The Sufficiency of the Biblical Canon

Implicit throughout the argument presented by the majority report (1947) of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's Committee on Song in the Public Worship of God is the notion that the use of uninspired texts which carry a biblical message can be preferable to the use of many inspired texts, in one of the very functions of worship for which God provided the inspired texts. This overlooks the transcendent qualities of truth, authority and wisdom which are unrivaled in an inspired text. We recall the effort by Poythress to minimize the distinction between Scripture and commentary, which is a natural corollary of the argument favoring uninspired hymnody above texts given by inspiration of God for use as worship song.(149) James Bannerman (1807-68) put the matter in perspective when writing against the nineteenth-century downgrade of biblical inspiration: "The divine fulness of thought and truth found in Scripture distinguishes it in a marked manner from other books. I refer to those truths which are contained in Scripture, implicitly rather than by express or formal assertion, and which are found underlying the words rather than exhibited on the surface of them. There are divine ideas and truths underlying the surface of Scripture language, and really contained in its statements, which are not expressly or directly stated; but which are a part of the mind of God as much as any that are formally and articulately uttered. Scripture inferences, rightly drawn from Scripture, are as much a part of revelation as its express letter. What is contained in the Word of God under the form of implied truth, is, no less than the words themselves, a fruit of inspired wisdom. Nothing else could be expected when the mind of the Infinite Intelligence was embodied in human language. Beneath and within the letter of such a revelation, there is a length and breadth, and height and depth of divine wisdom inexhaustible, looking out upon us from its words with a fulness which the words cannot contain. Far under the surface of its language there is a well of truth springing up unto everlasting life; and it needs but that we should draw from its depths, to learn that it is divine and unfathomable."(150)

Hugh Martin (1822-85) followed Calvin and Owen in reflecting upon the incomparable relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Scriptures he authored, so that they are faithful to his mind and accompanied by his omnipotent efficacy as no other writings could be. "For the Spirit enters into his own Word. He expresses himself by means of it. He can do so without compromise of his own mind, or constraint upon his own thoughts or feelings, because it is his own Word. It expresses what the Spirit of Christ doth 'signify' (I Pet. 1:11). It does full justice to his meaning. He will not disown it, therefore. And it will not dishonour him. He and his own utterances - the Spirit and the Word - are wholly consentient. Their living coalescence, therefore, is possible. And it is guaranteed. Their divulsion is, in fact, inconceivable. And the Word is thus quick and powerful by the Spirit. The Spirit is intelligible by the Word."(151)

However, the case for the church confining its worship song to the text of Scripture is not based simply on the superior qualities of an inspired text, but on the sufficiency of Scripture for the purposes for which the Lord has given the canonical text. The Lord has appointed the ordinance of worship song for the church of the Old and New Testaments, and in the canon of Scripture has supplied us with a collected book of worship song; thus one of the functions which the Lord intends Scripture to fulfill is to act as a text for worship song. The Bible does not represent prayer or preaching as the recitation of a set text, but there is a striking contrast with respect to song texts, which the people were taught to recite so that they would have the Lord's own witness in their mouths (Deut. 31:19-22). Texts were given for repeated use in the temple (I Chron. 16:4-43, II Chron. 29:27-30, and fifty-five Psalms bearing the caption "To the chief musician"), culminating in the Book of Psalms as a textual collection which enjoys canonical authority. Where then is the sufficiency of Scripture for religious practice, when it is argued that the Bible's song texts may be supplemented from outside the canon, to supply a religious function for which the canon itself undeniably intends to make provision?

John Murray's minority report for the OPC committee set forth this sufficiency of Scripture with respect to canonical psalmody: "But the Scripture does prescribe for us the way in which we are to worship God in the conditions that are permanent in the church. We are to restrict ourselves to those inspired materials made available to us by the Scripture itself."(152) The majority report contends that while Scripture prescribes an orthodox message for worship song, it does not require that the text of worship song possess the quality of divine inspiration.(153) However, the normative status of the biblical canon means more than that we must submit to the message of Scripture. It is also a matter of the unique propriety of the biblical text itself for those acts of worship for which the Lord has patently provided a text for recitation.

