# Does the Bible teach the RPW?



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 4, 2007)

Ok, this is a new thread coming out of the EP debate.

It's a discussion as to where actually the Bible teaches that we can only do in public worship what the NT _explicitly commands_.

ArmourBearer has given a great start to the discussion:



> Matt 28:18-20.
> 
> 1. Christ has all power.
> 
> ...



As I see it, it doesn't quite make it.

1. Granted, the great commission includes the injunction for the apostles to teach new disciples _everything _that Jesus taught.

2. A _subset _of Jesus' teaching is about what we do in the gathering.

3. But where in this subset of Jesus' teaching is the command "do in public worship what is only explicitly commanded *in Scripture*"? For example, Jesus may've given several principles (applicable in a variety of ways) for public worship rather than _explicit commands_.

I'd love to hear your response.

God bless,

Marty.


----------



## Romans922 (Jun 4, 2007)

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” – 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Scripture is God’s Word and it is useful for teaching us how to worship Him, Our Creator.

I. First, there is a distinction between Public and Private Worship


II. In Creation, God establish a pattern 

A. It is described in the fourth commandment is, Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God… (and it goes on)…for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it.

B. There is something special about the Lord’s day

C. It is this day where God sets it aside from the rest of life

D. Yes, worship is all of life, but God has made a distinction, Sunday, the Lord’s day is a Holy day, set apart by God for Worship of Him, it is this public worship that God describes in Scripture showing specifically how we are to worship Him. 


III. Scripture can be seen using this principle is Gen. 1-2; Ex. 20:8-11; Lev. 23:3; and others


IV. A Practical Example of disobedience to the Sabbath and How God demanded that He be worshipped

A. Example of Cain and Abel
1. Their working was an act of worship…
2. But when they came before God to offer sacrifices, God accepted one because Abel came on God’s terms but Cain came based on his own terms [describe briefly the outcome]


V. Terry Johnson says, “Worship begins with the doctrine of God. Because God is ‘spirit’ our worship ‘must’ be in ‘spirit and truth.’ The ‘mustness’ of our worship is the direct result of the unchanging nature of God. Worship must be as Jesus says it must be, because God is who He is.” 


VI. So what is the character of God? God is holy and we are not, God’s character never changes

A. Even when JC dies on cross, God doesn’t change

B. Our coming to God is based on God’s terms because we are sinners

C. If we come as sinners to God on our terms, we are coming on unregenerate terms.

D. Again the example of Cain and Abel


VII. Today, many people get discouraged by the Regulative Principle of Worship because they say it is too negative, legalistic, and restrictive, but it is important to remember the positive aspects of the Regulative Principle of Worship. The Regulative Principle means that we may not have a worship service where song is absent, or where prayer is absent. We cannot think so highly of the sermon that we substitute a lecture for worship. It is not just about what we may not do in worship, but what we must do in worship.


VIII. Here are some arguments from Scripture for the Regulative Principle of Worship:

A. Argument from the Limits of Church-Power 
1. The Church is an institution; instituted by the positive command of the risen Christ, and authorized by Him to require obedience to His commands and participation in His ordinances. The Church is given no authority to require obedience to its own commands, and is given no authority to require participation in ordinances of its own making. The Regulative Principle of Church-Government lies behind the Regulative Principle of Worship. 
2. Mat. 28:18-20; 2 Cor. 1:24; Rom. 14:7-9

B. Argument from Liberty of Conscience (Ed Clowney makes this case well) 
1. To induce people to act contrary to what they believe is right is sinful. Further, God requires us to worship Him only as He has revealed. Therefore, to require a person, in corporate worship, to do something that God has not required, forces the person to sin against his/her conscience, by making them do what they do not believe God has called them to do. 
2. Liberty of Conscience does NOT mean autonomy of conscience, it’s freedom of conscience to Submit to God
3. Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8:4-13

C. Argument from Faith (John Owen makes this argument compellingly) 
1. Where God has not revealed himself, no faithful response is possible, by definition. And, without faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore, God cannot be pleased by worship which is unfaithful, that is, worship which is not an obedient response to his revelation. 
2. Rom.14:23; Heb. 11:6, and entire chapter. 

D. Argument from the distance between the Creator and the creature (Calvin and Van Til drive in this direction in all of their writings) 
1. God's ways and thoughts are above ours as the heavens are above the earth. What makes us think we can possibly fathom what would please God? 
2. Isa. 40:12-14 Deut. 29:29; Isa. 55:9; Prov.25:2 

E. Argument from those passages where piety is described as doing exclusively what God wishes
1. In many passages, the wicked are described not as doing what is contradictory to God's will, but what is beside His will. Similarly, the pious are described by their trembling in God's presence, by their doing exclusively what God wishes. 
2. Isa.66:1-4; Dt.12:29-32; Lev. 10:1-2; 1 Sam.13:8-15; 15:3-22 

F. Argument from the severity of the temporal punishments inflicted upon those who offer to God worship other than what He has prescribed
1. There are places where people offer worship to God, in an apparently good-faith desire to please Him, yet they do so in some manner not prescribed by God, and His punishment of them is severe. 
2. Lev. 10:1-2; 1 Sam.13:8-15


IX. If there is such a distinction between public and private worship than there must be rules that govern that distinction. 

A. As said in the beginning, All of Scripture is a guide to govern our worship outside of holy public worship, but for Holy Public Worship Scripture (NOT OUR PERSONAL FREEDOM) says that there must be:
1.Meeting on the Lord’s Day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:18; 16:2; Rev. 1:10)
2. Reading of the Word of God (Mk. 4:16-20; Acts 1:13; 13:15; 16:13; 1 Cor. 11:20; 1 Tim. 4:13; Rev. 1:13)
3. Hearing of the Word of God (Lk. 2:46; 4:20; Acts 8:31; 20:9; Rom. 10:41; Jas. 1:22)
4. Preaching from the Bible (Mt. 26:13; Mk. 16:15; Acts 9:20; 17:10; 20:8; 1 Cor. 14:28; 2 Tim. 4:2)
5. Administration of the Sacraments (Mt. 26:26-29; 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25)
6. Prayer to God (Deut. 22:5; Mt. 6:9; 1 Cor. 11;13-15; Phil. 4:6; 1 Thess. 5:17; Heb. 13:18; Jas. 1:5)
7. The Singing of Psalms (1 Ch. 16:9; Ps. 95:1-2; 105:2; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 4, 2007)

Dear Andrew,



Romans922 said:


> VIII. Here are some arguments from Scripture for the Regulative Principle of Worship:



Ok, now we're getting explicit. Thanks for this.



