Excellent New Blog

From Musings of a Rinky Dink:

Complete and unquestioning submission to the authority of the visible church elders is the measuring rod for perseverance in the faith.  Any deviation from this measuring rod is an almost sure sign of apostasy.  Any slight  form of disagreement is breaking the ninth commandment and cause for discipline and even excommunication.

You see, for the Federal Vision version of the non-elect, God is like Lucy promising to hold the football in place so Charlie Brown can kick it.  For God gives the non-elect the “temporary” promise and benefits of salvation.  But just when the poor soul reaches what he thinks is his “final justification”, God pulls away all the “temporary saving benefits” and sends him crashing into the final judgment.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

13 Comments on “Excellent New Blog”

  1. Richard Chelvan Says:

    Complete and unquestioning submission to the authority of the visible church elders is the measuring rod for perseverance in the faith. Any deviation from this measuring rod is an almost sure sign of apostasy. Any slight form of disagreement is breaking the ninth commandment and cause for discipline and even excommunication.

    I UTTERLY DISAGREE! Let’s burn this Papal Bull!


  2. Excellent? Another anonymous attack blog?

    BTW, you guys make the PCA sound like Rome more and more…

  3. Michael Says:

    That is because all Antichrist looks similar, be it muslims, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, etc…. They all have similar paths to heaven through works, and they all have overbearing authority in the judgements of men.


  4. I have seen this in a Reformed Baptist church I’ve been attending for some time now. I just left a “Reformed” “Baptist” “church” where the pastor unashamedly told the congregants that entrance into a “living relationship with Christ” requires faith AND obedience.

    So I confronted him about this topic 7 times in total. Today was the seventh time, and, after realizing that I wasn’t letting up on him, he grew irate. He told me that Scripture is difficult to understand, and that I was proud and thinking like a Greek when I should be thinking like a Jew (this is New Perspective-ese — I’m not fluent in this heretical language, but I can make out some of its more common terms).

    Then he told me that Scripture is filled with tensions that have no adequate solution (this is Paradox-Theology-ese, I remember hearing a Van Tillian speak this way once), and, therefore, I should just stop asking questions and “act on what [I] know” (this is authoritarian-pastor-ese which is very similar to concerned-about-your-sanctification-ese, but the inflection is VERY different for each of these language).

    Presumably, el Papa wanted to dictate to me what Scriptures really mean, while I grovelled in obedience to his graceless, naked Romanism.

    When will God’s sheep cry out against these wolves?

    If a “pastor” can stress your obedience to his preaching, but cannot answer a question about where he stands on the issue of sola fide, then the sheep need to remove him from his post….

    Thanks for the post.
    Sorry for the rant.

    RB.

  5. Hugh McCann Says:

    I’m not following how D.S.’s refutation fits in with the anti-FV bit, but what the heck?

    Here’s Crampton’s original article: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=63

    Much love,
    Hugh

  6. Drake Says:

    Hugh,
    Yeah, I just thought I would randomly start some crap. It didn’t look like anyone wanted to go at it over the F.V. since Sean seems to have buried any takers. I just visited Tom J in Unicoi, Tn and we spoke about the issue. I am committed to Puritan worship and this combined with my strict Clarkian epistemology, Theology proper and Christology puts me in a very small circle. There are a few others. Richard Bacon being one. I am not sure he holds to Clark’s Christology though. I suppose I want to make some converts to Puritan worship from the scriptuiralists so I don’t seem so rogue.

    Drake

  7. ray kikkert Says:

    well I am all for exclusive psalmody in the pew (you would be hard pressed to get the congregations to know them all and thus incur boredom), and sing great hymns at home with the family … but am glad Sean keeps us abreast as to what FV doctrinal idiots are up too …


  8. I know this is off-topic, but since Sean allowed Drake to post his articles against Crampton, I am assuming he’ll allow a brief response to Mr. Shelton’s polemic.

    Drake:

    Point 1: Your Gill quote & explanation of it do not contradict your Crampton quote.

    Point 2: That quote is not a single argument, it is part of a larger argument of Crampton’s that you have taken out of context. His argument is not (as you make it seem) this: “WCF doesn’t say we can’t, therefore we should.” The primary argument of Crampton’s article is that Scripture (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) actually does prescribe the use of non-inspired, theologically correct songs, and that WCF uses the word “psalms” in the same way that he understands Scripture to. He’s just setting the stage, establishing that the Westminster Divines wrote in prescriptive terms, and did not issue a prohibition as in XXIX.4. Let’s not misrepresent Crampton; he’s arguing for (at least what he believes to be) a Scriptural prescription.

