# Should we be restricted to Biblical Modes of Worship?



## PastorFaulk (Apr 11, 2007)

Forgive me If I have sounded harsh or combative, I love a good discussion and do not mean any ill towards anybody. I do think that to regulate worship to only biblically stated means is a bit restrictive. If we followed that train of thought wouldn’t we still be worshipping in the synagogues with Jewish nonbelievers? That is where the early church often met. Church should be grounded in the unchanging principles of word of God, but it should take the shape of the culture it exists in. Stating that it should look like the church of the reformers places the church in a very Eurocentric mold. The Baptist church does not regulate Christian holidays, we can’t even agree on whether to boycott Disney. Like my first example, I am not regulated to celebrate my daughters birthday. There is nothing official about it. I do chose to do it because the date is a reminder of the events of her birth. We celebrate Constantine’s Mother’s choice of days for Easter and Christmas because these days remind us of the major events in the birth death and resurrection of Christ. Christ said he came to fulfill the Law, which meant he was the fulfillment of the feasts and Sabbaths. Look at the teachings where he talked about the bridegroom. Every feast pointed to the coming of Christ, just as the free church looks Christ through their Holidays.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 11, 2007)

Pastor Faulk,

Well, you are about to start a good discussion here. The discussion was taking a sharp turn into the RPW and it needs to be fleshed out in the appropriate forum.

Brace yourself for this discussion. This is a Reformed board after all and there is a solid Biblical basis for the Regulative Principle of Worship. I think it will be useful for you to interact on this subject and understand why Reformed bodies have historically held to this principle.

Just a basic historical note first. The two major strands of the Magisterial Reformation held to two basically different views regarding the Worship of God:

Lutheran View: That which God has not specifically _forbidden_ by God's Word is _permitted_.
Reformed View (aka Regulative Principle of Worship): That which is not specifically _commanded_ by God's Word in worship is _forbidden_.

The latter principle is revealed in the Scriptures as reflective of God's immutable character. That is, He regularly reveals that He detests modes of worship that He has not commanded. It is not enough that the people are worshipping Him (as the object of worship) but He insists also that they worship Him in the way He has prescribed. The refrain "the sin of Jeroboam" in Kings is an example of the consequences of violating God's commands in this area.

Now, nobody will argue that there are ceremonial aspects of the Law that are fulfilled but if the RPW reflects an immutable aspect of God's character then we need to take notice of this fact. Idolatry is not now permissible simply because Christ has come. The RPW is a _moral_ obligation and not a _ceremonial_ one.

Enjoy. To the rest of you, please be kind to my Pastor. He's a Southern Baptist who loves the Lord and His Word (and the doctrines of Grace).


----------



## Herald (Apr 11, 2007)

Oh my, now you've gone and done it Pastor Faulk! As Rich implied, you have brought up an issue that has definite opinions on the PB. According to board consensus, I am not Reformed, at least not in the classical sense of the word. I am a Baptist. Calvinist mind you, but Baptist nonetheless. I believe the RPW is a useful tool, but I do not feel bound to it. That said, I am certainly not a seeker-sensitive aficionado. Worship has lost much of it holiness in recent years. That is why I am friendly towards the RPW.

In the spirit of fairness I'll allow my RPW brethren to state their position before I respond further. Pastor Faulk, glad to see you entering into the discussions here on the PB. May you be blessed by the interaction and may we be blessed by your participation.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Apr 11, 2007)

Dear Gentlemen, 

The WCF states the principle very clearly:

21.1: The light of nature sheweth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture. 

We have historically confessed that the Lord is the arbiter of acceptable and non-acceptable worship. He it is that sets the bar. Dear Pastor Faulk, you have spoken twice now of your daughter's birthday and how you have decided to celebrate it, and no one I know of would argue against your right to order the affairs of your family, under God, according to your pleasure. Some families (not mine) decide not to celebrate birthdays, they decide what meals they will or will not eat, etc. All because of the authority they have over thier familial society. 

