The Presbyterian Reformed Church of Australia would say that they subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and are therefore claiming to be heirs of Presbyterian tradition. However, they allow hymns to be sung in the public worship of their church, and do not stop such uncommanded material from being accompanied by instrumental music. Both of these are gross errors, and against the Second Commandment, which forbids any religious worship not instituted directly by God.

Below is a transcript of an original paper by D.C. Shelton, which seems to be the final authority within the Presbyterian Reformed Church as far as their allowing hymns to be sung in public worship is concerned. Shelton's paper is printed in italics, together with my notes in normal type.

In Spirit and in Truth - D.C.Shelton

"1. BASIS OF WORSHIP

The Great command for the worship of God is found in John 4:24 "God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth". In this age, all concentration is given to "spirit", whereas truth is fallen in the streets. The World Council of Churches seeks unity in the "spirit" of love without reference to the truth; the spirit of creedless, brotherly "love" is abroad today, allegedly healing the divisions of centuries. However these soft surgeons make stinking wounds, and the latter end of these negotiations are proving far worse than the original divisions.

So, we stress - SPIRIT and TRUTH are the two essential prerequisites for New Testament worship. One can sing only Psalms, have no instruments and adopt a particular posture in prayer and yet not worship in SPIRIT, because strife, envy, pride and an unforgiving spirit may prevail."

Of course this is true. There will always be hypocrites in the church, wheat and tares will exist in the church to the end. Therefore it is obviously possible for someone to have all the outward trappings of pure worship, but a heart far from God. No-one is disputing this. However, just because hypocrites exist in the church, this does not mean that we should therefore do away with God-ordained worship. Whatever we do, there will be hypocrites copying us. Despite this, God has ordained the way in which He wishes us to worship Him; it is not up to us to cast that aside in favour of something that "feels" more exciting to us and will attract more people into the church. Who are we to tell God what is best for Him??

"Yet one can have the most sincere SPIRIT of devotion to God, and culpably ignore the TRUE worship of God!"

It is not possible to have "the most sincere spirit of devotion to God" whilst singing hymns. A "sincere spirit of devotion to God" is a zealousness for His glory, and this would mean an inescapable desire for purity of worship. I am not saying that all hymn-singers are not Christians, of course not. I was a hymn singer for many years in my ignorance. But as we grow in the faith, we grow in the knowledge of God and the worship that is pleasing to Him. We grow to love the psalms, reject all songs of man-made composition imposed in the worship of God, and we come to see the sufficiency of the Psalter for praising God.

"We agree completely with the Reformed concept of worship that only that which is commanded in the Word of God, or which by good and necessary consequence can be deduced from Scripture, is to be used in the Public Worship of God."

Why grieve God's people by introducing unscriptural hymns and organs then?

"Nothing may be made an element of Public Worship that is not founded upon the Word of God - thus we would exclude holy days, vestments and such like. We would not exclude, necessarily, an organ if it is used as an aid to singing, and is an adiaphoron as such; however where the organ becomes an "item" in worship, with Bach Preludes played in grand style and the singing of praise is swept along and almost drowned by a zealous organist, then we say that this is no longer an adiaphoron."

Firstly I make a passing comment that an organ, as we know it, is not in Scripture at all. There is a mention in the Bible of an "organ," (Genesis 4:21, Job 21:12, Job 30:31 and Psalm 150:4) which seemed to be a wind instrument of some kind. Only the latter reference is with regard to the use in public worship, and that only to the Temple, where the music only accompanied the sacrifices (2 Chronicles 29:27,28). The instruments started playing with the start of the burnt offering, and continued until the burnt offering was finished, then stopped. Hence we can conclude that as we now no longer have the sacrifices (as Christ has now come and the sacrifices have been abrogated) we therefore no longer have the musical instruments in public worship either.

