# Burden of Proof



## doulosChristou (Jul 29, 2005)

One thing needs to be first established. Who has the burden of proof? Feel free to explain your answer.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 29, 2005)

Of course the answer is that the burden is one the other side. That way, you are able to simply say over and over again "I don't find that argument convincing, and thus, I win."

No matter how it actually works out in real pastoral life.


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2005)

Assuming the RPW, EP critics. The RPW states whatsoever is not commanded is forbidden. Psalms we know are commanded. If the RPW is not acknowledged by both parties the EP proponents have the burden of proof. EPs must first prove their assumption that only those things which God says he approves of are permissible.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 29, 2005)

Yeah, more incessant arguing that goes no where!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Yeah, more incessant arguing that goes no where!



Well, it doesn't _have_ to be that way, if everyone would take a step back, keep a truly open mind and realize that those of the opposite persuasion are truly trying to glorify God.

I agree with Peter on the burden of proof. If the RPW is not agreed upon, one could never even hope to find a _basis_ for EP, much less not have to prove it. But if the RPW is agreed upon, the burden of proof is on the EP critic, since we _all_ agree that at least Psalms are commanded, and the question being debated is whether non-Psalter songs are as well. Hence, the EP critic has the default burden of proof to show that such songs are a commanded element in worship. But once they do produce arguments for the existence of such commands, it is also the EP's responsibility at that point to answer those arguments.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Thank you Chris! I would hope all you you remember these wise words and reread some of these EP threads lately. Can Jesus say of us lately, that they (those outside the PB) will know us by our love for each other?

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## JohnV (Jul 29, 2005)

I assume that we're talking about EP. There is a two-fold burden of proof. Where ever there is an assertion that the Bible teaches something it must be shown that the Bible does indeed teach it. The assertion in EP is two-fold. The second one is that the service of worship of song due to God can and may only be expressed in the Psalms the Bible provides. But this assertion assumes a previous one, which is that at least some men were licenced or inspired to write some songs of praise, of which the rest of us are to partake. The difference, then, is whether the worship due to God is confined or is exampled to us in the Psalms. 

Both would agree, at least, that the Psalms are exampled to us at very least. The EP group would further assert that the Psalms are confined for us. The burden of proof that the non-EP has is agreed upon by both sides of the debate, and no further burden is required. Therefore the further stipulation that the worship due to God is confined to the singing of the Psalms, since it is not explicit in Scripture, carries the extra burden of proof. 

Assuming, then, that it is nowhere made explicit in Scripture, that burden of proof can be satisfied in only two ways. The one way is to show from revelation and inescapable reason that any other worship is obviated by the commands of Scripture in reference to worship. The other is to explode the category of worship which would include men submitting even their talents and expertices to the worship of God. 

If there were explicit command there would be no debate. It would be a mere difference of whether or not we were to obey God. And if it were a mere matter of determining the use of language of the original Greek culture, then we would have enough cause to say that we may not determine certified matters on uncertified grounds, and the debate would be over. This has been Fred's argument all along, and is most difficult to budge. And yet even as hard to budge as it is, it is very limited in authority and in determinitive quality. The burden of proof for anyone who says, "Thus says the Lord" is that the Lord actually says thus to us. And that means that there can be no doubt left. The only questioners would be those who have determined in their heart not to submit to the commands of the Lord. In other words, subjectivity may not be even one little part of the equation. Therefore there is a limitation to any appeal to the original Greek usage. To say that God commands something carries a very hefty burden of proof; whereas to say that God examples something is at least assumed in that command. 

There is a lot to say, and each time I feel the restrictions of posting on the Board, that my posts should not be too long. This makes it very difficult to draw out the arguments carefully and clearly. And doing so in parts like this does not convey the unity of the entire argument. For there is more it than what I have written. But I think I got the basics of it, even though it is missing some unifying pieces.


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2005)

I'm sorry John, I don't understand what you mean. Can you clarify please. (or maybe Chis can, he's very good at that  )


----------



## JohnV (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



Chris: 

This argument makes an assumption that the RPW at least assumes the singing of the Psalms, and that opening up the worship to hymns is the extra ingredient to worship. I think this is not correct. For is the RPW at least commanded the singing of the Psalms, then the debate would be over, since we have a direct command in Scripture then. 

Now it is correct that the Bible does indeed command at least the singing of the Psalms. But that is different that what is meant by EP. EP restricts worship to reciting back to God His Word, and prohibits the free and regulated expression of praise, the offering to God the abilities and gifts He has given, so that He is praised in all we do. The thing about EP is the prohibition, not the command itself, for we are both agreed on the command. 

And both parties fall under the RPW. As a matter of fact it can fairly be said that the reason some of the non-EP group resort to ad hominem, whether out of carelessness or frustration, is because they feel the burden of their subservience under the RPW. 

