# "Mixed modes" of Worship



## panta dokimazete (Mar 3, 2007)

On another thread, Rev. Winzer responded to a line of discussion on Psalmody:



> The point is, good fellow, that you can't read, pray AND sing the Psalms all in one motion, as is clear from the very manner in which you state the case. The Bible clearly distinguishes these actions as modes of worship. The sooner you concede the obvious, the sooner this discussion can proceed apace.



Now - I *think* his point is that the practice of the _modes_ of worship are clearly delineated as a Scriptural mandate, therefore there is no "mixed modes" of worship. No singing of prayers, no reading of songs, etc...

I am interested in understanding the rationale and understanding the Scriptural support for this position.

*
Also:*

Rev. Winzer - my sincerest apologies if I have mis-stated your position and I would also like to apologize and sincerely repent if I have caused you to believe that I hold anything but the deepest respect for you - your contributions to the board are excellent and I have learned much from your responses.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 3, 2007)

My questions, exactly - seeking to understand..


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 20, 2007)

**bump**


----------



## KMK (Mar 20, 2007)

Maybe Calvin can shed some light. (I know Rev Winzer likes Calvin)



> From Calvin's tract of 1544 titled The Necessity of Reforming the Church.
> 
> [T]he rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunction of him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish his authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert his full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. *Justly, too, does he in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke his anger against us.*
> 
> *I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word.* The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie.



Based on this I could hazard a guess that 'acceptable modes of worship' would be: Prayer, Fasting, Singing, The Lord's Supper, Baptism, Oaths and Vows, Days of Thanksgiving, and maybe Dancing depending on your view of the RPW. If I have missed any I am sure someone will let us know.


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2007)

I think the position has been well represented. Right now I am in the mode of typing. I could be putting the same words on paper with a pen, but my mode would have changed from typing to writing. Likewise, one might sing or pray the same words, but they cannot do the same mode of action at the same time. Note what the apostle Paul says, 1 Cor. 14:15. This is not tautology, but an implicitly acknowledged distinction in modes of worship.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 20, 2007)

Rev Winzer,

Lord willing, I'll be coming by the air mode of transportation to Rockhampton for about a week in early June. Everything is falling into place....


----------



## KMK (Mar 20, 2007)

Right now I am listening to Miles Davis improvise in the Dorian mode, but I also enjoy listening to Monk flirt with the Locrian mode with a raised second.


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2007)

Rich, so you don't think you can fly and sail at the same time?  Eagerly looking forward to your visit. Blessings!


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 21, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I think the position has been well represented. Right now I am in the mode of typing. I could be putting the same words on paper with a pen, but my mode would have changed from typing to writing. Likewise, one might sing or pray the same words, but they cannot do the same mode of action at the same time. Note what the apostle Paul says, 1 Cor. 14:15. This is not tautology, but an implicitly acknowledged distinction in modes of worship.






> What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. (1 Cor. 14:15)



I'm not sure howthis verse speaks to your definition of "modes of worship". The passage in question begins with Paul saying, "But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?" (v. 6) The challenge for Paul is that all things be done with understanding and for the edification of the church. I don't think it says anything about whether we should, for example, sing the Psalms or recite the Psalms. 

Do you think the the pastor should not read from the Scriptures while the elements of the Lord's Supper are being distributed since that would be confusing two "modes"?

Regarding the Calvin quote, he appears to use the word "mode" in the way the Westminster Confession uses the parts, "are all *parts* of the ordinary religious worship of God: ..."

Presbyterians distinguish between the _elements_ (modes, parts) of worship and the _circumstances_.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 21, 2007)

My understanding is that there is some implied or implict RPW mandate that the elements of worship may not be "mixed" - that is prayer and song cannot be simultaneous or juxtaposed (in other words - singing a prayer, etc...).

I am interested in understanding this better, as well, since I don't think it is a Scriptural position.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 21, 2007)

I am not sure, but I am hesitant to assert it absolutely does not until Rev. Winzer, or some other proponent of the position, clarifies it.

I think I keep **bumping** it for the wrong time zone...


----------



## MW (Mar 21, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> I'm not sure howthis verse speaks to your definition of "modes of worship". The passage in question begins with Paul saying, "But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?" (v. 6) The challenge for Paul is that all things be done with understanding and for the edification of the church. I don't think it says anything about whether we should, for example, sing the Psalms or recite the Psalms.



I think you have pitched on the "spirit" and "understanding" distinction rather than the one I intended to draw attention to, which is the "pray" and "sing" distinction. Why did the apostle mention both if the two were one and the same? Implicit in the fact that he mentions the two modes of action is the recognition that they are two distinct actions in NT worship.



tcalbrecht said:


> Do you think the the pastor should not read from the Scriptures while the elements of the Lord's Supper are being distributed since that would be confusing two "modes"?



