Andrew gave this link, (http://www.freechurch.org/resources/articles/sing.htm) in another thread about EP. I think that here is something that we can discuss.

I would contend that the burden of proof in matters such as EP is not like the author, Mr. Stivason, asserts. He outlines two different kinds of dialogues under which the burden of proof is required, and names them Asymmetrical and Symmetrical. He says that the burden of proof is always on the person who asserts. But he puts the onus on the non-EP for proof by claiming that the discussion is Asymmetrical, that it is not two sides making claims, but only one. He likens it to a dialogue in which EP is not asserting, but merely taking a non-commital stance. His grounds for this is that the EP stance is merely coming off the Apostolic tradition from the evidences. And then he goes into the usual Girardeau-type of citations and arguments, listing them as evidences.

I don't know if everyone will agree with my summary, but that's not really my point anyways. Everyone should read it for themselves, and make up their own minds.

What I want to contend is that there are distinctly two types of EP: policy EP, in which a church makes EP a practice in the church, but if individuals or churches break with it, they are breaking with church agreement of unity, not with doctrine; and doctrinal EP, in which to break with EP is to break with doctrine as well as church unity. My contention is that Mr. Stivason's approach can only yield the first sort, and by no means may assume the second.

That is, then, that there are two types of burdens of proof involved. If it asserted that the Bible teaches EP, and is therefore commanded, then this carries the same burden of proof that every other stated doctrine within the Confessions carries, namely that it is clearly, plainly, and necessarily derived directly from Scripture and Scripture alone. But if it is asserted that a church ought to practice EP, and that a church ought to be unified in its worship practices, and that it is binding only by agreement, and not by theological obligation, then the burden of proof is different.

But in both cases, if a church or denomination comes to that point, then the burden of proof is symmetrical. If, on the other hand, a church or denomination is already EP, then the burden of proof is assymetrical, with the burden on the anti side. I am assuming Mr. Stivason's definitions here.

The WCF allows that some things are not as clearly discerned as others in the Scriptures. It also allows that some things are left to the individual conscience. What is to be called doctrine, though, always bears a very serious onus, different than any other. We may not proclaim in God's name what we do not have assurance of that it is God's proclamation. And there is a hierarchy of teachings, ascribing normativity to the more clear and more plain texts in lieu of the less clear and less plain texts. We're not talking about coming to our best conclusion on the matter, but about what God says on the matter. By calling it doctrine we saying that this is what God says. And it is a dreadfully responsible thing to assert that. We may not add to God's Word.

On the other hand, we may not subtract either. If EP is clearly taught in Scripture, then it is the non-EP's responsibility to submit.

My contention, then, is that Mr. Stivason's approach can only yield a policy of EP, and is not sufficient for doctrinal EP. To achieve a doctrinal EP, the proofs need to be exactly the same as all the proofs for all the other doctrines in the WCF, which summarize what is necessary for faith, life, and worship.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

Déjà vu

__________________
Andrew

The last person to post in that thread was JohnV, therefore the burden of proof falls on the EP proponent.

__________________
Christopher Reeder
Husband to Kara, Father to Abigail (8), Caleb (7), Grace (5 1/2), Zoë (4), Elijah (2), Hannah (1), and Mary (due February 2010)

Member: Pilgrim Presbyterian Church (OPC), Raleigh, NC

That thread was speaking of burden of proof in a more general way. This thread is in direct response to an EP delineation of burden of proof. The incidental proofs may mount to the tops of the trees, but the necessary proof is still direct Scripture, remembering the regulations for that set down in the WCF. The very best that CAN be done with Mr. Stivasan's approach is that EP is preferred, but not that it is demanded.

This helps us to better understand the WCF in regard to what it says about doctrine and elements of worship, particularly what it says about the singing of the Psalms. No one is arguing against the singing of the Psalms. What I am saying is that the WCF has refrained from saying some things because the authors knew the limitations of forming the WCF well. They could not assert what the Scriptures did not assert. They had no right to assert what the they could not prove from the texts or from good and necessary inference.

Example: (just to demonstrate this concept)

Some have claimed that the Westminster Assembly was predominantly Postmillennial. It has even been claimed that this majority was very large, leaving other views almost as negligible. Yet for all that, they never necessitated Postmillennialism. It has even been asserted that some parts of the WCF demonstrate their definite leaning to Postmillennialism. Yet, they make no direct mention of it at all. What I am saying it that no matter how much they wanted to assert it, no matter how sure they all were, they knew clearly the distinction between their personal views on such matters and the limitations of Scripture. That is why the chapter on liberty of conscience is there. They knew they could not demand what the Bible did not demand. They had no right to that. If they did, they would undermine the authoritative nature of a Church Confession. It would represent, if they did, nothing more than an individual ecclesiastical persuasion, to which other persuasions could be equal. But most of all, it could not be binding on anyone if they bound people to things that God did not bind people to. (Example ended.)

Appealing to tradition has its place. But it is of no authority in matters of doctrine. Appealing to reason has its place, but is of no authority in matters of doctrine. Appealing to honourable and pious men has its place, but they individually also have no authority beyond their mandate. If any of these lead us to a demonstration that the Bible clearly teaches EP, then that's another matter. But then it would not be tradition, reason, or the writings of men, but Scripture. All these, though, whether individually or collectively, do not attain to the authority of the Bible.

I did not mention the reduction argument for burden of proof. Mr. Stivason did not go into that, so neither will I. That is, unless someone wants me to.

go! &

__________________
-JD

OK, JD, I know what you're thinking, and I commend you for your discernment. Let me say it, then. I'm going to skip over a few arguments so that I can jump right to what I think your interest would be.

