I  have had some conversations with some other brothers in the blog world recently about the idea of "Exclusive Psalmnody".  (EP) which is the short acronym for Exclusive Psalmnody is the idea that God has given us His own hymnbook for corporate worship and it is the Psalter, exclusively.  The idea of (EP) is not an idea embraced by all Reformed denominations.  To be sure it has caused some division between some of the "Reformed" denominations.  I used to think that (EP) was non-sensical approach to Scripture, to music and to the freedom that Christians enjoy.  I used to think that (EP) was a new kind of "preference" used to mark out a distinction between those who sing whatever they want, and those who actually think about what kind of music should be used in Worship.  I used to think that there was no logical way to be (EP) and be true to the admonition to sing "Psalms, hymns and spriritual songs" (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16).  I used to think that when Paul and Silas sang "hymns" in jail, that they probably were singing an early version of Luther's great hymn "A mighty fortress" or the classic "What'er my God ordains is right" by Samuel Rodigast.  It didn't make sense to me that first century gentile Christians would be singing the Psalter.  Did Paul provide a "greek" translation, or "latin" translation of the Psalms for the 1st century Church to sing?  Was Paul so concerned with the Regulative principle and the application of it, that he would of taught the 1st century Gentile church to sing the Psalms and the Psalms only?  Then my thought progression moved into the idea that to sing the Psalms would be to exclude the very name of Christ, which seemed silly to me.  I mean any notion that we would only be able to sing Psalms about locusts, flies and frogs in Psalm 105, but not be able to sing something that exalted the name of Christ seems stupid, right?  Lastly, the thing that always bothered me about (EP) was the idea of only being able to sing about the "shadows" and "types" of Christ, but not actually be allowed to sing about and name the name signified in those types and shadows.  These are the things that I used to think.

But recenlty my thoughts and preferences have softened a bit.  Just so that there is no confusion so far, I am not about to advocate (EP).  I am not about to give reasons why I am "close" to being (EP).  And I am not about to advocate that there should be a renewed vigor into exploring the question for the PCA, or any other Reformed church who does not currently practice (EP).  I am going to give a few more reasons, hopefully a little more thought out reasons, why I'm not (EP).  At the same time I want to do a little more justice to the position that so many faithful churches practice. 

Okay now for some of the reasons that I'm not (EP).  One is a great quote from Ian Murray. 

He said, "Where is the proof in Scripture that God appointed the one-hundred-and-fifty Psalms of David for the public worship of the Old Testament church?¹ 

I think that is probably the best question when it comes to this debate.  A question that I don't believe has been appropriately answered.  But the fact that some churches do practice (EP) means that there is probably a good logical explanation of their position.  That reason is the regulative principle.  The Regulative Principle of Worship, (RPW) which teaches that how we worship, and what we do in worship must be prescribed by God. In other words, we must have biblical warrant for what we do. The Westminster Confession of Faith says, "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 imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture" (21.1). There is no disagreement over this among the reformed churches. 

The disagreement comes from how we see what those prescriptions are.  There are songs that are outside the Psalter for instance. Hannah's song in 1 Samuel 2 resembles the Magnificat, (Mary's song Luke 1:46-55) which is sung by some Christian denominations even to this day.   Another example is the song is Deuteronomy 32.  After which the text says, "(44) Moses came and recited all the words of this song in the hearing of the people, he and Joshua the son of Nun."  So we have "inspired" songs in the OT that according to my (EP) friends would not do for the worship of God on the Lord's Day.  Again, as Professor Murray asks, "Where is the proof in Scripture that God appointed the one-hundred-and-fifty Psalms of David for the public worship of the Old Testament church?". 

That also means that to sing Rev. 4:8 would be out of bounds:

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!”

So the saints of old and even the Angels are permitted to sing Rev. 4:8, but not the Church?  This is problematic for me.  But some of our (EP) friends still point to the (RPW).  For instance they point to Psalm 105 which I alluded to earlier. 

Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him;
talk of all His wondrous works! (Psalm 105:2).

The command is to sign psalms to Him and to sing of all His marvelous works!  To be true to the (RPW) imop we would have to sing of the Cross wouldn't we?  Isn't the culmination of all his marvelous works the Cross?  Are we bound to keep the Cross in the shadows? 