Yes, I think that is possible. What I think would be quite a challenge is to read the Scriptures whilst eating the bread and drinking the wine, and to do both actions in obedience to what Scripure requires of us when we engage in these duties. Consider the Larger Catechism's teaching of how the Word is to be read and heard, as well as what is required of us when we partake of the Lord's supper, and it will be evident that we need to pay attention to one element of worship at a time.


----------



## KMK (Mar 21, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Consider the Larger Catechism's teaching of how the Word is to be read and heard, as well as what is required of us when we partake of the Lord's supper, and it will be evident that we need to pay attention to one element of worship at a time.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 21, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> we need to pay attention to one element of worship at a time



Where is this Scripturally mandated? 

It is reasonably discerned that singing and praying are not mutually exclusive in all instances - one may pray in the midst of partaking of Communion elements - one may pray and read the Word simultaneously. There may indeed be elements that it is impractical to "mix", but it is not disorderly to "mix" the modes.


----------



## MW (Mar 21, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Where is this Scripturally mandated?
> 
> It is reasonably discerned that singing and praying are not mutually exclusive in all instances - one may pray in the midst of partaking of Communion elements - one may pray and read the Word simultaneously. There may indeed be elements that it is impractical to "mix", but it is not disorderly to "mix" the modes.



JD, You keep saying this without stopping to demonstrate it. I have shown over and again where Scripture assumes they are different modes of action, yet you keep asking me to prove it scripturally. All you offer in reply is the bare possibility that they may be performed in one and the same action. Meanwhile, as far as I can see, all you are doing is establishing that you can pray by singing, and sing by praying. In this you are still recognising that singing and praying are distinct modes of action. Stop and think about it for a moment, please. I do not deny that singing should be supplicatory or that praying should be with a heart of praise. All I maintain is that Scripture recognises the mode of action as distinct.


----------



## KMK (Mar 21, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> JD, You keep saying this without stopping to demonstrate it. I have shown over and again where Scripture assumes they are different modes of action, yet you keep asking me to prove it scripturally. All you offer in reply is the bare possibility that they may be performed in one and the same action. Meanwhile, as far as I can see, all you are doing is establishing that you can pray by singing, and sing by praying. In this you are still recognising that singing and praying are distinct modes of action. Stop and think about it for a moment, please. I do not deny that singing should be supplicatory or that praying should be with a heart of praise. All I maintain is that Scripture recognises the mode of action as distinct.



And you certainly cannot sing while partaking of the cup, unless you are a ventriloquist!


----------



## MW (Mar 21, 2007)

KMK said:


> And you certainly cannot sing while partaking of the cup, unless you are a ventriloquist!



 Good one!


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 22, 2007)

KMK said:


> And you certainly cannot sing while partaking of the cup, unless you are a ventriloquist!



I can sing with my spirit and my mind in my heart without making a sound or utilizing my vocal chords, so yes I can sing while partaking of the cup. Just as I can do the same when I pray.

*Psalm 30:12
that my heart may sing to you and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give you thanks forever

Psalm 42:8
By day the LORD directs his love, at night his song is with me— a prayer to the God of my life.*


So - mockery aside - while one may do one or the other without co-mingling the modes - they can be co-mingled, as well.

It is not an _either-or_ - as you seem to propose - it is a *both-and*.


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> I can sing with my spirit and my mind in my heart without making a sound or utilizing my vocal chords, so yes I can sing while partaking of the cup. Just as I can do the same when I pray.



JD, if you pay attention to all that Scripture says about singing, you will discover that you are to teach and admonish one another with your singing, Eph. 5:19. This you cannot do in your mind. This is yet another example of the manner in which Scripture presents singing as a distinct mode of worship with its own regulations, which, if we observed, we would discover it requires all of our powers of concentration.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> JD, if you pay attention to all that Scripture says about singing, you will discover that you are to teach and admonish one another with your singing, Eph. 5:19. This you cannot do in your mind. This is yet another example of the manner in which Scripture presents singing as a distinct mode of worship with its own regulations, which, if we observed, we would discover it requires all of our powers of concentration.



And yet teaching is not exclusively with song?

Just as prayer in worship is not *required* to be spoken.

I can concentrate on a song that is a prayer and give just as much attention to a spoken prayer.

I can sing praises or speak praises with singular concentration.

I am sorry - while I agree with or at least see a reasonable path for many of your positions, this does not track out - I suppose we may have to agree to disagree.


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2007)

So the Scriptures say, Teach and admonish one another in your singing, Eph. 5:19, but JD insists he can sing in his mind and teach using another mode. I choose to follow the Scriptures.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> So the Scriptures say, Teach and admonish one another in your singing, Eph. 5:19, but JD insists he can sing in his mind and teach using another mode. I choose to follow the Scriptures.



please do - as will I when I teach and admonish with both singing *and* speaking:

John 7:17
If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my *teaching* comes from God or whether I *speak* on my own.

