Yet another thread about EP...and a poll...

[panta dokimazete]

so then utilize reverse argumentum ad populum (well actually, on this board it would be argumentum ad populum) to prove that the majority of the visible church is wrong and you are the truly elect? ...my, my...

Revelation 7:9

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;

I doubt such a great multitude will be pulled from the tiny bit who hold to strict EP, so I doubt the majority of the visible church is in as great a state of calamity as some would suggest...but that is just conjecture...it is sometimes so hard to see grace manifest here...

Besides, contextually, the LITTLE FLOCK was probably the disciples he was speaking to at that time:

22And He said to His disciples, "For this reason I say to you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as to what you will put on.
...

32"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.
...

Heck, even Peter was confused:

41Peter said, "Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?"

 

[Arch2k]

so then utilize reverse argumentum ad populum (well actually, on this board it would be argumentum ad populum) to prove that the majority of the visible church is wrong and you are the truly elect? ...my, my...



I doubt such a great multitude will be pulled from the tiny bit who hold to strict EP, so I doubt the majority of the visible church is in as great a state of calamity as some would suggest...but that is just conjecture...it is sometimes so hard to see grace manifest here...

Besides, contextually, the LITTLE FLOCK was probably the disciples he was speaking to at that time:

22And He said to His disciples, "For this reason I say to you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as to what you will put on.

...

32"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.

...

Heck, even Peter was confused:

41Peter said, "Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?"

Mr. Longmire,

Let me assure you that I am quite familiar with the ad populum fallacy as I am a logic teacher. I have not seen an actual use of it with exception an implication in one post in this thread. It is one thing to appeal to the masses seriously, and it is quite another to argue against that ad populum by appealing to cases where the ad populum fails. In fact, by appealing to the minority, one is not partaking in some ficticious "reverse ad populum" fallacy, but rather arguing that appealing to the masses is indeed fallacious reasoning.

 

[panta dokimazete]

What if the supposed minority is the majority audience?

Take a look at the poll for illustration.

It's like standing in a room more than half full of atheists and saying - "there is no God, right?"

While they may be an overall minority in the world - in that room - they are the populum.

Similar to - preaching to the choir.

 

[Davidius]

What if the supposed minority is the majority audience?

Take a look at the poll for illustration.

It's like standing in a room more than half full of atheists and saying - "there is no God, right?"

While they may be an overall minority in the world - in that room - the are the populum.

Similar to - preaching to the choir.

I dunno if I'd say that EP is the majority on the board.

Oh and in the nominative case it's 'populus.' It becomes 'populum' with the preposition 'ad' that takes the accusative case.

I wouldn't have said anything but I'm a Latin student and I had to!

 

[Arch2k]

What if the supposed minority is the majority audience?

Take a look at the poll for illustration.

It's like standing in a room more than half full of atheists and saying - "there is no God, right?"

While they may be an overall minority in the world - in that room - the are the populum.

Also called - preaching to the choir.

It doesn't matter in this case. No advocate of EP that I have seen has appealed to their numbers on the board as an argument that you should accept EP. Like I said before, I only see an attempt to show that an appeal to mainstream Presbyterianism today does not necessarily make a doctrine right. That is the thrust of every post I have seen from the EP side.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I dunno if I'd say that EP is the majority on the board.

Oh and in the nominative case it's 'populus.' It becomes 'populum' with the preposition 'ad' that takes the accusative case.

I wouldn't have said anything but I'm a Latin student and I had to!

But one could say that in this thread the populus...popular...population is.

I tol' you my grammer was bad - thanks for the correction.

 

[panta dokimazete]

It doesn't matter in this case. No advocate of EP that I have seen has appealed to their numbers on the board as an argument that you should accept EP. Like I said before, I only see an attempt to show that an appeal to mainstream Presbyterianism today does not necessarily make a doctrine right. That is the thrust of every post I have seen from the EP side.

Jeff - you are likely correct - it is the argument that unless one adopts strict EP they are sinning or not truly practicing the RPW that gets under my skin.

The reverse is true also - I do not appeal to the majority of the visible church practices to plead my non-EP case.

 

[Davidius]

Jeff - you are likely correct - it is the argument that unless one adopts strict EP they are sinning or not truly practicing the RPW that gets under my skin.

The reverse is true also - I do not appeal to the majority of the visible church practices to plead my non-EP case.

I wouldn't let it get you under skin. It's a serious issue and the same is true for your case. If your interpretation of "sing a new song" is correct, then EPers are sinning by failing to heed this command are they not? If issues like these don't really matter I don't see much point in discussing them.

 

[Arch2k]

Jeff - you are likely correct - it is the argument that unless one adopts strict EP they are sinning that gets under my skin.

Ah, but that is the topic of discussion. If one accepts the RPW, both sides should be politely calling each other sinners in the area of song (the EPers are sinning because they are not singing brand "new" songs as God has commanded if you are right!).

