Book review: A Heart for Reformation

This book A Heart for Reformation by C. Matthew McMahon (which can be bought here) is indeed a very interesting book on the topic of Individual and Church Reformation. All of us are to strive towards growth and reformation in our individual lives, and in the life of the Church, and in this McMahon has written an excellent book in this regard.

As such, I have written a review of the book here, and here are some excerpts from the book itself:

No one wants to hear that they way they "do" religion is wrong, and people certainly believe that their individual experiences with God should be just that — an individual experience. However, individual experience does not and cannot determine the manner in which sinners should approach Him. Let the record be set straight — God determines the manner in which sinners are to approach Him, and the Bible was given to His people that they might know the truth on the matter. Only the truth will set men free to worship God rightly, and live before Him in integrity. It is not enough for people to simply hear what they want to hear, rather, they must conform to what God commands. (p. 48)

And a pertinent word for "Reformed Christians" so-called:

Second, with the neglect comes the sin, because Reformed Christians, who hold the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its purest expression, have this tendency to shout out, "I'm Reformed... so I am okay." Why is it that many people see the Reformed Christians as the frozen chosen? They have knowledge, but they do not seem to have a tendency to share it openly, or be as excited and evangelistic as the Arminian or Socinian or Liberal heretic who doesn't have the truth and yet ‘ holds to a zeal without knowledge. The greatest abuse of the means of grace are by those who know those means best — the Reformed Christian. It cannot be argued that the Gospel is most carelessly believed by those who know it the best. Reformation theology can cause Christians to become like the Jews of old. "I'm a Calvinist," and "I'm Reformed..." That is good, but that does not ensure a Christian's growth in Christ. It will not maintain or advance their growth in Christ. Sanctification is only effectual by the operation of the Holy Spirit upon them while partaking of the means of grace with a whole heart. Reformed Christians, then, arguably more than others, should be told to "Amend your ways and doings..."

Reformed Christians, all Christians, should be demonstrating a theology put into right practice empowered by the Spirit — walking in the Spirit. It is then that all will see true biblical reformation in the mind and hearts as individual Christians, and as a collective unified covenanted community. Mortification of sin and new life in the new man day by day is not won simply by knowledge. It must be knowledge that has been formed into practice and is ignited by the spiritual power of the Spirit of God. (p. 69-70)

All in all, this is a very good book. I highly recommend it to all those who desire reformation in their lives and in the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Devouring one another

But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. (Gal. 5:15)

Following from my previous post on the differentiation between being watchmen and just being a gossip, there seems to be some people involved in pointing out what they perceive as errors and heresies who either align themselves with the ODM (Online Discernment Ministries) or the ODAODM (Online Discerning Anti-ODM). Previously, I had ignored the dynamics between the two and even some of their antics. However, since having being harshly attacked recently, and slandered and libeled by these "discerning people" (or "anti-watchmen" people), I have began to ponder about the situation.

As the previous post states, our attitude when showing forth the error of others is to be one out of love and not in glee when another falls. Yet it seems that are quite a few people who delight in attacking others personally. Not only that, they post outrageous lies about others, even setting up blogs with the sole purpose just to attack another brethren in Christ (It happened to me once by OldSchoolCalvinist before it was deleted). All of this is done of course apart from the teachings of Scripture. Rather, there is a certain spirit of bitterness in their actions; in using the public space afforded them via the Internet to blissfully slander others while sanctimoniously disavowing that they are doing this (attacks) as watchmen or teachers.

The spirit of devouring each other is alive and well on the Internet, unfortunately. Under the guise of "discernment" or "exposing the heresy hunters", representatives from both sides and especially all of the AODM turn against those doing the work of Christ and hinder their work. Recently, the Goforth conference on missions, which was held in Singapore, ended. I wasn't keen because of various reasons which I shall not be posting about now, though it surely is a mixed blessing to the churches involved, and my friend Huaizhi has blogged a bit about it here. What I wanted to focus on however, is an example of some who deemed it alright to criticize the conference without even understanding what it is about, plus the fact that the person does not even comprehend that the particular talk was about the priesthood of believers, who are all empowered for ministry. Strawmen, non sequiturs, various forms of misrepresentations and even outright lying and slander abound in such circles who, although they do not claim to teach, sure put forth their opinions on certain issues very forcefully.