1 Corinthians 14:15
So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> please do - as will I when I teach and admonish with both singing *and* speaking:



No doubt teaching should be spoken as well, but if singing is going to be engaged in for the purpose of teaching others, as the Scriptures exhort us to do, it will require us to sing with a voice which can be heard and understood by others. Hence your previous comments about singing inaudibly are found to be inconsistent with the Scriptures.

Also, I sense you are misapplying the 1 Cor. 14 statement about singing with the mind. It does not refer to singing inaudibly, but with the understanding, that is, in an intelligible speech, as the context makes plain.


----------



## KMK (Mar 22, 2007)

As a baptist I think it would be cool to see a pastor try to break bread and baptize at the same time.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 23, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> No doubt teaching should be spoken as well, but if singing is going to be engaged in for the purpose of teaching others, as the Scriptures exhort us to do, it will require us to sing with a voice which can be heard and understood by others. Hence your previous comments about singing inaudibly are found to be inconsistent with the Scriptures.
> 
> Also, I sense you are misapplying the 1 Cor. 14 statement about singing with the mind. It does not refer to singing inaudibly, but with the understanding, that is, in an intelligible speech, as the context makes plain.



So...mute people cannot worship through singing? One would assume they would sing in their mind/heart.



> Psalm 30:12
> that *my heart may sing to you and not be silent*. O LORD my God, I will give you thanks forever





> Ephesians 5:19
> 
> *Speak* to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and *make music in your heart* to the Lord,



Does singing and making music in your heart refer to audible sound?

Also, please note the mixing of "speaking" to one another and "singing" songs.

Again - you attempt to apply a mandate that is not Scriptural.

Once more - it is not a matter of strictly one or another "mode" at any one time. Each may be fully separated - some may be juxtaposed - some may be co-mingled and still be orderly.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 23, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> So the Scriptures say, Teach and admonish one another in your singing, Eph. 5:19, but JD insists he can sing in his mind and teach using another mode. I choose to follow the Scriptures.



Actully, that's not quite what it says:



> ... speaking (lalounteV) to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing (adonteV) and making melody in your heart to the Lord,



The speaking is to one another, the singing is internalized ("in your heart"). The same sort of parallel exists in Col. 3:16.



> Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.



There certainly seems to be an allowance for "mixed modes" in this passage. 

I'm not trying to be disagreeable. All I'm suggesting is that the passages are not as cut and dried as you seem to think.


----------



## KMK (Mar 23, 2007)

This thread has turned into a debate about whether one can sing and or pray in their mind while doing other things. No one is going to argue against that (I don't think). But just because you *can* sing or pray in your mind while doing other things does not prove that that is what the writers of the NT had in mind when they used these words. When I read the word 'sing' in the Bible I understand it to mean 'with the voice out loud'. If the context of the passage *demands* that I understand 'sing' as 'silently to myself in my mind' then so be it. 

Also, just because you have the ability to sing or pray in your mind while doing other things does not in and of itself argue for 'mixed modes of worship'. It simple argues that one has the ability to sing or pray while doing other things. As I have pointed out in previous posts, there are just as many examples of modes that cannot be mixed as well.

In JDLongmire's original post he said this:



> I am interested in understanding the rationale and understanding the Scriptural support for this position.



I think Rev Winzer has done that. He has shown how the Bible speaks of different modes of worship. Just because one has the ability to blend some of them together does not mean that the Bible blends them together.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 23, 2007)

KMK said:


> Just because one has the ability to blend some of them together does not mean that the Bible blends them together.



I disagree and have posted Scripture to support the position.

I do not believe this stricture to be reasonably discerned from Scripture.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 23, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> I disagree and have posted Scripture to support the position.
> 
> I do not believe this stricture to be reasonably discerned from Scripture.



JD,

Do you always use the least didactic and most figurative passages to defend your positions? Just like a passage about a "new song" in Isaiah that comes right after a command for the beaches and mountains to sing praise to God is not meant to be taken didactively regarding the regulations on the mode of singing, other passages like the one you've quoted from the Psalms here don't seem to be very helpful in deciding what singing is.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 23, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> JD,
> 
> Do you always use the least didactic and most figurative passages to defend your positions?



Because there is clearer didactic with the Scriptures I have utilized than those that would support a more legalistic view of the elements' use.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 23, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> JD,
> 
> Do you always use the least didactic and most figurative passages to defend your positions? Just like a passage about a "new song" in Isaiah that comes right after a command for the beaches and mountains to sing praise to God is not meant to be taken didactively regarding the regulations on the mode of singing,



And yet Christ Himself said that the stones would cry out...

