# RPW: where do you draw the line?



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 20, 2008)

So I am doing some reading and studying on the RPW and the more I read the more I cry when I think of a stereotypical church. I do have a question though.


Where do you draw the line? If taken to the extreme, the RPW can become quite silly.

For example, God never states that we should have light bulbs in a church, so according to the extreme RPW all churches should be void of light bulbs. 

See this is silly. I do not think that God is upset if we use light bulbs or carpet in our worship services. 

So again, where do you draw the line?


----------



## he beholds (Dec 20, 2008)

Maybe it has to do with using the light bulbs as _a part of _the worship service??
We don't turn the lights on with ceremony or at a specific point as a way to worship.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 20, 2008)

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646):



> [Chap. 1] VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.(m) Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: (n) and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.(o)
> 
> (m) II Tim. 3:15, 16, 17; Gal. 1:8, 9; II Thess. 2:2.
> (n) John 6:45, I Cor. 2:9 to 12.
> (o) I Cor. 11:13, 14; I Cor. 14:26, 40.





> [Chap. 21] I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.(a) But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.(b)
> 
> (a) Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:24; Ps. 119:68; Jer. 10:7; Ps. 31:23; Ps. 18:3; Rom. 10:12; Ps. 62:8; Josh. 24:14; Mark 12:33.
> (b) Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9; Acts 17:25; Matt. 4:9, 10; Deut. 4:15 to 20; Exod. 20:4, 5, 6; Col. 2:23.



James H. Thornwell, quoted by John L. Girardeau, _The Discretionary Power of the Church_:



> Circumstances are those concomitants of an action without which it either cannot be done at all, or cannot be done with decency and decorum. Public worship, for example, requires public assemblies, and in public assemblies people must appear in some costume and assume some posture. . . . Public assemblies, moreover, cannot be held without fixing the time and place of meeting: these are circumstances which the church is at liberty to regulate. . . . We must distinguish between those circumstances which attend actions as actions—that is, without which the actions cannot be—and those circumstances which, though not essential, are added as appendages. These last do not fall within the jurisdiction of the church. She has no right to appoint them. They are circumstances in the sense that they do not belong to the substance of the act. They are not circumstances in the sense that they so surround it that they cannot be separated from it. A liturgy is a circumstance of this kind. . . . In public worship, indeed in all commanded external actions, there are two elements—a fixed and a variable. The fixed element, involving the essence of the thing, is beyond the discretion of the church. The variable, involving only the circumstances of the action, its separable accidents, may be changed, modified or altered, according to the exigencies of the case.



George Gillespie, _A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_, pp. 281-284: 



> Church Power and Worship.---
> I direct my course straight to the dissecting of the true limits, within which the church's power of enacting laws about things pertaining to the worship of God is bounded and confined, and which it may not overleap nor transgress. Three conditions I find necessarily requisite in such a thing as the church has power to prescribe by her laws: 1st It must be only a circumstance of divine worship; no substantial part of it; no sacred significant and efficacious ceremony. For the order and decency left to the definition of the church, as concerning the particulars of it, comprehends no more but mere circumstances.... 2nd That which the church may lawfully prescribe by her laws and ordinances, as a thing left to her determination, must be one of such things as were not determinable by Scripture because individua are infinita .... 3rd If the church prescribe anything lawfully, so that she prescribe no more than she has power given her to prescribe, her ordinances must be accompanied with some good reason and warrant given for the satisfaction of tender consciences.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 20, 2008)

he beholds said:


> Maybe it has to do with using the light bulbs as _a part of _the worship service??
> We don't turn the lights on with ceremony or at a specific point as a way to worship.



That is interesting. 

What would you say about a projector during the sermon? I personally believe that the pastor putting the Scripture references and even the definitions to "churchy" words on a screen is a good thing. 

Would the use of a projector in this way (I do realize a projector can be used in inappropriate ways) be considered a part of the worship service or simply an aid or tool like the light bulb is?

-----Added 12/20/2008 at 02:43:16 EST-----

Thank you Andrew.

What is interesting about the Thornwell quote is that he states....


> Public assemblies, moreover, cannot be held without fixing the time and place of meeting: these are circumstances which the church is at liberty to regulate.



Yet Dr. McMahon uses the RPW as his defense against Christmas because nowhere are we commanded to gather together to celebrate the birth of Christ. It seems to me that these two trains of thought contradict each other. Either the church has the ability to come together for worship at times it pleases or it does not.


