作者：马丁.麦戈文
译校：何文龙
终稿：孙宏广
1、敬拜的限定性原则：
我们如何决定哪些（质素）是在敬拜中蒙上帝所悦纳的？圣经教导，上帝并没有将敬拜的事情开放给人，以至于由人的突发奇想所左右。很多人认为，只要圣经没有禁止的就可以做。例如，肖像是禁止的，而木偶戏是允许的。因为上帝没有在祂的话语中禁止木偶戏。因此，这对小孩子当然是很好的。然而，圣经关于敬拜的教导远远比仅仅禁止肖像要来得深刻。上帝的话语教导“敬拜的限定原则”。简单来说，这意味着除非上帝在敬拜中有具体的吩咐，否则我们什么都不能做。以拿答和亚比户为例。他们犯了罪并且被火烧死。为什么？他们做错了什么？他们献上“凡火”（利未记10：1）。这种火有什么奇怪的地方？是将这火献给偶像吗？不是。我们得知这火“是耶和华没有吩咐他们献上的”（利未记10：1）后来，恶王耶罗波安在但和伯特利设立了偶像。 这本身就是严重的罪，但是这段经文也教导说他不顾圣经对严肃会的吩咐，而是“按着自己的心意决定”在哪月哪天献祭（列王记上12：33）。人为加添敬拜内容的傲慢行为激起上帝的愤怒。祂问到，“你们来朝见我，谁向你们讨这些，使你们践踏我的院宇呢？”当人们想到自己，“敬拜中做这个做那个不是挺好的吗？”他们这是“私意崇拜”的罪（歌罗西书2：23）。
上帝在新约中吩咐的敬拜元素是什么？读经、传道、祷告、歌唱赞美、奉献和圣礼（洗礼和圣餐）。这些元素是清楚的。如果任何人宣称还有其他的敬拜元素，他必须提供圣经依据。我们在敬拜中有话剧吗？可以有木偶戏吗？可以做见证，甚至是允许妇女做见证吗？合唱团和独唱呢？做以上这些事的圣经依据是什么？这样看来我们这片土地上的许多教会都在“献凡火”！当然，许多人是在真诚地献上“凡火”，并没有好好学习圣经。这是许多教会及其牧师的悲哀写照，他们有“对神的热心，但是却不是按着真知识”（罗马书10：2）。
2、我们应当唱什么诗歌？
早前，我们说过敬拜有一项元素是歌唱赞美。这又提出了另外一个问题，我们应当唱什么诗歌？许多人很快忘记“限定性原则”也限定我们歌唱的内容。他们说，“我们可以唱任何诗歌，只要它是好的，让我们感觉到与上帝亲近并且合乎圣经。”然而实践中，“好的”和所谓的“亲近”上帝在我们大多数的思想中占据优先地位，而“合乎圣经”则没有得到当得的优先地位。事实上，教会中的大多数人不能“用悟性歌唱”（诗篇47：7）。他们情感投入在歌唱当中，但是却没有真的思想歌词的意义。歌唱应当是思想的活动，就像读神的话语和听道一样。基督徒应当是“谨守”的（提多书2：6）。保罗说他会“用灵歌唱而且也用悟性歌唱”（哥林多前书14：15）并且敬拜中如果“悟性没有果效”，那么，赞美的时间不是就成为一个非理性的机会，我们岂不是被感情带着走了吗？（哥林多前书14：14）相反，我们应当默想我们所唱的内容，并且思想“这些内容适合用来歌唱赞美全能者吗？”我们如何决定哪些是上帝要我们唱的内容呢？限定性原则要求我们查考圣经来找出答案。
上帝已经赐给我们一本诗歌本《诗篇》，这是无可辩驳的。新旧约反复教导我们唱诗篇（历代志上16：9；诗篇105：2；雅各书5：13）。圣经说诗篇的作者是圣灵感动属神的人写的（彼得前书1：21）。他们是被神的灵所赐为神的百姓歌唱提供诗歌（撒母耳记下23：1-2）。
许多人相信唱诗篇是好的，但是事实上诗篇就是圣经，是神所默示的，是无误的，而这些并不能使他们印象深刻。他们不否认诗篇是圣经的。“好的”是关键，所以他们喜欢所谓的“好的诗篇”，例如诗篇23篇，但是他们不会想着唱诗篇11：5，诗篇5：5或诗篇139：9。 既然，诗篇在他们的思想中没有至上的优先地位，那么当有另外一首人们认为是“好”的诗歌呈现在他们面前的时候，他们也会欣然地唱这首歌，而不是唱圣灵所默示的诗篇。唱诗篇可能会，也可能不会被人认为是“好的”。现今的教会界，上帝所默示的诗篇（提摩太后书3：16）往往被男人女人所创作的“圣诗”取代。据这些人说自己可以献上新的东西，是圣灵默示的诗篇所未能提供给教会的。看看你的周围！许多教会从来不唱诗篇，其他教会（因为他们有唱诗篇的传统）仍然唱一些诗篇，但是他们使用的大多数诗歌是“圣诗”。上帝的歌逐渐被放置一边，却赞成由思想“新潮”的人创作的新“圣诗”。（诗篇94：11）
新约圣经没有一处吩咐我们写“圣诗”。这里所说的“圣诗”是指现代非受默示的人创作的诗歌，在教会中被颂唱的。大卫需要属灵的恩赐或受膏为“作以色列美歌者”（撒母耳记下23：1），但是新约圣经没有赐给教会“创作圣诗的恩赐”，因此而假定任何人都可以写一首歌而用于公共敬拜。保罗写到当信徒聚在一起的时候“各人或有诗歌”（哥林多前书14：26）。大多数历史学家认同早期教会只唱诗篇。圣诗是后来加上去的，通常是异端想以诗歌为媒介引进他们错误的教导。这是引进异端教训进入教会的非常成功的方法。如果你能让人们唱你的教义，传道内容就无关紧要了。如果讲道与唱诗不匹配就会产生混乱。
但是歌罗西书3：16和以弗所书5：19的是怎么说的？想象以下你自己在歌罗西或以弗所的教会（教会大部分是由刚刚归正的异教徒组成），然后你收到了使徒保罗的一封信。保罗教导你要唱“诗章、颂词和灵歌。”你会怎样理解？没有任何证据表明那羽翼未丰的教会中的信徒会有任何圣诗（现代意义上的圣诗）。他们从哪里弄这些圣诗？毕竟，这是距离以撒华兹或查尔斯卫斯理很久之前的时代！那时的信徒有什么？他们有七十士译本，旧约圣经的希腊文译本。那就是他们的圣经。来自说希腊语世界的圣经，我们称之为《诗篇》的书卷，有三个主要的词用来描述不同种类的诗歌：诗章，颂词和灵歌。保罗在歌罗西书3：16节和以弗所书5：19使用了三个词。一个醒目的例子是诗篇76篇。七十士译本诗篇76篇的标题，三个词诗章、颂词、灵歌一起出现。以弗所人和歌罗西人已经理解保罗关于整个诗篇在他们赞美中的使用的所给予的教训，这似乎是合理的推测。
