The Hymnal is the second Bible of Christianity

[Former Christian]

The hymnal is the second Bible. In Catholic and most Protestant pews, there are holders on the back of the seats that hold two books. In the Catholic Church, there is the book that includes the basics of the Mass for a three month period. It includes the Bible readings for every day for that period. The other book is a hymnal. In the Protestant Churches, there are two books, the Bible and the hymnal. Note the similarity. The Bible readings/Bible and the hymnal. This is what people coming into a modern Church of Christianity for the first time sees.

Among some Presbyterians, this is referred to as Exclusive Psalmody. That places the emphasis on the Biblical nature of the Psalms, and thus the Divine nature of the Psalms. I come at it from a different direction, with a different emphasis. The human nature of the Hymnal, a collection of writings that are considered a true expression of New Covenant belief in Musical form. For all practical purposes, the hymnal is just as valid as an expression of Divine revelation as the Bible itself. But it isn’t the Bible itself. Any more than a Creed or other denominational doctrinal standard is the Bible itself. To the Catholics, everything formulated and collected under the authority of the Church is as much a part of Divine revelation as is the Bible. And by Protestant Churches having a hymnal considered in all practicality to be Divine revelation by considering it to be a valid expression of New Covenant revelation, shows that the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is to be found primarily in the Protestant refusal to be put under the authority of the Pope of Rome. And I’m not a Catholic. It’s just an observation of one who sees the obvious incongruities in Christianity. In this case, particularly in Protestantism.

FC

 

[handy]

I have to admit that I think I get the gist of what you're saying here...and if I'm understanding you...I disagree.

Having been a part of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, I'm quite familiar with the Psalter, and although the particular church I went to didn't practice "Exclusive Psalmody" I know of some which do, including the one my folks went to in Boise.

Exclusive Psalmody isn't exactly what you're saying it is...exclusive Psalmody is the view that the Psalms are the only proper songs to use in worship...the view being (and this is directly quoted from people I know personally) "God gave us His song book. Who are we to add to His song book?" The Psalter then is simply the translation of the Book of Psalms into English and set to meter.

The OPC I went to didn't practice exclusive Psalmody, however all songs sung were examined by the elders or synod to make sure that each song held good theology. One would be surprised at what didn't pass examination. For instance, "O Holy Night" was never sung at our church because of the line, "O Night Divine...." Only God is divine, not a night.

Amongst the Reformers and Presbyterians that practice exclusive Psalmody their view that the Psalms (the ones in the Book of Psalms in the Bible) are indeed Divine in nature is a valid viewpoint, because the Psalter is simply a translation of the Psalms into English meter. I don't have my old Psalter anymore...must have left it at mom's. But, if I had it here I could quote the Psalter songs and the Psalms upon which they are based and I think everyone would agree that the words are pretty much identical, just somewhat more poetically arranged and set to music.

However, except for the few churches that I've been in that practice exclusive Psalmody, I know of no other Protestant churches that hold that the hymns they sing are on par with the Scriptures...except for those which are directly lifted from Scripture itself such as the Psalms in the Psalter are.

For instance, when we sing (as we do every Sunday prior to communion in my Missouri Lutheran church)

Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from Thy presence,
and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation;
and uphold me with Thy free Spirit.

...we are indeed singing Divine revelation because this is simply Psalm 51:10-12 in the KJV:

Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

But, when we sing other hymns...such as one of my favorites, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty"...no one that I know of thinks we are singing Divine revelation...just a song inspired by the truth of the Scriptures.

 

[Dennyh]

I see your point and partially agree with you. However, I don't agree with you lumping all Protestants together. I am Protestant as well as every church I have ever been a member of and NONE of them have regarded the hymnal as Divine. Actually two of the three I have been a member of didn't even have hymnals.

I have made the comment myself from the pulpit that some people believe God wrote two books; the Holy Bible and the Broadman hymnal. It is usually said in a joking fashion but the point remains.

As long as people have free will there will be differences in how they worship God.