The main argument against singing songs outside the Psalter seems to me to be the way that our (EP) friends view Col. 3 and Eph. 5.  We have this trio of words: Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs to deal with.  Some say that these terms refer exclusively to the Psalter.  That is problematic for me as well.  To be sure they didn't have the red "Trinity Hymnal" used by the PCA or any other Baptist hymnal.  Some scholars have worked hard to prove that the trio of words mean the "Psalter".  But could it also mean other sacred songs outside the Psalter?  It seems to me that the Church at Corinth had their own songs.  1 Corinthians 14:26 "What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up."  Was this Church bound by the Psalter?  It doesn't seem logical to me that they were.  There seems to have been some freedom to compose their own music.

One of the other things that has bothered me is the non-use of the original language in the use of (EP).  Here's what I mean.  Sometimes even our (EP) friends change some words for "artistry" or to make it sound a little better in terms of meter or rhyme.  But sometimes even the Psalter adds words in English that are not there in the original language.  I think to be consistent, to be (EP) one would have to learn Hebrew.  If not then you run the risk of singing something that is "uninspired" and "unprescribed". 

Some have argued that Calvin was in favor of (EP) as proof of their right adherance to the (RPW).  But the Genevan Psalter (1543) only had 49 Psalms.  It also had musical versions of the Ten Commandments, the Apostles Creed and the Lord's Prayer.  It seems that even Calvin composed a hymn called "I greet Thee who my sure Redeemer art"^2. 

I for one am grateful to those who are convinced of (EP).  The (EP) crowd has helped us in insuring that our worship, the words we use, and the songs we sing be "Biblical" and not just sung because we "prefer" them.  Although I am not advocating (EP) I love the Psalms.  The Psalms are a great source of music used in the worship of God.  I am not convinced of (EP) as a matter of fact, I am probably convinced otherwise.  I do love the idea that there are men and women out there who do their best to preserve the honor of God's commands and prescriptions in worship.  I believe we have enough Biblical warrant for the use of the Psalms.  We should use the Psalms, and we don't do enough of that in my opinion.  But I haven't seen a good argument for their exclusive use.  Not yet anyway.  To not be able to sing what the Saints of old and the angels sing in Heaven seems odd.  To not be able to sing of the cross seems odd.  To limit the "prescribed songbook" in my opinion actually goes against the (RPW).  Can we not tell and sing of ALL His marvelous works?  I think we must if we are to utilize the (RPW).

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

1.  Iain H Murray, The Psalter – the Only Hymnal?, Banner of Truth, 2001, page 7

2.  Nick Needham, The Westminster Confession, into the 21st Century, Volume 2, Mentor, 2004, page 256.

Here is the video clip of Todd Bentley being appointed, (or was it annointed).not sure, but anyway here is his "ordination" or "appointment" to be an Apostle. No kidding. You will want to call your friendly neighborhood chiropractor after seeing this one. It's a little different than the last ordination service I went to.

There used to be a time Post-Reformation, where those who wished to attend the Lord's Table had to make a credible profession of faith to partake.  Even now some Reformed denominations have similar requirements.  Some practice closed communion, (only communing members may partake) and some like my denomination, the PCA verbally fence the table.  That means prior to communion the Pastor tells everyone attending that to partake of the Supper one has to be a Christian, a member in good standing of an evangelical church, and not engaged in open and public scandal, or under discipline.  Those under discipline know who they are and they simply do not partake being instructed by the Session.  During Calvin's time, to not partake of the Supper may have carried more of a social stigma then it does today.  So many churches pass the elements down the aisle and those who do not partake go unnoticed and are usually not embarrassed.  Those who should not partake and do anyway also can go unnoticed.  Some Churches like mine have families come up to the chancel to receive the elements from the Session so it can be a little more obvious to everyone who does not partake, especially if the congregation isn't very large.  The Reformed churches who don't practice closed communion, surely have unbelievers taking the supper, and probably have people under discipline taking it as well.  It is hard to fence the table because of a variety of reasons. 

John Calvin found himself in a unique situation.  Calvin faced off against a group that had recently lost political power upon Calvin's arrival at Geneva.  The Libertines were a group who appealed to the freedom of the Spirit as an excuse to indulge in the desires of the flesh.  Some have said of the Libertines, that the "communion of saints" meant the common possessions of all goods and even other men's wives.  They were sexually immoral and proud of their liberty.  They were proud of their liberty all the while insisting on their right to attend the Lord's Table.  But the Reluctant Reformer stood in opposition. 

