If a member of your congregation believes hymns to be sinful should you refrain for his sake?

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
So do you think it is wrong to seperate from a church over EP/NON-EP?

Absolutely. And I think that the historical practice of the Puritans and Reformers bears this out.

[Edited on 10/21/2005 by fredtgreco]

Ok...where were you on this thread???

Really, I've read Rutherford, Durham and others on this issue, but have been left somewhat wanting. I see both sides!

I don't want to cause strife or division over this issue, but I sure would like to learn more about it. I need to know weather or not it's right.

RPCNA Constitution
17. When any church imposes sinful requirements for membership; when its constitution or creedal statements are fundamentally unscriptural; when its administration is corrupt; or when sound preaching and proper discipline are neglected, it is the duty of Christians to attempt its reformation. Then if such efforts prove ineffectual, it is their duty to separate from it, and to unite with a sound church.
Rev. 2:20-23; Acts 19:8-9; 2 Cor. 6:16-17.

Do you disagree with this then?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

RPCNA Constitution
17. When any church imposes sinful requirements for membership; when its constitution or creedal statements are fundamentally unscriptural; when its administration is corrupt; or when sound preaching and proper discipline are neglected, it is the duty of Christians to attempt its reformation. Then if such efforts prove ineffectual, it is their duty to separate from it, and to unite with a sound church.
Rev. 2:20-23; Acts 19:8-9; 2 Cor. 6:16-17.

Do you disagree with this then?

Jeff,

To be honest, this is at best a vague statement. It can be true or not, depending on the circumstances. For example, what if the "creedal statement" that was "fundamentally unscriptural" was on eschatology? Should we permit schism over amil vs postmil view? One is "unscriptural", after all. What about headcoverings? Translations of the Bible? The Trinity? Covenant Theology in general? A three-covenant (Redemption/Grace/Works) scheme as opposed to a two-covenant (Grace/Works) scheme?

Obviously the answer to some of these doctrines is "Yes, worth dividing over." and "No, obviously not" and "I'm not sure" for others. That is what is so difficult.

My point is that Calvin and the Reformers, and the Puritans, put the bar WAY higher than we do. Remember that the Puritans did not leave the CoE - even when it was run by ARMINIANS. Calvin desired unity with Luther, even given Luther's view of the Law, and his view of baptism.

Frankly, we Americans abandon ship at the drop of a hat. (I preach to myself here, not claiming to be "holier than thou." ) THink for a minute how many Presbyterian, Reformed, Exclusive Psalm-singing "denominations" there are in America. Why is that? Why do we need to be separate if we agree so far down the line? Why do the OPC and PCA need to be separate if they have the same confession, ministers and churches regularly go back and forth between them?

I am coming more and more to the realization that we cannot abide being with people that are wrong, and that every issue becomes a hill to die on. The problem is that our collective ability to die on the significant hills is reduced. Don't you think that we would have a better chance of fighting Mega-Church Warranism and Federal Visionism and Civil Religionism if instead of dozens of Reformed Presbyterian demoniations there were one? Is EP (or Non-EP) really more important than a unified witness against Arminianism?

If you think that I am wrong, take a look at the titles of the largest (most active) threads in the past 6 months.

 

[Arch2k]

Thanks for your interaction Fred.

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

Does the "weakest" member dictate our day to day life? I.e. someone is offended by long hair so I cut my hair short. Another is offended by black clothes, I trash all my black clothes. Another is offended at secular music and I trash my secular music. In the end I conform to a multitude of nonessential things. Eventually one nonessential opinion may contradict another nonessential problem. In the end I become a product of the weakest brothers convictions.

In regards to meat or drink. The Pharises believed it wrong to travel a certain distance on the sabbath or even to eat grain from the grainfields, yet Christ did not refrain around them. Christ also distributed and drank wine and used wine as something normal and positive in many analogies. Surely there could have been someone offended by wine in His midst?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Does the "weakest" member dictate our day to day life? I.e. someone is offended by long hair so I cut my hair short. Another is offended by black clothes, I trash all my black clothes. Another is offended at secular music and I trash my secular music. In the end I conform to a multitude of nonessential things. Eventually one nonessential opinion may contradict another nonessential problem. In the end I become a product of the weakest brothers convictions.

