the rigid Psalms-only position that strike me as not making sense. I don't intend these as attacks on the position. I simply would like to know how adherents deal with them.
First, isn't it a contradiction to sing Psalms which command the praise of God with instruments, but then to disallow instruments in your worship?
Second, if the answer is that those commands were specifically for use in temple worship, then what allows you to rescue the Psalm that contains them? Many of the Psalms we know for a fact were heavily used in temple worship, right? The whole Psalm was used there, not just the portion that speaks of instruments. Am I missing something?
Third, does it strike you as odd that you limit Christian singing to songs which never name the Lord Jesus Christ?
Fourth, would you be amenable to singing songs that are recorded elsewhere in the Scripture?
Fifth, would you be amenable to setting other passages of Scripture to music and singing them? (Say, a very lyrical passage like the end of Romans 8, for instance?)
Again, not fighting, just asking.
Gordon -
I completely agree. The RPW definately seems to demand psalter-only worship, with it's simple "not expressly allowed = forbidden" equation. But, like I outlined in my blog post, sometimes that doesn't seem to make sense to me. Even the Puritans disagreed on how to apply that.
I think your points are good points, and while I admire the psalter-only position and mean it no disrespect, I agree with you.
Albert Shepherd
The Aspiring Theologian
Great thoughts and questions... I think they are legitimate... there are some, like myself, who hold to the Regulative Principle but do not have a problem with using hymns and other such things that are based on Scripture (i.e. sermons, etc.). I guess I would liberally* hold to it (*liberal is such a dangerous word with so many connotations, I hate to use it). Like I have said before, I think that the RP is very concise in what it deals with, but is limited in what it refers to, that is why I do not come to the same problems with matters such as the adiaphora... if that makes sense
Again, thanks for the stimulating arguments... it is an awesome thing that the Covenant people of God are looking into this matter seriously...
Noldorin -
Thanks for the comment. I think I understand now what you meant by "very concise in what it deals with, but is limited in what it refers to" - that is one of the main issues I also have with it, because the Puritans themselves debated over what the RPW refers to. Some, like you, may have had a more limited view, but others seemed to go overboard.
Thanks for your input and views. I keep learning more and more through this whole discussion. It has definately been helpful to me.
Have a great weekend.
In Christ,
Albert Shepherd
The Aspiring Theologian
Yeah, we are all in this together as believers... enjoy your Lord's Day
The argument about Psalms-only meaning that we should only use inspired words in preaching is based on a misunderstanding of the argument for exclusive psalmody. We are not arguing for inspired only materials in all the parts of worship, but only for inspired compositions in song. Preaching and singing are two different parts of worship, for one God has provided us with an inspired book of praise, therefore we don't need human songs; however, he has not given us a book of sermons and has authorised preachers to compose their own sermons.
In relation to Gordon's question, I hope these answers are of some help:
1. The psalms also contain references to animal sacrifices, would it, on this logic, be permissable to have animal sacrifices in NT worship? While the Old Covenant form of worship has been abrogated, the truth which it represented remains in force.
2. Psalms were sung in the synagogues, not just the Temple, they are permanent the ceremonies were not. Also, on this line of reasoning you would have to say it was wrong for us to read from Leviticus in church today.
3. The Lord Jesus Christ wrote the Psalter, so it tells us a lot more about Him than humanly devised hymns.
4. The other songs were written prior to the completion of the psalter (apart from the ones in Revelation, a book which is not a guide for New Covenant worship), if we were meant to use them permanently then why were they not included in the psalter? Moreover, is one going to argue that because there were inspired books not included in the canon that we should read from uninspired books in worship?
5. There is no evidence that passages such as Romans 8 were ever meant to be sung.
Daniel Ritchie,
Thank you very much for your irenic answers to my questions. I must confess to you that part of my resistance to the exclusive psalmnody position is surely the fact that so many of its advocates I have run into are extremely combative and quickly hostile. You have broken the mold...thankfully.
I want to make it clear that I do believe that when the New Testament commands the singing of "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs," I believe the Psalter is certainly included. We should be singing, and praying the Psalms. What I don't see is the "exclusive" part. Yes, the Psalms are indicated, but I see nothing excluding other hymns, etc.
