Regulative Principle - Elements and Circumstances

1689 London Baptist Confession. “Of the Holy Scriptures.” 1.6

“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.

“Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

The elements of worship may be called the what of worship. These parts of worship are considered fixed according to the scriptures. Elements are not morally or biblically indifferent. An element of worship is a moral and biblical obligation commanded by God. A circumstance of worship is morally and biblically indifferent, a thing that may or may not be used. If used, it does not add anything to one’s worship. If omitted, it does subtract anything from one’s worship.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession (chapter 22) gives examples of elements of worship: prayer (22.3), the reading, preaching, hearing, and singing of the word (22.5), and the administration of baptism and the Lord’s supper (22.5). Some elements may be regular (that is, each time or most every time a congregation meets, or at stated times) and some may be occasional (for example, as with baptism performed when the occasion demands).

A circumstance of worship is something that comes along side of and is incidental to engaging in an element of worship. Prayer is an element of worship. Whether a congregation meets for prayer at 10 a.m., 10 p.m., or some time in between the two is a circumstance of worship; it neither adds anything to nor takes anything away from the moral and biblical nature of prayer itself. Singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is an element or worship. Whether the songs are in a Christian’s memory, a hymn book, or stored and presented in some other way is a circumstance. That neither adds anything to nor takes anything away from the moral and biblical nature of the singing itself.

The circumstances of worship may be called the how of worship. These practices of worship are fixed by a congregation, and reflect the ways to worship God within the paramenters of morally and biblically performing the scriptural elements of worship. For example, a congregation may determine it is better for all to sing from the same hymn book rather than everyone singing from their various memories. The London Confession (1.6) says “there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” 1 Corinthians 14:26, 40

Affirmed elements set forth in Scripture – such as preaching, praying, baptizing, giving, communing – are the natural, moral, and biblical elements of worship. The elements, the things which God commands, are all that should bind and compel the conscience of any worshipper. The circumstances which men introduce cannot and should not bind the conscience of any worshipper. However, they may help promote decent and orderly worship in the congregation. May we who know this remember this. May those who do not know this learn this.

May the Lord bless our understanding.

---

Note: The Second London Baptist Confession is not our church confession of faith. However, it is probably both the clearest and most accessible Baptist confession of faith in regard to the Regulative Principle. Our church position statement is: “The sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice insists that our congregational gatherings be restricted to those elements that Scripture requires – praying, thanksgiving, praising, singing, Scripture reading, preaching/teaching, giving, observing the ordinances, ordination and sending, testimonies, greetings, reporting the Lord’s work, decision-making, and church discipline. Any element must be understood from a command, approved example, or necessary implication of Scripture.”

Worship

Worship defined: (verb) to render religious reverence and homage to God; to adore, pay honor and reverence to; to attend services of divine worship; (noun) the act of paying reverent honor, adoration, and homage to God; formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage.

In some languages the equivalent word for “worship” literally means “bend over,” “fall down (before),” or “bow down (before).”

Our English word “worship” comes from the Old English worthscipe, “worth” + suffix “–ship” – acknowledging one in the condition worthy of reverence and honor. 

• Worth: deserving honor, worthy, valued.
• -Ship: quality, condition, state, or relation.
• Worthship: condition of being worthy.
• Over time this becomes “reverence paid to Deity.”

The Bible does not give an explicit or formal definition of worship. The biblical view of worship must be discerned from the teachings on the subject throughout the Bible.

Preparing to worship

The principle of worship proceeds from the concept that there is someone worthy to be worshipped (and then that there is someone in a position to worship, render honor).

Worship is regulated by the one worshipped; in truth, John 4:24. Deut. 12:32

The Regulative Principle of Worship – Whatever is commanded in the Scriptures for the public worship of God is required, and whatever is not commanded is prohibited. This principle accepts that only God and not man ordains how he will be worshipped. Exodus 20:3-6.

Worship is responding from an inner heart movement; in spirit, John 4:24

• Fear before him
• Humble yourselves

We see that God is worthy of our submission and homage, (then) we give him our reverence and respect (then) we are ready to do service and offer sacrifice. Romans 12:1

The London Baptist and Philadelphia Baptist Confessions describe acceptable worship: “…the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”

In our doctrinal and position statements, our church declares “The sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice,” which declarations insist that our worship is dictated by God to us through his Scripture.

• Psalm 29:2 Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.
• Psalm 95:6 O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the Lord our maker.
• Psalm 96:9 O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.
• Psalm 99:5 Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy.
• Revelation 4:10 the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
• Revelation 5:14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
• Revelation 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

Reverential Anthem

Pictures of Jesus

I have long thought Jesus did not look like any of the portraits we generally see of him. This ties in with a question that comes to the minds of Christians, “Should Christians display artists’ conceptions of Jesus?” I think this best to “leave well enough alone” – that is, it is best that churches and Christians avoid displaying paintings of Jesus on their walls. We have no idea of what Jesus looked like, beyond perhaps a general idea of how a first century Jewish male might have appeared. The Bible shows no interest in detailing how Jesus looked physically, so why should we?

The books of nature and of the Bible provide our “picture” of Jesus. They declare who he is – his creation, his nature, his law, his acts, his death, his resurrection, his return.  A portrait hanging on a wall or a picture reproduced on a bulletin cannot begin to be an accurate display of the “image” of God, and doubtless creates a “false image.” The Bible portrait of Christ should hang on the “wall” of our mind!

It was fairly common when I was growing up to see pictures of Jesus hanging on the cross or praying in Gethsemane in some homes and on some church house walls. I don’t think anyone was trying to worship these images, and that it was a sort of cultural thing. Nevertheless, I do not think that can be our standard to follow.

Rather, may we consider the ethics of Sola Scriptura, the Regulative Principle of Worship, the Second Commandment, and the Great Commission. There is a lot of overlap in what these teach us.

Sola Scriptura. If the Scriptures given by inspiration of God completely furnish us with what we need for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17) – we do not need a painting or image that is not furnished in the Scriptures. If we have a painting or picture, it is essentially a false image in the sense that it does not actually or accurately portray what Jesus looked like in the physical realm. If the Bible is our sole source of faith and practice, we have very little information with which to even imagine how Jesus looked, and even less need to know.

2nd commandment. The emphasis of the second commandment is more on the worship of images rather than just the engraving of images (Exodus 20:4-5). However, they are related. Having a picture that purports to be Jesus hanging in a home or a church building does not mean that those folks are actively practicing idolatry. On the other hand, simply saying they are not practicing idolatry provides no positive support for the practice of displaying such pictures. To me, an image (picture) that purports to be God – even God in the flesh – must at least be approaching the realm of what is forbidden and is better avoided than indulged in. Why not fence it off and leave it alone?

