J.D.,
I don't have a problem with your response in the main but, in the interest of accuracy, I need to clear this up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete  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. |
This is simply not true and goes to the issue of original intent. It might be fashionable in America to view our Constitutional document as "living" but there are some who are still Constructionists and read the Federalist Papers or the minutes from the Constitutional Congress in order to define terms (i.e. what does it mean to bear arms?)
In its historical context, it is undeniable that non-instrumental EP is in view in WCF 21.5. Ministers understand this and take an exception to it and don't pretend like the WCF is just open to interpretation on this point.
The Directory for Public Worship has more on the singing of Psalms.