# Is the living of our lives considered worship?



## shackleton (Sep 22, 2007)

Is how we live our lives, work, home life, raising children and how we act in each of these situations constitute worship to God? 
If so does the RPW then apply to all of our lives?


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Sep 22, 2007)

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, *which is your spiritual worship. 
*(Rom 12:1)


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 22, 2007)

shackleton said:


> Is how we live our lives, work, home life, raising children and how we act in each of these situations constitute worship to God?
> If so does the RPW then apply to all of our lives?



The same way that worship is to be regulated... by Scripture. The principle is identical.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 22, 2007)

The equation goes something like this. (treat it like a Mad Lib (tm))

We must ________ (verb) in a manner consistent with God's Scriptural commands about _________ (gerund form, same verb).


Worship, living in family, etc....it's all the same principle.


----------



## Peter (Sep 22, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, *which is your spiritual worship.
> *(Rom 12:1)



My bible says "reasonable service." Both versions are probably theologically correct; they probably mean approximately the same thing, worship being service to God; and I don't know which translation is better but I like the sound of mine better. In my mind it brings up connotations of obedience to the law as an act of gratitude.

I think we can say loosely all of life is worship, however, there must be a technical sense that distinguishes the profane in life from the special, conscious entering into the house of God. All of life is lived under the eye of God and all of our actions must be directed toward obtaining God. Only a portion of our life do we approach into God's presence to offer him the oblations of our lips.


----------



## Augusta (Sep 22, 2007)

It does come down to a distinction between the profane and the holy.

Ezekiel 22:26
Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 22, 2007)

Rom. 12.1 (KJV) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your *reasonable service*. 

That latter clause is, as I understand it, most properly translated "reasonable service" or "spiritual service" or "spiritual sacrifice" (I have consulted Poole's Annotations, Matthew Henry's Commentary, Murray, Plumer, Calvin, Luther, Ursinus, et al. -- Archibald Hall, for example, in his _Gospel Worship_, Vol. 1, p. 7, says: "Latrei\a is another word frequently used to denote the worship due to God only; it is commonly and properly translated _service_, Rom 12:1 and other places."). All of life is certainly to be rendered as a "service" unto God, that is, everything we do must be done to the glory of God, with all of our heart, mind, strength and soul -- even, for example, such a mundane act as brushing our teeth. And that measure of that service is the rule of our faith and practice which God has given to direct us, how we may glorify and enjoy him forever, ie., the Scriptures, or the "whole counsel of God."

Within the Scriptures, and indeed written on our very hearts, God has given us his moral law which is known as the Ten Commandments. The first table of this law governs his worship, the second governs our relationships with others. When any one of these law is broken, they are all broken; they are all reflective of the holy nature of God and all teach us to be holy as he is holy. But worship is a separate and distinct act from the rest of a life lived to the service of God. As Thomas Vincent says concerning the first table:



> The first commandment hath a respect unto the object of worship; the second commandment hath a respect unto the means of worship; the third commandment hath a respect unto the manner of worship; but this fourth commandment hath a respect unto the time of worship.



Not all acts are "worship," though all actions may be rendered as a spiritual service unto the Lord. All actions are regulated by the word of God, including the Ten Commandments; but the first table regulates the specific acts (elements, and manner in which they are rendered) involved in worship, to which nothing may be added; for acts outside the sphere of worship, they are regulated more generally by the "rules of the Word" which do not address all the minutae of life but require of us wisdom in our application of the rules generally given to us, according to the "light of nature and Christian prudence." 

WCF 1.2 (concerning the Scriptures):



> *All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life*.a
> 
> a. Luke 16:29, 31; Eph 2:20; 2 Tim 3:16; Rev 22:18-19.



WCF 1.6:



> 6. *The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.a* Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word;b and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, *according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed*.c
> 
> a. Gal 1:8-9; 2 Thes 2:2; 2 Tim 3:15-17. • b. John 6:45; 1 Cor 2:9-12. • c. 1 Cor 11:13-14; 14:26, 40.