Secondly, an organ is never an aid to singing. An organ always drowns the singing out. If people had to do without an organ, they would be forced to sing louder to carry the tune, which could only improve the singing. In my experience, singing is always limp and lifeless when it is accompanied by musical instruments, because the people sit back and let the instruments carry the tune along. The singing improves a lot when people sing unaccompanied. Even if the people themselves are not very tuneful, the singing is still better unaccompanied than if it is half-hearted with the organ drowning most of it out.

"It would be interesting to see how that Church went without their organ!"

It is not up to us as to what we use in public worship, it is up to God.

"But instrumental music will not be discussed in this pamphlet: this writer read J. I. Girardeau's book on the subject and was singularly unimpressed by the string of arguments from silence e.g. p.108 'The teaching of the Lord Jesus excludes instrumental music from the public worship of the N.T. Church.' It would be equally 'valid' to pronounce: 'The teaching of the Lord Jesus excludes women from the Lord's Supper.' "

The onus is always on you to prove that Christ included it. There is nothing in the Scriptures to show this at all. Nowhere is there any sign of a command that we must include instrumental music in public worship, therefore we must exclude it.

All those who can ask "What mean ye by this service?" (Exodus 12:26) and are of an age where they can understand the answer, are possible subjects for eating the Passover, and therefore the Lord's Supper. There is a good argument that the subjects in the Old Testament for eating the Passover were only men, and indeed the subjects for circumcision were only men too. In the New Testament we have clear warrant for women to be included in Baptism, and therefore there is some legitimacy in arguing for them to be admitted to the Lord's Supper too.

"2. DEFINITION OF TERMS

(a) Public Worship: By this we understand the public assembling of believers together, especially on the Lord's Day, to offer up worship to God corporately in the Name of Christ, which service has praise, prayer, the reading and preaching of the Word and the collection of tithes and offerings. It seems that some of our zealous brethren are so taken up with their concept, that they would not even sing a biblical hymn in a friendly gathering of the Lord's people or at a Bible Study meeting. Public worship is the issue on which we search the Word of God."

There is no such thing as a "biblical hymn." As all of life is really worshipping God, there is good reason for only singing psalms, and never anything else in all of life. Surely a "friendly gathering of the Lord's people" or a "Bible study meeting" must be included in the term "public worship." Otherwise you could get the ridiculous situation that took place in the Free Church of Scotland in 1999 where one church held a "carol service" on Dec 24th. Two presbyteries complained but were brushed aside because the defence was that it was only an outreach meeting and not "public worship"! The whole thing is a play with words.

Incidentally, to keep one's mouth closed and remain seated whilst others are singing hymns is a good witness to them all, and will set them thinking about what is true worship.

"(b) Command: By this we understand a specific injunction in the Word of God relating in context to the matter in hand The concept of "deduction" is similarly viewed as being derived from a specific example in the Word of God relating in context to the matter in hand.

(c) Inspired: 'Inspired' does not mean the same as 'spiritual.' "

Here we go, playing around with words again.

"The Word 'inspiration' only occurs once in the New Testament (II Timothy 3:16) and literally means 'God breathed;' this applies wholly and solely to Scripture, which alone is infallible. The word 'spiritual,' however, in spite of appeals to Greek scholars, cannot be equated with 'inspired' when we appeal to the Greek New Testament! The argument would be settled if the word 'inspired' WAS used in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, but it uses the word 'spiritual' which cannot be equated with 'inspired' (and thus infallible) for the word 'spiritual' is applied variously to a man (1 Corinthians 2:15) to men (Galatians 6:1) and (!) to wickedness (Ephesians 6:12). This word is an antonym to 'carnal' and means (Strong's Concordance) 'non carnal...ethereal..supernatural, religious, regenerate.' "

The word "spiritual" means "of the spirit." Now depending on which spirit or what type of spirit you are talking about depends on the exact meaning of the word. In 1 Corinthians 2:15 and Galatians 6:1, to apply the word "spiritual" to men means those that have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, indeed in these contexts it means more that just this in that it seems to imply those who are mature in the faith. In Ephesians 6:12, however, to apply the word to wickedness obviously means something different, and would mean simply something in the spiritual realm rather than the worldly realm. What about: "spiritual understanding" (Colossians 1:9), "spiritual blessings" (Ephesians 1:3), "the law is spiritual" (Romans 7:14)? All of these uses of the word "spiritual" indicate things that emanate from the Holy Spirit, and we must think of them in these terms to grasp the meaning. To think of the word "spiritual" simply in terms of being "non-carnal" is not understanding the word fully. Similarly with the verses in question in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.