Romans922 said:


> A. Argument from the Limits of Church-Power
> 1. The Church is an institution; instituted by the positive command of the risen Christ, and authorized by Him to require obedience to His commands and participation in His ordinances.



There are lots of assumptions here, particularly in what one means by an "institution". But there are no verses to back any of this up. It may be true; but I'm particularly after explicit scriptural content.



Romans922 said:


> The Church is given no authority to require obedience to its own commands, and is given no authority to require participation in ordinances of its own making.



I know what you're saying, but we need to dig deeper. For example, a local church might set the time of the service to 9:00am. That, from one perspective, is a command that is perfectly permissible for a church to promulgate. We need a more nuanced understand of Church authority and commands.

There is, of course, the whole debate about "circumstances" changing but the putative positive commands for the gathering not. But does this distinction actually arise from Scripture itself?



Romans922 said:


> The Regulative Principle of Church-Government lies behind the Regulative Principle of Worship.
> 2. Mat. 28:18-20; 2 Cor. 1:24; Rom. 14:7-9



Matt. 28:18-20 says we are to follow Christ's commands, but where are his commands to do in church only what is explicitly commanded in Scripture?
2 Cor. 1:24 in context is talking about Paul not lording it over the Corinthians faith, but where are his commands to do in church only what is explicitly commanded in Scripture?
Rom. 14:7-9 is about the Christians personal response to God, but where are the commands to do in church only what is explicitly commanded in Scripture?



Romans922 said:


> B. Argument from Liberty of Conscience (Ed Clowney makes this case well)
> 1. To induce people to act contrary to what they believe is right is sinful. Further, God requires us to worship Him only as He has revealed. Therefore, to require a person, in corporate worship, to do something that God has not required, forces the person to sin against his/her conscience, by making them do what they do not believe God has called them to do.
> 2. Liberty of Conscience does NOT mean autonomy of conscience, it’s freedom of conscience to Submit to God
> 3. Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8:4-13



I agree with liberty of conscience. And the verses you adduce prove this. But it still doesn't help me in wanting to know where the NT actually says we can _only _do in the gathering what is _explicitly _commanded in _Scripture_. The NT may give us a few principles about the gathering, but does it have to give us explicit commands?



Romans922 said:


> C. Argument from Faith (John Owen makes this argument compellingly)
> 1. Where God has not revealed himself, no faithful response is possible, by definition. And, without faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore, God cannot be pleased by worship which is unfaithful, that is, worship which is not an obedient response to his revelation.
> 2. Rom.14:23; Heb. 11:6, and entire chapter.



Yes, I've read Owen many times. Again, it's not getting to the heart of the issue. It all hinges on the type of revelation God has given us. Has he given us explicit commands for absolutely everything? No. He hasn't told us explicitly which person to marry. But he's given us principles by which to choose a spouse.

I'm wanting to know about the Christian gathering. Is it a few principles we follow or are actual activities explicitly commanded in Scripture? If the latter, where does the Bible actually say this is to be the case?



Romans922 said:


> D. Argument from the distance between the Creator and the creature (Calvin and Van Til drive in this direction in all of their writings)
> 1. God's ways and thoughts are above ours as the heavens are above the earth. What makes us think we can possibly fathom what would please God?
> 2. Isa. 40:12-14 Deut. 29:29; Isa. 55:9; Prov.25:2



Great point the creature / creator distinction. But it still is not addressing the issue.



Romans922 said:


> E. Argument from those passages where piety is described as doing exclusively what God wishes
> 1. In many passages, the wicked are described not as doing what is contradictory to God's will, but what is beside His will. Similarly, the pious are described by their trembling in God's presence, by their doing exclusively what God wishes.
> 2. Isa.66:1-4; Dt.12:29-32; Lev. 10:1-2; 1 Sam.13:8-15; 15:3-22
> 
> ...



But it all hinges on what is the nature of God's will in worship. How is God's will for the Christian gathering given to us?

The RPW says we can only do what Scripture explicitly commands. Where in Scripture are we told this is the case?



Romans922 said:


> IX. If there is such a distinction between public and private worship than there must be rules that govern that distinction.
> 
> A. As said in the beginning, All of Scripture is a guide to govern our worship outside of holy public worship, but for Holy Public Worship Scripture (NOT OUR PERSONAL FREEDOM) says that there must be:
> 1.Meeting on the Lord’s Day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:18; 16:2; Rev. 1:10)



These are descriptions of believers meeting on the 1st day. Are they commands for all believers? Are they description or prescription?



Romans922 said:


> 2. Reading of the Word of God (Mk. 4:16-20; Acts 1:13; 13:15; 16:13; 1 Cor. 11:20; 1 Tim. 4:13; Rev. 1:13)



The only explicit command to read Scripture in this list is 1 Tim. 4:13. The others are descriptions, but are they prescriptions?



Romans922 said:


> 3. Hearing of the Word of God (Lk. 2:46; 4:20; Acts 8:31; 20:9; Rom. 10:41; Jas. 1:22)



Are any of these prescriptions f_or the Christian gathering_ (in context)? They are certainly descriptions.



Romans922 said:


> 4. Preaching from the Bible (Mt. 26:13; Mk. 16:15; Acts 9:20; 17:10; 20:8; 1 Cor. 14:28; 2 Tim. 4:2)



Matt 26:13 is not (in context) about the gathering.
All but the last are descriptions, but are they prescriptions?



Romans922 said:


> 5. Administration of the Sacraments (Mt. 26:26-29; 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25)



The Matthew verses don't contain the commands to "do this in remebrance of me". In Luke that command is over one of the elements. The commands for both elements is only found in 1 Cor. 11.



Romans922 said:


> 6. Prayer to God (Deut. 22:5; Mt. 6:9; 1 Cor. 11;13-15; Phil. 4:6; 1 Thess. 5:17; Heb. 13:18; Jas. 1:5)



Are any of these about the gathering except 1 Cor. 11:13-15? And in that case it's a description but not a command. Christian's may've done it in church. But it's not an explicit command to do it.



