One Point That Needs Addressing

[greenbaggins]

On the PB, I have seen several times EP'ers ask non-EP'ers something to the effect of this: "Why are you arguing against EP? Why would you want less Scripture in worship? And why are you attacking EP? We just want to do our own thing. Why are you attacking the Psalms?" There are certain authors, and I will name Brian Schwertley, for one, who lambast the non-EP position by calling it sacrilegious, and label non-EP churches as those that are leading people directly to Rome (those are pretty much direct quotations in the link provided on his name). He is not the only EP advocate to use this kind of rhetorical language against the non-EP position.

It therefore feels more than a little unfair for EP folk to reproach non-EP'ers for even bringing up the subject when such attacks as Schwertley's are out there (and not usually curbed by the reasonable EP'ers). And, incidentally, I call my own position "Inclusive Psalmody," or IP, for short. So you can imagine how frustrating it is to see attacks on our position out there, and then, when we try to defend our position, we get attacked for even bringing it up. I don't see those of an IP persuasion (or similar positions) doing the same to EP'ers. I cannot, therefore, agree with Carl Trueman's assessment of the situation, and it would be nice if such attacks did not happen on the PB in future. This is a question of the interpretation of Scripture's Regulative Principle of Worship, and of specific passages of Scripture. Involved also are definitions of the sufficiency of Scripture, the whole counsel of God, the word-concept fallacy, and notions of translation. And for IP folk like myself, it is a question of defending one's Reformed credentials, and one's adherence to the RPW. According to some, I shouldn't be allowed to do that, or I should be ashamed if I attempt it, if that involves any kind of attack on the EP position. That attitude, my friends, needs to stop. It is not charitable, certainly doesn't fit the Golden Rule, and seems to be seeking to cut off debate. To me (and others on the PB, I am sure), it feels like we are being told, "You are wrong, and you aren't even allowed to respond."

You will never find me objecting to EP'ers attacking my position, as long as it is about the issues, and does not involve ridicule, ad hominem's, extension fallacies, or other nonsense such as tends to plague these debates (and yes, those fallacies do occur on both sides).

Important caveat here: I am not complaining about recent moderation. In fact, I agree with it, though, as Chris mentioned, we didn't all agree on the particulars. I am reacting to very specific statements that have been made on various of the recent EP threads to the tune I have mentioned above, and which I do not find helpful. This isn't the first time I have seen this happen. It happened on my blog as well, when I wrote a post or two challenging the EP position, and some RPCNA brothers were reacting negatively to it even existing. Why shouldn't it? There are quite a few books out there promoting the EP position (all of which pretty strenuously attack the non-EP positions). There are very few books addressing the EP position from a critical standpoint. The discussion is, therefore, quite lopsided.

 

[Romans922]

On the PB, I have seen several times EP'ers ask non-EP'ers something to the effect of this: "Why are you arguing against EP? Why would you want less Scripture in worship? And why are you attacking EP? We just want to do our own thing. Why are you attacking the Psalms?" There are certain authors, and I will name Brian Schwertley, for one, who lambast the non-EP position by calling it sacrilegious, and label non-EP churches as those that are leading people directly to Rome (those are pretty much direct quotations in the link provided on his name). He is not the only EP advocate to use this kind of rhetorical language against the non-EP position.

Did he do this here to which we are interacting? Is he a minister that we should give more of our attention to? Not a good example, in my opinion at least here. But yes he's said those things, but I don't know him. I know he tried to join our presbytery recently and get his ordination back, and we did not allow it.

But the 'attacks' here as of late are fine. The PB is made for discussing/debating these issues. Anyone who is EP should not be complaining to admins. I'd say to my fellow EPers, "suck it up buttercup". I encourage all the Non-EPers to continue to bring up the topic and discuss it. Let us be iron sharpening iron. I think at the end of the day, on the PB, the EPer should want our non-EPers to seek out singing at least A psalm in worship. I'd be happy if the non-EPer was more consistent in that way. At least sing a Psalm or some. Don't just be against EP, sing psalms!

I'm sure you can understand why EPers are a little more strong against non-EP, if consistent with RPW. Because we believe, you (non-EPers) are entering into sin by introducing non-Psalms into worship. And we care for our brothers/sisters and their souls. I'm not sure of any non-EP who would be saying we are in sin for only singing Psalms, unless one's belief is that you must sing psalms, and you must sing non-psalms too. Either way, to both sides 'suck it up buttercup' and discuss these things. Better than discussing Russia.