Well, the Lord has the same sort of rule over His house, except that He cannot err as to the way He establishes it, and His authority can never be challenged. Note in the quotation above, from the WCF, that we worship the Lord in ways acceptable to Him. Our worship is divided Biblically into two concepts, using the Greek words proskuneo--to bow down in humility and reverence, and latreuo--to offer the liturgy or religious service required. Since our Lord is the Sovereign receiving our service, He has the right to order that service to take the forms, and use the elements He desires. Anything outside this requirement of His speaks of our wilfulness. Why would we think that anything we might cook up and call "worship" would be acceptable to Him? Our ways are not His ways, and our thoughts not His thoughts! (Isaiah 55)

The example we have used over the years to describe this is that if one were to visit a restaurant and order a particular meal, say, Teriyaki Steak, and then the waiter brings out Chop Suey because that waiter likes it better than the steak, we would not call that good service. Well, the Lord in His Word has been quite specific about ordering His house, how He will be worshipped, and He has expressed His displeasure with those who would approach Him with their own innovations--remember Nadab and Abihu. Got to get off to work. I'll let others respond as well, for there is much more to be said.


----------



## Coram Deo (Apr 11, 2007)

Hi PastorFaulk,

The Regulative Principle of Worship deals with Elements of Worship and what forms of those Elements of Worship that are required by God, The Circumstances of Worship is not prescribed except by the light of nature and good Christian prudance. The place of where we worship, e.g. synagogue, church building, or even renting a school to meet would fall under circumstances of worship. Also, Pews, Chairs, Lights, Microphone, speakers, etc. Those are negotiable but must be considered in light of nature, and good Christian prudance..

Elements on the other hands are Acts of worship that only God can prescribe for us how He will be Worship and what forms they take.

Elements consist of

Prayer
Reading and Hearing the Word of God
Preaching the Word of God
Baptism
Lord's Supper
Singing Psalms
Vows and Oaths
Decorum
Gestures

Occasion Elements consist of:

Days of Thanksgiving
Days of Humilation with Fasting

God also regulates the forms in which those elements take place..

Examples:

Prayer form - Written Prayers and Spontaneous Prayers
Prayer Language form - in Understandable Real Language (not gibberish)
Lord's Supper form - Real Wine and Unleaven Bread
Vows and Oaths form - Church Covenants
Gestures form - kneeling, or Standing in prayer
etc.

As for the foundations of the RPW, many of what has been said already is good.. I might add a few in alittle while...

As for the Culture comment... That is opening a whole barrel of  
There was another thread in which everyone hashed this out.... lol
I will abstain on commenting on it for now....  


Michael




PastorFaulk said:


> If we followed that train of thought wouldn’t we still be worshipping in the synagogues with Jewish nonbelievers? That is where the early church often met. Church should be grounded in the unchanging principles of word of God, but it should take the shape of the culture it exists in.


----------



## Chris (Apr 11, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Oh my, now you've gone and done it Pastor Faulk! As Rich implied, you have brought up an issue that has definite opinions on the PB. According to board consensus, I am not Reformed, at least not in the classical sense of the word. I am a Baptist. Calvinist mind you, but Baptist nonetheless. I believe the RPW is a useful tool, but I do not feel bound to it. That said, I am certainly not a seeker-sensitive aficionado. Worship has lost much of it holiness in recent years. That is why I am friendly towards the RPW.
> 
> In the spirit of fairness I'll allow my RPW brethren to state their position before I respond further. Pastor Faulk, glad to see you entering into the discussions here on the PB. May you be blessed by the interaction and may we be blessed by your participation.



 
Well said.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 11, 2007)

Since I asked for PB help and got it on Sam Waldron's exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession (thanks Rob; Matthew), I'll share the fruit of the request and maybe it will be helpful to also have what a Baptist has to say (typos and editorial comments are Rob's  ).22. Of religious worship and the sabbath day

1. The light of nature shows that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in and served, with all the heart and all the soul and with all the might. (1) But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his own reveled will, that he may not be worshipped accordin to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.(2)​1. Jer, 10:7; Mark 12:33.​2. Gen.4:1-5;Exod.20:4-6;Matt. 15:3,8-9; 2 Kings 16:10-18; Lev. 10:1-3; Deut. 17:3;4:2;12:29-32; Josh. 1:7;23:6-8;Matt. 15:13; Col. 2:20-23; 2 Tim. 3:15-17.

I. Its regulative principle

The immediate historical occasion of this paragraph was the debate etween Puritans and QAnglicans. The Twentieth Article of the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles states: 'The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in the controversies of the faith. And yet it is not lawful for the church to ordain anything contrary to God's Word written.' James Bannerman helpfully contrasts the Puritan doctrine on this matter (contained in our Confession) and the Anglican doctrine: 'In the case of the Church of England, its doctrine in regard to church power in the worship of God is that it has a right to decree everything except what is forbidden in the Word of God. In the case of our own church, its doctrine in reference to church power in the worship of God is that it has a right to decree nothing, except what expressly or by implication is enjoined by the Word of God.'