There are a number of "therefore's" that spring out of this. One of them would be that the RPW therefore does not require EP; another would be that therefore the RPW instead protects against the imposition of a doctrinal EP. And yet another would be that the singing of hymns and spiritual songs other than the Psalms does not break the RPW. But the one I think JD would be interested in is the following.

It follows from Jesus' new paradigm for worship, found in John 4, that true worship is in spirit and in truth, that this does not require of us that we must sing only songs the Bible provides. He says we must worship spirit and in truth, and adds nowhere that this means that we may only sing songs that the Bible has in it.

For example: I said a lot of things in the above posts. I did not quote the WCF; I only said what it said in my own words. Yet everything that I said was true of WCF. That is, they're all true becuase the WCF says so, whether in my own words or the WCF's words. In the same way, ministers do the same thing every Sunday from the pulpits, speaking the truth of God's Word, even when they're not directly quoting the Word of God, saying it in their own words, and as the truth of the Word applies to specific needs. They speak truth, even when they're not quoting the Word of God.

In the same way, we as the congregation can sing spiritually and truly without necessarily quoting the Word of God to do so. They are not, because they're in our own words, inventions or intrusions by men. God wants the heart to be true, and He is not cutting us off because we are not yet perfect. He wants worship of the heart, not just in the words. He accepts our prayers and our songs, imperfect as they may be, through the sanctification of the Spirit, in the same way He blesses the preached Word through weak men by the same Holy Spirit.

Worship is not true because it turns the words and songs of Scripture into modern song, but it is true because it speaks obediently and truly, and from the heart. The Bible is not more specific about the content than that.

Of course we should sing the Psalms. And surely these are required of us. We do not disagree with that. We fully support that. But those things, according the the WCF, which are not specifically declared are to be understood in the light of the more plain and clear texts of Scripture. And all else is to be carefully taken under the liberty of the conscience of the Christian, or in this case, each church or denomination.

This is, in my view, what WCF, XXI, v says about singing in worship. This view does not wrangle about words, but sticks to the plain meanings set down for us, both in the Word and in the WCF. As far as I can see, this view does not violate the WCF. The fact that the WCF leaves this to the discretion of each denomination and/or individual church, makes it a collectively agreed position as to whether they will or will not include other songs. But it is not required by the RPW to sing only the Psalms, nor to limit worship songs to songs already in the Bible.

The gist of all this is:

The burden of proof that the RPW requires EP is upon those who claim such.

The burden of proof required for those who say we may also sing hymns, because this falls into liberty of conscience, is nothing more than the failure of the "RPW requires EP" proofs to have failed. The lack of direct command or of necessity from other Scriptures makes this a matter of conscience. It does not need a direct commandment, but is up to the discretion of the elders of the churches or of the individualy denominations.

Well said!

(looks for additional enthusiastic agreement smilies...)

JD:

You now have a reference to point people to should they ask for literature stating the other side of the discussion. This upholds the RPW, the WCF, and does not violate any known commandments or directives from Scripture, and yet comes down on the other side of "The RPW requires EP" stance. Not my dissertation here, but the WCF.

Some thoughts...

1. I think you're right in one thing: that Mr. Stivason's article is open to that kind of critique, according to the narrow fashion in which he presented the argument. That is, his presentation of a "burden of proof" argument could only be used to prove ecclesiastical EP, rather than doctrinal EP. However, I believe that a similar argument can be presented for doctrinal EP, based upon divine precept (whether or not mediated by divine instruments, as kings, prophets, apostles, etc.), rather than "this is the way the church has always worshipped."

2. You seem to be presenting something of a "reverse argument" regarding authorial intent of the Westminster Confession, which makes little sense. You seem to be saying in the "posmil example," that, because the Westminster Divines were probably all postmils, but did not frame their Confession and Catechisms to reflect postmillennialism, that they therefore considered postmillennialism to fall under "liberty of conscience." (I myself would argue that the Confession and Catechisms lend themselves more readily to an amil interpretation; but that's probably just my own amillennialism seeking confessional justification or something. )

Similarly, you seem to argue that, because they all or mostly all held to exclusive psalmody (or something similar, such as "inspired songs only"), but didn't clearly condemn uninspired hymns, that they therefore placed such things under "liberty of conscience" -- other historical determiners notwithstanding (i.e., The Directory for the Publick Worship of God; their work regarding Francis Rouse's The Psalms of David in Metre; the practice of their churches; the later development of uninspired hymnody among the Particular Baptists, etc. etc.). But concerning your central assertion, I would ask how you can so readily assume that they regarded the question of which songs should be used in worship as a matter of "liberty of conscience," without recourse to the discussions and debates that occurred at the Assembly, and based solely upon your supposing them to be so.

3. You present the same tired argument that "we can sing what we want as long as it is doctrinally accurate," this time citing John 4:23, 24 as proof -- even though this passage refers to our worship in general, and not specifically to the words that we use, whether in prayer, preaching, or singing. It is therefore a false dichotomy to say, as you do, that "He says we must worship in spirit and in truth, and adds nowhere that this means that we may only sing songs that the Bible has in it."

Singing is an element of worship, distinct from preaching and prayer, with its own mandate and regulation -- as clearly explained in WCF 21.5. You cannot argue from the way our worship should be in general, or from the "liberty" we have in preaching or in prayer to employ our own words, to a similar "liberty" in our singing of Psalms. By so doing, you are begging the question, and assuming one of the points in debate.