Here is what one historian writes:  "The eventful morning dawned. The bell invited the people to the church of St. Peter. The Libertines were present, with their swords (drawn), determined to communicate. Calvin preached on the intention of the sacred ordinance, and spoke of the state of mind necessary for obedience to the Lord’s command. At the close, he said: “As for me, so long as God shall leave me here, since He hath given me fortitude, and I have received it from Him, I will employ it, whatever betide; and I will guide myself by my Master’s rule, which to me is clear and well known. As we are now about to receive the holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, if anyone who has been debarred by the Consistory shall approach this table, though it should cost my life, I will show myself such as I ought to be.” -  He then left the pulpit, and stood at the table. Removing the white cloth, and covering the bread and wine with his hands, he said, with a voice that rang through the building, “These hands you may crush; these arms you may lop off; my life you may take; my blood is yours, you may shed it but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profane, and dishonor the table of my God.” As if the very power of God prevailed, a calm succeeded, and the Libertines retired.... A solemn silence enabled the Reformer to celebrate the sacred ordinance in awe, as if the Lord Himself had been manifestly present. The question in the mind of Calvin was not whether he or the Libertines should succeed; but whether the Reformation should be wrecked at the very table of the Lord. He stood firm; and victory remained with him."  -History of Protestantism by James A. Wylie

Calvin's courage against the Libertines in one sense was easy, although it wasn't easy to face down the threat of swords to be sure.  Osterhaven writes- “A crowd of Libertines surged forward to the table. Calvin, descending from the pulpit, stood before the table. With drawn sword a Libertine cried, ‘Administer communion to us or you will die.’  (The Banner Of Truth; “The Reformers: The Secret Of Their Greatness”; Eugene Osterhaven).  So I'm not saying it was actually easy to face death over the issue of "who should take communion", because it wasn't.  I remember recently a "Gay" rights group attending a Mass in Chicago (I think) dressed as clowns and they were allowed to partake.  So the courage to ban those from the table that should be banned is hard to find.  What Calvin did in the face of death wasn't easy. But it was easy in this sense:  it was obvious to Calvin that the thought of the Libertines participating in the Supper was worse than death. 

But what about those who are not so obvious?  What about the ones who carry no sword and carry no profession?  How do we fence those who are non-believers?  How do we fence those who are not so known to us?  It does seem nowadays that fencing the table is a foreign concept.  Well it's not foreign among normal run of the mill evangelicals.  Sometimes modern evangelicals fence the table by having a Communion service on Sunday night (monthly or quarterly), knowing that mainly members will be there.  Sometimes modern evangelicals fence the table by saying something like "if you haven't confessed up all your sins then do so now."  I remember when I was a kid attending a Baptist church, wondering if I had remembered all my sins?  It was hard in my mind even as a kid, to get "worthy enough" to take the Supper.  But that is not the fencing I'm talking about.  None of us come worthy to the table.  Let's make that clear.  If we have a Table that is only for "worthy" people then none of us should ever participate in the Supper.  But what about the basic stuff?  Should we do more than to verbally fence the table?  I don't know maybe we should.  Maybe we are doing all we can.  I'm not advocating closed communion.  I don't think the Table is just a Presbyterian Table, it is a Christian Table.  But I am wondering to myself if we could or should do more to take seriously the guarding of God's honor in who receives the body and blood of Christ.  Maybe we should fence the table in more ways than verbal instruction.  To be sure that goes on in some churches.  Some of that goes on behind the scenes pastorally, I know that.  I appreciate that and thank God for those Pastors who exercise godly and living discipline.  Some parishoners for reasons of conscience elect to sit out.  That is a good thing.  I know we should fence the table.  I wonder what I would do faced with a sword?  I'm  wondering if we are doing enough and should do more.  If we are fencing the Table, I'm wondering if we should do it Calvin style? 

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux

A Southwestern Seminary Professor tells a heartbreaking story about his encounter, his one night with Todd Bentley. You can read it here. Here is some telling videos of "Healing Minister" Todd Bentley. One of them is his fascination with Angels.