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. (2 Tim. 2:16-17a)

As Paul exhorted Timothy, so we should do likewise in avoiding such people and the nonsense they sprout. For example, it would be very well for all of us to avoid the waste of webspace called CRN.(mis)info, who act as the watering hole by which all manner of false accusations against true discernment and watchmen ministries are thrown, debated and refined. Ignore such people and their irreverent babble, for interaction will pull us down to their level and lead to more and more ungodliness in our conduct. Let them slander all they want, in the end God will take care of them. After all,

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. (Titus 3:10-11 — KJV)

As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. (Titus 3:10-11 — ESV)

Such divisive people are self-condemned, and as such we do not even need to bother with their nonsense.

One thing which has happened which will shift my future focus on this blog also is the realization that not all who call themselves conservatives are truly for the Lord. My previous experience with Charismania drove me to Conservatism, yet it seems that I am forced to the reality that the lines of good and evil run through every movement. I was previously almost totally trusting of Conservatism and of the entire Fundamentalist movement; that they are right in doctrine though probably are over-reacting to the errors of the New Evangelicals in their praxis. The recent attack on my character by people affiliated with 'OldSchool' Fundamentalist separatists slowly change all this. Looking through rose-tinted glasses, it was my view that if only we were to show them that we embrace orthodox doctrines and center our lives on the teachings of Scripture, and show that to them through Scripture, the traditionalist separatists could be won over back to doing the task which Christ has given to the Church — to fulfil the Great Commission. Yet such was a mirage, a chasing after the wind in presupposing that all that separates ultra-conservatives from true Christianity is their siege mentality founded on fear. I was really a fool to think that way. Of course, this is not to say that there are conservatives who are not ostriches and are looking outward and desiring to fulfil the Great Commission, but my former impression that they are one monolithic group with regards to this issue has been shattered.

And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles." ... And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13: 46, 48)

Whereas as before, my mindset was on winning the traditionalists for the work of the Church. Yet now, seeing how some at least prefer their own holy huddle rather than to work towards the fulfilling of the Great Commission, and constantly attack and deride those who are trying to do the work of God, the focus will shift and move on. From now on, as for me, I will see how I can contribute in building the churches (including New Evangelical ones as long as they have not apostatized) and bring them to biblical soundness, and the people therein. These 'OldSchool' Fundamentalist Separatists can take care of themselves and stay in their holy huddle for all I care, for they have to answer to God for their own conduct anyway. In point of fact, if such people are representative of the Fundamentalist movement during the early 1950s/60s (hopefully not), I will really symphatize with the early New Evangelicals and support them over against the Fundamentalists then.

Instruments in worship?

The other pamphlet I have with me is one arguing against the use of instruments in worship. It is written by Robert B. McCracken and published by Crown & Covenant Publications. I have decided to do a short review of this, as this is an issue which those who are fascinated by the scriptural soundness and maturity of the saints in former times like the Puritans would probably have to encounter. (And yes, I do know that means pobably 99.9% of my blog readers would not be interested in this)

Anyway, the argument against the utilization of instruments in worship is rather convoluted. In this missive, the main points of the arguments would be stated and summarized here, followed by a response to the argument presented.

ARGUMENT AGAINST USE OF INSTRUMENTS IN WORSHIP

Introduction of Instruments into the worship of God:

• Instruments were first introduced as utilized in worship when the Jewish temple worship were institutionalized. Such were done by the direct command of God.

• Such use of instruments were directly associated with the ceremonial rituals, that is, the offerings and sacrifices

• In 2 Chron. 29: 25-30, the first part of the worship before and during the offering of the sacrifice were with instruments. The second part of the worship after the sacrifice however, were without instruments.

• All of this suggests that the use of instruments in the worship of God is directly related to the temple service.

• Therefore, when Christ came and the ceremonial system came to an end, the use of instruments for worship would then cease.

Removal of Instruments from the worship of God

• 'There is not a trace in the complete New Testament of the use of instruments in the Church of Jesus Christ or in the worship of the Apostles. This seems strange if God intended this practice to continue'

• In the early church there were no instruments used in the churches, quoting Justin Matyr and Chrysostom to that effect.

• This continued until the 7th century. In the year 666 A.D., Pope Vitalian, brought into his worship Latin singing to the accompaniment of the organ

• In the Reformation, in order to purify the worship, godly leaders cast out the instruments from their worship services.

Reasons why Instruments were not continued in the N.T. Church

• Firstly, the perfect sacrifce of Christ did away with all the ceremonial ritual and thus the instruments also, as they were connected with the sacrificial system

• Secondly, the New Testament specifically tells us that the joy and praise which fills our hearts as Christians is to be expressed from the heart through our lips (cf Heb. 13:15)

• Thirdly, 'we are to "make music in [our] heart" (Eph. 5:19). The Greek word for "make music" is psallo, which means originally "to pluck the strings of an instrument." ... Since the word psallo cannot be seperated from the word "heart", it literally means "plucking te strings of your heart to the Lord." When the music of of the heart is expressed through lips that confess the Lord's name, there is no need for supporting instruments.'