4. This does not uphold the RPW, or the WCF. You have not yet dealt with the question of whether Scripture regulates the specific element of worship called "singing God's praise" in a way more particular than you have assumed; and you have swept the testimony of the Westminster Assembly on this subject under the rug of "liberty of conscience," without demonstrating that they regarded this question as falling under liberty of conscience.

__________________
Sean P.M. McDonald
Communicant Member of Lisbon Reformed Presbyterian Church, Lisbon, NY
Infantryman (SGT), 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY
Husband to Laura, father to Olivia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lex praescribit, evangelium inscribit." (The law prescribes, the gospel inscribes.)

Thanks JohnV. That was very cleary stated.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

Regrettably JohnV falls into the same old mishap of failing to comprehend the RPW before making assertions about the onus probandi of EP. Given the *exclusive* nature of the RPW, the onus is clearly on the person who seeks to INTRODUCE something into the worship of God, to demonstrate that the Word of God warrants the introduction. The RPW insists that elements of worship which God has not commanded are forbidden. God has nowhere commanded us to make up our own songs; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the church, has nowhere provided for an office of hymnal composition; there is no example anywhere in the NT of individuals composing songs to be sung by a congregation (noting the gift of psalmody mentioned in 1 Cor. 14 was extraordinary and individual). The silence in this matter is deafening.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Additionally, because it is being oft spoken of in this discussion:
Here, the "parts of the ordinary religious worship of God" are said to be:

1. "The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear"
2. "The sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence"
3. "Singing of psalms with grace in the heart"
4. "The due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ"

To these should also be added a fifth: "Prayer, with thanksgiving"; as per sections 3 and 4 of the same chapter:
Please note that the Westminster Divines, for all of these parts (we today frequently call them "elements") of worship, declared either the content or subject matter to be defined.

1. "The reading of the Scriptures" (content is defined)
2. "The sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word" (subject matter is defined)
3. "Singing of psalms" (content is defined)
4. The nature and form of the sacraments (which would correlate to content) is defined in chapters 27-29.
5. The subject matter of "prayer, with thanksgiving" is defined in section 4.

Had the Westminster Divines used a more ambiguous phrase, such as "singing God's praise with grace in the heart," I would see it as credible that they perceived the content of our song in worship to be undefined, and left to men to formulate within certain guidelines, as in the case of prayer; or, that believing or not believing in exclusive psalmody belonged to a matter of the individual's conscience. But these are the words that they penned; and no latter-day attempts at redefining the work of that Assembly, and reading modern-day feelings toward uninspired hymns into their documents, will change that.

.................

But we can argue the authorial intent behind the Westminster Confession all day long, and not come any closer to answering these issues. The question is, Does Scripture declare that the content of singing God's praise is defined?

And to that I answer: If you believe that God has commanded or prescribed that the Psalms be sung in worship -- has appointed them to be employed as a hymnal -- then you have already conceded to us the argument. If God has appointed definite songs to be sung in worship, then God's regulation extends to which particular songs are to be sung in worship. As a syllogism, it would be:

Major premise. God regulates His appointments in worship as far as those appointments extend.
Minor premise. But God has appointed particular songs to be sung in worship -- His appointment extends to which particular songs will be sung in worship.
Conclusion. Therefore, God regulates which particular songs will be sung in worship.

Which part of the syllogism will one contest? (1.) The major flows naturally from an adherence to the RPW. The RPW is not merely some bare principle; in order to have a concrete existence, it must be applied. But the question arises, How is to be applied? The answer is, Scripture shows us how it is to be applied, by telling us of how God has appointed His ordinances of worship. Has God appointed Scripture to be read and preached from in worship (defined content for the one, defined subject matter for the other)? Then only God may define the content of our reading, and the subject matter of our sermons. (2.) Again, as far as I am aware, no one contests the minor -- the fact that particular songs (i.e., the Psalms) have been appointed by God to be sung in worship. (3.) And the conclusion naturally flows from these two; demonstrating that, for songs to be sung in worship, they must be particularly appointed by God for that purpose.

I'll respond to Sean's posts. I think that should suffice for all concerned.

But before I do that, I want to acknowledge that there exists within Presbyterianism quite a range of understandings of what it is we are bound to when we vow submission to the Westminster Standards.

I am bound by vow not only to the Westminster Standards, but also the Three Forms of Unity. I am bound by both because I made vows under both. And I do not recall ever saying in any of my almost three thousand posts that I took exception to any one of the articles in either one of those standards. I'm not saying that I don't take exception here or there, nor am I suggesting that I do take exception here or there; I'm saying that I don't recall ever representing on this Board that I took exception to any one article, or part thereof.

In addition, by joining this Board I am also bound, to the extent of membership on this Board, to respect and honour those who are admitted as members, yet whose promises to standards other than mine bind their consciences. That is, I am not bound by the London Baptist Confession of Faith, for example, but in respect to this Board I am bound to respect and honour those who are bound by that standard.

I understand that within that standard to which I am bound, which I confess in common with so many others on this Board, the Westminster Standards, that there is a considerable difference between what it is we believe we are bound to through them. I want to respect that range as well, insofar as all that fits within that range represents what people believe they are bound to ecclesiastically.

