# Questions on the argument for the RPW from liberty of conscience



## Confessor (Jul 24, 2011)

One of the arguments for the negative portion of the RPW in corporate worship (that anything not commanded is forbidden) is from individuals' liberty of conscience: an ecclesiastical authority cannot bind the conscience of a congregant to perform a religious action which God's Word does not itself require. In thinking over this argument, I have a couple questions.

1. How exactly is it binding another's conscience to do this? For instance, assuming that exclusive psalmody is implied by the RPW, if an elder were to select a hymn for worship, how exactly would that bind someone's conscience? Is it the mere fact that the congregants are _urged_ to sing? (After all, it's not as if the session has threatened discipline for those who refuse to sing hymns.)

2. Does this argument only cover those elements of worship in which the congregants must participate? For instance, some pastors believe that they ought to hold their hands a certain way in saying the benediction or in offering prayer. If they were to do this some other way in which Scripture did not prescribe (again, assuming that Scripture does prescribe a certain way), then they would not be binding the consciences of congregants. Therefore in this case, the argument for the RPW from liberty of conscience would only be an argument (a) applying to corporate worship, (b) applying to the negative component of the RPW (that whatever not commanded is forbidden), and (c) applying to those elements in which the congregation participates.

Is this accurate?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 24, 2011)

It may be true that Liberty of Conscience is not necessarily as much a factor in the 'worship wars' of our day, as when the church along with the state enforced ceremonies upon established churches by civil and ecclesiastical punishments. However, I have heard on occasion over the years of sessions trying to force hymn singing (to use the example given) on peril of church discipline, and while I hope that is a very rare thing, there are more subtle forms of oppression to conform. So, it is not like it is never going to be an issue just because the state is not handing out civil punishments for nonconformity.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 24, 2011)

Confessor said:


> 1. How exactly is it binding another's conscience to do this? For instance, assuming that exclusive psalmody is implied by the RPW, if an elder were to select a hymn for worship, how exactly would that bind someone's conscience? Is it the mere fact that the congregants are urged to sing? (After all, it's not as if the session has threatened discipline for those who refuse to sing hymns.)


Chapter XX of the WCF:


> II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.



We have to first note that liberty implies that men are free to obey God in His Word. Liberty is not to be understood that the person is free to do whatever he desires. We are enslaved to sin in our fallen condition and the Spirit of God brings liberty by freeing us from the bondage of sin and death to live unto God.

That said, the RPW is summarized by the simple idea that we are to worship God as He has commanded us. It is first a positive notion that requires that we worship God as He has commanded us: prayer, singing, preaching, etc. Negatively, it means that we are not to worship Him in a way He has not commanded us.

When a Church adds an element in worship that God has commanded it has first violated God's command on how He is to be worshiped. In addition to this, there is a sphere sovereingty issue here. By this I mean that God has sovereignty over the consciences of men and not the Church. The Church acts rightly when it proclaims properly what God has commanded concerning worship or any subject. The individual's conscience is being bound to God's Word in such cases. When the Church teaches or commands something contrary to God's Word, however,it has overstepped its authority and does not have the right to bind a man's conscience to its own devices.

Thus, the introduction of a non-Biblical element is a violation of the RPW insofar as it violates God's command on worship. _Collaterally_, the Church is sinning against the individuals in the congregation by using its authority to teach/train men's consciences something which God has not commanded.



Confessor said:


> 2. Does this argument only cover those elements of worship in which the congregants must participate?


No. See above. There is a special privilege in the teaching office of the Church. Men are called to imitate their leaders in obedience to the Word. By doing something that the Lord has not commanded, the leader is held accountable not only for violating God's Word on the matter but by the influence he has on those who are watching and listening. I'm answering this generically and not specifically as to posture of hands for a benediction.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 24, 2011)

We are commanded by God's Word to attend upon the regular times of set corporate (and family) worship.

This means that people are put in a difficult situation by their church if elements are introduced that are additional to what is clearly commanded - e.g. elements such as hymns and music being introduced. 

There is even often debate among those who advocate hymns and music as to which hymns and instrumental accompaniments jive with _their_ consciences.

The situation is very different with e.g. Christian concerts, hymn singing soirees in the house, etc. No-one is obliged by God's Word or by church principles derived from God's Word, to attend these, and they can decide whether or not to attend. 

It is left up to the individual's conscience whether they will have some place for hymns and music in certain contexts. They must judge whether it is right in the light of God's Word what place if any there is for hymns and music in the Christian life.

Another example of context is the missionary slide show. Occasionally the midweek prayer meeting in our denomination is largely taken up by a slideshow by a missionary on furlough. This will be accompanied by a short talk, reading from Scripture, singing of Psalms, prayers and the benediction. 

Here we have a case of informal worship, the slideshow with commentary, accompanying formal worship, the elements of the midweek meeting. In the context it is understood as not overthrowing the RPW.

But if the minister started abandoning preaching and teaching for slideshows at the midweek meeting, and the Sabbath meetings, this would be overturning the RPW.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 24, 2011)

That's a good point about obligatory attendance, Richard, and also how the liberty-of-conscience line of argument would apply to family worship as well as corporate worship.


----------