Romans922 said:


> 7. The Singing of Psalms (1 Ch. 16:9; Ps. 95:1-2; 105:2; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16)



1 Cor. 14:26 is the only text _explicitly _about the gathering, and even then it's not explicitly a command but a description of what the Corinthians were doing.

However, even if all these were commands concerning what to do in the gathering, my original question still stands: where does the Bible actually tell us that we may only do in the gathering what is explicitly commanded in Scripture?

God bless,

Marty.


----------



## Croghanite (Jun 4, 2007)

Yes


> from Deuteronomy 4
> 
> 1 "Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving you. *2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.* 3 Your eyes have seen what the Lord did at Baal Peor; for the Lord your God has destroyed from among you all the men who followed Baal of Peor. 4 But you who held fast to the Lord your God are alive today, every one of you. 5 Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. 6 *Therefore be careful to observe them*; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'







> Deuteronomy 12: 32
> 32 Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.


----------



## Davidius (Jun 4, 2007)

Leviticus 10:1-3 said:


> Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, *which He had not commanded them*. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. And Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke, saying:
> 
> ‘*By those who come near Me
> I must be regarded as holy;*
> ...



Nadab and Abihu offered "strange" fire which God "had not commanded them" and they were consumed.



Jeremiah 19:4-6 said:


> Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; *and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind*-- therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the LORD, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.



Notice that the major rebuke God gives is not that what the people did was heinous in general, but that He did not command them to do it. 

We need authorization for what we do in worship.


----------



## ReformedDave (Jun 4, 2007)

Read Jeremiah Burroughs' 'Gospel Worship".


----------



## dannyhyde (Jun 4, 2007)

From _What to Expect in Reformed Worship: A Visitor’s Guide_ (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 11–12.

*The Regulative Principle*
Finally, and most importantly, we are not to worship God “in any other way than He has commanded in His Word” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 96). The particular things in the service of God are clearly commanded to us by God himself, set forth in biblical examples, or deduced by solid principles of interpretation from the inspired Word of God. In this way “we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (Heb 12:28). We call this the “Regulative Principle.” We see this taught in the Ten Commandments, for example, where the LORD, the one true God, commands his people to worship him alone (first Commandment) and that they are to do this in the way he says (second Commandment).

The Scriptures abound with God sufficiently explaining to his people how he serves us and how he desires and deserves us to serve him. The acceptable elements of the service of the Triune God are elements of his service to us in the Word and Sacraments and our service to him in Prayer (Acts 2:42 cf. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 103).

God serves us when he speaks to us in his Word—he calls us to worship with his Word (Ps 95), greets us with his Word (Rev 1:4–5), speaks what he requires of us in his Word in the Law (Exod 20; Deut 5; Ezra 8:1–8), declares us forgiven in his Word (1 John 1:9; Matt 18:18; John 20:23), speaks the Word that is to be proclaimed (1Tim 4:13), speaks through the voice of his minister in the preaching of the Word (2 Tim 4:2), and send us out into the world with his grace in the benediction from the Word (Num 6:24–26; 2 Cor 13:14).

The Lord also serves us in grace when the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are done according to Christ’s commands (Luke 22:17–20; 1 Cor 11:23–26).

In response, we serve God in prayer. The giving of offerings (1 Corinthians 16:2), in biblical terms, is the paying of a vow of thanks. Furthermore, there is a plethora of scriptural types of prayers. There is the pastoral prayer (1 Tim 2:1), confession (Ps 51), adoration (Ps 8), and congregational singing, especially of the inspired songbook of the covenant people, the Psalter (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). As the Church Order in the federation of churches to which I belong says, songs which are not Psalms may be sung, so long as they “faithfully and fully reflect the teaching of the Scripture as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity” and are “approved by the Consistory” (Church Order of the United Reformed Churches in North America, article 39).


----------



## SRoper (Jun 4, 2007)

Now I'm strong supporter of the RPW, but regarding Nadab and Abihu, isn't strange fire expressly prohibited in Ex. 30:9?


----------



## MW (Jun 4, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> It's a discussion as to where actually the Bible teaches that we can only do in public worship what the NT _explicitly commands_.



No person who has maintained the regulative principle has ever taught that it is limited to explicit command, so we are off to a bad start. There is a "stock" of basic literature which you may want to wade through before diving into this discussion. William Young, G I Williamson, Brian Schwertley, to name some moderns; or for older (and generally deeper) analyses, see the first chapter of Cunningham's Reformers & Theology of the Reformation, and the first chapter of Girardeau's work on musical instruments. You might even have consulted the WCF itself, which is one of the standards of this board. It speaks of "good and necessary consequence" (chap. 1:6). For your convenience I will quote some authors here which will provide a clear definition of what is involved in the RPW.

John L. Girardeau: “A divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine, government and worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in these spheres is not commanded in the Scriptures, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence from their statements, is forbidden.” 

James H. Thornwell: “We have not been able to lay our hands upon a single Puritan Confession of Faith which does not explicitly teach that necessary inferences from Scripture are of equal authority with its express statements: nor have we found a single Puritan writer, having occasion to allude to the subject, who has not explicitly taught the same thing. The principle of inference they have unanimously affirmed. Our own Confession of Faith — and surely that is a Puritan document — does it, in a passage already cited.” 

William Young: “The mode of prescription need not be that of explicit command in a single text of Scripture. Approved example warrants an element of worship as surely as does an express precept. Moreover, good and necessary consequence may warrant acceptable worship. Without entering upon disputed questions as to the proper subjects of baptism, all would agree that Scripture warrants the admission of women to the Lord’s Table, although no express command or approved example can be adduced.”


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 5, 2007)

LAYMAN JOE said:


> Yes



Thanks. They're quotes from of Moses speaking to Israel just before Israel enters the promised land. We can't just directly apply them now. Christ has since come.

Cheers,

Marty.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 5, 2007)

Dear ArmourBearer,

Thanks for the quotations. That's great it focuses the discussion.

Let's just stick with Girardeau for the moment:



armourbearer said:


> John L. Girardeau: “A divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine, government and worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in these spheres is not commanded in the Scriptures, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence from their statements, is forbidden.”



Where does Scripture actually teach this?

Much hangs on what we mean by Scripture "commanding" Christians (the description versus prescription debate).

