3 imperatives in Ezra's pattern

Ezra 7:10 For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments.

The pattern that we see in Ezra 7:10 is a grand example for us.

1. Seek/Study the word.
2. Do/observe/obey the word.
3. Teach the word.

Let us follow on.

A Common Man

"...God hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the things which are mighty." I Cor. 1:27b

Whoever heard of Shamgar? He's only mentioned in two verses of the Bible. 

"And after him was Shamgar the son of Anath, which slew of the Philistines six hundred men with an ox goad: and he also delivered Israel." Judges 3:31

Shamgar may seem a "nobody". Yet his heroic deed has a message for the rest of us "nobodies".

The Philistines oppressed Israel. Shamgar stood with God. He must have been a farmer, a common fellow. His instrument was a ox goad -- a sharp stick used to prod oxen. This common man with his simple tool killed 600 of the oppressors and delivered Israel from servitude. He took what he had and used it in God's work.

I inspect myself and find no great gift or skills. I'm not well-known or wealthy. I'm not highly educated or particularly eloquent. I'm a common man. Shamgar encourages me. May he encourage you. He came from the common ranks. Shamgar was common, but what he did was not. He used what he had for God. We can do that. He won a great victory -- an impossible one. "With men it is impossible, but with God all things all possible."

We are weak; the enemy is strong. When we are weak, then we are strong. We are weak; God is strongest. If all we have is our "ox goad," it is enough. Let us give ourselves to God and trust Him to get the job done. Lord, help us remember that all the heroes and heroines of the Bible are men and women of like passion as we.

Gross, or net

A young couple without much income was working out a budget. The discussion turned to whether they should tithe to the church on their gross income (total income before any taxes or deductions) or net income (what is actually received after taxes and deductions are withheld). Unsure how they should follow obediently, they made an appointment with their pastor to ask him.

The pastor assured the couple that they should tithe off their gross income. Somewhat annoyed by what he perceived as their rigorous attempt to follow the letter, he bolstered his case, asking, "Well, would you rather God bless you off the gross or the net?"

And that was that.

Or is it? A pastor annoyed by strict interpretation of the tithe in his congregation ought to take a look in the mirror. It is likely that he is the one who incites the legalism, preaching the tithe as law, explaining it by strict and legal assertions, and bolstering it with strong condemnations. No wonder his congregation would attempt to follow it to the letter rather than giving by grace.

Rather than ask whether to tithe on one's gross or net income, ask instead when biblical tithing was ever 10% of any income!

A verse and a hymn

My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O Lord;
in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee,
and will look up.
Psalm 5:3

Lord, in the morning Thou shalt hear,
My voice ascending high;
To Thee will I direct my prayer,
To Thee lift up mine eye.
Isaac Watts

Messiah gets name change

A Tennessee judge has changed an infant's name from 'Messiah' to Martin. 

Parents of the for-now named Martin DeShawn McCullough probably got a surprise when they went to court over the boy's name. The father and mother could not agree on the child's last name. The judge fixed that, but in the process changed the boy's first name, too. What was that name? Messiah. Now it is Martin.

While I think naming a child Messiah is inane and problematic, do we really want the court system naming our children for us? Shouldn't that be the parents' right? Is there ever a point where it is over the top and should be reversed by a judge?

No vacant seats in Heaven

Our hearts are filled with sorrow,
When Jesus comes to claim his own. 
A seat is then left vacant,
Yes, vacant in our earthly home.
No vacant seats in Heaven,
No vacant seats around God’s Throne, 
Up there ‘tis joy and gladness,
Oh, glory land sweet heavenly Home.
Mrs. J. B. Edwards
Harp of Ages, No. 74

Jesus promised that He would go to prepare a place for us (John 14:1-3). That place is reserved in heaven (I Peter 1:4). Because He has a place reserved for his people, there will be no vacant seats in Heaven. This often referred to as the eternal security of the believer. A true believer can never fall and be cast away from the presence of God. By God’s grace the believer’s home in heaven is secure!

Security is based on God’s work – not man’s works. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith. The character of God, the plan of the Father, the work of the Son, and the presence of the Spirit all guarantee our soul is safe in God.

The power of God is infinite. Therefore He is ABLE to keep us (II Tim. 1:12). He can do what He says He will do (Rom. 4:21; I Pet. 1:5). To believe that a believer can be pulled out of the all-powerful grasp of God (John 10:29) is to perceive that Satan is more powerful than God (I John 4:4). God’s power means that once He saves, we are always saved because He is ABLE TO SAVE AND TO KEEP!