The canon has a twofold function with respect to worship ordinances. Not only does the canon serve as an authoritative rule of what practice is permitted in worship, but it also supplies the text to be recited in certain specified acts of worship. From the first existence of the Mosaic legislation, that body of writing was to be read to the people as a part of worship. The words of the covenant were given not only to institute acceptable worship actions, but also to serve as the text to be read in worship (Exod. 24:3-8, Deut. 31:9-13 and 19-22, II Kings 23:1-3, II Chron. 34:29-32, Neh. 8:1-8, 8:18-9:3, 13:1-3, Luke 4:16-20, Col. 4:16, I Thess. 5:27).(154) Meredith Kline appropriately notes that the text of the Psalter provided Israel's worship with the vehicle for confessing the Lord's acts of covenant faithfulness, "responses suitable for recitation in ceremonies of covenant reaffirmation where those acts were memorialized (cf. Deut. 26:1ff.; Josh. 24:16-18)."(155)

Some may say that the regulative principle should be brought to bear upon novelties which outrage the church's sensibilities, but that the regulative principle is strained when it operates to restrict worship song to a canonical text. However, closer consideration shows the intrinsic relevance of the regulative principle to this issue. A select and sufficient canon is the indispensable presupposition for the operation of the regulative principle. The limitations enunciated in the regulative principle are dependent upon the restriction inherent in an authoritative canon; there is a like confinement, reflecting the sufficiency and perfection of Holy Scripture. The regulative principle excludes worship forms not prescribed in Scripture, and this function is grounded in turn upon the normative character of the select books in the biblical canon.

Moreover, the specific exegetical warrant for the regulative principle is closely bound up with the Bible's declarations respecting the canon. In the writings of Moses, the ten commandments are announced as a canon to which nothing may be added by men (Deut. 5:22). The completion of the Mosaic legislation is a further step in the canon (Deut. 4:2): "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." The Mosaic legislation specifically ties the worship of God to the concept of a select canon; in Deut. 12:28-13:5, instruction about worship is undergirded by a warning against false prophets who add a word not from God. Here we may observe the regulative principle of worship taking its rise from the unique authority of the biblical canon: "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. If there arise among you a prophet saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams."(156)

Given that the Lord has instituted worship song as a permanent ordinance for his church, the inclusion of the Book of Psalms in the canon of Scripture demonstrates that the provision of a text for this ordinance is a divinely intended function of the canon. Advocates of uninspired hymns need to consider anew the restrictions which are inherent in a canonical collection, with respect to the functions for which the collection was provided. To dismiss such considerations will bear directly upon our view of Scripture as uniquely normative for religious practice, which is what the regulative principle is all about. What must be pondered is the makeup of the canon, the divine authority behind that content and arrangement, and the prescriptive significance which the canon's makeup has for worship. The canon's one collected book of worship song is found in the Old Testament; no new psalter was provided in the New Testament portion of the canon. Because the canon has normative authority for the church, the Old Testament Psalter is the appropriate text for worship song. Respect for the composition of the canon will entail learning from Scripture what benefits are to be expected from worship song, and surrendering notions unwarranted in Scripture concerning the purpose of song in the church's worship.

The majority report recognizes that God has given the Book of Psalms for use in the church's worship song, but avers that the canon makes only a partial provision. Moreover, the majority report presumes that the church is free to supply the supposed deficiency by producing a subsidiary collection to accompany the canonical materials.(157) Instead of deferring to the normative status of the canon, the use of the canonical text itself is curtailed, to make way for the introduction of other materials. This is a violation of the concept of a select canon, such as occurs when non-canonical materials are introduced as substitutes for the public reading of the Word of God in the church. In this connection, we may note James Bannerman's observation with respect to a non-canonical text appointed for use in worship: "And in the catalogue of human inventions introduced into the worship of the sanctuary in the Church of England, certainly not the least, or the least offensive, is the appointment of Apocryphal books to be read occasionally as part of the ordinary service, 'for example of life and instruction of manner.' Although she does not ascribe to these spurious writings the character of inspired Scripture, as Popery does, the Church of England cannot be considered without serious blame in introducing them into the public worship of God as an occasional part of her services. It is an exercise of power, in regard to public worship, that very greatly offends against the authority of the Word of God as the sole rule of worship, to the exclusion of anything not expressly warranted by itself, and more especially to the exclusion from the service of the sanctuary of writings that pretend to the same authority with itself."(158)