G.I. Williamson helpfully and popularly state the Puritan principle exemplified in the Confession: 'What is commanded is right, and what is not commanded is wrong.' The difference between Puritans and Anglicans may be helpfully illustrated by means of two builders intent on building the temple of God. Mr. Anglican must use the materials of the Word of God, but has no blueprint and may use other materials. Mr. Puritan must use only the materials of the Word and God and has a blueprint. It takes no special genius to discern that the two completed buildings will differ drastically or to discern which will be more pleasing to God.

(Waldron reproduces Williamson's diagram of the circles from G.I.'s commentary on the WCF - Rob)

Four biblical arguments for the Puritan regulative principle of worship must now be presented. First, it is the prerogative of God alone to determine the terms on which sinnners may approach him in worship. Bannerman eloquently states this: 'The fundamental principle that lies at the basis of the whole argument is this, that in regard to the ordinance of public worship it is the province of God, and not the province of man, to determine both the terms and the manner of such worship ... The path of approach to God was shut and barred in consequence of man's sin: it was impossible for man himself to renew the intercourse which had been so solemnly closed by the judical sentence which excluded him from the presence and favor of his God. Could that path ever again be opened up, and the communion of God with man and of man with God ever again be renewed? This was a question for God alone to determine. If it could, on what terms was the renewal of intercourse to take place and in what manner was fellowship of the creature with his Creator again to be maintained? This, too, was a question no less than the former for God alone to resolve.' But not only does God possess this prerogative, the Bible shows that he exercises it (Gen. 4:1-5; Exoc. 20:4-6). Should God decree that he will be worshipped only by those wearing orange shirs and green ties, he would have the right to do so. What arrogance for man to think that he has the least business in determining how God will be worshipped!

Second, the introduction of extra-biblical practices into worship inevitably tends to nullify and undermine God's appointed worship (Matt. 15:3, 8-9; 2 Kings 16:10-18). This tendency is illustarted in evangelical churches today where mundane or silly announcements, special music, testimony times and other such things often leave only twenty to thirty minutes for preaching.

Third, the wisdom of Christ and the sufficiency of the Scriptures are called into question by the addition of unappointed elements into worship. John Owen remarks: 'Three things are usually pleaded in the justification of the observance of such rites and ceremonies in the worship of God: First, that they tend unto the furtherance of the devotion of the worshippers; secondly, that they render the worship itself comely and beautiful; thirdly, that they are the preservers of order in the celebration thereof. And therefore on these accounts they may be instituted or appointed by some, and observed by all.

Reasoning such as Owen describes impugns the wisdom of Christ. With all our weakness, sin and folly, will Christ leave us without an adequate guide in the most important matter of worship? Says another Puritan, 'For he that is the wisdom of the Father, the brightness of his glory, the true light, the word of life, yea truth and life itself, can he give unto his church (for the which he paid the ransom of his blood) that which should not be a sufficient assurance for the same?' Thus, such reasoning also impugns the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:15-17). In support of this Dr. Tulloch, and opponent of the regulative principle, remarks, 'The Christian Scriptures are a revelation of divine truth and not a revelation of church polity. They not only do not lay down the outline of such a polity, but they do not even give the adequate and conclusive hints of one.' 2 Timothy 3:16-17 requires us to rais this question to those who think like Dr Tulloch: 'Is ordering the church for the glory of God a good work which the man of God is peculiarly required to perform?' It is, and therefore the Scriptures are able to equip the man of God thoroughly for this task.

Fourthly, the Bible explicitly condemns all the worship that is not commanded by God (Lev. 10:1-3; Deut. 17:3; 12:29-32; Josh. 1:7; 23:6-8; Matt. 15:13; Col. 2:20-23). Three of these passages deserve special comment. Deuteronomy 12:29-32 in its original context is addressed precisely to the question of how God should be worshipped (v. 30). The rule given here in answer to this issue is very clear: 'Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it' (v. 32). This clearly implies that it is a great tempation for God's people to see how the world worships and to allow that to have a formative impact on our attitudes about worship. Such an attitude is explicitly forbidden of God's people. Colossians 2:23 condemns what may be translated literally as 'will worship'. Herbert Carson states the unavoidable implication of this phrase: 'The words ... imply a form of worship which a man devises for himself.' Leviticus 10:1-3 is the frightening account of what happened to Nadab and Abihu when they displeased God in the way they worshipped him. What was it that brought upon them such a shocking judgment? Verse 1 is explicit: they 'offered strange fire before the Lord.' The meaning of the phrase, 'strange fire', is expounded in the following clause. It is not fire which God had forbidden. The Hebrew clearly and literally reads that it was fire 'which he had not commanded them'. The mere fact that they dared to bring unauthorized fire brought fiery death upon them.

