# EP - ad infinitum, ad nauseum (split from the vote thread for debate infringements)



## Puritanhead (Jul 29, 2005)

110% Non-EP! 

I would never be naive enough to debate someone who held to EP... it would be pointless given their dogmatism. How is it one can advocate use of uninspired creedal confessions while only singing inspired psalms?

[Edited on 7-30-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 110% Non-EP!
> 
> I would never be naive enough to debate someone who held to EP... it would be pointless given their dogmatism. How is it one can advocate use of uninspired creedal confessions while only singing inspired psalms?



I want to make an observation; Why is it that the non-EP'ers have to resort to ad hominem. I have seen all sorts on either inuendo or crass statements rendered. I don't quite understand this in light of the idea that thsoe whom embrace PE's goal is to be obedient to God, lift the name of Christ and see truth.

comparing the creeds with singing in worship are completely two different things. One is not at all related to the other. One is controlled by the RPW, the other is not.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> 110% Non-EP!
> 
> I would never be naive enough to debate someone who held to EP... it would be pointless given their dogmatism. How is it one can advocate use of uninspired creedal confessions while only singing inspired psalms?



Ryan, since I do not advocate either view at this time, I simply want to point this out to encourage you to keep an open mind. I say that because the quick and plain way in which you simply said, "I would never be naive enough to debate someone who held to EP... it would be pointless given their dogmatism" sort of suggests that you yourself may have more of that dogmatism in regards to the topic than you realize. I struggle at times with looking at all the angles openly as well, and I'm just cautioning you to do the same by taking a step back and looking at the nature of your own words.


----------



## raderag (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> As I have mentioned, for me it is more of a prudent, simple approach. If singings the psalms reduces the chance of breaking the RPW, then that is what I believe God would want me to do.



Scott,

What if we are commanded to sing music other than the Psalms? Wouldn't we break the RPW?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



If we are _commanded_, yes.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## raderag (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Then there really isn't a better chance, unless you are MORE convinced of one over the other.

I believe breaking the RPW is a sin, but I don't think the element and circumstance distinction is usually very well defined. In fact it seems very subjective, and many people disagree on it.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by raderag]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*

Brett,
This is the thing; I know we are commanded to sing psalms, Everyone knows this, as far as the other goes, I don't know that. There's still less of a chance of chronically sinning by just singing the psalms then to take the chance in going in the other direction.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## raderag (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Brett,
> This is the thing; I know we are commanded to sing psalms, Everyone knows this, as far as the other goes, I don't know that. There's still less of a chance of chronically sinning by just singing the psalms then to take the chance in going in the other direction.
> 
> [Edited on 7-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]



My understanding of the RPW is that we must do ALL things commanded, not just avoid the things that we are commanded not to do.

It seems analagous to having to decide to defend a third party using violence. It would be easy to avoid the violence, and thus any chance of comitting wrong, but that is a wrong in itself.

Practically, do those that hold to EP, and go to a non-EP, just sit or stand quietly while the other hymns are sung? Just curious.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*

This wasn't suppose to be an arguing thread. Let's get it on! 

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Solo Christo (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Brett,
> This is the thing; I know we are commanded to sing psalms, Everyone knows this, as far as the other goes, I don't know that. There's still less of a chance of chronically sinning by just singing the psalms then to take the chance in going in the other direction.
> 
> [Edited on 7-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]


Seems to me that this sort of attitude can miss the entire purpose of worship altogether. Like tithing every mint and herb (Luke 11:42). I love singing psalms, but excluding any other utterance makes no sense, Biblically or otherwise.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*

Brett,
The RPW is a corporate doctrine. Sitting or whatever would not change the outcome; the church at large would be responsible.


----------



## Solo Christo (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> This wasn't suppose to be an arguing thread.


oops. muy apologies.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> This wasn't suppose to be an arguing thread. Let's get it on!
> 
> [Edited on 7-29-2005 by puritancovenanter]



Randy,
Are Brett and I arguing??

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## raderag (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Brett,
> The RPW is a corporate doctrine. Sitting or whatever would not change the outcome; the church at large would be responsible.



Ok, that makes sense. Could an EP in good conscience attend a non EP church, if there are no EPs around?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*

Keyword: conscience!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*

Okay.....it's a discussion. I think I was following the spirit of the letter. A discussion usually is turning to arguing on the other EP threads.

Let's get it on!

I like that saying. As long as everyone is loving and sincerely cares about one another.


----------



## raderag (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Keyword: conscience!



Does this mean you are still deciding?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*

Not really. You asked:



> Could an EP in good conscience attend a non EP church, if there are no EPs around?



I answered, if your conscience allows. I want to be perfectly clear here. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to be attached locally to Christs church. So, in that light, if your conscience is pricked, you will have to consider your options.