Regulative Principle and Confessions of Faith. The Normative Principle of Worship looks to accept what is not forbidden. The Regulative Principle looks for what is sanctioned. We find no biblical sanction for pleasing our imaginations with imaginary pictures of Jesus Christ. The 2nd London and Philadelphia Baptist Confessions affirm the Regulative Principle in this way: “But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures” (Chapter 22, paragraph 1). Chapter 7 of the 1st London Baptist Confession (1644) puts it this way: “The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures.” It was then revised thusly in 1646: “The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship of God, in which is contained the whole duty of man, is (not men’s laws, or unwritten traditions, but) only the word of God contained [viz., written] in the holy Scriptures; in which is plainly recorded whatsoever is needful for us to know, believe, and practice; which are the only rule of holiness and obedience for all saints, at all times, in all places to be observed.” In our church statements we assert, “The sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice”

The Great Commission. We Baptists use this terminology frequently to describe the authoritative sending of the church by their Head, Jesus Christ (especially as recorded in Matthew 28:18-20). The command of Jesus Christ specifies, directs, and limits the work of the Lord’s churches. Coupled with the Regulative Principle, we find making pictures of Christ is not part of “all things commanded.”

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth, John 4:24. A picture of Jesus, to me, seems to add nothing to spirit or to truth. Jesus dwells with us by his Spirit, not in a picture.

When the people of Israel were gathered before Horeb and God spoke, they saw no image. “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female…” Deuteronomy 4:15-16. Even when Jesus came in the flesh, he made no attempt to appeal to man by the way he looked – “he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.” Isaiah 53:2.

Let us allow the Bible to be our source of knowledge about Jesus. Leave the displaying of pictures and images for those who do not hold a “Scripture Alone” position.

===========================

Addenda: Benjamin Keach’s Catechism and the 2nd Helvetic Confession

Keach’s Catechism.

Q. 56. What is required in the second commandment?

A. The second commandment requires the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances, as God has appointed in His Word.

(Deut. 32:46; Matt. 28:20; Deut. 12:32)

2nd Helvetic Confession.

Chapter IV, Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and The Saints, Paragraph 2.

IMAGES OF CHRIST. Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come “to abolish the law and the prophets” (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (I Cor. 3:16). But “what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (II Cor. 6:16)

Informed Worship links

Steve M. Schlissel, pastor of Messiah’s Congregation in Brooklyn, New York, has written series of articles on what he calls Informed Worship. Links are below. Also there is a summary reviewing Steve Schlissel’s articles and a book with some discussion of the normative and regulative principles. I am posting this to save so I can find it, as well as for readers who might find the discussion intriguing.

• All I Really Need to Know About Worship... I Don’t Learn from the Regulative Principle (Part I)
• All I Really Need to Know About Worship... I Don’t Learn from the Regulative Principle (Part II)
• All I Really Need to Know About Worship... I Don’t Learn from the Regulative Principle (Part III)
• All I Really Need to Know About Worship... I Don’t Learn from the Regulative Principle (Part IV)
• All I Really Need to Know About Worship... I Don’t Learn from the Regulative Principle (Part V)
• All I Really Need to Know About Worship... I Don’t Learn from the Regulative Principle (Part VI)
• All I Really Need to Know About Worship... I Don’t Learn from the Regulative Principle (Part VII)
• All I Really Need to Know About Worship... I Don’t Learn from the Regulative Principle (Part VIII)
• All I Really Need to Know About Worship... I Don’t Learn from the Regulative Principle (Part IX)
• All I Really Need to Know About Worship... I Don’t Learn from the Regulative Principle (Part X)
• All I Really Need to Know About Worship... I Don’t Learn from the Regulative Principle (Part XI)

• Tony Cowley’s Summary of Steve Schlissel’s Refutation of the Regulative Principle
• Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology

Regulative Principle

Excerpt from The Regulative Principle of Worship by Derek Thomas

Where does the Bible teach “The acceptable way of worshiping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures”?

In the story of Nadab and Abihu and the offering of “strange fire” (Lev. 10); God’s rejection of Saul’s non-prescribed worship — God said, “to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Sam. 15:22); and Jesus’ rejection of Pharisaical worship according to the “tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:1–14). All of these indicate a rejection of worship offered according to values and directions other than those specified in Scripture.

Of particular significance are Paul’s responses to errant public worship at Colossae and Corinth. At one point, Paul characterizes the public worship in Colossae as ethelothreskia (Col. 2:23), variously translated as “will worship” (KJV) or “self-made religion” (ESV). The Colossians had introduced elements that were clearly unacceptable (even if they were claiming an angelic source for their actions — one possible interpretation of Col. 2:18, the “worship of angels”). Perhaps it is in the Corinthian use (abuse) of tongues and prophecy that we find the clearest indication of the apostle’s willingness to “regulate” corporate worship. He regulates both the number and order of the use of spiritual gifts in a way that does not apply to “all of life”: no tongue is to be employed without an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:27–28) and only two or three prophets may speak, in turn (vv. 29–32). At the very least, Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians underlines that corporate worship is to be regulated and in a manner that applies differently from that which is to be true for all of life.
Particular elements of worship are highlighted: reading the Bible (1 Tim. 4:13); preaching the Bible (2 Tim. 4:2); singing the Bible (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) — the Psalms as well as Scripture songs that reflect the development of redemptive history in the birth-life-death-resurrection- ascension of Jesus; praying the Bible — the Father’s house is “a house of prayer” (Matt. 21:13); and seeing the Bible in the two sacraments of the church, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38–39; 1 Cor. 11:23–26; Col. 2:11–12). In addition, occasional elements such as oaths, vows, solemn fasts and thanksgivings have also been recognized and highlighted (see Westminster Confession of Faith 21:5).

The regulative principle as applied to public worship frees the church from acts of impropriety and idiocy — we are not free, for example, to advertise that performing clowns will mime the Bible lesson at next week’s Sunday service. Yet it does not commit the church to a “cookie-cutter,” liturgical sameness.
What is sometimes forgotten in these discussions is the important role of conscience. Without the regulative principle, we are at the mercy of “worship leaders” and bullying pastors who charge noncompliant worshipers with displeasing God unless they participate according to a certain pattern and manner. To the victims of such bullies, the sweetest sentences ever penned by men are, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also” (WCF 20:2). To obey when it is a matter of God’s express prescription is true liberty; anything else is bondage and legalism.