WCF 21.1 (concerning religious worship):



> 1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth 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.a *But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to 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 representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.b*
> 
> a. Josh 24:14; Psa 18:3; 31:23; 62:8; 119:68; Jer 10:7; Mark 12:33; Acts 17:24; Rom 1:20; 10:12. • *b. Exod 20:4-6; Deut 4:15-20; 12:32; Mat 4:9-10; 15:9; Acts 17:25; Col 2:23*.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 22, 2007)

And lest I be misunderstood, my point was not to agree with the original position that "all of life is worship", because I don't think that fits the broader scope of Scripture. All of life must be oriented toward our chief end, which is the glorification and enjoyment of God - and what is most properly "worship" concerns a particular subset of that "all", and has particular constraints set upon it in Scripture (that don't apply to other parts of life). 

My point was only that the RPW isn't some imagined scheme that somehow is new as of 350 years ago, but rather that it is derived from the principle that Scripture regulates ALL of life. Since Worship, like child-rearing, like heading a family, working for a supervisor, being a supervisor of others, etc., is part of life - it is and must be regulated by Scripture in whatever way Scripture regulates it - just like everything else. The reason that there came to be something we now call the RPW isn't due to some gloss on the Word put on by particularly strict-minded people - but it came about as part of an overriding purpose to see God's Word serve its right role, in guiding us in everything (which happens to include worship).


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Sep 22, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> All of life must be oriented toward our chief end, which is the glorification and enjoyment of God - and what is most properly "worship" concerns a particular subset of that "all", and has particular constraints set upon it in Scripture (that don't apply to other parts of life).



 Well said.

Corum Deo!


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 22, 2007)

RPW that is typically referred to is dealing with Public Worship. What does God command in Scripture that we are to do during Public Worship? That is RPW.

Those who hold to RPW would not say that we should not worship God outside of Public Worship, they would say we should, but there are specific commands for public worship that God commands.


----------



## shackleton (Sep 22, 2007)

The defintion of the RP that I am familiar with is that, "Whatever is not specifically mentioned is forbidden." My point being that if we use this for all of life then where the bible is silent we are to abstain. 
Or are we to follow what the WCF says in 1:6 where we are to use the principles laid out in the bible to govern our lives, even and including worship?


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 23, 2007)

Peter said:


> My bible says "reasonable service." Both versions are probably theologically correct; they probably mean approximately the same thing, worship being service to God; and I don't know which translation is better but I like the sound of mine better. In my mind it brings up connotations of obedience to the law as an act of gratitude.
> 
> I think we can say loosely all of life is worship, however, there must be a technical sense that distinguishes the profane in life from the special, conscious entering into the house of God. All of life is lived under the eye of God and all of our actions must be directed toward obtaining God. Only a portion of our life do we approach into God's presence to offer him the oblations of our lips.



Dear Peter, I don't think we can say that any more since the coming of Christ. All of life is sacred. The sacred aspect of life in OT temple worship points to the coming of Christ, the true tabernacle (John 1:14) and true temple (John 2:19-22). Christ is the fulfillment of the OT temple. And now because we believers are united to Christ we are united to Christ the temple, and thus _are _the temple (1 Cor. 3:16-17). We are the temple not only when we gather but all the time. Hence, temple "worship" (_latreia_) is now *all *of life (_a la_ Rom. 12:1).

Any talk of a building now being God's house is to Judaise the NT; it is to impose the OT shadows upon the NT reality (of Christ).

It is remarkable that the NT *nowhere* says that the purpose of believers gathering is to "worship". The purpose of Christians now gathering is to encourage / edify (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb, 10:24-25) for the glory of God.

Blessings.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 23, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> It is remarkable that the NT *nowhere* says that the purpose of believers gathering is to "worship". The purpose of Christians now gathering is to encourage / edify (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb, 10:24-25) for the glory of God.
> 
> Blessings.