• Fourthly, 'archaelogists have found no instruments of music among the furniture of the ancient synagogues. And even today in the Orthodox Jewish synagogue no instruments are used (confirming the idea that instruments were tied to the ceremonial system and temple worship). The Christian Church in its original state was patterned after the synagogue, and therefore the instruments had no place in their worship.'

BIBLICAL AND LOGICAL REFUTATION

After looking at the various points of their argument, let us analyze their position biblically and logically, and even historically.

The first point that we would analyze is that instruments were first stated as being used in the temple worship, as instituted by Moses and then David, under the direct command of God. This fact, while true, does not hold any significance at all for the argument at hand however. The Bible moves over the first few centuries of human history very quickly to focus on the story of Abraham and his descendents. Gen. 1-11 thus are a framework, while very important and must be held to be historically correct, for the narrative of Abraham to flow. As such, even if instruments are to be used for worship in such a period, they would not be mentioned. Before Moses, there was nothing that can be remotely called corporate worship, and the captive peole of Israel were hardly in spiritual health while they were in bondage down in Egypt. Therefore, when Moses was said to institutionalize the worship of God, the fact that he introduces instruments does not necessarily mean that instruments are tied to the ceremonial law. Moses institutionalize proper corporate worship also, so therefore this fact bring nothing to the discussion at hand.

This brings us to the second point — of instruments being directly associated with the ceremonial rituals. However, is that the case, or is it rather the case that corporate worship in the Old Testament always comes together with the performing of the ceremonial rituals? The fact that corporate worship always comes together with ceremonial rituals and sacrifices thus introduces another factor into the equation. As such, it is disingenious to simply state that instruments are directly associated with the ceremonial rituals when there is another possibility that instruments are always together with the ceremonial rituals because both are present in Old Testament corporate worship.

Nevertheless, let us proceed to consider 2 Chron. 29:25-30. When we look at this passage, it can be seen that to use this passage to say that instruments are absolutely linked to the cermonial rituals is straining at gnats. The passage is not explicitly clear either way, for although it is true that there are two parts of the worship, it cannot be proved that no instruments were used in the second part. The singing and playing of instruments would naturally stop when the king and his company bow down and worship, as we in our modern context would stop singing and playing our instruments when it comes to a very solemn moment in worship. However, what makes such an argument from silence ridiculous, is that earlier on it was mentioned that the Levites were stationed around with cymbals, harps and lyres (2 Chron. 29:25), but these instruments were never mentioned at all after that. Are we to infer that the Levties brought these instruments into the temple just to display them without playing them? But yet, this is what such an argument from silence would lead us to. It is thus far more likely that these instruments were used together with the singing of the people, while the trumpet were used only initially since they are typically used to herald the beginning.

As such, we have seen that the linking of instruments to the ceremonial system is pure conjecture founded on no biblical basis. Furthermore, since the use of instruments were never stated explicitly in the Scriptures to be part of the ceremonial system, it is ridiculous to say that Christ did away with their usage. As an aside, what are we to make of the fact that there are instruments in heaven (Rev. 5:8)? Are there ceremonial rituals up in heaven which are to be made obselete when Christ comes, but then Christ is always there!?

Wit regards to the New Testament, it is true that there are no mention of instruments in the New Testament, but then there wasn't any detailed description of a New Testament church service either, just that believers praised and worshipped God then. Knowing that those who are typically against the usage of instruments in worship are Covenantal Theologians and Exclusive Psalmodists, how then can they sing a Psalm such as Ps. 150:3-5 without 're-interpreting the words' so that the plain meaning of the psalm becomes irrelevant to them?

McCracken then goes on to a short history lesson. Of course, we must remember that Christians in the early days were generally poor and definitely persecuted. Therefore, that there were no instruments among them in general does not mean that instruments were banned, but more that they either could not afford them, or they are more pressing concerns like supporting missionaries etc. It is always a risky venture to argue from history, because it is more subjective and generally it proves nothing much of value, only in validity a point. In this case, the point has not been validated, so such would be an exercise in futility. With regards to the Reformation, generally there was an over-reaction to the abuses of the Roman clergy and this led to the removal of instruments as well. However, this proves nothing unless it can be shown that the prohibition of instruments is biblical.