 

[Logan]

Thanks Lane, do you have a specific comment or post in mind?

The recent discussion was odd because of how adamant the OP was about a position I've never heard any IP speak from. Lots of responses may have seemed odd just because the argument being propounded was so odd.

 

[WalthervonderVogelweide]

Sorry, what point are you addressing? You touched on a lot without really saying much.

On the PB, I have seen several times EP'ers ask non-EP'ers something to the effect of this: "Why are you arguing against EP? Why would you want less Scripture in worship? And why are you attacking EP? We just want to do our own thing. Why are you attacking the Psalms?"

You have to forgive them for this approach. It's not a fun conversation to have, and to begin it with the acknowledgement that those who sing uninspired hymns in corporate worship are indeed sinning by doing so only makes it more uncomfortable. I typically have this discussion with people who are unaware that there is any extant tradition of psalm-singing, so it make sense to begin with the question, "Why would you not want to sing the psalms?" I suppose that's where the brothers in question are coming from when they take up such arguments.

 

[Tom Hart]

This isn't the first time I have seen this happen. It happened on my blog as well, when I wrote a post or two challenging the EP position, and some RPCNA brothers were reacting negatively to it even existing. Why shouldn't it? There are quite a few books out there promoting the EP position (all of which pretty strenuously attack the non-EP positions). There are very few books addressing the EP position from a critical standpoint. The discussion is, therefore, quite lopsided.

I do not understand what you are saying. There are people objecting to the existence of your of posts on the grounds that they disagree with its contents? Er… So what? So they disagree. Let them. If it’s about having a discussion, as you say, let the discussion be had.

“Very few books address EP from a critical standpoint.” Again, so what? Should people who are in favour of EP be discouraged from commenting, just because the discussion, as you see it, is “lopsided”? This hardly seems reasonable. I say again, let the discussion be had, and do not attempt to impose arbitrary boundaries on the discussion.

I would not say, for instance, that Baptists ought not to call paedobaptism a relic of Papism. Some Baptists do say that. So what? I disagree with that statement, but I’m not offended by it, and I shall not demand they refrain from making it. After all, according to my own view, their statement demonstrates a misunderstanding. Let them say what they like, and then we can work it out in discussion.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Lane, the reason that people have said the things that you mention in certain threads is owing to the unedifying spectacle of a certain person constantly playing on a harp of one string. If literally every other thread that I started was criticising those who sing uninspired hymns, then I think you would understand that such an approach is out of place on a forum where people of different opinions on this subject are supposed to come together. I am not saying that there is no place for ever addressing the subject - that would be a ridiculous thing to assert - but it is probably fair to conclude that constantly raising a contentious issue on such a forum is not a good idea.

And, for the record, someone saying that hymns will lead to Romanism is over the top.

 

[yeutter]

On the PB, I have seen several times EP'ers ask non-EP'ers something to the effect of this: "Why are you arguing against EP? Why would you want less Scripture in worship? And why are you attacking EP? We just want to do our own thing. Why are you attacking the Psalms?" There are certain authors, and I will name Brian Schwertley, for one, who lambast the non-EP position by calling it sacrilegious, and label non-EP churches as those that are leading people directly to Rome (those are pretty much direct quotations in the link provided on his name). He is not the only EP advocate to use this kind of rhetorical language against the non-EP position.

It therefore feels more than a little unfair for EP folk to reproach non-EP'ers for even bringing up the subject when such attacks as Schwertley's are out there (and not usually curbed by the reasonable EP'ers).

I could not find where Brian Schwertley said that non-EP Churches are leading people directly to Rome. He does say that about churches that teach the Federal Vision error. I called him and he said that misrepresents his position.
Here is his website:

Home | Reformed Online | Rev. Brian M. Schwertley

Sermons, books and pamphlets by Rev. Brian M. Schwertley of the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States.

www.reformedonline.com

But yes he's said those things, but I don't know him. I know he tried to join our presbytery recently and get his ordination back, and we did not allow it.

Brian Schwertley said that he was never deposed from office and is mystified about the reference to trying to get his ordination back.

 

[Romans922]

Brian Schwertley said that he was never deposed from office and is mystified about the reference to trying to get his ordination back.