 

[Former Christian]

Handy

I’ve never had anyone agree with me on this issue. So you can imagine my surprise that you actually responded, even if only to voice a different view. I already mentioned this matter twice with no response. So I thought I’d just put it out there on a thread of its own. Might at least get someone to thinking.

I attended two different Presbyterian Churches and never even heard of exclusive Psalmody. The only reason I know about it is because of an article written on the internet that was in favor of it. Actually, for a return to it. From what he wrote, it was similar, but not really the same as what I’m saying. He really didn’t come out against hymnals. Just that he thought the Psalms were better. I get the impression, from my experience and your experience, that exclusive Psalmody is a very minority opinion in Presbyterianism today. And the branch of Presbyterianism that you attended, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is among the most conservative in Presbyterianism.

Since I’m neither Catholic nor Protestant, I tend to look at things including both.

Catholicism believes that the hymnal is as Divine as the Bible because they don’t hold to the Bible alone idea. They believe the Church is the final authority, and everything authorized by the Church is authorized by God. Everything that the Church authorizes is as Divine in source as the Bible. Thus the use of the hymnal is a non-issue to them.

The Protestants claim Bible alone as the only written document that is Divine in source, a few claim Divine by its very nature. So when I mention Protestantism, I have to add “in practicalityâ€. Protestants can’t outright admit that they use a non-Biblical hymnal as if it were Biblical without also denying the idea of Bible alone. The use of the hymnal is a non-issue to Catholics. And its the same to Protestants. And the reasons you mentioned are included. It’s kind of the idea that so long as the sentiments are right, there’s nothing wrong with using a hymnal. And as you said, some hymns are directly based on a portion of Scripture.

My favorite Protestant hymn is “in the Gardenâ€. It coincides with my personal experience. No doubt, one could take the hymn apart and show Biblical verses that back up the words. It’s a bit mystical in tone. In that it actually takes into consideration the experience of the supernatural. Generally, Protestants have a negative view of mysticism because it’s considered something of the occult. But there’s a long history of Christian Mysticism in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It’s still strong in Orthodoxy, but it’s dying out in Catholicism as it goes in two different directions. Toward Protestantism and toward the non-Christian religions.

But the point is, it isn’t a Biblical hymn no matter how many verses appear to back up the sentiment. If one is a Catholic, this is irrelevant if the hymn is authorized. But it should be relevant in Protestantism. Yet it isn’t relevant there either. Which led me to the conclusion I stated. The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism isn’t as pronounced as it’s often made out to be. Only some of the doctrines are different.

I could say the same about another favorite of just about everyone in the West, including Catholics, “Amazing Graceâ€. And who can forget “Blessed Assurance†and “To God be the Gloryâ€? But are they Divine in source as are the Psalms? Beautiful and inspiring, yes. Divine, no.

I see you went back to the roots of Protestantism. You said you currently attend the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. One of the last of the conservative Lutheran Churches. If you live long enough, you may even return to Rome. Or to Orthodoxy, as did the Lutheran historian Jaraslav Pelikan. Since Vatican II, the Catholic and Lutheran Liturgies are almost identical. Though I can’t remember. Are there long Scripture readings in the Lutheran Liturgy? There are three in the Catholic Mass. One from the Old Testament, one from the New Testament other than the Gospels, and one from the Gospels. All thematically selected. It’s been so long since I attended a Lutheran Church, I can’t remember. The only thing that stuck in my mind is that I couldn’t participate in the Eucharist unless I was a Lutheran. Surprisingly, the same in the liberal version. In that regard, just as denominational in their thinking as is the Catholic Church.

The only point that I make is that the hymnal isn’t the Bible. Yet the hymns are sung in Worship Services as if it is. It’s true that the Bible could be said to be out of the experiences of men guided by the Holy Spirit. And that they emphasize the New Covenant relationship. But if there’s no practical difference, then the hymnal is actually as Divine as the Bible. In sentiment and in use.