Often people confuse the issue by bringing up things that have to do with the elements of the gathered meeting, either directly or that facilitate it. The communion table. The hymn books. The box where offerings are placed. The pews on which we sit. The table on which the pulpit Bible rests. Lights help us to see the Bible and the hymn books, and a little HVAC can contribute to the comfort of being there in extreme temperatures. However, these are temporal elements of a facility in which Christians meet, and are not elements of worship themselves. We need to learn how to “rightly divide the word of truth.”

The divine word is the only safe directory

No acts of worship can properly be called holy, but such as the Almighty has enjoined. No man, nor any body of men have any authority to invent rites and ceremonies of worship; to change the ordinances which he has established; or to invent new ones. This appears to us so clear a case, that we need not to enlarge on it. The divine word is the only safe directory in what relates to his own immediate service. The question is not what we may think becoming, decent or proper, but what our gracious Master has authorized as such. In matters of religion, nothing bears the stamp of holiness but what God has ordained.

John Fawcett, an English Baptist pastor (1739-1817) in The Holiness which Becometh the House of the Lord

Hübmaier replies to Warfield

…or something like that.[i]

Presbyterian B. B. Warfield (1851-1921) writes,

“It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage we should have to leave it incompletely justified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite...As Lightfoot expressed it long ago, ‘It is not forbidden’ in the New Testament to ‘baptize infants, — therefore, they are to be baptized’.”[ii]

Anabaptist Balthasar Hübmaier (1480-1528) replies,

“It is clear enough for him who has eyes to see it, but it is not expressed in so many words, literally: ‘do not baptize infants.’ May one then baptize them? To that I answer: ‘if so I may baptize my dog or my donkey, or I may circumsise girls...I may make idols out of St. Paul and St. Peter, I may bring infants to the Lord’s Supper, bless palm branches, vegetables, salt, land and water, sell the Mass for an offering.’ For it is nowhere said in express words that we must not do these things.”[iii]

Interesting how the Anabaptist/Baptist position of believer’s baptism accords with the Regulative Principle, while infant baptism does not – though a good many Pedobaptists profess to hold the Regulative Principle.

---

[i] Not a direct reply obviously, since Hübmaier wrote first by over 350 years; but the answer of Hübmaier rather than the assertion of Warfield agrees with the “Regulative Principle,” which Presbyterians are supposed to hold: “...the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture...The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy  receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God... Excerpts from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21, Paragraphs 1 & 5; emphasis mine

[ii] In “The Polemics of Infant Baptism,” The Presbyterian Quarterly, xiii. 1899, pp. 313-334

[iii] “The Christian Baptism of Believers,” in The Writings of Balthasar Hubmaier (translated by G. D. Davidson, 3 vols., 1939, p. 121) as quoted in The Anabaptist Story: an Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism (William R. Estep, 1996,  p. 90)

“Regulative Worship” in Baptist Thought

Some random quotations on “the Regulative Principle” from Baptists

First London Confession (1644/1646)

Article 7: “The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not man’s inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions, unwritten whatsoever but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures.” (John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Col. 21:18, 23; Matt. 15:9)

Article 8: “The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship of God, in which is contained the whole duty of man, is (not men’s laws, or unwritten traditions, but) only the word of God contained [viz., written] in the holy Scriptures; in which is plainly recorded whatsoever is needful for us to know, believe, and practice; which are the only rule of holiness and obedience for all saints, at all times, in all places to be observed.” (Col. 2:23; Matt 15:6,9; John 5:39, 2 Tim. 3:15,16,17; Isa. 8:20; Gal. 1:8,9; Acts 3:22,23)

An Orthodox Creed (1679)

Article 40: “The Light of Nature sheweth there is a God, who hath a Sovereignty over all, but the holy Scripture hath fully revealed it; as also that all Men should worship him according to God’s own Institution and Appointment. And hath limited us, by 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 whatsoever, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scriptures…” (Rom. 1.19, 20. & 2.15; I Chr. 16.29; Psalm 95.6, 7, 8 & 99.7 & 99.5; Deut. 8.6; Psalm 103.7 & 14.6; Mark 7.7; Psalm 99.8, 9 & 106.29, 39; John 4.24; Rev. 9.20)

Second London Confession (1677/1689)

Chapter 22” “…the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.” (Texts cited in relation to this article of faith are Jeremiah 10:7; Mark 12:33; Deuteronomy 12:32; and Exodus 20:4–6)

John Spilsbery (1593–1668)

“…whatsoever is done in the worship of God, in obedience to Christ, without His command, or apparent example approved of by Christ, is of man, as a voluntary will-worship, after the commandments and doctrines of man; the which Christ testifies against as a vain thing…The holy Scripture is the only place where any ordinance of God in the case aforesaid is to be found, they being the fountain-head, containing all the instituted Rules of both of Church and ordinances.” (Spilsbery, A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme, 1643/1652)

Hercules Collins (b.?-d. 1702)

“It is sufficient that the Divine Oracles commands the baptizing of Believers, unless we will make ourselves wiser than what is written. Nadab and Abihu were not forbidden to offer strange Fire, yet for doing so they incurred God’s Wrath, because they were commanded to take Fire from the Altar.” (Matt. 28.18-19; Mark 16.16; Lev 9.24, 10.16) (An Orthodox Catechism, 1680)

William Kiffin (1616–1701)

“...no part of God’s law, or worship, whether we respect the manner or form, or the matter and substance thereof, is to be altered without the express order and direction of GOD himself...where a rule and express law is prescribed to men, that very prescription is an express prohibition of the contrary.” (Kiffin, A Sober Discourse of Right to Church Communion, 1681)

John Gill (1697–1771)

“…for an act of religious worship there must be a command of God. God is a jealous God, and will not suffer anything to be admitted into the worship of him, but what is according to his word and will; if not commanded by him, he may justly say, Who hath required this at your hands?” (Gill, A Body of Practical Divinity: Or a System of Practical Truths, Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures, 1796, p. 899)

John Fawcett (1739–1817)

“No acts of worship can properly be called holy, but such as the Almighty has enjoined. No man, nor any body of men have any authority to invent rites and ceremonies of worship; to change the ordinances which he has established; or to invent new ones. This appears to us so clear a case, that we need not to enlarge upon it.The divine Word is the only safe directory in what relates to his own immediate service. The question is not what we may think becoming, decent or proper, but what our gracious Master has authorized as such. In matters of religion, nothing bears the stamp of holiness but what God has ordained.” (Fawcett, Sermon, The Holiness Which Becometh the House of the Lord, April 20, 1808, p. 25)

John Leadley Dagg (1794-1884)

 “It is our duty to maintain the ordinances of Christ, and the church order which he has instituted, in strict and scrupulous conformity to Holy Scriptures…When the finger of God points out the way, no place is left to us for human preferences.” (Dagg, “Duty of Baptists,” in Manual of Theology, Volumes 1-2, 1859, p. 300)

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834–1892)

“‘Thus says the Lord’ is the only authority in God’s Church. When the tabernacle was pitched in the wilderness, what was the authority for its length and breadth? Why was the altar of incense to be placed here, and the brazen laver there? Why so many lambs or bullocks to be offered on a certain day? Why must the Passover be roasted whole and not boiled? Simply and only because God had shown all these things to Moses on the holy mount; and thus had Jehovah spoken, ‘Look that you make them after their pattern, which was shown you on the mount.’