That might be more accurate. I came into the Presbytery after issues he had here. My apologies if my statement was inaccurate, I meant specifically that he wanted to be a Pastor again in our Presbytery. Our Presbytery didn't let him in for whatever reason. I'm not privy to the information.

 

[Joshua]

Who got attacked just for bringin' up the subject? Askin' fer a friend.

P.S. - To be clear, I think most of us could use a thicker skin, regardless of our understanding.

 

[lynnie]

Sorry if this is a really dumb question here. It probably is.

Is EP a confessional thing, or a book of church order thing? Was it originally, but today many elders take an exception that is allowed by whoever is ordaining them? Or was it always a difference that existed but was never listed in the foundational doctrinal statements of Reformed denominations?

Thanks for a little history.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Sorry if this is a really dumb question here. It probably is.

Is EP a confessional thing, or a book of church order thing? Was it originally, but today many elders take an exception that is allowed by whoever is ordaining them? Or was it always a difference that existed but was never listed in the foundational doctrinal statements of Reformed denominations?

Thanks for a little history.

The three positions of exclusive psalmody, inspired praise, and inclusive hymnody have existed from the early days of the reformation as exhibited by a Lutheran preface to one of the earliest hymnals, the Constance Hymnal. 1533: “Many affirm this truth—that one may sing and it is not against God—but they have other objections, such as that one should sing nothing but Psalms or whatever else is spelled out in the Bible.” See In Translatiōne, “The Preface to the Constance Hymnbook by Joannem Zwick,” The Confessional Presbyterian 7 (2011): 227.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Sorry if this is a really dumb question here. It probably is.

Is EP a confessional thing, or a book of church order thing? Was it originally, but today many elders take an exception that is allowed by whoever is ordaining them? Or was it always a difference that existed but was never listed in the foundational doctrinal statements of Reformed denominations?

Thanks for a little history.

The Presbyterians were practically EP. The Westminster assembly was as well. After the assembly it first became clear some would introduce manmade hymns. At that point the debate began and the EP position began a century or century and a half of presenting and refining arguments. in my opinion.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

On the PB, I have seen several times EP'ers ask non-EP'ers something to the effect of this: "Why are you arguing against EP? Why would you want less Scripture in worship? And why are you attacking EP? We just want to do our own thing. Why are you attacking the Psalms?" There are certain authors, and I will name Brian Schwertley, for one, who lambast the non-EP position by calling it sacrilegious, and label non-EP churches as those that are leading people directly to Rome (those are pretty much direct quotations in the link provided on his name). He is not the only EP advocate to use this kind of rhetorical language against the non-EP position.

It therefore feels more than a little unfair for EP folk to reproach non-EP'ers for even bringing up the subject when such attacks as Schwertley's are out there (and not usually curbed by the reasonable EP'ers).

There have been numerous times in discussions on this very board when "the reasonable EP'ers" have "curbed" others who were being overzealous. In fact, I recall that a couple of us in one thread (or perhaps more than one) complained about some of the language used in Michael Bushell's latest edition of The Songs of Zion. I loved the earlier edition of that book, but I have never been able to finish the latest edition because the rhetoric really gets on my goat. And there have also been threads that have been restricted to non-EP people, which have critiqued the position without reply, and no one (to my knowledge) has complained about it. So, I do not believe that there is any conspiracy by EPers either to shut down discussion against their position or to ignore the rash zeal of those on our side of the fence.[1] For the reasons mentioned above, the complaints about certain recent threads were perfectly reasonable.

[1] Of course, if you can provide me with an Alex Jones video arguing that such a conspiracy exists, I might start to believe in it.

 

[Tom Hart]

There are certain authors, and I will name Brian Schwertley, for one, who lambast the non-EP position by calling it sacrilegious, and label non-EP churches as those that are leading people directly to Rome (those are pretty much direct quotations in the link provided on his name). He is not the only EP advocate to use this kind of rhetorical language against the non-EP position.

I think it would be wise, in the name of fairness, to supply the quotations to which you are objecting, and which, according to @yeutter (above) have been misrepresented.

 

[greenbaggins]

A few words to each of my respondees.