I establishing the burden of proof we need to be careful that we do not force a false burden. I agree with the sentiment that both parties have at interest the true worship of God. Therefore it is to our interest to establish a true burden of proof.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I'm sorry John, I don't understand what you mean. Can you clarify please. (or maybe Chis can, he's very good at that  )



Peter:

I know this is difficult to understand. There have been many things said, and to keep it all in perspective can be difficult. First of all, the truth cannot be dethroned, so we don't have to worry that the wrong side will come out on top. The wrong side can only delude us, but if we are freed in the truth, then we are not subject to it anymore. So it is our aim to be guided by truth only, and not by subjectivity. 

To say that the Bible says something, it has to be proven that the Bible says it. This assumes that there is a legitimate question as to the meaning of the Bible. Therefore we must appeal to all of revelation together as a whole to find the answer to the problem. And we must do this being guided not at all by our own passions or persuasions. We must be guided by faith. This means that our appeal on the question as to whether or not the Bible confines worship to the singing of the Psalms must be to the forms of conviction left open to us, given we do not have the first one. And those are that we must show that there is a unity in all the commands which forces us to acquiesce to that which is not as clear to us; or to obviate the opposite, to rule it out. 

Like the Trinity. There is no simple explicit text that tells us that God is three in one. We derive it from the necessity that God is presented to us as one God, and is also presented to us in three distinct and unconfused persons. So in this case we have both of the alternative methods of conviction at once, namely that there is unity in all the presentations of God in His being one and His being three persons; and that any other view cannot be reconciled with Scripture. Therefore it is rightly said that for the Christian to be saved he must hold to the doctrine of the Trinity. Not that this is the prerequisite for salvation, but rather that faith, which is the prerequisite, can be in no other than the God of Scripture Who is three in one.


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2005)

I see. I think you misunderstand what we are saying then. We are NOT saying that scripture prohibits hymns by a direct negative command. We believe, until proven otherwise, that b/c there is no direct positive command for hymns we cannot sing them. The RPW says everything in worship that is not an unsubstantial circumstance that is not commanded is forbidden. The burden lies on those trying to impose an aspect of worship to show where in scripture God approves of that practice. The proponents of uninspired hymnody must show where the singing of uninspired hymns in worship is approved by God.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 29, 2005)

By the way, I didn't vote. I am not ruling out the burden of proof that carries in assertions that would be implicitly tied to the singing of extra songs. I am saying that the Psalms as examples ( I should be using the word "licence" because it is more precise, but it carries too many negative connotations ) also has with it a very regulated qualification. But I am assuming that we all know that, as Chris has pointed out, and as Patrick has re-emphasized for us.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I see. I think you misunderstand what we are saying then. We are NOT saying that scripture prohibits hymns by a direct negative command. We believe, until proven otherwise, that b/c there is no direct positive command for hymns we cannot sing them. The RPW says everything in worship that is not an unsubstantial circumstance that is not commanded is forbidden. The burden lies on those trying to impose an aspect of worship to show where in scripture God approves of that practice. The proponents of uninspired hymnody must show where the singing of uninspired hymns in worship is approved by God.



Yes, Peter, I understand that that is being postulated. However, that only tends to reiterate the burden of proof, since it would have to be proven not that what is not commanded is forbidden, but that worship in all we do in not commanded.


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2005)

Thanks for your patience John.

You said:


> To say that the Bible says something, it has to be proven that the Bible says it. This assumes that there is a legitimate question as to the meaning of the Bible. Therefore we must appeal to all of revelation together as a whole to find the answer to the problem. And we must do this being guided not at all by our own passions or persuasions. We must be guided by faith. This means that our appeal on the question as to whether or not the Bible confines worship to the singing of the Psalms must be to the forms of conviction left open to us, given we do not have the first one. And those are that we must show that there is a unity in all the commands which forces us to acquiesce to that which is not as clear to us; or to obviate the opposite, to rule it out.



I agree. I think your difficulty is in that you see EP as positively asserting that you must sing only psalms when the dotrine relies on the negative character of the RPW. We believe that psalms are commanded, we don't believe that uninspired hymns are, that is why we are EP not b/c we see scripture as directly saying, Worship is restricted to only Psalms.

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by Peter]


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 29, 2005)

So, do we have a reasonable doubt standard like in criminal proceedings or a preponderance of evidence standard like in civil proceedings?


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2005)

"but that worship in all we do in [is?] not commanded. " This is a little fuzzy to me, do you mind restating it in other words?


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2005)

I'm afraid for the UH proponent its more like criminal proceedings. Techincally we call it "good and necessary consequence". Certainly not civil proceedings, not much in these debates have been civil.


PS I know that pun is a little too cliche

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by Peter]


----------



## JohnV (Jul 29, 2005)

> I agree. I think your difficulty is in that you see EP as positively asserting that you must sing only psalms when the dotrine relies on the negative character of the RPW. We believe that psalms are commanded, we dont believe that uninspired hymns are, that is why we are EP not b/c we see scripture as directly saying, Worship is restricted to only Psalms.



