Streamed live on facebook – a live Q&A session with Drs. Steven Lawson, Stephen Nichols, and Derek Thomas at Reformation Bible College Winter Conference – January 20, 2020

Transcript:

Question: In light of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture and the regulative principle of worship, how do we answer the question of instruments and uninspired hymns in the public worship of God?

Dr. Derek Thomas: So, in our Reformed tradition instruments are relatively new in New Testament worship. They are not new of course in Old Testament worship. We understand, in Judaism there was the accompaniment of instrumental music in worship.

There are two parts to this question. If you adopt an exclusive psalm singing position (as my son in law would – he belongs to the covenanter tradition and loyally and faithfully have maintained that position to this day) – that means that you can sing about Jesus in pre-fulfillment terms but you can never say the name ‘Jesus.’ You can preach the name ‘Jesus’, you can pray the name ‘Jesus’ but you can’t sing the name ‘Jesus’ and that doesn’t make sense to me. If you only sing the psalms you are always in the shadow. You’re always in anticipation mode. You’re never in fulfillment mode.

So for me, my understanding of instrumental worship is that this will be a continuity of practice from Old Testament into New Testament… that there is a continuity of the manner in which God is to be worshipped and therefore the select and reverent use of instrumentation to enhance congregational singing is like the good and necessary consequence argument.

Dr. Steve Lawson: Yeah, I would add to that, there are instruments in heaven being played, and there are instruments in the Old Testament, and I love the argument of continuity – that it would assume continuity into the New Testament but it is anchored by there are instruments in heaven. I think that would be a strange weird argument that you could not have instruments in the New Testament.

The other thing I would add also, Ephesians 5:19 to ‘sing to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.’ I think the perpescuity of that, the clarity of that –  and Calvin always said the correct interpretation is the plainest interpretation. We are not looking for hidden meaning. What would be the most obvious would the proper interpretation. If I just read “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” I go, ok, you can sing psalms, you can sing hymns and you can sing spiritual songs. And I know the covenanter tradition tries to make those different divisions of psalms. I think that’s eisegesis, that’s not exegesis. That’s reading into the text that doesn’t even say that. You’re forcing your preconceived idea upon a text. That just throws word studies and plain meaning out the window, to me. I mean, you would never just pick up your Bible and read that verse and come up with that conclusion. You would have to go to seminary someplace… seriously.. and come up with a wacky interpretation like that. So even throwing that text into the mix as well.

In addition, I would add, Colossians 1 is known as the Colossian hymn and the way that it is worded gives the appearance with the symmetry and the balance and the cadence, that this was an early hymn sung in the first century Church that Paul has placed into this text and maybe made a few connecting adaptations so it will fit in the flow but there were hymns already being sung that had Christ’s name in it, i.e. Colossians 1. And there are other passages to which we could turn.

When you add all this up, I just wouldn’t want to have to be turning in a term paper to a professor who would grade this and to try to defend “I can only sing the psalms and cannot use musical instruments.” I am having to argue a case, I think, with both hands tied behind my back.

Dr. Stephen Nichols: I just want to make two comments. I totally agree, not exclusive psalmody. But I think sometimes, especially in American Evangelical circles sometimes we go too far the opposite direction and we don’t sing the psalms. So there’s a place for those who are not exclusive psalmody to think about the Psalter as a part of worship.

But I was thinking about what you (Derek Thomas) were talking about, in terms of if you are singing the Psalms you are always singing in anticipation, you’re always in the shadows. And anecdotally, this is Isaac Watts.

The Lutheran tradition we have hymns right from the beginning. One of the things Luther is concerned about is putting a hymnal in the hands of the people of God. So Luther is writing hymns right out of the gate.

Not so with Calvin and the Reformed Church. And that’s the influence over the Puritans and over the Church in England.

And here’s Isaac Watts, young man, walking home as the story has it with his father, saying “why don’t we ever sing about Christ?” And his father saying to him, “well, if you think you can do better than David in the Psalms, go ahead and try.” And something like three weeks later, the congregation is singing the first Isaac Watts hymn. So that there is this sense of hymnody – of bringing out of the shadows – Christ. And I think that is some of the richness of the non-psalmody tradition of singing hymns but there’s something to be said for bringing the hymns .. a mighty fortress is of course Psalm 46.