"Thus it is correct to describe Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress'as 'spiritual' in the New Test¬ament sense, but not 'inspired' in the same sense. Songs can be 'spiritual' but not necessarily 'inspired.' "

"Pilgrim's Progress" is not "spiritual" at all. Not that it is not a good book, and one we can learn from. We should not call any book written by men "spiritual," otherwise you are saying that the supernatural gifts of the early church have not ceased and are still with us today. All books, poems, even sermons today are merely the words of men, except for where they coincide with the truth already established in the Bible, which IS a "spiritual" book, written as men were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21).

The duty of the preacher or commentary writer is that he should be like Ezra and the Levites in his day, who "gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading" (Nehemiah 8:8). The preacher or the writer's work is not "spiritual" because he is not (or should not be) introducing anything new. This seems an odd use of the word to me, particularly as "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..." (Hebrews 1:1,2a). We should not exalt the works of men beyond what they are.

Our job then, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is to sieve out the truth from the error in books, the preaching, indeed everything we come across in the church. by comparing it with the Bible, like good Bereans (Acts 17:11). In other words, nothing that emanates from man is pure truth (i.e. "spiritual"), but all contain a mixture of truth and error. Should we really be singing a mixture of truth and error to God in worship?

"3. FALSE INFERENCES

(a) That the Scottish Psalter is a 'God made Psalter' (See Westminster Standard Publication No.2 from Gisborne, N.Z.).

The Scottish Psalter is a paraphrase of the Psalms of David, and, as such, cannot be placed on a par with Scripture! Words are added, altered and phrases juxtaposed - and quite necessarily, too - but being man adapted (which is distinct from a straight translation) it cannot be received with the same trustworthiness as Scripture. This doubt even exists among proponents of "psalms only" when they confess they are unhappy about certain "versions" of Psalms. Many of us support the Trinitarian Bible Society and we would not receive a paraphrase translation of the Scriptures (as J. B. Phillips) with the same authority as a translation which seeks to conform to the original in word, form and style. Yet some of these folk receive a paraphrase and claim they are singing (without qualification) God's inspired hymnal!"

The Scottish Psalter is the best available translation in metre of the psalms in the English language today. Just as the Authorised Version is the best available translation of the Bible in the English language today. Therefore we should use both of them until such time as better ones become available. Both lose something in translation due to the fact that they are translations from the original languages. Only the text in the original languages, which has been providentially preserved through the ages, is the Word of God as such; but it is right to translate Scripture into the vulgar languages of all of God's people because not all of them by any means can speak or learn the original languages (Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8).

Therefore the Authorised Version of the Bible is a "paraphrase" by your definition because it contains "mistakes" (e,g, the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4). If you really do not like the Scottish Psalter, then your duty before God is to translate a new and better one. Of course this does not cross your mind. The only reason you will not translate a new one is that you do not want to sing the psalms at all. You are quite happy with your wretched man-made hymns and will not change. This is the real problem.

Why centre on the Scottish Psalter? Why not follow the Anglican church who sing Coverdale's translation of the Psalms straight out of the prose, without changing it to have any kind of metre? If you object so much to the Scottish Psalter, why not follow the Anglicans and sing straight from the Bible itself? Because it's boring, that's why, and you'll miss your favourite sing-along hymns. As if the worship of God was for your pleasure, not His.

"Our friends are rigid on their principle; let us therefore speak rigidly: one cannot sing a paraphrase of the Psalms and claim to be singing the inspired Word of God; you are singing a paraphrase (with possible errors) of the inspired Word of God, on the same level as the Scottish paraphrases of other parts of Scripture."