“It is even so in the Church at the present day; true servants of God demand to see for all church ordinances and doctrines, the express authority of the Church’s only Teacher and Lord.” (Sermon, Sunday Morning, September 25, 1864, “Thus says the Lord”—or, The Book of Common Prayer Weighed in the Balances of the Sanctuary)

James Madison Pendleton (1811-1891)

It may be laid down as a principle of common sense which commends itself to every unprejudiced mind that a commission to do a thing or things authorizes only the doing of the thing or things specified in it. The doing of all other things is virtually forbidden. There is a maxim of law: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.* It must be so; for otherwise there could be no definiteness in contracts between men, and no precision in either the enactments of legislative bodies or in the decrees of courts of justice. This maxim may be illustrated in a thousand ways. Numerous scriptural illustrations are at hand; I will name a few. God commanded Noah to build an ark of gopher-wood. He assigns no reason why gopher-wood should be used. The command, however, is positive, and it forbids the use of any other kind of wood for that purpose…The institution of the passover furnishes a striking illustration, or rather a series of illustrations. A lamb was to be killed—not a heifer; it was to be of the first year—not of the second or third; a male—not a female; without blemish—not with blemish; on the fourteenth day of the month— not on some other day; the blood to be applied to the door-posts and lintels—not elsewhere.” (Distinctive Principles of Baptists, pp. 18-19 1882)

* “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.”

David Wise (date unknown)

“The church is to observe and uphold the commandments of Jesus Christ. We have not been given any authority to add to or take away from the commandments of Jesus Christ for our conduct in the Church, but rather our commission is to observe and keep the commandments of Jesus Christ and the ordinances of the Church in the exact original manner that they were given and prescribed by Jesus Christ.”

The Theology Committee of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (2001)

“We affirm that God regulates his worship by insisting upon the non-negotiable elements of worship. We deny that it is ever right to admit into the public worship of God elements because he has not forbidden them. Worship is always a matter of what God commands, never a matter of what he has not condemned. Worship is always a matter of what we must do, never a matter of what we may do.”

Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius (reprise)

"Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius" is a legal code at least as old as the civil law of the Romans. It means "inclusion of one is exclusion of others". I was brought up generally with this as true as a religious concept, sans Latin -- the specification or inclusion of one thing is the prohibition or exclusion of every other thing. For example, if Jesus commanded His disciples to immerse professed believers, the specification of that excludes the sprinkling of professed believers, or the immersion of professed unbelievers, etc., etc. Do you agree with "Inclusio unius exclusio alterius" as a religious principle?

I agree with "Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius". When God specifies one thing, He excludes every other thing.

I disagree with "Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius". When God specifies one thing, He does not exclude every other thing.

I sometimes agree with "Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius". When God specifies one thing, He sometimes excludes every other thing, though not always.

This is not a proper way to express or discuss God's commands.

Why Not Lent?

In a recent blog post, Southern Baptist pastor Bart Barber wrote, “Lent is not in the Bible, nor anything resembling it. Movement toward Lent is movement away from the idea that the New Testament should give us the pattern for ecclesiastical celebrations or individual spiritual formation.”

It is not inherently sinful to give up something or fast for forty days, even if those days happen to precede Easter. But observing Lent can be a sin. For some it is an errant religious ritual rising from a works-based philosophy. For others it is an empty religious ritual observed because others say so and do so. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. A person might voluntarily choose any day or set of days to fast (or give up something). He or she should not make a display of it (see Jesus’s words in Matthew 6:16ff. “When you fast...”). Starting a season of sacrifice and fasting with a mark of penance certainly does that.

Observing of days (or not) should be a private matter of the individual and not a public imposition on others (see Romans 14). This calls in question church-wide observations of church-sanctioned days that are not commanded -- whether they be Lent or Independence Day or Christmas. Let all be fully persuaded in their own minds. It is ill-advised to bring an unauthorized day into the church to all members to observe. For example, we might celebrate Christmas as a family at home, yet leave it out of the church and not set it before others who are offended by it. Further, preachers should not impose a so-called “church calendar” upon the membership in his preaching. It violates the Romans 14 principle.

The reasons for observing Lent in a free church tradition often come out of left field, while some might appeal to something like the “normative principle.”

• A biblical model, “… the Lenten fast is modeled after Jesus’ 40 day fast in the wilderness, so it too has a biblical origin…” To say that Lent is based on Jesus’s fast in the wilderness is one of the “left field” arguments. It is “reverse exegesis” -- doing something and then looking in the Bible for justification.
• The “if you do this” argument: “Neither Christmas nor Easter is found in the Bible, yet these holy days are universally celebrated in Baptist churches.” Bart Barber answers this argument well, writing, “having taken some steps in a bad direction is no good reason to continue further along the path.” It is also not true that these days are universally celebrated Baptist churches. Some churches oppose them, while others leave them out of the church gathering and for each family to determine what they will do in their homes. Similarly, in Christianity Today Steven R. Harmon claims, “All Baptist congregations observe some sort of calendar in their worship.” All Baptist congregations do not observe some sort of calendar in their worship -- unless one is including that we number our days by the Gregorian calendar. Baptists have no official or “Christian” calendar. And even if we did, that is not proof that it is a good thing.
• If God did not forbid something, then it is acceptable. This is a derivative of the normative principle, but is too loose to hang our hats on. There are many things that are forbidden by the fact that God commanded something else. The practice of Lent incorporates some things that God forbids -- such as announcing our fasting and setting days for others to observe.

Lent is an extra-biblical human tradition. We should order our faith and practice on the commandments of God rather than the traditions of men. In the Bible, fasting is not taught as a means of penance. It is not a means of obtaining the God’s grace. As Bible believers we shouldn’t be looking to find which religious traditions we can borrow from others, but search the scriptures daily to see whether such things are so.