So I understand that there are some who belong to denominations that believe the WCF to assert a confining of the singing in worship to only the Psalms. I understand that these believe they are bound by that. I do not want to disturb people's consciences needlessly. I believe that I may speak my mind concerning what I believe, and that I may be held accountable for the things that I say. My conscience is bound by the Word, and the fact that I believe the standards that I have submitted to faithfully represent the true and complete doctrines of salvation. Just as my conscience is not bound by other peoples' consciences, so also I do not intend to bind others by mine.

In my posts above, I have made a deliberate attempt to state a position clearly, firmly grounded in the standards that bind us, and without any attempt to cast aspersions on anyone who would disagree. In another thread, one on Theonomy, I attempted to represent that I take exception to using terms pejoratively: people using the word "theonimist" when they really mean "Bahnsenist" or "Rushdooneyist" in terms of understanding the law: it has been too easy to call those who do not follow Bahnsen's theses as "non-theonomists', even though it has been clearly acknowledged over and over again that Presbyterians by definition of their Confession are all theonomists, even though they disagree with or even reject Bahnsen's applications or theses. In the same way, I wanted to show in some way that it is not right to assume that "non-EP" people are therefore also not RPW people; it is precisely because they also adhere to the RPW that they are NOT EP. That is, there is a difference in opinion about what the RPW admits and will not admit, but we cannot assume non-subscription to the RPW simply on the basis of being non-EP. I believe that is pejorative, adding negative connotations to the use of terms which define something quite apart from those connotations.

Going on from this point, the approach I have taken to the Westminster Standards, which includes my own personal commitment to the Three Forms of Unity as well, understanding these to assert the same faith, not two separate faiths, consists of a difference that I believe Sean has pointed out. He has suggested that my take on the Confessions is inverted; and I would return that I believe his view is inverted, of course. And you're right, Sean, we could go on all day about that difference, and yet not settle the matter.

So I submit this (again) long post to acknowledge to you, Sean and Matthew, that I understand that there are matters of personal conscience and commitments on your parts. and that I want to respect them even if I disagree with you. I want to submit this to you both before I answer Sean's posts more directly.

A brief note about my post for JD's sake. I owed him that, because I agree with him, but in one of the threads that he started on EP I addressed him in what I disagreed with him on, namely on how the subject was to be argued. That one post is not part of the argument I am presenting; it's just a "therefore if follows" thing that I added for JD's sake because I owed it to him.

Thanks Kevin. By all means, jump in at any time. This thread is open to all.

I don't think I understand what this means? What is said to be inverted in each case?

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

Thanks, Chris. After I posted it, and while I was writing an answer to Sean (which is still coming) it crossed my mind that I wasn't clear on this point. It might be saying more than I intended, while at the same time saying it in my terms instead of Sean's.

So before I submit a response to Sean I should clear this up. Thanks for pointing it out, Chris.

Sean states in his first post,

In saying "inverted", I am referring to what he calls "reverse argument". We have two distinct approaches to the Confessional standards, and they stand in inverse relation to each other. It seems that Sean's view allows men's reasonings and conclusions to be helpful and determinative, and may therefore be added as meaning to the Confessions; while my view subjects all these to the statements of the Confessions. He seems to see the Confessions as general principles, but that the particulars are reflected more in the conclusions we draw from them. My view sees the Confessions as a limitation, to which we may not add unless by direct authority from God, by the Spirit, through the Church, and never in addition to the Word of God. To a degree there is an inversion, and this is particularly in taking place in how we understand what the Confessions have to say about "singing of psalms with grace in the heart".

This is borne out also in other topics of debate. Some have responded with almost shock that my view would limit the preaching of the Word, what is the Word and what is not the Word, to what the Confessions expressly state. I believe that a minister has no right to say from the pulpit that, for example, the Bible teaches the Framework Hypothesis; that it is completely beside this point whether the FH may be right or wrong, acceptable or not, but that the point is if the Word of God asserts, binds, or commmands it. Some have expressed surprise by what I say about that. That's because of this inversion in how we understand the WCF: that on the one hand, Sean's in this case, it is not a limitation; and on the other hand, mine in this case, that it is a strict limitation.

This is what I meant by "inversion". It is not meant as a pejorative term, one that accuses anyone. It's just a factual statement of difference in views.

Though I don't want to stray off the topic, I should be open about this last point I made in response to Chris. We are talking about the burdens of proof for EP or non-EP. But what I am concerned about here is the differences in how we approach the binding nature of the WCF as our confessional standard. If we stray into that, I wouldn't mind at all. But I think we should try to stick to the topic, and perhaps try to understand and appreciate, and maybe correct our or each others' different understandings.

John, what I meant was that ordinarily, arguments regarding "authorial intent" concern themselves with the specific statements that are made, and determining what the authors of that statement most probably meant. This is very common with arguments regarding the Constitution -- what did the "Founding Fathers" mean by such-and-such a statement? etc. Your argument appeared to be summarized in the idea that, if the Westminster Assembly did not, in their Confession of Faith and Catechisms, explicitly prescribe the exclusive singing of Psalms, that they therefore regarded such "exclusive" views to be unprovable from Scripture, and merely a matter of conscience rather than divine precept or regulation. You seem to read their failure to use the same explicit terminology we now employ as expressing their belief that such things are adiaphora. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Again, I wasn't speaking of approaches to our Confessional standards, but to the usual case or argument made, regarding any document, from authorial intent.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Even if I may agree with a particular commentary or exposition of the Confession of Faith, I do not believe that any church or churches should bind themselves to G.I. Williamson, or A.A. Hodge, et al. Helpful, yes; determinative, no. However, despite the perspicuity of Scripture, I still need certain places in Scripture explained to me, because I do not see the plainness. I daresay that the same can occur with our doctrinal standards, especially when they come to us hundreds of years after the fact.
And I think it depends on how we want to "limit" the Confession in that article. I understand my position as taking the plain and clear meaning of the words; in our church, we practice the "singing of psalms with grace in the heart." We do not alter our Confession to read "singing of psalms and uninspired hymns with grace in the heart," etc., or take the word "psalms" in a sense admitting of songs other than those found in the Psalter (since the common understanding of that word is, "songs found in the Psalter"). Here is "a limitation, to which we may not add unless by direct authority from God, by the Spirit," etc.