The love of God is unlimited. God loved us enough to give His Son to die for us while we were yet sinners – at enmity with God. Certainly He loves His children much more – enough that He will not cast them away when they sin (Rom. 5:7-10). Nothing can separate us from the love of God (Rom. 8:35-39).

The sovereign purpose of God is to save all who believe (John 3:16). If you could fall from grace after you believe, you would not be saved. Therefore, if you could believe and yet be finally lost, the sovereign purpose of God would be frustrated (Phil. 2:13).

Jesus Christ died instead of us (I John 2:2; Heb. 2:9). There can be no condemnation to one who is in Christ by faith (Rom. 8:1). To believe in apostasy is to believe that the death of Jesus is not sufficient to cover ALL our sins. But His blood cleanses us from ALL sin (I John 1:7). He made a one time substitutionary sacrifice which is sufficient and eternal – it will never have to be repeated (Heb. 10:11-12).

Not only did Christ DIE for us, but He ever LIVES to intercede for us (Heb 7:25). Hence, He is able to save completely. Who can condemn you, when He who died for you is at God’s right hand to intercede for you (Rom. 8:34). The Father’s acceptance of His Son assures us that He will hear His intercession. He is well-pleased with Him (Matt. 17:5).

When we are saved, we are born of God (John 1:13; 3:6). God is our Father and we are His children by birth – a fact that can never be erased! His seed is in His people (I John 3:9) and remains implanted. The new birth is based on Jesus’s righteousness imputed to our account – not how much righteousness we have or can maintain (which is none). His righteousness will not diminish.

Believers are indwelt by the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:9,16) and sealed by the Spirit as belonging to God (Eph. 1:13-14). The Spirit is given as the earnest of our inheritance – the guarantee that we will receive what God has promised! If the promise could be broken, God would have to let us keep His Holy Spirit – the fallen believer would take the earnest (Spirit) to Hell with him. Unthinkable! This could not be. He certainly can NEVER lose our soul!

God is immutable or unchanging. This is the ultimate guarantee of our salvation. If He were changeable, we would be destroyed (Malachi 3:6). We do not have to worry about our salvation because God is always the same. He will not lose His power. He will not stop loving us. His sovereign purpose will not change. Jesus’s blood will always be sufficient. He will always intercede in our behalf. God will not take back His Holy Spirit from us. We will always be His children (Heb. 13:8; Jas. 1:17). When God does something, He does it to last and no one can change that (Eccl. 3:14)! Be assured – there will be NO VACANT SEATS IN HEAVEN!!

(First published in The Baptist Waymark, Vol. I, No. 5, October 1986)

John 8:1-11

The story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery is as intriguing as it is unusual. Did we not know it, the conclusion would be surprising and unexpected.

John 8:1-11

1. All have sinned
    The woman caught in adultery was guilty.
    The man not brought was guilty.
    The men who brought her were guilty (from the least even unto the greatest).
       [Now she stood alone before the only one without sin.]
2. Jesus came to save, not condemn -- "neither do I condemn thee"
    Neither do I condemn thee does not mean she had not sinned
    Neither do I condemn thee means a Saviour had abated her sentence
3. Repentance -- "go and sin no more"
    Go and sin no more indicates repentance
    Go and sin no more defuses the "I was born that way; I can't help it" excuse

East Texas Convention now history

UPDATED!

August 10 and 11, 2013, the 158th session of the East Texas Sacred Harp Convention called together die-hard singers, transitory singers, annual pilgrims and the just plain curious for a wonderful weekend of what one reporter identified as "an a cappella symphony of sound." 335* people "returned again" from 10 U.S. states and 1 other country (UK) to attend the East Texas Sacred Harp Convention. 83 different leaders persevered through this vale of sorrow and led 159 songs of what wondrous love!

The Longview News Journal captured images of three of our visitors leading -- Karen Willard, Tim Jones, and Stanley Smith -- and the Henderson Daily News has an excellent close-up of Judy Caudle leading (but I think you must have a subscription to see the Henderson Paper).