Bingo.

This paper by my Uncle might be of interest to some considering the theme of what we mean when we say 'worship'...

http://www.quintapress.com/files/General/Worship.pdf


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 24, 2007)

Dear Jonathan thanks for the link brother!


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> It is remarkable that the NT *nowhere* says that the purpose of believers gathering is to "worship". The purpose of Christians now gathering is to encourage / edify (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb, 10:24-25) for the glory of God.



The article in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology under "Prayer," and especially the section on "proskunew," is well worth considering in this respect; and I would especially recommend the comments with reference to the Apocalypse, where we find the theology of corporate worship explained in the richest types borrowed from the OT temple. It is true that the NT does not speak of a "worship-service," but there can be no doubt that "worship" in the sense of divine adoration lies at the heart of the assembling together of the saints, and that specific acts of devotion performed by souls redeemed and renewed by grace are worship in the highest sense of the term.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> It is true that the NT does not speak of a "worship-service," but there can be no doubt that "worship" in the sense of divine adoration lies at the heart of the assembling together of the saints, and that specific acts of devotion performed by souls redeemed and renewed by grace are worship in the highest sense of the term.



The problem with this whole debate is the biblical terminology for worship. We have several Greek terms (_proskuneo_ "homage", _latreia_ "service", etc.) that are _all _translated into English as "worship". Then we have several other Greek words (like _doxadzo_ "glorify") that translate into English words which have a similar meaning to the English word "worship". Hence, when people speak of "worship" as the gathering of the saints it makes for all sorts of misunderstandings.

"Worship" according to its many meanings (homage, service, etc.) are certainly _activities_ that we do as we gather (and when we're not gathered). Matthew, you are right to draw attention to the worship of revelation; it's profound and should somehow be reflected in our gatherings. However, that "worship" is the _fundamental purpose _of the gathering I find nowhere in the NT (or in TDNT), it's "edification". And I suspect it's best to go for the Bible's terminology when discussing the purpose of the gathering so that the waters stay relatively free of mud particles.

The best stuff I've read on this is David Peterson's book _[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Engaging-God-Biblical-Theology-Worship/dp/0830826971/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9711797-4497405?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190624008&sr=1-1"]Engaging with God[/ame]_. One warning about the book is that the prose is rather pedestrian, and hence, it's difficult to get through. However, it's worth the effort.


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> The best stuff I've read on this is David Peterson's book _Engaging with God_. One warning about the book is that the prose is rather pedestrian, and hence, it's difficult to get through. However, it's worth the effort.



Marty, there's always something insightful being brought to one's attention by the Moore teachers. At the same time, I read their works as one who studied in Sydney and had interaction with the Sydney evangelical movement, and know the ecclesial bias with which they teach and write. I don't share that bias. As far as I can see it is custom-fitted to their particular situation as ones who must work in the Anglican institution, but see "church" as something different.

Thankyou for the book recommendation. I found helpful exegetical work in "Possessed by God," and don't doubt I will find the same in this other book also. The idea of "all-of-life-worship" is undisputed. We Presbyterians call it generic, for want of a better term. But I would contend there is such a thing as specific worship, in which the assembly comes together for the supreme purpose of glorifying God in a manner which reflects their corporate redemption and consecration. Edification is undoubtedly _a_ goal, but it is not _the_ goal of the gathering. The eschatological assembly of the Apocalypse delineates _the_ goal of the redeemed of the Lord -- proclamation with adoration; and where this element is missing, I am afraid to say all one is left with is a social club, no matter how religious the background theme might be.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Marty, there's always something insightful being brought to one's attention by the Moore teachers. At the same time, I read their works as one who studied in Sydney and had interaction with the Sydney evangelical movement, and know the ecclesial bias with which they teach and write. I don't share that bias. As far as I can see it is custom-fitted to their particular situation as ones who must work in the Anglican institution, but see "church" as something different.