I do not believe you are using Scripture to interpret Scripture on the Isaiah passage, but you are certainly welcome to start another thread on that, if you'd like.



> ...other passages like the one you've quoted from the Psalms here don't seem to be very helpful in deciding what singing is.



That's because the mode of singing and the expression of the "modes" in general is not as Scripturally restricted as it being presented.

That is the didactic...


----------



## MW (Mar 23, 2007)

Re. Col. 3:16:



tcalbrecht said:


> There certainly seems to be an allowance for "mixed modes" in this passage.



Sound exegesis requires us to note the use of the participles, and to see singing as the means of carrying out the duty to teach and admonish. Else this verse would not teach the exclusive use of the psalms in praise song but their exclusive use in teaching as well.


----------



## MW (Mar 23, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> So...mute people cannot worship through singing? One would assume they would sing in their mind/heart.



Where there is genuine disability the Lord accepts the action for the willingness of the heart; but this does not excuse those who are able from performing the actions which Scripture requires.



jdlongmire said:


> Does singing and making music in your heart refer to audible sound?



The qualifier, "in your heart," refers to making music, not singing, as is clear from Col. 3:16, where singing is to be carried out "with grace in your hearts to the Lord." The singing must be audible if it is going to be spoken to others and serve the purpose of teaching and admonishing.



jdlongmire said:


> Also, please note the mixing of "speaking" to one another and "singing" songs.



There is no mixing -- the one qualifies the other.



jdlongmire said:


> Again - you attempt to apply a mandate that is not Scriptural.



I think we have established conclusively that your experience is being used to veto the Scriptures.



jdlongmire said:


> Once more - it is not a matter of strictly one or another "mode" at any one time. Each may be fully separated - some may be juxtaposed - some may be co-mingled and still be orderly.



To date, all of your experimental arguments only serve to undermine singing as a distinct element in the worship of God. If you genuinely hold to the RPW, I think you bear the burden of proving that singing as a distinct action is warranted by the Word of God at all. If it is, then I would ask, what rules do the Scriptures set down to govern the practice of singing. At the end of this process, you will be shown to either (a) contradict your confused notions about mixed modes of worship, (b) show that you do not really hold to the RPW. Let's take this seriously.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 23, 2007)

> The qualifier, "in your heart," refers to making music, not singing, as is clear from Col. 3:16, where singing is to be carried out "with grace in your hearts to the Lord." The singing must be audible if it is going to be spoken to others and serve the purpose of teaching and admonishing.



I think it is strange that you are so adamant concerning "mixed modes" yet you confuse and mix the mode of speaking and singing...

Anyway, let's examine the core of your argument through the Scriptures (all NASB) concerning "singing...in your heart":



> Ephesians 5:19
> 
> *(a)*speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, *(b)*singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;
> 
> ...



First - The (a) portion of both verses clearly establishes that psalms, hymns and spiritual songs may be spoken (as well as sung - one may even propose read and signed - why legalistically limit the transmission media? otherwise no *reading* Psalms in worship, either) and used to teach and admonish the brethren with the content of each type.

I will simply refer you to the Psalms as the clearest example of (a) - and trust that I will not have to show where the Psalms are quoted to teach and admonish. Nor elaborate on the transmission media (speech, text, song, etc, by which these types were transmitted).

So, secondly and to the point - the (b) portion of both clearly establishes singing in and with your heart.

what precedence does Scripture establish for the (b) section?

Job 29:13
"The blessing of the one ready to perish came upon me,And I made the widow's *heart sing* for joy.

Psalm 84:2
My soul longed and even yearned for the courts of the LORD; *My heart and my flesh sing* for joy to the living God.

Psalm 108:1
My heart is steadfast, O God;I will sing, *I will sing praises, even with my soul*.

Psalm 30:12
that *my heart may sing* to you and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give you thanks forever.

Now - all this to establish that one may indeed sing in and with their heart as well as audibly.

I'll look at your other points in a bit...


----------



## MW (Mar 23, 2007)

JD, I think it is quite clear from your argumentative replies that you are not interested in simply learning the rationale for distinct modes of worship, as per your OP. If you would like to engage in a debate please feel to open a thread which better represents your intentions, and which avails the opponent of the opportunity to rip your strawy method of interpretation to shreds. Blessings!


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 23, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> JD, I think it is quite clear from your argumentative replies that you are not interested in simply learning the rationale for distinct modes of worship, as per your OP. If you would like to engage in a debate please feel to open a thread which better represents your intentions, and which avails the opponent of the opportunity to rip your strawy method of interpretation to shreds. Blessings!



Rev. Winzer - it's quite clear that this idea of "mixed modes" is an untenable position that has no Scriptural mandate evidenced by your attempt to flippantly dismiss any attempt to dissect your position. You have seemingly utilized ad hominem and supported mockery during our discussion, which has caused me to challenge your assertions very aggressively.