In answer to the last part of the reasons given on why instruments are not continued, the fact that we are to have joy and praise which fills our hearts as Christians, which is to be expressed from the heart through our lips, does not negate the use of instruments. Ditto for the fact that we are to make music in our hearts to the Lord. Worship must always comes primarily from the heart, but to use that fact to prohibit instruments is to prohibit the eating of oranges because we need to eat apples.

With regards to the comparison with ancient synagogues, such a comparison is wrongfully made. Synagogues were originally more of a house of prayer than a true place of worship (which the temple in Jerusalem was). As such, no true coporate worship would originally be done in a synagogue, and therefore the comparison is in error.

From all of this, it can be seen that the linkage of instruments to the ceremonial system of the Old Testament, and therefore of the phohibition of instruments in worship, is severely misguided. The arguments have been shown to be more of grasping for straws and making invalud inferences and arguments from silence rather than true biblical exegesis. What makes it very ridiculous is the fact that people who call themselve Covenantal Theologians, who are supposed to believe in the continuity between the Old and New Covenants; the Old and New Testaments, who are promoting this sharp discontinuity and thus behaving more like Dispensationalists in this regard. As I have said before, such people can never in good conscience sing Ps. 150:3-5 because they prohibit the usage of any instruments in worship. Of course, I would like to know whether they think instruments can be used for personal worship, because David did play the harp in his own worship to God.

Exclusive Psalmody? (part 2) **Amended*

[continued from previous post here]

(Amended parts in red.)

BIBLICAL AND LOGICAL REFUTATION OF EXCLUSIVE PSALMODY

As we have seen the arguments propped up for the promotion of exclusive Psalmody, let us look and logcally apply the text of Scripture to evalute their arguments.

1) The regulative principle of worship

As a Reformed Christian, I most definitely hold to the Regulative Principle of worship. Certainly, it is very clear in Scripture that we are to worship God in the way He has prescribed for us, and that is why I am against any form of mood enhancement used within charismatic circles (ie usage of different lightings in worship, changing of background pictures in worship song powerpoint slides, endless repetition of choruses etc.), and also against any form of drama and dancing in the corporate worship of God's people. That said, I disagee that the Regulative Principle reduces the songs to be sung to only the Psalms.

More will be said about the relation of Psalms with Hymns and Spiritual songs later, but for now it will be said that the premise that God has not commanded His people to sing Psalms only is false. The much debated phrase in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 of 'psalms, hymns and spiritual songs' does seem to state that God's people are to sing songs other than psalms. Of course, the exclusive Psalmodists will interpret the phrase to actually mean 'psalm, psalm and psalm', which is just ridiculous. Yes, the Bible does use such triadic forms of expression^[1], but such forms do not mean the same thing! They are variations of the point being driven at, but nevertheless they are different. For example, in Ex. 34:7, the term 'Iniquity', 'trasngression' and 'sin' are not the same. Definitely, all iniquity and transgression is sin, but iniquity (injustice) is not exactly the same as transgression (to violate a law), nor is sin consisting of iniquity and transgression and nothing more than that (it also includes for example Original Sin). Similarly, commandments, statutes and rules (Deut. 6:1) while having the same meaning do not have the same focus or connotations. Commandments focuses on the fact that God is making the keeping of them obligatory. Statutes focuses on the fact of the established nature of it, while rules focuses on the people who are to obey them. In another example, works (miracles), wonders and signs (Acts 2:22) are not exactly the same, as all miracles are wonders and signs, but not all signs are miracles (Nebuchadnezzar's dream depicting the rise of the Persian, Greek and Roman empires as interpreted by Daniel the prophet in Dan. 2:31-45 for example, or the fulfilment of most of the prophecies about Jesus which are pretty mundane - involving the sovereign working of God through Providence but not exactly miraculous). Thus, we can see from all this that triadic expressions do not at all prove that the phrase 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs' mean 'psalms, psalms and psalms', even if that phrase is a triadic expression in the first place, which is strongly disputed.

2) Sufficiency of Scripture

This charge would only hold true if the songs that we sing are not derived from Scripture. Just because the exclusive Psalmodists do not like them does not mean that they are not derived from Scripture.

3) The Continuity of the Covenant

This supports the singing of the Psalms, but it has no weight in arguing for Exclusive Psalmody.

4) The Purpose of Worship

This argument presupposes that exclusive Psalmody is God's way. In other words, such an argument commits the logical fallacy of Petitio Principii or begging the question. Basically, what this is reduced to is that exclusive Psalmody is correct because it is God-centered, and the reason why it is God-centered is because exclusive Psalmody is correct.

