Richard Pratt on RPW

[shackleton]

I am getting these from this site,

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

http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/TH.Pratt.Reg.Princ.pdf

 

[smhbbag]

I've always had a lot of respect for Pratt.

 

[SRoper]

Ironically, perhaps the closest thing in Reformed circles to the
Anglican book of prayer is the insistence of some on particular practices such as
Psalm singing. The biblical support for insisting that Psalms be sung (and sometimes
exclusively) in every worship service is weak to say the least. In effect, it reflects the
convictions of some being forced on others. This violates the regulative principle, and
must be rejected in the spirit of the reformation.

This is a rather poor argument. I don't know of anyone who believes that Psalms are not allowed to be sung in worship, so how does this violate liberty of conscience?

 

[sotzo]

Ironically, perhaps the closest thing in Reformed circles to the
Anglican book of prayer is the insistence of some on particular practices such as
Psalm singing. The biblical support for insisting that Psalms be sung (and sometimes
exclusively) in every worship service is weak to say the least. In effect, it reflects the
convictions of some being forced on others. This violates the regulative principle, and
must be rejected in the spirit of the reformation.

This is a rather poor argument. I don't know of anyone who believes that Psalms are not allowed to be sung in worship, so how does this violate liberty of conscience?

Pratt isn't saying that some believe the Psalms aren't allowed to be sung...he is saying that some insist that only the Psalms (or primarily the Psalms) are to be sung. He then concludes that this violates the regulative principle due to violating consciences of others which I would agree with.

 

[Coram Deo]

I am sorry, but this is funny.... Since when is singing something from scripture a violation of liberty of conscience? Scripture binds and does not violate liberty... On the other hand forcing MAN MADE song on someone is a violation of liberty of conscience.... Forcing by way of worship something that the scripture does not allow i.e. Songs written by men is a violation of my liberty of conscience.....

Ironically, perhaps the closest thing in Reformed circles to the
Anglican book of prayer is the insistence of some on particular practices such as
Psalm singing. The biblical support for insisting that Psalms be sung (and sometimes
exclusively) in every worship service is weak to say the least. In effect, it reflects the
convictions of some being forced on others. This violates the regulative principle, and
must be rejected in the spirit of the reformation.

This is a rather poor argument. I don't know of anyone who believes that Psalms are not allowed to be sung in worship, so how does this violate liberty of conscience?

Pratt isn't saying that some believe the Psalms aren't allowed to be sung...he is saying that some insist that only the Psalms (or primarily the Psalms) are to be sung. He then concludes that this violates the regulative principle due to violating consciences of others which I would agree with.

 

[sotzo]

I am sorry, but this is funny.... Since when is singing something from scripture a violation of liberty of conscience? Scripture binds and does not violate liberty... On the other hand forcing MAN MADE song on someone is a violation of liberty of conscience.... Forcing by way of worship something that the scripture does not allow i.e. Songs written by men is a violation of my liberty of conscience.....

You have missed Pratt's argument...singing something from Scripture is certainly not a violation of conscience...Pratt is not arguing that..Pratt is arguing that to bind another's conscience to EP is a violation of the RPW, and ultimately, Scripture.

The rest of your post is question begging...the question is whether or not the Bible (and the RPW) requires that only Psalms be sung...In other words,, your statement that "Forcing by way of worship something that the scripture does not allow" is only be true if Scripture indeed does not allow it.

Contrary to popular EP opinion, EP just ain't as clear as "do not commit adultery" or the doctrine of the Trinity when it comes to exegeting Scripture. The very existence of solid Reformed theologians, such as Pratt, who do not hold to EP demonstrates this.

If I reposted your original post verbatim, but changed the topic to drinking alcohol or trick-or-treating or listening to rock music, I could justify outlawing anything in the believer's life. But this would be solo Scriptura not sola Scriptura. I believe you are living out this issue in the former and ignoring your non-EP brothers.

 

[SRoper]

I fail to see how anyone's conscience is violated in an exclusive psalmody setting. If a congregation sings nothing but psalms when it comes together, who's conscience is being violated?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

For what it's worth. Pratt's piece was not praised in the Sixty Year Survey of RPW literature part one, in The Confessional Presbyterian 2 (2006).

 

[RamistThomist]

I fail to see how anyone's conscience is violated in an exclusive psalmody setting. If a congregation sings nothing but psalms when it comes together, who's conscience is being violated?

That's not what Pratt is saying. Let's say that church A is EP. Church B is not EP. Church A says that hymns are not for singing. Church B feels that is a statement that cannot be justified scripturally.

That is the argument.

 

[sotzo]

I fail to see how anyone's conscience is violated in an exclusive psalmody setting. If a congregation sings nothing but psalms when it comes together, who's conscience is being violated?

That's not what Pratt is saying. Let's say that church A is EP. Church B is not EP. Church A says that hymns are not for singing. Church B feels that is a statement that cannot be justified scripturally.

That is the argument.

Yes.

 

[SRoper]

Pratt is saying much more than that. He is also saying that it is a violation of liberty of conscience. "What are the attacks on liberty of conscience in worship today?" Then he goes on to list exclusive psalmody.

 

[sotzo]

Pratt is saying much more than that. He is also saying that it is a violation of liberty of conscience. "What are the attacks on liberty of conscience in worship today?" Then he goes on to list exclusive psalmody.

I'm not seeing how you are arriving at this. However, if Pratt were to mean what you say, I would disagree with him.

If an EP or non-EP congregation/person holds the other to their view in a "binding of conscience" sense, the "binder" is violating RPW..actually I think it goes beyond the RPW to Romans 14.

 

[sotzo]

Pratt is saying much more than that. He is also saying that it is a violation of liberty of conscience. "What are the attacks on liberty of conscience in worship today?" Then he goes on to list exclusive psalmody.

I'm not seeing how you are arriving at this. However, if Pratt were to mean what you say, I would disagree with him.

If an EP or non-EP congregation/person holds the other to their view in a "binding of conscience" sense, the "binder" is violating RPW..actually I think it goes beyond the RPW to Romans 14.

I thought Romans 14 was dealing with things indifferent? The worship of the church, whether one is EP or not, is hardly indifferent, right?

Well, then, who has the biblical authority to bind whose conscience - the EPers or the nonEPers?

 

[sotzo]

I thought Romans 14 was dealing with things indifferent? The worship of the church, whether one is EP or not, is hardly indifferent, right?

Well, then, who has the biblical authority to bind whose conscience - the EPers or the nonEPers?

Only the Scriptures have the authority to bind one's conscience. My point was not to discuss EP or non, but to point out that I don't think the application of Romans 14 (each one should be fully convinced in his own mind) has the worship of Christ's church in mind; rather, it speaks to things indifferent. Worship is not something indifferent, right? I mean, either Scripture teaches worship as "such and such" is right, or worship as "such and such" is wrong. It's not something that is indifferent.

Worship is certainly not indifferent...I see what you mean although I still think the issue of EP or non-EP is a matter of conscience from Scripture..perhaps I'm viewing Rom 14 too broadly...thanks for the corrective...I will go back and review that chapter again.