Calling us "friends" is just a load of slop. One indeed cannot sing a paraphrase and claim to be singing the inspired Word of God, this is true. That is why when I am in the U.S.A. I do not sing from the Christian Reformed "Psalter," neither in Ireland do I sing the "Alternative Versions" in the back of their Psalter, because they are only a very loose paraphrase of the psalms (although some are better than others). If one of those was the only psalter available in my language at present, then I would do so, whilst translating a better version in my spare time. But as there is a better, and quite acceptable, version in English, i.e. the Scottish Psalter, then I use that version as it is the best in metre (the original Hebrew was in metre, so metrication is acceptable). I would also not object to singing from the Anglican psalter too, if I was in a church that used it. Otherwise I would keep my mouth shut in case I am offending God. Do you not fear God?

The Scottish metrical psalms are not to be put on a par with the Scottish paraphrases, because God has only ordained the psalms for use in public worship, and metricating other parts of Scripture is a waste of time because it would be wrong to sing from them anyway.

"(b) That 'psalms, hymns and spiritual songs' refer to the 150 Psalms of David exclusively. Let us analyse these words:

Psalm:

Greek 'psalmos' (a set piece of music accompanied with the voice, harp or other instruments).
Hebrew 'mizmor,' (a poem set to notes) a title at the head of 57 Psalms and also used to refer to a Psalm in 1 Chronicles 16:8 36 which in that form is not an individual Psalm of the 150."

But 1 Chronicles 16:8-36 is an amalgam of two psalms (105 and 96) and so is properly entitled "psalm."

"Hymn:

Greek 'humnos' (a religious ode)
Hebrew 'tehillim' (praises) this is a general term applied to praising God in the Old Testament. Sepher Tehillim is the Hebrew for 'Book of Praises' which is the book of Psalms. In addition there are over 50 occasions of a general use of the term in the O.T. (e.g.Deuteronomy 10:21; Isaiah 60:18)."

Taking these two examples we have Deuteronomy 10:21 "He [God] is thy praise"! And we have Isaiah 60:18 "thou shalt call thy gates Praise"! These uses of the word are nothing to do with public worship and prove nothing.

"Spiritual Song:

Greek 'ode' (a chant or ode) spiritual as opposed to carnal or secular.
Hebrew 'shir' (a song) included in the titles of 24 Psalms and referred to other inspired songs in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:1, Deuteronomy 32, Judges 5:12, Song 1:1)"

There are plenty of other "songs," but the point of the phrase "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" is that it is the well-known title (to the Jews) of the Book of Psalms. That other things are called "songs" proves nothing.

"What proof is there, then, that these three terms mean 'The 150 Psalms of David only' repeated three times? None! Rather Paul is not narrowing the field, but widening it by repetition of general descriptive terms as is evident by the usage of these terms in the Old Testament. Tradition rather than Scripture gives this forced interpretation."

The title "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" is not "the '150 psalms of David only' repeated 3 times". It is a threefold description of the Book of Psalms, which contains some psalms, some hymns and some songs. Some psalms fall into more than one of these categories. Overall the Book of Psalms was generally known by its threefold description, just as "the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms" (Luke 24:44) is a threefold description of the Old Testament.

"(c) That synagogue worship is the pattern for Christian worship.

M. C, Ramsay writes: 'The Lord Jesus and His Apostles foretold the destruction of the temple and the cessation of its highly ornate and symbolic service but they uttered no word to suggest that any such doom awaited the synagogue worship, for the basic principles of the worship observed in the synagogue were to be incorporated into the Christian worship and thus perpetuated throughout the whole of the Christian era.'

Can we claim 'divine authorisation' for a practice established on the above argument from silence? The Anglicans use the same reasoning to impose their prayer book! Where in Scripture are we told that this is to be the case?"

The Anglican prayer book is more Scriptural than Fanny Crosby.

