# Good And Necessary Deduction



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

Does RPW take into account by necessary and good deduction the worship in heaven ? 

When Christ COMMANDED us to pray "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven", does that mean we can use the Apocalypse as a model for worship ? ?

Are we to set our minds on heavenly things ?

The Book of Revelation contains a number of examples of worship song (e.g., 4:8, 11; 5:9-13; 7:10-12; 11:17-18; 14:2-3; 15:3-4; 19:1, 2, 5, 8). A question that needs to be answered regarding these songs is: "œDo these allusions to worship in heaven teach us anything regarding what we are to sing in public worship and how we are to conduct public worship at the present time?"

John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day when he saw these things.

In light of the Lord's prayer, should we mimic the worship in heaven, why or why not ?


----------



## JohnV (Oct 19, 2005)

I have been trying to contend that EP has to stand on necessary inference or the light of nature, not on the RPW. If it can be shown to be necessary, then the RPW applies. If it does not, then the RPW applies the other way.

It has been acknowledged, and even used as an argument, that the meaning of the word 'hymn' *might* justify the inclusion of hymns in worship. The way it is used to propound EP is that this shows it is not a direct command, and that at least it grounds the argument that Psalm-singing *is* a command. Therefore: EP, based on the RPW. But it gets overlooked that this argument disembowels the necessity of EP. As long as the "might" is there, necessity is impossible. An admission of it is a denial of necessity, and therefore the RPW must apply the opposite way. 

So I think that standing EP upon the RPW is a dead-end, and is self-defeating. EP has to stand on good and necessary consequence from Scripture and/or the light of nature, to the point that it is plain that it can be no other. There can be no "if's" or "maybe's" about it. Imposing something as God's command is serious business, and you have to be sure. 

To be sure, the opposite is also true, that to aver that hymn-singing is allowed is also serious business. But commands from God pertaining to worship in song are general, being no more specific than to use terms that can be understood both ways. We hardly need a command other than the assertion by Jesus that we worship in spirit and truth to know that our songs need to be right. But what that right is remains general in Scripture, whether we sing only Psalms, or whether we include other Scriptural songs, or whether we may sing songs of our own making that can pass the rigourous test of being right. If our person is justified, if our prayers are sanctified, if our poor theologies are utilized by God to pass as His gospel, then why are not our poor musical talents, which express our deepest motions of the heart, acceptable under Christ's atonement as well?


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_In light of the Lord's prayer, should we mimic the worship in heaven, why or why not ?



There are several reasons why appeal to "eschetological" worship does not warrent the use of uninspired hymns in worship. I'll give you a couple for now.

1. Sin abounds in this world. This is one of the reasons why we must strictly hold to the RPW. We must not approach God on our own sinful terms, but to his most holy, wise and pure terms. The worship in heaven is without sin. Sin will be no more, and therefore, there is no chance for sin to enter into the picture.

2. There is no evidence that the songs sung in Revelation were uninspired. A look into the use of the term "new song" in scripture will reveal that it is not ENTIRELY new in the modern usage of the word, but a song sung with a renewed outlook. This is the same usage as the "new commandment" which is not really "new" as in 1 John 2:7-8.


----------



## pduggan (Oct 19, 2005)

There is though the issue that the hymns of Revelation, as inspired, are NOT sung by EP churches, even though they are inspired. I've heard some grant it as a theoretical possibility. But I know of none that actually use "all inspired praise" (AIP) rather than EP.

Are there any psalters that contain settings of AIP?

Revelation speaks to more than just EP issues. There is incense, robes, a candelabra, etc.

I would think that there should be some prima facie use of Revelation for deriving principles and elements of worship. When the tabernacle and temple and renewed worship after the return from exile were set up, God gave special revelation via a heavenly model to address the form and content of the "new covenant" worship. 

Revelation certainly seems to fit that pattern.

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by pduggan]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

> Sin abounds in this world. This is one of the reasons why we must strictly hold to the RPW. We must not approach God on our own sinful terms, but to his most holy, wise and pure terms. The worship in heaven is without sin. Sin will be no more, and therefore, there is no chance for sin to enter into the picture.



We are sinful, so do not try. 

Not good enough.
There is no other way I can approach God than by Christ's robe of righteousness. Do you actually think be keeping the commandments you are acceptable to God ? The RPW is also, not a commandment, it is by "good and necessary inference". 



> There is no evidence that the songs sung in Revelation were uninspired.



Who said they were uninspired ?
Everything in heaven is inspired.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> We are sinful, so do not try.
> 
> Not good enough.
> There is no other way I can approach God than by Christ's robe of righteousness. Do you actually think be keeping the commandments you are acceptable to God ?



Now you are confusing how WE become acceptable to God, not WHAT WORSHIP is acceptable to God. There is a big difference.

God only accepts certain types of worship. You can have Christ´s robe of righteousness, and God can still strike you dead, because you have worshiped him according to your own devices. It happened many times in the Old Testament. 

Let me try to explain this again. God is holy. We are not. A holy God must explain to sinful man how he is to be worshiped, because sinful man will always come up with sinful ways to worship God. As Calvin says, sinful man´s mind is an idol factory. 