诗篇是保罗的意思，可以从这些经文的上下文中看出。盲目地认为“颂词”意思是我们今天认为的“圣诗”是没有意义的。歌罗西书3：16节说，“当用各样的智慧，把基督的道理丰丰富富地存在心里，用诗章、颂词、灵歌，彼此教导，互相劝诫，心被恩感，歌颂神。”（要留意）：诗篇而非现代“圣诗”才充满“基督的道理”。诗篇充满了“智慧”和上帝的荣耀与威严。有些所谓的“圣诗”则充满了废话并且贬低了上帝的威严。在诗篇中，我们彼此“教导”，它们是重要的，充满了关于上帝的整全教义。在诗篇中，我们彼此“劝诫”。许多“圣诗”是令人感伤的且没多大意义的，要么是没能教导什么重要的东西，要么就是教导错误的东西。通读诗篇，你可以在其中学习到很多关于上帝的事，超过成千上万的现代“圣诗”。
以弗所书5“18b-19节说，“乃要被圣灵充满。当用诗章、颂词、灵歌彼此对说，口唱心和地赞美主。”既然圣灵是诗篇的作者，那么被圣灵充满和用心灵诚实敬拜神就是要以诚实和喜乐唱圣灵默示的诗歌。唱仅仅是人写的诗歌很难被圣灵充满。因为创作这些诗歌的人很多是异端，许多诗歌甚至是在信徒中传播关于上帝的错误教义。例如，罗马天主教徒所写的“哦，完美的爱，超越所有人类的思想”……；一位论派写的“与主更亲近，我的眼睛看到了荣耀”……使徒约翰称这些为“敌基督”（约翰一书2：22）。因此，我们是要（或上帝吩咐我们）唱教皇党派和敌基督写的歌，还是圣灵写的诗章、颂词和灵歌呢？（顺便提一下，以弗所书5：19节和歌罗西书3：16节“属灵的”这个词意思是“属于圣灵的”。现代“圣诗的作者”可以宣称他们的诗歌是“属于圣灵”的吗？当然不可以！）
主耶稣曾经唱的是什么呢？作为一名犹太人，主耶稣唱诗篇。
马太福音26：30和马可福音14：26节告诉我们基督和祂的门徒“唱了诗”。如果我们看这段经文并认为这里的“诗”意思是现代世界所认为的“圣诗”，那么我们会严重误解圣经。耶稣没有唱，“主耶和华啊，求你引导我”，或“独一全智上帝，不朽和不可见的”（自由主义者，反对守安息日的牧师所写）或我们今天知道的其他“圣诗”，耶稣和祂的门徒也没有为这一场合创作一首“圣诗”。他们唱诗篇，这是逾越节的惯例。类似地，当保罗和西拉在狱中“唱歌赞美”，他们使用的是“赞美诗歌本”，我们称之为诗篇（使徒行传16：25）。当然，保罗从小就已经知道并且记住了诗篇。他没有必要去创作新的赞美诗，诗篇是充足的。既然唱“圣诗”没有圣经依据，基督徒应当使用上帝为祂名的荣耀和教导祂的教会提供的“诗歌本”（诗篇）。仅仅是人写的歌实在是不能做到这点，不管这些诗歌有多么地“好”。
3、反对意见：
a）“但是我们不喜欢诗篇，诗篇枯燥、无趣和难唱！”
第一，我们是否“喜欢”诗篇与否是无关紧要的。我们已经看见上帝吩咐我们唱祂的诗篇。记住敬拜不是用来使我们“感到良好”，而是表达我们对上帝感恩的一种方式。主耶稣曾说我们表达对祂的爱和忠心的方式是“遵守祂的命令”（约翰福音14：15，21），使徒约翰在他的书信中确认了这一点（约翰一书2：3-4；3：24）。如果上帝吩咐我们唱诗篇，我们就必须唱！此外，“祂的诫命是不难守的。”（约翰一书5：3）如果我们觉得诗篇枯燥 ，那么，我们正应当在上帝面前认罪并且求上帝“使我们的心趋向祂的法度”（诗篇119：36）我们应当为我们属灵的冷漠感到悲哀，因为我们喜悦所谓的“圣诗”甚过圣灵所默示的诗篇。如果我们这样寻求上帝，祂将会向我们显明祂的诗篇甜如蜜贵如金（诗篇19：10；119：103）。如果我们发现诗篇难以理解，我们需要更多学习它，因为其与整本圣经一样都是对我们大有益处的（提摩太后书3：16）。我们多需要深挖诗篇啊！那么我就可以说，“我喜爱你的话，好像人得了许多掳物。”
b）诗篇是在旧约，因此不适合新约教会。
我们已经看到新约以弗所和歌罗西的基督徒被要求唱诗篇。雅各也教导我们唱诗篇（雅各书5：13）。上帝的诗歌本宣告了不改变的上帝的荣耀，所以“雅各的神”（诗篇114：7；146：5）是新约教会的神。耶稣说诗篇就是在谈论祂的（路加福音24：44）。确实，耶稣死的时候口里说的诗篇（诗篇22：1）诗篇讲论基督。关于基督的降生（诗篇2：7；22：10），受死（诗篇22;14-18）和复活（诗篇16：10）。我可以轻易地继续列举下去。简而言之，人们无法想象一个更加充满基督的书。越是学习诗篇，越是从中发现基督。
许多人认为诗篇不适合的其中有一个原因是他们认为旧约中上帝的百姓与新约中上帝的百姓是分开的团体。有些人相信犹太人在旧约是因行为得救，而基督徒在新约是因恩典得救。他们会问，“新约基督徒唱耶路撒冷的意义是什么？”，“为什么都是在谈论锡安、犹大的城邑、以色列和雅各？这跟我们有什么关系？”其实，这种想法使圣经变得无关紧要。（要知道）以色列就是旧约教会！使徒行传7：38节就谈到这个“在旷野的教会”（摩西时代）。新约教会和以色列是基督的一个身体。基督只有一个身体——教会（旧约和新约），只有一个新娘（旧约和新约）。旧约圣徒（大卫、挪亚、亚伯拉罕[约翰福音8：56]以及其他一切圣徒）与新约基督徒得救方式一样—唯独通过耶稣基督（罗马书4章），唯独通过恩典，因着耶稣基督的宝血罪得赦免。新约基督徒，虽然大部分由外邦人组成，是真犹太人（罗马书2：28-29），真正的割礼（腓立比书3：3），真正的亚伯拉罕的后裔（加拉太书3：29），天上耶路撒冷的公民（加拉太书4：26）和那些“乃是来到锡安山”（希伯来书12：22）。今天属肉体的犹太人不是真犹太人，因为“从以色列生的不都是以色列人”（罗马书9：6）。施洗约翰对他那个时代不敬虔和不信的犹太人说，“不要自己心里说，有亚伯拉罕为我们的祖宗。我告诉你们，神能从这些石头中给亚伯拉罕兴起子孙来。”（马太福音3：9）彼得论到基督徒是“活石”（彼得前书2：5）。阿摩司书9：11-13节说上帝将“必建立大卫倒塌的帐幕，堵住其中的破口，把那破坏的建立起来，重新修造，像古时一样。”。第一眼望去，这看起来是指字面上的巴勒斯坦的犹太人，但是使徒雅各指出此预言是指向外邦人进入新约教会（使徒行传15：14-18）。这与建立一个以色列国没有关系。外邦人聚集在教会中不是计划外的想法，因为“这话是从创世以来显明这事的主说的。”（使徒行传15：18）因此，当我们唱诗篇中关于以色列、雅各、耶路撒冷、锡安山、犹大的城邑和圣殿等，我们是在唱关于教会的事。新约时代唱这些完全正确，而且我们从中受益颇多。