See  Part 1

Biblical prayer

God commands prayer of His people (Luke 18:1; Ephesians 6:18; Colossians 4:2; I Thessalonians 5:17), and provides His Son and Spirit for intercession (Romans 8:26, 34; Heb 7:25).

Some things for which we should pray (not intended to be exhaustive):

Pray for those that persecute you (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:28).
Pray for God's Kingdom come and His will be done in earth (Matt. 6:10).
Pray for God to provide your daily needs (Matt. 6:11).
Pray for God's forgiveness (Matt. 6:12).
Pray for deliverance from evil (Matt. 6:13). 
Pray for children (Matt. 19:13). 
Pray that fall not into temptation (Luke 22:40; Matt. 6:13).
Pray for boldness to proclaim the word of God (Acts 4:29; Eph. 6:18-20).
Pray for the salvation of Israel (Romans 10:1). 
Pray for filling with the knowledge of God's will (Col. 1:9).
Pray for open doors to speak the gospel (Col. 4:3; 2 Thess. 3:1).
Pray for other Christians (1 Thess. 5:25; Heb 13:18) .
Pray for authorities, and all men generally (1 Tim. 2:1-2).
Pray for wisdom (James 1:5).
Pray for healing (James 5:13,16).

Worship and Ministry, God’s Way – 3 principles

“They didn’t have it in Bible times.” “They didn’t do it that way in Bible times.” This is how some people attempt to explain their approach to worshiping in God’s house and carrying out ministry God’s way. This is the way some people caricature those of us who are restricted in our way of worship and work. But “they didn’t have it or do it that way in Bible times” IS NOT the guiding principle for deciding how we worship or what “methods” we will use. If not, then what is it?

1. In our worship and work God must be approached and served as He has commanded. 
  a. In the second commandment and many other places we observe that the true approach is defined by God Himself and not by men (Exodus 20:4-5, Gen. 4:3-5; Leviticus 10:2-3; 1 Chron. 13:9-10; 15:2). [In some circles this is called the “regulative principle.” Baptists have articulated this principle, though not in those specific words, at least as far back as the 1644 London Confession.]
  b. We are to observe and teach to observe all the things Jesus has commanded (Matthew 28:20). This includes positive statements, approved examples and necessary inferences. Something does not have to be explicitly stated in the form of a command in order to be authoritative for church practice. For example, we Baptists establish our church government after the New Testament pattern even though there is no explicitly worded command in scripture that every church must do this.

2. Commands of specificity exclude that which is not commanded. The specification of one thing is the prohibition or exclusion of every other thing. For example, God’s command to Noah, “Make thee an ark of gopher wood,” excludes the use of oak, elm, pine, cedar and every wood other than gopher wood. To use any other kind of wood would have been disobedience of the highest order. When Jesus commanded His disciples to immerse professed believers, the specification of that excluded the sprinkling of professed believers, the immersion of professed unbelievers, and so on. The specificity of the command must be understood properly. For example, Jesus commanded “GO ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” The command to “GO” excludes us from not going, but does not bind us in how we go – on foot, by buggy, ship, plane, train or automobile. This can be confirmed in the New Testament as we see the disciples “going” in the various ways available to them. All commands do not inhere the same degree of specificity.

3. Distinctive apostolic practice is normative. Distinctive apostolic practice is the practice of the apostles and early church related to their calling and mission – rather than the culture of the day. It is the consistent and uniform practice of the New Testament churches regardless of their geographical locations. These distinctive practices are not common culture or meaningless form, but rooted in and consistent with the theology of the New Testament. For example, the New Testament practice of participation of all members of the church corresponds with the New Testament theology of the equality of believers and the local church as a body (1 Corinthians 12:14). It is distinctive from both Jewish and Gentile worship. In contrast, wearing a tunic or robe was not distinct, but a common cultural adaptation engaged in by most everyone. But the apostles did establish distinctive practices and enjoined the churches to follow them in these practices. Cf. 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1-2,16; 14:33; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6-7; 2 Thess. 2:15.

I hope this subject isn’t a “hobby horse” to ride into oblivion. Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned that a majority of Baptists have no clear guiding principles whereby to approve and exclude what will be included in worship services of the gathered church and what “methods” of ministry will be employed or rejected. May the above principles spur your thoughts on the subject.

Singing the Psalms

In the previous posts I have taken a hard line against Exclusive Psalmody -- even positing that it encourages disobedience to the New Testament commands concerning singing (though that is not the intent of its proponents). But an argument against Exclusive Psalmody is not and ought never to be an argument against singing the Psalms. The songs preserved in the book of Psalms are inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness, as are all the Scriptures. Though metrical adaptations of the Psalms are not themselves inspired, many of them have been if kept intact and close to the text. Many hymns do not teach the text of the Bible, and some do not even teach the truth. In contrast, that is not a problem with the Psalms, assuming the arranger doesn't tamper with the meaning.

Examples of Psalters available online:
Parallel Latin/English Psalter
The Genevan Psalter
The Psalms of David: Imitated in the Language of the New Testament
The Psalter
The Psalter according to the use of The Episcopal Church
The Psalter for Public Worship, 1912 Psalter of the United Presbyterian Church
The Scottish Metrical Psalter
Three psalters' worth of tunes

A Discourse on Singing of Psalms as a Part of Divine Worship
Three ways to sing the Psalms

[Note: I link these items as a matter of interest, instruction and examples. Their presence does not mean I endorse them or have examined them for scriptural content. The 1912 Psalter of the United Presbyterian Church may be the best online representative of psalms from an Exclusive Psalmody viewpoint.]

In 2009 I published a diverse collection of poetry titled A Sheaf of Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs.* The first 150 poems were based on the 150 Psalms of the Old Testament – though they varied widely from metrical rearrangements of the words to paraphrases of Psalms into New Testament language. My hope was to encourage a renewed commitment to singing of the Psalms – especially among those overly committed to hymns – because “it is evident that some churches are failing to obey the Lord in this command.” It was hoped that the arrangement would impress upon our minds that we are singing the Psalms.

* The first 26 psalm versifications can be viewed at the url linked above.

An odd debate

Or maybe I should say an old debate.

When 17th century Baptist Benjamin Keach tried to "repair a breach in the worship of God" -- to incite his non-singing brothers and sisters to experience the joy of song -- a rancorous debate insued. So much so that the Baptist association censured some of the individuals involved. 

For most modern Baptists, any debate about whether or not to sing is musty history. I've known a few preachers who seemed to merely endure the singing until they could have their time in the limelight. And while I've known some folks who abstained from singing in church, I've known none in modern times who advocated the end of all singing together in church.