Firstly, my interpretation of JD's posts is different from how the EP'ers are interpreting it. I believe what he was trying to do was to bring up the tone of his argument to a more acceptable level. This is the more charitable interpretation of his posts. You can see a progression. Harsh at the first, more measured at the last. He is trying to get the balance between truth and love correct. Difficult to do when he is getting ridiculed for his arguments, but I encouraged him to do so, anyway. I know it may not feel like what I am describing to you. But this kind of charitable interpretation is just what should be happening between the two sides, and so often is not happening.

Andrew, disagreement is one thing. Ridicule of an opposing side's argument is another. Sometimes you don't seem to acknowledge the difference, using "clownish" to put down your opponent. Completely out of court in my book, and unworthy of a pastor treating a brother in Christ. In my opinion, you owe JD a public apology. You didn't stick to the issue in that statement at all. Ask yourself whether that passes the Golden Rule test. Would you want someone telling you that your argument is clownish, as opposed to actually addressing the issue? As to your point about sin, IP'ers believe EP'ers are sinning in how they treat IP'ers. If Colossians 3:16 does not refer just to the Psalter, but includes non-Psalmic non-inspired hymns within its purview, then we are commanded to sing those hymns (with the obvious understanding that they must be in accord with the Bible's teaching), and EP'ers are in sin for forbidding what God has commanded.

Logan, there are a few comments I have in mind in the post, but I am also addressing the history of the PB and of the whole EP debate. As I mentioned before, I am not in agreement with JD's actual argument, because I am a Vosian, and because I try not to commit the word-concept fallacy. But JD's arguments should have been treated with respect by simple refutation, and his motivations should not have been read the way they were.

Tom, there is a difference between disagreement about the substance of a post, and an attack on the motivations of someone who posts. What I have experienced from EP'ers is the latter. Let discussion and debate abound, as long as it is done in good faith that both sides are trying to arrive at the truth. The way some EP'ers come across, though, is as much as to say that IP'ers should not enter the discussion, and have no right to question the EP position.

Thomas the quotation about Rome is on page 28 of the document I referenced. It reads thus: "As Reformed believers, we must not abandon the scriptural attainments regarding worship achieved by our spiritual forefathers. To abandon the regulative principle or to redefine it to render it meaningless is to abandon biblical worship and our Confession. Those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. Those who pervert Scripture to have Watts, Toplady, and Newton will end up with Rome, Canterbury, or Vegas." That there are three possible destinations mentioned does not negate the truth of my claim about Schwertley's position that abandoning EP is a direct road to Rome. If he did not intend to communicate that, then he did a poor job as a writer.

Josh, I think it is fair to say that JD got carpet-bombed, without anyone asking what his actual motivations were for putting up four threads on the matter. If he was intending to get clarity in a format that would be unobjectionable, then all the EP'ers claiming mania on his part would be a misreading of his motives, yes?

Daniel, regarding your second post, I am glad to hear it. I wish such behavior characterized all the interaction on the PB about EP.

 

[Tom Hart]

Tom, there is a difference between disagreement about the substance of a post, and an attack on the motivations of someone who posts. What I have experienced from EP'ers is the latter. Let discussion and debate abound, as long as it is done in good faith that both sides are trying to arrive at the truth. The way some EP'ers come across, though, is as much as to say that IP'ers should not enter the discussion, and have no right to question the EP position.

“The way some EP’ers come across”? Is it not the case that you are yourself are now attacking the motivations of others? You imply that some are not acting in “good faith” and not “trying to arrive at truth.”

You have so far given only vague references to people who didn’t agree with - or perhaps even didn’t like - what you or others wrote. Just what did they say?

Thomas the quotation about Rome is on page 28 of the document I referenced. It reads thus: "As Reformed believers, we must not abandon the scriptural attainments regarding worship achieved by our spiritual forefathers. To abandon the regulative principle or to redefine it to render it meaningless is to abandon biblical worship and our Confession. Those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. Those who pervert Scripture to have Watts, Toplady, and Newton will end up with Rome, Canterbury, or Vegas." That there are three possible destinations mentioned does not negate the truth of my claim about Schwertley's position that abandoning EP is a direct road to Rome. If he did not intend to communicate that, then he did a poor job as a writer.

Abandoning EP is a direct road to Rome? That is not what he is saying. He is saying that when people turn to will-worship… well, we have seen what happens. It’s happened before.

I think you are reading Schwertley uncharitably.

 

[greenbaggins]

Tom, in the first quotation, I am asserting something about impressions that are coming across to me. I am not talking about people's motivations at all. So your criticism there is wide of the mark.

