Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I had a hunch that a large part of the EP debate had at it's core some competing views about the mechanics of inspiration. I guess my hunch is now confirmed. Thanks for the interactions brothers.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
though Matthew did read in Isaiah, A Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, yet Matthew maketh it not a part of the New Testament, because Isaiah said it, but because the Holy Ghost did immediately suggest it to him, as a divine truth. For a holy man might draw out of the Old and New Testament a chapter of orthodox truths, all in Scripture words, and believe them to be God’s truth; yet that chapter should not formally be the Scripture of God, because, though the author did write it by the light of faith, yet the prophetical and apostolical spirit did not suggest it and inspire it to the author.
I had a hunch that a large part of the EP debate had at it's core some competing views about the mechanics of inspiration. I guess my hunch is now confirmed. Thanks for the interactions brothers.
I had a hunch that a large part of the EP debate had at it's core some competing views about the mechanics of inspiration. I guess my hunch is now confirmed. Thanks for the interactions brothers.
I don't think that the different views of the mechanics of inspiration are at the root of EP, rather I think the root question is whether or not EP is a good and necessary consequence of Scriptural teachings on worship in general and corporate worship in particular. Although I see nothing wrong with a church choosing EP as a circumstantial choice, I have yet to see EP proved to be derived from Scripture as a GNC.
Rutherford was flatly unscriptural and clearly wrong if he thought that the conclusion of the Jerusalem council was not immediately inspired.
Mr. Winzer or anybody familiar with the matter, are there other places where the Reformed address this question of mediate vs. immediate inspiration?
Both, actually. I'm wondering what I could read to get more statements about the matter. Thanks!
I had a hunch that a large part of the EP debate had at it's core some competing views about the mechanics of inspiration. I guess my hunch is now confirmed. Thanks for the interactions brothers.
Rutherford was flatly unscriptural and clearly wrong if he thought that the conclusion of the Jerusalem council was not immediately inspired.
As noted, I leave you to your own conclusions. The fact that you arrive at your conclusions without giving consideration to Prof. Rutherford's reasons shows that you do not carefully examine evidence and argumentation.
Quite frankly, on the basis of the Rutherford excerpts provided, I am at a loss to understand how Rutherford could have chosen the Council to exemplify mediate inspiration (but we have all seen cases of godly men who clearly erred in one thing or another).
So what am I missing?
Both, actually. I'm wondering what I could read to get more statements about the matter. Thanks!
For a collection of statements there is Dr. Warfield's Westminster Assembly and its Work, chapters on Scripture and Inspiration. He regarded the term "immediate inspiration" as "of quite settled and technical connotation." He specifically quotes John Ball for a clear definition: "To be immediately inspired, is to be as it were breathed, and to come from the Father by the Holy Ghost, without all means." (P. 204.)
Round and round we go.... I said this thing few posts back. If the command in Eph and Col is to use songs in general (not Psalms) to teach (i.e. expound), then that is a command to write new songs in order to "teach" and "admonish", the same terms used to describe preaching. But hey, I've already said that a while back.
Well, I wasn't wanting to engage in yet another discussion on this topic. I think if you centre on that point of what is commanded in NT worship then it might just turn out to be a fruitful discussion. I would only add that a command to sing/use does not equate to a command to write; that is an implication which requires proving, and would help clarify issues if you somehow managed to succeed. Blessings!
So where would Bavinck's "organic inspiration" (Reformed dogmatics Vol. 1) fit in this discussion?
The Larger Catechism seems to be saying that we are to esteem and regard the sermon as if it were the Word of God, yet clearly maintaining a clear distinction between God's closed canon and the sermon. Why can't we do that with our songs? Why are songs in a class by themselves, apart from sermons and prayers? Why are we so confused when it comes to songs?