5) They are without error/ Praise songs must be inspired

For the first argument, the fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as singing something without interpretation. All other biblical hymns and songs which could be sung are derived from Scripture, and as such have the additional interpretative grid of the songwriter and the person who sings it to God. Psalms are inspired and are thus without any error (assuming they are not a paraphrase of the Psalms), but there is still the need for the worshipper singing it to interpret the words of Scripture and direct it towards God in a heart of worship to Him. Since that is the case, it is entirely possible that error may creep in to the singing of Psalms through the improper attitude of the worshipper or the misinterpretation of the words of Scripture sung, especially if the words are difficult to understand or the true meaning rendered obselete due to it being archaic (ie. singing the Psalsm in the KJV). I have personally took part in Psalm singing word for word from the KJV metrical Psalter before, and it might as well have been in another language due my inability to understand the archaic words fast enough to offer them up as a sacrifice to God. So much for perfection!

The second argument is another Petiotio Principii. God only accepted inspired songs as stated in the Bible because any song which was said to be acceptable unto God in the Bible must be written down and therefre they became inspired. If God has accepted any other worship song which is not stated in the Scriptures, how will we know that there is such a song? This is such a ridiculous argument on the part of the Exclusive Psalmodists!

6) They promote memorization

In other words, without singing Psalms, people will not memorize them? So if hymns and praise songs were organized around a particular verse or passage of Scripture, Exclusive Psalmodists would not be promoting memorization of that particular text or passage of Scripture since they prohibit people from singing them? This argument of theirs cuts both ways and is as such useless.

7) They carry the power of the Spirit

This is just another variation of the argument from the sufficiency of Scripture, and would be given the same response. Since the hymns and songs which we use are and will be derived from Scripture, they similarly carry the power of the Spirit with them. Furthermore, whatever happened to preaching if only the singing of Psalms would ensure that people's hearts would be touched by the Word?

8) They perfectly balance themes

And so do hymns and songs which give heed to the full counsel of God. Furthermore, if Christians have matured in their walk with Christ, there is NO thing which they would fell repugnant about God. They would accept and glorify God even in the manner of the imprecatory Psalms, so this argument is invalid.

9) They provide a basis for unity

Of all the arguments stated, this is the most ridiculous. The 'worship wars' have been one of the factors which are responsible for splitting churches.Rightly or wrongly, the fact of the matter is that instead of promoting unity, they promote disunity, especially when the Exclusive Psalmodists attempt to impose Psalms-only worship, creating a third group in the 'worship wars'. And the battle for bible versions could very well spill over into the singing of Psalms even if everybody consents to singing only Psalms. In such a hypothetical situation, would there be the 'KJV-Psalms-only group' verses the 'NIV-Psalms-only' group, or even the 'metrical Psalms' group verses the 'non-metrical Psalms' group? It is laugheable and extremely naive that agreeing to singing the Psalms only would immediately resolve all conflict in matters of worship.

10) Singing is a separate element of worship, not a circumstance of worship

The concept of separating worship into various "elements", each of which is to be governed by the regulative principle, is unbiblical. So instead of saying singing being a circumstance of worship, like Greg Bahnsen, it is instead maintained that the classic separation into "elements" is unbiblical in the first place. But even if it is conceded that such a separation is stated in Scripture, and even if singing is indeed a separate element of worship, the Exclusive Psalmodist point is also not proved. What it proves instead is that the lyrics of worship songs must be taken from Scripture en toto, not that only Psalms are allowed.

It has been seen that the Exclusive Psalmodists love to posit sharp demarcations between the category of psalms, that of hymns and that of spiritual songs "as defined in modern times". However, where did such a categorization came from? Definitely, all are songs of praise expressing devotion and worship unto God. If we would to use the so called triadic phrasing on Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, then these terms would be variations of the same main commonality, or songs offered as worship to God. Generally, Psalms are differentiated from Hymns by the fact that one is explicitly inspired and placed within a book of its own (Psalms), and the fact that they as such employ Hebrew poetic forms. What we class as 'spiritual songs' today (ie CCM - Contemporary Christian Music) are distinguishd from hymns due to the fact that they abandon the musical metrical form of hymns (ie 8.7.8.7) and they are generally not so rich in doctrine, more focused on the expression of worship through more detailed reflection on a few truths of Scripture rather than on the singing of various truths as in hymns. As such, they are more of a difference in literary and musical styles which differentiate them. Therefore, since all are derived from Scripture, I would suggest that unless the Exclusive Psalmodists would like to go into literary and musical styles, such sharp demarcation of theirs do not hold water. After all, the only reason why Psalms are known as Psalms and nothing else is is more because they are found in the book of Psalms rather than anything else.

With that said, let us go on the offensive.