As to you second quotation, it is quite obvious that he is talking about the hymns of Watts, Toplady, and Newton as a perversion of Scripture. In his view, hymns are a perversion of Scripture as an abandonment of EP. Your interpretation of Schwertley is wide of the mark. He is talking about abandoning EP in favor of hymns. He is not talking about the more general concept of will-worship.

 

[Tom Hart]

Note: This reply was prepared before Rev. Keister posted his comments above (in Post #15).

Rev. Keister (@greenbaggins),

There are a few problems in this thread.

There is, first, the vague thread title, “One Point That Needs Addressing,” which might refer to just about anything. I had thought that that sort of thing was discouraged on the PuritanBoard. I seem to remember it coming up a few years ago.

More significantly, you refer to certain quotations by advocates of exclusive psalmody, but you provide no citations. (The link in the OP only leads me to a Dropbox folder.) You say there is more than one EP-advocate who, according to you, crosses the line. If such is the case, provide the evidence, and let us, the readers, judge for ourselves. If you are prepared to say that certain EP proponents go too far, you must demonstrate it. Otherwise it is mere hearsay.

In my opinion, it is really not a good look for an administrator of the board (never mind a minister of the Word) to be making such claims without clear proof.

In Post #5 in this thread I offered some other criticism of the OP. It is not exactly clear to me to what you object, although it does seem you think some discussion should be kept within some imprecise lines.

If indeed you wish future conversations to be conducted somewhat differently, you will need to give us some rather more concrete examples of what you find problematic. It is a significant demand, after all, that a discussion be carried on within boundaries; frankly, I think that the PB’s existing rules are sufficient. I would, further, offer the reminder that, if there are some who take offence to others’ words, we ought not to assume that those words were intended at all uncharitbly. I know that I, myself, can speak too plainly for some, and it might sometimes come off as a lack of charity. I must be careful, too, in an online forum, not to read uncharitably.

Finally, you complain that, to you, it feels as though debate is being “cut off.” You say you feel as though you are being told, “You are wrong, and you aren’t even allowed to respond.” It seems I missed any exchange that might have conveyed that in any of the recent EP-related threads; I would say that any such sentiment is out of place here, where, I believe, there are many Christians committed to sincere discussion. In the interest of open discussion and the pursuit of truth, I believe you will see the problem with any suggestion that future conversations be made subject to constraints beyond those already in place.

Please do consider my words, in the name of Christian charity, as well as for the benefit of the PuritanBoard as a whole.

 

[Rom]

Firstly, my interpretation of JD's posts is different from how the EP'ers are interpreting it.

Lane, how exactly are the EP'ers with charity, to interpret the words of someone (JD) who has publicly called EP an abomination and a doctrine of Satan? He has done this in at least two forums I am aware of - the PuritanBoard and on Facebook (since you are calling your blog as a witness, I do not feel badly in bringing FB into the discussion). Many of us saw his first post (and some his prior post on FB) even though it was taken down. Then two or more threads in rapid succession. I have never seen anything like it on my time on the PB. I also would remind you that non-EPers were calling JD to take a break. It was not just EP'ers.

I am also unsure why you associate the EP'ers here with Schwertley (who did not contribute to any of these threads). That seems as out of bounds as if I called your fellow OPC minister Donald Poundstone as a testimony of what an IP'er is like - someone who says that many psalms are unsuitable for Christians to sing (at least not without tinkering with them). Article published in your own denomination's magazine. (I put this here because I know you would not agree with him, not because I want to create guilt-association).

 

[Tom Hart]

Tom, in the first quotation, I am asserting something about impressions that are coming across to me. I am not talking about people's motivations at all. So your criticism there is wide of the mark.

You are “asserting something about impressions that are coming across to [you].” Where then is the problem? That some people give the impression that they are misjudging motivations?

As to you second quotation, it is quite obvious that he is talking about the hymns of Watts, Toplady, and Newton as a perversion of Scripture. In his view, hymns are a perversion of Scripture as an abandonment of EP. Your interpretation of Schwertley is wide of the mark. He is talking about abandoning EP in favor of hymns. He is not talking about the more general concept of will-worship.

OK, then. The perversion of Scripture leads us down a course we have seem before.

I am not saying I necessarily agree with Schwertley, only that your reading of him is unfair. You made him out to be saying that “abandonment of EP leads to Rome.” I think you can do better than that.