I would like to discuss your answers in more depth, but for now I'll just pick one. I asked about singing the name of Jesus, and you rightly responded that Jesus is in the Psalms, and is in fact the author of them. Fine, we agree on that, and praise God!
Would you not also agree that the Psalms, insofar as they reveal Christ, reveal Him in the form of what the New Testament might call "signs" and "shadows?" (Isn't this how Christ is revealed in all Old Testament prophecy?) It would then seem that the New Testament injunctions of Paul (especially) would come into play, in that why, when we have had the substance revealed to us, would we cling exclusively to the types and shadows?
I mean, why, if you had a complete Bible in front of you, would you attempt to share Jesus with an unbeliever by exclusively sticking to the book of Numbers, instead of going to the Gospels and speaking plainly to Him about what Christ did? To me, it seems the same sort of question. Why sing about "the Son" and some vague piercing of hands and feet, and never get around to singing about Jesus and the cross?
I anticipate that your answer will be that the New Testament never commands the singing of anything other than the Psalms. My counter to that is this:
First, it cannot be conclusively shown that anyone in the whole New Testament actually sings a Psalm.
On the other hand, every single time a worshipper of Jesus is shown singing in the New Testament, he/she/they are shown singing something other than the Psalms. (Simeon, Mary, the church in Revelation.)
So, when Ephesians 5:18 says, "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" it's a bit of a stretch for me to get exclusive psalmnody out of that, when the explicit NT examples are all in the other direction.
Again, I want to thank you for your peaceful tone. I assure you that I love the Psalms and would advocate exclusive psalmnody if I saw the Scripture teaching it. I just don't, yet.
Oops. Before I get slammed, it is not clear that Simeon was singing. He may well have been simply prophesying in normal speech. Sorry about that slip. (I imagine him in a state of exhiliration, fairly shouting...my bad.)
Ooops, again!
Just a clarification. I know that Jesus and the disciples sing after their Passover meal, but I mean that the exact words they sung are not recorded. They sang a hymn. Contrarily, we know what Mary sang, and what the Revelation church sings...sorry, I just want to be clear that I do really understand what the issues at hand are.
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Col 3:16)
This is just a question that came in to my mind about the Psalm-only belief. How can we teach each other about the cross of Christ in our singing together, if we can only use Psalms? Just a question.
Gordon
Sorry I am a bit late in answering your questions. A will list a few points which I hope will be of some help to you:
1. The terms 'psalms', 'hymns' and 'songs' are all used in the psalter in order to describe psalms, so we cannot automatically assume that the terms refer to anything outside the psalms.
2. The alleged song of Mary cannot be proved to be a song as the text says 'Mary said'.
3. Since the command to sing psalms was established in the OT, we don't specifically need a command in the NT to sing them, but there is enough in the NT to suggest they were sung.
4. With the further revelation in the NT we can sing the psalms with greater understanding of Christ than people in the OT did. So why dislodge the psalms when we are best equipped to understand them?
5. It is important to keep in mind that the Psalter was only completed near the end of the OT era (in Malachi's day) which would seem to indicate that the psalms were designed more for the NT than for the OT era.
6. The hymn sung after the passover is universally conceeded (even by many who are not psalm-singers) to have been the Hallel psalms 113-8.
7. Most of the songs in Revelation were sung by angelic beings, not by men on earth, hence John said 'they sang' not 'we sang'. Furthermore, if Revelation was meant to be a guide to NT worship, then we would have to have altars, incense, temples etc. I think its important to remember that Revelation is apocalyptic literature, and so we must not presume that the songs recorded provides us to sing them.
I hope this is of some help, this has been expanded upon in my book 'The Regulative Principle of Worship: Explained and Applied' published by Xulon Press.
I thought I should add that many of the men I admire most disagreed with me on the psalmody question. Such men as Martyn Lloyd Jones, Iain Murray, Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry and many others have all defended uninspired hymns, so it is not a major issue.
Daniel,
I am very gratified by your last two comments. To be able to discuss this topic calmly (which doesn't happen often) with a brother who has obviously done his homework, I count as a great blessing.