And, of course, much hangs on what one means by "good and necessary consequence" (a storm centre of debate). Does the Bible actually teach this? Or better, how does the Bible actually teach this?

Every blessing,

Marty.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 5, 2007)

Dear Danny,

Thanks for HB quote (what a great catechism!).



dannyhyde said:


> From _What to Expect in Reformed Worship: A Visitor’s Guide_ (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 11–12.
> 
> *The Regulative Principle*
> Finally, and most importantly, we are not to worship God “in any other way than He has commanded in His Word” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 96). The particular things in the service of God are clearly commanded to us by God himself, set forth in biblical examples, or deduced by solid principles of interpretation from the inspired Word of God.



Wonderful stuff.

Ok, where does Scripture say we only do in the gathering what is "clearly commanded" in Scripture? Again, much hinges on what we mean by "commanded".

For example, Paul says to the Corinthians that all things done in their gatherings must be for the edification of all present (1 Cor. 14:26). What then is to stop someone singing a solo or a group doing drama if those activities are edifying (i.e. expressing biblical truth) to all present?

Bear with me, I'm not out for an argument or trying to be difficult. I'm genuinely trying to understand how the RPW works in practice.

God bless,

Marty.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 5, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> We need authorization for what we do in worship.



Agreed. How does the NT authorize what we do in the gathering? (BTW where does the NT speak of the gathering as worship?).

Cheers,

Marty.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 5, 2007)

Marty,

The Old Testament is full of either implicit or explicit condemnation of Judah and the Israelites on the basis of false worship. It is the fundamental reason for their downfall. In fact, if you read the 1st Chapter of Romans you can see that man either worships God as He is and is thankful to Him as Creator _or_ he turns to idolatry. Idolatry leads to a "giving over" to folly, which, in turn, leads to depraved actions - a downward spiral of unrighteousness. But it all begins with false worship.

To ask "Where has God told us not to worship Him except as He has commanded?" Try Exodus and Leviticus for starters. Implicit in the details is a reflection of the fact that God expects to be approached a certain way and that sacrifices before Him will be conducted a certain way. 

Why not simply broad brush the whole thing and specify that animals are to be killed, Priests appointed, etc? For one thing, it ties back to the nature of man as outlined in Romans 1. The idolatry of man is such that, even with such detailed commands, man invents ways to even goon up specific commands.

Read 1st and 2nd Kings. What is the sin of Jeroboam? For political pragmatism, he sets the nation of Israel on a course of idolatry that they never turn from.

Read Jeremiah. It's filled with references that state: "...which I had not commanded nor did it come into my mind...." Idolatry is not simply something God has forbidden but is referred to as something which He has not commanded.

Read the whole book of Amos. Understanding _how_ they are worshipping (after reading 1st and 2nd Kings) sheds light on why they're being condemned. It's like Romans 1 being lived out in the Northern Kingdom. Idolatry and social injustice are simply two sides of the same coin. People were actually _stricter_ in their religious observances than the Law required. The only problem is that they weren't at the Temple.

In fact, as I was teaching Amos recently I realized that two men looking at the Southern and Northern Kingdoms and watching two worshippers from North and South would have been hard pressed to tell the difference. If I'm Joe the Ephraimite and grew up worshipping at Bethel, my worship externally looked precisely the same as Harold the Benjamite who's bringing his sacrifice to the Temple in Jerusalem. Perhaps the same Words were being spoken as they place my hands on the sacrifice. Perhaps they were both scrupulous about the Sabbath. The only thing that separated them was geography. Post-modern man would scoff at any notion that they're any different on such a basis.

But God commanded worship at His sanctuary and not at the high places.

It's pretty hard, in the end, to separate God's prescriptions for worship from His prohibitions against the way man commits idolatry.

Why?

Because of the sinfulness of the human heart. If we're not getting our ideas on how to worship God from Him in His Word then Romans 1 declares that our natural inclination is to invent idolatrous ways to do so.


----------



## MW (Jun 5, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Let's just stick with Girardeau for the moment:
> 
> Where does Scripture actually teach this?



Matt. 28:18-20, as previously stated. There is no power to do what Christ has not authorised, v. 18. Christ authorises the apostles to make disciples of the nations, v. 19a. In fulfilment of this commission, they are bound to teach these disciples to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded, v. 19c. As they fulfil this commission they may confidently depend upon the presence and blessing of Christ to accompany their labours, v. 20.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 5, 2007)

Dear Rich,

Thanks for the reply. I enjoyed reading it.



SemperFideles said:


> The Old Testament is full of either implicit or explicit condemnation of Judah and the Israelites on the basis of false worship. It is the fundamental reason for their downfall. In fact, if you read the 1st Chapter of Romans you can see that man either worships God as He is and is thankful to Him as Creator _or_ he turns to idolatry. Idolatry leads to a "giving over" to folly, which, in turn, leads to depraved actions - a downward spiral of unrighteousness. But it all begins with false worship.



Agreed, I have no problem with this whatsoever.



SemperFideles said:


> To ask "Where has God told us not to worship Him except as He has commanded?" Try Exodus and Leviticus for starters. Implicit in the details is a reflection of the fact that God expects to be approached a certain way and that sacrifices before Him will be conducted a certain way.



Agreed indeed. However, things have changed since Exodus and Leviticus. There is both continuity and discontinuity. But Exodus and Leviticus _alone _will not give us a blueprint for today. We need the rest of the canon to see what worship looks like under the New Covenant.



SemperFideles said:


> Why not simply broad brush the whole thing and specify that animals are to be killed, Priests appointed, etc? For one thing, it ties back to the nature of man as outlined in Romans 1. The idolatry of man is such that, even with such detailed commands, man invents ways to even goon up specific commands.



Yes indeed. Agreed and amen.



SemperFideles said:


> Read 1st and 2nd Kings. What is the sin of Jeroboam? For political pragmatism, he sets the nation of Israel on a course of idolatry that they never turn from. [etc]



Yes, agreed indeed.



SemperFideles said:


> It's pretty hard, in the end, to separate God's prescriptions for worship from His prohibitions against the way man commits idolatry.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because of the sinfulness of the human heart. If we're not getting our ideas on how to worship God from Him in His Word then Romans 1 declares that our natural inclination is to invent idolatrous ways to do so.