But again, you seem to regard the limitation to be found in the fact that they did not write, "singing of only psalms with grace in the heart," etc. I view such an understanding of the Confession as unnecessary and unwarranted; especially since no one will likewise read the rest of that section as restricting the church to "the reading of only the Scriptures," "the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of only the the Word," etc., and draw similar conclusions.

Thanks, brother - and much appreciate your willingness to approach this and the clarity and wisdom you bring to the discussion -

to Sean. If we are discussing the meaning of the historic Presbyterian standards, I think it is pretty clear what they meant. We could speculate on what the "might" have meant or intended and float mere possibilities, but I think the actions and context of the Assembly's work obviates that as this points to their authorizing the Psalms for public worship, as I lay out in an older thread here. Also, if the historical accepted view had been that there was no binding to just this content, then most all subsequent churches have taken the hard road since they thought they needed to authorize such expansion of worship song and change their standards. They could have avoided that by playing the liberty of conscience card!

Once we get away from, what is really the minor issue of the author's intent of a human document, we get back to the scripture argument. And honestly, everyone bears the burden of proof as far as what they will bring into the public worship of God.

I agree. I am persuaded that "the writings of man" would include that of the Westminster commissioners, as well as the Confessions itself. I believe that they would understand it this way too. The WCF is binding only insofar as they relate to us what the Bible teaches. It represents to us the witness of the Church. Their intent in the words, whether personal or coporately, was not the issue: the Scriptures' teaching was the issue; and therefore they carefully framed the Confessions for what they did say and what they did not say.

What I averred above is that we cannot turn to the "original intent" argument as authoritative or normative, but only to the Word of God: that's the Confessions' own assertion regarding itself.

In regard to the "inversion" thing, maybe I can be a bit more clear now.

If we go to the writings of the commissioners of the Assembly to determine "original intent" to determine what is autoritative in the Confessions, then, as I believe, the lesser is normative for the greater. That is those things which carry less weight have control over what is meant by the things that carry more weight. The hierarchy seems to me to be that the greater is normative for the lesser.

It is entirely possible that the original intent of even the majority of the commissioners was not accepted in the final draft of the Confessions. And even if it was, it would not be the intent of the commissioners that we heed their own opinions and persuasions, but that we be convinced by the witness of the Spirit through the Word and the witness they bore to us. Their own regulations would forbid us turning to their writings to determind doctrine: that would directly oppose what they asserted in WCF, I.

John,

1. I believe you are presuming a level of integrity to the Westminster Standards that is inappropriate to the fallible authors who wrote them, and ironically, at the same time, creating a wax nose to bend in the direction you think the meaning of the standards should go.

2. Context. I don't need documents external to the Standards to interpret them; it is folks who insist the plain sense, taking all their work as a whole, which was of equal authority in their day, is not the true sense, which causes one to move to more sources. The EP folks didn’t start this going to documents external to the work of the Assembly to try and prove a particular meaning at WCF 21.5.

3. Interpretation. Your position is not realistic or functional. Could you even use a dictionary? If you were going to interpret an antique doctrinal statement into your mother tongue would you ignore how the men of the time used their own language? And if you had access to contemporary documents, some of which are of coequal authority as far as their acceptance, would you truly ignore them as well as far as helping you get at their real meaning? Then, once you knew the true interpretation of the words, you would measure them by the Scripture, and not simply import what you believed the Scriptural doctrines were onto that document needing interpretation.

I am assuming the highest level of integrity, yes.
This carries with it a level of integrity to live up to, if we cite them as authoritative, yes.
Whether this is a "wax nose" effect depends upon whether or not you agree with the level of integrity the WS are given. Lowering the integrity does not lessen the "wax nose" effect; it merely shifts it.

I am assuming, from the context, ("level of integrity", "inappropriate", and "fallible authors") that you believe that I give them too high a level of integrity. Thank you. Let's hope we all recognize, then, that I am not undermining their integrity, nor shrugging it off, nor asserting more than there is. I am giving the WS the highest authority that may be given to human writings that the WCF allows.
This is begging the question. It assumes the thing under question.

I am asking that we take the meaning in its plain sense, within the context of the extant writings of the time, and in the context of their own writings.

It doesn't matter who started appealing to external sources. The point is, they are "external". The WCF would regard even the writing of their own hand as "external". The ruling of the church is not the ruling of individuals, but of the plurality of elders, meeting in holy convocation, under the Holy Spirit, and under the Word of God. The WS are the resulting statements of authority, not the personal writings of each of the members. The Church accepts the WS as authoritative, and that only because they reflect the teachings of the Word of God. The writings of the holy men reflect the opinions of these holy men.

The Belgic Confession, article 7 says, in part,

One would assume that the men who wrote the WS would agree, since the WCF says,

I am agreeing with these teachings. I don't believe it is inappropriate.

I did not deny the helpfulness of the many uses that these writings may be put to. I am agreeing with the WCF about authority, and about the burden of proof for assertions concerning commands and requirements from God.