Just think about that for a while, Peter. I know you (plural) see the Bible as saying it directly. You know as well that we see the Bible fitting that in to the command to worship God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength. And there are many words that we use to describe that service of worship due to God. And God gives us a great deal to think about when those very Psalms say "Sacrifice and offering Thou dost not desire" when it is He that commanded it in the first place. What you are saying is an assertion, not a negative application of the RPW. We are also not commanded to have airconditioners for the comfort of the worshipers; we are not commanded even to have bound books, or a pulpit, and many other things. These are extreme, I know, and you don't need to answer to them, for I know well the limitation of these examples. Yet all the same the force of it does expose the positive direction of the use of the RPW as an appeal for EP. And that, we hold, is missing.


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2005)

"Just think about that for a while, Peter." 

Ok. You have my attention.

"I know you (plural) see the Bible as saying it directly."

No. I'm telling you that _my_ position is that the prohibition of hymns in worship is indirect. There is no immediate command, "thou shalt not sing uninspired hymns (UH)." But we are commanded, "See that you do all that I command you, add not" (Deut 12:32) We are not commanded to sing UH, therefore UHs are mediately prohibited by Deut 12:32.

"You know as well that we see the Bible fitting that in to the command to worship God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength. And there are many words that we use to describe that service of worship due to God. And God gives us a great deal to think about when those very Psalms say "Sacrifice and offering Thou dost not desire" when it is He that commanded it in the first place."

True. But is this a challenge to the RPW? 

"What you are saying is an assertion, not a negative application of the RPW."

No its not. Prove it. 

"We are also not commanded to have airconditioners for the comfort of the worshipers; we are not commanded even to have bound books, or a pulpit, and many other things. These are extreme, I know, and you don't need to answer to them, for I know well the limitation of these examples. Yet all the same the force of it does expose the positive direction of the use of the RPW as an appeal for EP. And that, we hold, is missing."

These are nonsubstantial circumstances which may aid in the preformance of commanded worship. They are permitted by the RPW. 

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by Peter]


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 29, 2005)

I keep hearing words like "commanded". The RPW is not a specific order of worship and never has been. It is based on the *principals* of worship. If you want specific commands then go to Leviticus becasue you won't find them in the New Testament. Christ said that God seeks worshipers and they will worship in Spirit and Truth and thats really about all he said about it. Much of what we know of the RPW has been pieced together. 

The elements of worship are specific but ill defined. The circumstances are left up to the Church to determine with Christian prudence. There is no specific "command" to sing the Psalms exclusively. I, like others, believe that the Psalms should be sung but that God can be glorified through hymns as well as creeds in worship.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 29, 2005)




----------



## JohnV (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> "Just think about that for a while, Peter."
> 
> Ok. You have my attention.
> ...



Remember, Peter, we are talking about the establishing of the burden of proof, not EP itself. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Now, however, did I understand what you were saying? I believe I did, but I'll have a go at it again in the morning. If I misrepresented what you said, I am truly sorry.


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I keep hearing words like "commanded". The RPW is not a specific order of worship and never has been. It is based on the *principals* of worship. If you want specific commands then go to Leviticus becasue you won't find them in the New Testament. Christ said that God seeks worshipers and they will worship in Spirit and Truth and thats really about all he said about it. Much of what we know of the RPW has been pieced together.
> 
> The elements of worship are specific but ill defined. The circumstances are left up to the Church to determine with Christian prudence. There is no specific "command" to sing the Psalms exclusively. I, like others, believe that the Psalms should be sung but that God can be glorified through hymns as well as creeds in worship.



Wayne,
A command is an explicit imperitive, or a requirement infered from good and necessary consequence. 

If i understand you correctly, your concept of the RPW (which I believe is a radical departure from the reformed definition) would be a meaningless principle. That is, its extension would be empty. Candles, images, kneeling, surplice, etc. would all be regulative.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Sorry for the confusion - when I said that the RPW at least commands the singing of the Psalms, I did not mean it commanded them _exclusively_. The RPW says we can only worship through elements positively commanded in Scripture. EP and non-EP both agree that the Bible commands the singing of some Psalms. Furthermore, the EP ends there, while the non-EP goes a step further and says that the Bible also commands the singing of other songs as well. Thus, because of the RPW, that claim needs to be proven in order for anything beyond EP to be true. (And once proofs are attempted by the non-EP, it is then the responsibility of the EP as well to respond to those attempts of proof.)


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2005)

> Remember, Peter, we are talking about the establishing of the burden of proof, not EP itself. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Now, however, did I understand what you were saying? I believe I did, but I'll have a go at it again in the morning. If I misrepresented what you said, I am truly sorry.



Yes, thank you. I felt it was needful to explain EP again b.c. it seemed that you misunderstood the nature of the argument. Good night.


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I keep hearing words like "commanded". The RPW is not a specific order of worship and never has been. It is based on the *principals* of worship. If you want specific commands then go to Leviticus becasue you won't find them in the New Testament. Christ said that God seeks worshipers and they will worship in Spirit and Truth and thats really about all he said about it. Much of what we know of the RPW has been pieced together.
> 
> The elements of worship are specific but ill defined. The circumstances are left up to the Church to determine with Christian prudence. There is no specific "command" to sing the Psalms exclusively. I, like others, believe that the Psalms should be sung but that God can be glorified through hymns as well as creeds in worship.