I can't argue with any of this.

I agree we are to worship God in the way that he has told us. My question concerns the _way_ he has told us.

Has God given us a principle which many types of activities could fulfill (depending on culture etc. etc.)?
For example, I used the illustration of 1 Cor. 14:26 where Paul says to the Corinthians that whatever is done in the gathering must be for edification. Hence, could drama or a musical solo be done in gathering if it were edifying to the whole congregation?

God bless,

Marty.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 5, 2007)

Marty,
I hope this isn't too off topic, but I was just curious. Are there certain practices done during worship services by churches who follow the RPW that you think shouldn't be done...and are there certain practices not done that you think should be?


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 5, 2007)

Dear Matthew,

Yes, I read your post before about Matt. 28:18-20. Maybe my response was unclear. I'll try again.



armourbearer said:


> There is no power to do what Christ has not authorised, v. 18.



Agreed.




armourbearer said:


> Christ authorises the apostles to make disciples of the nations, v. 19a. In fulfilment of this commission, they are bound to teach these disciples to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded, v. 19c. As they fulfil this commission they may confidently depend upon the presence and blessing of Christ to accompany their labours, v. 20.



Agreed with all of this. It's an inspiring passage.

However the issue is this: what is the _nature _of Christ's commands? These are obviously found in Scripture. But to repeat what I asked of Rich: Has God given us a principle which many types of activities could fulfill (depending on culture etc. etc.)?
For example, I used the illustration of 1 Cor. 14:26 where Paul says to the Corinthians that whatever is done in the gathering must be for edification. Hence, could drama or a musical solo be done in gathering if it were edifying to the whole congregation?

Thanks for bearing with me on this.

God bless,

Marty.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 5, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Now I'm strong supporter of the RPW, but regarding Nadab and Abihu, isn't strange fire expressly prohibited in Ex. 30:9?



No, because the offense of N&A was not the offering of "strange incense" but "strange fire." That is, unauthorized _*fire*_. This is often misconstrued as though it were the former. No, but that view not only jumps to an erroneous conclusion, but also ignores the context. In the context, note the end of the previous chapter, v.24: "and *fire* came out from the presence of the Lord, and consumed the burnt offering." This was _perpetual fire_ which was never, ever to be permitted to go out. It was to be continually fed, with offerings, it would not cease until the nation was exiled. That fire burned for nearly a thousand years. Coals from that fire were considered holy (remember Is. 6), and that fire was the fire that should have been put into N&A's censers.

"Oh, but how were they supposed to know that? That wasn't part of the Mosaic code in their hands." Exactly. They weren't told, and yet God was offended in their expedient, or thoughtless act. He had not said "You can start your own fire to burn the incense." He had given fire for his Tabernacle, and if the priests had any questions about what fire they should be using (assuming they couldn't use their common sense--and the RPW), then they should have inquired of the Lord first.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 5, 2007)

Dear Bob,

Thanks for the question.



blhowes said:


> Are there certain practices done during worship services by churches who follow the RPW that you think shouldn't be done...and are there certain practices not done that you think should be?



My questions have been with me for quite some time as I've read through the RPW literature both ancient and modern. But it particularly arose from the EP debate, where the EPers clinch their position by saying the Bible hasn't told us to sing anything other than Psalms (i.e. we don't have a direct command to sing something other than Psalms). This begs the question of _how _Scripture commands / guides us. There's plenty of things we do in life that aren't directly commanded in Scripture because they're an application of certain principles. For example, the Bible doesn't explicitly tell us which books are in Scripture. But it does give us principles, which we then use to determine the canon (apostolicity etc.). Is what we do in the public gathering more governed by principles that can be applied to a number of activities? If not, then where does the Bible actually say not?

God bless,

Marty.


----------



## KMK (Jun 5, 2007)

How about Mark 7 where Jesus condemns the Pharisees as hypocrites because they have laid aside the commandments of God by following man-made traditions in worship? Obviously Jesus was not a supporter of men making up their own worship practices.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 5, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> No, because the offense of N&A was not the offering of "strange incense" but "strange fire." That is, unauthorized _*fire*_. This is often misconstrued as though it were the former. No, but that view not only jumps to an erroneous conclusion, but also ignores the context. In the context, note the end of the previous chapter, v.24: "and *fire* came out from the presence of the Lord, and consumed the burnt offering." This was _perpetual fire_ which was never, ever to be permitted to go out. It was to be continually fed, with offerings, it would not cease until the nation was exiled. That fire burned for nearly a thousand years. Coals from that fire were considered holy (remember Is. 6), and that fire was the fire that should have been put into N&A's censers.
> 
> "Oh, but how were they supposed to know that? That wasn't part of the Mosaic code in their hands." Exactly. They weren't told, and yet God was offended in their expedient, or thoughtless act. He had not said "You can start your own fire to burn the incense." He had given fire for his Tabernacle, and if the priests had any questions about what fire they should be using (assuming they couldn't use their common sense--and the RPW), then they should have inquired of the Lord first.



Thank you for this reply. Makes sense.


----------



## MW (Jun 5, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> However the issue is this: what is the _nature _of Christ's commands? These are obviously found in Scripture. But to repeat what I asked of Rich: Has God given us a principle which many types of activities could fulfill (depending on culture etc. etc.)?
> For example, I used the illustration of 1 Cor. 14:26 where Paul says to the Corinthians that whatever is done in the gathering must be for edification. Hence, could drama or a musical solo be done in gathering if it were edifying to the whole congregation?



Dear Marty,

I am thankful we can agree on the exclusive claims of Jesus to rule and direct His church. Given this fundamental starting point, I would say that we are bound to do only what the Word of God gives us warrant to do. We are as it were waiting at His table, and do not go unless bidden; only when we have a warrant from the Word do we hasten to obey.

To suppose that "culture" might determine the shape of our worship activities, is to give to "culture" an authority which Christ has never vested in it. Yes, 1 Cor. 14:26 speaks of "edification" because charity should be the underlying principle of ministry; and "decency and order" is mentioned in v. 40, because grace does not destroy nature but renews it. Nevertheless, as the apostle's discussion clearly shows, the principles of charity and decency do not determine the type of activity, e.g., praying, prophesying, singing, but only regulate the way in which the Spirit-guided activity is performed. These principles only pertain to circumstantial matters such as how many people should speak, that two do not speak at the same time, and speaking should be intelligible for the profit of the hearer. When the apostle would show that prophecy should take precedence over tongues, he appeals to Isaiah; when he would insist that women should be silent, he invokes the law. In other words, the essential parts of worship are prescribed, whilst the circumstantial aspects which necessarily attach to human actions are described.

