The Westminster Standards are at least EP from a practical standpoint. See
here. Matthew Winzer attempts to show considerably more than that in his review of Nick Needham's work in the forthcoming
Confessional Presbyterian (subscribe to get the issue due in December). As to the A capella part; that was the position of the church at the time; it is not addressed in the standards themselves because they had no need to do so. But you will find public comment about it in letters to the Scottish GA from the Scottish Commissioners at the Assembly regarding the work to tear out the organs from the cathedrals in London. I don't think you could press that as a subscription issue to the original documents, but would have been a defacto application of the Assembly's doctrine at the time. You will note they give no instructions as to the use of musical instruments in the directory for worship. But the original intent on psalmody is clear. They authorized only the singing of psalms for the public worship in England, Ireland, and Scotland, meaning the 150 Psalms of David. I provided a key quote to Matthew from Dr. Van Dixhoorn's transcription of Lightfoot (not in the published edtion of his works) that seems to me to clinch it. So, Needham's attempt notwithstanding, EP really is the position of the Westminster Standards, practically and perhaps more so, but at least practically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis  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. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete Hi, Rich - again - seeking to avoid contention, but for my edification and for additional clarity - can you point to some external source that validates this?
I have been reading the OPC's Report to 13th G.A., Report to 14th G.A. & Minority Report and I may have missed something, but I don't get that impression that the OPC would support that position, other than the minority may think so. I am fairly sure the PCA would not support that assertion.
Seeking to understand. |