It seems to me that the last sentence is something we have in common. Now the question is how you get to the first two sentences. You seem to suggest that songs require greater or stricter fencing than the preached Word. This idea does not come from Scripture (what Tim is saying), it doesn’t come from the Confessions (what I am saying), but rather seems to come from a personal precommitment (what Patrick is saying)."Songs" are in a class by themselves because they are sung by a whole congregation by means of a set form of words. Decency and order demand that the individual who speaks according to the gifts of God's Spirit should be the one to speak what he is given and that those who hear him be afforded the opportunity to judge what he says. Many discussions on this board are confused about songs because certain people refuse to acknowledge the basic difference between an individual preaching or praying according to the Spirit's assistance and a congregation singing a set form of words.
It seems to me that the last sentence is something we have in common. Now the question is how you get to the first two sentences. You seem to suggest that songs require greater or stricter fencing than the preached Word. This idea does not come from Scripture (what Tim is saying), it doesn’t come from the Confessions (what I am saying), but rather seems to come from a personal precommitment (what Patrick is saying).
John, to state it another way by way of true story, when we sing psalms in worship my conscience is totally clear since they are the very words of God. When, however, one of the songs chosen is Softly, Softly Jesus is Calling it wounds my conscience because I know that is not a song that I can sing in Spirit and truth because it is clearly not the truth as stated in scripture. The person picking the song is binding my conscience because I am commanded to sing with the congregation in praise to God. But I can't.
I know that you know what it is to have someone try to bind your conscience from the pulpit. It is the same with songs that are written by goodness knows who and I am commanded to sing praise to God with those words. It's just not possible.
This is how the RPW protects my liberty to sing praise to God in the manner that he has commanded in His own words and not the words of mere men who may or may not be theologically sound. I am not free in my conscience when the praise in not vetted, to borrow a term. I trust God to have already done that with the psalter.
John, to state it another way by way of true story, when we sing psalms in worship my conscience is totally clear since they are the very words of God. When, however, one of the songs chosen is Softly, Softly Jesus is Calling it wounds my conscience because I know that is not a song that I can sing in Spirit and truth because it is clearly not the truth as stated in scripture. The person picking the song is binding my conscience because I am commanded to sing with the congregation in praise to God. But I can't.
I know that you know what it is to have someone try to bind your conscience from the pulpit. It is the same with songs that are written by goodness knows who and I am commanded to sing praise to God with those words. It's just not possible.
This is how the RPW protects my liberty to sing praise to God in the manner that he has commanded in His own words and not the words of mere men who may or may not be theologically sound. I am not free in my conscience when the praise in not vetted, to borrow a term. I trust God to have already done that with the psalter.
It seems to me that the last sentence is something we have in common. Now the question is how you get to the first two sentences. You seem to suggest that songs require greater or stricter fencing than the preached Word. This idea does not come from Scripture (what Tim is saying), it doesn’t come from the Confessions (what I am saying), but rather seems to come from a personal precommitment (what Patrick is saying).
The idea of "stricter fencing" might be a criticism from the nonEP side, but it is not inherent in the EP defence. Inherent in the EP defence, and clearly stated by the Westminster Confession, is that there are ordinary parts of worship. By heeding what God has spoken about different parts, we lean upon His wisdom as to what is appropriate in worship. We do not argue from one part to another, as if one sets a precedent for another, but we allow God to regulate how each part is to be performed to His glory.
The only wise God knows what is best for a whole congregation to sing in praise to His name and regulates that action accordingly. It is not an argument for EP, but it is an observable fact, that in the regulation of this activity the Lord has required greater strictness in one sense, and that this can be explained on the basis that the "set form" requires it. Likewise, He knows what is best when an individual authoritatively addresses the congregation from His Word, or offers prayers on their behalf. He has allowed greater freedom in these, but only in terms of the form. The reality is that He requires others to judge what is spoken by the individual, and in this sense the individual activity of preaching and prayer is more strict than congregational singing. Freedom from scrutiny allows liberty of heart in the form which God has prescribed. So, in this sense, congregational singing actually allows greater freedom than preaching and praying.