To my mind it is a false appeal to culture to suggest that drama and solo-singing might be incorporated today whereas it wasn't the way things were done in Bible times. The Greeks loved these kinds of activities. If anywhere, the Hellenised world was the place where these things would have been used for the benefit of communicating the gospel. But here, more than anywhere else, the apostle insisted that it is by the foolishness of preaching that God saves those who believe. These cultural activities are no doubt "enticing," but evangelical preaching should not be with "the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power." Why is the manner in which we present the gospel as equally important as the matter which is presented? "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." Christ knows what means best serve the purpose of bringing His elect to Him.

Blessings!


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 5, 2007)

Dear Matthew,

Thanks so much for your response. It seems we're getting somewhere.



armourbearer said:


> To suppose that "culture" might determine the shape of our worship activities, is to give to "culture" an authority which Christ has never vested in it.



I basically agree with what you're saying here, although it may need a little nuancing. Christianity can never exist without a culture. As soon as we start using any language to communicate we show that a culture is being presumed. Culture of course will have both good and bad. We as believers are to shun the bad, and understand the good (or neutral) if we want to have any hope of communicating to our world. That's what Paul was getting at when he said the Jew I become a Jew etc. Moreover, when Paul says to "greet one another with a holy kiss" there is an example of Christianity being expressed in a cultural manner.



armourbearer said:


> Yes, 1 Cor. 14:26 speaks of "edification" because charity should be the underlying principle of ministry;



Love should be the underlying _motivation _of ministry (both in and outside of the gathering) but that's not the reason why "edification" is expressed as a principle of what we do in the gathering in 1 Cor. 14:26. The purpose of the gathering _is _edification (i.e building the church of God through the word), hence those spiritual gifts which are more edifying to the whole (the word gifts -- prophecy, teaching, etc.) are emphasized in 1 Cor. 14. That's why speaking in a foreign language is forbidden unless it can be translated--it won't edify.



armourbearer said:


> These principles only pertain to circumstantial matters such as how many people should speak, that two do not speak at the same time, and speaking should be intelligible for the profit of the hearer.
> 
> [...]
> 
> When the apostle would show that prophecy should take precedence over tongues, he appeals to Isaiah; when he would insist that women should be silent, he invokes the law.



I'm not sure that that is the reason why Paul is invoking the OT at those points. His principle for prophecy over uninterpreted tongues is that of what is more edifying to the whole in the gathering (vv. 3-4). He doesn't invoke the OT there. He uses the OT to make a point about tongues, but I doubt that's because that particular OT passage prescribes what's to be done in the gathering (at least I can't see how Paul uses Isaiah in the way). Edification seems to be a new covenant principle for the gathering.

1 Cor. 14 is fundamentally addressing some particular problems at Corinth itself. It's not an exposition _per se_ of permissible activities in the gathering. Rather, Paul is going back to the basic principle of the gathering--edification and wielding it against the _particular _Corinthian problem.

There's obviously some sort of problem at Corinth with how the women are behaving. Hence he gives an injunction and appeals to _both_ the law and how it's done in all the churches. But I can't see that the OT is used to actually prescribe what we have to do in worship.



armourbearer said:


> In other words, the essential parts of worship are prescribed, whilst the circumstantial aspects which necessarily attach to human actions are described.



Again, the distinction between activities and circumstances is neat, but I just can't find it taught in 1 Cor. 14.



armourbearer said:


> But here, more than anywhere else, the apostle insisted that it is by the foolishness of preaching that God saves those who believe.



Well that's jumping back to 1 Cor. 1, and there Paul is talking about his own apostolic ministry not what the purpose of the gathering is. I agree preaching the cross is _central _to the gathering, but _precisely _because as an activity it is edifying. I don't deny that. I just can't find it in the Bible that every single activity of the gathering is prescribed.

I don't have any burning desire for drama or whatever to be done in Church, that's not what I'm getting at. However, I'm not sure I want to just dismiss certain activities as wrong because they're not "prescribed" in the NT.

Every blessing in Christ,

Marty.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 5, 2007)

Hey Josh,

Love your Avatar!



joshua said:


> I'm perplexed as to your view of the Old Testament.
> I've never heard the argument for the RPW described as being limited by explicit NT command; rather, the whole of Scripture.
> 
> So they're not applicable to us? And they're actually God's direct words through Moses. Did Christ _change_ God's demands for worship? Did Christ bring something _better_?


Of course the OT is inspired and applicable to us. Where did I say it wasn't. My point is that the OT is incomplete for us now without the NT (Heb. 8:6). Quoting the OT to establish the RPW for the new covenant gathering is not enough. But that doesn't mean the OT is not the word of God or application to us.

What is critical is knowing _how _the OT is applicable to us. For example, have you noticed how the prosperity gospel is always backed up by verses from the OT (particularly Proverbs)? They take verses apply them directly to us, as though Jesus hasn't come.



joshua said:


> Thus far, it looks like you've written most of the given OT passages off as discontinued.



That's quite an assumption from what I've written.



joshua said:


> By the way, no one would say that Exodus and Leviticus _alone_ would be all we'd use as a guide...but they will, nonetheless, be a _part_ thereof.



That's why the quotes from Exodus and Leviticus alone weren't enough, and that's simply the point I made.



joshua said:


> So, sincerely, if you could...what exactly is your view of the continuous nature of OT commands insofar as things besides ceremonial, dietary, and civil law go?



Josh, I don't have the time to give a full blown exposition of how the whole Bible fits together and the areas of continuity and discontinuity. Suffice to say that if you read the Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th century you'll get a good idea of where I'd be coming from.

God bless mate,

Marty.


----------



## MW (Jun 6, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> I basically agree with what you're saying here, although it may need a little nuancing. Christianity can never exist without a culture. As soon as we start using any language to communicate we show that a culture is being presumed. Culture of course will have both good and bad. We as believers are to shun the bad, and understand the good (or neutral) if we want to have any hope of communicating to our world. That's what Paul was getting at when he said the Jew I become a Jew etc. Moreover, when Paul says to "greet one another with a holy kiss" there is an example of Christianity being expressed in a cultural manner.