    Furthermore, he does not “make the same mistake” regarding the Canons of Laodicea. Speaking about WCF, he points out a prescription with no prohibition. Speaking about Laodicea, he points out a prohibition against uninspired hymns, with no prohibition against *inspired hymns*. Crampton distinguishes between psalms and hymns in Scripture (here’s the whole paragraph):

    “The Canons of Laodicea (A.D. 360, canon 59) forbade the singing of uninspired hymns in the worship service, but did not enjoin the exclusive use of Psalms. The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) followed suit, as did the Second Council of Braga (c. A.D. 563, canon 12). None of these outlawed the singing of inspired hymns and spiritual songs in addition to the Psalms.”

    Point 3: I don’t know, it seemed pretty clear to me that he was going with the definition that he *said that Westminster was using*, since his point in that section was to explain what WCF was talking about when it refers to “psalms”:

    “Westminster here uses the term “psalms” in the general sense of the word, which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means “any sacred song…sung in religious worship.” Perhaps this is why A. A. Hodge, in commenting on this section of the Confession, suggests that we can summarize the statement “singing of psalms,” with the phrase “singing of praise.”

    He’s not sneakily sliding into ambiguity; he’s arguing for a broad sense of the word, and using historical usage as support.

    Now I’ll quote you: “Yet this gives Crampton no aid. The Book of Psalms in the Hebrew is literally the Book of Praises (Tehillim). Second, the phrase “Hallelujah” (Praise ye the Lord) is found only in the book of Psalms in the Old Testament.”

    By your logic here, it is impossible for me to utter words that praise God unless they are already found in the Book of Praises. Is that what you mean?

    Point 4: No, you are not “just supposed to believe him.” Crampton may not quote Schaff but he cites Rayburn, Best, Huttar, and Singer. These may not be credible enough sources for you, but you can hardly paint Crampton as simply telling us to take his infallible word for it.

    Regarding the Genevan Book of Church Order, can you provide a quote from it that forbids the use of inspired hymns & songs in addition to Psalms from the Book of Praises? Because that was Crampton’s point: “Some of the Reformers held to the view that the only proper songs to be used in formal worship are those found within Scripture, but they did not adopt exclusive Psalmody.” He then merely cites Calvin as an example. He doesn’t say that Calvin sang “Shine, Jesus, Shine.”

    Point 5: Come on, Crampton doesn’t “appeal to Isaac Watts.” He mentions him as a hymn writer. Let’s be real.

    Point 6: Crampton is using Edwards as an example; he’s not relying on his thoughts as conclusive. Crampton’s very next sentence reads “The witness of church history, of course, is not our standard for determining such matters. Scripture alone is to be our standard.”

    You say, “So singing is regulated by the exact words but prayer and preaching is regulated only by a pattern because they are not parallel ordinances.”
    Let’s hope you get your translation right! What do we do with “LORD”?

    Point 7: Interesting that you bring up Isaiah 38:20, which Crampton doesn’t mention. Perhaps you are merely attempting to “head off” a possible attempt at a future counterargument, but without clarification, it seems that you make Crampton claim/cite something he doesn’t.

    Here ends part one. So far, nothing but straw men.

    Part two, Point one: The first time you address Crampton honestly. However, I’m not sure that you’ve scored a point against him. “Your statutes are my songs” is what is said, not “only those statutes which can be later found in the psalter are my songs.” But that is your interpretation, whereas Crampton takes “your statutes” as is written, with no qualifiers. Personally, I don’t think this is conclusive evidence for either side, but of course neither does Crampton, or his paper would have been a lot shorter.

    Point two: While you may be correct regarding the use of the book of Revelation, you make it seem as though Crampton outright rejects the regulative principle, when in fact he is attempting to demonstrate that his view is in full accordance with it. You may disagree with him, and argue against him, but must you exhibit such disrespect to a faithful brother, many years your elder? Your repeated use of “what a howler” grows tiresome, and demonstrates an arrogant disdain unbefitting discussion of worship of Christ.

    Point three: Dr. Crampton is operating under certain assumptions and arguments held by many Christians who have analyzed the literary nature of those passages. The nature of his article prevented him from a more involved discussion of such research. While you may be correct, perhaps you should acknowledge this before dismissing the whole kit & kaboodle with a derisive wave of your hand.

    Points four and five (Jesus’ name & distinguishing elements of worship): These are good points, and I would be interested to see how Dr. Crampton would respond. Although Schwertley’s quote becomes invalid against Crampton if Crampton’s interpretation of “hymns & spiritual songs” is accepted/assumed for the sake of argument.

    Point six: Good reply, as Dr. Crampton seems to assume in his paper that all EPs approve of metrical Psalms. I still am curious as to your thoughts about how exact we must be in our rendering of the Hebrew. If we are limited to the “exact words,” as you say, how loose can our translation be? This is not a challenge, it’s a question as to your thoughts. Also, what do you mean by “chanting”? Monotonous? If so, is that what is meant by “sing” in Scripture? Just curious what you think.