There is, of course, the question of whether the Psalms have any relevance to those who are in Christ, being as they were originally intended for Jews who lived under the Law and had a practical Liturgy that included the Temple. Oh, there’s some mention of the Messiah to come. But for the rest, it’s a Jewish hymnal, that the Jews continue to use today. The constant mention of the Law and Temple Worship reveals that.

But I disagree wholeheartedly with that idea. Having read through the Psalms even more than the New Testament, I find it extremely practical to ones everyday life. And not just to my life alone. But to anyone who might read it no matter what stage of life they may be in. I have a couple of non-Christian friends who read the Psalms because they find them inspiring. Further, the Psalms are very Worshipful in tone. More so than the hymnal. And since the Psalms are in the Bible itself, there can be no danger of denominational thinking as there is in the hymnal. And as far as being related to the New Covenant, I never thought they weren’t until someone said that they were intended for the Jews alone.

And having considered it, I can’t agree with that viewpoint. They were written to Israel. And today, those who are in Christ are Israel. I don’t hold to the idea that the modern state of Israel is connected to the Israel spoken of in the Old Testament. Not a common belief today.

I not much for quoting Scripture because everyone understands the Bible differently. Though I do so sporadically. And just the other day I responded to one individual using nothing but Scripture. Peter said,

1 Peter 1:
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

And Jesus obviously thought the whole Old Testament revealed his person and mission on the earth. You are familiar with the account of Emmaus in Luke 24:13-32. And Paul quoted the Old Testament constantly, being a man educated in those Scriptures.

To put it concisely, I believe the Bible is the written word of God. Including the Psalms contained therein. And I believe the hymnal is the written word of men. I believe that the Psalms should be the songs sung to God in Worship to God in the gatherings of those who are in Christ. Not the hymnal. Many of the hymns are good songs, often good poetry, and inspiring. But they should not be sung in the Worship to God. They are what they are in the wrong direction. The Psalms are from God to man. They are comprehensive of the condition of man, both in Adam and in Christ. They teach the mind of God to man. They show how we are to be transformed by the renewing of our mind through the Holy Spirit. The hymns are from man to God. They are meditations of personal experiences. They are only that comprehensive. Using the hymnal is a limitation. Using the Psalms has no limitation other than the individual ability to understand or experience them.

And I think the same thing of the new music coming out of modern Christian music. The sentiments of “Another Hallelujah†is quite good. But it still isn’t Divine in source. It’s evident by it’s wording that it’s out of the mind and experiences of an individual. Often good, but not Divine. No more than hymns written by the great hymnist Charles Wesley or by as great a hymnist Fanny Crosby are Divine.

Using a hymnal given by man for the purpose of musical Worship, instead of the Psalms given by God for the purpose of musical worship, shows that the hymnal, to those who use it as if it were the Psalms, is the second Bible.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Dennyh

“I don't agree with you lumping all Protestants together.â€

Protestantism is very diverse. Sometimes a generality has to be used because it would take too long to be specific. I too have been in a few Protestant Churches where there were no hymnals. They used a print out instead having the words specific to that Service. The Churches of Christ use that method generally. And some Baptists. Amounts to the same thing if they are using something other than the Psalms. And I’m for using the Psalms in worship, rather than the hymnal or a derivative thereof.

The idea of Bible alone is a Protestant idea. It’s about the only idea that most Protestants have in common. And using the hymnal as a second Bible pretty much nullifies the Bible alone idea. I’m surprised the Catholics haven’t used that argument. While Protestants would never acknowledge that the hymnal is a second Bible, the fact remains that it is in practicality used as such.

“I have made the comment myself from the pulpit that some people believe God wrote two books; the Holy Bible and the Broadman hymnal. It is usually said in a joking fashion but the point remains.â€

And that’s my point precisely. The Broadman hymnal, isn’t that a Baptist hymnal. It sound familiar to me for some reason.

“As long as people have free will there will be differences in how they worship God.â€

I understand what you mean. But I hesitate to use that as an excuse for the use of hymnals as a second Bible.

FC

 

[handy]

Former Christian,

So I take it that you do believe in exclusive Psalmody? That only the book of Psalms should be used in worship?