Marty, What standard do you use to evaluate culture? It seems to me a person who believes in total depravity cannot maintain cultural neutrality. If Scripture determines what is right and wrong, how does one introduce a cultural practice over and above what Scripture teaches. And Paul's all things to all men pertained to social customs, not practices of worship. This is clear from his refusal to circumcise Titus when it became an issue of fellowship, but then circumcised Timothy when it would result in greater access to the society of the Jews. One of the qualifications he made is often left out of his statement that to those without the law he became as those without the law, namely, that he himself was under the law to Christ.



JohnOwen007 said:


> I'm not sure that that is the reason why Paul is invoking the OT at those points. His principle for prophecy over uninterpreted tongues is that of what is more edifying to the whole in the gathering (vv. 3-4). He doesn't invoke the OT there. He uses the OT to make a point about tongues, but I doubt that's because that particular OT passage prescribes what's to be done in the gathering (at least I can't see how Paul uses Isaiah in the way). Edification seems to be a new covenant principle for the gathering.



This is what happens when two people come to the text with different presuppositions. Not expecting Scripture to regulate worship, you discount any elements which might indicate such regulation, and emphasise any element which allows for relativity; on my part, expecting Scripture to regulate worship, I limit the scope of relativity, and stress the elements which provide for normative instruction. And I'm sure we could go around and around for a good while, but nothing will come of it.

My only response to your idea of edification is that the apostle teaches edification as the "end," not the "means." He grounds his case for intelligible ministry on the normative principle he quotes from Isaiah. All the while he grounds the different "parts" of ministry in the gifting of the Holy Spirit, so that where such equipping has been given by the Head of the church its members may confidently use such gifts to His glory and the good of the body. Where there is no such gifting, there can be no activity. That seems to me to be a fundamental principle based upon the apostle's prior treatment of this subject in chap. 12.


----------



## Ravens (Jun 6, 2007)

Is Cain relevant in this discussion? I had always thought of his sacrifice as the first example of violating the RPW. That is, Abel followed the "sacrificial" pattern laid down by the Lord when He clothed Adam and Eve, and it was in response to this example, or a corresponding word from God, that enabled him to make the sacrifice by faith, as Hebrews said.

I realize that's not "water-tight", but it seems to corroborate the RPW.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 6, 2007)

ReformedDave said:


> Read Jeremiah Burroughs' 'Gospel Worship".



I have. It's great stuff isn't it? But it doesn't answer my question.

Marty.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 6, 2007)

Dear Matthew,

Thanks for the post.



armourbearer said:


> Marty, What standard do you use to evaluate culture?



_Sola Scriptura_.



armourbearer said:


> It seems to me a person who believes in total depravity cannot maintain cultural neutrality.



So absolutely *everything* about culture is bad? So when I handshake a friend (a rite of Western culture) this is evil? By speaking English, this is evil?



armourbearer said:


> If Scripture determines what is right and wrong, how does one introduce a cultural practice over and above what Scripture teaches.



I never made the claim that cultural practice is "over and above Scripture". For example, reason is never over and above Scripture, but it's an authority none-the-less (one can't read a sentence of Scripture without using reason). Reason can be evil but that doesn't mean it's _always _evil. Same with culture.



armourbearer said:


> And Paul's all things to all men pertained to social customs, not practices of worship.



Can you actually prove that from Scripture?

Greet one another with a holy kiss? That is a command that would happen when the Christians gathered and it's a social custom.



armourbearer said:


> This is what happens when two people come to the text with different presuppositions. Not expecting Scripture to regulate worship, you discount any elements which might indicate such regulation, and emphasise any element which allows for relativity;



Nope, I never claimed to "discount any elements which might indicate such regulation". Indeed, I claimed otherwise. I said there were _principles_ that Paul used to solve the local Corinthian problem.

However, Paul didn't set out in 1 Cor. 14 to give a complete treatise on everything to be done in a gathering. That seems pretty clear to me.



armourbearer said:


> [...] on my part, expecting Scripture to regulate worship, I limit the scope of relativity, and stress the elements which provide for normative instruction. And I'm sure we could go around and around for a good while, but nothing will come of it.



I've never denied that Scripture regulates the gathering. My question has always been _how_. Scripture may give a principle that many activities could fulfill.

Hence, where does Scripture say it will _not_ regulate the gathering like this?

It's your acknowledged presupposition above that I'm trying to find in Scripture _itself_. I honestly have no beef against anyone or anything in this. I am genuinely trying to find an answer here.

I understand if you get sick of the thread and want to pull out. No problems, and no hard feelings.

God bless you,

Marty.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 6, 2007)

Dear Josh,

Thanks for the post.



joshua said:


> I'd like some examples of these words in Proverbs that _aren't_ applicable to us. Just because the prosperity theologians _et al_ rip-out-of-context, pervert, distort, and eisegete Scripture (this, no doubt resulting in misapplication), doesn't mean that the principles found therein (the Scriptures, that is) aren't applicable. You'd agree with that, no?



Absolutely. It's knowing _how_ they now apply.

Here are some classic Proverbs I've heard to support prosperity teaching:

Prov 11:10 (NIV) When the righteous *prosper*, the city rejoices; 
when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.

Prov 11:25 (NIV) A generous man will *prosper*; 
he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed. 

Prov 17:20 (NIV) A man of perverse heart does not *prosper*; 
he whose tongue is deceitful falls into trouble. 

Prov 28:13 (NIV) He who conceals his sins does not *prosper*, 
but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy. 

Prov 28:25 (NIV) A greedy man stirs up dissension, 
but he who trusts in the LORD will *prosper*.

Cheers,

Marty.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 6, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Ok, this is a new thread coming out of the EP debate.
> 
> It's a discussion as to where actually the Bible teaches that we can only do in public worship what the NT _explicitly commands_.
> 
> ...



Just so you know, Marty, I don't hold with the RPW that Matthew holds to, but I do hold to a pretty strict RPW. What is different about these is not so much what they regulate, but rather the context within which these things are regulated. There is quite a difference in how we define "church", and that makes for quite a difference in what we regard as a regulative principle of worship. 

