Exactly. I’m not sure how to get around the pretty clear command to sing a new song. I know that some folk argue that “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” are synonymous, but that interpretation seems forced to me.

On the subject of continued prophecy, I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re making between the “inspired” Word of God and “inspired” individuals today. Are you using two different definitions of inspired? If not, then why not re-open the canon? After all, if a song-writer is inspired to the exact same degree as David was when he wrote a psalm, it seem downright foolish to me NOT to add his inspired song to the canon. If there is no difference whatsoever between this modern song and a Psalm of David, upon what basis would you exclude the former from the canon?

I agree, which is why I think the only defensible version of this position is that we can sing ANY inspired lyrics, including the new testament hymns. And since those are now inspired because they were included in the canon, they can’t really be used as counter-examples.

I do think you’re on the right track, though. After all, could those hymns not be sung in church until Paul quoted them in his letters? That seems odd. Though I know that some argue that Paul himself might have written the Phillippians 2 hymn, so this is still not a clear-cut issue. But I hear about it a lot at school so I’m very interested in it. If u have time u should get “Recovering the Reformed Confession” by R. Scott Clark and read chapter 7 on worship.

Exclusive psalmnody in the Regulative Principle of Worship is interesting to me because the New Testament contains 1st Century hymns presumably used by the early church and quoted approvingly by the inspired writers (e.g., the Carmen Christi of Philippians 2, 1 Timothy 3:16, 6:15-16, 2 Timothy 2:11-13). Why would the apostle quote hymns used by the early Christian congregations if the RPW’s exclusive psalmnody were a biblical doctrine? Not only does there seem to be no evidence for this doctrine in the New Testament, but these quotations seem to be evidence to the contrary.

Calvin and those who advocate this view would say that the Pastor/Elder holds a divinely instituted office and that preaching is explicitly prescribed for worship in the New Testament. So it would be in a different category than congregational singing and the use of instruments.

I would definitely not say that any modern songwriter is “inspired” to the same degree as any Biblical author. If that were true, then we should add those modern songs to the end of our New Testaments. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t still write songs that are true to what the Bible teaches (like you said, in just the same way that a sermon can be true though not inspired).

Calvin’s point about worship music needing “weight and majesty” is valid enough, and there is plenty of insipid and uninspiring music in Christian churches. But in light of the presence of the Holy Spirit within us, I doubt that we can say with conviction, which is where these arguments lead, that God is no longer inspiring poets and musicians today as he did with David’s Psalms. We em>can say that the Psalms provide a model and high standard that much of today’s music fails to meet.

Just my thoughts. The question of musical styles in worship is a hot-button issue, of course, and you’ve done a good job of expressing the thinking behind one perspective. (Full disclosure: I’m a singer and musician, so this is a topic close to my heart.)