The most devastating critique against exclusive Psalmody is the absence of the name Jesus, our most precious Savior, Redeemer and Lord. Yes, Jesus is prophesied throughout even the book of Psalms, but still His name is not mentioned. Substituting the name Jesus into the Psalms could well do the trick, but then it is no more exactly a Psalm rather than something akin to a paraphrase already, which is no different from what biblical hymn and song writers have been doing in putting biblical truths and verses into song.

Even worse for the Exclusive Psalmodists is that there is no biblical command for anyone to practice exclusive Psalmody. As I have shown previously, the Regulative Principle of worship does not prove exclusive Psalmody. Neither does it prove exclusive anything, neither psalms nor hymns nor CCM. All songs which are glorifying to God in their content and their musical style are permitted for God's people to be utilized for worship. The main thing that is most important is that the people must be able to understand the words and express their praise, thanksgiving and worship to our God, which using a KJV word-for-word metrical Psalter certainly didn't help in my case. As a side note, I really think that the Reformed churches should modernize their Psalms and Hymns, for example in replacing the 'thees' and 'thous'. For those who are not born in such an environment, it is a perpetual irritant which make people like me disconnected from the worship of a church (among other factors of course).

Other problems, some of them serious, can be seen in this push for Exclusive Psalmody. As stated by W. Gary Crampton,

Third, for their argument to be valid, the exclusive Psalmodists must distinguish between teaching, preaching, singing, and reciting Biblical truth. In Ephesians 5:19 we are told to “speak” (laleo) to one another, and in Colossians 3: l6 to “teach” (didasko) one another, “by means of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” Yet, Paul also instructed Timothy to “teach” (didasko) (1 Timothy 4:11; 6:2) and to “preach” (kerusso) (2 Timothy 4:2) to his congregation in public worship. Now is it rational to suppose that it is Biblically proper to preach the truths found in the Apostles’ Creed and not be able to sing or recite the same truths because they are nowhere found in the Psalms? This is far from likely; indeed, it is nonsensical. The church has every Biblical warrant to formulate Scripturally based uninspired hymns, songs, creedal statements, and so forth, and incorporate them into the public worship of God as a means of praising him and teaching one another.

Fourth, another question that must be posed to the exclusive Psalmodists is this: “What constitutes a metrical Psalm?” How faithful must the Psalms sung be to the Scriptures? Some of the metrical psalms are at best rough paraphrases of the Hebrew text. Exclusive Psalmodists would not tolerate such looseness in their Bibles. Singing these psalms is far from singing “inspired Scripture.” Does the exclusive Psalmodist violate the regulative principle when he does not sing the Psalms in the exact language of the Hebrew?^[2]

The argument for Exclusive Psalmody, or Exclusive anything, therefore collapses. Perhaps the Exclusive Psalmodists will wish to learn Hebrew and then sing the Psalms according to the wordings of the Masoretic Text?

Lastly, as for the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter XI, Paragraph V), it is stated that the religious worship of God ought to consists of the singing of psalms. Yet, here psalms most probably do not refer to the Psalms (capital 'P')^[2] but is a generic term referring to songs offered as worship unto God.

As such, it can be seen that there is no biblical and exegetical grounds for Exclusive Psalmody. May we in the Reformed churches stop adding to Scripture and impose such an unbiblical tradition on ourselves and others. Just because the Puritans and Presbyterians were right about many things does not make them infallible. We are to be always reforming (semper reformanda) according to the light of Scripture, not just copy wholesale the entirety of the doctrines and practices of spiritual giants, no matter how godly they were; they are not the standard - Norma normans non normata - Scripture is.

---

REFERENCES:

[1] Exclusive Psalmody: A biblical defense by Brian Schwertley (http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/psalm.htm)

[2] Exclusive Psalmody by W. Gary Crampton (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=63). Bold added.

Exclusive Psalmody? (part 1)

Well, I have been clearing some stuff on my table, and I have come across 2 tracts which I have gotten from perhaps the most conservative church in Singapore during my brief visit there. Anyway, I would like to tackle the topic of exclusive psalmody here, which is practiced and promoted in that particular church. It is my conviction that exclusive Psalmody (singing the Psalms only) is not biblical, and I will show this to be the case.

First of all, I would like to summarize the arguments used to promote the practice of exclusive psalmody, especially as found within the pamphlet entitled The Church's Perfect Hymnbook — Why we sing the Pslams of the Bible exclusively in public worship (© 1996 Douglas W. Comin, Crown & Covenant Publications), among other sources.