As a result I haven't followed this thread very carefully. I think I can only respond to your OP, and not to all that follows from that. Point three has a question:



> "3. But where in this subset of Jesus' teaching is the command "do in public worship what is only explicitly commanded *in Scripture*"?



and I would like to respond to that, if I may (let me know if you meant to discuss Matthew's view only):


----------



## MW (Jun 6, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> So absolutely *everything* about culture is bad? So when I handshake a friend (a rite of Western culture) this is evil? By speaking English, this is evil?



Marty, total depravity does not exclude "relative goodness," that is, man to man. Those who are evil know how to give good gifts to their children. Total depravity pertains to man's relation to God. The only good which any culture manifests is that which is the result of God's revelation of grace. Now because worship is God-oriented, culture has nothing to offer by way of positive example.



JohnOwen007 said:


> I never made the claim that cultural practice is "over and above Scripture". For example, reason is never over and above Scripture, but it's an authority none-the-less (one can't read a sentence of Scripture without using reason). Reason can be evil but that doesn't mean it's _always _evil. Same with culture.



Reason has ministerial authority. Scripture is the master (magister). We use sanctified reason to understand Scripture. That is all. Reason does not determine what can and can't be believed. Likewise, we cannot use culture to understand what can and can't be done in worship to God, otherwise we would be bound to what _is_ and never be able to discern what _ought_ to be. Cultural forms of honour, etc., can only be used as a guide as to what is acceptable to men, they can never show us what is acceptable to God.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Can you actually prove that from Scripture?



I gave an argument and you failed to reply to it. Paul would not circumcise Titius when Christian fellowship was at stake. He circumcised Timothy when it was simply a matter of social custom.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Greet one another with a holy kiss? That is a command that would happen when the Christians gathered and it's a social custom.



Man to man again.



JohnOwen007 said:


> However, Paul didn't set out in 1 Cor. 14 to give a complete treatise on everything to be done in a gathering. That seems pretty clear to me.



Nobody claimed that Paul's discussion in 1 Cor. 14 provides the whole basis for what is done in public worship. You raised this text. I am simply replying to your gleanings from it. The whole of Scripture reveals the will of Christ, not merely one passage which deals with a particular abuse in one congregation. Blessings!


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 7, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Marty, total depravity does not exclude "relative goodness," that is, man to man. Those who are evil know how to give good gifts to their children. Total depravity pertains to man's relation to God. The only good which any culture manifests is that which is the result of God's revelation of grace. Now because worship is God-oriented, culture has nothing to offer by way of positive example.



We're agreed on this, and I think I'm saying the same thing. At least I agree with what you've said above.



armourbearer said:


> Reason has ministerial authority. Scripture is the master (magister). We use sanctified reason to understand Scripture. That is all. Reason does not determine what can and can't be believed. Likewise, we cannot use culture to understand what can and can't be done in worship to God, otherwise we would be bound to what _is_ and never be able to discern what _ought_ to be. Cultural forms of honour, etc., can only be used as a guide as to what is acceptable to men, they can never show us what is acceptable to God.



Again, I have not problem with this; it is basically what I said above.



armourbearer said:


> I gave an argument and you failed to reply to it. Paul would not circumcise Titius when Christian fellowship was at stake. He circumcised Timothy when it was simply a matter of social custom.



I think we may be talking past each other on this one. I have no problems with what you say here.



armourbearer said:


> Nobody claimed that Paul's discussion in 1 Cor. 14 provides the whole basis for what is done in public worship. You raised this text. I am simply replying to your gleanings from it. The whole of Scripture reveals the will of Christ, not merely one passage which deals with a particular abuse in one congregation.



Yes, I'd have to agree again.

Is not a drama, or musical solo just simply cultural (human-to-human) form that can express theological truth about God and hence lead to edification (just like speaking in a certain language other than Greek or Hebrew in church is a cultural form)?

Cheers,

Marty.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jun 7, 2007)

Dear John,



JohnV said:


> JPoint three has a question: [...] and I would like to respond to that, if I may (let me know if you meant to discuss Matthew's view only):



Yes, I'd love to hear what you've got to say.

Thanks for your interest.

God bless,

Marty.


----------



## JohnV (Jun 7, 2007)

This was your question, Marty:


> "3. But where in this subset of Jesus' teaching is the command "do in public worship what is only explicitly commanded in Scripture"?


It is easier, and maybe better, to understand the RPW as the Scriptures communicating to us how God is to be worshiped. Only Scripture. 

Where we get into trouble with it is in the area of what the Scriptures force us into after the forthright things are determined. Just as necessity draws us into the conclusion that God is to be worshiped as a triune God even though the Bible doesn't explicitly say so, yet there are things which force this so that it is included in the Athanasian Creed as "necessary". What is it that compels these things that are not included in the Bible, and yet cannot be said to fall under revelation? 

There are aspects within culture (to use your example) which drive us toward, or force from us, certain conclusions. A simple such thing would be where we place the pulpit in the church. But a more important one might be the exclusion of some things. Of the latter we might be reminded of Hezekiah destroying the bronze serpent which Moses had raised in the wilderness to save the people. It had become a stumbling block to the people instead of a reminder of God's salvation through the Messiah. The different cultures of the people of Israel during the time of Moses, and of Judah at the time of Hezekiah, which were regulated by the exact same principles of worship dictated the change which Hezekiah implemented. When people looked at that image in the wilderness they saw something completely different than what the people in Hezekiah's time saw, though it was the exact same one that Moses raised. The difference was so opposite that the former time required the making of it while the latter time required the destroying of it.

It is not that the cultures change what is commanded in the Scripture, but rather that the differences in cultures might determine quite different ways to follow the same commands of Scripture. If I may take an example from my own history: it is impossible today to follow the command to "ascribe glory to God" in the same way that we did in the '50's when we were new immigrants. We're not new immigrants starting out in a new land anymore. In fact, most of us are more prosperous now than we could have imagined at the time. God has blessed us with so much more than what we asked for. So our ascribing of glory to Him is much different now that we have received from Him what we had hoped for in Him. And yet it is the still the same. 

Nothing of the command has changed. Nor has our understanding of those commands changed at all. What has changed is the cultural context from which we glorify God's name, in history, in space and time, for the very real blessings He has bestowed.


----------