In regards to meat or drink. The Pharises believed it wrong to travel a certain distance on the sabbath or even to eat grain from the grainfields, yet Christ did not refrain around them. Christ also distributed and drank wine and used wine as something normal and positive in many analogies. Surely there could have been someone offended by wine in His midst?

The key here Tim is that the consession made for a wekaer brother is first of all an individual submission on your part. The Church does not compromise. But indiviudal believers may set aside non-essentials (i.e. drinking alcohol) temporarily, until the weaker borther is brought to a more mature understanding. Paul is comparing the behavior of the more mature with the less mature. The weaker ar not to hold everyone down, but rather learn to grow in maturity. The strong are to help them, not by lording their liberty over them, but in humbly teaching and guiding them.

Regarding issues of worship, like song, we must hold fast to that which is clearly taught in Scripture. Elements of worship like preaching and prayer are clear. They are not negotiable. The command to sing with the congregation is also clear and non-negotiable. To refuse participation in a required element of worship is just as sinful as trying to add another element (i.e. drama). Scripture is clear that we must sing. But Scripture is not clear that we must sing EP or non-EP. (Otherwise more folks would be EP). This debate has been going on since the Reformation and will continute I'm sure. I am EP, but I understand that the command to sing is more important and clear than the interpretation to sing EP. To remain silent is not an optiobn in worship because that is disobedience to a clear command. God will not fault us for submitting to our elders an secondary matters, even if it violates our conscience. (For some reason, some people think their conscience can never be wrong.)

So, in secondary matters like the details of the element, we must submit to the Church. It is similar to the Lord's supper. What kind of bread to we use? What kind of wine? Red or White? What time of the day? How often? There is no clear direction from Scripture. But what is clear is that we still do the Lord's Supper. We submit to the general rule of the Church on these details for the sake of unity.

Now, other here have said that submission means silence. I will not go that far. Because even the Church can be in error. I don't think it is wrong to politely discuss these secondary issues so long as they don't become distracting from essentials. But to be beligerent on secondary matters is schism and therefore sin. If a church is close that you better agree with, then peacefully leave the present congregation and join the new one. But if no other congregation exists, then submit for the sake of unity. Do not undercut the authority of the Church.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Does the "weakest" member dictate our day to day life? I.e. someone is offended by long hair so I cut my hair short. Another is offended by black clothes, I trash all my black clothes. Another is offended at secular music and I trash my secular music. In the end I conform to a multitude of nonessential things. Eventually one nonessential opinion may contradict another nonessential problem. In the end I become a product of the weakest brothers convictions.

In regards to meat or drink. The Pharises believed it wrong to travel a certain distance on the sabbath or even to eat grain from the grainfields, yet Christ did not refrain around them. Christ also distributed and drank wine and used wine as something normal and positive in many analogies. Surely there could have been someone offended by wine in His midst?

The key here Tim is that the consession made for a wekaer brother is first of all an individual submission on your part. The Church does not compromise. But indiviudal believers may set aside non-essentials (i.e. drinking alcohol) temporarily, until the weaker borther is brought to a more mature understanding. Paul is comparing the behavior of the more mature with the less mature. The weaker ar not to hold everyone down, but rather learn to grow in maturity. The strong are to help them, not by lording their liberty over them, but in humbly teaching and guiding them.

Regarding issues of worship, like song, we must hold fast to that which is clearly taught in Scripture. Elements of worship like preaching and prayer are clear. They are not negotiable. The command to sing with the congregation is also clear and non-negotiable. To refuse participation in a required element of worship is just as sinful as trying to add another element (i.e. drama). Scripture is clear that we must sing. But Scripture is not clear that we must sing EP or non-EP. (Otherwise more folks would be EP). This debate has been going on since the Reformation and will continute I'm sure. I am EP, but I understand that the command to sing is more important and clear than the interpretation to sing EP. To remain silent is not an optiobn in worship because that is disobedience to a clear command. God will not fault us for submitting to our elders an secondary matters, even if it violates our conscience. (For some reason, some people think their conscience can never be wrong.)