I know this is a sticky point. I am painfully aware of the difference that exists in how the Standards are regarded. Believe me, I know how different the views are. I've been through a lot over that issue of difference.

I am not trying to cause waves either. Both sides have to know of the existence of the other. I'm not jumping to Article 29 of the Belgic Confession here. I am trying to get across the idea that there is a difference of views that needs to be studied carefully, prayerfully, and lovingly, and together.

So before I post my answer to Sean, I think we should all think about this. I am glad to have put these posts in here, so that when I post my answer to Sean, it will be known that I care how I put into the answers I give, and that I am not shrugging off the burden that is put upon me in what I assert. No, in making the statements that I do about Biblical burden of proof, I bear that same burden of proof that I suggest the RPW => EP carries. I believe that I have put forward a position that is internally coherent and completely compliant with the standards of faith the Church lives by; and I'm ready to by put in my place if it is not so.

That is an interesting point. Should we therefore not turn to what the individual members of the Westminster Assembly thought on such matters, and turn instead to the Church of Scotland, which was the first and sole ecclesiastical authority to receive the Westminster Confession as its Confession of Faith? Would you prefer, John, to turn to the Acts of the General Assemblies from 1560 to 1647, to determine what the Church of Scotland meant when it received that Confession of Faith, including the article of "singing of psalms with grace in the heart"? (Are you at all familiar with David Hay Fleming's "The Hymnology of the Scottish Reformation"?)

No, I am not familiar with that work, Sean. Sorry.


I had a response ready, and it's quite long. It deals with all that you brought up in your posts. But I changed my mind about posting it. I'm not sure that its the way to go with this. My original response was point for point, but that may not address the real concerns. There are some important things to remember, and I want to be careful. I want to show that my arguments are sound, but more importantly that they are what the Confessions also say about what the Bible teaches.

So far, it seems to me, we have determined that the position, "RPW => EP" relies not on express revelation in Scripture but on external authority, external to the idea of Sola Scriptura. The question is whether that external authority is binding or not; and the question is also whether the confessional standard of the Church is a limitation, or a document that is inclusive of the differing opinions arising on matters treated within the documents of that standard.

The position that I see you proposing is:

- the majority, and perhaps even a great majority, were of a certain opinion, and

- therefore that opinion is the default or the de facto position of the Church, even though that position is not explicitly stated, and

- therefore that position is authoritative, and

- therefore it is what the Bible teaches,

If this misrepresents your position at all, please set me right about it.

In the meantime, I'll state my position in like manner:

The Bible teaches a particular proposition, and

- therefore the Church may authoritatively state it, and

- therefore the individual members of the Church must adhere to it, and

- therefore the writings of even the holiest and most highly regarded of the men of the Church must be judged by it, and

- therefore the only authority for determining what God requires is the Word of God only, with all other authority subservient to it, and

- this is what the confessional standards of the Church also assert and reflect.

- therefore, to require EP as necessary for worship must demonstrate express, clear, and plain (words that the WCF uses) revelation of the Bible; any other source is not sufficient as authority to require it.

I'll put together the articles of faith that deal with this. I need a bit of time, though, because it's been a tough week for me, and I need some rest. I've got most of it done already, but I want to be more careful and thorough.

JohnV - I encourage you in this endeavor!

The cheerleading is getting a bit old.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

John,
Begging the question? You mean like presuming the Divines could not possibly mean “X” because of their teaching on “Y”? I can certainly understand how lonely you feel on this matter.

It seems to me you want to run everything in the Standards through WCF chapter 1, assigning the Divines some level of perfection in upholding that chapter throughout their own work, rather then letting the documents speak for themselves and judging them according to Scripture. Ok. Which is worse? Saying the Divines prescribed a worship practice you won’t presume due to their “integrity” they should be interpreted as laying on the churches, because it lacks clear Scriptural warrant, or prescribing a doctrine to be believed, like that the Pope is that Antichrist, that man of sin? Now, that is pretty clear; but many do not see Scriptural warrant for that teaching. Do you? If you do not, then will you say that the Divines went beyond Scripture at that point? Or will you insist on interpreting this in a way that suits your measure of what is and is not in keeping with the integrity of the Westminster Standards?

Why? I only want to encourage a mature and thoughtful brother in examining a "doctrine" that I have found to be presumptuous and outside the mandate of Scripture.

I just don't want him to lose steam!

Why should you care? Unless you feel he is presenting a heretical, unScriptural or illogical counter-argument?

Peace, my brother.

Well, I do think he's presenting an illogical counter-argument but I mostly care because it's annoying to see "go team go!" after almost every one of his posts in the thread (and others). Nothing personal, JD. I know you mean well. I'd be bothered by it if someone were doing it to Sean or Rev. Winzer, as well.

Ah, well - I'll pray for you to receive an extra measure of patience...

Then consider this a "setting right."

John, it is two separate questions, whether Scripture teaches something, and whether the Confession teaches something. I do not consider anything to be true because the Confession says it. The Confession derives its subordinate authority from the Word of God, which is of supreme authority. Doctrines or practices are true because Scripture says so. If the Confession says the same, the Confession is true as well.

I believe that the Confession accurately sets forth the teaching of Scripture, not because it is in the Confession, but because it is in Scripture. If you were able to convince me that the Confession allows for the singing of songs other than the Psalms, or relegates the issue of exclusive psalmody to "liberty of conscience," you would simultaneously persuade me that the Confession is wrong on that point; because I am persuaded that exclusive psalmody is mandated by Scripture (regardless of whether or not that teaching is contained in the Confession).