"In any case, our friends are not consistent. Authorities such as Horne and Edersheim say little about any singing in the synagogue - both outline services of New Testament times and neither include congregational singing! Moreover the synagogue services were characterised by fixed, read prayers and a lectionary of readings which our Lord followed! (Luke 4). Why don't we follow the table of the sections of the Law and Prophets and the prayers of the Shemoneh Esrah? One suspects that the appeal to the synagogue is more akin to the frantic grasp for a straw of a drowning man, in that "evidence" for this unbiblical position is so hard to find!"

It would not be too bad an idea if we did base our worship more on the synagogue, so long as we do not embrace the man-made elements which have crept in there over the centuries. However, as we have the New Testament as well as the Old, it is good that we make use of that also.

"(d) That Ephesians 5:19 and Colossisns 3:16 legislate for public worship specifically.

Ephesians 5:15 21 give general injunctions for Christian living:

- walk circumspectly
- redeeming the time
- understand the will of the Lord
- be filled with the Spirit
- speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs
- singing in your heart to God
- giving thanks
- submitting to one another.

This writer cannot see an injunction here directed specifically at Public Worship - none of the other elements of Public Worship are mentioned (unless one presses 'giving thanks' into this category). This verse (if it refers to the Psalms of David only) really proves too much for our friends: they should never on any occasion sing anything but psalms."

As all of life is worship, it would not be a bad thing if we never on any occasion sing anything but psalms. Of course reading songs as poems is acceptable just as reading a "Christian" book is acceptable, and can indeed be edifying, so long as we can discern truth from error. And how do we do this? We exercise our senses thereunto:

"But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Hebrews 5:14).

"Similarly with Colossians 3:12 17 a beautiful catalogue of Christian graces speaking, as verse 17 indicates to the whole of Christian living. The same applies to James 5:13. Public worship is part of Christian living, but so are private devotions, family life, work and recreation it is 'whatsoever ye do.' So we cannot make these terms apply to psalms only, and still maintain (as the Gisborne pamphlet does) that 'a place may be found for the use of uninspired songs but not in worship.' "

It is wrong to infer that because these verses refer to "whatsoever ye do" therefore we cannot make these terms apply to psalms only. What you are really saying here is that because all of life is mentioned here, you do not want to believe that you can never have your familiar emotion-stirring hymns ever again. Again, the will is involved here, overriding God's command.

As worship is all of life, then it would be best if we never sing uninspired songs. Otherwise you get into the argument as to what constitutes "public worship" and what does not.

"(e) That there is an express command in Scripture ordering the singing of the Psalter only in Divine Worship.

This writer has never seen it. The arguments seem to proceed from 'deduction' and bolstered up with 'tradition' and quotations from authors, all of which can be matched by other 'tradition' and other reformed authors."

The onus is on you to show the express command in Scripture that man-made compositions are to be introduced into the public worship of God. No such command exists, whereas there are plenty of exhortations in Scripture to sing psalms.

"But at the conclusion (for example) of the pamphlet produced by the Free Church and the then Reformed Evangelical Church in 1962, after the tenuous reasoning along the lines described, the pronouncement is given: 'Because the principle which admits hymns and instruments in the same vehicle which brings all that is false into the Church we must stand and assert its opposite "that which is not expressly commanded in Scripture is not to be used in the worship of the Church" '. Where is the express command ?? Again it has never yet come to light!"

This principle of admitting hymns and instruments is exactly the same principle of that of exalting man, the one thing that divine worship is not all about.

Again, the onus is on you to prove hymns and the like should be introduced. We rest on Scripture (Ephesians 5:19-21, Colossians 3:16, James 5:13 etc.).

"(f) That churches who practice this restricted concept of purity of worship powerfully promote the cause of Christ."

It is not our practice that is unduly restrictive, the psalms are completely sufficient for our every need. Rather, it is you that has a far too broad a view of purity of worship, wanting to introduce your hymns, because you like them and for no other reason, such as God's glory for example. God's glory is not in your line of sight at all.

"The testimony of history demonstrates that all churches, being under the control of sinful men, with or without this practice are subject to decline."

This statement is absolutely correct. But the fact that all churches decline is irrelevant, rather it is a question of doing what is right regardless of external circumstances in the Lord's providence.