So, in secondary matters like the details of the element, we must submit to the Church. It is similar to the Lord's supper. What kind of bread to we use? What kind of wine? Red or White? What time of the day? How often? There is no clear direction from Scripture. But what is clear is that we still do the Lord's Supper. We submit to the general rule of the Church on these details for the sake of unity.

Now, other here have said that submission means silence. I will not go that far. Because even the Church can be in error. I don't think it is wrong to politely discuss these secondary issues so long as they don't become distracting from essentials. But to be beligerent on secondary matters is schism and therefore sin. If a church is close that you better agree with, then peacefully leave the present congregation and join the new one. But if no other congregation exists, then submit for the sake of unity. Do not undercut the authority of the Church.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Regarding issues of worship, like song, we must hold fast to that which is clearly taught in Scripture. Elements of worship like preaching and prayer are clear. They are not negotiable. The command to sing with the congregation is also clear and non-negotiable. To refuse participation in a required element of worship is just as sinful as trying to add another element (i.e. drama). Scripture is clear that we must sing. But Scripture is not clear that we must sing EP or non-EP. (Otherwise more folks would be EP). This debate has been going on since the Reformation and will continute I'm sure. I am EP, but I understand that the command to sing is more important and clear than the interpretation to sing EP. To remain silent is not an optiobn in worship because that is disobedience to a clear command. God will not fault us for submitting to our elders an secondary matters, even if it violates our conscience. (For some reason, some people think their conscience can never be wrong.)

Patrick, With all due respect, what you are articulating is not the EP position. The EP position is that 1) we are commanded to sing psalms only in worship and therefore 2) it would be disobedience to a clear command and therefore sin to sing uninspired hymns in worship. The clarity of Scripture on this point is not determined by the number of EP churches today (a theologically weak age). It is determined by the testimony of Scripture which the church may not contradict.

II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13] -- WCF, Chap. XX

Some one will therefore ask me what counsel I would like to give to a believer who thus dwells in some Egypt or Babylon where he may not worship God purely, but is forced by the common practice to accommodate himself to bad things. The first advice would be to leave if he could. . . . If someone has no way to depart, I would counsel him to consider whether it would be possible for him to abstain from all idolatry in order to preserve himself pure and spotless toward God in both body and soul. (John Calvin, Come Out From Among Them, The Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin, Protestant Heritage Press)

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Does the "weakest" member dictate our day to day life? I.e. someone is offended by long hair so I cut my hair short. Another is offended by black clothes, I trash all my black clothes. Another is offended at secular music and I trash my secular music. In the end I conform to a multitude of nonessential things. Eventually one nonessential opinion may contradict another nonessential problem. In the end I become a product of the weakest brothers convictions.

In regards to meat or drink. The Pharises believed it wrong to travel a certain distance on the sabbath or even to eat grain from the grainfields, yet Christ did not refrain around them. Christ also distributed and drank wine and used wine as something normal and positive in many analogies. Surely there could have been someone offended by wine in His midst?

The key here Tim is that the consession made for a wekaer brother is first of all an individual submission on your part. The Church does not compromise. But indiviudal believers may set aside non-essentials (i.e. drinking alcohol) temporarily, until the weaker borther is brought to a more mature understanding. Paul is comparing the behavior of the more mature with the less mature. The weaker ar not to hold everyone down, but rather learn to grow in maturity. The strong are to help them, not by lording their liberty over them, but in humbly teaching and guiding them.

Regarding issues of worship, like song, we must hold fast to that which is clearly taught in Scripture. Elements of worship like preaching and prayer are clear. They are not negotiable. The command to sing with the congregation is also clear and non-negotiable. To refuse participation in a required element of worship is just as sinful as trying to add another element (i.e. drama). Scripture is clear that we must sing. But Scripture is not clear that we must sing EP or non-EP. (Otherwise more folks would be EP). This debate has been going on since the Reformation and will continute I'm sure. I am EP, but I understand that the command to sing is more important and clear than the interpretation to sing EP. To remain silent is not an optiobn in worship because that is disobedience to a clear command. God will not fault us for submitting to our elders an secondary matters, even if it violates our conscience. (For some reason, some people think their conscience can never be wrong.)