[edited to remove excessive dittos]

[Edited on 7-30-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Peter (Jul 29, 2005)

> WCF
> Chapter XXI
> Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day
> I. The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and does good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.[1] But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.[2]
> ...





[edited to remove excessive dittos that distorted the screen]

[Edited on 7-30-05 by pastorway]


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



No you don't understand me correctly so let me try and clarify. What I have stated is exactly what the RPW is all about. It is about elements and circumstances. Kneeling would be considered a circumstance of worship just like standing. Images of God are specifically forbidden regardless of the RPW.

You are correct about commands. But I don't see a specific, imperative command to sing only the Psalms. When we infer through good and necessary consequences, which I believe is where EP is coming from, then what is inferred should be fairly obvious, which it isn't since much of what is pointed to regarding EP is primarily in 2 verses in two of Paul's prison Epistles.


----------



## Peter (Jul 30, 2005)

> You are correct about commands. But I don't see a specific, imperative command to sing only the Psalms.



This is where I lost John. Nobody's saying that there is a specific command to sing only psalms. We are saying that we don't sing hymns b/c we dont see a specific command to.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 30, 2005)

One could argue that the burden is on whoever starts the thread or makes the first assertion. I feel that anyone has a burden to back up an assertion, and everyone has a burden to have some awareness of the reasoning behind their stance.

I'm personally inclined to put the primary burden on the EPers. This is why: EPers constantly assert, "The burden is on non-EPers to show a specific command, and there is no specific command to sing hymns." However, since everyone agrees that there _is_ an explicit command to sing hymns, and EPers are just maintaining that this refers only to hymns in the psalter, the burden is to prove that this particular command is more limited than the language itself necessitates. Since no one has claimed that the Greek words for psalm, hymn, and spiritual song were only, in all Greek writings, ever used to refer to compositions within the psalter, they have the burden of showing that the meaning must be restricted _to the particular extent_ of limiting the reference to songs within the psalter. If the meaning isn't restricted in this particular way, then the EPers' assertion that the hymnists can't produce a specific command (on which their claim that the burden is on the non-EPers rests) is false. Therefore, the EPers' claim of a burden on the non-EPers is not necessarily false, but is _preceded_ by the EPers' burden to demonstrate a very particular restriction on the meaning of words that could, without a context to limit them, refer to a wide variety of songs.

Also, EPers do have a burden of showing that they aren't violating Psalm 149:1's (apparent) command to "Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise in the assembly of the godly!" (A burden that plenty of EPers have assumed and adequately responded to in other threads... I'm not making an argument here, just trying to establish burdens.)

I'm sure most people will see the side they're not on as having the burden, but that's reasonable. What I've dealt with here is what it would take to persuade me to the EP side. But both sides are making positive claims about the definition of the word "hymn" and not merely trying to negate the other side's definition, so both sides have the burden of demonstrating the validity of their respective definitions. 

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> One could argue that the burden is on whoever starts the thread or makes the first assertion. I feel that anyone has a burden to back up an assertion, and everyone has a burden to have some awareness of the reasoning behind their stance.
> 
> I'm personally inclined to put the primary burden on the EPers. This is why: EPers constantly assert, "The burden is on non-EPers to show a specific command, and there is no specific command to sing hymns." However, since everyone agrees that there _is_ an explicit command to sing hymns, and EPers are just maintaining that this refers only to hymns in the psalter, the burden is to prove that this particular command is more limited than the language itself necessitates. Since no one has claimed that the Greek words for psalm, hymn, and spiritual song were only, in all Greek writings, ever used to refer to compositions within the psalter, they have the burden of showing that the meaning must be restricted _to the particular extent_ of limiting the reference to songs within the psalter. If the meaning isn't restricted in this particular way, then the EPers' assertion that the hymnists can't produce a specific command (on which their claim that the burden is on the non-EPers rests) is false. Therefore, the EPers' claim of a burden on the non-EPers is not necessarily false, but is _preceded_ by the EPers' burden to demonstrate a very particular restriction on the meaning of words that could, without a context to limit them, refer to a wide variety of songs.
> ...



 That's likewise what I meant by saying that "once proofs are attempted by the non-EP, it is then the responsibility of the EP as well to respond to those attempts of proof," and I see it as the default burden on non-EPs to initially present those proofs, because of the nature of the RPW. But since they now _have_ proposed some (e.g. Col. & Eph., "new songs," etc.), it is the responsibility at this point of both sides to present and defend their view. But I guess you could say I think the non-EP side has the burden to "make the first move" if you will, simply because of the nature of the RPW.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 30, 2005)

*Beyond Reasonable Doubt*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof


Exactly. According to the regulative principle of worship, we need proof *beyond a reasonable doubt* of a divine warrant to compose and sing uninspired compositions in worship to satisfy our consciences in accordance with that governing principle.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Sorry for the confusion - when I said that the RPW at least commands the singing of the Psalms, I did not mean it commanded them _exclusively_. The RPW says we can only worship through elements positively commanded in Scripture. EP and non-EP both agree that the Bible commands the singing of some Psalms. Furthermore, the EP ends there, while the non-EP goes a step further and says that the Bible also commands the singing of other songs as well. Thus, because of the RPW, that claim needs to be proven in order for anything beyond EP to be true. (And once proofs are attempted by the non-EP, it is then the responsibility of the EP as well to respond to those attempts of proof.)