In a recent discussion of psalmody, Stephen Pribble, a minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, claims that while the Bible authorizes the practice of worship song, it does not indicate any particular text to be used in worship song.(159) His argument is designed to deny a specific divine appointment, because where there is a specific appointment of worship elements or religiously-significant circumstances, the biblical regulative principle would exclude additions. This objection not only fails to appreciate that the biblical narrative specifically declares that the Psalms composed by David and the seers are for use in worship song,(160) but it also overlooks the canonicity of the Book of Psalms. The very inclusion of the Psalter in the canon constitutes a divine prescription for its use in the church's worship song. It is passing strange to assert that the Lord has not indicated any particular text for use in worship song, when the Lord has given the church, in the canon of inspired Scripture, a collected book of one hundred fifty worship songs. Such assertions question whether the contents of the biblical canon are a reliable indication of what God intends to be used in the church's worship; one might as well argue that the composition of the canon provides no specific indication that the sixty-six books in the canon are those to be used when the Word of God is read in the church's worship.

The biblical testimony is that worship song is a divine ordinance, that the text of worship song is a divine provision through inspired prophets, that the Lord has deposited such a text in the canon of Scripture, and that the canon is sufficient for the religious functions for which it was given. Already in 1904, Louis F. Benson, the Presbyterian historian of hymnody, used the expression 'exclusive psalm-singing' to designate the practice of a principled exclusion of uninspired songs from the church's worship song.(161) A more descriptive expression, because it refers to the principle behind the practice, is 'canonical psalmody.' An advantage in the use of this term is that it immediately indicates the fundamental question at issue.

Notes
(149) Poythress, "Ezra 3," p. 227; cf. p. 221.
(150) Bannerman, Inspiration, pp. 582-83.
(151) Hugh Martin, Christ's Presence in the Gospel History, second edition (Edinburgh: John Maclaren, 1865), p. 138.
(152) Murray, "Minority Report," p. 65.
(153) "Report of the Committee on Song," p. 58.
(154) On the reading of canonical literature in worship during the Old Testament period, cf. Beckwith, Old Testament Canon, pp. 64-65, 83.
(155) Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, revised ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), p. 63.
(156) This connection between the regulative principle and the canonical principle was observed by Samuel Rutherfurd, who declared that the invention of worship forms which go beyond biblical example and injunction is tantamount to enlarging the canonical text of Scripture. Rutherfurd, Divine Right of Church Government, pp. 98-99: "All additions to God's Word are unlawful, Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18, John 20:31, Luke 16:29-30, II Tim. 3:17, Psalm 19:7-8. But human rites are additions to God's Word. It is God's prerogative to add canonical Scripture to the five books of Moses, and [to add] the New Testament and the doctrine of the sacraments which cannot be syllogistically deduced out of the Old Testament, Matt. 28:19-20, John 21:31, Heb. 3:2, Rev. 1:19, and these are perfecting and explaining additions. Therefore men may by as good reason add canonical Scripture to the [Book of] Revelation, as add new positive doctrines like this, 'The holy surplice is a sacred sign of pastoral holiness,' 'Crossing is a sign of dedicating the child to Christ's service'."
(157) "Report of the Committee on Song," p. 58.
(158) Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868), 1:369.
(159) Stephen Pribble, "The Regulative Principle and Singing in Worship," The Presbyterian Advocate 3, nos. 9-10 (November-December 1993): 25-26, 29.
(160) The section of the majority report dealing with the Old Testament material, apparently written by Edward J. Young, acknowledges that the biblical narrative identifies specific song texts used in worship, but Young does not consider the implications of this biblical specificity for the operation of the regulative principle. "Report of the Committee on Song," p. 53: "We know definitely from I Chronicles 16 that the content of some of our present psalms was used in worship. It is obvious from other psalms that they were intended for use in the public worship of God; see Pss. 95:2, 27:6, and 100:4. Another reference which clearly gives an indication as to the content of song is II Chron. 29:30, where Hezekiah expressly commanded the use of the words of David and Asaph the seer for a certain occasion of worship."
(161) Louis F. Benson, "President Davies As A Hymn Writer," Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society 2 (1904): 281: "He belongs to that generation of American Presbyterians who began the movement of revolt against the established ordinance of exclusive psalm-singing, who first tested and then welcomed the Imitations of Dr. Watts and, later, his Hymns."

Go to the next installment:
XIII. Singing of Psalms: The Only Songs Worthy of God