July 10th was John Calvin's birthday.  He was born in 1509 and the 10th would have been his 499th birthday.  He died on May 27th, 1564.  We have no marker to commemorate his death, to lay down flowers or even to take pictures.  Why?  Because he desired to be buried in a pauper's grave so that no one would think about visiting his grave in pilgrimages.  There was too much of that in the Roman Catholic world at that time.  Well it is that kind of humility that marked the life of the Reluctant Reformer.  It is also one of the reasons that the Reluctant Reformer and Doctor of Geneva's work, theology and passion for Christ carries on in our modern era.  John Calvin was probably converted sometime in 1533.  His only mention of his conversion comes from his introduction to his commentary on the Psalms.  He didn't talk about himself very much.  But he did preach and he preached volumes.  T.H.L Parker, a Biographer of Calvin notes that Calvin preached one hundred and eighty-nine sermons on the Acts between 1549 and 1554, a shorter series on some of the Pauline letters between 1554 and 1558, and sixty-five sermons on the Harmony of the Gospels between 1559 and 1564. During that time he preached a series on Jeremiah and Lamentations (up to 1550), on the Minor Prophets and Daniel (1550-2), then one hundred and seventy-four on Ezekiel (1552-4), then one hundred and fifty-nine on Job (1554-5), then two hundred on Deuteronomy (1555-6), then three hundred and forty-two on Isaiah (1556-9), then one hundred twenty-three on Genesis (1559-61), a short set on Judges (1561), one hundred and seven on 1 Samuel and eighty-seven on 2 Samuel (1561-3) and a set on 1 Kings (1563-4).   That is just a sampling of his volumous works in preaching.  He also wrote his Institutes of the Christian Religion and a mass of commentaries on the Scriptures.  John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a monumental work that stands among the greatest works of Christian theology and Western literature.  Calvin's Institutes did much to shape the church's understanding of Christian doctrine for generations and has had a tremendous amount of influence in the development of Western thought in both the religious and civil arenas.  His Institutes represent his life's work in teaching theology. Originally Calvin wrote the Institutes to give his readers a basic understanding of Christian doctrine.  Can you imagine that?  Basic?  Amazing.  Anyway the Institutes became one of the earliest systematic theologies of the Reformed tradition. In writing the Institutes Calvin wanted to give the reader the necessary background to read and accurately handle the great doctrines and promises of the Bible.  Calvin sent a copy to the King Francis I to encourage him to stop persecuting the Christians who were embracing the gospel as taught by the Reformers. His basic argument was that if the king understood what these people believed he would stop killing them as heretics but rather see them as faithful adherents of historical Christianity. His two-volume work is broken down into four books that loosely follow the outline of the Apostle's Creed. Book 1 concerns knowledge of God. Book 2 is about Jesus Christ as redeemer. Book 3 is about the Holy Spirit's role in applying Christ's redeeming graces. Book 4 is about the church and practice.  Calvin was the first in the great Protestant tradition to pen a Biblical, systematic theology that every Christian could and should read. 

Calvin's Institutes should be read by anyone who desires an understanding of the development of Western thought, literature and theology. The Institutes is not just  great theology, which it is, but what you find out when you read the Institutes is that they are also extremely pastoral and devotional. They are not like reading a modern systematic theology. Calvin understood doctrine to be more than just heady intellectualism, but it was actually something to mold our understanding of God, and ourselves and the world in which we live.

John Calvin was a scholar to be sure, and wished for nothing but a life of books and scholarship.  But one encounter with a fiery eyed preacher named Farel changed all of that.  No, no providence changed all of that.  Calvin had no intention of staying in Geneva that providential night.  No he was passing through and that was all.  But Farel wouldn't hear of it.  Farel greatly desired reformation in Geneva and he knew he needed the helpful, pastoral scholarship of someone like Calvin.  Farel oh so genlty coaxed Calvin into staying in Geneva.  He simply threatened the curse of God on Calvin if Calvin left.  So Calvin reluctantly agreed to stay for a time.  He later became Pastor and was fired.  After the Roman Catholics looked as though they would take back over the chancel, through the influential arguments of a crafty Cardinal named Sadoleto Calvin was called back.  He went back to the Church which had fired him.  A point of which speaks to his humility and forgiving spirit.  I for one would have probably called down fire on such a place, but not Calvin.  No he had the heart of a Pastor.  His heart for God's people and God's Word made him unique.  It made him someone way ahead of his time.  It made him, Calvin the great Doctor of Geneva.  Happy belated birthday John Calvin.  May all of us who wear the Reformed badge immulate your humility, your courage, your love for Christ and your love for God's people.

"True and sound wisdom consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves." Institutes 1.1.1

Gage Browning

Post Tenebras Lux