----------



## raderag (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Not really. You asked:
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, thanks. I understand that, but I am concerned that many today would use such a thing as an excuse not to go to Church.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



There is no excuse for believers to forsake the Gathering of Gods people. If it requires moving one's membership, one would have to consider this option seriously.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



"I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half-hour?"


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> There is no excuse for believers to forsake the Gathering of Gods people. If it requires moving one's membership, one would have to consider this option seriously.



Indeed. This is why I drive an hour and a half, paying about $50 a week in gas to go to church, on a college student's budget. I don't always eat, but at least I'm at a church I love.

Oh, I'm EP and against the use of instruments in worship.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I thought this was funny because as a matter of fact, they were arguing in the normal less emotive sense of the term.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*

Scott and Chris,

However, simplistic it might be, I don't think the analogy of "uninspired" confessional creeds and music in worship is that off kelter. If you want to take this rhetoric about "uninspired" music being non-edifying to its logical extreme, than why not "uninspired" _man-made_ prayers and "uninspired" confessional creeds? Why are they edifying to God? You see-- we start to enter into a sterile formalism about what's acceptable to God, and put his Word above him. The Psalmist says make a joyful noise unto the Lord-- not that it has to be exclusively with the contents of the Psalter. The burden of proof is on EP to substantiate their position, and most seldom offer any real substantive reasoning-- only the circular reasoning about it being inspired and that non-inspired words are NOT edifying to God.

Having said all of that-- I wish churches would use the Psalter more during worship... too many Reformed churches hardly use them at all. 

Getting off track, I was raised a Congregationalist and we never really paid much heed to confessional creeds, but I've since changed my mind, and realize their value. While I subscribe to LBC, I find the WCF to be poetic, and very helpful. Respectfully, I don't think I am being too dogmatic myself on such issues Chris. I hope you come to embrace non-EP.

Best Regards!


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> As I have mentioned, for me it is more of a prudent, simple approach. If singings the psalms reduces the chance of breaking the RPW, then that is what I believe God would want me to do.



If you're going to bring up Regulative Principle of Worship, one might as well point to this article and let someone explain it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*

An important thing to keep in mind is, that because most on the board are, admittedly, ignorant of EP or have never studied the issue, many are taking a default position against it, not knowing the historicity or argument for it. Historically speaking, Presbyterians are EP. That is just a fact, and the Westminster Confession of Faith shows us this clearly.

It reminds me of the problems with the Southern Baptist Convention, which I grew up in. Their "statement of faith" clearly teaches Election, and historically, they were a Calvinistic denomination. However, today, a similar result would be found as in this poll were we to poll the average SBC churches on whether or not they believe in God's complete sovereignty in salvation. This does not prove the validity or Biblical accuracy of a doctrine, it simply shows the state of knowledge of such a doctrine in the church itself. Just because Presbyterians have abandoned EP and other tenets of the Confession does not mean it is right. Popularity is not always a good test for sound doctrine, and, especially in America today, it is usually a reason to question the validity of one.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> An important thing to keep in mind is, that because most on the board are, admittedly, ignorant of EP or have never studied the issue, many are taking a default position against it, not knowing the historicity or argument for it. Historically speaking, Presbyterians are EP. That is just a fact, and the Westminster Confession of Faith shows us this clearly.
> 
> It reminds me of the problems with the Southern Baptist Convention, which I grew up in. Their "statement of faith" clearly teaches Election, and historically, they were a Calvinistic denomination. However, today, a similar result would be found as in this poll were we to poll the average SBC churches on whether or not they believe in God's complete sovereignty in salvation. This does not prove the validity or Biblical accuracy of a doctrine, it simply shows the state of knowledge of such a doctrine in the church itself. Just because Presbyterians have abandoned EP and other tenets of the Confession does not mean it is right. Popularity is not always a good test for sound doctrine, and, especially in America today, it is usually a reason to question the validity of one.



Actually, many on this board are not ignorant and have studied this issue extensively. It just appears that they don't agree with your assessment.

You know what happens when you assume........


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...





I guess I just don't have the incredible experience and time studying the issue. If only I hadn't wasted my time shepherding the flock, working in Presbytery, etc. and if I had only read a couple of "definitive" books on the subject...


----------



## daveb (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I'm not sure how it is clear in the WCF



It's quite clear.

WCF 21.5



> The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, *singing of psalms* with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.



I asked about the "singing of psalms" reference here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11451

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by daveb]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 29, 2005)

*You debated so I split the thread*



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



He did not say all on the board, and he said that the people he was referring to had _admittedly_ never studied the issue that much.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

What is this, ad hominem board? Oops, I just committed one. See, it spreads.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> What is this, ad hominem board? Oops, I just committed one. See, it spreads.



Yeah, you hydrophobic sterile-confession reading Presbyterian!
:bigsmile::bigsmile::bigsmile:

j/k


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 29, 2005)

Now, that you split the thread can you rename it-- so that it will make sense in the annals of the puritanboard...


----------



## pastorway (Jul 30, 2005)

done....

hehehehe


----------