"Moreover, in these days, without wishing to be too particular, some churches possessing this practice at times appear
- backward in missionary enterprise
- legalistic to the extreme in Church order
- traditionalistic rather than Reformed"

Without wishing to be too particular, your hymn-singing churches at (all) times appear:
- Hyperevangelistic
- Antinomian
- Arminian.

"We thank God that there are churches which practise this concept and are alive, doctrinally sound and contending for the faith, instructing their people and opposing apostasy - not in armchairs -but man to man; will our friends then recognise that Spurgeon powerfully promoted the cause of Christ, and Whitefield, and Calvin, even though 'uninspired' hymns were used by Whitefield and Spurgeon and the Genevan Church on occasions, sang some of the Canticles?"

The Genevan church indeed did sing other parts of Scripture for a time, but this was excluded later on (See Ramsey, p.39). Again, I repeat that just because someone is a hymn-singer it does not mean that he is not a Christian. I am merely pointing out inconsistencies in other people so that we may learn from their mistakes. All of us are growing in the faith, and if we are genuinely Christian, it doesn't matter so much as to where we are at any one time, rather we should at least be heading in the right direction. Spurgeon and Whitefield were wrong in singing hymns, even if they were right in other things. At least Spurgeon did not have musical instruments in his church.

"We would direct those who appeal to Calvin - to Calvin ye shall go! Two beautiful sections of the Institutes (Bk.3 Ch.20 Sects 31,32) refer to the singing of praise - which he heartily recommends. His warning is against songs 'composed merely to tickle and delight the ear,' but not a word against other composed (by men!) songs. The fact is, it was just not an issue in those days -practices varied and no one thought to legislate on this side issue, for that is what it was! Calvin majored on the 'spirit:' 'Hence it is perfectly clear that neither words nor singing (if used in prayer) are of the least consequence, or avail one iota with God, unless they proceed from deep feeling in the heart.' It wasn't an issue with Matthew Poole - see his comments on Ephesians .5:19 and Colossians 3:16. These men were most concerned for purity of worship (as are we!) but they apparently didn't feel it necessary to major on minors. Yet there were hymns current in those days - composed by Luther, and others carried over from the Middle Ages, together with the song of Moses, the Te Deum and the Magnificat. The second Helvetic Confession (ch.23) mentions the rejection of the Gregorian Chant by many of the Churches because it 'has many foolish things in it.' Yet no issue is made on 'psalms only.' "

Reading this section of Calvin's Institutes in full is profitable. It ends with the passage:

"On the other hand, songs composed merely to tickle and delight the ear are unbecoming the majesty of the church, and cannot but be most displeasing to God."

Here Calvin is not comparing "songs composed merely to tickle and delight the ear" with (uninspired) songs which do not. Rather he is comparing uninspired songs in general (i.e. those which "tickle the ear") with the psalms which were sung in his church. There is nothing in this passage where psalms and hymns of human composition are discussed because it was not an issue - psalms had already been re-introduced into the church. As mentioned above, the Canticles and one or two other parts of Scripture were sung, which we do not approve of, but note that at least it was Scripture that was sung - man-made material had been cleansed from the church by this time.

Of course it is true that neither words nor singing are of the least consequence unless they proceed from deep feeling of the heart. This is not in question by anyone.

Purity of worship is not a "minor," but is directly concerned with the Second Commandment.
This whole paragraph is an argument from silence.

With regards instrumental music in particular, see Calvin's commentaries on 1 Samuel 18:1-9, Psalm 71:22, Psalm 81:3, Psalm 33:1-3.