    Point seven: Regarding the burden of proof and proving a negative… Let both sides attempt to understand each other. EP’s claim that the other side is adding to the prescription of Scripture by advocating the use of songs other than Psalms in worship. Crampton’s view claims that EP’s are the ones adding to Scripture, introducing/adding a restriction that is not present in the Scripture’s command to worship in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (See Part 2, point 1). If we place ourselves in Crampton’s position for a moment, we see that he does not ask us to prove a negative, but rather (what he believes to be) an added restriction to a positive command.

    Point eight: Regarding Exodus 15 & Miriam’s song: Crampton’s point is that it’s an ode. An ode that’s not in the Psalter. He is correct in this observation. Again, you miss his point. His point is NOT “Miriam sang in Exodus 15, therefore we should sing extra-Psalter songs.” Rather, it is “Miriam’s song is referred to as an ode. It is not in the Psalter. Therefore, the word “ode” does not have to be restricted to Psalter Psalms.” Crampton acknowledges the EP’s view of all three terms meaning the same thing as one possible interpretation, but that many interpret it differently. As Crampton argues, twice Paul uses three separate terms. While it is possible that he is using a Hebrew triadic expresion, it is not illogical to posit that he is referring to three separate things. As Crampton argues,

    “The burden of proof here is on those adopting exclusive Psalmody; they must conclusively show that in Paul’s use of these three terms he limits the church to the use of the Psalter in formal worship. If this cannot be accomplished, then Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 stand as refutations of exclusive Psalmody.”

    Point nine: See part 1, point 3. I assume that Crampton is arguing that GBOCO is using “psalms” in the general sense that he says WCF does. This is not a malicious use of ambiguity; it is a recognition that certain words have both general and specific meanings. Still, you did not answer his Calvin quote.

    In conclusion, your refutation is far from being a refutation. You fail to address Crampton’s arguments, take many statements out of context, misconstrue his meaning, and generally exhibit no charity or respect. It is not as if we are dealing with a heretic. You’ll notice that I do not even argue against Exclusive Psalmody in this response; I merely argue against your ill-handling of the issue. If you wish others to take your arguments (many of which I find intriguing) seriously, you must take others’ arguments seriously and respectfully, as well. I trust you mean well, and I say all this in Christian love and admonishment.

  9. Hugh McCann Says:

    Drake: “I just thought I would randomly start some crap.”

    Mission accomplished, apparently!

  10. drake Says:

    @ Patrick T. McWilliams
    Your reply came right in the middle of a down time for me at the hotel, so a quick response is yours.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “His argument is not (as you make it seem) this: “WCF doesn’t say we can’t, therefore we should.”
    If the confession just made clear that they only allow what is prescribed and then they give you the exact list that they are prescribing they ipso facto reject man made songs. Your getting desperate here dude.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “He’s just setting the stage, establishing that the Westminster Divines wrote in prescriptive terms, and did not issue a prohibition as in XXIX.4”
    That is my exact point. You Cramptonites, like most American “Reformed” do not believe the regualtive principle, or at best you still do not understand it. When someone tells you they only allow what they prescribe, they give you the exact list they prescribe, it is irrelevant what they do not prohibit. They have ipso facto prohibited it by not prescribing it. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT. I represented his statements exact.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “Speaking about Laodicea, he points out a prohibition against uninspired hymns, with no prohibition against *inspired hymns*.”
    But assuming he believes the regualtive principle, this lack of prohibition is irrelevant.
    Patrick T. McWilliams “By your logic here, it is impossible for me to utter words that praise God unless they are already found in the Book of Praises. Is that what you mean?”
    In our dispensation, in singing yes

    Patrick T. McWilliams “Regarding the Genevan Book of Church Order, can you provide a quote from it that forbids the use of inspired hymns & songs in addition to Psalms from the Book of Praises?”
    I don’t have to. I never made that point. The fact is, every time singing is done in that book, it is done with the psalms. Crampton’s point was to inform us briefly of some reformers practice. So what?
    The Watts citation among others was an appeal to authority and I wanted to point out that the most influential of his list was a flaming Arian, that’s all.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “Let’s hope you get your translation right! What do we do with “LORD”?”
    This is a textual criticism argument, red herring. I prefer Jah, which the Scottish psalter uses often, but words are arbitrary as long as the exact same concept is relayed. This is simple Clarkian language philosophy, why you would even mention this puzzles me.
    Yep. (Perhaps you are merely attempting to “head off” a possible attempt at a future counterargument)