We are Calvininsts, and we think we're pretty rotten anyway if I remember correctly. Let's continue on in a respectful (i.e. not getting under, and not letting get under our skin) way.

Know back to your regularly scheduled EP poll/discussion...and I do mean regularly

 

[panta dokimazete]

I wouldn't let it get you under skin. It's a serious issue. The same is true for your case. If your interpretation of "sing a new song" is correct, then EPers are sinning by failing to heed this command are they not?

yes, but only if my argument is irrefutable - the same goes for EP - and I think we have proven that is not the case.

I think this may be a "do not despise those that do eat" issue.

I just don't think we should let the implications of each other's arguments make the discussion more emotional than it has to be because those are the stakes from both sides at the get-go, as I see it.

It is hard not to be emotional when the EPer stance is that non-EPers are sinning when they worship in song. God makes the worship perfect.

I could buy that the EP stance is the less doctrinally complex and thus a potentially "safer" route, but I think the Spirit filled EPer is just as likely to sin in their heart during worship as a Spirit filled non-EPer.

 

[MW]

One thing these internet discussions have taught me -- the moment one assumes a defensive attitude they become prone to misunderstanding everything that is said as an attack on them. LITTLE FLOCK was emphasised to show that smallness of numbers in favour of a position does not prejudice the correctness of the position. That is all; there was no insinuation that EPers alone belong to the kingdom of God. I have had the privilege to know many godly non EPers, and I look forward to the day when I will sing with them in the kingdom of heaven from a perfect hymnbook. For that very reason I am all the more eager to persuade them of the benefits of singing from a perfect hymnbook even now. Blessings!

 

[panta dokimazete]

I am all the more eager to persuade them of the benefits of singing from a perfect hymnbook

Well met!

Sorry if I took you wrong - you are correct, the more one is seemingly attacked the more the sinful response to "push back harder" manifests.

That is - one's defense can become offense...ive...

It may be from my old football days, I dunno...

 

[MW]

 

[bookslover]

Well, that was sure interesting...

 

[Davidius]

Well, that was sure interesting...

Interesting, and encouraging to see such charity resulting from a dispute!

Rev. Winzer, your character in debate is an inspiration to younger guys like myself who too often shoot from the hip and speak before thinking.

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer, your character in debate is an inspiration to younger guys like myself who too often shoot from the hip and speak before thinking.

You are too kind. It is just as well you didn't witness the days when I used to speak first and regret later; and still the work of mortification continues.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Just to clarify: the ARP's were an exclusive Psalm-singing denomination until 1946; the CRC until 1934; the UPCNA until 1925 (later merged with the PCUSA, 1958, to form the UPCUSA; then merged with the PCUS, 1983, to form today's PCUSA). Just within the last century, EP was a much more widely-held position, as far as numbers are concerned.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Where did say they did not?

Where does it say that we should not?

Where is there a command not to sing new songs?

The fact is - there is no clear guidance, and where there is not, we have liberty - guided by the Holy Spirit and bounded by Scripture.

I wanted to elaborate on this statement, since it might be misconstrued.

The liberty I am referring to is the liberty of content and circumstance within the God ordained elements of worship as defined by Scripture and codified in the WCF.

Grace and Peace.

 

[Kaalvenist]

I wanted to elaborate on this statement, since it might be misconstrued.

The liberty I am referring to is the liberty of content and circumstance within the God ordained elements of worship as defined by Scripture and codified in the WCF.

Grace and Peace.

JD, the God-ordained element of worship we are describing in this situation is not merely "singing," without the content being defined. It is the "singing of psalms with grace in the heart" (WCF 21.5). Having a defined content for this ordinance of worship is directly contrary to that for which you are arguing. If you think that the Westminster Divines did not mean the 150 Psalms of the Bible in that phrase -- or, more importantly, if you believe that God has not appointed the 150 Psalms of the Bible to be sung as an ordinance of worship -- I would be interested to see a demonstration of this, since this (whether or not the content of our singing is defined and appointed) is, in my mind, the hinge of the whole debate.

 

[LadyFlynt]

okay, peeping from behind my safe hiding place to add...

the Presbyterian Reformed Church is EP

And there are Presbyterian churches that DO still hold to the original WCF document stating the Pope as Anti-Christ.

(okay, going back into hiding...play nice, gents!)

 

[Kaalvenist]

okay, peeping from behind my safe hiding place to add...

the Presbyterian Reformed Church is EP

And there are Presbyterian churches that DO still hold to the original WCF document stating the Pope as Anti-Christ.

(okay, going back into hiding...play nice, gents!)

Actually, yeah, I hold to that section of the Confession too... and I know at least one OPC-ordained seminary professor who also does.