Dear Matthew, thanks for your thoughts on this. Several qualifications if I may. Firstly, there is not a monochrome ecclesiology taught by Sydney evangelicals. The Knox / Robinson ideas have been eclipsed in many ways. During my time at Moore, there were great differences of opinion on the faculty. Secondly, not all who teach at Moore are Anglican. Paul Williamson (OT) is a Baptist, Phil Kern (NT) has a Brethren background, and Barry Webb (OT) goes to the local united church. Hence, it's not all about squeezing ideas into the Anglican denomination. Thirdly, some of the more radical (minority) views on the faculty (concerning sacraments and church) are the ones that tend to take the limelight. But that doesn't mean they're the majority or respected view. For example, in fourth year I defended a high view (Reformed) of the Lord's Supper against Woodhouse's ideas in a theology seminar and all the faculty present agreed with me. Fourthly, David Peterson has just finished from a decade of being principal at Oak Hill College in London, a place where John Owen is lauded by many.



armourbearer said:


> Thankyou for the book recommendation. I found helpful exegetical work in "Possessed by God," and don't doubt I will find the same in this other book also. The idea of "all-of-life-worship" is undisputed. We Presbyterians call it generic, for want of a better term. But I would contend there is such a thing as specific worship, in which the assembly comes together for the supreme purpose of glorifying God in a manner which reflects their corporate redemption and consecration. Edification is undoubtedly _a_ goal, but it is not _the_ goal of the gathering. The eschatological assembly of the Apocalypse delineates _the_ goal of the redeemed of the Lord -- proclamation with adoration; and where this element is missing, I am afraid to say all one is left with is a social club, no matter how religious the background theme might be.



Yes, I can't stand the horizontal only approach to church. David Peterson has a brilliant refutation of such an idea in his work. Edification rightly understood is not horizontal-only at all. It is Christ (in heaven) who does the edifying / building by giving his gifts to the church (Eph. 4:7ff.). I suggest that edification _precisely lies_ in "proclamation with adoration". That's why I think edification is the purpose of the gathering. I'm very hesitant to bypass the explicit statements in the NT concerning this (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24-25), indeed the purpose of spiritual gifts is edification / building (Eph. 4:11ff.).

I love the eschatological pictures of the church in Revelation. But, the care that needs to be taken with these images concerns the inauguration of the new creation. The end has begun but is _not completed_. Hence, Christ builds / edifies his church in the interim. What better way to do this than through "proclamation with adoration"?

By the way, Matthew, you were originally from Sydney? Where did you live? I spent most of my life in Sydney but moved to Perth in 2000. Perth is wonderful, but has a desperate need for the gospel.

Every blessing in your ministry dear brother.


----------



## MW (Sep 24, 2007)

Marty, thanks for the clarification as to the present state of Sydney Anglicanism. Perhaps the old Robinson/Knox "gathered" theory is losing sway. I appreciate your bearing witness for the reformed view. We can only hope such witness will have long lasting effects.

I'll be sure to order the Peterson book and give it a good read. As I said, I always find that school of thought to be exegetically insightful, even though I might not arrive at the same conclusions dogmatically.

I suppose the problem with "edification" is its subjective nature. If, as you say, the edification is itself tested by the rule of proclamation with adoration, then I think we are on the same page. Edification, in that sense, must be the work of the charismata which Christ has given the church, and the charismata must in turn work for the edification of the church. The activities we engage in, then, will be restricted by the "functionaries" Christ has appointed. Where Christ has not appointed a functionary we have no basis for acting or functioning. I would submit that this is simply the regulative principle being applied to church government.

I was born and raised in Sydney (Kogarah, Mortdale), and studied at Presbyterian Theological College. Went to Tasmania where I was licensed and ordained, and from there moved to Rocky to take up a charge here. What about yourself, what part of that great city do you hail from? Blessings!


----------