Nevertheless, I do commend you in your other endeavors and pray that you receive Christ's richest blessings in your life.

Please consider this my last post in this unprofitable exchange.


----------



## MW (Mar 23, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Please consider this my last post in this unprofitable exchange.



Please note the rules about unfounded accusations.


----------



## historyb (Mar 23, 2007)

Well,

I haven't posted in a long time and I'm not about to debate. I will tell you there are many people that can mutli-task. Right now I am typing, listening to the television and thinking ahead for me it's not impossible it's needed. Just like one can worship in different modes at once and pray in difference modes at once. 

To say otherwise just sounds like mere legalism In my humble opinion.


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2007)

It seems to be a trend to determine what worship is by one's own abilities, and to impugn any restriction the Scriptures might place upon those abilities as legalism. If that is what the reformed regulative principle of worship must be branded, then so be it, but I do find it incongruent for such a label to find acceptance on a board where the Westminster Confession of Faith is professedly maintained, considering that chapter 21, section 1, explicitly states that God may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or any other way not prescribed in holy Scripture. The same chapter, section 5, teaches that singing of psalms with grace in the heart is a part of the ordinary religious worship of God. The Directory for Public Worship, a primary source for interpreting the intent of the Confession of Faith, classifies the worship of God according to specific actions, calling one action, prayer, another action, reading, another action, preaching, and another action, singing. Under each of these headings the Directory provides specific instructions for the dutiful carrying out of the various parts of worship. This, no doubt, will also be branded legalism. In my honest and humble opinion, it is nothing less than a manifestation of a conscientious desire to understand the will of the Lord and to please Him in all things wherein He has made known His will, especially in the matter of public worship, because great fear is due unto the Lord in the meeting of the saints.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 24, 2007)

Not an essential, not a concern to me, on par with arguing about sabbatarianism and against ethical birth control to me, not worth the fight because salvation and the character of Almighty God are not at stake.


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Not an essential, not a concern to me, on par with arguing about sabbatarianism and against ethical birth control to me, not worth the fight because salvation and the character of Almighty God are not at stake.



Worship exalts the character of Almighty God, Ps. 138:2. Where the corruption of the worship of God is at stake, the character of Almighty God is also at stake.


----------



## historyb (Mar 24, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Not an essential, not a concern to me, on par with arguing about sabbatarianism and against ethical birth control to me, not worth the fight because salvation and the character of Almighty God are not at stake.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 24, 2007)

historyb said:


> Well,
> 
> I haven't posted in a long time and I'm not about to debate. I will tell you there are many people that can mutli-task. Right now I am typing, listening to the television and thinking ahead for me it's not impossible it's needed. Just like one can worship in different modes at once and pray in difference modes at once.
> 
> To say otherwise just sounds like mere legalism In my humble opinion.



If you don't want to debate, why did you even post with your opinion? Does "I'm not about to debate" mean that you just don't want to be called to answer for the fact that you completely disregarded all of the material that has been discussed in the thread so far, made an assertion without any relevant evidence, and then began to call people who take seriously the confessional statements required for Board membership legalists while chirping in "amens" to other similarly unfounded assertions?


----------



## historyb (Mar 24, 2007)

huh?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Worship exalts the character of Almighty God, Ps. 138:2. Where the corruption of the worship of God is at stake, the character of Almighty God is also at stake.


Brother how does the use of hymns, psmalmody, a choir, some instrumentation, scripture reading, litrugy and a sermon together sacrifice the sovereign character of God?

If it causes a minority to lose focus then it should be addressed by the elders and congregation but it just isn't worth too much breath otherwise.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 24, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Brother how does the use of hymns, psmalmody, a choir, some instrumentation, scripture reading, litrugy and a sermon together sacrifice the sovereign character of God?
> 
> If it causes a minority to lose focus then it should be addressed by the elders and congregation but it just isn't worth too much breath otherwise.




_Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron, *"This is what the LORD has said, 'Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.'" And Aaron held his peace.*_


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2007)

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Brother how does the use of hymns, psmalmody, a choir, some instrumentation, scripture reading, litrugy and a sermon together sacrifice the sovereign character of God?



Worship means to bow down. True worship honours the divine name in submission to the divine will. John 4:24, true worship reflects the nature of the One being worshipped. To offer to God what He has not commanded is to exalt the will of man above God's and to teach in effect that personal taste is worth more than His pleasure.



No Longer A Libertine said:


> If it causes a minority to lose focus then it should be addressed by the elders and congregation but it just isn't worth too much breath otherwise.



