JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
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.