"Now what Saint Augustine says is true, that no-one is able to sing things worthy of God unless he has received them from him. Wherefore, when we have looked thoroughly everywhere and searched high and low, we shall find no better songs nor more appropriate to the purpose than the Psalms of David which the Holy Spirit made and spoke through him. And when we sing them, we are certain that God puts the words in our mouths as if he himself were singing in us to exalt his glory." (John Calvin, Epistle to the Reader, June 1543)

"4. APPLICATION OF THIS RESTRICTED CONCEPT TO OTHER ELEMENTS OF WORSHIP

If we grant that we are to keep the Lord's words, and assume that the Synagogue is our pattern, in applying this restricted concept consistently to the elements of worship, the following would result:"

The Word of God is our pattern, not the synagogue (better though the synagogue worship is, compared to most modern hymn-singing churches today). The Word of God should have been the synagogue's pattern too - here is where the similarity exists. It ends where unbiblical things were introduced into the synagogue.

Again, I emphasise it is not we who are restrictive, it is you who are too broad.

"Singing of Praise: Only the Davidic psalter and other psalms of the Old Testament, carefully translated into English with no alteration or additions for metre. The song of Moses was also sung in the Synagogue. No praises of 'uninspired' men."

The original Hebrew was in metre, so it is acceptable to metricate the English version. These are not additions. I wholeheartedly agree that no "praises" of uninspired men should be allowed.

"Reading of Scripture: Use of the Synagogue lectionary of readings which, by example our Lord enjoins (Luke 4:17)."

This would not be too bad an idea except that we have the New Testament to add to the Old Testament readings now. In any case Christ did not read from a lectionary, but "the book of the prophet Esaias" (Luke 4:17).

"Prayer: To be 'according to His will' they must be the words of Scripture, which are the revealed will of God: perhaps some of the read prayers of the Shemoneh Esreh from the Synagogue. No reference to extempore prayer by 'uninspired' men."

This is not true. Scripture allows the use of extemporary prayer, so we are regulated by that, and accept it. All prayer is to be according to His will, and this of course should be mentioned in the prayer. This exaggerated caricature of the exclusive psalm-singer is very common, and totally ridiculous.

"Preaching: To 'preach the Word' it must be 'the Word:' thus sermons must be in the actual words of Scripture. No 'Words' composed by 'uninspired' men."

This is even more stupid than the previous idea. Scripture allows the use of the preacher's own words in giving the sense and causing the congregation to understand the reading (Nehemiah 8:8).

"This is not a caricature: there have actually been churches that, for instance, will only use the Lord's prayer in public worship, for it is the only one commanded by Christ. If in Public Worship we should only sing 'God's Psalter' then we should only offer God's prayers and use God inspired preaching!"

Nonsense. This is an empty-headed, uncalled-for caricature with no basis in truth.

"5.BIBLICAL PURITY OF WORSHIP

It will be sufficient to set this out in tabular form:

1. Reading of scripture (Luke 4:14):
FIXED: The canonical Scriptures only. DETERMINED FREELY: The selection and length of passages.

2. Preaching of the Word (II Timothy 4:2):
FIXED: Scriptural sermons. DETERMINED FREELY: Topic, text, selection and arrangement of the words of the sermon.

3. Prayer (Mark 11:24; Acts 4:23-31):
FIXED: Scriptura1 according to His will. DETERMINED FREELY: The actual words and petitions.

4. Sacraments (Matthew 28:19 1 Corinthians 11:23,29):
FIXED: Two only Baptism and the Lord's Supper. DETERMINED FREELY: The elements of water, bread and wine. The frequency, general order and types of bread and wine.

5. Singing of Praises (1 Corinthians l4:15):
FIXED: Scriptural praise. DETERMINED FREELY: The actual words and melody.

The great overriding command must always be observed: "they who worship Him, must worship him in spirit and in truth."

I thoroughly agree with all of these except the last one. The melody is to be determined freely, but the words are to be from the Book of Psalms. They are fully and perfectly sufficient. We need nothing else.

"6: TRADITION

No discussion will be joined on this issue NOT because there is no evidence, but we say 'sola scriptura' and to this alone we go. You ask us 'where is your command to sing "uninspired" hymns in public worship?' - we reply 'in the same location as your command to sing the 150 Psalms of David only in public worship' in brief: 'Nowhere.' Both positions are based upon inference and deduction with disagreements on exegesis which have existed between equally scholarly and pious Reformed theologians for years."