The Lord is jealous for His worship, Exod. 20:5. The failure of men to expend breath upon Him is the reason why they suffer to the third and fourth generation. Showing oneself indifferent to the cause of the Sovereign of all the earth is effectively an expression of hatred against Him.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Mar 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Worship means to bow down. True worship honours the divine name in submission to the divine will. John 4:24, true worship reflects the nature of the One being worshipped. To offer to God what He has not commanded is to exalt the will of man above God's and to teach in effect that personal taste is worth more than His pleasure.
> 
> 
> 
> The Lord is jealous for His worship, Exod. 20:5. The failure of men to expend breath upon Him is the reason why they suffer to the third and fourth generation. Showing oneself indifferent to the cause of the Soverieng of all the earth is effectively an expression of hatred against Him.


I'm sorry brother but as you've undoubtedly experienced in Queensland when you are starved just to find a gospel preaching church you fight your battles as they come and diplomatically as possible.

Exclusive psalmody and sabbatarianism are not things I worry much about, I count Christ as my rest from all sin even those of omission and ignorance.

That is not a license of apathy but of dealing with the reality of we being sinners turned by grace to saints living in a fallen and perverse world and dealing with the reality of our own unsatisfyingly slow sanctification.

It is Christ I turn to for redemption and obedience and when I cannot fulfill the law (which is pretty much always) I am humbled by having to trust Christ and He alone to fulfill it on my behalf.

That is my view and I will not waver from it at this time.


----------



## MW (Mar 24, 2007)

Friend, I am in full agreement on the part about trusting in Christ as our righteousness, agonising over the slowness of our sanctification, and of being joyful to find sound preaching where it may be had. But where you stop I am compelled to keep going; for I am called to fight for the crown rights of our glorious Redeemer, and the soldier does not get to choose his battles, but must obey the commander in chief. "Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments," Ps. 119:6. Holiness is not a lottery, where you choose the numbers and hope for the best.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 24, 2007)

I said I was done with this thread, but I will place one more comment and a recommendation that this thread be locked after Rev. Winzer replies if he so desires.



armourbearer said:


> But where you stop I am compelled to keep going; for I am called to fight for the crown rights of our glorious Redeemer, and the soldier does not get to choose his battles, but must obey the commander in chief. "Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments," Ps. 119:6.



Yes, but we must be careful not to create commandment where none exist, thus becoming one who would "strain at a gnat" of some invented stricture, thus "swallowing the camel" of legalism just as the Pharisees did in their misguided zeal.

2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Lest we forget - liberty is bounded *freedom* and in the case of Christians, we are bounded by the Holy Spirit and Scripture. Christ's public ministry began by first proclaiming freedom. He then demonstrated the bounds of this freedom with His life and teaching, then prompting the men who would record His actions and significant teachings through the Holy Spirit.

The RPW is a wonderful guiding principle, but we must be careful not to turn it into a heavy yoke. In the areas Scripture is clear - clear adherence is mandated - where it is not so clear - there is liberty.



> Holiness is not a lottery, where you choose the numbers and hope for the best.



Rev. Winzer - I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is given. Holding up or boasting in your zeal for holiness in a manner that maligns your brothers' - which, I confess, it seems to me you have done - particularly in this forum with mostly like-minded brethren, is not very charitable. We should only boast in Christ.

Finally - holiness - as evidentiated most clearly by our Lord and Saviour - is not iterating out every rule that could possibly be implied from Scripture and adhering to it.

Holiness for us is worshipping God in Spirit and truth...and where the Spirit of Lord is there is liberty. Again - Liberty is *freedom* within the boundaries of the Holy Spirit and Scripture. It is *not* in the polar extremes of licentiousness or legalism.

*No-one here is proposing anarchy.* 

We are (at least I am) protesting a stricture that seems to have passed the boundaries of the spirit of the RPW into a more legalistic context than Scripture or the Spirit demands.

Rev. Winzer - I will once more say that I have great respect for you - for your contributions to the PB - particularly your willingness to minister in the place the Lord has placed you. I cannot imagine your daily struggles and lift you up in prayer with thanksgiving for such a servant of the Lord. 

Thank you and Christ's richest blessings on you and your ministry.

-JD


----------



## KMK (Mar 24, 2007)

First of all JD, keep in mind that you asked Rev Winzer specifically to give you reasons for his stance. He has done that repeatedly. He has graciously granted your request. 

Secondly, from your posts it seems apparent that the RPW that you refer to is not the RPW that Rev. Winzer refers to. Perhaps if you stated clearly what you believe the RPW is, you might better understand where Rev Winzer is coming from.

I am pretty sure Rev Winzer is coming from 21:1 of WCF "He may not be worshipped...any other way not prescirbed in the holy scriptures."

This means you would have to find scripture that commends (not just allows) the worship of God by mixing modes of worship.