THE CASE FOR EXCLUSIVE PSALMODY

From the pamphlet, the case could be build up as follows:

1) The Regulative Principle of Worship

Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it (Deut. 12:32)

The Regulative Principle of Worship can be seen explicitly in this verse and in various passages in the Bible, with the narrative of Lev. 10:1-3 showing the death of Aibhu and Nadab, the 2 sons of Aaron who died because they offered strange or unauthorized fire in worship before God, as the best illustration of the practice of the Regulative Principle of Worship. Israel was to worship God according to His stated ways; no more and no less. We are therefore not to worship God contrary to the ways He has prescribed to us in the Scriptures. According to the Exclusive Psalmodists therefore: "God has commanded His people to sing the Psalms of the Bible when they gather together for worship. He has not commanded them to sing songs of their own coposition. The consistent application of the Regulative Principle of Worship, then, excludes the use of songs which God has not commanded to be used in worship." (Comin)

2) Sufficiency of Scripture

"The Psalms of the Bible are God's Word. They lack nothing that is needed by the people of God in their expresson of praise and adoration to Him when they gather for worship.

The necessary implication of the use of man-written hymns in the worship of God is that the Psalms alone are somehow not a sufficient volume of praise for God's people. We reject this notion and we believe that the 150 Psalms of the Bible are a perfectly sufficient hymnbook for the church of God thoroughout the ages." (Comin)

3) The Continuity of the Covenant

"The Psalms of the Biblewere written for the very purpose of proclaiming the New Covenant promises which were fulfilled in Christ. In fact, Jesus Himself claimed that the Psalms were about Him (see Luke 24:44). Would it not seem strange if the people of God were commanded to sing the Psalms only until the time of Christ's appearing, and the to put them aside once they were able to fully appreciate their true meaning?

We do not believe that the Old Testament is outdated. ... By anchoring the church's praise in the prophecies of the Old Testament through the book of Psalms, God's people are continually reminded of their heritage among the chosen people of God throughout all ages" (Comin)

4) The Purpose of Worship

"We believe that worship is to be God-centered. ... When God's people approach His worship in this way, they will inevitably be blessed. When they approach Him according to their own ideas of what is acceptable to Him, they may experience some emotional uplifting, but God has not been honored through the keeping of Hid Word. (Comin)

5) They are without error/ Praise songs must be inspired

We should be concerned that what we offer to God in praise is perfect and without blemish. "When we sing to God the songs which He Himself has written, we can be assured that what we are offering to God in praise is not tainted with error" (Comin)

"A careful examination of the Scripture passages which discuss the songs used in worship and how worship songs were composed reveals that God only authorizes and accepts divinely inspired songs for the praise of Himself." ^[1]

6) They promote memorization

"Another great benefit to singing the Psalms is the memorization of the Scriptures." (Comin)

7) They carry the power of the Spirit

"We have no promise from God that the words of men, no matter how well-intentioned, will pierce the heart and adminster grace to His people. But we have such a promise with regard to God's own Word" (Heb. 4:12) (Comin)

8) They perfectly balance themes

"There are some themes in th Bible in which wetend to take special delight. There are others whih seem more difficult to swallow, but which are just as neccessary for our growth in grace and in the knowledge of the whole counsel of God ... [The book of Psalms] is, therefore, a book of praise which keeps us anchored in the whole counsel of God, feeding our souls with both the "sweet" and the "sour" meat of God's Word"

9) They provide a basis for unity

"There are certain hymns ... containing doctrinal statements with which Christians from another denominational background might disagree. But there is no such difficulty with the Psalms. They are the very Word of God.

Imagine what strides would be made towards unifying the church if all of God's people made His songs the theme of their praise whenever they came together for corporate worship" (Comin)

10) Singing is a separate element of worship, not a circumstance of worship

This was written to counter critics of Exclusive Psalmody, of which Brian Schwertley^[1] targets Greg Bahnsen who is quoted as saying that singing is a circumstance of worship, or in other words that although praising God is commanded, the mode is a mere circumstance not strictly regulated by God's Word.

[to be continued]

---

REFERENCES:

[1] Exclusive Psalmody: A biblical defense by Brian Schwertley (http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/psalm.htm)

The false dichotomy between doctrine and practice — or doctrine being purely intellectual

As it can be seen, I have added another blog category entitled ' "Reformed" downgrade', as these are some of the things I have heard coming from so-called "Reformed" circles which make me truly wonder whether it is better to go back to New Evangelical circles; at least there they do not claim to be reformed and are thus less hypocritical.

I would hereby comment on various things said in a sermon which I have heard recently. The sermon was with regards to the Diaconate ministry, utilizing the texts of Act 6:1-7. In this sermon, a couple of errors were made that has serious doctrinal consequences.