John, to state it another way by way of true story, when we sing psalms in worship my conscience is totally clear since they are the very words of God. When, however, one of the songs chosen is Softly, Softly Jesus is Calling it wounds my conscience because I know that is not a song that I can sing in Spirit and truth because it is clearly not the truth as stated in scripture. The person picking the song is binding my conscience because I am commanded to sing with the congregation in praise to God. But I can't.
I know that you know what it is to have someone try to bind your conscience from the pulpit. It is the same with songs that are written by goodness knows who and I am commanded to sing praise to God with those words. It's just not possible.
This is how the RPW protects my liberty to sing praise to God in the manner that he has commanded in His own words and not the words of mere men who may or may not be theologically sound. I am not free in my conscience when the praise in not vetted, to borrow a term. I trust God to have already done that with the psalter.
Quite frankly, on the basis of the Rutherford excerpts provided, I am at a loss to understand how Rutherford could have chosen the Council to exemplify mediate inspiration (but we have all seen cases of godly men who clearly erred in one thing or another).
So what am I missing?
The excerpts were only concerned with how he defined "immediate inspiration." One will have to consult the Due Right to examine his arguments for why the Council of Jerusalem should be considered an ordinary presbytery under the influence of mediate inspiration.
Some of the indisputable facts he presents are these: the council took the matter under human deliberation and arrived at a conclusion which sought to gain the consent of the brethren and was only applicable where Moses was preached. In contrast, the apostle expressly maintains that he did not confer with flesh and blood; the apostolic epistles are canonical scripture on the basis of the authority of Jesus Christ with which they wrote; and what the Holy Spirit infallibly declares in one church is applicable in all churches.
Whatever other arguments may be true for EP, I'm afraid that this one is a straw man. The postulate that only God can competently "vett" what is sung before we sing it is clearly unbiblical. For a necessary consequence deduction of John 8:32 and 1 Thess. 5:21,22 is that biblically trained Christians have the ability to do their own vetting. If it is possible for us to know the truth, then it is equally possible for a Christian to test the words of a song new to him or her against Scripture before singing it.
I have never seen a non-EP church where one didn't have the opportunity to "vett" the music before singling it; all of them announced the music in the service beforehand, either via bulleitn or hymnboard. In addition most churches are usually found mostly repeating already known songs with maybe one new song in a service. So if there is a song in the service that I don't already know, I spend less than 5 minutes testing it against Scripture truth. If it conforms to Scripture I sing it, and if it doesn't I don't.
If the church has a well trained worship leader, Christians will find themselves remaining silent only on very rare occasions. I have served in 5 churches over the past 34 years, and I cannot now remember ever having to question the choice of particular songs on doctrinal grounds. If the worship leader at my church were to employ a song or hymn using unbiblical doctrine, I would share my concerns. If song choices persistently present unbiblical doctrine, one can make that fact known as well and if no change is forthcoming, then one can leave.
Calvin's Geneva's psalter in french is really beautiful. I love going to a french church. I can sing the same songs as Calvin and the refuges there.
This is well said. I have the unusual responsibility (for a woman) of choosing the music we sing each Sunday. Don't worry, I don't lead worship, and I am completely under the authority of the pastors and elders. I do, however, spend a lot of time going over the lyrics of everything we sing, then I send the lyrics to the pastor who also looks over them before they are printed in the bulletin. I have on occasion changed a word or two or cut out a verse that was not biblical. In addition to our praise music, I try to include the Psalms in our singing every week.
This is well said. I have the unusual responsibility (for a woman) of choosing the music we sing each Sunday. Don't worry, I don't lead worship, and I am completely under the authority of the pastors and elders. I do, however, spend a lot of time going over the lyrics of everything we sing, then I send the lyrics to the pastor who also looks over them before they are printed in the bulletin. I have on occasion changed a word or two or cut out a verse that was not biblical. In addition to our praise music, I try to include the Psalms in our singing every week.
To be a persnikety nitpicker; by your own testimony, you don't have the responsibility of choosing music, you recommend and your pastor chooses. These are the policies presently followed in my own chuch which also has a woman in position similar to yours.
My question is still outstanding, though: how do you get from this to the declaration that God permits only the Psalms to be sung?