So, in secondary matters like the details of the element, we must submit to the Church. It is similar to the Lord's supper. What kind of bread to we use? What kind of wine? Red or White? What time of the day? How often? There is no clear direction from Scripture. But what is clear is that we still do the Lord's Supper. We submit to the general rule of the Church on these details for the sake of unity.

Now, other here have said that submission means silence. I will not go that far. Because even the Church can be in error. I don't think it is wrong to politely discuss these secondary issues so long as they don't become distracting from essentials. But to be beligerent on secondary matters is schism and therefore sin. If a church is close that you better agree with, then peacefully leave the present congregation and join the new one. But if no other congregation exists, then submit for the sake of unity. Do not undercut the authority of the Church.

Christ would drink wine in public settings and use it with approval anc casuality in his teachings, could not there have been someone who would have been offended around? I don't really know how offensive wine was during the time, except that Paul specifically used it as an example in Romans 14. Also what about my question involving Christ and the grain?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Some one will therefore ask me what counsel I would like to give to a believer who thus dwells in some Egypt or Babylon where he may not worship God purely, but is forced by the common practice to accommodate himself to bad things. The first advice would be to leave if he could. . . . If someone has no way to depart, I would counsel him to consider whether it would be possible for him to abstain from all idolatry in order to preserve himself pure and spotless toward God in both body and soul. (John Calvin, Come Out From Among Them, The Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin, Protestant Heritage Press)

Thanks for that quote Andrew. I just bought this, and NEED to read it.

 

[LawrenceU]

I am coming more and more to the realization that we cannot abide being with people that are wrong, and that every issue becomes a hill to die on. The problem is that our collective ability to die on the significant hills is reduced. Don't you think that we would have a better chance of fighting Mega-Church Warranism and Federal Visionism and Civil Religionism if instead of dozens of Reformed Presbyterian demoniations there were one? Is EP (or Non-EP) really more important than a unified witness against Arminianism?

If you think that I am wrong, take a look at the titles of the largest (most active) threads in the past 6 months.

These may be some of the most approprate words I have read on this board in months! Brothers, and sisters , the church in this nation has lost its efficacy to bring the light of the Gospel to this nation because of the very reason that Fred highlights. There are dangerous teachings running through what is left of the body of Christ and most don't even realise it. Why? petty disagreement is more 'exciting' I guess. I know it makes us feel better about ourselves. Why, because then we are right. Who would have guessed fifteen years ago that FV would be running roughshod in the Body of Christ? Even in Baptist churches! With all the education and pastoral experience taht exists on this board, let alone the Body of Christ, we should be pusing such false doctrine into the sea. Rather than debating small points of theology and interpretation ad nauseum we should be on our faces in REPENTANCE.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by LawrenceU]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Patrick, With all due respect, what you are articulating is not the EP position. The EP position is that 1) we are commanded to sing psalms only in worship and therefore 2) it would be disobedience to a clear command and therefore sin to sing uninspired hymns in worship. The clarity of Scripture on this point is not determined by the number of EP churches today (a theologically weak age). It is determined by the testimony of Scripture which the church may not contradict.

Andrew, I'm not trying to articulate the EP position. I am trying to show how one who holds to EP can faithfully and in good conscience, worship with God's people who disagree over the issue of song. For some reason, "my conscience" can never be wrong. That is simply not the case. We must submit on secondary matters. You Calvin quote is great, regarding essential matters, but Calvin would not approve of churches splitting over EP, especially since he didn't believe it. Calvin did after all approve the Book of Common Prayer which the Anglican Church sent him for comment.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Patrick, With all due respect, what you are articulating is not the EP position. The EP position is that 1) we are commanded to sing psalms only in worship and therefore 2) it would be disobedience to a clear command and therefore sin to sing uninspired hymns in worship. The clarity of Scripture on this point is not determined by the number of EP churches today (a theologically weak age). It is determined by the testimony of Scripture which the church may not contradict.

