# "I See the Lord..."



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 26, 2006)

*\"I See the Lord...\"*

I attend an SBC Church in Okinawa. I love the Saints here but attend more because I think I am of use in the hands of the Lord there than because it is where I would "naturally" be as there are no Reformed congregations here.

The "worship team" really sings some awful songs. Today we sang:



> I see the Lord, high and lifted up, seated on the throne of my life.
> 
> Refrain: And He is holy, He is holy, He is holy. Seated on the throne of my life.



Of course it took about 10 minutes because we sang it so many times.

This is fairly typical. Frustrating how a passage as powerful as Isaiah 6 becomes so banal. God's profound holiness is reduced to nothing more than being "...on the throne _of my life._"

It tied in really well with the Sermon where the guest preacher echoed the same idea - make God the Lord of your life and you will be blessed. He spoke of Christian mediocrity and parsed the etymology of the word meidocre to mean "halfway up the mountain." Most Christians are halfway up the mountain, missing their true blessing because they don't have regular quiet time. I felt like asking him afterward: "What does it mean to be at the top of the mountain..." but, as I said, I'm where I'm at for service. I'm working with Saints there to mature them. 

I pray that God will use me over the next few years not to be obnoxious but to help many grow who, to them, the above represents both good "worship" and good preaching.

[Edited on 2-26-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Laura (Feb 26, 2006)

I know how difficult it is to be surrounded with that. God bless you for hanging in there--I pray he will use you.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 26, 2006)

Its hard to hang in there. We couldn't - it was just too much for us. If it had been just the "awful" praise and worship, that would have been one thing. Count yourself blessed that you don't have puppet shows and parades in church.

But as the Lord strengthens you, I'm sure you don't have a whole lot of choices in Okinawa. Be used of him. He'll use your gifts. Remember, though, you can say the right thing int he wrong way or at the wrong time that will squelch your ministry in a moment. Be wise in your "tactics."


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Its hard to hang in there. We couldn't - it was just too much for us. If it had been just the "awful" praise and worship, that would have been one thing. Count yourself blessed that you don't have puppet shows and parades in church.



Or the "Power Team", which not a few SBC "conservatives" defend the use of.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 26, 2006)

I'm pretty sure I saw mention of a Reformed church on Okinawa, but I can't remember where offhand.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 26, 2006)

You've been slimed by Higher Life! Will pray for your ministry to these dear folks! As you've expressed in other threads, there are a lot of starving sheep out there that God is using you to reach with some much-needed food. Even after reading _ The Holiness of God_ by R. C. Sproul I still didn't get it and kept praying for a revelation like Isaiah's that would push me to the next level. I did that for several years! Hang in there indeed!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Count yourself blessed that you don't have puppet shows and parades in church.


Well....no parades at least.  The former are _very_ common during the children's moment.

I'm trying not to be a whiner but last week we had this group called The Covenant Players. They're some sort of drama team that goes all over the world performing little skits that have a Biblical message. They performed during the Sermon - it was the sermon in fact. It was bad enough that they were doing that during what should have been the time for preaching but the _acting was SO bad_. I mean, really, two were a couple that had been doing it for 20 years. The acting reminded me of a bad parody of some 30's movie where people look off in the distance and talk in melodramatic ways. It was really dumb.


> Chris said:
> Or the "Power Team", which not a few SBC "conservatives" defend the use of.


 My friend, "Huge" Summers, has some funny stories about them. "Huge" is not his real name but is called that for good reason. I guess years ago he had the Power Team visit his Church and was helping them set up. He was moving some weights for them and it turned out they were fake - not as heavy as they appeared. He was picking them up and saying: "Hey check this out!" One of the Power Team guys got really bent out of shape.

Also, they haven't formed a Reformed congregation here yet. I decided to join, as I said, to help. There are some really dear Saints here. Again, I don't want to sound like a martyr. I struggled with the decision and it is very frustrating at times but they are the Body of Christ, some of them, and in dire need of spiritual milk. Insofar as I'm equipped to help them then I'm going to do so.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 24, 2006)

Should we really talk about how "dumb" other people's ministries are? I know we're not going to like everything but if someone is serving the Lord the best they can what is it to us?

We are adults who should grow in knowledge; but as for our faith, it should be childlike. There is nothing wrong with a "puppet show" once in a while. Especially when the preacher still preaches his sermon.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Should we really talk about how "dumb" other people's ministries are? I know we're not going to like everything but if someone is serving the Lord the best they can what is it to us?
> 
> We are adults who should grow in knowledge; but as for our faith, it should be childlike. There is nothing wrong with a "puppet show" once in a while. Especially when the preacher still preaches his sermon.


I don't agree. Some "ministries" do not minister the Gospel at all and are worthy of our concern.

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



I agree with you there. But those would probably be cases of the people not really being Christians. If they were, they would include the Gospel. 

But what is wrong with a puppet show that preaches the Gospel? In that case there is nothing to be concerned about. I just think that sometimes people are "concerned" because they just don't like something and not because there is anything wrong with it.

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


Nothing is wrong with a puppet show as long as it's not during corporate worship. In fact, I wrote a great Reformation Day puppet show that describes the life of Martin Luther to kids. It was fun but it was never done in Worship. Puppets don't convert kids and puppets don't preach the Gospel.

Greeks had plays. Greek had all sorts of entertainment. Why don't we see Paul commending the organization of troupes and other "entertainment" groups (perhaps the "Olympians for Christ") who could go out and entertain the crowd and then tie it in with a Gospel message?

The heart of man is no different. Gimmicks don't convert. We're used to them and have sentimental attachments to them but they're foreign to Biblical patterns.

Do we trust that the Word of God is strong to save or not? That is the real question you should ask the puppeteer or thespian who thinks his skill really aids the Gospel. Does the Word that created light by its own authority need to be attended by a puppet show to cause a heart of stone to turn to flesh?

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 24, 2006)

We know Jesus authorized the Word, sacrament, and prayer for worship. I can honestly say I can't find puppet-show authorization in the Bible for use during worship. I'm pretty sure the apostles could have and would have used them, and dramas too, if Jesus had said they were not only OK, but were dynamite for turning hearts to him.

As far as history goes, the introduction of skits and visual aids is nothing new. Back in the day, they were called "images," "icons," and "morality plays," "sermons for the illiterate." Tetzel got some mileage out of that kind of thing, didn't he?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



What would be wrong with a puppet show during corporate worship? As long as the Gospel is shared I don't see what is wrong with it. I never said that puppets converted kids or preached the gospel. The kids doing the puppet show are preaching the gospel and the Holy Spirit does the converting. And He can use a child in the process.

Paul may not have "commended" the use of puppets, etc. but he also did not "condemn" them. Jesus told "stories" to people. Are we too intellectually developed compared to the people of Jesus' time that we can't tell "stories". What is wrong with a five minute puppet show during corporate worship? You got me.

Yes the heart of man is still the same and gimmicks don't convert. I just don't see a puppet show where children are ministering to people as a "gimmick". 

Why do you make it a question of do we trust the Word of God to save? Of course we trust the Word of God to save. Preaching is preaching whether it's done in a puppet show or by a man standing on a stage like a university professor lecturing. 

I believe there are many methods of preaching the Word of God and that children can do it too. I've only been to one church service in my life that had a puppet show and I saw nothing wrong with it. Nothing at all. 

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> We know Jesus authorized the Word, sacrament, and prayer for worship. I can honestly say I can't find puppet-show authorization in the Bible for use during worship. I'm pretty sure the apostles could have and would have used them, and dramas too, if Jesus had said they were not only OK, but were dynamite for turning hearts to him.
> 
> As far as history goes, the introduction of skits and visual aids is nothing new. Back in the day, they were called "images," "icons," and "morality plays," "sermons for the illiterate." Tetzel got some mileage out of that kind of thing, didn't he?



I would agree with you. Jesus authorized the Word, ordinance (I'm a Baptist), and prayer for worship. Any church would have to include those things in each service. However, do we have to be told everything to do or did God give us minds to use? I don't see where the Bible tells us to pass along a basket through the pews to collect money. I don't see where it tells us that communion is sitting in our pews waiting for a thimble sized cup of grape juice and a tiny piece of bread to arrive. It was supposed to be a part of a meal eaten by all that were present and fellowshipping together. I don't see where it tells the preacher to use a microphone and end every sentence with the word "hah". I don't see where it tells us to have a hand bell choir (my church does). I could go on an on but I'll stop here.

I mean no disrespect and hope you don't feel that I have shown you disrespect. I am just trying to make a point. The point being where we don't have to exclude everything because we weren't "told" to do it. Unless we are told "not" to do it I would think we are free to do anything that is decent and in order.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 24, 2006)

Brian,
dear passionate brother. Let me remind you again that you need to slow down a bit. You feel the need to comment on many things, but you need to read more. This site is made up of people who have been brought together by a love of reformed thinking. That is a return to biblcial christianity as expressed by the reformers around the time of 1517. This was a time when the Gospel was re-discovered. 

The Roman Catholic church had syncretized a lot of ritual and gimmicks from other religions. Rather than convert new believers the church thought it easier to absorb the religion of the new believers. This is what is called syncretism. This is why we have Easter (a Roman goodess), Christ-mass with trees and santas, Halloween and all the so called holy days. These were never prescribed by the Bible but had their beginnings in idolatry.

The majority on the board views syncretism as a very bad thing. The Reformation sought to return to biblical standards. You need to learn these things but for many here you are asking them to reinvent the wheel and go over again why we believe what we believe.

Brian, I want you to learn here, this is a great place to learn but do it by asking questions that are no quite so combative. You are going to get frustration fatigue. I sure appreciate your thirst but just take some time to get acquainted with the rudiments of the reformed faith. You will have more fun and learn more that way. Blessings.

Read the story of Nadab and Abihu and tell me if it has application today.

Exodus 10:1 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. 2 And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, "œThis 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.

Doesn't it sound like they were just trying to add a little pizazz to the worship? They were trying to make it better and more interesting. 

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## Herald (Apr 24, 2006)

Rich, is there any way of starting a Reformed church?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Brian,
> dear passionate brother. Let me remind you again that you need to slow down a bit. You feel the need to comment on many things, but you need to read more. This site is made up of people who have been brought together by a love of reformed thinking. That is a return to biblcial christianity as expressed by the reformers around the time of 1517. This was a time when the Gospel was re-discovered.
> 
> ...



Hey Bob, thank you for your advice. I'm not so sure that I completely agree with you though. I mean, this is a message board so I feel it is ok to comment on things. I'm sorry if my questions seemed combative but they weren't intended that way. I was trying to make a point and I was a bit frustrated. However, nobody has answered the questions yet so that is interesting.

As for reformed thought, well you guys are experienced at it so I ask questions. I come from a Baptist church that is reformed only in the sense that it is Calvinist so I'm not going to know as much as many of you. Our church doesn't have a problem with Christmas, Easter, etc. and it is odd to me to find that there are Christians who don't celebrate them. But that's another topic.

Regarding Nadab and Abihu, that involved ceremonial law ordinances that they broke didn't it? We are under no law in regards to worship except to worship the Lord in spirit and in truth and to do all things decently and in order. I do not advocate lawlessness but it appears that some advocate bondage to the law when we are not under it. Thanks again for your post. I hope to learn a lot here but I'm sure people can learn something from me as well.


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 24, 2006)

"We are under no law in regards to worship except to worship the Lord in spirit and in truth and to do all things decently and in order."

You are absolutely right when you say this Brian, however, it is similar to saying, "All you have to do is believe in Jesus." There is an awful lot represented by that little word 'believe'. You would need to look at that word in the context of scripture, consult some commentaries written by those who have wrestled with scripture before you. See how other confessions and creeds use the word.

We do the same with worship. You have rightly said that we ought to seek decency and order. We ask, what does that mean? We also seek a purity and though we don't agree on how that is best defined we are all committed to seeking a retrospective, (how did our forefathers do it), an introspective (what are my own responsibilites in worship, public and private), and a perspective, (a true understanding of the relative importance of worship to scripture to the church.)

This creates a lot of room for discussion, debate and discovery, wouldn't you agree? If you take the time to read through the Baptist Confession of 1689 or a directory of worhip with scripture references you can learn a lot about the attitude toward worship that has you a bit frustrated here. I have been there Brian. Be patient with yourself, you can't learn it all overnight.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 24, 2006)

Hi Brian,
Feel free to comment or ask questions however you like.

You are new here, and I think that sometimes we types from a different background want to give an answer that doesn't turn the firehose on. That's one reason for suggesting further reading. It allows you to read material from a perspective that, clearly, you have not encountered much in the past, but which is the preponderant view of those who are resident on this board. You get a little "perspective" that way, and it even helps you formulate additional questions or comments better.

Another way of advancing the discussion is by asking return questions. They are put forth in order to stimulate thinking. 

Just asking "well what's wrong with a puppet show in worship" could be like waving a red flag in front of the bull for some. The answer to that is more than just a "that's not our tradition." The basic answer has been put out there a couple times: its not commanded, therefore its not allowed. But that statement itself has a wealth of biblical support that begins with the basic reformed approach to biblical interpretation. In other words, it is a _conclusion_ of a whole study of the doctrine of worship, which is then applied to questions about worship old and new.

Here are some questions:
1) Who determines what is acceptable in worship? Does man decide, or God?

2) What if you had a right to ask for and expect whatever dessert you wanted for your birthday? If you asked your mother for a choclate cake for your birthday, and instead she gave you a vegetable pot pie, because she felt like making that, and you should just appreciate it because she's your mom, how would you feel about that? Disappointed? Just because you didn't get what you asked for? Aren't you being selfish? 

3) If something is commanded for worship, is it OK if we ignore it? Or may we substitute something else _not commanded_ and take time (away from the time available for doing what is commanded) for that?

4) If something is not forbidden for worship, is it allowed? Why do you think so?

5) Is "preaching the Word" a plastic or elastic term, that can be applied to just about anything? Why do you think so? What is the definition? What are the limitations?

6) If God attaches his promise of regular blessing to certain means (as revealed in his Word), should we have any reasonable or regular expectation that he will attach his blessings to other means? I'm not asking if he can bless; I'm asking if we should expect a blessing. I'll put it another way: We have an average of 70-80 years of life on earth. God says "do this, and I'll bless it." Should we spend 75% of our time doing other things to see if God will bless them, or how much, or how often? Or maybe only 50% of the time? Or maybe 10%?

7) Worship is just about the only thing that will carry over from this life to the next without skipping a beat. How important then is worship, or getting worship right, to our well-being? If worship is the most important thing in the universe--if our chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever--shouldn't we expect that God has explained himself most clearly on the subject?


These are just a few questions worthy of your consideration. As for the law regarding worship, the issue is far more fundamental than any OT ceremonial rites. The Mosaic form of worship is simply an expression of the fact that God says (in that passage about Nadab & Abihu, Leviticus 10) "I will be sanctified by all those who come near me, and I will be glorifed before all the people."

The error of Nadab and Abihu was not in mishandling a censer, or breaking an ordinance, but in "offering strange (or profane, or unauthorized) fire." God had not said anything about what fire they should or shouldn't use. All he had done was light off the sacrificial fire upon the altar of burnt offering with fire from heaven of his own making (Lev. 9:24). Nadab and Abihu struck their own match to the holy incense and took it into the Tabernacle to burn upon the altar of incense, instead of taking a coal from the divine fire. And for this they were devoured by Holy Flame.

We are told, in effect, they should have reasoned differently, but they did not ponder the matter with enough seriousness. Neither did they inquire of the Lord as to what they should do, if they did not have the ability to figure it out on their own.

Yes, we must worship in Spirit and in Truth. There really is no change in this fundamental reality between the Testaments. "God is Spirit, and they that worship him..." is not a NT fact revealed by Christ, but is basic to all true worship. We know (or should know) how to worship in Spirit. As for worshipping in Truth, how do we know the Truth? "Sanctify them by your truth. Thy WORD is truth." Worshipping in Truth, then, is nothing less than taking all our directions in worship from the Word of God.


Offered in the interest of further dialog....
Blessings,


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 24, 2006)

Thank you Pastor Bruce for that response and your questions form of wonderful reference to keep close at hand.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 24, 2006)

Brian,

Confessional Reformed theology (which, in this case, includes Baptists) holds to what as become known as the "regulative principle of worship." This doctrine states that whatever ordinances or elements of worship which are to be performed by us must rest upon divine appointment. All elements of worship require God's appointment (either by explicit precept or an approved example) for them to be valid; if an element of worship is not appointed, then it is extraneous and is contrary to God's command to worship Him only as He has commanded. This means that there are no "optional" elements of worship: If it is commanded, it must be done, or else we sin by omission. If it is not commanded, it is not to be done, or else we sin by commission.

Put more simply, "Whatever is not commanded in worship is forbidden."

This doctrine is not simply some expendible article of the Reformed confessions; it is a natural outgrowth of several elements of Reformed theology, which explains why Reformed churches have always held to this article. It also rests upon the clear, plain exposition of many texts of Scripture, both Old and New Testament (Lev. 10:1-2; Jer. 7:31; Mark 7:7; Col. 2:23, etc., etc.). This doctrine has been discussed several times on the Puritanboard already; I recommend that you look back through some of the older threads in the Worship section to see some good treatments of the subject.

This is the guiding principle of many (most) on the Board, and the guiding principle behind the remarks you are encountering in this discussion. Until this is addressed, you can go round and round on puppet shows all day; but if it is agreed that God Himself appoints His own worship, without leaving it up to man's wisdom to fill in the supposed gaps, the puppet question gets answered rather quickly.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> "We are under no law in regards to worship except to worship the Lord in spirit and in truth and to do all things decently and in order."
> 
> You are absolutely right when you say this Brian, however, it is similar to saying, "All you have to do is believe in Jesus." There is an awful lot represented by that little word 'believe'. You would need to look at that word in the context of scripture, consult some commentaries written by those who have wrestled with scripture before you. See how other confessions and creeds use the word.
> ...


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Hi Brian,
> Feel free to comment or ask questions however you like.
> 
> ...



Hey Bruce, thanks for taking the time to post to me. You have given me much to think about and I appreciate that. I will do my best to do your questions justice and answer them well.

You said, "The basic answer has been put out there a couple times: its not commanded, therefore its not allowed." I want to honour God but I believe the opposite (until I study deeper and look into the references you gave me). I believe that if it's not prohibited, it is allowed as long as it is done decently and in order. For instance, the communion example. The Bible doesn't tell us in which way to take it, sitting in the pews or lining up at the front. Both are ok as long as they are done decently and in order.

I'll try to answer all your questions sufficiently.

1) Who determines what is acceptable in worship? Does man decide, or God? *God decides of course. But He has given us minds to follow His command to do everything decently and in order. If something is not prohibited, then because of that, I believe that it is acceptable to God. If it wasn't, He would have said so. So we are obviously coming from different perspectives. You believe if something is not commanded, it is not allowed; while I believe if something is not prohibited, it is allowed. I am open to discussing this and changing my view if I am persuaded that I am wrong.*

I'm not sure I understand your second question. It is coming across to me like you're saying God is selfish. I know that's not the case so could you clarify that one please?

3) If something is commanded for worship, is it OK if we ignore it? Or may we substitute something else _not commanded_ and take time (away from the time available for doing what is commanded) for that? *No, it is not ok if we ignore it. I am not against obeying what we are told to do. I just believe that we are free to do what we aren't prohibited from doing as well.*

4) If something is not forbidden for worship, is it allowed? Why do you think so? * I believe so, because God gave us minds to follow His guideline...that being that we do everything decently and in order; and whatever we do, we do to the glory of God.*

5) Is "preaching the Word" a plastic or elastic term, that can be applied to just about anything? Why do you think so? What is the definition? What are the limitations? *I believe preaching the Word is what someone does any time they share the Word, speak it, write it, etc. Preaching is proclaiming the truth and you can do that in various forms; that being speaking, writing, etc. I believe this because we are all supposed to preach the Word, ordained ministers and non-ordained "ministers". Everyone is to preach the Word. * 

*Regarding number 6, I think God will just bless whenever He will bless. His blessings fall upon the just and the unjust. Nothing we do will add His blessings and nothing we don't do will keep Him from blessing us. I may be wrong, but that is what I believe. God does what He will. We should always be doing what God wants. * 

7) Worship is just about the only thing that will carry over from this life to the next without skipping a beat. How important then is worship, or getting worship right, to our well-being? If worship is the most important thing in the universe--if our chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever--shouldn't we expect that God has explained himself most clearly on the subject? *I believe so. God has explained Himself most clearly on the subject. He told us what to do and what not to do. Anything else that is not prohibited, we are free to do or else He would have told us not to do it. This falls under glorifying God in all that we do, or doing everything decently and in order.*

I hope I answered your questions fairly well. I am open to further dialogue as well.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> Brian,
> 
> Confessional Reformed theology (which, in this case, includes Baptists) holds to what as become known as the "regulative principle of worship." This doctrine states that whatever ordinances or elements of worship which are to be performed by us must rest upon divine appointment. All elements of worship require God's appointment (either by explicit precept or an approved example) for them to be valid; if an element of worship is not appointed, then it is extraneous and is contrary to God's command to worship Him only as He has commanded. This means that there are no "optional" elements of worship: If it is commanded, it must be done, or else we sin by omission. If it is not commanded, it is not to be done, or else we sin by commission.
> ...



Hey Sean (my brother's name is Sean too), thanks for your post.

You said, "This means that there are no "optional" elements of worship: If it is commanded, it must be done, or else we sin by omission. If it is not commanded, it is not to be done, or else we sin by commission." 

I would say, maybe, just maybe, the Confession could be wrong. Scripture is the final authority and though I accept certain creeds and statements of faith, they ultimately must bow down to Scripture. I have to find in the Bible myself where it says that "If it is commanded, it must be done, or else we sin by ommission." And where it says that "If it is not commanded, it is not to be done, or else we sin by commission." One must use Scripture alone and not a creed when determining what is sin and what is not sin.

Yes, God appoints His own worship but He doesn't forbid children from doing a puppet play to teach a point to other children or even, adults. Jesus told stories (parables) and I see puppet plays used to teach children and even adults as just another way to tell stories.

Thank you for the Scripture references and the tip to check various other threads on worship. I enjoy discussing theology and appreciate the respectful back and forth. You don't always find that in the Church.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 24, 2006)

Brian,
Just a note of addition, not directly related to any of your responses, but going back to earlier posts, We differentiate between "circumstances"--things that vary from place to place (like sitting in pews for communion, or sitting around a table--which is practiced in some presbyterian churches, BTW), and "elements"--specific to the content of worship. Worship at 10:00am or 12:00noon is a choice, lights or fans for comfort or for assisting in doing what we should are circumstances. Some of the issues you raise in your posts above would not really be issues we would make objections to. Because they are of a different order.

But a glass of coke and an oreo cookie instead of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper takes the integrity of the sacrament/ordinance and undoes it. The content of the Lord's Supper is itself a medium of instruction, and if we mess around with that, we are substituting the Supper prepared and shared by Jesus unto us, with a meal of our own making.

The bottom line is: we start with determining what God expects from us, and with that limited list in hand, we also determine as much as possible everything Scripture has to say about the content of those items. Those, then, are the elements of worship. Circumstances (which in the nature of the case are varied) are the implementation of the elements. Before justifying drama in worship by appealing to "circumstance", one needs first to explain what element of worship is being executed; and then second, ask whether the definition (integrity) of that element is in any way compromised by the manner put forward for its performance.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 24, 2006)

Brian,
Based on your definiton of permissible worship: that we do what we ought, we avoid what we ought, and if it isn't disallowed its OK (as long as it's decent and orderly) because God would have disallowed it if he didn't want it--

1) Define "decently" and "orderly", and not just generally but specifically in regard to worship. We have to have common, blanket defintions for these terms before we start applying them, otherwise anything you like can be defined as "orderly," anything you don't approve as "indecent", etc.

2) Why were Nadab & Abihu slain? Obviously what they did was not pleasing, God didn't want that service done in that manner, but God had NOT disallowed what they did. Nadab & Abihu were acting according to your definition. God didn't say, "light all the rest of the fires with a coal from the fire I began." So, why wasn't lighting a match OK? It hadn't been forbidden. They had to light the incense somehow. If you say it wan't "decent or orderly" I want to know how exactly it failed the defintion. It won't do do say, "Well God didn't like it, therefore it was disorderly, _somehow,"_ because that begs the original question. We need a defintion ahead of time that will explain the passages we find--this one or any others.

3) Can we have s#x in worship? Why not? Is it indecent? Says who? S#x isn't indecent in and of itself. Heb. 13:4 places it in highest honor, and only condemns unlawful relations. Married persons have relations to the glory of God. So why not celebrate worship with it? Where is it forbidden? We can put up little privacy tents (decently) in rows (orderly) all over the sanctuary. And the single persons can stand all around the perimeter like sentinels and sing Psalm 128. What a great affirmation of the God-given conjugal relation!

My purpose in this suggestion (beside clearly disparaging the behavior) is to point out that we can come up with all kinds of behaviors that God hasn't "forbidden", indeed that he praises, but which are 1) not fitting for worship, according to our rule, and 2) not allowed, according to our rule.

And please do not make the mistake of assuming this is just an extreme, unrealistic example. We need a rule that can be consistently applied to this as well as other, less (or more) egregious behavior. And you might check out church history to see just how not-unheardof my example is.

We can't just say, "I don't like that, must be wrong," or we'll end up saying, "Not OK for me, but to each his own." This is the end result of merely saying, *God gave us minds to follow his* (fuzzy?) *guidelines of decently and in order, and to glorify God.* If good intentions are all that's necessary, why was Cain's offering rejected (Gen 4:5ff)? What is wrong with a Roman worship service? How do you object to practices that "seem inconsistent" with general biblical ideas to you, but you can't find a prohibition or you can't nail down what's wrong? Are you morally obliged to join in? This is God's worship, after all; it's not morally optional.


Preaching is not a term applicable to just any Christian expression, be it gospel or theology, book or speech or song. Preaching is a good biblical word, and it has a clear biblical meaning.

To preach is to herald. Heralding is a specific function of a herald. A herald is an office. The herald was an ambassador of the king or emperor. He was the mouthpiece, and what he said was the voice of the ruler. It was to be obeyed or punishment followed. Not any old guy could be a herald. You had to be appointed. You had to have been entrusted with a message. You had to be accredited. Christian Preaching is the verbal, authoritative message of God in Christ, proclaimed in his name, by his accredited servant, to his designated recipients. This is the NT defintion of preaching.

When I say that God promises to bless preaching, I mean that is what the Word of God says. "Faith comes by hearing (not seeing!), and hearing by the Word (verbal) of God." "And how shall they hear (!) without a preacher." If drama was even useful, why didn't Paul use it? The Greco-Roman world was full of drama, the people were used to it. But, instead of such worldly wisdom, God said he would use the "foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." He didn't say preaching would only become foolish to 21st century listeners--he said preaching was "foolish" to 1st century listeners, and it was precisely because it was foolish in the eyes of men that he was going to use it to save people.

Now, if God says "use this foolish preaching to reach men's hearts; I'm going to bless it," why should we try to 'improve' on his design? Because people today don't want to hear preaching? They didn't want to hear it in Paul's day! If you say, "but I've seen the power of puppet shows," I can say, "I've seen the tragedy of puppet-shows," and we are back to square one. Its your word against mine. But if we appeal to Scripture, it doesn't matter if I say "Preaching works!" and someone else says, "preaching stinks!" The Bible says, "God works by preaching; it has his promised blessing." And we can trust God to stand by his Word, and fulfil it, and exceed our wildest imaginations.



One last point, the place where you couldn't understand my question--no I'm not saying God is selfish. God is the Sovereign. He gets what he wants. He makes no selfish demands; when he glorifies himself, its because there is no one higher, no other place for him to direct his glory.

So when he says he wants *X* for worship, who are we to say: "well I think you'll like this just as much"? Does God have to spell out 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 things he _doesn't want_ from us for worship? There are practically an infinite number of things he could say that about. Do you have to tell your mom all the stuff you don't want for gifts? How long would that list have to be? You tell her what you do want, right? That way, you expect something that you will appreciate. If she "goes off list," you may not like it, right? God knows what you want before you ask him. Do you know what God wants without him telling you? We don't know anything of God's heart apart from revelation. We are saved, but we're still sinners. What is it about our sin-tainted efforts that we think will please God, if he has not attached a promise of his sanctifying blessing to it through his Son? If he will accept some things, and not others (even if we think they're all decent and in order), why will we risk his (fatherly) displeasure?


More food for thought...
Blessings

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

"But a glass of coke and an oreo cookie instead of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper takes the integrity of the sacrament/ordinance and undoes it. The content of the Lord's Supper is itself a medium of instruction, and if we mess around with that, we are substituting the Supper prepared and shared by Jesus unto us, with a meal of our own making."

I totally agree. I don't know what gave the impression that I would not agree with you on that but I do. If it was because I talked about communion being "part" of a meal eaten together by believers then I apologize for giving that impression. When I meant "part" of a meal though, that is what I meant. They gathered together and shared a meal and then partook of the bread and wine. So I totally agree with you there. Now, what do you make of churches who use a cracker and grape juice? Or grape juice and actual bread? Or should that be an entirely different thread?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Brian,
> Based on your definiton of permissible worship: that we do what we ought, we avoid what we ought, and if it isn't disallowed its OK (as long as it's decent and orderly) because God would have disallowed it if he didn't want it--
> 
> ...



Well, I had just done a whole bunch of work to answer your first point and went to bold it, and most of it disappeared. I will have to start over again but it may take some time.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...



God bless you too.

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 25, 2006)

Hi Brian,
Thanks for the good word. Really. I appreciate it.

I hope you really don't feel _I'm_ being combatitive, or insincere in my manner. For what it's worth although someone else did, I never called into dispute either you questions themselves, or your manner. At the top of one of my other posts I wrote what I'll repeat: Feel free to comment or ask questions however you like. I'm direct in my comments, but I hope never obnoxious. Please tell me if you feel I'm ever talking down at you, even in disagreement.

Regarding some of your responses:
The reason I want you to define the language "decently and in order" for me, is 1) because if you become a pastor, or even a teacher, you will need to nail down an agreed upon meaning for the terms you use so that your listeners will not think "abc" when you mean "xyz"; and 2) although I too want things done decently and in order, its clear that if we don't agree on how to apply those words, I might apply them to something that you think is not decent or orderly.

So, while I don't really think simply one dictionary defintion of "decently" is especially helpful (because it says nothing explicit about worship), I can start by assuming that you are satisfied for the time being by replacing the word "decently" with " in conformity to recognized standards of propriety or morality." I would say that "orderly" also needs its own defintion. Paul didn't use two words where he could have used one.

Now, where do these "standards" come from? How do we "recognize" them? If they are "recognizable," are they consistent from place to place? Can we agree on them from Ontario to Ohio? How about from Africa to Mexico? If you happen upon an undefined assembly in Uganda, should you be able to immediately recognize the gathering as worship, whether they have a building (with or without a cross on it) or not?

Who defines the bounds of propriety? I'll assume that by "morality" we are agreed that the Bible _alone_ gives us the standards of right and wrong. Are we obliged to also derive our standard of propriety from the Bible alone? Should Paul (if he were alive) be able to walk into any worship, world over, and recognize the propriety of it, be comfortable and at ease in it? I think so, because we have one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. And worship is essentially an act of heaven (I am simplifying) intersecting with earth. This is Spiritual worship.

Does it even make sense (?) that you might NOT be able to go to a church in Papua New Guinea, and with the exception of needing a translator (see 1 Cor. 14:5) feel at home in worship? But if everything in church is just "culturally relative" then if you feel awkward and humiliated, that's your problem? "Nothing wrong with what we're doing!" This is the recipie for Babel, not the Kingdom of God.

I happen to believe musical accompaniment *(instruments)* is not inherently objectionable in worship according to the Scriptures, which shows there is some intramural disagreement on this score, even among those on the board who are likeminded regarding the basic law of worship. But how do you respond to someone who challenges every one of your "alowable" or "objectionable" items, especially the latter. He turns around and says for example, "That's not a 'butt-slap', that was just our cultural "hello". We think shaking hands is pretty disgusting"?

Swinging from the ceiling? Sounds like a stage show. "There's nothing disorderly about that! Do you know how much choreography goes into that? We have 20 floor managers (worship leaders), 6 deacons who are Paramedic qualified and drilled like Delta Force, and a closed circuit radio-network in our facility like the Secret Service. Our operations are mapped out like a football playbook." Sounds orderly and organized to me!

So much for subjectivity. We need more than "this behavior fits my recognized standards; that behavior doesn't." 

Re: Nadab & Abihu. 
"Maybe it was ..." Stop right there. This isn't a response to what I wrote, it is a_dismissal_ of what I wrote, and a hasty generalized one at that. If you think that this incident is "OT, therefore irrelevant," then say so. Would you say the same thing about everything before the book of Matthew? If not, what consistent rule do you use to determine what is and what isn't relevant.

If you "don't know if it's relevant," then study the matter, or at least offer what you think is wrong with the analysis I offered. But please don't opine about "maybe" as if that off-the-cuff suggestion had as much merit as my exegetical labors. Even if they were a waste of energy, and nonsensical conclusions, at least I was dealing with the text of Scripture. When God speaks, we need to figure out what it means and why or in what manner it's relevant to us.

"Why did God command stoning..." is a question about civil polity, not about worship. The irony is that some people even think that such civil questions aren't even debatable, and that they should be implemented (in fact, if not in manner). *I'm not even interested in that aspect of debate.* That we don't worship in the outward manner of the OT rites is explained _in detail_ in the NT book of Hebrews. But it is still the same God we worship, not some alternate deity.

Perhaps you could have appealed to a _ceremonial_ command instead, and asked what is the difference between a command (e.g. Ex. 30:34-38) and what I'm proposing about a trancendent law of worship behind all the outward display in every age.

Brace yourself for a strong criticism here: saying "decently and in order didn't apply back then, they weren't the church," shows that you really never got your definiton of "decently and in order" out of the Bible, but is mostly an importation of your own idea of the concept to the Bible. That's just a fact. Heb. 8:5 is a quote of Ex. 25:40, and that passage proves beyond any question that doing things decently and in the order that God prescribed was unquestionalby a vital aspect of OT religion, and is the _biblical background_ to the NT concept as Paul expresses it in 1 Cor. 14:40.

As for Israel not being designated a church, while the NT does call them a church (Acts 7:38), this line of discussion is not directly relevant, so I pass over it.

Re. my outrageous example of church allowance (which was and is totally indefensible)
You ask _me,_ "why not?"
(I know you just want to hear my answer, you aren't advocating this behavior)
According to our rule, that behavior is not an element of worship, God doesn't authorize it, therefore we can't sanctify it by figuring out a way to include it in worship.

But you just say "its supposed to be done in private, therefore not in corporate worship." I don't disagree with the sentiment, but may I have a Scripture reference, please? Why doesn't the "privacy tent" I suggested (tongue-in-cheek) work to meet this criteria? You offer that God "isn't our focus" during s#x. Shouldn't he be? 1 Cor. 10:31.


> But when a man has his rule under the direction of the Holy Spirit would He do something that God would not approve of? I believe that God gave us minds to reason with and when you are submitted to God, you will think the way He does.


Is everyone in the process of whatever he calls "worship" definitely and clearly under the direction of the H.S.? Plainly this is false, for even Christians frequently think they are doing well when they are sinning. So how do you know if you are following the H.S. and not the imaginations of your heart? How do you know if your mind is in fact submitted to God? How do we compare what your thinking with what I'm thinking? Which of us--one thinking "A", the other "anti-A"--has the mind of Christ on the matter? God isn't schizoid in mind, so we both can't be having the mind of God on the same issue if we are opposite. Is my rule of worship wrong then? Could your's be wrong?

Don't forget to differentiate between manners of doing the same thing, and doing different things but calling them the same thing. The first is circumstancal, the second is substitutionary. But for the most part, none of the questions I offered to stimulate you to think critically about your current doctrine or practice or seems to have done its job. Ho hum. Here's one of the same questions again: How do you propose to criticize Roman worship? What do they skip that's commanded? What do they include that's not allowed? What about all the other things they do that are neither commanded nor forbidden? That church sure is decent and orderly!

Re. preaching
I can "agree to disagree" on the definition as soon as you defend your view with reference to Scripture. My definition is based on Scriptural use of the term, so if yours is different (but Scriptural) I need your information in order to check mine, maybe fix it.

What _precisely_ does the Bible say we are all--old, young, officer, pew-warmer, male, female--supposed to do? I agree that everyone has a general responsibility to be a faithful witness to God's truth, but how do you define "preacher" and "preaching", according to the biblical use? Do you have some examples of non-officers preaching?

If preaching is a specific _something_ according to the Bible, and its supposed to be a part of worship, then we need to stick to whatever the Bible calls preaching. If you think that a general witness is supposed to be a part of worship (like perhaps "testimony time"), just defend that from Scripture. It doesn't help when you decide ahead of time that dozens of different things can be "preaching" and then justify them by including them in the definition of preaching, whenever you find the term in the Bible.

If everyone in the church is a "preacher" then (remember, I disagree with your premise) anyone can get up in the pulpit and preach. You are absolutely correct. This would include women. And children. And therefore, if ANY says "God gave me a message to preach," you are obliged to sit in obedient attention. Listening to the herald give GOD's message is your moral duty. When God speaks via his messenger, everyone else shuts up and listens. The church leadership doesn't really have a choice either, whether to let this one speak or not, as long as he or she is a member. Every one of them is a member and a preacher. The church is obligated to make space and time for them. If you say, "women are forbidden to preach," (true) what has happened to your definition of preacher, and of what is allowable in worship?

Now maybe this isn't what you see at your church, in which case I'm glad. But I assure you that where the doctrine you are espousing is consistently held, this is exactly what you find. The mixed up Corinthians had this problem too. Lots of chiefs, few indians, 1 Cor. 15:26.


You are not willing to establish a "preaching" definition solely by the biblical data, so pretty much anything goes, as far as what you will allow. On the other hand, I find from beginning to end in the Bible a sharp contrast established between what we "hear" and what we "see". Seeing is always subordinated to hearing in God's economy, and all kinds of restrictions established around it.

Idol worship is the reverse of Biblical worship. It is dominated by sights and smells. Biblical religion is about the Word. The Israelites were to visit the Temple on occasion; they were to eat, breathe, and sleep in the atmosphere of the Law. They were to "listen" to the prophets and priests who lived and walked among them in their towns and villiages teaching them God's Word.

Jesus was the living *Word*. And that Word was put into writing once for all time. "That which we have seen *and heard* (!), and our hands have handled, *declare* we unto you." So the apostles _to a man_ practiced a ministry of declaration. Not a single example do we find of some other "mode" of declaration beside verbal. In fact, to "declare" differently from verbally really involves re-interpreting the word "declare" in a metaphorical sense.

But again, it doesn't seem to matter how often the Bible uses the language of WORDS, Brian, you keep saying that "word" language can actually be all kinds of "non-word" things. Because you have a pre-disposition to allow for that. If it's in your mind, it must be the mind of Christ, and therefore, it must be OK. But the apostle John begs his Christian followers, "little children, keep yourselves from idols." We always have to work at pulling down idols in our thinking.

Understand what I'm NOT saying: I'm not saying that all puppet shows are bad, or that drama never has anything good to convey. Dance has its place, as does cooking, and pottery, and s#x. But NONE of these things are preaching (despite your protests), and they are not all equally valuable as means of spreading the gospel, and NONE of them are permissible in the context of gathering for worship.


Some concluding thoughts:
According to the only biblical testimony presented so far, drama is not only not preaching, it is categorically different, it is essentially visual, and thus is even opposed to verbal preaching on some level, even if not diametrically opposed.

Before I can capitulate to your rationale justifying drama, or anything else, I need something from the Bible to hold on to. "Jesus used parables." I use illustrations in my sermons. How do you get from parables (verbal stories) to stories with puppets, mimes, or actors?

You suppose that Paul didn't use drama because he wasn't an actor. Of course he also may not have used it because it was not "decent." Which is it? What does the "silence" tell us? I am less interested in whether he might have used drama under certain conditions (I reckon not) as I am whether he permitted it in worship. There is not a remote ghost of its sanction for worship in the ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT.

And then you still need to prove that Paul _might_ have used drama if he had been so inclined. He said, 'I have become ALL things to ALL men, so that I might by ALL means save SOME." So where did this ambassador of Jesus Christ reduce his message to a play, or a picture? So if drama were the job of a minister, surely we could find at least ONE example of ONE apostle, or preacher using it in the NT, or commending it.

Comparing "standard" preaching to a university lecture has certain advantages, and also disavantages. Since the two aren't the same thing (of course, they are the same in your definition, when lecturing may be classed as "preaching"), the dissimilarities ought to be acknowledged. Here is where they are most similar: Both are didactic, they are efficient modes of teaching or conveying information. They have the advantage of orderly presentation, of people gathered and prepared to learn. Jesus commanded the apostles: "Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you."

Now before you offer that drama is a great teacher, I want to know, "how?" When it is explained? That sounds more like teaching after the fact (or before). Or does the dialog include a "teaching" solliloquy? Where do we get out of the "entertainment" mode, and into the "teaching" mode?

"But kids need drama, or benefit from it; they don't appreciate the 'speaker'." Is this generation of children different from the last 200? How is it that Paul could preach to children (Eph. 6:1) but it doesn't work today? Worship is intergenerational. Carving up the worshippers is a travesty. No wonder children are growing up and rejecting the teaching-church. They've not been taught to sit and listen! All it took was one generation of yanking kids out of general worship (following pop-psychology) for "their own thing" to empty the churches (generally) of the youth. Youth that had followed their parents in replacing them in the congregations for centuries. And in one generation we've impoverished the church of tomorrow. Puppet-shows and drama in the worship of the church is a symptom--of a generation of children raised to assume this is normal, because they grew up on this diet. In other words, it is _childish_ to have drama in worship.


> For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." (Heb. 5:12-14)


We are to be brought into adulthood, Christian maturity, through worship. And we are turning the clock back, making people lazy (or else keeping them childish) by introducing entertainment features into worship.


> 1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.


But all this merely begs the original question, whether drama per se belongs in our public worship. Who is the "audience" for our worship? God is. We in the pews are all the actors--not the preacher, not a group of worship leaders. We are the actors, even when we are sitting still. We are the ones "playing a part" in worship, *which is the drama*. So "drama" as we are familiar with it is a subversion of the order of worship, since it makes the actors into the audience. It is "outof order", it is "disorderly".

"Drama", as I said earlier, has a place. Worship is not that place.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

Hey Bruce, thank you for your post. There is much there to take in and think about. 

I do feel that you were "talking down" to me in a few places but I'm not going to argue about it. I am going to have a thick skin as it was said today and let it slide. 

As is typical when using the Socratic method I have learned a few things through this discussion and in reading this last post. I understand what you are saying about preaching. And in regards to puppet shows and drama etc., I believe that one can hear the gospel through those means. I do not believe they are only meant for entertainment purposes. I believe they can be used to teach and to minister. 

I'm sorry if you felt I made light of your exegetical work but I felt I had a point. If I did not, then I didn't. I'm a big boy. Anyways, you gave me much to think about. I can't answer all that in five minutes. I'm not sure I completely understood everything you said either but for the most part, I did. I'm just not as intelligent as many people are. Sadly I have been discovering that in the last little while. I thought I was smart but I'm not. And I sure don't have what it takes to be a pastor so I don't know I was asking about that earlier. 

Thank you again Bruce. God bless.
Brian


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

"Is everyone in the process of whatever he calls "worship" definitely and clearly under the direction of the H.S.? Plainly this is false, for even Christians frequently think they are doing well when they are sinning. So how do you know if you are following the H.S. and not the imaginations of your heart?"

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Would this passage apply to your question?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 25, 2006)

Brian
You have demonstrated a certain degree of maturity in your postings, maybe not always as much or as often as you could have, but that is a common failing with all of us. And it has been more than in others who may be older in years. It takes a man to admit he still has room to grow. We all have more areas to improve upon than we have areas where we may be teachers.

And I do regret if I've in fact belittled you. I don't regret being direct or prodding you manfully. Thick skin is good. And disciplined thinking is better. Remember, before you take any offense of anyone: ask yourself "Why am I feeling like this, regarding those words? Should I straighten up, or straighten him out?"
Pr. 27:6 "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy."

God may yet make you into any number of things, especially when it comes to his church. You are still a young man. Practice being a servant and a disciple. God doesn't need brainiacs; he wants someone moldable. (Though you may be clay, I doubt that you are a clod, after all.  )


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Brian
> You have demonstrated a certain degree of maturity in your postings, maybe not always as much or as often as you could have, but that is a common failing with all of us. And it has been more than in others who may be older in years. It takes a man to admit he still has room to grow. We all have more areas to improve upon than we have areas where we may be teachers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> ...


Brian,

1. Your brother has an excellent name (and, thankfully, your parents spelled it right).

2. I was not trying to emphasize the presence of the regulative principle in the Reformed creeds; had that been my object, I would have quoted them, or at least cited the sections of those creeds where the regulative principle could be found.

3. My main point was to make you aware of the regulative principle of worship, defining it for you, and identifying it as the guiding principle for many (most) on this Board, in order to clarify for you where we are coming from in our discussions with each other, and with you.

4. There is one statement in my post that you did not seem to notice: "This doctrine is not simply some expendible article of the Reformed confessions; it is a natural outgrowth of several elements of Reformed theology, which explains why Reformed churches have always held to this article." I thought that you might take interest in that statement, since you profess to hold to Reformed theology (or at least Calvinism). The doctrines of Sola Scriptura, the divine decrees, the Creator-creature distinction, total depravity, monergism, and several other aspects of Reformed theology all weigh in on this discussion, and all lend support to the concept of the regulative principle. This obviously has bearing beyond whether it is contained in the Reformed confessions; if we _a priori_ assume the validity of these doctrines, and if it can be shown that they all point to a concept of worship enunciated by the regulative principle, we have gone a long way toward establishing it as a true understanding of God's worship. (And since each of these doctrines is essentially true, regardless of which Testament we happen to live under, this would also establish the regulative principle as true under both Old and New Testaments, and not applying solely to the Old Testament.)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...


I'm not 100% I understand where you're coming from in your question.

The great issue at the Jerusalem Council was whether the Gentiles needed to become Jews (outwardly), that is: take up the Old Covenant identity in order to properly identify with the people of God. This took specific form in the question of circumcision.


> Act 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."


But the ceremonial law, the whole sacrificial system, pointed ahead to Christ. Circumcision was both a sign of God's gracious covenant with Abraham and his descendants (Rom. 4:11), and the sign of inclusion in the OT covenant community under the Mosaic administration (Ex. 12:48). The determination of the assembly was that the Gentiles should not take the yoke of the Old Covenant upon them.

Their testimony written (of which you quoted a portion) instructed all the churches in the matter. The believers were not to pass under Moses' Law, but they were instructed that these generalities were of more fundamental importance than the Mosaic administration. Idol offerings were an unholy syncretism between worship of the True God, and false. Prohibition from blood was a natural ordinance going back to Genesis 9:4 (before the Law). Fornication is prohibited on the basis that God's moral requirements, though they be incorporated in the Mosaic Code (Ex. 20, the first 10 Words), are based in his holy character, and are more fundamental than the Law of Moses.

If by your question, you are seeing that this passage teaches that Christians need recourse to the Spirit and the Word to instruct them as to how God should be approached, I concur.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 26, 2006)

Hey Bruce, I gave that passage to ask if it applies to your statement here:

[Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
"Is everyone in the process of whatever he calls "worship" definitely and clearly under the direction of the H.S.? Plainly this is false, for even Christians frequently think they are doing well when they are sinning. So how do you know if you are following the H.S. and not the imaginations of your heart?"]

I realize that passage had a different purpose but I wondered if it could still apply to your statement. My point being that they were under the direction of the Holy Spirit so the actions they took were the actions God wanted. ie. They were following the Holy Spirit and not the imaginations of their hearts.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 26, 2006)

Brian,
Yes, the majority in the end did clearly have the "mind of Christ." How did they arive at that "mind?" We know it was the true "mind" because we have an infallible Bible that reveals the fact. And yet that was clearly not the end of the dispute. Huh? How could that be, once they had determined "the mind of Christ"? Not everyone submitted!

First of all, remember this gathering is in response to a dispute (15:2), a _difference of minds_ within the church. So, which faction has "the mind of Christ"? How are they to tell which viewpoint to approve? Yes, there were those who afterward refused to listen to the decision. Paul's letters, in which we find he has to deal with a continuation of this controversy after the council, demonstrates this.

So what does this teach us? That despite deliverances by the church as to what is really the mind of Christ, some folks are going to ignore the true "Voice of the Spirit", and call their own imaginations "Spirit led." Every side can claim afterward that they're correct, but not every claimant really does have what he claims. As Paul says elsewhere, "There must be factions among you, in order to determine which ones are approved" (1 Cor. 11:19). How do you determine what or which ones are "approved"?

Second, these men were NOT simply polling one another for "the mind of Christ". It is highly significant that in this time and place, despite the fact that there were men with prophetic gifts, apostles who saw visions, etc., _they did not rely on anything of the sort in this discussion!_ They relied on past revelation as they came together to make their decision. They weren't "trusting their feelings" or their own judgment, or treating the Holy Spirit like a "force" for guidance. They relied exclusively on divine, revelation. Verses 7-9, previous NT age revelation; verses 10-11, application of Christian doctrine; verse 12, more data on revelation (signs and wonders) among the Gentiles; verses 15-18, recourse to the Scriptures (OT written revelation).

So, yes, in many ways this assembly serves as an example of gathering the "mind of the *church*" (not the Spirit, per se), and seeing how the church applies God's revelation to their issues and problems. Presbyterians gather like this frequently, in presbytery meetings (a regional church gathering), and in synods or general assemblies (larger or national gatherings).

Hope this is helpful...
Blessings


----------



## polemic_turtle (Apr 26, 2006)

Would not the basic element inherently objectionable in puppet shows during worship be that they tend more to the entertainment and amusement of those watching than to the unmixed worship of He Whom public worship is supposed to be fully dedicated to? Perhaps my church would be considered Spartan, but we pray to God, sing to God, and hear from God( preaching ) during worship and that is all. It would seem appropriately God-centered, whereas puppet shows or the like are more for the benefit of the humans in attendance than for the God Above. Do it another day, another hour, or another place, but don't mix it in with _worship_. :twocents:


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 26, 2006)

Yes Bruce, that was helpful. Thank you. Thank God for the Socratic method eh? 

Tyler, I hear you but I don't completely agree. The way I see it a puppet show is no more solely meant for entertainment than Jesus' parables (stories) were. 

In your church you may pray to God, sing to God and hear from God and that's fine. But I believe there is more that God requires. He tells us to minister to each other. He tells us to sing songs, hymns and spiritual songs to each other. We grow in faith by singing and hearing everyone else singing as well, as long as the song being sung is solid doctrinally. For that reason, a puppet show can be used as teaching. It ministers to others and it has a Scriptural lesson. 

Yes, worship is God-centred. But that God-centred worship does not neglect the corporate body and how you can minister to them. Otherwise, you could sit at home and listen to a televangelist and sing along with cds.


----------



## Cuirassier (Apr 26, 2006)

Dear Brian,



> But that God-centred worship does not neglect the corporate body and how you can minister to them. Otherwise, you could sit at home and listen to a televangelist and sing along with cds.



There is no one here, I would comfortably guess, that would advocate going against Hebrews 10: 25 in this regard. This is a straw man argument.

If I understand your argument correctly, you believe 

premise (1) that church worship should entail, as one of its attributes, the ministering to the needs of its members. 

premise (2) Kids are part of the church, and as such, they need to hear the gospel explained to them in a way that they will understand

premise (3) Puppets can be used to explain things to kids

Therefore 

Conclusion = puppets are a legitimate part of worship.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable argument to make - assuming the premises are correct. When you look at the premises, though, I think you'll see where the problems arise.

Premise (2) & (3) are, I believe, both true. But this argument falls apart because Premise (1) is incorrect.

Premise (1) is the where the problem lies. I believe ministring to the spiritual needs of believers is indeed a part of a church's mandate. But it not the focus of worship. When we look at what the Bible defines as "worship" (lots of verses on this quoted earlier) we see that it is first and foremostly about a) Glorifying God, and b) exhorting / encouraging believvers through the preached word of God.

VBS, children's Bible classes, camp, etc - all great places for puppets. Not on Sunday morning services, according to my view of Scripture.

I trust you don't feel "ganged up on" - by sketching out the argument you are using, and showing where it is deficient, I hope you see I'm focusing on the argument, not you as a person.

In Him,

dl

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by Cuirassier]

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 27, 2006)

Hey Daniel, don't worry. I don't feel ganged up on. I could see by the way you went through the premisses that you were dealing with them and not attacking me as a person.

Thank you for acknowledging that the second two premisses are true. However, I do believe the first one is true as well. When we go to church, you are right, it is to glorify God. But ministering to others' needs, etc. IS glorifying God. If ministering to others' needs was not what God wanted us to do we wouldn't have to go to church in the first place right? We could listen to a televangelist or radio preacher. I think if we were to eliminate the necessity of ministering to others' needs then we would all just be there in a big group focusing only on God and ignoring each other. 

We both agree that God does not need a big audience to worship Him; that He could be perfectly happy if we all stayed home and worshipped Him by ourselves right? But He wants us to gather that the Body may be edified and strengthened.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Hey Daniel, don't worry. I don't feel ganged up on.


You're a Canadian after all and used to body check. 

How cool. Bob Vignault was commenting recently how he was excited to have a 2 page thread. I'm so excited I did the same and I have BaptistCanuk to thank. It was a dead thread and you resurrected it!!


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



LOL thanks


----------