Firstly, a statement was made stating that doctrine appeals to the intellect (the mind) and thus helps us to grow in our (intellectual) knowledge of God. While true in and of itself, the contrast is then stated between knowing and doing, with the claim being made that apart from knowing more about God, we should also apply God's Word. What he meas by this is further clarified in subsequent statements. The preacher continues on in stating that we humans have three parts: our intellect, our emotions and our will. He then uses the analogy of Christ's offices to show how God ministers to us through Christ Jesus. Our Lord Jesus Christ has the office of Prophet, Priest and King, and therefore according to him, Christ's prophetic ministry ministers to our intellect, the priestly ministry to our emotions, and the kingly ministry to our will or volition. To make it even clearer as to what he had in mind, he later states that doctrine and the exercise of the prophetic office will make us intellectually satisfied while the ministry of the deacons will make us physically satisfied.

From what can be seen so far, it should be evident that what the preacher is saying is that doctrine is purely or mostly of the intellect only. Thus, he divorces the mind from the emotions, and doctrine from practice. Since doctrine and the prophetic office is said to deal only with the intellect, and not with the emotions and practice, doctrine is now isolated from practice. And preaching becomes purely an exercise in intellectual knowledge impartation. The reformed emphasis on correct doctrine within such a framework thus becomes a celebration of intellectual correctness as being something which God desires that all Christians should have.

To put it nicely, I was not pleased. Doctrine is not an exercise in intellectual correctness, and preaching is NOT giving an intellectual discourse! God also doesn't desire our intellectual correctness in and of itself. To be sure, the intellect is involved, but to make it purely intellectual is demeaning to the entire thrust of Scripture. The Scriptures are abundently clear that correct doctrine is very practical (eg 2 Tim. 3:16-17), not just for intellectual value. In fact, the remedy that Paul applies to a problematic church in Corinth is not a list of practical do's and don'ts, but more doctrines (1 Cor., 2 Cor.) and this can be said of any church problems which Paul or any of the other apostles handled as stated in their epistles. To make doctrine purely a matter of intellect goes against the entirety of Scripture, and it sounded more of a strawman created by anti-intellectual Charismatics than truth. I was thus shocked that some people who call themselves reformed actually believe and preached such a false dichotomy between doctrine and practice.

Of course, embrace of such a false dichotomy would have serious negative implications. Doctrine would therefore be only for those who are intellectual; the rest can just get by with practical topics such as "Ways of relieving stress" or "Coping with difficult people". When doctrine is treasured, it may not be applied but just taught as something which brings 'intellectual satisfaction' and thus somewhat akin as leading to self-actualization. The sermon becomes a time whereby the preacher will just give us his take on a passage, of course hopefully as much as possible faithful to the text, but the preacher cannot consistently see it as being a means for the Holy Spirit to use the Word preached for the transformation of souls, unless conversion is seen to be something not related to the emotions or will but just the intellect.

Along with such nonsense, another error was made by the preacher as he expounded further on this so-called analogy of Christ's office to the church's offices. Christ being Prophet, Priest and King, the prophetic ministry has been pass down to the Elders who preach the Word, ... while the priestly ministry has been passed to the Deacons? As Christ in His priestly ministry ministers to our emotions, the Diaconate should minister to the physical needs of the flock? What rubbish! Christ does NOT minister to our emotions through His priestly ministry. As our great high Priest, Christ offered the blood of sacrifice (His own) before God to save us (Heb. 9:11-12), and then intercedes on our behalf (Heb. 9:24), being the one and only mediator between God and Man (1 Tim. 2:5). Such is the duty of a priest, and not some 'ministering to physical or even emotional needs'! Obviously, deacons cannot be said to exercise anything even remotely similar to the priestly ministry, which has been done permanently and completed forever in our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:24). The closest thing to a deacon in the OT are the chiefs and elders of Israel who took care of the physical needs of the people (Ex. 18:17-26).

It is with great sadness that I witness such ridiculous nonsense from "reformed" circles. How can you pass on Christ's Priestly ministry to any human minister, let alone Deacons? In fact, how can you even dream up such nonsense?! It is totally beyond me, especially since we are talking about the NT church. It is sacrilegious to even think of such a comparison!

And with this I finish this post. I am grieved by such unorthodox nonsene being taught by a purpertedly reformed preacher. The only thing I hope for is that this 'deacons as priests' teaching is not some official teaching in any reformed church or denomination, otherwise they would be really off in this respect. May God convict that preacher of his error and lead him to repentance.