 

[Tom Hart]

Here, again, is the quotation from the OP, with the quotation from Schwertley below. Let the reader decide if Schwertley is saying what he is being said to be saying (and which, apparently, he himself denies).

There are certain authors, and I will name Brian Schwertley, for one, who lambast the non-EP position by calling it sacrilegious, and label non-EP churches as those that are leading people directly to Rome (those are pretty much direct quotations in the link provided on his name).

"As Reformed believers, we must not abandon the scriptural attainments regarding worship achieved by our spiritual forefathers. To abandon the regulative principle or to redefine it to render it meaningless is to abandon biblical worship and our Confession. Those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. Those who pervert Scripture to have Watts, Toplady, and Newton will end up with Rome, Canterbury, or Vegas."

 

[Romans922]

Andrew, disagreement is one thing. Ridicule of an opposing side's argument is another. Sometimes you don't seem to acknowledge the difference, using "clownish" to put down your opponent.

You are free to take it up with the Moderators Lane. I never called JD clownish, I was agreeing with Josh that his argument was "clownery". I don't have a problem with JD as a person nor do I believe that I attacked him personally. The argument he is using on the PB is an argument that is dispensational in nature as if in singing the Psalms that we can't sing of Jesus' death on the cross.

Perhaps you are fine with fiery language as long as it is not directed at you or someone who holds your view. As was pointed above, JD called Exclusive Psalmody "Satanic". His type of IP view (different than other IPers) is clownery.

 

[greenbaggins]

Rom, a couple of points in response. Firstly, the point I have specifically in mind is actually something you brought up. You brought in the Trueman quote that wondered about the motivations of people attacking the EP position, and included language something to the effect of "why would you want to sing less Scripture?." I don't remember the exact quotation. What it seemed to be doing was trying to shame IP'ers from attacking the EP position. If that was not your intention, then great. But it is not the first time such a statement has been made on the board. There is no way I could find such previous statements, however, which is why I didn't provide specific quotations. I am not trying to lay down a new rule so much as to encourage people to stick to the issues and withhold rhetoric and certainly ridicule. I made a moderator's point on one of the threads, but I thought the point needed to be made in a clearer and more thorough way.

As to your interpretation of JD, you are missing my point. I am not talking about his rhetoric at the beginning, which I thought was over the top (EP'ers use plenty of the same rhetoric and think it completely justified, incidentally). But that is not my point. Plenty of people told JD so. I am talking about the specific issue of his starting three new threads about it, and how to interpret that particular action on his part. As for why I quoted Schwertley, it was as an illustration of how some EP'ers behave towards IP'ers. I am not limited to only quoting PB. You yourself quoted Trueman as a statement of what you think the IP'ers are doing.

Tom, as to the issue of impressions. When I use that language, and when many people use it, the point is that miscommunication is happening at some point along the line. If the impression is incorrect, then clarification needs to result. To take the Schwertley quotation as an example. It is my opinion that if he did not intend to say that abandoning EP is a road to Rome, then he picked a singularly unclear way of expressing himself. He obviously regards hymns in worship as will-worship. I would be rather surprised if any IP'er would disagree with my interpretation of the Schwertley quotation. You say he didn't intend to say that. I would be glad to hear what precisely he meant by saying that having Watts, Toplady, and Newton (in worship, presumably) is a perversion of Scripture leading to Rome, Canterbury, or Vegas.

Andrew, I said you called his ARGUMENT clownish. I NEVER said you called HIM clownish. Get it right.

 

[Logan]

Lane,

I certainly hope to be respectful and courteous to someone who is honestly inquiring or wants to bring up some counterpoints. I also don't want to seem argumentative but this was my perspective on the recent stuff:

We had someone start multiple topics in rapid succession, and he even stated this himself:

"Bottom line is, as much as EPers hold that they are true to Scripture and the RPW, when their misalignment to it is exposed, all they can do is rant, shift the goalposts and try to discredit the claimant if the face of admitting the error they have falsely rationalized."

Is that an honest inquirer? Someone seeking to edify? Someone genuinely interested in hearing the other side's perspective? No.