With this ample biblical support, why are men so lenient in their worship? It is because the God of modern men is not a God to be feared. Of all that is not appointed by God in his worship, we must hear Jesus saying, 'Take these things hence!' The child of God will not respond to the regulative principle as if it were an intolerable strait-jacket! He will pray, rather, 'O Lord, teach me to worship you acceptably.'

Chapter 1, paragraph 6 of the Confession provides an important clarification of the regulative principle. When we say that what is not commanded is forbidden, we are speaking of the substance and parts of worship (see paras 2-6), not its circumstance. There are certain minor circumstantial details that God has left to be determined by the light of nature, Christian prudence and general rules of Scripture. 1 Corinthians 14 contains two examples of such general rules which God demands that we apply to our specific circumstance. They are the rules of edification and order (vv. 26,40). God demands that these two rules be followd, but he has not given us a detailed list of what they mean in every situation. Churches may differ as to where the line is drawn between circumstances and substance and parts. As long as each church holds seriously to the regulative principle, reasonable differences should not be made the source of division. We must be charitable in such things, while clearly insisting on the regulative principle.

1. James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, (Banner of Truth Trust, 1960), vol. I, p.339.
2. Ibid., pp.339-340.
3. Williamson, Westminster Confession for Study Classes, p.162.
4. Ibid. p.160.
5. Bannerman, Church of Christ, Vol. I,pp.340-341
6. Owen. Works, vol 15, p.467.
7. The Reformation of the Church, selection with introductory notes by Iain Murray, (Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), p.75.
8. Ibid., p.44.
9. Herbert Carson, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and Philemon, (Eerdmans, 1976), p.79.

-From: Waldron, Samuel E., A modern exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, (Evangelical Press, 1989), pp. 267-271.​


----------



## LadyFlynt (Apr 11, 2007)

Some things I noticed:

1) IF it was Constantine's Mother's choice of days...that right there would steer me off...(enter debate about women's roles in the Church)

2) Enter the Pagan Origins debate...thus the failure of calling such Holy Days "Christian".

3) "it should take the shape of the culture it exists in" <-- and this is why we are seeing immodest girls dancing with boys in sensual movements on a stage in front of the congregation while singing that they are "worshipping the Lord".

4) "If we followed that train of thought wouldn’t we still be worshipping in the synagogues with Jewish nonbelievers?" Emphatically not. Come worship with us sometime while in the US. We do not resemble such at all.

5) Eurocentric mold - from my understanding, this is faulty. The Reformers had access to certain writings and understandings of culture of the earlier years of the church that we have limited knowledge of. From my understanding, the singing of psalms in the manner that they did, was as new to them as it is to many of us. Don't like St. Kilda? Pick a different tune. But the idea behind the choice of tunes is that the focus stays on the Word, not on the tune or movements encouraged by tunes.

6) Man will always err, God's Word never does. Thus following the Principles He has given. Read some of the words in hymns...you will find plenty of false doctrine there...because they are written based on whatever persuasion the writer was.


----------



## Coram Deo (Apr 11, 2007)

AMEN and a Double  Sister...

I totally agree especially with number 3... How sad that anybody would adopt the culture around us and call it worship...

Michael



LadyFlynt said:


> Some things I noticed:
> 
> 1) IF it was Constantine's Mother's choice of days...that right there would steer me off...(enter debate about women's roles in the Church)
> 
> ...


----------



## Davidius (Apr 11, 2007)

PastorFaulk said:


> If we followed that train of thought wouldn’t we still be worshipping in the synagogues with Jewish nonbelievers? That is where the early church often met. Church should be grounded in the unchanging principles of word of God, but it should take the shape of the culture it exists in.