OK. I knew that. :bigsmile:I just wanted to be sure everyone else did. 

I do disagree with you about the burden of proof. I think I can prove it. 

But first I want to note that I see two different kinds of EP, and this makes a difference in how I analyze the remarks made in favour. I also see different kinds of non-EP, which I analyze accordingly. That is to say, someone can say something about why they do or don't approve of EP, and in one case it is a false dilemma and in another it isn't. Let me explain, because if I do that then it will be easier to understand why I stated the burden of proof as I did in my first post in this thread. 

We can object to the modern usage of song in worship and react toward EP, or we can look at it from a NT church view. These are assuming two different milieus. Some are criticizing hymnody for reasons not well founded. There are, as we may see, two different kinds of EP: one is policy and one is doctrinal. We should not confuse them, for there is a great deal of difference. 

As policy we can look at all that we can ascertain from the texts and instances, see where the heavier weight of evidence lies, and opt for the better of the two. And in our modern Presbyterian milieu I would support an EP policy for many churches. Many non-EP would; this has been stated several times. As such, this EP carries no burden of proof in terms of Biblical command. 

The doctrinal EP is a lot different. It states that there is a Biblical command to sing the Psalms only. And this view is divided into two, in that one argument is that the singing hymns outside the Psalter is not commanded, and therefore excluded, and the other argument is that the Scripture at least commands the singing of the Psalter, and therefore the singing oh hymns outside the Psalter bears the burden of proof. They look like the same thing at first, but they are not the same. 

The first doctrinal EP argument assumes a positive assertion, and therefore carries the sole weight of the burden of proof. There is no escape. The second argument assumes a negative, placing the burden upon the inclusion of hymns outside the Psalter. But this is a false dilemma, as there is a possibility of a third and mitigating proposition that solves the seeming contradiction. And that leaves us with the fact that non-EP can just as much be assumed under the command to sing praise as EP is assumed. It can be read both ways. Therefore, since this applies solely to the placing of the burden of proof, and not to the argument itself, the shifting of the burden of proof does not hold, though the argument itself is not initially defeated thereby. That, then, means that the burden of proof rests upon a doctrinal assertion of EP without possibility of escape. 

The mitigating proposition is that the text seen as supporting the _de facto_ orthodoxy of singing Psalms only can also be rendered to support the inclusion of hymns. That is, as long as there remains a shadow of a doubt, a subjective element to the assertion, there remains the possibility that the texts means to include hymns as well. To state something as being God's command must be seen as actually being God's command, for there is a terrible penalty for speaking for God without warrant from Him. 

That is to say, then, that we are comparing EP which weighs a ton to another EP and to non-EP which weigh as much as a wheelbarrowfull. Even if we can place a burden of proof upon non-EP, the burden which remains, which is considerable, is not thereby shifted from EP. It is being put forward as a doctrinal assertion. And prove what we will, we cannot do that ourselves. Even a church would have a hard time doing that, and so would a denomination. This is a very weighty assertion, one for which consequences could be too great if wrong. There can be no element of subjectivity in the assertion. This is what we call Biblical necessity, a necessity which neither the policy EP nor the non-EP claims. 

This, then, leaves us with this basic situation: EP can be positioned as the default; or non-EP can be positioned as the default. In this case either one can be instituted without burden of proof as policy in the churches, but neither one can be asserted as doctrinal. The question that remains is whether the Bible licences the singing of hymns in worship. And that is the burden of proof which the policy EP is placing upon non-EP. 

This calls for a more carefull examination, which would be too much for this post. What I am trying to do here is to represent both sides fairly, and in truth. It is to no one's interest to misrepresent the "other" side", since that would put us at cross purposes. If each merely defends his own views we gain absolutely nothing. Our interest must be not only to handle the arguments raised against our own views with integrity, but also to handle our own views with that very same integrity. Our interest and our comfort is in finding the truth, not establishing our own views, or winning the day for our side. If we're cutting into parties, each seeking their own, we cannot possibly come to a conclusive end.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 30, 2005)

If you want the short version of the above:

What EP asserts is a lot heavier than what non-EP asserts. Therefore, for the sake of argument, if we put the burden of proof on both sides, the weight of burden is far heavier for EP than it is for non-EP.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 30, 2005)

Thanks for the link, Scott. Lets be careful to apply the correct usage of burden of proof. This is not a legal usage, it is evidentiary. We are not assuming a default position for either one, but trying to find the truth of the matter together.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

John,
Is not evidence a component of the _legal_ aspect of Gods word and command? In this regard it is 'legal'. You may not be utilizing a position by 'default'; however, many do. In that case, since evidence is not always paramount, the shoe may fit a few. But I hear you.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 30, 2005)

Scott:

I was thinking in lines of establishing that God actually commands something bearing the burden of evidentiary proof. The other views of either EP or non-EP are claiming a licence under the Word, not as "Thus says the Lord." 