 

[Davidius]

okay, peeping from behind my safe hiding place to add...

the Presbyterian Reformed Church is EP

And there are Presbyterian churches that DO still hold to the original WCF document stating the Pope as Anti-Christ.

(okay, going back into hiding...play nice, gents!)

And the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS).

I think Don might've originally just been using the larger presbyterian denominations, though.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I wanted to elaborate on this statement, since it might be misconstrued.
The liberty I am referring to is the liberty of content and circumstance within the God ordained elements of worship as defined by Scripture and codified in the WCF.
Grace and Peace.

JD, the God-ordained element of worship we are describing in this situation is not merely "singing," without the content being defined. It is the "singing of psalms with grace in the heart" (WCF 21.5). Having a defined content for this ordinance of worship is directly contrary to that for which you are arguing. If you think that the Westminster Divines did not mean the 150 Psalms of the Bible in that phrase -- or, more importantly, if you believe that God has not appointed the 150 Psalms of the Bible to be sung as an ordinance of worship -- I would be interested to see a demonstration of this, since this (whether or not the content of our singing is defined and appointed) is, in my mind, the hinge of the whole debate.

Not to beat a really dead horse, but see this post.

 

[panta dokimazete]

JD, the God-ordained element of worship we are describing in this situation is not merely "singing," without the content being defined. It is the "singing of psalms with grace in the heart" (WCF 21.5). Having a defined content for this ordinance of worship is directly contrary to that for which you are arguing. If you think that the Westminster Divines did not mean the 150 Psalms of the Bible in that phrase -- or, more importantly, if you believe that God has not appointed the 150 Psalms of the Bible to be sung as an ordinance of worship -- I would be interested to see a demonstration of this, since this (whether or not the content of our singing is defined and appointed) is, in my mind, the hinge of the whole debate.

I thought this was a interesting summary: (edited to add: This blog had some comment spam on it that I missed, so I removed the link)

The WCF is a secondary standard

Firstly, this means that where the WCF disagree with the teachings of Scriptures, the Church is to be bound by God’s Word rather than the WCF. The WCF is not an infallible document. Churches which subscribed to the WCF, and yet disagree with some points in the WCF, must follow what the Bible teaches rather than the WCF. This has been done in the past through the Adoption Act or through revisions of the WCF. A.A. Hodge writes,

… the original Synod of the American Presbyterian Church, in the year 1729, solemnly adopted the WCF… except only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, ‘Concerning the Civil Magistrate’” (A.A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, p.4).

In 1788, the same Synod revised the WCF again. In the original WCF25.6, the Pope is identified as “that antichrist, that man of sin” and not just an antichrist. The American Presbyterian Church could not reconcile this with the Scriptures and revised the WCF at this point.

Secondly, it means that when possible, the WCF is to be interpreted in a way that is in harmony with the teachings of Scripture. If this can be done, then an Adoption act or a revision would not be necessary. For example, the Free Church of Scotland has retained the original WCF in those clauses “Concerning the Civil Magistrate” which the American Presbyterian Church has revised. The Free Church of Scotland interpreted those clauses in such a way that is in harmony to the Word of God and so there was no need for a revision or an Adoption Act.

Another example can be found in WCF20.5 the elements of worship are listed. In this paragraph, the “singing of psalms” is mentioned while hymns were not mentioned. Should we interpret the WCF here to forbid anything which is not listed there? The collection of offerings is not listed and yet Scripture teaches that it is proper for this to be done (1Cor.16v1-2). The benediction found in Paul’s letters (eg. 2Cor.13v14) would be pronounced during the church gathering as the letters were read in such occasion. Providence interprets WCF20.5 in harmony with the other teachings of Scripture. Providence do(es) not accept that WCF20.5 forbids anything which is not mentioned. Therefore Providence sings hymns even though the singing of hymns were not mentioned in WCF20.5.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I thought this [link removed by request] was a good summary:

This is incorrect on pope as Antichrist. 25.6 was not revised by various denoms until the 20th century. According to my collation it is:

BP (1938); PCUSA (1903); PLAN: “The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of any man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church is unscriptural, without warrant in fact, and is a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ.” PCUS (1939) “The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church, and the claim of any man to be the vicar of Christ and the head of the Church, is without warrant in fact or in Scripture, even anti-Christian, a usurpation dishonoring to the Lord Jesus Christ.” Both versions are in BOFC. OPC (1936) and PCA (1973) omit everything after “be head thereof.” ARP (1976): “There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can mere man in any sense be the head thereof.”
​

 

[Kaalvenist]

JD,

1. I'm going to have to side with Chris on this one...except I thought that the ARP's have the statement you attribute to the PCUS?