What I then saw was multiple people trying very patiently to show him the error in his logic. Even without considering EP, his premise and conclusions did not logically connect. Despite multiple people trying to help him see that, the responses were filled with phrases like the following:

"This is self-evident
Nice swing at ad absurdum.
...I ask the mods to delete your comments.
Nice try.
Wow.
ha, good try at ad absurdum
That is self-evident.
you are deceived.
And here we go again.
Take another shot, man"

That's what happened when a simple refutation (not even of his position, but of his logic itself) was attempted by at least what, ten people? I'm sure I'm the first who could be more charitable, but can one really have a reasonable discussion with someone who addresses every counter-point with jabs like "nice try" without considering the content itself? He clearly had an axe to grind and was uninterested in other points unless they bolstered his own.

 

[greenbaggins]

Logan, JD has already apologized more than once for this sort of thing. I have myself encouraged him not to use such rhetoric.

 

[Rom]

Rom, a couple of points in response. Firstly, the point I have specifically in mind is actually something you brought up. You brought in the Trueman quote that wondered about the motivations of people attacking the EP position, and included language something to the effect of "why would you want to sing less Scripture?." I don't remember the exact quotation. What it seemed to be doing was trying to shame IP'ers from attacking the EP position. If that was not your intention, then great. But it is not the first time such a statement has been made on the board. There is no way I could find such previous statements, however, which is why I didn't provide specific quotations. I am not trying to lay down a new rule so much as to encourage people to stick to the issues and withhold rhetoric and certainly ridicule. I made a moderator's point on one of the threads, but I thought the point needed to be made in a clearer and more thorough way.

There was no intention to shame anyone on the thread at all. JD seemed to have an obsession at this point. A non-EP brother had noted that just above my response. At this point, my goal was to give the OP some peace of mind with an alternative viewpoint. There was no intention to ridicule, and I would hope that you would interpret my interactions on the board more charitably than that. If I have given you reason to doubt my character and motives, please let me know.

 

[greenbaggins]

Rom, I am glad to hear it. The quotation from Trueman, however, if I recall correctly, hit at a broader target than simply those obsessed with answering EP arguments, and seemed to include anyone trying to answer the EP arguments at all. And what constitutes obsession? One could argue that writing a book equals an obsession. In which case no one has ever had an obsession of answering EP arguments. There are many EP books out there however. I am not sure obsession is a helpful category in this discussion, anyway.

 

[Rom]

Rom, I am glad to hear it. The quotation from Trueman, however, if I recall correctly, hit at a broader target than simply those obsessed with answering EP arguments, and seemed to include anyone trying to answer the EP arguments at all. And what constitutes obsession? One could argue that writing a book equals an obsession. In which case no one has ever had an obsession of answering EP arguments. There are many EP books out there however. I am not sure obsession is a helpful category in this discussion, anyway.

If I were his pastor, and he were making threads like this in multiple forums against hymnody, I would tell him he was being obsessive. This is not the manner in which a man writes even a polemical work. See his interactions cited by Logan. A man being warned repeatedly by moderators about his tone is not in the same category at all, brother.

P.S. but just as an FYI - I would never pull out the Trueman quote to try to shut down an argument against EP.

 

[Logan]

Logan, JD has already apologized more than once for this sort of thing. I have myself encouraged him not to use such rhetoric.

The point was that I don't believe that the words or tone he was using is consistent with your charitable assessment:

I believe what he was trying to do was to bring up the tone of his argument to a more acceptable level. This is the more charitable interpretation of his posts. You can see a progression. Harsh at the first, more measured at the last. He is trying to get the balance between truth and love correct. Difficult to do when he is getting ridiculed for his arguments, but I encouraged him to do so, anyway. I know it may not feel like what I am describing to you. But this kind of charitable interpretation is just what should be happening between the two sides, and so often is not happening.

I respect your desire to be charitable but if he truly wants to get the balance between truth and love correct, or wants to bring his argument to a more acceptable level, he is welcome to ask for critiques or pose questions and thoughtfully listen to them. Someone who says "nice try" indicates to me that they aren't even trying to listen. After attempting myself multiple times to explain his logical error (not even making any EP arguments) and being outright dismissed every time, I think the correct conclusion is that this was someone who was merely combative.

On the other hand, Puritan Sailor, Beloved7, etc. who are not EP, made some points in the same thread that were respectful and were treated respectfully (in my opinion).

 

[greenbaggins]

Rom, again glad to hear it.

Logan, I think he received as good as he gave when it comes to tone.