You know who are the two kinds of singers -- some who can't be restrained and others who go when the mood strikes -- as well as the curious who show up to check us out. We also have two sorts of "annual pilgrims" -- those who have Sacred Harp in their backgrounds and travel to the "ancestral home" of sound to indulge their memories, and those who have discovered Sacred Harp and have made us a yearly part of their lives. Some of this second group began as the "just plain curious" and now return regularly. The first group will smile and reminisce of Grandpa or Grandma or Aunt So-and-So who sang the old Sacred Harp way back when. While I could wish we could convert them to either part-time or full-time singers, I understand them well -- remembering how I, for example, take great pride in my paternal grandfather being a master syrup-maker, even though I know little more about syrup than how to eat it! The feeling is real.

We appreciate the committee who brought a fine memorial lesson. Chair Tom Owen talked about how the deceased singers leave "holes" in our singings and our lives, which others must step up and fill in the ways they can. The older I get the more I think about the holes left in our East Texas Convention. Though I'm not a real old guy, I feel a sense of loss that so many of our younger singers never knew even the ones I remember.

On Saturday night we had a social -- food, fellowship and MORE singing. Thanks to Linda Booker who brought photocopies of two old songs, and to Tammy Powell who brought the Harp of Ages song books.

From first to last singers seemed to give it their best. THANK YOU to all who attended. Please accept our undying gratitude for the gifts of your time, talent, and support. Please extend your grace to cover the mistakes we made and your hopes & prayers that we will do better next time. And come back next year!

We think we had a great convention and a wonderful singing. Hope everyone else went away thinking the same thing! The Longview news reporter talked to one of my favorites, Mr. Leo Stanley, who has been attending this convention since the 1930s. “You can’t sing and not be happy,” Leo said. Amen, and in the words of Mike Hinton -- LET'S SING ON (and be happy).

* Note: the finally tally found 336 registrants

Songs of Zion

The University of Virginia has made available on their web site James Carrell's tune book Songs of Zion : Being a small collection of tunes, principally original; with appropriate lines, adapted to divine worship.

(Some of) My books

A History of Smyrna Baptist Church, 1873-2008  by J. W. Griffith and R. L. Vaughn
A Sheaf of Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs
Approaching 150: A Brief History of the East Texas Musical Convention and Sacred Harp in East Texas
Materials Toward a History of Feet Washing among the Baptists
Rethinkin' Our Thinkin': Thoughts on Sacred Harp "Myths'
Songs Before Unknown: a Companion to The Sacred Harp, Revised Cooper Edition, 2012

Before the Throne of God Above

“Before the Throne of God Above” by Charitie Lees Bancroft

Before the throne of God above

I have a strong and perfect plea.

A great High Priest whose Name is Love

Who ever lives and pleads for me.

My name is graven on His hands,

My name is written on His heart.

I know that while in heaven He stands

No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair

And tells me of the guilt within,

Upward I look and see Him there

Who made an end of all my sin.

Because the sinless Savior died

My sinful soul is counted free.

For God the just is satisfied

To look on Him and pardon me.

Behold Him there the risen Lamb,

My perfect spotless righteousness,

The great unchangeable I AM,

King of glory and of grace,

One in Himself I cannot die.

My soul is purchased by His blood,

My life is hid with Christ on high,

With Christ my Savior and my God!

An archbishop picks his heaven

Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu recently said, "I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place...I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this." -- Archbishop Tutu 'would not worship a homophobic God'

I read this a few days ago and immediately thought:

1. God is not homophobic. God does not have an irrational fear of homosexuals, neither is He prejudiced nor does He discriminate. Whether this is a sin or not is an entirely different question. 

2. God is God. God is the creator and we are the created. We do not get to decide who God is and then worship the God on whom we decided, nor do we decide "which heaven" we will go to. God is either the I AM or He isn't at all.

In Christ Alone

Stanza 2:
In Christ alone! who took on flesh
Fulness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones he came to save:
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live.

By vote in 2006, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) authorized publishing a new hymnal. In 2008 a committee of 15 was formed and drew up two guiding statements, which, like the denomination itself, lean to the liberal end of the theological spectrum.

Along the way, the hymnal committee decided to use the popular hymn titled “In Christ Alone” by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend (2001). This decision sparked a committee controversy and in the end “In Christ Alone” was rejected. In a May Christian Century report, committee chair Mary Louise Bringle tells some of that story in her article Debating hymns. She says the “most animated disagreements we experienced within our group were over matters of theology” and gives two examples, one being “In Christ Alone.” Though the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) descends in the tradition of John Calvin and John Knox, they were troubled by the expression in the hymn about “the wrath of God.” Perhaps they no longer believe in the wrath of God against sin, or else they don’t want to offend anyone by mentioning it.