And also this, there are more divisions among the non-EP than EP. But basically we can divide them into two camps as well. Evie, I think, says it well, that each has a burden of proof as each is postulated in an argument. So there are four legal burdens of proof. But only one evidentiary, and that is that God forbids the singing of hymns in making the Psalter exclusive. If we remove the false dilemma arguments, ( carefully, because we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater ) then we are left with a doctrinal EP position that must be established as coming from God alone. So we are looking for an evidentiary burden of proof. 

Well, that's how I understand it, anyways. I'm all behind you and Matt, because I understand you both to be asserting a policy EP, and beng greatly interested in determining whether a doctrinal EP holds. As such, you have to take a default position in favour of doctrinal EP. I understand that, and I support that. It is to my interest as well, as non-EP, that you do that. I can respect the integrity of it. And I think I know Matt well enough that I can trust that he knows the difference better than I do. Even if he succeeds in his quest, he still knows the limitations of that success. I've witnessed it again and again in the Baptism discussions.

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> I'm personally inclined to put the primary burden on the EPers. This is why: EPers constantly assert, "The burden is on non-EPers to show a specific command, and there is no specific command to sing hymns." However, since everyone agrees that there _is_ an explicit command to sing hymns, and EPers are just maintaining that this refers only to hymns in the psalter, the burden is to prove that this particular command is more limited than the language itself necessitates.



 This is exactly why I believe the burden is squarely on the EPers.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> The doctrinal EP is a lot different. It states that there is a Biblical command to sing the Psalms only.



I think a better way to represent the thought would be to say that it states there is only a biblical command to sing the Psalms, rather than saying there is a biblical command to sing only the Psalms. It may seem like an insignificant difference at first, but the latter is going far beyond the former, and it is only the former that EPs seem to be claiming - but because of the RPW's nature, it also seems to me that that is all they _need_ to claim to prove their case, _if_ they can substantiate the claim, that is.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> And this view is divided into two, in that one argument is that the singing hymns outside the Psalter is not commanded, and therefore excluded, and the other argument is that the Scripture at least commands the singing of the Psalter, and therefore the singing oh hymns outside the Psalter bears the burden of proof. They look like the same thing at first, but they are not the same.



I agree they are not the same. Regarding these two statements, it seems to me that the former is merely what EPs (and only EPs) see as the _result_ of the latter. In other words, we know Scripture at least commands the singing of Psalms, and because of the RPW, the singing of other songs bears the _initial_ burden of proof. In light of that fact, we know that EPs of course find the attempted "proof" to be insufficient, and thus they assert the former, which is that those other songs are not commanded, and are therefore excluded. I agree that that claim (the former in your post) only holds true for EPs, but it seems like the other claim (the latter in your post) should hold true for everyone, simply because of the nature of the RPW.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> ...



I agree that once a proof from the non-EPers is offered (such as the "hymns" in Col. & Eph., the "new songs," etc.), the ball is then in the EPers' court, and they have the burden to show how that proof is insufficient if they still want to hold onto their view. But would you agree that the only reason that point was able to be arrived at is because the non-EPers did propose that proof, and that the burden to do so was _initially_ on them to show where songs outside the Psalter are commanded? I think we probably agree on this.


----------



## Augusta (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> Now it is correct that the Bible does indeed command at least the singing of the Psalms. But that is different that what is meant by EP. *EP restricts worship to reciting back to God His Word, and prohibits the free and regulated expression of praise, the offering to God the abilities and gifts He has given, so that He is praised in all we do.* The thing about EP is the prohibition, not the command itself, for we are both agreed on the command.



I think this is the stumbling block for non-EPers. It's the same as with our salvation, we bring nothing to it because we have nothing. We still even in our regenerate state, have nothing to offer. If we have gifts and abilities, yes they are a gift from God, but they can never please God but only please man. We can please each other with our gifts and talents but they do not please God. How could anything we do please God except obedience. 

We only please God at all "in Christ" which is His righteousness not ours. To obey is better than sacrifice. Like John mentioned somewhere else, David has said "Sacrifice and offering Thou dost not desire" which is true those sacrifices in the OT did nothing. God wanted obedience. That was what He said many time in the OT, when He praised anyone it was for keeping His statutes and His commandments. 

We keep trying to insert ourselves everywhere when it is God who is the center and God is the only righteous and holy one. In my view EP is God-centered which is what worship to Him should be. It is consistent with what I have learned in the Reformed tradition. We are decreased and He is increased. Reformed doctrine has always been God-centered and EP is consistent with that. We offer back to Him what He has given. We have never and will never in this world have anything to offer Him. He has to give us everything.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 30, 2005)

Traci, while I of course fully agree with what you said on biblical worship being God-centered just as biblical soteriology is, I must say I don't really think that is relevant to the difference between EP and non-EP. That is because _if_ the Bible does in fact command us to sing hymns, then singing them is absolutely no less God-centered than is practicing EP if it is true.