It is not my intention to put words into Rev Winzer's mouth but just trying to focus the discussion.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 24, 2007)

KMK said:


> First of all JD, keep in mind that you asked Rev Winzer specifically to give you reasons for his stance. He has done that repeatedly. He has graciously granted your request.
> 
> Secondly, from your posts it seems apparent that the RPW that you refer to is not the RPW that Rev. Winzer refers to. Perhaps if you stated clearly what you believe the RPW is, you might better understand where Rev Winzer is coming from.
> 
> ...



It is difficult for me to speak of "my RPW" versus "his RPW", since I agree with the RPW that we may not worship God in any way not prescribed by Him in Scripture.

I think where the difference is the *application* of the RPW.

I try to apply the RPW as it seems Christ taught - proclaiming freedom - the yoke is easy and the burden is light - where the Spirit is there is liberty - worship Him in Spirit and in truth. Not seeking out every conceivable iteration of compliance and rigorously mandating it - that is legalism. 

What God has commanded through Scripture for His worship - so shall it be. 

What Scripture is not clear on - in this instance this "mixing of modes" prohibition - violates liberty and should not be placed as a yoke on the brethren. 

If anything "mixing" should be considered circumstantial and let it go at that.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 24, 2007)

KMK said:


> First of all JD, keep in mind that you asked Rev Winzer specifically to give you reasons for his stance. He has done that repeatedly. He has graciously granted your request.



Just make sure we are all on the same page - this origination of this thread included the Rev. Winzer's quote:



> The sooner you concede the obvious, the sooner this discussion can proceed apace.



This was not just to understand the Rev's position, but also to challenge that statement - that his position was obvious and that I should concede the point.

Obviously, I am unwilling to concede that his position is an obvious RPW directed position.

Blessings, brother.


----------



## KMK (Mar 24, 2007)

JD, first you said this...



jdlongmire said:


> I agree with the RPW that we may not worship God in any way not *prescribed* by Him in Scripture.



The word 'prescribed' means 'ordered' or 'directed'.

Then you said...



jdlongmire said:


> What God has *commanded* through Scripture for His worship - so shall it be.



But then you said...



jdlongmire said:


> What Scripture is not clear on - in this instance this "mixing of modes" prohibition - violates liberty and should not be placed as a yoke on the brethren.



The RPW as the Puritans understood it, states that we are to worship in the church only in the ways specifically commanded in scripture and no other.

Your view is that, yes we are to worship as commanded but in those things where scripture is not clear, it is also allowable to worship.

The Puritan's RPW would require you to find scripture showing that mixing modes is *commanded* or *prescribed*, and if no scripture could be found, then it is not to be so.

I think this is the root of your disagreement.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 24, 2007)

KMK said:


> JD, first you said this...



_Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire

I agree with the RPW that we may not worship God in any way not prescribed by Him in Scripture.
_


KMK said:


> The word 'prescribed' means 'ordered' or 'directed'.



ok - we may not worship Him in any way not ordered or directed.




KMK said:


> The RPW as the Puritans understood it, states that we are to worship in the church only in the ways specifically commanded in scripture and no other.
> 
> Your view is that, yes we are to worship as commanded but in those things where scripture is not clear, it is also allowable to worship.



No - my view is that the "mixed modes" idea is not addressed in Scripture, nor is it part of the RPW - this is also my view of EP as it relates to the RPW, but I am not addressing EP at this time.



> The Puritan's RPW would require you to find scripture showing that mixing modes is *commanded* or *prescribed*, and if no scripture could be found, then it is not to be so.
> 
> I think this is the root of your disagreement.



No - I think the "mixed modes" idea falls, at best, within the circumstantial aspects of worship - unless you are prepared to reject circumstantial aspects. Which I do not believe the Puritans would do. At worst - it is idle speculation and a potential burden to the brethren.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 24, 2007)

I think a key understanding of the RPW is not only to focus on the negative aspects but also on the positive aspects.

That is - not focus soley on the "Thou shalt not", so as to restrict the worship of God in a narrow and legalistic way, but also focus on the requirement that we are to worship God as *completely* as He has commanded through Scripture, as well - heart, soul, mind, strength - and all that is tied to it.

*Regulate* does not mean legalistically *restrict* or *prohibit* - regulation helps to insure we do not abuse the liberty given and allow the freedom we have to be bounded by the Holy Spirit and Scripture. The HS and Scripture *combined* define worshipping in spirit and truth.


----------



## KMK (Mar 24, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> No - my view is that the "mixed modes" idea is not addressed in Scripture, nor is it part of the RPW



I get you, this thread is not even about the RPW in your mind because whether or not someone sings while praying or prays while singing is not addressed in scripture. 