c）苏格兰韵律诗篇仅仅是改译的。
今天许多实践唯独诗篇的教会使用的是苏格兰韵律诗篇。有些人说这个版本不忠实于原文，认为那些使用并宣称实践唯唱诗篇的人仅仅是歌唱的是诗篇浪漫的改译。然而，即使那样的控告是真的，本身也不能否认唯唱诗篇，也不能将其他诗歌合法化。如果那些说这种转移注意力话的人真关心这个，他们就是在教会中使用一个新的“更准确的”诗篇译本。他们做什么来代替以上这样的做法？他们批判那些使用苏格兰韵律诗篇的人然后继续唱圣诗！
然而，对苏格兰韵律诗篇的诽谤并不是真实的。西敏会议决定做一个忠实原文的韵律诗篇。处理诗篇的学者煞费苦心地工作。他们回到原文希伯来语，更关心的是准确性，而不是赏心悦目。（感恩的是，他们制作出了既准确又悦耳的作品。）苏格兰韵律诗篇这部作品花费两年时间完成：无论如何，这不是一次仓促的工作。主要的清教徒写到，“现在放在你手中的是我们所看到的最接近原文的译文。”罗伯特.慕里（Robert Murray）说，“这是真正从希伯来语极好的翻译，并往往比散文版更正确。
d）你不可以唱标题。
提出这种理由作为反对意见的人实在是在抓住救命稻草。诗篇52篇的标题写到，“以东人多益来告诉扫罗，大卫到了亚希米勒家。那时，大卫作这训诲诗，交于伶长。”显然，我们不会唱这个，但这丝毫不会削弱唯唱诗篇的说服力。因为，“圣诗”，“我的眼睛看到荣耀”有标题，但（即使是）“共和国战歌”在我们的经验中，也没有人会唱标题。
e）曲调不是受默示的。
上帝没有赐给我们受默示的曲调。那些这样认为的人真的期望上帝能用受默示的某种音乐符号（也许在诗篇的结尾部分）吗？上帝赐给我们受默示的歌词并吩咐我们要唱它们，既然是唱，当然需要曲调！敬拜限定性原则具体规定了如何敬拜上帝的原则。上帝吩咐我们要在主日聚会（希伯来书10：25），但是却没有告诉我们具体时间或时长或频率 。上帝吩咐我们必须有讲道，但是没有告诉我们讲道应该是45分钟还是一个半小时（清教徒通常是这么长）；上帝吩咐我们必须有讲道，但是没有告诉我们经文是取自《耶利米书》，《约翰福音》或是其他书卷。曲调是唱诗篇的必要条件，为了使我们能很好地履行圣经的命令来唱诗篇（但曲调却不是绝对条件）……
f）“圣诗”作者是伟大的属神的人，（其作品）也是受默示的。
即使最可靠的人都是罪人，容易犯罪。（雅各书3：2） 那些所谓的“圣诗”作者肯定没有受过犹如圣经意义上的默示。圣经中“默示”的意思是“上帝呼吸”（提摩太后书3：16）。圣经的作者特别是圣灵预备和感动的（彼得后书1：21）这样，（他们）所用的话就是上帝的话。从这个意义上而言整本诗篇都是受默示的。没有圣诗作者可以宣称他也是受圣灵所默示的。（倘若有人）这样宣称的话就是在攻击圣经教义。
g）大卫犯了奸淫，为什么要唱他的歌？
如果我们采取这种态度，我们将不得不无视整本圣经。（要知道）圣经的每个作者都是罪人。大卫犯过奸淫，以赛亚是嘴唇不洁的人（以赛亚书6：5），保罗是罪人中的罪魁（提摩太前书1：15），彼得否过基督（马太福音26：74）。所有这些人都曾被上帝使用写作过圣经的某部分。但从根本上来看，圣经（背后实际的）作者（包括诗篇）乃是圣灵自己（使徒行传1：16）。大卫，尽管犯了重罪（在诗篇32和52篇写到）却“得居高位，是雅各神所膏的，作以色列的美歌者”（撒母耳记下23：1）。大卫（实在是）从神自己那里得到凭证成为教会诗歌的创作者。而被大肆吹捧的现代“圣诗”作者，他们从哪里得到（类似地）凭证呢？
h）如果我们唱诗篇，我们不能唱“耶稣”的名字。
我们以四个初步的考虑作为回应。
第一，许多现代“圣诗”也没有包括耶稣的名字，尤其是一位论派写的诗歌。
第二，基督徒，尤其是长老会和改革宗的基督徒应当问：圣经哪里吩咐我们唱“耶稣”这个词？因为限定性原则（这一原则包含在这些教会的信仰告白里面）要求我们提供唱“耶稣”这个词的圣经依据。
第三，难道宗教改革的先辈们错了？难道他们几个世纪以来只唱上帝所默示的诗篇赞美不足够吗？（没有包括“耶稣”这个词）
第四，（争议点）为什么必须是“耶稣”这个名字？耶稣其他的名字和头衔又怎么样呢？诗篇称我们的主为“受膏者”或“基督”（希伯来文为弥赛亚），当我们翻译成希腊文时，因此我们唱到“主和祂的受膏者”（诗篇2：2），我们赞美我们的救主是通过唱“你的神用喜乐油膏你，胜过膏你的同伴”（诗篇45：7）。
以下是诗篇中归给基督的头衔：神的儿子（诗篇2：7）、人子（诗篇8：1），牧者（诗篇23：1；80：1）、照着麦基洗德的等次为祭司（诗篇19：14）、匠人所弃的石头（诗篇118：22）、审判全地的（诗篇98：9）。在诗篇中，耶稣也被称为耶和华、主、神、我们的岩石、我们的高台、我们拯救的角、我们的盾牌等。