The men on this board are much better equipped than I am to go into the details of this discussion. However, I just wanted to add one point of my own, namely that _where_ we meet is not an element of worship. When we speak of those modes/elements of worship which are regulated, we are not talking about the parts of worship which are _necessary circumstances_ but those things which we actually _offer_ as praise. In other words, meeting outside in a field or in a building doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether we sit in pews or chairs. Certain decorum isn't required (except perhaps for women depending on how you see 1 Cor 11...this is something I'm still studying). It doesn't matter what time on the Lord's Day we meet, only that we meet on the Lord's Day. The things which must be regulated are those elements of which the worship itself actually consists. For instance, elements such as singing, preaching, reading, the sacraments, and the ways by which each of these are regulated.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 11, 2007)

Wesley:

I'm not sure what you mean by this:


> I do think that to regulate worship to only biblically stated means is a bit restrictive.... Church should be grounded in the unchanging principles of word of God, but it should take the shape of the culture it exists in.


It sounds like you think that regulation according to "biblically stated means" cannot "take the shape of the culture it exists in". It is impossible that they are mutully exclusive, because otherwise we would not be able to worship at all so many centuries after the Bible was written. Our songs, for example, take the shape of our culture and our time; it cannot be helped. I don't understand what you mean by the difference between "biblically stated means" and "grounded in the unchanging principles of (the) word of God". What's the difference?


----------



## jenney (Apr 11, 2007)

What Michael said:  
What Todd Ruddell said, well ditto that too, but I'm starting to feel downright superfluous around here just agreeing!

Most of the Presbyterians on the board believe the same things (only don't get them started on the VanTil/Clark debate) because they all hold to the WCF and can point to that when there is a disagreement.

The problem with the Baptists on PB is that while, in theory, we all hold to the LBC 1689, many will say, "with this or that exception". I don't mind that so much, but it does make things complicated when one of us is presenting "what Baptists believe about _____." 

I've never been in a church that held to the 1689 but denied the RPW or the perpetuity of the Lord's Day and that is making it hard to even answer. Until coming to the PB, I thought all "reformed baptists" were about the same!

I've never been part of a SBC church, but I appreciate the founders movement and the men who are striving to make the Convention more biblical (though for every one of them there seem to be ten Rick Warrens or Erwin McManuses!)

It's good to meet you, Pastor! Welcome to the board, brother.


----------



## KMK (Apr 11, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> To the rest of you, please be kind to my Pastor.



Favoritism! Does this admonishment apply to Mr. Manata as well?????


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Apr 11, 2007)

The only comment I'll make is this......

Should we be restricted to scriptural modes of worship? The answer is yes.

Now, the question becomes just how "broad"..or.."narrow" is scriptural worship, and just how is culture "factored in"?


----------



## MW (Apr 11, 2007)

I love the Lord Jesus Christ. I love the fact that He is King. I love His Word for its exceeding broadness and liberating power. Why would I want to forsake what He has told me to do in worship for something some man thinks would be a good idea?


----------



## Kevin (Apr 11, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> The only comment I'll make is this......
> 
> Should we be restricted to scriptural modes of worship? The answer is yes.
> 
> Now, the question becomes just how "broad"..or.."narrow" is scriptural worship, and just how is culture "factored in"?



  

In a nutshell, that is the question.

I will also add that we all (all presbyterians, that is) believe in the RPW. What we differ on is what does it mean.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 11, 2007)

Kevin said:


> In a nutshell, that is the question.
> 
> I will also add that we all (all Presbyterians, that is) believe in the RPW. What we differ on is what does it mean.


I grant you some people are confused, but there is an historic regulative principle, and it is simply not true all Presbyterians agree with it. Some reject it with poor arguments (R.J. Gore), some are weenies who won't admit to rejection, but try to get by redefining it (Frame, and no one bought it), and some are simply ignorant. Now, among those who say they do adhere to the principle as historically defined in our standards, there are disagreements, which may be due to any number of factors. But that is not the same thing as saying the principle itself is subject to different definitions. There may be different definitions, but that has nothing to do with the principle historically defined. Call it the NPW (normative principle of worship) or the MPW (my principle of worship) but don't confuse that with THE RPW! My


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 11, 2007)

KMK said:


> Favoritism! Does this admonishment apply to Mr. Manata as well?????



Mr. Manata (aka Tom Bombadil) is no longer with us. I should have qualified and said: "Be nice for now...." If he steps into the Baptism forum then the gloves are coming off!


----------



## jenney (Apr 12, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Mr. Manata (aka Tom Bombadil)



Oh! That explains why Tom Bombadil didn't have the proper signature: no name, no church, no location, just the funky Tolkien verse about him.

I'd wondered how he'd managed to get 5,000 posts without obeying the rules!

all clear now.


----------