But I think the Westminster Divines looked at it this way: If it is not addressed in scritpure then it *is* a part of the RPW. 




jdlongmire said:


> No - I think the "mixed modes" idea falls, at best, within the circumstantial aspects of worship



I understand that. Circumstances are not regulated. The WCF would agree I think. The disagreement would probably be this: Since details about singing and praying *are* given in scripture then they would not fall into the category of 'circumstantial'. From my limited understanding the Puritans would say that 'circumstances' have to do with those things like what time, what place, what posture etc. This is of course where there is a great deal of disagreement. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 14 that there are to be rules and order concerning corporate worship but he does not deliniate what those rules are.


----------



## KMK (Mar 24, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> I think a key understanding of the RPW is not only to focus on the negative aspects but also on the positive aspects.



If you are saying that the RPW demands that we focus on the commands, prohibitions and silences of scripture equally, then I agree. If you are saying that we should focus on one more than the other then I disagree.

Also, you keep using that word 'legalism'. When I hear that word I understand it to mean that man has imposed works for salvation. No one here is saying that you must worship a certain way in order to be saved.

However, Matt 18 teaches us that when we are in corporate worship that his Spirit is with us in a very special way and the Lord has out of His own good pleasure placed restrictions on how we worship that He has not placed on us in other areas of our life.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 24, 2007)

JD,
One mod's opinion. Frankly, it is easier if folks can simply walk away from a discussion rather than asking the mods to 'save them from themseves,' so to speak. That said, since you started the thread I suppose you can request it be locked in this manner; but I see difficulties if you don't like his last word or it raises other issues, and that puts the moderators in a spot to have to judge Mr. Winzer's post before he can post it. Walking away would certainly be easier on the mods. This mods . Others' miles may vary.
 


jdlongmire said:


> I said I was done with this thread, but I will place one more comment and a recommendation that this thread be locked after Rev. Winzer replies if he so desires.-JD


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 24, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> JD,
> One mod's opinion. Frankly, it is easier if folks can simply walk away from a discussion rather than asking the mods to 'save them from themseves,' so to speak. That said, since you started the thread I suppose you can request it be locked in this manner; but I see difficulties if you don't like his last word or it raises other issues, and that puts the moderators in a spot to have to judge Mr. Winzer's post before he can post it. Walking away would certainly be easier on the mods. This mods . Others' miles may vary.



Thanks - absolutely appreciate your position - I was just concerned that we may get into an unprofitable "tit for tat" and really just wanted to offer an equitable closure to the thread, since it seemed to be getting more argumentative than "debative". 

I personally am not concerned if Rev. Winzer brought up additional questions. I am willing to give him the last word - someone could start another thread if this is truly a merited debate. I believe I probably would sit it out, having understood the position and drawn a reasonable conclusion concerning its merits.

That being said - I believe Ken and I are having a reasonably non-pejorative discussion.


----------



## KMK (Mar 24, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Thanks - absolutely appreciate your position - I was just concerned that we may get into an unprofitable "tit for tat" and really just wanted to offer an equitable closure to the thread, since it seemed to be getting more argumentative than "debative".
> 
> I personally am not concerned if Rev. Winzer brought up additional questions. I am willing to give him the last word - someone could start another thread if this is truly a merited debate. I believe I probably would sit it out, having understood the position and drawn a reasonable conclusion concerning its merits.
> 
> That being said - I believe Ken and I are having a reasonably non-pejorative discussion.



I have been called many things, sir, but never a non-pejorater!

I am not married to this thread either. I was honestly having a hard time understanding what the disagreement was about but now I think I understand. 

I wish I was a moderator and could type in red! But I am  to black and white!


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 24, 2007)

KMK said:


> I have been called many things, sir, but never a non-pejorater!


   



> I wish I was a moderator and could type in red! But I am  to black and white!



You are?


----------



## KMK (Mar 24, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> You are?



 I seeeeee!


----------



## MW (Mar 25, 2007)

I had written:



> "Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments," Ps. 119:6. Holiness is not a lottery, where you choose the numbers and hope for the best.



This met with the following response:



jdlongmire said:


> Rev. Winzer - I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is given. Holding up or boasting in your zeal for holiness in a manner that maligns your brothers' - which, I confess, it seems to me you have done - particularly in this forum with mostly like-minded brethren, is not very charitable. We should only boast in Christ.



Where have I boasted in my zeal for hoiliness or maligned my brother? I quoted Scripture and made a reflection. It seems to me Mr. Longmire is the one who has engaged in malignant comments against my name, and has done so without any justification. This is very unfortunate considering he had already left the discussion.


----------



## larryjf (Jun 8, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> I can sing with my spirit and my mind in my heart without making a sound or utilizing my vocal chords, so yes I can sing while partaking of the cup. Just as I can do the same when I pray.
> 
> *Psalm 30:12
> that my heart may sing to you and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give you thanks forever
> *


*

This verse has come up a couple of times in defense of singing without making a sound, so i feel compelled to point out that the verse says "and not be silent."*


----------