If so, I disagree with you based upon Ephesians 5:18-19 "but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord"

If the psalms were the only appropriate songs for worship, the Holy Spirit would instruct to "speak" to one another with spiritual songs and hymns as well as the psalms.

Again, I don't believe, with the exception of the Psalter, which essentially is the Bible, that the hymnal constitutes a "second Bible" or is given the status of the bible in any church. I've never been in a church that describes it as such. You seem to be making this argument based upon the fact that a hymnal is used during divine worship...but just because a hymnal (or even prayerbook) is used in Divine worship doesn't mean that they are considered as being a "second Bible".

In regards to your question regarding the Lutheran service...yes, we read an Old Testament passage, a passage from an Epistle and a passage from a Gospel in each service and the three are tied together in a theme. As for the closed communion...yes, our communion is closed, but for a different reason than that of the Catholic church.

Also a note on "In the Garden"...this would be another of the hymns that didn't make the cut for the OPC hymnal nor is it in the Lutheran Hymnal. I don't know the specific reason for the Lutheran Hymnal, except that all the songs in it reflect the Lutheran perspective on doctrine (I'm rather new to the LCMS and don't know it's history all that well)...but I do know that it was not included in the Presbyterian hymnal because of the unbiblical nature of the song, the idea that God would bid us to go out into the night, away from Him.



I must admit I'm curious to why, given your user name and stated status as a non-Christian...why is this even an issue to you?

 

[Former Christian]

Handy

“So I take it that you do believe in exclusive Psalmody? That only the book of Psalms should be used in worship?â€

Yes. If one is in an individual situation with a few friends, it’s not important. Secular songs could be sung if that’s what’s desired. But we’re talking about what is claimed to be a Worship Service of the Body of Christ. A Worship that can only led by Jesus Christ, the head of the Body of Christ. If it’s OK to sing a Buddhist hymn (yes, they have them, and some are quite beautiful, even inspiring) in such a Worship Service, than I would have to agree that it’s OK to sing any song that isn’t from the Psalms.


“If so, I disagree with you based upon Ephesians 5:18-19 "but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord"
If the psalms were the only appropriate songs for worship, the Holy Spirit would instruct to "speak" to one another with spiritual songs and hymns as well as the psalms.â€

First, take into consideration that it says “speakingâ€, not singing. The other such mention (Col 3:16) uses “teaching and admonishingâ€. This couldn’t by any stretch of the imagination be referring to the Worship of the Body of Christ. Maybe a Bible study type service, but not a Worship Service.

Second, take into consideration that the Jews of that era only sung Psalms in Worship, Synagogues included. The Jews still do so today. There really is no reason to believe that Paul, a former Pharisee, would suddenly start composing hymns. Though there are those who understand some things that Paul said to be non-Biblical hymns or from non-Biblical hymns. Something I disagree with.

Third, take into consideration that a good case could be made that Psalms, hymns, and Spiritual songs are referring to the same thing. They are the Psalms (sung to a stringed instrument) of Worship. They are the hymns (comes from a word that means adoration) of Worship. They are the “Spiritual†songs (and I emphasize “Spiritualâ€) of Worship. Unless you want to equate the hymnal to the Psalms of the Bible and thus agree that the hymnal is on a level that is equal to the Bible (a second Bible), you must at least see that there is a difference between Spiritual songs of the Bible and the hymns of the hymnal. Personally, I believe that all three are referring to the Biblical Psalms. It would be natural to speak, teach, and admonish using the part of the Old Testament that they knew better than any other part, the Psalms. They sang them whenever they met together to Worship God. Much easier than trying to remember the rest of the Old Testament that was read in such services.

As I said, this is a non-issue in Catholicism. They believe that the hymns are just as Spiritual as the Psalms of the Bible. They believe that every doctrine and every practice that the Church authorizes, including their hymnal, is Spiritual to no less an extent than the Bible itself.