Again, the onus is on you to provide the evidence from Scripture that hymns are to be introduced. Nowhere are they ever mentioned in Scripture, whereas psalms are mentioned several times. Our position is based upon Scripture, your position is based upon inference and tradition. Just because Reformed theologians have debated this "for years," does not mean that the problem is insoluble. It is commonly said that Reformed theologians have been debating the proper subjects of baptism "for years," and so it is concluded that it therefore does not matter what you believe about it. Try telling that to the person to whom the Baptist minister has just turned away his child for baptism! One party has got to be wrong. Both cannot be wrong, as there is no third way, i.e. we must either believe in exclusive psalm-singing or not. You are the one that is wrong, because you cannot see the sufficiency of the psalms, and your carnal selves are "bored" with the psalms and want something more exciting to tickle your own ears with. "I enjoyed singing that chorus, so it must have been a good time of worship!" - is not a logical inference.

"7. WHAT OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION?

Only the Westminster Confession of Faith is regarded by this writer as the interpretative standard of the word of God (as is incorporated in the basis of the Presbyterian Reformed Church). The catechisms and directory are aids to teaching and order, but are not officially in the standards.

Thus, when the Westminster Confession speaks of 'singing of psalms with grace in the heart,' this is read in conjunction with the subjoined proof texts and received as 'praises' accordingly. The Word of God is our master; the Confession of Faith our handmaid."

This proves you are astray from the Westminster Confession. The original language of the Westminster Confession is English, not Hebrew, so it is wrong to go back to the Hebrew to explain it.

"8. FINALLY......

There are many oft repeated arguments that have not been mentioned - because this writer finds many of them tired, tedious and irrelevant: just as an example: 'Man made hymns are means of bringing the doctrines of men into the Church and must ever be regarded as a source of error.' True, but the sermons of the ministers do this before the hymnology: it is a fact that a Church's hymnology runs behind the preaching by about thirty to fifty years! By then the rot has entered in any case!"

I would like proof of this actually. John Wesley successfully introduced the heresy of Arminianism into the church by first introducing his hymns. The sermons followed. Usually it is carnal things such as music and bells and smells that titilate the people's fancy first. Hymnology is the carnal vessel that softens the people up to remember the words and consequently come to believe all sorts of garbage.

"To the brethren in Christ who sing psalms only in the worship of God, we say 'God bless you.' We have every respect in the Lord for those who see this matter in a different light to us. Some may interpret this as weakness or uncertainty on our part - we are sorry if they do. But there are many dear brethren, including ministers in the Presbyterian Reformed Church who, while they sing psalms only in their respective churches, nevertheless realise that harmony can and will prevail when Reformed brethren conscientiously differ. It won't be a question of who is 'most' reformed or who embodies the epitome of Calvinistic purity, but who says with an open mind, an open Bible and an open heart 'Teach me Thy will.' "

I have no respect for hymn-singers, and do not say "God bless you" in return. As God is my witness, you are wrong.

So do you "conscienciously" have to have hymns?

Anyone who truly prays "Teach me thy will," will eventually come to ditch hymns and uninspired songs in favour of unaccompanied psalm singing.

"This writer does not intend to issue replies to people who take issue with us. Time is far too short and other vital issues await this person's pen. The apostles did not major on psalms vs. the Magnificat and neither did the Reformers. Let us contend for purity of worship, and exclude unbiblical practices but let us also contend for the faith and take the sword of the Spirit and wield it against the current vile apostasy, majoring on the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD."

The Reformers did major on purity of worship - it was an important subject. How we approach God is not up to our whim and fancy, rather it is to be decreed only by God in His Word. Here you are saying that the argument psalms vs. uninspired material does not matter, but the "whole counsel of God" does. What a strange position! If we are, quite rightly, to contend for the "whole counsel of God" then everything is important, including worship. Do you not fear God?

Nesher Christian Resources

Christian resources for free use

Home | Contact | Related sites and links

Christian Resources for free use

Main Menu

Nesher Articles