最重要的是，这个问题来自对圣经“名字”概念的误解。用在上帝身上的“名字”（三位一体的神）不仅仅意味着发出或写出元音和辅音的组合。相反，神的名字是神自己的启示。那么“耶稣”这个“名字”的意思是什么呢？ “耶稣”是希腊文约书亚的直译，意思是“耶和华拯救”。因此天使指示约瑟，“你要给他起名叫耶稣，因他要将自己的百姓从罪恶救出来。”（马太福音1：21）尽管诗篇中找不到“耶稣”这个词，但是“耶稣”这个名字无疑是在里头。事实上，诗篇充满了耶稣的名字——耶和华拯救。 “救恩属于耶和华”（诗篇3：8）， “以色列的救恩”（诗篇14：7）， “我要因你救恩夸胜，要奉我们神的名竖立旌旗。”（诗篇20：5） “拯救我们的主啊”（诗篇38：22）“上帝的救恩”（诗篇50：23），这只是几个例子而已。当老西缅在圣殿中说，“我的眼睛已经看见你的救恩”（路加福音2：30），他说到他看到耶稣了，他用的词是“你的救恩”。我们可以反批这个批判。许多“圣诗”中可以发现“耶稣”这个词，但是“耶稣”的名字被腐化或被阿米念者所否认，他们认为普遍的、无效的赎罪，取决于罪人所谓的自由意志。
那么，这是与耶稣的名字（耶和华拯救）和诗篇（“救恩属乎耶和华”诗篇3：8）相反。人们唱的是“另外一个耶稣”和“另外一个福音”（哥林多后书11：4）——这个福音不是唯独靠耶稣（耶和华拯救），而是靠耶和华加上罪人（宣称）的自由意志。因此，一些人认为主日在教会禁止唱未受默示之人所创作的诗歌，类似于不敬虔的祭司和撒都该人吩咐使徒们说“禁止他们总不可奉耶稣的名讲论教训人（使徒行传4：18）”这样的想法真是可笑。我们当传讲钉十字架的基督，我们奉耶稣的名祷告，我们用诗篇彼此教导互相劝诫——正如上帝吩咐我们的。
原文内容——
How do we determine what is acceptable in the worship of God? The Bible teaches that God has not left it open to the whim of man how He is to be worshipped. Many people believe that if something is not forbidden, then it is allowed. For example, they would admit that images are wrong but claim that puppet shows are acceptable, since God does not—in so many words—forbid puppet shows, and “Sure, it is nice for the children.” However, the Bible’s teaching on worship reaches farther than a mere prohibition of images. The Word of God teaches the “regulative principle of worship.” Simply put, this means that unless God has specifically commanded something in His worship, we may not do it. Take the example of Nadab and Abihu. They sinned and were consumed by fire. Why? What did they do wrong? They offered “strange fire” (Lev. 10:1). What was strange about this fire? Was it fire offered to an idol? No. All we are told is that it was fire “which [the Lord] commanded them not” (Lev. 10:1). Later on, wicked king Jeroboam set up idols in Dan and Bethel. This in itself was a grave sin, but the passage also teaches that he disregarded the feast days commanded in the Old Testament and instead “offered” on days and months which he “had devised of his own heart” (I Kings 12:33). The LORD is greatly provoked by the presumption of men who add to His worship. He asks, “who hath required this at your hand?” (Isa. 1:12). When people think to themselves, “Wouldn’t it be nice to do such and such in the worship service?” they are guilty of “will worship” (Col. 2:23).
What are the elements of worship commanded by God in the New Testament? The reading and preaching of the Bible, prayer, the singing of praises, offerings and the administration of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Those elements are clear! If anyone claims that we should have other elements in the worship of God, he must demonstrate a scriptural warrant for such things. Can we have drama in the worship? Can we have puppet shows? Can we have testimonies, even testimonies by women? What about choirs and soloists? What scriptural warrant is there for these things? It would appear that “strange fire” is being offered in many churches in our land! Of course, many people offer this “strange fire” in sincerity, not having studied the Bible. This is a sad reflection on many churches and their pastors, who “have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2).
Earlier we said that one of the elements of worship is the singing of praises. This raises a further question, What shall we sing? Many immediately forget that the “regulative principle” also regulates the content of our singing. They say, “We can sing anything as long as it is nice, makes us feel close to God and is scriptural.” In practice, however, “niceness” and an alleged “closeness” to God take precedence in the thinking of most, and the “scriptural” aspect is not given the priority it deserves. In fact, a large number in the church fail to “sing with understanding” (Ps. 47:7). They get emotionally involved in what they are singing, but really don’t think about the words. Singing ought to be a thinking activity, as much as reading God’s Word and hearing it preached. Christians ought to be “sober minded” (Titus 2:6). Paul says he will “sing with the Spirit and [he] will sing with the understanding also” (I Cor. 14:15) and warns against a situation in worship where the “understanding is unfruitful” (v. 14). Praise-time is not an opportunity to become irrational and to be carried away by emotionalism. Rather, we ought to meditate on the words we sing, and consider, “Are these words suitable to be sung in the praise of the Almighty?” How can we determine which words God would have us sing? The regulative principle would have us search the Scriptures for the answer.
It is irrefutable that God has given us a book of praises, the Psalms. The Bible exhorts us repeatedly in the Old and New Testaments to sing psalms (I Chron. 16:9; Ps. 105:2; James 5:13). The Bible says that the Psalm writers were men of God moved by the Holy Ghost (I Peter 1:21) and that they were equipped by the Spirit to provide songs for God’s people to sing (II Sam. 23:1-2).
Many people believe that the Psalms are good to sing. Again, they are convinced that they are “nice,” but the fact that they are scriptural, divinely inspired and inerrant does not really impress them that much. They don’t deny that the Psalms are biblical songs and that they are divinely inspired and inerrant, but it just is not paramount in their thoughts. “Niceness” is the key, so much so that they like the so-called “nice psalms,” such as Psalm 23, but they would not dream of singing Psalm 11:5, Psalm 5:5 or Psalm 139:9. Since they don’t have the right priorities in their thinking, when another supposedly “nice” song is presented to them, they will readily sing that as well as, or indeed instead of, inspired Psalms, which may or may not be considered “nice.” In today’s church world, God-breathed Psalms (II Tim. 3:16) are being replaced by “hymns” written by men or women who supposedly have something new to offer, which the Holy Spirit writing in the Psalms did not give the church. Look around you! Many churches never sing Psalms, and others (because they come from a Psalm singing tradition) still sing a few Psalms, but the majority of the songs they use are “hymns.” God’s songs have been gradually been pushed aside, in favour of new “hymns” written by men whose thoughts are “vanity” (Ps. 94:11).
Nowhere in the New Testament are we commanded to write “hymns.” By “hymn” I mean a modern non-inspired human composition to be sung in the church. David needed a spiritual gift or anointing to be “the sweet psalmist of Israel” (II Sam. 23:1) but in the New Testament there is no “hymn-writing gift” given to the church. It would therefore be presumption for anyone to write a song to be used in the public worship of God. Paul writes that when the believers came together “every one of [them had] a psalm” (I Cor. 14:26). Most historians agree that the early church sang only Psalms. Hymns (in the modern sense) were added later, often by heretics who wanted to introduce their false teachings through the medium of song. This is a very successful way of introducing heresy into the church. It matters little what is preached, if you can get people to sing your doctrine. If the sermons do not match the “hymns” sung, confusion follows.
But what about Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19? Imagine yourself in Colossae or Ephesus (churches consisting largely of newly converted pagans) and you receive a letter from the Apostle Paul. Paul exhorts you to sing “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.” What would you have understood by that? There is no evidence that the believers of that fledgling church had any hymns (in the modern sense). Where would they have got them? After all, this was a long time before Isaac Watts or Charles Wesley! What did the believers have? They had the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. That was their Bible, the Bible of the Greek-speaking world, and the version from which the apostles usually quoted. In what we call the book of Psalms there are three main words used to describe the various types of songs: psalmoi, hymnoi and odai. These are the three words Paul uses in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19. A striking example is Psalm 76. In the title of Psalm 76 in the Septuagint the three terms—psalmoi, hymnoi and odai—appear together. It seems reasonable to assume, then, that the Ephesians and Colossians would have understood that Paul was giving instruction concerning the full use of the Psalter in their praise.
That the Psalms are what Paul meant can be seen from the context of these texts. To blindly assume that “hymns” means what we think hymns are today is to miss the point.
Colossians 3:16 says, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” The Psalms, not modern “hymns” are the “word of Christ.” The Psalms are filled with “wisdom” and the glory and majesty of God. Some “hymns” are filled with nonsense and degrade the majesty of God. In the Psalms we “teach” one another because they are weighty and full of sound doctrine about God. In the Psalms we “admonish” one another. Many of the “hymns” are sentimental fluff, and either teach nothing substantial or teach error. Read through the Psalms. You can learn more about God in the Psalms, than in a million modern “hymns.”
Ephesians 5:18b-19 says, “be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” Since the Spirit authored the Psalms, the way to be filled with the Spirit and to worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24) is to sing His inspired songs with faith and joy. You can hardly be filled with the Spirit by singing songs written by mere men, many of whom were heretics and many of whose songs promote errors about God in the minds of believers.
(A very interesting article outlining some of the heresies and heretics found in many modern hymnbooks can be read here.)
For example, “O perfect Love, all human thought transcending” and “See! In yonder manger low” were written by Romanists, and “Nearer my God to thee” and “Mine eyes have seen the glory” were written by Unitarians, which the Apostle John calls “antichrists” (I John 2:22). Do we want (or does God command us) to sing songs penned by papists and antichrists, or the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs of the Holy Spirit? (Incidentally, the word “spiritual” describing the “songs” in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 means “of the Spirit.” Can modern “hymn-writers” claim that their songs are “of the Spirit?” Obviously not!)
What did Jesus sing? As a Jew, He sang the Psalms. In Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 we are told that Christ and His disciples sang “an hymn.” If we come to the passage and assume that “hymn” means what the modern world thinks a hymn is, we will grossly misunderstand the Bible. Jesus did not sing, “Guide me, O Thou Great Jehovah” or “Immortal, Invisible, God only wise” (written by a liberal, anti-sabbatarian minister) or some other “hymn” that we know today, nor did He and His disciples compose a “hymn” for the occasion. They sang the Psalms, as was the custom at the Passover. Similarly, when Paul and Silas “sang praises” in prison, they would have used the “book of praises,” which we call the Psalms (Acts 16:25). Paul, of course, would have known and memorised Psalms from childhood. He had no need to write new praises, the Psalms were (and are) sufficient.
Since we have seen there is no scriptural warrant to sing “hymns,” Christians ought to use the “hymn book” (the Psalter) which God has provided for the glory of His Name and the edification of His church. The songs of mere men simply will not do, no matter how “nice” they might be.
First of all, whether we “like” the Psalms or not is irrelevant. We have seen that God commands us to sing His Psalms. Remember that worship is not designed to make us “feel good” but is a way of showing our gratitude to God. Jesus says the way in which we show our love and devotion towards Him is by “keeping his commandments” (John 14:15, 21), and the Apostle John confirms this in his Epistle (I John 2:3-4; 3:24). If God commands us to sing Psalms, we must do so! Moreover, “his commandments are not grievous” (I John 5:3). If we find the Psalms boring, we ought to confess this as a sin before God, and ask God to “incline [our] heart unto [His] testimonies” (Ps. 119:36). We ought to lament before God our spiritual coldness that we prefer the “hymns” of sinful men to the God-breathed Psalms of the Holy Spirit. If we seek God in this way, He will show us that His Psalms are sweet like honey (Ps. 119:103) and precious like gold (Ps. 19:10). If we find the Psalms difficult to understand, we need to study them more, for they, like all Scripture, are profitable (II Tim. 3:16). How we need to dig deep into the Psalms! Then we can say, “I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil” (Ps. 119:162).
We have seen that the New Testament Christians in Ephesus and Colossae were enjoined to sing the Psalms. Also James exhorts us to sing them (James 5:13). God’s song book declares the glory of the unchangeable God, so the “God of Jacob” (Ps. 114:7; 146:5) is the God of the New Testament church. Jesus said that the Psalms spoke about Him (Luke 24:44). Indeed, Jesus died with the Psalms on His lips (Ps. 22:1). The Psalms speak of Christ, of His birth (Ps. 2:7; 22:10), His death (Ps. 22:14-18) and His resurrection (Ps. 16:10). I could easily continue. In short, one could hardly imagine a more Christ-filled book. The more one studies the Psalms, the more one finds Christ in them.
One of the reasons many think the Psalms unsuitable is that they think that the Old Testament people of God and the New Testament are separate bodies. Some people even believe that the Jews were saved by works in the Old Testament, and that Christians are saved by grace in the New! “What is the point of New Testament Christians singing about Jerusalem?” they ask. “Why all this talk about Zion, the cities of Judah, Israel and Jacob? What has that to do with us?” This thinking makes much of the Bible irrelevant. Israel is the Old Testament church! Acts 7:38 speaks of “the church in the wilderness” (at the time of Moses). The New Testament church and Israel together are the one body of Christ. Christ has one body, the church (OT and NT) and one Bride, the church (OT and NT). The Old Testament saints (David, Noah, Abraham [John 8:56] and all the rest) were saved the same way New Testament Christians are—through faith alone in Jesus Christ (Rom. 4) and by grace alone, by having their sins forgiven in the blood of Christ. New Testament Christians, although consisting largely of Gentiles, are real Jews (Rom. 2:28-29), the real circumcision (Phil. 3:3), truly Abraham’s seed (Gal. 3:29), citizens of heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26) and those who “have come to mount Zion” (Heb. 12:22). The carnal Jews of today are not true Jews, for “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). To the ungodly unbelieving Jews of his day, John the Baptist said, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matt. 3:9). Peter speaks of Christians as “lively stones” (I Peter 2:5). Amos 9:11-13 says that God will “raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen” and “bring again the captivity of my people of Israel”. On first glance, this would appear to refer to the literal Jews of Palestine, but the Apostle James refers this prophecy to the gathering of the Gentiles into the New Testament church (Acts 15:14-18). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of a national Israel. This gathering of the Gentiles into the church was no after-thought, for “known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” (v. 18).
When, therefore, we sing in the Psalms about Israel, Jacob, Jerusalem, mount Zion, the cities of Judah, the temple, etc., we are singing about the church. We are perfectly right to sing these in the New Testament and derive much profit by doing so.
Many churches which practice exclusive psalmody today use the Scottish Metrical Version (SMV). A few say that this version is not faithful and that those who use it and claim to practice exclusive psalmody are simply singing a poetic paraphrase of the Psalms. Even if that charge were true, that in itself would not disprove exclusive psalmody, and legitimise hymn-singing. If the people who bring up this red herring (and that is what it is) really were concerned about this, they would commission a new “more accurate” translation of the Psalter for use in the church. What do they do instead? They criticise those who use the SMV and continue to sing hymns!
However, the slander against the SMV is untrue. The Westminster Assembly decided to make a faithful metrical Psalter. The scholars who worked on the Psalter were painstaking. They went back to the original Hebrew and were more concerned about accuracy than whether it was pleasing to the eye or ear. (Thankfully, they produced something which is both accurate and pleasing to the ear.) The production of the SMV took years to complete: it was not a rushed job by any means. Leading Puritans wrote of it, “The translation that is now put into thy hands cometh nearest to the original of any that we have seen.” Robert Murray McCheyne declared, “It is truly an admirable translation from the Hebrew, and is frequently more correct than the prose version” (quoted in Malcolm H. Watts, God’s Hymnbook for the Christian Church [James Begg Society, 2003], p. 20; for further information on the SMV, read this article).
The person who makes such as objection is really clutching at straws. The title of Psalm 52 reads, “To the chief musician, Maschil, a psalm of David, when Doeg the Edomite came and told Saul and said unto him, David is come to the house of Ahimelech.” Obviously, we are not to sing that. That does not make the case for exclusive psalmody one whit weaker! The “hymn” “Mine eyes have seen the glory” has a title, “The Battle-Hymn of the Republic.” Nobody, in our experience, sings that title either!
God has not given us inspired tunes. Do those who make this argument really expect God to have inspired a section (perhaps at the end of the book of Psalms) with some sort of musical notation? God has given us inspired words and a command to sing them and singing requires tunes, of course! The regulative principle of worship specifies the principles of how to worship God. We are told to “assemble” on the Lord’s Day (Heb. 10:25) but we are not told at what time, or for how long or how often. We are told that there must be preaching, but we are not told if the sermon should be 45 minutes or an hour and a half (as was often the case with the Puritans) or if the text should be taken from Jeremiah or John or elsewhere in the Scriptures. The tunes to which we sing the Psalms are simply necessary means by which we fulfil the scriptural injunction to sing God’s Psalms.
We have seen that some of the applauded “hymn” writers taught errors or were heretics. Even the soundest of men are sinners, and liable to error (James 3:2). “Hymn” writers are definitely not inspired in the biblical sense. “Inspired” in the Bible means God-breathed (II Tim. 3:16). The penmen of the Scriptures were specially prepared and moved by the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:21) so that the very words used are the words of God. In this sense—verbal inspiration—the Psalms, as well as the whole Bible, are inspired. No hymn-writer can claim biblical inspiration. To claim otherwise is to attack the doctrine of Scripture.
If we take that attitude, we would have to disregard the whole Bible. Every human “author” of the Bible was a sinner. David committed adultery, Isaiah was a man of unclean lips (Isa. 6:5), Paul was the chief of sinners (I Tim. 1:15), and Peter denied Christ (Matt. 26:74), yet all these men were used of God to write parts of the Scriptures. Ultimately, the Author of the Bible, including the Psalms, is the Holy Spirit Himself (Acts 1:16). David, despite his grievous sins (of which we sing in Psalms 32 and 51), was “raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel” (II Sam. 23:1). David got his credentials to be the songwriter of the church from God Himself. Where did the much-vaunted modern “hymn-writers” get their credentials?
We answer with four initial considerations.
First, a great many modern “hymns” do not contain the name Jesus, especially those written by Unitarians.
Second, Christians and especially those who claim to be Presbyterian and Reformed ought rather to ask, Where are wecommanded to sing the word Jesus? For the regulative principle (which is included in the confessions of these churches) would demand a warrant for singing the word “Jesus” in our public worship.
Third, were the Reformed fathers wrong and was their praise deficient when they sang only the God breathed Psalms for centuries (which don’t include the word “Jesus”)?
Fourth, why does it have to be the name “Jesus?” What about the other names and titles given Him? The Psalms refer to our Lord as the “anointed” or the “Messiah” (Hebrew) or “Christ” as we transliterate the Greek equivalent. Thus we sing of “the LORD and his anointed” (Ps. 2:2) and we praise our Saviour by singing “thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness” (Ps. 45:7). The following are some of the other titles given to Christ in the Psalms: Son of God (Ps. 2:7), son of man (Ps. 8:1), shepherd (Ps. 23:1; 80:1), the priest after the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110:4), redeemer (Ps. 19:14), the stone which the builders rejected (Ps. 118:22) and judge of all the earth (Ps. 98:9). In the Psalms, Jesus is also called LORD, Lord, God, our rock, our stronghold, our high tower, our fortress, our strength, the horn of our salvation, our buckler, etc.
Most importantly, the question rests upon a misunderstanding of the biblical idea of “name.” “Name” as used of God (and the Three Persons of the Godhead) means not merely the combination of vowels and consonants vocalised or written. RatherGod’s name is God revealed. And what does the “name” “Jesus” mean? “Jesus” is a transliteration of the Greek equivalent for Joshua, which means “Jehovah salvation.” Thus the angel instructs Joseph, “thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shallsave his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). Though the word “Jesus” is not found in the Psalms, the name “Jesus” most certainly is. In fact, the Psalms are full of the name of Jesus, Jehovah salvation. “Salvation belongeth unto the LORD” (Ps. 3:8), “the salvation of Israel” (Ps. 14:7), “we will rejoice in thy salvation and in the name of our God” (Ps. 20:5), “O Lord my salvation” (Ps. 38:22) and “the salvation of God” (Ps. 50:23) are but a few examples. When old Simeon in the temple said, “Mine eyes have seen thy salvation” (Luke 2:30) he spoke of seeing Jesus, whom he termed “thy salvation.”
We can turn this criticism on its head. In many “hymns” the word “Jesus” is found, but the name “Jesus” is corrupted or denied by Arminian authors teaching universal, ineffectual atonement depending on the (alleged) free will of the sinner. Then, contrary to the name Jesus (“Jehovah salvation”) and the Psalms (“Salvation belongeth unto the LORD” [Ps. 3:8]), the people are singing about “another Jesus” and “another gospel” (II Cor. 11:4)—the gospel that depends not on Jesus (Jehovah salvation) alone but on Jehovah and the (alleged) free will of the sinner.
It is therefore ludicrous to suggest, as some have, that to forbid the singing of uninspired human compositions in the church’s Lord’s Day services, is similar to the ungodly priests and Sadducees, who commanded the apostles “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:18). We preach Christ crucified, we pray in Jesus’ name and we teach and admonish one another with the Psalms—as God commands us.
——END——