In the same way that we can only know about God from Scripture Alone, so we only know how to worship God from Scripture Alone. The RPW is the logical application of Sola Scriptura to Worship.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

> Now you are confusing how WE become acceptable to God, not WHAT WORSHIP is acceptable to God. There is a big difference.



Perhaps, but no one has answere the private/public distinction questions I have posed either. So for now, the principles of worship remain the same in both to me.



> God only accepts certain types of worship. You can have Christ´s robe of righteousness, and God can still strike you dead, because you have worshiped him according to your own devices. It happened many times in the Old Testament.



I agree that He prescribes how we are to worship. I just think it is broader under the New Covenant. And Annanias and Saphira would be a NT example, so I am not ruling out the seriousness of proper worship.




> Let me try to explain this again. God is holy. We are not. A holy God must explain to sinful man how he is to be worshiped, because sinful man will always come up with sinful ways to worship God. As Calvin says, sinful man´s mind is an idol factory.
> 
> In the same way that we can only know about God from Scripture Alone, so we only know how to worship God from Scripture Alone.



I agree up to that point.


The following is what we are trying to prove.



> The RPW is the logical application of Sola Scriptura to Worship.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> The following is what we are trying to prove.
> 
> 
> ...



As recommended by a good freind, Sola Scriptura And the Regulative Principle of Worship by Brian Schwertley would be a good place to start.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

Yes, I have read that one. The problem id that Brian makes a few contradictory statements. Like this one:



> Regarding areas of life that are ethically indifferent or adiaphora, there are at least four biblical principles that must be followed. First, everything that we do, no matter how mundane, must be done to God´s glory. "œTherefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31). "œFor none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord´s" (Rom. 14:7-8). Second, a matter that normally would be indifferent ceases to be indifferent if it would cause a weak brother to sin. "œIt is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak" (Rom. 14:21). Third, an activity that in itself is indifferent ceases to be indifferent if it cannot be done in faith with a clean conscience. "œTo him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean....he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:14, 23). Fourth, an act that normally is adiaphora ceases to be adiaphora if a person becomes enslaved to or comes under the power or control of that activity. "œAll things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any" (1 Cor. 6:12). "œAll things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify" (1 Cor 10:23). There are many things that are lawful, such as Twinkies, Big Macs, candy bars, Coca-Cola and fine cigars, that can be abused and thus do not edify. Even organic brown rice can be abused and used in a sinful manner.




He affirms that there is such a thing as _adiaphora_ (which I do not), and then goes on to list wonderful scriptures concerning how every aspect of life is to be judged morally by scripture.

This is the best part:



> Fourth, an act that normally is adiaphora ceases to be adiaphora if a person becomes enslaved to or comes under the power or control of that activity.



Who determines the normativity of adiaphora ? ? ?

There is no adiaphora.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 19, 2005)

Well, Mark, this ( r.e., adiaphora ) is where we part ways. I think you are being inconsistent here. But that sidetracks the discussion, and I don't want to do that. So if this is a rabbit trail, our our parting of ways is at least not on the main issue, hopefully. This doesn't diminish the fact that you are putting forward a considerable argument which, right or wrong, needs to be taken into account.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 19, 2005)

Don't get me wrong: I think your critique is right. Its just that I don't think that _adiaphora_ is relevant to it to the degree you put it.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

JohnV,

Systematically go through Romans 7 again. There are two laws. The flesh, and the Spirit. Autonomy, or Theonomy. There is no morally neutral point anywhere in the universe. Any so-called adiaphora act, like taking out the trash, or eating an ice cream cone, is done by human will, and human motive. So, the motive brings any act, out of any possible realm of neutrality.

He that is not for me, is against me. . . . .


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

And, the reason the adiaphora argument is important, because if there is no adiaphora, then what does that do to the artificial distinction betweem private and public ? Or element and circumstance ?

The reason we would not serve communion in private family worship, is because we can deduce it from scripture right ?

The reason we should not wear provocative or lewd clothing to church, is derived from scriptures on propriety and reverence right ?

So once again, I ask, for someone to please show me where the bible makes these distinctions.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> And, the reason the adiaphora argument is important, because if there is no adiaphora, then what does that do to the artificial distinction betweem private and public ? Or element and circumstance ?
> 
> The reason we would not serve communion in private family worship, is because we can deduce it from scripture right ?
> ...



I don't disagree with your critique of Schwertly. He is inconsistent here, to be sure. But there has to be room for _adiaphora_ because there are many things, things like taking out the trash, that could be wrong or right, and both positions can be held with integrity. The trash may need to go out, but it may not be the day for trash pickup; so another solution has to be found. This has to be an exercise of _adiaphora_. What I'm saying is that you cannot answer inconsistency with inconsistency the other way. 

But this is putting the discussion off track, Mark. I like to have the last word, but your response, I think, should be the last we put into this issue in this thread. Let the people decide for themselves, or let them start another thread, but let us go back to the task at hand.


----------