The committee requested permission to alter the hymn’s lyrics. They proposed “Till on that cross as Jesus died, the love of God was magnified” in place of “Till on that cross as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied.” The authors of the hymn, however, would not authorize this change in wording. This left the committee to decide whether they could use "the wrath of God was satisfied.” According to Bringle, some argued for inclusion because “…the words expressed one view of God’s saving work in Christ that has been prevalent in Christian history...” and “it is…a view held by some members of our family of faith...” While seeking for diversity in other areas, the majority was not impressed, noting “…that a hymnal does not simply collect diverse views, but also selects to emphasize some over others as part of its mission to form the faith of coming generations.” Simply put, they did not want to perpetuate to their churches a view that the cross satisfied the wrath of God.

In No Squishy Love Timothy George wrote, “Sin, judgment, cross, even Christ have become problematic terms in much contemporary theological discourse, but nothing so irritates and confounds as the idea of divine wrath.”

I don’t know anything about the authors, but I like the song. I was stirred to see that standing by their theology was more important than getting published in the Presbyterian hymnal.

Not only Getty and Townend, but also the prophet Isaiah saw God’s wrath poured out of the “man of sorrows” and satisfied by His death on the cross:

Isaiah 53:3-11 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

The New Testament interpretation is beyond question. This is the Christ!

Acts 8:27-35 "...a man of Ethiopia...had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet...The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

See also:
The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): Part I, Book of Confessions
Whatever happened to the wrath of God?

Note

Like the Presbyterians USA, the UK Methodist committee for their 2011 hymn book Singing the Faith was also conflicted by the Townend/Getty song “In Christ Alone.” A report to the Conference highlights some of their thought process (See 3.3 and 3.4). Unlike the PCUSA, the British Methodists did include the song in their hymnal. They objected to three things:

“… for many Methodists it presents problems. Firstly it speaks of ‘the wrath of God’ being ‘satisfied’ by the crucifixion. Secondly, it says ‘sin’s curse has lost its grip on me.’ Thirdly, it uses male language when it speaks of humanity: ‘no scheme of man.’ The MRG considered each of these issues and requested permission from the copyright holder to vary the words to make them more inclusive of Methodist belief and practice in each instance. Such permission was refused.”

They seemed able, unlike the Presbyterians, to overcome their objections because (1) this represented “a view of the atonement…held by some within the Church and can be found in Charles Wesley’s hymns” (2) “where we would have preferred sin’s power…rather than sin’s curse…was not felt to be critical” and (3) even though “diametrically opposed to Church policy on inclusive language” it was judged that an exception could be made for such a song that was “deeply meaningful to many in the Church.” According to this report the inclusion of “In Christ Alone” was “one of our most difficult decisions.”

Sacred Harp Singing Convention this weekend

The East Texas Sacred Harp Singing Convention will be held this weekend (d.v.) at the Henderson Civic Center, Saturday and Sunday August 10 and 11. We start at 9:30 a.m. More details about the Convention can be found HERE and HERE.

Y'all come!!

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.

The missing links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

10 Things That Slow Your Metabolism
A Discourse on Instrumental Music in Public Worship
A Selection of Hymns for Public Worship
How Should Churches and Seminaries Respond to Immigrant Pastors Who Minister in the US Illegally? Three views
Looking through the Lord’s Supper
The Gadsby Project
The Strange Career of the Antimission Baptists
The Translation of the Greek Word "Ekklesia" as "church"
We Used to Sing Only Psalms -- What Happened?
Why fewer churches offer Vacation Bible School
'Wrath of God' Keeps Popular Worship Song Out of 10,000-Plus Churches

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.

Anything but reality

Just when you couldn't stand another (un)reality show, Oxygen bombards the public with Preachers of LA.

First of all, reality shows are not really "reality" shows. They are the edited reality that the producers think will "sell". Perhaps they should call them "surreality" shows!

Second of all, even the "unedited" lives of 6 high profile mega-churches pastors in Los Angeles would tell us little about the lives of the real diversity of preachers that labor to preach the gospel and lead the sheep throughout the congregations of the world. 

Beyond making money, who knows whether there may be an agenda of further stereotyping an already over-stereotyped mass of unique individuals.

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?!