Andrew, I'm not trying to articulate the EP position. I am trying to show how one who holds to EP can faithfully and in good conscience, worship with God's people who disagree over the issue of song. For some reason, "my conscience" can never be wrong. That is simply not the case. We must submit on secondary matters. You Calvin quote is great, regarding essential matters, but Calvin would not approve of churches splitting over EP, especially since he didn't believe it. Calvin did after all approve the Book of Common Prayer which the Anglican Church sent him for comment.

EP is not a principle in the abstract only. It has practical implications. One who sings hymns in worship is not EP.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Patrick, With all due respect, what you are articulating is not the EP position. The EP position is that 1) we are commanded to sing psalms only in worship and therefore 2) it would be disobedience to a clear command and therefore sin to sing uninspired hymns in worship. The clarity of Scripture on this point is not determined by the number of EP churches today (a theologically weak age). It is determined by the testimony of Scripture which the church may not contradict.

Andrew, I'm not trying to articulate the EP position. I am trying to show how one who holds to EP can faithfully and in good conscience, worship with God's people who disagree over the issue of song. For some reason, "my conscience" can never be wrong. That is simply not the case. We must submit on secondary matters. You Calvin quote is great, regarding essential matters, but Calvin would not approve of churches splitting over EP, especially since he didn't believe it. Calvin did after all approve the Book of Common Prayer which the Anglican Church sent him for comment.

Act 5:29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men.

We should never obey our session at the expense of obeying God. Should a wife submit to her husband if he asks her to sin? If God says sing Psalms only, and you sing hymns, you are sinning against God.

If you truly believe that the Psalms are an element (and not a form), than singing hymns is not different than introducing any other element. Let's say jello slinging perhaps?

People that sing hymns may have good intentions, but that has never justified anyone's actions.

 

[pastorway]

Since when does the conscience of the individual overthrow the authority of Christ's church?

It is about submission to God ordained authority, and humility.

And while worship is important, one thing the last week on this board proves is that making EP THE SINGLE SOLITARY ISSUE that determines where, when, and if we can worship God with His people, well.....ever run through a swarm of gnats and get a mouthful? That is what the PB has tasted like this week.

 

[Saiph]

And I apologize for my contentious heart. I ask for the forgiveness of those whom I have offended so that I may worship today in a clear conscience.

 

[lwadkins]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Now, other here have said that submission means silence. I will not go that far. Because even the Church can be in error. I don't think it is wrong to politely discuss these secondary issues so long as they don't become distracting from essentials. But to be belligerent on secondary matters is schism and therefore sin. If a church is close that you better agree with, then peacefully leave the present congregation and join the new one. But if no other congregation exists, then submit for the sake of unity. Do not undercut the authority of the Church.

In my humble opinion this quote addresses the central issue of the situation. In the human fallen condition, one of our most serious flaws is independence and desired autonomy from God. How is this manifested in the church of the past, and the church of today? Well one way is the refusal to be humble and submissive to the Scriptures.

{Sarcasm to Follow}

If church leaders/scholars/laity find a doctrine (even a long standing and proven doctrine) not to our liking we simply reinterpret the Scriptures and Presto! Finally we got it right because we are the smartest scholar in the room. Forget Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Bucer, et al! Ignore the Westminster Confession Heidelberg, creeds and confessions! After all those people were primitive, superstitious and backward. What! Now my church doesn't give biblical warrant to my new and CORRECT interpretation. How dare they! Time to start a new Denomination. Ahh, 100 years have fled, and now my new and CORRECT interpretation has the weight of historical warrant behind it! People are quoting me and now what was controversial has become accepted. Churches around the world are allowing the new and CORRECT doctrine for fear of offending and losing members who now adhere to it. Wonderful! Now even once orthodox churches are seeing how new and CORRECT doctrine can be acceptable in their new and CORRECT denominations! Ohhh, look! Someone else in our new and CORRECT denomination has discovered another doctrine that has been wrong all these years. Yay! That means still another new and CORRECT denomination! Great! I wonder which one of us will be next to be the foundations (I mean the apostles can´t be the foundation) of a new and CORRECT doctrine/denomination. After all I can chalk it up to conscience and Christian liberty! Everyone will get to submit to my new and CORRECT interpretation! After all I, all by myself, am brighter than all who came before. Who could even question that!?!? I mean everyone is to submit to the teachings of Scripture, and I know what Christ REALLY meant. It follows that everyone should submit to my teachings! Wow, I really like this!