I know it may _seem_ to us on the surface that singing only inspired Psalms would be more "God-centered" than singing man-made hymns, but that is really a subjective (and thus man-centered, ironically) judgment unless it is supported by Scripture. As an example that may help clarify the subjective nature of that judgment, would you also say that the Psalms are more "God-centered" than the rest of Scripture? Obviously not, and yet EP forbids the singing of the latter, which just goes to show that EP cannot be substantiated simply by asking what seems more "God-centered" to us. We must be careful from _both_ sides not to let such subjective judgments guide our view of what is truly God-centered, but only let Scripture guide that view.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 30, 2005)

Well, I've said enough for now. I'm going to leave it hanging. I'd like to outline the different non-EP views yet, but we need to first determine how we are going to put the EP question, whether Chris' way or mine or another. Does it make a difference to determining the burden of proof? Does it make a difference to how we determine a solution to the question? 

Whatever we do, we must pursue the righteousness of Christ, not our own. That ought to override any personal agenda we may have.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Well, I've said enough for now. I'm going to leave it hanging. I'd like to outline the different non-EP views yet, but we need to first determine how we are going to put the EP question, whether Chris' way or mine or another. Does it make a difference to determining the burden of proof? Does it make a difference to how we determine a solution to the question?
> 
> Whatever we do, we must pursue the righteousness of Christ, not our own. That ought to override any personal agenda we may have.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> ...



I suppose from an RPW perspective, the burden is initially on anyone seeking to include any songs in the worship service. The EPers, starting directly from the RPW, have a burden to show that Psalms are commanded, which is easily done. The non-EPers have a burden to show that psalms and hymns are commanded, which is also easily done. This is all independent of each other. Therefore, the non-EPers' grounds for including hymns could be established before they ever meet the EP position. If they hold to the RPW, they would already be making a positive assertion about the inclusion of hymns.

If they were to meet in a debate (and I'm thinking in competitive debate terms rather than in legal terms), either side could take the affirmative position. I don't see anything in the nature of either side that makes it the automatically affirmative position, since neither side is simply trying to refute the other but is also making positive claims. Generally, in a debate, the negative has a real advantage because he or she does not have to prove anything but only has to show that the affirmative hasn't proven his or her case. In this matter, however, neither side can be content with simply proving the other side wrong, since both hold to the RPW and must always consider their side subject to positive proof. 

The non-EPers and the EPers both positively assert that the word _hymn_ has a particular meaning in its Biblical context. If the non-EPer were content merely to state that the EPer's definition of _hymn_ cannot be reasonably inferred from the context and the evidence the EPer presents, that might be something of a true negative position. But the non-EPer is actually proposing a positive definition of _hymn_ in order to justify (in the context of the RPW) the singing of extrapsalter songs; there is an implicit assumption that these hymns must be Christian, theologically correct, etc., and so the non-EPer agrees with the EPer that we can't take the word in its broadest possible meaning. I would suggest that defending the EPers' more narrow definition would probably be more difficult, but the EPer is very right to feel the the non-EPer has a burden to demonstrate that the broader definition is better.

However, I suspect I'm framing this debate slightly differently from most of you. I see it as entirely a language debate over the definition of the word _hymn_ (and _spiritual song_, but I'll limit it to hymn for simplicity). If we assume that either side must prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, I see three major possible outcomes:

(1) If _hymn_ cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to refer only to hymns in the psalter, EP cannot be proven (although one could still adopt it as a likely position). The debate would, in my mind, be a draw. (And in my mind, this is where the definitional debate currently is.) 

(2) If _hymn_ can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to refer to hymns outside the psalter, then EP is false, because here is the positive command. 

(3) And if _hymn_ can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to refer only to hymns inside the psalter, this doesn't immediately prove that EP is correct, but it shows that non-EPers cannot use this passage as a command to sing hymns. The EPer would then simply have to press the non-EPer for another passage that commands the singing of uninspired hymns, and if this were not produced (as I don't think it could be), the EPer would eventually win the debate.

However, the fact that the definitional debate is probably always going to be something of a draw (perhaps no one can really _prove_ what Paul meant in using the word _hymn_, but only infer it from good and necessary consequence) is why this whole debate about who has the burden is even relevant. Since no one is ever going to prove their definition of _hymn_ conclusively and to the satisfaction of all, some are asking which definition we should assume to be correct until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. As I've said, I don't think we can assume either to be correct, but have to consider the positive claims of both sides and form our own opinions on the basis of a preponderance of evidence. This is why I think it's probably counterproductive to frame this as a "reasonable doubt" burden for either side. It seems to me to be more useful in this type of debate to consider equally the evidence and arguments on each side, rather than presuming one side to be true until proven false. Of course, that, in itself, is subject to debate.