Keach's chief opponent was Isaac Marlow. Keach believed congregational singing was commanded by God, an "ordinance" to be observed by His people. Marlow chaffed under such innovation -- and it was innovation, because the English Baptists had not been singing. Marlow's arguments may sound strange in the ears of singing Baptists today, but they resonated with many of his contemporary 17th century Baptists. 

Here is my attempt to explain Isaac Marlow's approach to singing. I hope it is accurate.

Eph. 5:19 does not command congregational singing; vocal singing not to be understood here; this is about singing in your hearts and making melody in your hearts. Heart-singing is done without the tongue.

Col. 3:16 does mean vocal singing, but this is not engaged in by all the church together, but rather by those in the ministerial office who use it for teaching and admonishing.

I Cor. 14:26-34 supports the Col. 3:16 conclusion, showing singing is to be done one by one -- one after the other -- and not by many people singing at once.

The Psalms were part of the ceremonial law, and limited in singing to the Levites. There is no New Testament evidence of anyone in the church singing David's Psalms.

Prayer and praise are spiritual exercises that cannot be contained in pre-composed or pre-limited forms. As one prays in the Spirit, choosing his own words, so one much sing in the Spirit and not recite words that were composed by someone else.

Women should keep silent in the church, including singing. 

A view like Marlow's would probably rise from an understanding of the regulative principle of worship, even though it is miles apart from even the next most stringent view, Exclusive Psalmody.

New Testament singing

New Testament singing: Why the New Covenant revelation should be included in hymning the Lamb

I advocate “New Testament singing” – singing that recognizes the entire word of God (all 66 books from Genesis to Revelation) as inspired and teaches from the whole counsel of God.

Colossians 3:16  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Ephesians 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

1. New Testament singing emphasizes that God has spoken to us by His Son. That God in these last days has spoken to us by His Son demands due consideration.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds...

The constant refrain of the book of Hebrews is that the substance is better than the types and shadows, that the New Covenant is better than the Old, that Jesus the mediator of the new covenant and His blood “speaketh better things.” Under the Exclusive Psalmody doctrine the very words spoken by Jesus Christ Himself are rejected as an appropriate singing subject matter for the New Testament churches.

2. New Testament singing teaches the whole counsel of God. The teaching aspect of singing requires including New Testament revelation in our songs. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are unequivocal. Inherent in the singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is “teaching and admonishing one another.” If we shun to teach the full New Covenant revelation, we shun to teach the whole counsel of God. In Matthew 28:20 Jesus commanded His disciples to go and make disciples, baptizing and “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Singing only the 150 Psalms of the Old Testament is not teaching “all things” Jesus commanded. We are taught that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).” To sing only the Psalms and exclude the New Covenant revelation implies that “all scripture” is not profitable “for instruction in righteousness.”

If we are to faithfully teach Christ and Him crucified in our singing, and we should – “Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: (Colossians 1:28)” – we must faithfully sing the words of the New Testament as well as the Old! New Testament singing speaks in words that communicate the entire teaching of Scripture and is not conscribed to teaching less than 10% of Scripture.

3. New Testament singing obeys the command to speak, teach and admonish in “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” Mountains have been piled upon molehills to prove that God has commanded New Covenant Christians to sing exclusively from the Old Testament book of Psalms. Blood, sweat and pious pedantry have been enlisted to prove the point. But when all the smoke has cleared and the vapor has vanished away, the commands of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 have never said and still do not say “sing the book of Psalms”! This command specifies that we sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” Babes and simple believers can see it even if the scholar cannot.*

Should we be surprised that the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments use the words that can be translated “psalms” or “hymns” or “songs” in the book of Psalms? Of course not, since these are “psalms” and “hymns” and “songs”! It is no surprise that in a book about God, most of the references to songs and singing are in the context of praise to God – whether in the book of Psalms or elsewhere. Neither should we be surprised that words for uninspired songs in the Bible are the same as words for inspired songs – just as a modern Westerner could use “song” to describe the products of Led Zeppelin, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or “Amazing Grace” lined in a Baptist Church.

Scott Sanborn explains it this way: “We are suggesting that Exclusive Psalmists make a category error. They do not recognize that these terms refer to the Psalter simply because it is one species of the broader genus “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.” In other words, as a set of terms referring to a genus, these terms refer to all the species within that genus just as “cat” refers to both lions and house cats. As everyone knows, just because “cats” refers to house cats that does not necessarily mean it refers to them alone. So also, just because “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” refer to the Psalter, this does not necessarily mean that they refer to the Psalter alone.” -- From Inclusive Psalmody: Why ‘psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs’ Refers to More Than the Old Testament Psalter

There is no disagreement whether the terms “psalms,” “hymns” or “spiritual songs” can refer to the songs in the book of Psalms. What remains unproven is that they refer exclusively to the book of Psalms. In the end, the Old Testament words argument cuts both ways. It proves that these words are used for the songs in the Psalms, but it also proves that elsewhere there are psalms, hymns and songs that are not part of the book of Psalms. Rather than teaching it, the command to sing “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” actually excludes Exclusive Psalmody. Exclusively singing the 150 Psalms disobeys the singing commands of the New Testament.**

In addition to these 3 main points, I think the two following peripheral issues could be enlightening.

4. Old Testament singing indicates that Exclusive Psalmody was never the command or rule under the Old Covenant. Songs not in the book of Psalms were sung in public assembly. It seems strange that God would not limit Old Covenant singers to the book of Psalms, but then limit New Covenant singers to the book of Psalms.

5. The comparison and contrast of James 5:13 implies the use of appropriate and timely non-inspired text.

James 5:13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.

The afflicted are to pray and the merry are to sing. Though this only suggests and does not prove, to compose or sing an appropriate hymn that speaks to the specific occasion of happiness could be as likely as composing a prayer that speaks to one’s specific affliction.

The regulative principle teaches us to follow in worship what God has commanded. Exclusive Psalmody limits what God has commanded – psalms, hymns and spiritual songs – to what the Exclusive Psalmist demands – the book of Psalms only. 

* In fairness we must admit that scholars who are not Exclusive Psalmists have also written complicated tomes on psalmody and hymnody.
** Curiously, we could ask why Isaiah’s inspired song in Chapter 5 or the inspired Song of Solomon are not spiritual songs?!