Sorry guys, I gotta go. Gotta search my bible for incorrect interpretations so i can start my own denomination. After all I am the "smartest one in the room".

 

[NaphtaliPress]

No time for more, but this is from Gillespie's English Popish Ceremonies and his chapter on Christian Liberty (Part 1 chapter 4). I recommend reading the whole chapter. Here are two quotes:

Upon these descriptions, which have more truth and reason
in them, I infer that whatsoever urges, or forces conscience to
assent to a thing as lawful, or a thing that ought to be done, or
dissent from a thing as unlawful, or a thing which ought not to
be done, that is a binder of conscience, though it did not bind
the spirit of a man with the fear of such punishments as God
alone inflicts. For secluding all respect of punishment, and not
considering what will follow, the very obliging of the conscience
for the time, according to agreement, is binding of it. 1.4.2

Now, for making the matter more plain, we must consider
that the constitutions of the church are either lawful or unlawful.
If unlawful, they bind not at all: if lawful, they are either
concerning things necessary (as Acts 15:28), and then the necessity
of the things bind, whether the church ordains them or not;
or else concerning things indifferent, as when the church
ordains, that in great towns there shall be sermon on such a day
of the week, and public prayers every day at such an hour.
Here it is not the bare authority of the church that binds without
respect to the lawfulness or expediency of the thing itself
which is ordained (else we were bound to do everything which
the church ordains, were it never so unlawful, for quod competit
alicui qua tali, competit omni tali [what is suitable for someone as
such, is suitable for all such]; we behold the authority of the
church making laws, as well in unlawful ordinances as in lawful),
nor yet is it the lawfulness or expediency of the thing itself,
without respect to the ordinance of the church (for possibly
other times and diets were as lawful, and expedient too, for
such exercises, as those ordained by the church), but it is the
authority of the church prescribing a thing lawful or expedient.
In such a case, then neither does the authority of the church
bind, except the thing be lawful and expedient, nor does the
lawfulness and expediency of the thing bind, except the church
ordain it; but both these jointly do bind. 1.4.7

 

[lwadkins]

I am implicating MYSELF, as God has also done. I can only repeat the tax collector:

Lk 18:13

13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner !'
ESV

As for who else should be implicated, I think God's Spirit with the help of Scripture and history can tell us. I think too often though we stubbornly refuse to see the truth even when it is given to us. God protect me from that! For I am utterly prone to it.

[Edited on 10-23-2005 by lwadkins]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Come Out From Among Them, The Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin, Protestant Heritage Press)

Thanks for that quote Andrew. I just bought this, and NEED to read it.

Just a note on that book - most even here on this board would disagree with Calvin. They would not like his exclusivisticness and narrowmindedness.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Patrick, With all due respect, what you are articulating is not the EP position. The EP position is that 1) we are commanded to sing psalms only in worship and therefore 2) it would be disobedience to a clear command and therefore sin to sing uninspired hymns in worship. The clarity of Scripture on this point is not determined by the number of EP churches today (a theologically weak age). It is determined by the testimony of Scripture which the church may not contradict.

Andrew, I'm not trying to articulate the EP position. I am trying to show how one who holds to EP can faithfully and in good conscience, worship with God's people who disagree over the issue of song. For some reason, "my conscience" can never be wrong. That is simply not the case. We must submit on secondary matters. You Calvin quote is great, regarding essential matters, but Calvin would not approve of churches splitting over EP, especially since he didn't believe it. Calvin did after all approve the Book of Common Prayer which the Anglican Church sent him for comment.

EP is not a principle in the abstract only. It has practical implications. One who sings hymns in worship is not EP.

That is only your opinion. Several of the Puritans who remained in the Church of England would strongly disagree with you as well. Just because I am not permitted by the Church to exercise what I believe, doesn't mean I don't believe it. Some things are just more important than my stance on secondary issues.

