Rich, again - thanks so much for your interaction on this issue - I'd like to continue our interaction briefly on a couple of your statements with a careful eye toward not debating EP itself, but hopefully leading to clarity for future discussions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis  The purpose for the new sub-forum is for the very reason that Exclusive Psalmody is held (Confessionally) by thousands of Reformed believers but many more thousands take exceptions to this Confessional point and even many more thousands don't even know it's in the Confessions.
What happens, far too often, in EP discussions is a broad charge of either Pharisaism on the part of those that are not EP or a broad charge of idolatry by those that are. Recently, one Brother left, charged the entire board with being un-Reformed, and the only way he considered the EP dialogues to be "fair" is if he were allowed to continually refer to EPers as Pharisees. I guess I'll have to live with his illusion that those who do not take an exception to the WCF on this point are non-Reformed. I think it's patently ridiculous to believe that, not only may we take an exception to the WCF on this point but we must - otherwise members are charged with Pharisaism. |
I think this may be part of my confusion, although it may be perfectly clear to others.
1. EP is indeed held confessionally by many thousands, but I think that at least the WCF and LBCF were careful to not explicitly call out the 150 Psalms precisely so subscription by EP'ers and non-EP'ers alike would be possible. That is - when you say "take exception to this Confessional point", I believe that implies the EP'er defined take on the WCF point is the most accurate, when EP is not clearly established across all confessions or the required interpretation of WCF 21.5.
2. "Unreformed" has been an appelation applied to defenders of non-EP and while this may be true of some, the truth is, non-EP is a well established position/practice of many of the great Reformers. (note: however,
Psalmody is a well established position/practice!)
The point being, great care should be taken before EP'ers AND non-EP'ers alike call out one another as being unconfessional or non-reformed.
As far as Pharaseism and idolatry is concerned, I imagine there is plenty of both still in the human heart, EP and non-EP, may God continue to refine us!
Quote:
|
Honestly, the argument for the EP position is not terribly difficult to follow once you understand the basis for the RPW and then the basic building blocks about how they arrive at their conclusions.
|
No argument here - with the understanding that logical conclusions are not always accurate conclusions.
Quote:
|
Why? Because they are convinced by the same arguments I'm not totally convinced by and I know precisely what the arguments are going to be.
|
Not trying to be contentious, but even so, others, seeking to be scrupulous and precise, may present new arguments pro and con that should be examined for their merits, so I, at least, have to be careful not to say "I've heard it all".
As you are probably aware (
), I am a convinced non-EP'er, but since this, to me, is not a strict matter of Reformed orthodoxy, you never know...
Quote:
|
Now, here's where the trouble comes in with certain points of argumentation and they run afoul not just of EP but of the board in general. Whether we are EP or not there are certain foundational principles - among them are Covenant Theology and its continuities/discontinuities and, especially, the RPW. On the first point, Baptists actually have more discontinuities than Presbyterians and on the second point, both are committed (Confessionally) to essentially the same RPW - whatever God has not stricty commanded is forbidden as an element of worship.
|
Concur, with the understanding that continuity/discontinuity is not inherently a weak/strong, true/false indicator.
Quote:
|
Thus, a debate on EP really needs to proceed from the same foundation. There's not much point in allowing a Lutheran to participate in a debate with a Presbyterian because they're not standing on the same ground. You really need to have some common assumptions. If you don't agree with the RPW then there's really no point in debating EP or instruments. God has not forbidden Mega Death in worship so rock out! Same thing with Covenant Theology - it's not possible to have the same debate if ceremonial laws are still prescriptive.
|
Concur. With the understanding that agreeing with the RPW and Covenant Theology does not necessarily lead to EP.
Quote:
|
There is a tendency, in these debates, for some participants to "throw the kitchen sink" at the EP problem. In other words, some will jump into Lutheran ground or other types of ground and argue for a non-EP position. Some of the EP debate proponents may only be sticking to their arguments and not point this problem out. Others point that problem out but it is not always understood by the person doing it that they're really not being Reformed.
|
Again, concur - with the understanding that, while the RPW is indeed a well established Reformed principle, that does not necessarily mean proper understanding of the RPW requires subscription to EP.
Quote:
|
At these points of friction we would ideally be able to de-construct where the underlying assumptions place the debaters on different ground and debate that point rather than wasting a lot of energy and causing a lot of frustration. Sometimes that happens, though, and the participants are accused of "straining out gnats" because they're trying to get the participant to see an error in logic or a departure from the RPW.
|
I am probably too close to this one to objectively reply
, but I will say that pointing out errors in formal logic form is not the same as defeating the underlying reasoning or overall conclusion.
Quote:
|
I would prefer this discussion be handled more in the form of each party understanding the arguments for the position on the basis of common assumptions and then decide whether you are convinced on the basis of the RPW, etc. If not, then let's agree that God is our Judge. For my own part, I remember several years ago first learning that EP was in the WCF and thinking: "What nut would still do that and how could they possibly believe that?" I then read an article in Modern Reformation that convinced me that they had a really solid Biblical argument for the position and I repented of my disrespect for the position. These are men and women that love Christ and His Gospel and practice EP because they do.
|
Amen - I can say without a doubt that the EP'ers I have debated and dialoged with are very concerned with aligning themselves to God's will and pleasure. I will say, however, that there is indeed a propensity for both sides to "call out" one another as the debate heats up. I will take a personal action to be mindful of this and avoid it.
Quote:
|
I've also seen some on this board who have claimed that the reason my EP brethren practice EP because they don't appreciate the "emotional component" of worship. Zwingli, for instance, was probably the most accomplished musician of the major Reformers. He knew quite well what his skill as a musician could evoke in himself and others. He was actually one of the most austere when it came to instruments and singing in worship. In fact, our EP brethren can help us have a healthy reminder about the dangers of music in manipulating hearts and stilting real maturity in hearts that are able to praise God without the aid of stirring music.
|
Now this would make an excellent discussion/debate topic! I would contend that the spoken word can stir up equal or greater emotion than music. That is - I'd contend that no one has gone to war because of a song or surely without some stirring preliminary and contemporary rhetoric to validate/enhance it , so...
Quote:
|
Thus, I would like this forum to be a place where we can avoid the common pitfalls and make sure the parameters of debate are well defined especially with respect to either side throwing out bombs in their exasperation. I also want many to learn why the Confessions teach EP because it enriches their understanding of the RPW.
|
Concur - with a note that I'd say "may teach EP", since not all explicitly do. I do agree that they ALL teach Psalmody, however.
Quote:
|
On a side note, I think you need to keep in mind what Semper Reformanda means and what it doesn't. G.K. Chesterton noted that we used to be modest about ourselves but not modest about Truth. Today we think of modesty as being less than firm about our convictions of Truth and less modest about our own abilities to determine it. Semper Reformanda deals much more in the reformation of self to Truth rather than the idea that Truth itself is always negotiable and needs to be re-cast in the light of our evolving understanding. The Confessions are not irreformable but we need to remember that it is we who need reformation and, if the Confessions are true, then we ought not to be expecting their reformation.
|
I can only concur with this as it is my understanding of Semper Reformanda, as well. With the understanding that the confessions are not Scripture and thus fall under the 1 Thess 5:21 principle.
Rich, you may certainly have additional input, but thanks, once more, for this enlightening discussion, may it serve to guide irenic yet passionate discussion among this motley fellowship and glorify God with our commitment to His Word and worship.