Background information and the sufficiency of Scripture

Andy Naselli asks the question Is 'Background Information' Ever Necessary to Understand the Bible?  His answer to the question is that "historical context may sometimes be necessary to understand the Bible accurately." I think I am not misrepresenting him to say that he means historical context found outside of the Bible.

In contrast he quotes Wayne Grudem writing that he is "reluctant to affirm that additional historical background information is ever necessary for getting a proper sense of a text."

In this statement Grudem is maintaining "a distinction between (a) lexicographical resources in ancient literature and inscriptions that I think to be necessary for understanding the words of Scripture and (b) resources that provide historical background information (such as archaeological evidence and historical evidence from ancient texts) that I think to be helpful for improving our understanding but never necessary for gaining a correct understanding of the sense of a text."

Naselli "pushes back" with three biblical examples that I quote below with a few related comments.

1. How can we determine what a δηνάριον (denarius) is without historical context? (Δηνάριον occurs 16x in the NT: Matt 18:28; 20:2, 9, 10, 13; 22:19; Mark 6:37; 12:15; 14:5; Luke 7:41; 10:35; 20:24; John 6:7; 12:5; Rev 6:6 [2x].)

What do we need to know about a δηνάριον from history for the interpretation of these verses? Can we get enough "historical context" from the Bible itself to interpret the meaning of contexts that uses the word δηνάριον? I believe the lattr is sufficient. We learn from the Bible itself that this is a coin -- money -- that is roughly equivalent to a day's wages for a laborer. Is there any verse we can't understand without more information? I think not.

2. It's important to understand what a lamb is to understand parts of the Bible, and those passages are part of deeply important typology. But what if someone today (such as an adult in a remote tribe or a child in America) has never heard of (let alone seen) a lamb? They would need some extra-biblical information in order to get "a proper sense of a text" (to use Grudem's words).

This example might teach us that the Bible gives us far more information than we initially think. Perhaps we do not "need some extra-biblical information in order to get 'a proper sense of a text." It is important to understand what a lamb is to understand parts of the Bible. But must we experientially know what a lamb is, or could we possibly understand what a lamb is from reading the Bible? From the Bible we learn that it was a domestic animal used in ritual sacrifice, that it has wool and can be sheared, and so forth. This is not to say that someone who is a shepherd might catch details that others miss. How many of us have ever seen an animal sacrificed? Yet this does not keep us from grasping the idea and its meaning of the sacrifice of a lamb or the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

3. D. A. Carson writes this regarding Revelation 3:15:
A fair bit of nonsense has been written about the exalted Christ's words to the Laodiceans...Many have argued that this means God prefers people who are "spiritually cold" above those who are "spiritually lukewarm," even though his first preference is for those who are "spiritually hot."...All of this can comfortably be abandoned once responsible archaeology has made its contribution. Laodicea shared the Lycus valley with two other cities mentioned in the NT. Colosse was the only one that enjoyed fresh, cold, spring water; Hierapolis was known for its hot springs and became a place to which people would resort to enjoy these healing baths. By contrast, Laodicea put up with water that was neither cold and useful, nor hot and useful...it takes a bit of background information to make the point clear today.

With all due respect to Donald Carson, I would have to add that I have seen a "fair bit of nonsense" written about Revelation 3:15 from those who know or think they know something about the condition of the springs in Colosse, Hierapolis and Laodicea. Further, I have seen people who knew nothing of the condition of the waters in these cities of Lycus Valley get the point of what John was writing to the church of Laodicea. People on "both sides" get it and miss it. But taken in the context of the entire address to the church of the Laodiceans, we can get the point and the meaning of this without knowing the geographical/historical context behind it. It's not necessary to read the history of the Lycus Valley to understand Revelation 3, any more than it is necessary to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to understand the meaning of the death of Jesus on the cross. Getting a look at the hill of Golgotha and surrounding terrain will not be a magic potion to open the spiritual eyes of the dull reader, and a drink of the springs in Laodicea won't reveal things that are spiritually discerned.

Extra
"Cf. Wayne Grudem's seven sensible qualifications: "Scripture affirms that it is able to be understood but (1) not all at once, (2) not without effort, (3) not without ordinary means, (4) not without the reader's willingness to obey it, (5) not without the help of the Holy Spirit, (6) not without human misunderstanding, and (7) never completely." "The Perspicuity of Scripture," Themelios 34, no. 3 (2009): 288-309."

Is Scripture Enough?, in the July-August 2013 9Marks Journal