Ezra 3, Union with Christ, and Exclusive Psalmody

Article by Brandon Craig: Exclusive Psalmody: is it Biblical? Is it the only Reformed position? (Part 1) (Original source here) (Part 2 below)

This is the first part in a series on Exclusive Psalmody.  For those who are unaware Exclusive Psalmody (referred to as EP from here on out) is the claim that we are only to sing Psalms in corporate worship and no uninspired songs may be sung.  To understand EP one has to know a bit about the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW).  The RPW says that in corporate worship we may only do those things that God has commanded.  This is in contrast to the Normative Principle of Worship (NPW) which says that anything God has not forbidden, is acceptable in worship.  So for example the Bible never says we cannot watch someone do a painting on stage during corporate worship as a form of worship.  The NPW would say that means painting on stage is an acceptable form of corporate worship.  The RPW would reject this because we have no command in Scripture to paint as a form of worship.  Examining the merits of the RPW is a worthy endeavor that I most assuredly will undertake at some point on my blog.  However we will accept it as correct for this series.  (For if it is incorrect then EP has no argument whatsoever.  However the RPW is a key part of Reformed theology and thus we are discussing an “in house” issue where both sides already accept the RPW).

Now adherents to EP will say that you cannot accept the RPW without holding to EP.  Along with that in the circles that I debate and discuss online the EP adherents like to imply that one is not truly reformed if they do not hold to EP.  They will bring up reformers who held to EP and if a person didn’t know better you would think that historically EP was the only position any of the reformers ever held to.  In this article I wish to show that EP was not the only position held by the reformers and that those who are reformed and sing hymns are in good company both historically and today.   In future parts to this series I intend to show that one may hold to the RPW and still consistently reject EP.

The natural place to start would be to consider if the New Testament church practiced singing exclusively the 150 Psalms recorded in the book of Psalms.  I of course will have to answer this more in depth in future posts because I intend to look at Scripture itself to consider if EP is what is prescribed.  However a brief look is warranted.  Starting in Acts 2:42 42 “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” if we are to agree with Calvin’s interpretation those prayers are both spoken and sung (1).

The next important place to look is 1 Cor 14:26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

When we look at this list it would be poor exegesis to say that the psalm a person brings is an already used song (from the Psalter). None of the other things on the list would be something previously used. Context says that the psalm a person brings would be one he composed. Consider from that list if another person were to bring a teaching or a revelation. They would not be bringing something someone else has already said. They would be bringing something they have “composed” themselves. It is clear then that the psalm a person would bring would also be a newly composed psalm.

Finally we have Pliny the Younger when he reported about the Christians saying that they could be distinguished by their singing of hymns to Christ as unto a god. Now some have said that just means they were singing the psalms that talk about the Messiah. However if that was the case it would not distinguish them from the Jews whatsoever since they sang those same songs. What makes sense here is that they were singing newly composed hymns written to Christ as God. (1)

Moving forward to the Reformation, it is well known that Luther composed and sang hymns in worship. Of course many EP proponents will dismiss this as Luther had some Roman Catholic carryovers and they will say he wasn’t fully reformed. Nonetheless as the first reformer it is noteworthy that Luther fully embraced singing hymns in worship.

The next example I have is a bit tongue in cheek but Zwingli was not an adherent of Exclusive Psalmody. That is because he did not allow any singing in public worship whatsoever but still he did not practice the singing of only Psalms. I later intend to show that if we take the EP principles to their logical conclusion we would end up like Zwingli in saying that there is no place for song whatsoever in corporate worship.

Calvin is a bit hard to pin down. Several quotes from him make it clear that he preferred the Psalms however in all his writing there is no condemnation of singing newly composed hymns. The Genevan Psalter which Calvin oversaw contained songs that were not part of the book of Psalms (as he included a metrical version of the 10 Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, a hymn, and the Apostle’s Creed). Also as I have previously mentioned Calvin held that prayers were and could be sung. Additionally Calvin on the command in Scripture to sing “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” said this: “Moreover, under these three terms he includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way: a psalm is sung to the accompaniment of some musical instrument, a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; an ode contains not merely praise, but exhortation and other matters. He wants the songs of Christians to be spiritual, and not made up of frivolities and worthless trifles.” The last line indicates that songs of Christians may be newly composed. If Calvin believed we must only sing from the book of Psalms he would have no need to clarify that our songs must be spiritual and not composed of frivolities. (2) Continue reading →

Dr. Sam Waldron – Exclusive Psalmody

Audio Teaching:

Here Dr. Waldron outlines six reasons why he does NOT believe the Bible teaches that we are to use the Psalms exclusively in our Church’s worship.

Dr. Sam Waldron – A Consideration of Exclusive Psalmody (original source 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. Continue reading →