----------



## Galatians220 (Dec 20, 2008)




----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 20, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Thank you Andrew.
> 
> What is interesting about the Thornwell quote is that he states....
> 
> ...



I won't attempt to defend Dr. McMahon's article since I disagree with it, but Thornwell, I am sure, has in view the designation of a time such as 10:00 am or 11:00 am on the Lord's Day, and a place of worship, all of which are circumstantial, rather than the appointment of man-made holy days, which has to do directly with regulated worship. Other examples of public assembly, consistent with the RPW, may be in view, such as stated days of public thanksgiving or fasting, which are commended in Scripture, directed by Providence and called by the wise discretion of the church, but these are fundamentally different than man-made holy days in that they have the warrant of God while Christmas and the like does not. 

Here are some quotes I compiled for another thread a while back:

Increase Mather, _Testimony Against Prophane Customs_:



> All stated holidays of man's inventing, are breaches of the Second and of the Fourth Commandment. A stated religious festival is a part of instituted worship. Therefore it is not in the power of men, but God only, to make a day holy.



Thomas M'Crie, _Lectures on the Book of Esther_:



> Stated and recurring festivals countenance the false principle, that some days have a peculiar sanctity, either inherent or impressed by the works which occurred on them; they proceed on an undue assumption of human authority; interfere with the free use of that time which the Creator hath granted to man; detract from the honour due to the day of sacred rest which he hath appointed; lead to impositions over conscience; have been the fruitful source of superstition and idolatry; and have been productive of the worst effects upon morals, in every age, and among every people, barbarous and civilized, pagan and Christian, popish and protestant, among whom they have been observed. On these grounds they were rejected from the beginning, among other corruptions of antichrist, by the reformed church of Scotland, which allowed no stated religious days but the Christian Sabbath.



Robert Shaw, _An Exposition of the Confession of Faith_:



> Stated festival-days, commonly called holy-days, have no warrant in the Word of God; but a day may be set apart, by competent authority, for fasting or thanksgiving when extraordinary dispensations of Providence administer cause for them. When judgments are threatened or inflicted, or when some special blessing is to be sought and obtained, fasting is eminently seasonable.



James Bannerman, _The Church of Christ_:



> And who does not see, that upon the very same principle the observance of holidays appointed by the Church, as ordinary and stated parts of Divine worship, is an expression of religious homage to man, who is the author of the appointment,--an unlawful acknowledgment of human or ecclesiastical authority in an act of worship. In keeping, after a religious sort, a day that has no authority but man's, we are paying a religious homage to that authority; we are bowing down, in the very act of our observance of the days as part of worship, not to Christ, who has not appointed it, but to the Church, which has. We are keeping the season holy, not to God, but to man.



Fisher's Catechism:



> Q. 49/50.9. How manifold is religious thanksgiving?
> 
> A. TWOFOLD; stated and occasional.
> 
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 20, 2008)

There is no such thing as an "extreme" position of the RPW that would prohibit the use of lightbulbs. There is a distinction in the RPW between elements (the actual thing that God commands His people to do in worship) and the circumstances that attend to them.

In the case of lightbulbs, God is not commanding our use of light in worship, per se, but that we assemble for worship and perform other such things that would require us to see what we are doing. We are commanded to read the Word and sing in worship and you have to see to do so. In order to see the words we are reading in the Word or in the songs that we sing, we need a light source.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Dec 20, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> What would you say about a projector during the sermon?



Use of a projector in public worship could be justified as a “circumstance,” not an “element.” It would be no different than the use of a printed outline provided to the congregation. I often include a brief outline of my sermon, with space for notes, on an insert in the bulletin (also a circumstance). For that matter, Psalters or projected words for singing, are “circumstances” of worship.

However, two things to avoid:

1) Printed or projected material is to assist the preaching of the word, the latter being the primary means of grace to bring sinners to saving faith and build up the saints, rather than a substitute for preaching, or a primary part of it. For example, the showing of film clips during the sermon to illustrate points, seems to go beyond assisting the word preached.

2) Images of any person of the Trinity are to be avoided. I recently worshiped with a PCA congregation in Ohio where a picture obviously intend to be of “Jesus” was projected on the screen at the beginning of the sermon.


----------

