Does the principle of regulation require an exclusive chant?
My argument is that the Psalms must be the backbone of the song of ecclesiastical worship.
- The psalms are the word of God to man and the word of man in response.
- Fulfilled in Christ.
- Christ himself bases his message of grace on them (Luke 24: 44-49).
- The Psalms are complete in content and extremely powerful.
- At least one psalm for every service I plan.
But what about the argument that the singing element of ecclesiastical worship should consist exclusively of psalms?
This argument is based on some application of the scripting principle, in which the principle that only what is explicitly ordained in the scriptures is allowed is carried to the letter. Since there is no explicit order to sing songs without inspiration, ecclesiastical thinking continues. How does this position direct the distinction between the Psalms and the other two forms of music in paul’s order:?Speak among yourselves with psalms, sing, and praise the Lord with spiritual hymns and chants (Ephesians 5. 19)?These three words are understood as a reference to all three parts of the psalter or as a style figure where two or more expressions are used to mean one thing.
However, where do we find in the scriptures an explicit requirement that churches should only do what is explicitly ordained?If the scriptures require explicit support for worship practices, we must assume that this explicitly proposes the principle. Church to sing the book of Psalms and only the Psalms?What about the passages of the hymn in the Old and New Testaments?Why are doxologies and other expressions of praise found in the scriptures outside the Book of Psalms?
My argument is that the principle of exclusivity of psalms is simply not found in the scriptures and that the argument in favour of it is also based on a misinterpretation of the regulatory principle. Let’s look at this second point first.
To clarify what the Regulatory Principle means and what it does not mean, consider the Westminster Assembly’s classic argument on your behalf, as well as the historical background to this statement.
Opinion of the Westminster Assembly on the principle of regulation
The principle of cult regulation can be found in CFW 21. 1 The relevant part says:
But the acceptable way to worship the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his revealed will that he should not be worshipped according to the imagination and inventions of men or Satan’s suggestions or under any visible representation or any other uns prescribed. way. scriptures.
This must be assessed against the biblical doctrine of the assembly. In 1. 6, Confession states that all of God’s counsel is explicitly expressed in the scriptures or can be clearly and logically inferred from them. The regulatory principle, as expressed in the assembly, does not reduce the Bible to a manual mandate by which worship must be shaped exclusively by explicit orders.
The historical context of the principle of regulation
The historical context in England has had a significant impact on the Assembly and its commitment to the regulatory principle. Draconian regulations governed worship in the Church of England. Parliamentary legislation specified that all ministers should maintain services in accordance with what was written in the Common Prayer Book. If a minister were declared disobedient by a court, he would lose all spiritual benefits and be imprisoned for six months; in a second offense, a year in prison was the penalty; in a third offense, he could face life imprisonment. Incarceration If someone wrote or spoke against the Book, in a third offense, he would lose all his property and face life imprisonment.
Seen in this context, CFW 21. 1 is more liberating than restrictive: caught in its worship by the Word of God alone, the Church frees itself from the dictatorships of man, whether they are contrary to the Word of God or simply complementary to it. The yoke of taxes is abandoned!
The practice of churches renovated in 1643
Since Confession refers to the singing of the Psalms in 21. 5, do you prescribe what was required or described what was practiced at the time?If this is the first case, how can we understand what the House meant by “psalms”?
Nick Needham demonstrated that the Assembly’s knowledge of “Psalms?”It was greater than David’s psalms. Other songs were commonly accepted in the worship of the Reformed Church, although psalms are the main regime. He found support in Richard Baxter, Zwinglio and Bullinger, Calvin and the reformed churches of France, Germany and the Netherlands. English Protestants in Geneva did not object to singing other scriptures in worship, while the standard English psalter, composed of Sternhold and Hopkins, contained a considerable number of non-Davidic songs and was final until 1696. Meanwhile, in Scotland, singing exclusively psalms was the rule, before the Scottish Assembly used the Gloria patri.
The upshot of all this is that the classical statement of the principle of regulation in the Westminster Confession did not limit the collective worship to the singing of the Psalms, nor was exclusive psalmody the practice of the Reformed churches in Europe at the time.
So it’s a historical perspective. Now, here are two more direct and theological biblical arguments against exclusive psalmody.
The scope of revelation
First, the Psalms do not explicitly reflect the full scope of Trinitarian revelation: neither the incarnation, life, ministry, death and resurrection, the ascension and heavenly state of Christ, nor the gift of the Spirit to the church. The principle that requires explicit biblical support for worship practices requires that these practices refer to the central truths of biblical revelation only implicitly. For this reason, if not for another reason, Psalms cannot be the only diet of the church. truncates his cult and produces an imbalance in his theology.
What exclusive psalmody prohibits and demands
As I continue, if I can reduce it to absurdity, consider what prohibits exclusive psalmody and what it requires. Does exclusive psalm forbid the church to sing? Jesus, are you the joy of the hearts you love?, how sweet is the name of Jesus?And? Holy God, holy, holy, omnipotent. However, it is explicitly ordained to sing: “O daughter of Babylon, condemned to be destroyed, blessed is he that rewardes you for what you have done to us!Blessed is he who takes his children and crushes them against the stone!”And Psalm 109,6-20 with its torrent of curses and reproaches.
So, in short, I would say that churches do not have to sing the Psalms exclusively, however, if it is a choice between exclusive psalmody and contemporary worship choirs, exclusive psalmody is a much better option.
The recent fashion of worship has given evangelical churches unbalanced content, terrible music, and often false feelings. The linear nature of Judeo-Christian psalm and the hymn was replaced by cyclic repetition. exclusive psalmody.
By: Robert Letham. © 2013 9Marks. Original: Does the regulatory principle require exclusive psalmody?
Translation: Matheus Fernandes Review: William Teixeira © 2016 Faithful Ministério All rights reserved. Website: MinisterioFiel. com. br. Original: Should we sing only psalms in our services?
Authorizations: You are authorized and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that the author, his ministry and translator are no longer no longer modified and not used for commercial purposes.