(My apologies for a very long post... Feel free to skip it.  )


----------



## Augusta (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Traci, while I of course fully agree with what you said on biblical worship being God-centered just as biblical soteriology is, I must say I don't really think that is relevant to the difference between EP and non-EP. That is because _if_ the Bible does in fact command us to sing hymns, then singing them is absolutely no less God-centered than is practicing EP if it is true.
> 
> I know it may _seem_ to us on the surface that singing only inspired Psalms would be more "God-centered" than singing man-made hymns, but that is really a subjective (and thus man-centered, ironically) judgment unless it is supported by Scripture. As an example that may help clarify the subjective nature of that judgment, would you also say that the Psalms are more "God-centered" than the rest of Scripture? Obviously not, and yet EP forbids the singing of the latter, which just goes to show that EP cannot be substantiated simply by asking what seems more "God-centered" to us. We must be careful from _both_ sides not to let such subjective judgments guide our view of what is truly God-centered, but only let Scripture guide that view.



I don't see it as subjective at all. If anything is subjective it is not the inspired Word of God. Man-made hymns I would call very subjective. God is absolute. We know His nature from scripture, we know our nature from scripture. We know the two are not compatible without Christ. We know from scripture we are in an intermediate state even when regenerate. We still war with the flesh. We know from scripture how easy it is to fall into idolatry. The first two commandments speak volumes about that. 

It is obvious to me that we cannot offer God worthy praise unless it comes from Him in the first place. I know this as an absolute from scripture. It is a fact. So when I see the Eph and Col verses about be filled with the Spirit by psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs that makes complete sense to me. 

Then I see let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly by singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Boom Word of Christ=scripture. Where do we find scripture in song form. The Psalms of David, the song of Zion. Who is Zion. That's me I am a living stone in that city. Jesus and the disciples sang them. The early church sang them. When God revived His church in the reformation they also sang them. Accident. I think not from what I know of God and His holiness and my unholiness. 

Everyone hastens to add how much they love the psalms and they wish people sang more of them. Why? And why are they so eager to have man-made songs over or next God-made ones. To me the man-made ones are like in Malachi when the priests brought blind and lame animals to His altar and He was not pleased. Why do we want to bring the imperfect to God's altar when He always said He wanted the perfect, the ones without blemish.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ex Nihilo_
> However, I suspect I'm framing this debate slightly differently from most of you. I see it as entirely a language debate over the definition of the word hymn (and spiritual song, but I'll limit it to hymn for simplicity). If we assume that either side must prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, I see three major possible outcomes:
> 
> (1) If hymn cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to refer only to hymns in the psalter, EP cannot be proven (although one could still adopt it as a likely position). The debate would, in my mind, be a draw. (And in my mind, this is where the definitional debate currently is.)
> ...



This is why I no longer debate EP or worry about joining a church which practices either view. Now, I just try to get both sides to refine their arguments because I find both unsatisfactory. There's no debate on the RPW. There's no debate about the element of song. It's all about the content of song, and the necessary exegesis to come to the conclusion either way. 

I think your last couple posts have done an excellent job, by the way, of formulating the debate.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 31, 2005)

I like the way you presented that, Evie. Very well thought out. I would point out that a discussion carried on on that basis cannot produce the desired end. But that, as I believe, was not your intention in that post either. If you were trying to present the issue, or to formulate it, it was very helpful, like Chris' was. What we are doing here is presenting and eliminating or adopting certain thoughts, ideas, and propositions concerning the issue at hand. We just have to think about them carefully and eliminate those that will not represent the truth of the case honestly, without pejoritive rhetoric, and having in mind the reconciling of seemingly mutually exclusive Biblical concepts.

In defining the issues that will be debated it is important to put them in their most simple definitive terms, and not to encumber them with side issues or ideas meant to predeterme the outcome. 

There are some arguments that have been presented that are fairly simple to overthrow. It would be very foolish of us, however, to cast them out, as if the arguments that we have overthrown are the best or even the only presentations of those ideas. They can yet be better formulated and be more difficult to overthrow. So we need to keep the concepts plain and unencumbered if we are going to make gains at the understanding of God's Word. 

We have often presented the discussion by opposing one thing to another, as if the one is exclusive of the other. For example, it has been presented that one cannot find from human hand any writing or composition that can be compared to Scripture, so how can we consider any such writings as ingredients in the worship of God? And it is my observation that many such juxtapositions oppose things that are not mutually exclusive in every case, and are not presented in Scripture as mutually exclusive. Such arguments are not difficult to overthrow. But more importantly, they are not convincing. And both sides are doing it. Now, I'm not complaining about that, because it is going to something in which we will all grow. I think it is better just to be cautious and to understand that there is more to this than we think, and that it will tax us to think them through carefully. It is a journey of discovery, one that hopefully will lift a lot of unnecessary burdens and cloudiness from our minds hearts and souls, as we lift them up to the God who has given us His sufficient Word.


----------