John, the Confession and Catechisms were not created in a vacuum. They were drawn up by men, and adopted by a national church, that used only the Psalter in worship. How does that not determine the meaning of the phrase "singing of psalms with grace in the heart"?

Let me use an illustration. Suppose I draw up a brief confession of my faith, affirming my belief in "the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement." But 360 years from now, after more and more heresies have crept in, men argue in presbyteries and synods (and on Internet forums!) as to how my words should be interpreted. Should they interpret them to mean that the efficacy of Christ's death is limited, or the sufficiency? Should they not turn to the writings of this period, now, to see how we understand this phrase, and see how I personally use this phrase; rather than take their (perhaps heretical) understanding of what Scripture teaches, and force such an interpretation upon my words?
Hmmm... all good, except for the last part. Your line, "therefore, to require EP as necessary for worship must demonstrate express, clear, and plain (words that the WCF uses) revelation of the Bible; any other source is not sufficient as authority to require it," is rather misleading.

How does WCF use these words?
In other words, I don't believe that it is necessary that a teaching of Scripture must be, as you say, "express, clear, and plain," in order to be believed or practiced. We may use "good and necessary consequence" in contrast to the "express" teaching of Scripture, which Scripture consequences are just as binding. Those things necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are here said to be "clear," whereas other things taught in Scripture may not necessarily be "plain" in themselves, or "clear" unto all -- and I would not class exclusive psalmody as necessary to salvation. So, no. If exclusive psalmody can be deduced from Scripture (regardless of whether or not it gives the express statement, "Thou shalt sing only the songs contained in the Book of Psalms in public worship"), then it is just as binding on us as if it gave such a statement -- similar to the fact that we deduce the doctrine of infant baptism from Scripture, although there is no express declaration that we should baptize our infant children.

Chris, I was referring to this statement you made:

"...it is folks who insist the plain sense, taking all their work as a whole, which was of equal authority in their day, is not the true sense, which causes one to move to more sources."

You are making a judgment or a conclusion to prove your premise, the same judgment or conclusion which that premise is supposed to be a grounds for. You are saying X, therefore Y; Y is true, therefore X is true; when it is the truth of Y that we are trying to find.

Quote:

I can certainly understand how lonely you feel on this matter.

I've been in worse spots. But, no, I don't feel alone.

Quote:

It seems to me you want to run everything in the Standards through WCF chapter 1, assigning the Divines some level of perfection in upholding that chapter throughout their own work, rather then letting the documents speak for themselves and judging them according to Scripture. Ok. Which is worse? Saying the Divines prescribed a worship practice you won’t presume due to their “integrity” they should be interpreted as laying on the churches, because it lacks clear Scriptural warrant, or prescribing a doctrine to be believed, like that the Pope is that Antichrist, that man of sin? Now, that is pretty clear; but many do not see Scriptural warrant for that teaching. Do you? If you do not, then will you say that the Divines went beyond Scripture at that point? Or will you insist on interpreting this in a way that suits your measure of what is and is not in keeping with the integrity of the Westminster Standards?

There is none of my own measures in this, as far as I can tell. I'm only saying in a more thorough way what I was taught already in catechism when I was young. This is not a new or novel teaching on the church standards. It may be new to you, but it is by far and away not new.

I'm not sure what to make of your "which is better" question. But I am advocating that everything should be run through not only chapter I, but also should be seen for its internal consistency. Chapter XX, for example, should not contradict chapter I or IXX, nor should chapter XXI contradict the Catechism's teachings, together or separate, on the same matters. It is within context of each other, as that they reflect the Bible's teaching, that we determine their meaning and application, discerning the general equity of them in compliance with the Word of God. It is that the Bible's teachings, which the Standards represent, are perfectly consistent and internally coherent that makes the Standards are also internally coherent. And it sticking to them that makes my argument internally coherent, not because I'm any better than any one else. Any one can put forward this argument, just by grasping the articles of faith that the Church has adopted.

The Westminster Confession is internally coherent, not because the men of Westminster were so great, but because they were faithful to stick to the Bible alone as their source for authority. And I believe they also sought the illumination of the Spirit, so that nothing at all would be added that was not first revealed in the Word.

(I'm going to evade the Pope part of the question. That's another discussion, I think.)

Thanks Sean. This helps a great deal. We're not that far apart now. Let me go into it, point for point, and maybe we'll get closer yet.

We're agreed on this point.

That would be consistent with your precommitment. I agree that this is what you would initially think. I think that you would agree that we should go on from there to see whether our precommitments are true precommitments, and not try to place these over the Scriptures on our own.

Just as you would have me rethink what I am persuaded of, so you ought to also require this of yourself. That's what I expect of myself in discussions like this. If I expect to change someone's mind, I have to be twice as ready to have mine changed. It is the truth that we are after together. And none of us is without need of correcting or further education.

I'm saying that this betrays a contrary notion to what you said before. But let me go on to show this to you from the next part...;

If the intent was to determine what Sean meant, then yes they would certainly be interested in everything else you wrote. But why would synods be interested in that? Why is what you or I wrote deemed at all normative or necessary? Would they not turn to the Bible for more illumination rather than your or my other writings?

