Exclusive Psalmody?

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Is the Reformation Over?

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Michael Reeves:

Transcript:

The Reformation is not over and cannot be over. The first reason it’s not over is because the Roman Catholic Church has not been reformed. Rome, by her own catechism and statements, still repudiates justification by faith alone, and therefore the matter of the Reformation has not been resolved.

Furthermore, those churches that would not call themselves Roman Catholic needed to be ongoingly reformed because reformation is not something that can be settled. Reformation is about the church purifying herself by the Word of God continually. There is never some acceptably pure level.

So, reformation is an ongoing thing. And that means that reformation cannot be over until Christ returns, because reformation is about chasing that purity that Christ wants for His church. And we have not reached that and we will not reach that until He returns.

Daniel 9:24-27

Posted on by
Reply

Article “Particulars of Daniel 9:24-27” by Gary DeMar (source – https://americanvision.org/21906/particulars-of-daniel-924-27/)

The Particulars of Daniel 9:24–27

  1. To finish the transgression (Dan. 9:24): Jesus declared, “It is finished” (John 19:28–30). The transgression is finished because (1) Jesus became the sin-bearer for us. “He was wounded for our transgressions” (Isa. 53:5). Our transgressions are no longer counted against us. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col. 2:14). (2) Finish the transgression might be a reference to the transgression of the Jews against God of that generation (Matt. 21:33-45; 23:32, 35-36, 38; Luke 11:47-51; 1 Thess. 2:14-16). “Last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance’” (Matt. 21:37-38; cf. 21:33-45; Acts 7:51-52).”
  2. To make an end to sin (9:24): Jesus “but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26). Jesus was the “lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3).
  3. To make reconciliation [atonement] for iniquity (Dan. 9:24): “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19).
  4. To bring in everlasting righteousness (Dan. 9:24): If Jesus didn’t bring in everlasting righteousness, then we are still in our sins. This is not describing earthly righteousness so there’s no longer any sin the world. There will still be sin in the premillennial view of Revelation 20.
  5. “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption”—everlasting righteous — “for us” (Heb. 9:12).
  6. Seal up the vision and prophecy (Dan. 9:24): Jesus Christ fulfills (and thereby confirms) the prophecy by His atoning work.
  7. “Then he took unto himthe twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished” (Luke 18:31).
  8. “And he said unto them, These arethe words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44; Acts 3:18).
  9. To anoint the most holy [one or place] (Dan. 9:24). (1) Jesus is described as “the HOLY thing…” (Luke 1:35). Peter referred to Jesus as the “HOLY one” (Acts 3:14), as did John (1 John 2:20). Even the demons referred to Jesus as “the HOLY ONE of God” (Matt. 1:24). Jesus was anointed two, possibly three times in the gospels. The last was after the triumphal entry and just before the crucifixion (Matt. 26:6–13 and Mark 14:3–9). Kenneth Gentry writes: “It was at His baptismal anointing that the Spirit came upon Him (Mark 1:9-11). And this was introductory to His ministry, of which we read three verses later: ‘Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled [the Sixty-ninth week?], and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel’ (Mark 1:14-15). Christ is pre-eminently the Anointed One.” (2) Could refer to the “holy place once for all” (Heb. 9:12), the heavenly sanctuary.

What the Antichrist is Supposed to Do

Then after the 62 sevens, the Messiah [Jesus] will be cut off [excommunicated by the religious rulers of Israel] and have nothing [the cross, Phil. 2:7: “made Himself of no reputation”]; and the people of the Prince [the enthroned Christ] Who is to come will destroy the city [Jerusalem] and the sanctuary [Temple]. And its end will come with a flood [like Noah, like the threats of Deut. 28; like the locust flood of Joel]; even to the end there will be war [the Jewish War of A.D. 66-70]; desolations are determined.

  1. Who will “destroy the city and the sanctuary” (9:26)? Jesus or antichrist? This assumes another rebuilt temple if it’s the antichrist, but there’s nothing in the NT that says anything about another rebuilt temple. We know the city and sanctuary were destroyed in AD 70. This was Jesus’ judgment using the earthly agency of the Roman Empire, like the way God used Babylon: “And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand [Nebuchadnezzar]…” (Dan. 1:1–2). See the Parable of the Marriage Feast (Matt. 22:1–14): “But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city” (v. 7). Jesus describes these murderers in Matthew 23:31–36.
  2. The “end” of what “shall be with a flood” (9:26)? The end of the city and sanctuary.
  3. “Desolations are determined.” Notice that 9:26 does not say that desolations take place in the span of the 70 weeks of years but only that they are “determined.” This is what Jesus says in Matthew 23:38: “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” That desolation was future to that generation but would take place before their generation passed away (Matt. 24:30): “When ye therefore shall see the abomination, spoken of by Daniel the prophet [11:31; 12:11], stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matt. 24:15; Luke 21:20: “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”).
  4. “Returning to the time of the Maccabees and Daniel 11, we need to ask who were the ‘forces from him’ that desecrated the sanctuary and set up the desolating sacrilege? They were the reigning High Priests Jason and Menelaus, who apostatized to Greek religion, and who invited Antiochus to help them take over Jerusalem for their own purposes (Josephus, Antiquities12:5:1). In the same way, the apostate High Priests between A.D. 30 and 70 cooperated with the Romans in order to suppress the Christian faith and in order to maintain their own Sadducean combination of Greek philosophy and apostate Judaism…. Antiochus defiled the Temple, but this is only the aftermath of what the Jews had already done. Antiochus could not really defile the Temple, because he was not one of God’s peculiar people and he had no legal access to it. His defiling the temple is not the abomination of desolation, therefore.”
  5. “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week” (Dan. 9:27).
  6. The “he” is Jesus.
  7. Only God makes and confirms covenants. There’s nothing in the Bible about an antichrist making or confirming a covenant.
  8. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16; 2:10; See John 11:47–53).
  9. “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel…. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (Matt. 10:5–6, 23). Jesus was confirming His covenant with Israel.
  10. “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28).
  11. “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15).
  12. “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name” (Rom. 15:8–9).
  13. “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Heb. 9:16–17).