Exclusive Psalmody, categorization and inspiration

Another categorization
Yesterday’s post contains two possible categorizations of approaches to worship through singing in the church, by Michael Kearney and myself. I just found another. In Ezra 3, Union with Christ, and Exclusive Psalmody Vern S. Poythress lists what he believes are the five most popular answers to/views on what words ought to be used for congregational singing in the public worship:

(1) words of a translation of the 150 psalms (the exclusive-psalmody position)

(2) words of a translation of any song of Scripture, viz. the 150 psalms plus Exod. 15, Deut. 32, Judg. 5, etc. (the “inspired-song” position)

(3) words of a translation of Scripture (the “inspired-words” position)

(4) words that communicate the teaching (didascalia) of Scripture (the didascalia position)

(5) any words which are “edifying,” whether or not they go beyond Scripture (the edification position). Positions 1, 3, and 4 are frequently held in Reformed circles; position 5 is frequent in non-Reformed churches.

In his footnote to position 5, Poythress writes, "Many congregations have not even consciously reflected on the question, what songs should be sung. Thus it is in some sense fairer to assign them no position at all..."

Is Exclusive Psalmody inspired? A misdirection.
"The worship of Jehovah is so important that nothing less than infallible Spirit-inspired lyrics are acceptable for praise in the church." – From Chapter 2 of Exclusive Psalmody, A Biblical Defense by Brian Schwertley

The average Exclusive Psalmodist makes a strong play on singing inspired songs rather than uninspired hymns. Yet, carefully examined, we find that on the one hand they would exclude a huge amount of inspired material and on the other hand do not dogmatically hold that the songs they sing are inspired!

Roughly 6% of all the words that God inspired are found in the book of Psalms.* For the sake of argument let us move the number favorably towards our opponents and assume the Psalms might be as much as 10% of the Bible. At that rate Exclusive Psalmodists exclude 90% of the Bible as optional singing material for assembled Christians. Yes, 90% of God's inspired words cannot be sung!! This emphasizes that the inspired versus uninspired argument is simply a diversion. It does not matter that it is inspired. It matters whether or not it is commanded.

Those caught in their own inspired psalmody argument must hem-haw around and build a straw man argument, because they do not really believe a metrical arrangement of a translation of the original tongue is inspired. For example, Brian Schwertley is quick to remind us that "Anyone familiar with Bible translation understands that a strictly word for word, absolutely literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek text is impossible...What is important is that Christ’s church be as faithful as possible to the original language as it translates God’s word." (Exclusive psalmody, the metrical Psalms, and Translation)  Few would argue with Schwertley’s desire that translations “be as faithful as possible to the original language.” What should be caught, though, is that Schwertley doesn't believe translations (Or Psalters) are inspired. In The Regulative Principle of Worship: Explained and Applied (p. 224), Daniel F. N. Ritchie speaks of those who "demand that metrical psalm versions be absolutely brilliant before they can be sung" and refers to Schwertley's claim that those who use this argument "would ultimately require the Scripture reading in public worship be done in the original languages." But, in fact, it is only the exclusive psalmodist who has made any claim that the Psalter from which they sing is inspired.**

Oh, that those who befoul the internet with their ubiquitous urgings against uninspired hymns would speak plainly and honestly! Do they really believe their metrical versifications of English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures are inspired? Pin them in a corner and let them admit, "No!" Then wonder why all the squawking about inspired psalms versus uninspired hymns if they will not claim inspiration for the versifications? This is a misdirection, plain and simple.

* If an English Bible contains approximately 780,000 words in the whole Bible and about 44,000 in the book of Psalms.
** A Psalter is another name for the Psalms or a volume containing the Book of Psalms. In modern psalmody discussions it usually means a translated metrical version of the Psalms with musical settings.
[Note: Regarding this issue and "spiritual songs" in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, it is worth noticing that pneumatikos ‘spiritual’ and theopneustos ‘inspired’ are not the same.]

Exclusive Psalmody versus Exclusive Hymnody

Exclusive Psalmody versus Exclusive Hymnody (and the points in between)

“The issue of church music must be approached with great carefulness and seriousness because it concerns a very personal aspect of the worship of God.” – An Examination of Exclusive Psalmody, Robert Morey

“Exclusive Psalmody” is an expression you may not hear much in Baptist churches – maybe not much discussion on “Psalmody” at all. Most often this is a debate within the “Presbyterian and Reformed” branch of churches.* On the Exclusive Psalmody blog, Mark Koller asked, “Why do so few Baptists practice exclusive Psalmody?” Some suggested answers were that Baptists have a “looser view of the regulative principle of worship” than those who adopt exclusive psalmody, that most Baptists practice what has been passed down to them (which is hymn singing, and that most Baptists don’t believe the church began with Adam as many of the Reformed do). English Baptists for the most part may have sat out the psalmody versus hymnody debate. Why? Because many of the 17th-century English Baptists didn’t believe in congregational singing of any kind -- so whether psalms or hymns didn’t matter.

According to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, acceptable corporate worship is (1) instituted by [God] Himself, (2) limited by His own revealed will, and (3) not accomplished by (a) the imagination and devices of men, (b) the suggestions of Satan, (c) made under any visible representations, and (d) under any...way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. This is, in so many words, the regulative principle.**

Just because Baptists haven’t talked much about it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.  The house of God must be ordered by the rules of God who owns the house. What is exclusive psalmody and what is exclusive hymnody? What are other options? What are the biblical principles for corporate worship of God in song?

On his blog, Michael Kearney identified three general categories of beliefs:

• The 150 divinely inspired biblical psalms are the only acceptable songs for worship.

• Only biblical songs may be sung in church, but selections outside the psalms, such as the songs of Zacharias, Simeon, and Mary, may be used.

• The use of biblical psalms and songs is encouraged, but non-inspired hymns are also appropriate for worship.

I have expanded the options, laying them out in four categories:

1. “Exclusive Psalmody" -- only the 150 Old Testament Psalms may be sung in corporate worship, and nothing else.

2. “Permissive Psalmody” -- the 150 Old Testament Psalms and other portions of Scripture may be sung in corporate worship.***

3. “Inclusive Hymnody” -- the 150 Old Testament Psalms and “hymns of human composure” may be sung in corporate worship.

4. “Exclusive Hymnody” -- only hymns are sung in corporate worship. This is not a theology but a practice. That is, those exclusively using hymns would not advocate against the use of Psalms. It is just that they do not consciously use them, and have no concern that they do not.

Exclusive Psalmody
“God has commanded us not to worship him in any other way than he has directed in his Word. The book of Psalms is a songbook directly from God, and in Scripture we are commanded to sing from it. Therefore, the divinely inspired psalms are the only acceptable songs for congregational worship.” – Michael R. Kearney

Exclusive Psalmody rises from a strong base, since almost every Christian believes it is scriptural to sing the Psalms. Nevertheless, the weight of this practice hangs massively on one assumption, that we are commanded to sing only from the book of Psalms in the Old Testament. The issue will to a large degree, at least from the Exclusivist standpoint, rise or fall with the interpretation of “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3.