I want to briefly address all your points, so I apologize for the length of this comment from the get-go.
1. You are correct. Psalms, hymns, and songs are certainly designations given to the Psalms. But I don't understand why those designations then automatically exclude more human works of the same type. We might agree that the Revelation is an "apocalypse," but then it would be wrong to assert that since it is, nothing else is.
2. I plead that you've got me on a technicality on that one. We "say" things through songs all the time. Mary's praise certainly does follow the same Jewish-metrical couplet pattern that is common to the bulk of the Psalms. So does Zachariah's prophecy in the same chapter. They do strike me as "psalms" in structure and style. But for the sake of the discussion, I'll concede this point to you.
3. I concede that New Covenant believers sang psalms. It's the "exclusively" part I haven't got. In fact, I can reverse the argument and say that several psalms command the use of instruments during corporate worship, and then we have no definate command to stop that later on.
4. Again, I'm in favor of singing the Psalms. In fact, I do so. My point on this was that the Psalms figure Christ in types and shadows and, sometimes, dark sayings. It would seem to me that to sing these exclusively in worship would demand that the pastor take extensive time at each song to explain its relevance. Which may be all right...?
5. Your point could be said for all of Scripture. But there certainly were a great many Psalms written by the time of the post-exhilic prophets. Enough, so that if they wanted to stress or command exclusive psalmnody, they could've. I realize that's an argument from silence and inference, but so is yours on this point.
6. I wouldn't have a problem going along with that "universal" guess as to which hymn(s) were sung. But the point is it's still a guess, and not explicitly stated.
7. Right here is where I think Exclusive Psalmnody really runs into trouble. The church of the redeemed in Christ does sing, but it doesn't sing one of the Psalms. In fact, as I've spent the day meditating on the issue, it occurs to me that this is the great obstacle for Exclusive Psalmnody that must be overcome. Your view would have the wonderful, sanctified church in Revelation guilty of breaking the Second Commandment.
This is why, frankly, I think you've thrown out such a radical interpretive suggestion at this point: which is, if we follow the church's example, we must also buy into incense, candles, and such. As if we cannot possibly do some hermeneutical work and discover which elements of John's vision are symbolic and which are more substantive.
Looking forward to more of your thoughts, if you can continue to spare me the time (which I truly appreciate.)
Albert, sorry to have hijacked your comments section here.
Gordon - Not a problem. Please feel free to continue with the discussion, so long as it is related to the RPW of course. :-)
Mr. Ritchie - Thanks for giving us the other viewpoint to consider and meditate on. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, and concur that the preaching argument, while it was a seemingly fitting analogy for my point, may not have been the best argument overall for my position.
Thanks for the discussion brothers in Christ, and please do not hesitate to continue if you wish. I may not be able to respond (I am busy this week) but I'll be glad to read your comments and learn from them.
Have a wonderful Lord's Day tomorrow.
In Christ,
Albert Shepherd
The Aspiring Theologian
Gordon
Thanks for your reply, with regards to point seven, which seems to be the only real area of disagreement, I do not think those who sung the new song broke the second commandment as this was suitable for heaven not for those who sang it. However, it does not provide us with any warrant to sing it (notice the apostle John did not sing with them). Under the OT the church worshipped differently than it does today, however, they were not breaking the second commandment as this is what God had proscribed for that period in redemptive history.
Even if it was to be conceeded that we should sing the songs in Revelation, this cannot provide us with any warrant for uninspired hymns. See my post http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/exclusive-psalmody-defended-a-response-to-nathan-pitchford-part-6/ for more on this subject.
Thank you
For anybody interested my book 'The Regulative Principle of Worship: Explained and Applied' is now available from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/REGULATIVE-PRINCIPLE-WORSHIP-Daniel-Ritchie/dp/1602660611/sr=1-5/qid=1172746760/ref=sr_1_5/104-9197177-3457517?ie=UTF8&s=books
Much of this comment conversation—which is quite fascinating, by the way, although some of it is a bit above my head—has to do with the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ wrote the Psalms and the Psalter, thus, we should look to them as the example for what all our songs of praise should be, if not use them only. However—were the Psalms not written by David (the majority, at least), by Solomon, by the sons of Korah, and a few other individuals? They were written by humans; they are the cry of a person’s sinful heart to their Jehovah, they are a song of praise from a heart overflowing with the goodness of Him, they are the outpourings of human emotion. Certainly they are inspired by the goodness of the Lord, but are they written by Him?