2. The point of my question was that WCF 21.5 (not 20.5) understands the content of song in worship as being prescribed; just as it understands the content of "reading" to be prescribed ("The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear"), and the subject-matter of "preaching" to be prescribed ("the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence"), so likewise the content of our "singing" is prescribed ("singing of psalms with grace in the heart").--If God has appointed the Psalms to be sung in worship, this demonstrates that the content of our song is prescribed; it is not simply "singing," the content of which is left to our determination.

 

[elnwood]

And the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS).

I think Don might've originally just been using the larger presbyterian denominations, though.

Yeah, I was just using the English-speaking NAPARC Presbyterians as representative. There are so many tiny 1-15 member Presbyterian congregations that it's just too tedious to include them, especially since it wouldn't affect the percentage all that much, and I'd probably have to read each of their doctrinal views to see if they were worth including. NAPARC is a safe standard for determining inclusion in the larger conservative Reformed community.

Re: Papacy is the anti-Christ, I definitely think it is a viable interpretation. I would be hesitant, though, to bind the consciences within a denomination on that point since it's difficult to show that it is a clear teaching of scripture, and I am using it as an example that change to the historical confessions and to historical practice can be warranted.

 

[JohnV]

from Naphtali Press
While there is more work to be done, I’ve not seen anything to change my mind on this. We cannot say the Standards teach EP theory and trying to justify this from other sources simply throws the interpretation of “singing of psalms” into uncertainty rather than confirming it. However, while we cannot say with certainty why, on the other side, the Westminster Standards are EP in practice. They only authorized singing of the 150 psalms as an element of public worship. This meaning of the term psalm is supported from looking at the development of their various productions and understanding the guiding principle laid out in the Solemn League and Covenant for the closest uniformity of religion for the three nations.

I think Chris is right. I don't agree with his conclusion, though. I'm not EP, and I haven't seen anything to change my mind on this either. So it is certainly true that a lot more work has to be done.

Personally, I would like to see a wider approach to the subject, so that it fits within the entire context of the Confessions, and not just in the chapter on formal worship. That would help us a great deal, I would think. At least for me that is the major roadblock to EP: as it has been proposed so far, it just doesn't fit with the rest. And the fact that it cannot be determined that the WCF teaches EP, and that EP-ers admit this, makes it incredibly hard to adopt an EP that is anything more than an ecclesiastical policy of unity.

It might be helpful if we also gain an ability to critique our own arguments.

I would suggest that Chris' conclusion above does not necessarily follow, and he likely thinks the same about my conclusions; but if he believes it does follow, then this betrays a difference not just on EP but on how we understand the WCF. What's at stake, then, is not EP but the WCF and how we have historically understood it .

So it would be most helpful to use our diametrical differences here to work out a better position on the WCF as a whole through the issue of EP. It is, after all, the perfect subject for just such an endeavour. Does what we sing in worship fit in ch. XX or ch. XXI, according to how we understand ch I, ch XX, ii, and XXI, i? If we were clearer on the WCF as a covenant of doctrinal unity, then that would go a long ways to answering objections. In the midst of our differences our unity could be beautiful and upbuilding, and beneficial to posterity.

And who knows, maybe we'll settle this thing once and for all.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I think Chris is right. I don't agree with his conclusion, though. I'm not EP, and I haven't seen anything to change my mind on this either. So it is certainly true that a lot more work has to be done.

Personally, I would like to see a wider approach to the subject, so that it fits within the entire context of the Confessions, and not just in the chapter on formal worship. That would help us a great deal, I would think. At least for me that is the major roadblock to EP: as it has been proposed so far, it just doesn't fit with the rest. And the fact that it cannot be determined that the WCF teaches EP, and that EP-ers admit this, makes it incredibly hard to adopt an EP that is anything more than an ecclesiastical policy of unity.

It might be helpful if we also gain an ability to critique our own arguments.

I would suggest that Chris' conclusion above does not necessarily follow, and he likely thinks the same about my conclusions; but if he believes it does follow, then this betrays a difference not just on EP but on how we understand the WCF. What's at stake, then, is not EP but the WCF and how we have historically understood it .

So it would be most helpful to use our diametrical differences here to work out a better position on the WCF as a whole through the issue of EP. It is, after all, the perfect subject for just such an endeavour. Does what we sing in worship fit in ch. XX or ch. XXI, according to how we understand ch I, ch XX, ii, and XXI, i? If we were clearer on the WCF as a covenant of doctrinal unity, then that would go a long ways to answering objections. In the midst of our differences our unity could be beautiful and upbuilding, and beneficial to posterity.

And who knows, maybe we'll settle this thing once and for all.

John, simply imposing an a-historical or new meaning on chapter 21 that flies in the face of what we know about the work of the assembly is not an option in my opinion. Let the hymn singers modify their standards as they see fit and have long done. That has seemed to work fine for them.

 

[JohnV]

I'm trying, Chris. It's not like I haven't thought of that.

I'll keep thinking about it.