Way to jump in and contribute! I don't think there is any good way to show EP is error without folks getting spun up from both sides. I have tried to learn from guidance of the mods and be as charitable as I can.
Sorry JD, but it isn't because I don't think I can give you a valid answer, it is because...1) I am not surprised
I really, really take exception to these "clownery" comments, pure ad hominum. Particularly when no one has managed to falsify the premises of the OP or show non sequitur. Feels like sour grapes and red herrings.
That’s not true. I’ve seen plenty of level-headed discussions here. The problem is the manner in which you are conducting your part of the discussion.
Normally, I’d be happy to contribute, even though I am hardly an authority on the subject. I usually find these discussions helpful and stimulating. But I do not think this particular thread is worth any of my time. It has become too chaotic, since the focus of the OP is not on learning, but in catching others in a supposed error.
Brother, no worries, if there's one thing I have learned, is there is always an answer. Our answers may not align, but we have some answers
I don't think I have responded in any manner counter to the manner in which I have been addressed. Prov 26:5
I am not quite sure what you are asking and hoping I don't drive us off-topic with this but here is a post I did at a brother's request to interact on reformed covenant vs new covenant theology.
Brother, I have not had one response in which someone actually did as I have asked. Decompose/disprove the OP premises or prove non-sequitur of my informal logic. All I have had are these ad hominem responses like yours or red herrings, so yes, I may get a little snarky in my responses. Why don’t you give it a shot and give me an example of your undoubtably stunning logic? Easy to sit and snipe - put your money where your mouth is, bubba. Charity indeed.
And if you think depriving the Bride of her opportunity to sing of the Bridegroom’s revealed deeds in the NT is ok, then you are deceived.
And here we go again. Logan, yours was the closest attempt at doing what I asked, but now, here we are. Take another shot, man - really expose the errors of my premises, one by one, then show how my conclusions just are not reasonable."The sun is purple and therefore the grass is pink."
But you're begging the question, you've already assumed your conclusion is true and I reject the assumption that the sun is purple to begin with.
"Nice try, but not one person has been able to falsify my premises."
This is not iron sharpening iron, this is a waste of time.
You say yours is "an approach I have not seen before concerning the error of EP". Maybe you've never seen it before because it's nonsensical and childish. I've seen many reasonable and dare I say, respectable arguments against EP but this is not one of them. And if it has been pointed out to you numerous times why it is nonsensical and foolishness (from any standpoint, not just from an EP standpoint) and you still reject it, then well, nothing more can be said.
Proverbs 12:15
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."The sun is purple and therefore the grass is pink."
But you're begging the question, you've already assumed your conclusion is true and I reject the assumption that the sun is purple to begin with.
"Nice try, but not one person has been able to falsify my premises."
This is not iron sharpening iron, this is a waste of time.
You say yours is "an approach I have not seen before concerning the error of EP". Maybe you've never seen it before because it's nonsensical and childish. I've seen many reasonable and dare I say, respectable arguments against EP but this is not one of them. And if it has been pointed out to you numerous times why it is nonsensical and foolishness (from any standpoint, not just from an EP standpoint) and you still reject it, then well, nothing more can be said.
Proverbs 12:15
Show me, like explaining to a five year old, how I am begging the question."The sun is purple and therefore the grass is pink."
But you're begging the question, you've already assumed your conclusion is true and I reject the assumption that the sun is purple to begin with.
"Nice try, but not one person has been able to falsify my premises."
This is not iron sharpening iron, this is a waste of time.
You say yours is "an approach I have not seen before concerning the error of EP". Maybe you've never seen it before because it's nonsensical and childish. I've seen many reasonable and dare I say, respectable arguments against EP but this is not one of them. And if it has been pointed out to you numerous times why it is nonsensical and foolishness (from any standpoint, not just from an EP standpoint) and you still reject it, then well, nothing more can be said.
Proverbs 12:15
Maybe I’ve missed it, but just to be clear, would you mind expressing your understanding of the Regulative Principle?
Your beginning premise, your argument, is flawed. That's the whole problem. It's flawed because the Psalms don't command this at all. The Psalms command us to sing. What we are to sing is revealed in Psalm 22:22 and Hebrews 2:12-- Christ will sing of the Father in the great congregation. He composed the Psalms, he is present with us in public worship, he leads us by his Spirit in singing spiritual songs. "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee." This is Christ speaking to the Father, and applies to OT and NT, as repeated and quoted by the apostle in Hebrews.
It is in the first section of the OP, but I have no issue restating it.
Thank you, Jeri, I believe you are addressing my 2nd premise. "The Psalms command we sing of the Lord's mighty works and deeds."
Not sure why I'm even bothering, but, premises 1 and 2 are fine. Premise 3 is the one you are resting your entire conclusion on, and it is talking about something completely different to premise 2 - it stands or falls with the qualifier "most thorough and complete", which you left out of premise 2, and if you modified premise 2 with it then premise 2 would be false. Thus, premises 1 and 2, while true, are entirely unrelated to your conclusion. Premise 3 is broadly true in itself, but not actually relevant to the discussion (you introduce the unrelated premises 1 and 2 to make it appear that it is related, but these premises dont relate to premise 3 as shown above). Thus, the conclusion does not actually follow from premise 3, and would only follow if premise 2 was modified with the same qualifier as premise 3, but if you did that then premise 2 would be false. At a basic level, this is the flaw in your logic, as I suspect you may have already been aware.
You seemed to re-state your argument as shown above, in post #23. This re-statement seems to be the real gist of what you're arguing.
Sincere question, why would we only be able to sing psalms and not the other divine songs in the OT? I asked this yesterday to the thread in general but it was never answered because there was so much other activity. I think it got lost in the shuffle, so to speak.
Thank you, I do appreciate the attempt.
Yes, ma'am - please shape your arguments around that, please - or the other premises I have stated.
Without fully addressing your response to the post you quoted, which I believe is flawed, but not tied to OP:It's refreshing to see some honest inquiry
One could go into a lot of detail on this but I think a short reason is that the songs in the Psalter are very clearly put together with the idea of corporate worship. Mary's magnificat, or Hannah's song, etc., are not. It's more of a historical recording of a song that was uttered at that point in time and there doesn't seem to be any intention of it being preserved for use in corporate worship.