 

[Arch2k]

AN ANSWER UNTO TWO QUESTIONS: WITH TWELVE ARGUMENTS AGAINST ANY CONFORMITY TO WORSHIP NOT OF DIVINE INSTITUTION by the learned John Owen.

 

[Peter]

Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Ro 14:23

How can you do something that you know is sin (and defend it)?? No man can compel you to do something that is against God's law. 'It is better to obey God than men'. And the OPC does not require you to. I attended an OP mission plant for sometime and was never pressured to commit the sin of hymn singing.

Something I've been trying to instill in myself is a sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin. There is nothing so vile as sin. Even the worst affliction, even the contempt and scorn of our brothers in Christ, is better then the least sin. And you may think UH singing is only a little sin but still it is an infinite offense against the most high holy God. Just think of the terrible ends God went to in order to placate is hatred and wrath against little sins.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

More Gillespie on Conscience

George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, Ebook text, 2001, unpublished).

Part One Chapter Five
That The Ceremonies Take Away Christian Liberty, Proved By A Third Reason, Viz., Because They Are Urged Upon Such As, In Their Consciences, Do Condemn Them.

Section 1.
If Christian liberty is taken away, by adstricting {binding} conscience in any, much more by adstricting it in them who are fully persuaded of the unlawfulness of the thing enjoined; yet thus are we dealt with. Bishop Lindsey gives us to understand that, after the making and publication of an ecclesiastical canon, about things of this nature, albeit a man in his own private judgment think another thing more expedient than that which the canon prescribes, yet in that case his conscience must be ruled by the will of the law, and not by his own judgment. And Bishop Spottiswood, to such as object that their conscience will not suffer them to obey, because they are persuaded that such things are not right, answers, that the sentence of their superiors ought to direct them, and make their conscience yield to obedience. Their words I have before transcribed. By which it does manifestly appear that they would bear dominion over our consciences, not as lords only, by requiring the will and ready assent of our consciences to those things which are urged upon us by their sole will and authority, but even as tyrants, not caring if they get so much as constrained obedience, and if by their authority they can compel conscience to that which is contrary to the plhroforia {certainty} and full persuasion which it has conceived.

Section 2.
It will be said that our consciences are in an error, and therefore ought to be corrected by the sentence of superiors, whose authority and will does bind us to receive and embrace the ceremonies, though our consciences do condemn them.

ANSWER. Giving, and not granting, that our consciences do err in condemning the ceremonies, yet, so long as they cannot be otherwise persuaded, the ceremonies ought not to be urged upon us; for if we are made to do that which our consciences do condemn, we are made to sin (Rom. 14:23). It is an audacious contempt, in Calvin´s judgment, to do anything repugnante conscientia {incompatible with conscience}.1 The learned Casuists teach us, that an erring conscience, though non obligat, yet ligat {it does not bind, yet it harnesses}; though we are not obliged to do that which it prescribes, yet are we bound not to do that which it condemns. Whatever is done despite a resisting and protesting conscience is sin, even if that resistance has serious error as an element, says Alsted.2 An erring conscience binds, so that in taking its meaning, one sins by doing something contrary to it, says Hemmingius.3 This holds ever true of an erring conscience about matters of fact, and especially about things indifferent.

If any say that hereby a necessity of sinning is laid on them whose consciences are in an error, I answer that so long as a man keeps an erroneous conscience, a necessity of sinning lies on him and that through his own fault. This necessity arises from this supposition, that he retain his erring conscience, and so is not absolute, because he should inform his conscience rightly, so that he may both do that which he ought to do, and do it so from the approbation of his conscience.

If it is said again, What should be done to them who have not laid down the error of conscience, but do still retain the same? I answer, that which is safer and better is chosen.4 If therefore the error of conscience is about weighty and necessary matters, then it is better to urge men to the doing of a necessary duty in the service of God, than to permit them to neglect the same, because their erring conscience disapproves it; for example, it is better to urge a profane man to come and hear God´s word than to suffer him to neglect the hearing of the same, because his conscience allows him not to hear. But if the error of conscience is about unnecessary things, or such as are in themselves indifferent, then it is pars tutior {the safer part}, the surest and safest part not to urge men to do that which in their con- sciences they condemn. Wherefore, since the ceremonies are not among the number of such necessary things as may not be omitted without the peril of salvation, the invincible disallowance of our consciences should make our opposites not press them upon us, because by practicing them we could not but sin, in that our consciences judge them unlawful. If any of our weak brethren think that he must and should abstain from the eating of flesh upon some certain day, though this thing is in itself indifferent, and not necessary, yet, says Balduine, he who is thus persuaded in his conscience, if he should do the contrary, sins.5

Section Three
Conscience, then, though erring, does ever bind in such sort, that he who does against his conscience sins against God. Which is also the doctrine of Thomas.6 But, without any more ado, it is sufficiently confirmed from Scripture. For was not their conscience in an error who thought they might not lawfully eat all sorts of meat? Yet the Apostle shows that their conscience, as erring as it was, did so bind, that they were damned if they should eat such meat as they judged to be unclean (Rom. 14:14, 23). The reason wherefore an erring conscience binds in this kind is, quoniam agens, etc.7 Because he who does any thing against his conscience does it against the will of God, though not materially and truly, yet formally and by way of interpretation, forsomuch as that which conscience counsels or prescribes, it counsels it under the respect and account of the will of God. He who reproaches some private man, taking him to be the king, is thought to have hurt not the private man, but the king himself. So he that condemns his conscience condemns God himself, because that which conscience counsels or advises is taken to be God´s will. If I go with certain men upon such a course as I judge and esteem to be a treasonable conspiracy against the king (though it be not so indeed), would not his Majesty (if he knew so much), and might he not, justly condemn me as a wicked traitor? But how much more will the King of kings condemn me if I practice the ceremonies which I judge in my conscience to be contrary to the will of God, and to rob him of his royal prerogative?

1. Comment. in Rom. 14:5.
2. Theol. Cas. cap. 2. Quiequid fit repugnante et reclamante conscientia, peccatum est,
etiamsi repugnantia ista gravem errorem includat.
3. Enchyrid., class. 2, cap. 7. Conscientia erronea obligat, sic intelligendo, quod faciens
contra peccet, says Hemmingius.
4. Balduin, de Consc. Cas., lib. 1, cap. 8. Eligatur id quod tutius et melius est.
5. De Consc. Cas., lib. 1, cap. 7.
6. 1 an. 2 an. quest. 19, art. 5.
7. Ames, de Consc., lib. 1, cap. 4.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Peter
Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Ro 14:23

How can you do something that you know is sin (and defend it)?? No man can compel you to do something that is against God's law. 'It is better to obey God than men'. And the OPC does not require you to. I attended an OP mission plant for sometime and was never pressured to commit the sin of hymn singing.

Something I've been trying to instill in myself is a sense of the exceeding sinfulness of sin. There is nothing so vile as sin. Even the worst affliction, even the contempt and scorn of our brothers in Christ, is better then the least sin. And you may think UH singing is only a little sin but still it is an infinite offense against the most high holy God. Just think of the terrible ends God went to in order to placate is hatred and wrath against little sins.

You may not been pressured to sing hymns, and that's fine. But their practice did not compromise for your sake. They still governed the Church by their understanding of what Scripture requires.

Like I said, this is the conclusion I have come to about the matter. You all will have to decide for yourselves about it. I personally am not going to cause division or refuse to participate in worship over EP vs. non-EP. I am not impressed with the arguments for either side of the issue. Though I feel EP the most compelling and consistent, I am fully aware of it's weaknesses. It is an exegetical argument which depends upon many assumptions, some of which remain to be proven, at least for me. I am fully aware of the sinfulness of sin. I dread it and mourn over it every day. But for me, it is not clear which position absolutely right and therefore which is sinful or not. What is clear is that I must sing in praise to God. Hopefully the Lord will grant me further light so that I may have more conviction either way. But until then, I trust Him to lead me, and I obey Him as best I understand how, and respect the authorities He has placed over me.