They might be interested in how we believed if they wanted to show to others that people in our time also understood the Bible the same way as they propose. It would add to the argument "the Church has always believed it this way", but it would not prove that argument. Our writings would show that we agree with the Church's confessional standard, or maybe not, but that would be all it would yield for them. It would be of interest as a historical note, but that's all. They would not turn to our writings for authority on doctrine. At least I hope they wouldn't. I shudder at the thought, every bit as much as Calvin shuddered at it. (Well, maybe it scared Calvin more)
Sorry, the quote from the Confession with your emphasized words didn't come through.

I believe that when you read these articles you will find that it does not point to using means of interpretation in contrast to each other, but that the less clear must be subservient to the more clear. There are things that are clear; things that are less clear, but can be cleared up through the more clear; things that are not clear, but can be cleared up by necessary inference; and things that are less clear that cannot be cleared up by more clear passages. This is the order. The last one cannot be normative to the first, but must fall under those preceding it. The weight of normativity is in the order given, not in reverse order for any two of the groups. What is left out altogether is the writings of men, (BC says, "however holy these men may have been"), traditions, antiquity, councils, majority opinon, decrees and statutes, and history. Though derived at by the general equity of the Word, they are from the light of nature and Christian prudence at best. These are good, helpful, and blessed by God in their places, but are not authoritative in determining doctrine or the teaching of the Word of God.

John, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here.

Men wrote the Confession. The Church of Scotland adopted the Confession. These men, and that church, practiced exclusive psalmody. How does this not determine how they would have understood the phrase "singing of psalms with grace in the heart," appearing in the Confession, 21.5? My illustration was meant to show this to you; and you missed it entirely. We are spending a great deal of energy arguing over the meaning of the Confession of Faith, which is not the Word of God. I likened this situation to men 360 years from now attempting to understand the meaning of my words, which are not the Word of God. I was not meaning that these later presbyteries, synods, etc. would understand my words to be the Word of God, or on a par with Scripture; I imagined them doing as we are now doing, attempting to determine the meaning of Confessional language.

As I said before, there are two separate questions here: what the Confession teaches, and what Scripture teaches. As I said before, while the determination of the first question is interesting, the determination of the second question is important. If Scripture teaches exclusive psalmody, but the Confession does not, the Confession should be changed to be in accord with Scripture. If Scripture does not teach exclusive psalmody, but the Confession does, the Confession should be changed to be in accord with Scripture.

Your statement, "I believe that when you read these articles you will find that it does not point to using means of interpretation in contrast to each other, but that the less clear must be subservient to the more clear," is again misleading. That is the teaching of the ninth article, not the sixth and seventh articles. And in your breakdown of the "order", (1.) I question the applicability of your "order," beyond addressing points which you believe fall into the last category. (2.) I do not believe that the sixth paragraph or article of that chapter warrants placing "express" statements of Scripture in a higher "order" than doctrines deduced by "good and necessary consequence." (3.) Since this "order" is not set forth in the Confession, I cannot see why you are arguing based upon this "order." Apparently, because it is not found in the express teaching of the Confession, it falls under "liberty of conscience"; so I am not bound to recognize it.

I don't think I missed it, Sean. What you're saying, in effect, is that "RPW => EP" because the Church of Scotland practiced EP, and that's good enough authority for us.

You're saying that the Church of Scotland must have understood the Confessions to be saying that EP is required of all churches because the Bible requires it. That's how they understood it, so that is authoritative for determining what the WCF actually says, and for what the Bible actually says.

You're saying that we don't have to look for internal consistency in the Confessions, but that Chapter I, for example, is quite separate from Chapter XXI: we do not have to understand Chapter XXI in light of Chapter I.
I don't think I missed that.

You're saying that church councils can take precedence over Scripture's limitations, by decreeing as doctrinal what the Scriptures do not require.

You're saying that the limitation which the RPW enforces may be broken by the RPW, by commanding what the Bible does not command.

You're saying that some commandments which are determined by the light of nature and Christian prudence, for worship and governance, may be taken as direct commands of Scripture, even though the Bible does not command them, nor are derived at by good and necessary consequence, but instead by the understandings of men.

I believe I answered that specifically, in stating how I believe the Confessions state the order of authority. I think this order is self-evident, and forced by good and necessary consequence. But maybe if I expand on it a bit, it may be clearer that this was what I addressed.

Because of the unity of truth, therefore in matters of doctrine:
- what is plain may not be violated;
- what is less plain is open to explanation only by what may not be violated;
- what cannot be explained may only be understood to the best of our ability without violating the plain, the clear, the express texts.
- what is in the Bible can only be cleared by the Bible, because there is no higher authority;
- what is in the Bible cannot be cleared up by external sources, not the writings of men, however holy they may be, nor church councils, nor tradition, nor by historical evidence or example.

This pertains to matters of doctrine, the thing that the Standards deal with. The light of nature is given its place in matters of governance, circumstance, prudence, and conscience, matters beside that of doctrine. None of these may violate or be normative to doctrinal matters beyond appeal to the plain meaning of words in the vulgar languages of the people. This means that the teachings of the Bible for what is necessary for the glory of God, the salvation of man, faith and life, are simple enough so that they are ordinarily understood by the learned and unlearned alike.

So the order of importance in determining doctrine is stated clearly enough in the WCF. Let me put it another way, if it helps:

- Councils of the church are subject to correction, if it can be shown they are in error, by appeal to the secondary standards (the Orders and Forms), or by appeal to the Confessions, or by appeal to the Word of God.

- The secondary standards may be corrected by appeal to the Confessions, and by appeal to the Word of God.

- The Confessions may be corrected only on appeal to the Word of God.

- The Word of God can only be correctly understood by appeal to the Word of God.