I understood you were just the bearer of Fesko's views.
The problem I have in this case of what was meant by psalm, is that there is PLENTY of evidence the WA were quite clear and again, the whole purpose of their work and their understanding of worship, required specificity not ambiguity. But I stepped off my box last night so I will not persist.
Yes; it makes sense that he would allow HU; points for consistency.
Without pursuing your last point generally, I will simply say that I find the ambiguity argument in this case meritless; there is no ambiguity about the meaning of psalm when we look at the full context of the work of the WA. The dog did not bark. Baillie who famously savages the Brownist for singing hymns of their own composition in worship, and those like him, would have left some record of some kind if they had a whiff of an inkling the word psalm was used in a broad rather than the specific and primary dictionary sense. Baillie commented on issues like those being retired like bowing in the pulpit and the doxologies; he surely would have mentioned if the assembly was being vague to leave room for folks to introduce hymns; again, which would have violated the whole point of the assembly's work which was a uniform practice. There is too much we know about the WA's work on the psalter, sufficient clarity across the documents they produced, and no smoking gun of a controversy which there would have been if anyone or group of divines intended to leave room to introduce hymns.
The problem I have in this case of what was meant by psalm, is that there is PLENTY of evidence the WA were quite clear and again, the whole purpose of their work and their understanding of worship, required specificity not ambiguity. But I stepped off my box last night so I will not persist.
Yes; it makes sense that he would allow HU; points for consistency.
Without pursuing your last point generally, I will simply say that I find the ambiguity argument in this case meritless; there is no ambiguity about the meaning of psalm when we look at the full context of the work of the WA. The dog did not bark. Baillie who famously savages the Brownist for singing hymns of their own composition in worship, and those like him, would have left some record of some kind if they had a whiff of an inkling the word psalm was used in a broad rather than the specific and primary dictionary sense. Baillie commented on issues like those being retired like bowing in the pulpit and the doxologies; he surely would have mentioned if the assembly was being vague to leave room for folks to introduce hymns; again, which would have violated the whole point of the assembly's work which was a uniform practice. There is too much we know about the WA's work on the psalter, sufficient clarity across the documents they produced, and no smoking gun of a controversy which there would have been if anyone or group of divines intended to leave room to introduce hymns.
Chris,
I'm trying to explain Fesko's perspective. The thread is dealing in part with Fesko's perspective. I know that you disagree with Fesko's perspective. All I know is that for a group of divines as intelligent and precise as they were, it gives me pause when the word "psalms" is inserted without any other qualifier, especially when Dort's DPW actually qualifies with "150." In this way, I think there is some merit to Fesko's argument which is also consonant with a document designed to unify. Confessions are full of ambiguity because they are designed to unite. If this reasoning paves the path into progressivism or apostasy, I don't know what to say. You are entitled to your opinion.
On a related note , Fesko argues that the Westminster Standards don't condemn English hypothetical universalism, which would mean that Calamy was ok. Couldn't resist.
Chris, I always appreciate your zeal for orthodoxy. I also appreciate your insights, even when I disagree. You have taught me a lot, and I do sincerely thank you.