If, in the opinion of those who prefer exclusive Psalmody, it is important that the only elements in the worship of God within the Christian Church are those required by God, then certain things follow of logical necessity. First, we must use only the inspired words of the Psalms in the worship of God, then it follows, to be consistent, that the only tunes to be used are those used by the ancients in OT and NT times. This is not done, of course, in exclusive Psalmody churches. Rather than Hebrew tunes, they prefer Scottish and American and a few Huguenot tunes and melodies.
How can the inspired words of the OT be sung using uninspired tunes, indeed, modern tunes, hymn tunes. For consistency, both only the inspired words together with the inspired tunes must be used in the worship of God.
This seems rather strange when churches use uninspired human compositions to sing the inspired songs of Zion in the worship of God. Did God sanction the tunes to be use when worship Him publicly, and if so when did He do so? Are we to understand that with the words the tunes were inspired at the same time, and therefore sanctioned for use by the church?
Members of exclusive Psalmody churches have pointed out to me that since it is wrong, in their view, to use hymns in praise of God, it must also be wrong to quote the words of hymns in sermons; but it isn't. If all that goes on within a service of worship has to be biblical in every respect, what is the difference between sing a hymn and quoting one? As a quotation, it is still the uninspired words of men that are being used.
Any suggestions as to an answer?
No comments:
Post a Comment