Exclusive Psalmody endeavors to follow the regulative principle of worship. Unfortunately, many EP’ers accuse those who reject exclusive psalmody of also abandoning the regulative principle. This is not necessarily so.

Permissive Psalmody
Permissive Psalmody allows only Scripture to be sung, but does not limit that singing of Scripture to the 150 songs in the Old Testament book of Psalms. If it is found in the Scriptures, it can be taken as a text for singing. The Exclusive Psalmodist rejects this, saying, for example, “...it is not that other songs in the Scriptures are no less inspired or important (like the song of Moses in Exodus 15), they have simply not been deemed as part of the accepted praise of God’s church in corporate worship by being excluded from the Book of Praise.” (from God and Song: An Inquiry Into the Eternity of God in relation to Church Worship by C. Matthew McMahon) H. M. Cartwright writes in Psalms or Hymns in Public Worship, “God did not include all the inspired songs of Scripture in the Book He provided, and so we have no authority to add even other portions of Scripture to what God has given as a complete book of praises. It was not supplanted or supplemented in New Testament times by divine appointment or inspiration.”

We can take the New Testament as the basis for our scripture readings, the texts for our sermons and the rule for our faith and practice – yet can’t sing it in our assemblies? The simple believer will recoil at such a suggestion, be it urged upon them by the most sophisticated arguments by the most argumentative scholars. We who are under the New Testament cannot sing the New Testament? Ha! That’s ludicrous on its very face. Who could believe it, had we no sophisticated scholars to assure us it is so with their subtle sophistries? God…hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son!

Inclusive Hymnody
Inclusive Hymnody removes one step further from Exclusive Psalmody – not only can Scriptures other than the Psalms be sung, but also hymns written by uninspired writers after the close of the canon.

The advocacy method of Inclusive Hymnody varies. Some who hold this position do not hold the regulative principle and therefore use “non-inspired hymns of human composure” because they are not forbidden. Those who hold the regulative principle often approach the issue from the “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3. Since hymns and spiritual songs are commanded as well as “psalms” then it is not a violation of the regulative principle to sing hymns (and spiritual songs). Further, some would argue that the lack of specific details for hymns and spiritual songs leaves some liberty in the composition of these songs – in much the same way there is liberty in the composing the words of our prayers and sermons. Since the song of the Psalms used the available Scriptures as sources of material, they can be a guide to composing hymns and spiritual songs from available Scripture material (which now includes the New Testament).

Exclusive Hymnody
I’ve never known anyone to advocate that only non-inspired hymns could be sung in corporate worship. No one would say, “Don’t sing the Psalms.”**** Though this is not a theology, it is the actual practice of many churches. They do not advocate using the Psalms in public worship in song. Any use of them is accidental. They have no concern or regret that they do not use the Psalms. This view seems unthinkable, but not thinking is perhaps the very malady that has led to this disease. The Lord’s churches thus infected ought to seek a remedy.

The exclusive hymn singing practice of many evangelicals and fundamentalists (as well as moderates and liberals) is both shallow and theologically incorrect. Rather than singing sentimentality and senseless fluff, hymnodists can and should look to the inspired songs of the Bible as a guide in forming any new songs so that they are God honoring and biblically theologically sound.

The burden of proof
In Sing Psalms or Hymns, Jeffrey A. Stivason claims that the psalm versus hymn discussion is really an “asymmetrical persuasion dialogue” – that only the “uninspired hymnist” (inclusive hymnody position) is asserting a position and has the burden of proof. This is simply not so. The exclusive psalmodist is asserting a number of things which must be proven.

Exclusive psalmody is antithetical to the fact of New Testament revelation and the inspiration of the Scriptures. If we can only sing the Psalms, we cannot sing Matthew 6:9-13 or Acts 1:8 or Romans 8:28-39 or Galatians 2:20 or any other New Testament passage of scripture – all of which are the divinely inspired inerrant word of God given His churches! Exclusive psalmody is the musical equivalent of an “exclusive old-testamody” in preaching or corporate scripture reading – that is, taking texts only from the Old Testament and not any from the New. Exclusive hymnody is a mindless methodology that ought to go the way of the Dodo bird. Somewhere in between these extremes may we find the true way.

I feel the weight of the regulative principle and the “pain”***** of exclusive psalmody. Nevertheless, I am unconvinced by the arguments of Exclusive Psalmodists. The regulative principle favors at the least Permissive Psalmody and plausibly Inclusive Hymnody. Exclusive Hymnody is an unfortunate practice devolved into by careless thinking and lack of vision, but we must be careful to not throw the baby out with the bath water.

* The right sidebar on the Exclusive Psalmody Churches web site gives a list of denominations that adhere to exclusive psalmody and denominations that include some congregations that practice exclusive psalmody.
** The 2nd commandment forbids the use of images to worship God. It also contains a broader principle: "God is the one who dictates how He will be worshipped.”
*** No. 2 is sometimes called “Inclusive Psalmody.” But others use “Inclusive Psalmody” to refer to position No. 3. For example, Tim Lindsay of “Exclusive Psalmody Churches” blog writes, “By Inclusive psalmody, I mean that the practice is to sing the 150 Psalms of the Bible plus other selections such as (but not necessarily limited to) the Ten Commandments, Song of Mary, Song of Zacharias, Song of Simeon, Lord’s Prayer, and the Apostles’ Creed.” On the other hand, Michael Kearney writes that “...the third position [use of biblical psalms and non-inspired hymns, rlv] is unofficially known as ‘inclusive psalmody’ or ‘inclusive hymnody’.” In order to avoid this overlap and confusion, I had dubbed the No. 2 position as “Permissive Psalmody.” It starts from an “Exclusive Psalmody” vantage point/position, but permits the use of other scriptures. The early 20th century position of the Christian Reformed Church illustrates a view hanging between No. 2 and No. 3: "In the Churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, the Songs of Mary, Zacharias, and Simeon, the Morning and Evening Hymns, and the Hymn of Prayer before the Sermon, shall be sung.” [Article 69 of the Church Order, Christian Reformed Church, (pre-1932)]
**** Some are not in favor of singing the imprecatory Psalms. Imprecatory psalms are psalms that invoke judgment, calamity, punishment or curses upon one’s enemies.
***** Pain caused by the base nature of much modern worship music, with its loose theology, sentimentality and ubiquitous optimism.