But one thing I agree with the Protestants about. The Bible alone is Spiritual, the only written word that is the written word of God. And the Psalms, but not the hymns, are a part of that written word of God. Do you think that just because we walk by the Spirit that we can write Spiritual songs that are on the same level as the Bible? Unless you’re a headin for Orthodoxy or Catholicism, or maybe some Pentecostal-like Protestant denomination that thinks more of itself than it should, I know you do not.


“I've never been in a church that describes it as such.â€

And you never will. At least not in a Protestant Church. To do so would nullify the chief doctrine of Protestantism. Sola Scriptura.


“As for the closed communion...yes, our communion is closed, but for a different reason than that of the Catholic church.â€

How is it different? Incidentally, while we’re here, what was it that led you to become a Lutheran?


“Also a note on "In the Garden"...this would be another of the hymns that didn't make the cut for the OPC hymnal nor is it in the Lutheran Hymnal. I don't know the specific reason for the Lutheran Hymnal, except that all the songs in it reflect the Lutheran perspective on doctrine (I'm rather new to the LCMS and don't know it's history all that well)â€

The denominational nature of hymnals, “all the songs in it reflect the Lutheran perspective on doctrineâ€, is one of my points against their use. There’s nothing denominational about the Psalms.


“but I do know that it was not included in the Presbyterian hymnal because of the unbiblical nature of the song, the idea that God would bid us to go out into the night, away from Him.â€

Glad I was a Baptist.

I see you don’t know the background of the hymn. Here is what the author, Charles Miles said about it,

"I read the story of the greatest morn in history. The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet very dark, unto the sepulcher. Instantly, completely, there unfolded in my mind the scenes of the garden, where out of the mists comes a form, halting, hesitating, tearful, seeking, turning from side to side in bewildering amazement.
"Falteringly, bearing grief in every accent, with tear-dimmed eyes, she whispers, 'If Thou has borne Him hence.'

"He speaks, and the sound of His voice is so sweet the birds hush their singing. He said to her "Mary!"

"Just one word and forgotten are the heartaches, the long dreary hours, all the past blotted out in His presence."

Think about it. One word from Jesus Christ and everything changes.

It has always been a metaphor for prayer to me. To our touching the supernatural through our calling on the name of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 1â€1-2). And where does Jesus lead us? “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be they nameâ€.


“I must admit I'm curious to why, given your user name and stated status as a non-Christian...why is this even an issue to you?â€

I can’t handle a whole lot of incongruity. And the use of the hymnal in Worship, instead of the Psalms, is an incongruity to me. Especially among those who claim to believe that the Bible alone is the only authority, that the Bible alone is the written word of God.

It may interest you to know that in Catholicism there is a primary prayer form. It was called the Divine Office. After Vatican II they called it the Liturgy of the Hours. Every Priest is expected to keep up with this prayer form. Though many don’t. In the Monasteries that emphasize prayer, and even some that don’t, center their day around this prayer form. It is said that it is a prayer form begun in Judaism before the first century. And there is good reason to believe this. Do you know what is the center of this prayer form? You guessed it. The Psalms. A practice among Christians from the beginning. Still practiced today in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Remarkable isn’t it? And yet there is still need for hymns? Sounds like a human need for something new to me. The Psalms weren’t enough. So hymns were written to fill in an apparent gap. The practice of the Divine Office is almost non-existent among the Protestants. Unless your lucky enough to be an Anglican or a Lutheran. And then if you’re also lucky enough to be in a Church of one of those denominations where the Pastor knows what you’re talking about. Check it out. Maybe you’ll be lucky enough.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
(KJV)

How is that even possible if Christians are so determined to be denominational, to use denominational hymnals instead of the true “hymnal†that God has graciously provided in the Bible, the Psalms? And this is only one denominational practice.


I still believe in the Bible. Just not in Christianity. If I become a full-fledged Atheist because I can no longer believe in the Bible either, it will no longer be an issue. And you’ll never hear from me again. But until then, I’m here to bug you and anyone else who cares to even give it some thought. Simply because it’s one of the incongruities that led me to become a

Former Christian