Perhaps I am missing something, as you all seem to agree on the point that Jesus the Christ wrote them. Am I? Further insights into this would be greatly appreciated…
Learner
Learner - Do you believe in the inspiration of Scripture? I'm not talking about looking at a picture or something and feeling "inspired" (which seems to be what you mean) , I'm talking about God's speaking His word through the writings of chosen men who were used by the Holy Spirit. I promise you that's what Gordan and Mr. Ritchie are talking about (the latter, not the former).
We really have to know that before we can really answer the question. In a sense, because the men were inspired through the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is God, Christ did sort of write the Scriptures - I don't know if I'd put it that way, because it isn't that simple, but in that sense yes. At least Christ, being part of the Godhead, is in full accord with the writings.
Maybe that scratches the surface of your question... ?
I do believe in the inspiration of Scripture, God speaking through men, which is what I meant. I am sorry I didn’t make that clear. Actually, I believe in both—God inspires people (like you were saying, with His mercy and goodness), and he also truly inspired them to write down His words.
I was just wondering about the Psalms, particularly, because they seem to be very human songs—about fear, happiness, anger, all made into a praise or a prayer—and I was curious about the fact that Gordan and Daniel Ritchie both said the Jesus the Christ wrote them. I do agree that He had a hand in them by inspiration—I was confused on the point whether they were actually written by Christ or not, and what you believed. Thank you for clearing that up.
I am so glad to find a place online to discuss theology! I know that you are not responding to praise, but I wanted to tell you that I am ecstatic that there are blogs like this. Be sure I will be reading, thinking, and even commenting about your other topics!
Learner
I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I think the way they were using "written by Christ" was a reference to inspired by God, not that Christ manually wrote the Psalms.
Maybe Gordon or Daniel want to jump in and clarify if they are still reading this post...
Thanks for reading my blog! I hope you enjoy the other posts as well. More will be on the way, Lord willing.
In Christ,
Albert Shepherd
The Aspiring Theologian
Albert
I agree with your definition.
In Christ
I've enjoyed reading some of your blogs, but I think you are missing some of the what the regulative principle is about. You should check out Give Praise To God. I don't think it gives good arguments for the regulative principle, but it does give a good idea of what it is. It seems that you are missing that its not only what the Bible prescribes, but also "themes" that are in the Bible. And there is plenty of evidence in the Bible supporting Hymns such as "Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual songs." and "sing to the Lord a new song."
Anonymous,
I'm a bit confused now. Can you please tell me exactly what I am missing? I have read three books on the Regulative Principle already - two in favor of it and one against it. All are by credible authors and theologians. I have also talked with a few pastors about it. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or defensive, I'm just confused: I've tried to do my research - talking with different pastors, etc. before posting this - so I'm wondering what is there I overlooked?
I encourage you to read my past posts on this topic as well, if you haven't already. I addressed both of the issues you raised, I think, at least indirectly.
Thanks for the comment though. If I've missed something I wouldn't mind someone explaining it so I can set myself aright in this matter. I'm definately ready to learn if someone wants to explain.
In Christ,
Albert Shepherd
A.T.
I don't think you ought to worry about that last comment too much.
You've done an admirable, responsible job on this topic.
Off topic: I am techno-lame, but I'm wondering if you could explain to me how you do that "Read More" feature on the front page, that allows you to post snippets of many posts without taking up so much space? If you think you might be able to help a geezer out, shoot me an email, please.
reformnm@yahoo.com
To those of you who are Psalms only - the book of Habakkuk was sung. The book ends with the familiar subtext used in the Psalms - "To the Chief Musician. With my stringed instruments." I think this clearly shows us that Psalms were not the only thing sung in the Old Testament.
Post a Comment