    Patrick T. McWilliams “Here ends part one. So far, nothing but straw men.”
    Keep telling yourself that PW its more of a truck load of Romanism and Romanite “Presbyterians” in your society for generations to come, get comfortable.
    Patrick T. McWilliams “Part two, Point one: The first time you address Crampton honestly.”
    You have yet to prove one error.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “Your repeated use of “what a howler” grows tiresome, and demonstrates an arrogant disdain unbefitting discussion of worship of Christ.”
    Read George Gellespie’s English Popish Ceremonies and then read American books on worship, its hard not to laugh. I will take your rebuke though. I will remove those phrases from my articles. I find it more arrogant that I have yet to find an American Reformed who rejects Puritan worship, who has actually read Gellespie. That’s arrogant. Gellespie’s book was the magnum opus of the Scottish Church and must I remind you that Scotland is the Oak from which you American types sprang. I thank God for Gordon Clark, he saved me from becoming a bag of nuts but he’s about the only salvagable thing to come out of this country, theologically speaking.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “Point two: While you may be correct regarding the use of the book of Revelation”
    If you will admit this, you are not far my friend. Read Gellespie and that should do it.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “you make it seem as though Crampton outright rejects the regulative principle”
    He has to to admit Revelation into the sphere of Christian Worship. That book when used outside of its hermeneutical intentions is the cornerstone of ritualism.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “Although Schwertley’s quote becomes invalid against Crampton if Crampton’s interpretation of “hymns & spiritual songs” is accepted/assumed for the sake of argument.”
    I don’t get what you are saying here.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “This is not a challenge, it’s a question as to your thoughts. Also, what do you mean by “chanting”? Monotonous?”
    I am an ignoramous when it comes to music so I will just post the web site so you can check it yourself. I do not sing the Gloria Patri as he does after every song, but this is a gold mine for my sooul:
    http://www.llpb.us/Canticles-Psalms-Ants.htm
    Gill had a defintion of singing like, “our voices put to melody” or something like that.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “Crampton’s view claims that EP’s are the ones adding to Scripture, introducing/adding a restriction that is not present in the Scripture’s command to worship in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs”
    We are not adding a restriction. the restriction we operate off of, is Deut 12:29-32, Col 2:21-24. We simply demand that uninspired songs be demonstrated to be somehting God desires in worship. There is not a shred of evidence. We do not have the burden of proof.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “Regarding Exodus 15 & Miriam’s song: Crampton’s point is that it’s an ode. An ode that’s not in the Psalter. He is correct in this observation. Again, you miss his point. ”
    My exact words, “This was a prophetic song associated with a recent event and was not for the perpetual use in the Church. It was NOT INCLUDED IN THE PSALTER and so we can conclude that not all prophetic/inspired songs are intended for the perpetual use of the Church”

    Patrick T. McWilliams “It is not in the Psalter. Therefore, the word “ode” does not have to be restricted to Psalter Psalms.””
    Ok, out argument with ode emphasizes the word “pneumatikos” that it is coupled with. B.B. Warfield writes of pneumatikos: “Of the twenty-five instances in which the word occurs in the New Testament, in no single case does it sink even as low in its reference as the human spirit; and in twenty-four of them is derived from pneuma, the Holy Spirit. In this sense of belonging to, or determined by, the Holy Spirit, the New Testament usage is uniform with the one single exception of Ephesians 6:12, where it seems to refer to the higher though superhuman intelligence. The appropriate translation for it in each case is spirit-given, or spirit-led, or spirit-determined” (The Presbyterian Review, Vol. 1, p. 561 [July 1880] quoted in Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, pp. 90-91). Referring to praise they always refer to inspired materials. The use here in Exo 15 would not help uninspired hymns at all. The best someone could argue from this passage is that scripture songs could be sung.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “they must conclusively show that in Paul’s use of these three terms he limits the church to the use of the Psalter in formal worship.”
    This has been done countless times. The thing that needs to be proved is that these are refering to non inspired materials. We have shown over and again that these have been used mostly for the praises in our book of psalms.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “I assume that Crampton is arguing that GBOCO is using “psalms” in the general sense that he says WCF does. ”
    You have to be kidding me.

    Patrick T. McWilliams “Still, you did not answer his Calvin quote.”
    If you mean that I did not address the issue of new song, “new song” is either the psalm about to be sung or a prophetic interpretation of some great act of God not inteded for the perpetual use in the Church. Once you get into other heavey issues with the FV guys and Paedo communion, you will have to say this as well.

    Thanks for reading the papers PW. Read Gellespie and get comfortable with the issues between England and Scotland from the mid 16th century to the Westminster assembly and you are on your way to being a true blue Puritan. If you become obsessed with Samuel Rutherford, I won’t blame you. It took me a year to discipline myself to read something different than Rutherford. He’s the King of the Scottish guys. [Lex Rex might get you in some trouble though, depending on how imperious your pastor is, keep that in mind]

  11. Sean Gerety Says:

    I guess as a Cramptonite, who is certainly an American “Reformed,” I’ll just say I do believe the regulative principle, but I’m really not interested in another tired debate over EP.

    This thread is close (and don’t try and pick it up in another combox).


Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: