# Discussion on the Regulative Principal...kinda



## lwadkins (Apr 4, 2005)

This started with Bob in the prayer forum and I'd like to start a thread here not specifically on discussion of the regulative principle but on the best way to discuss (from the pro side) with those who have a bias not based on a study of the derivation of the principal from scripture but on general principals such as: out dated, completely human (meaning without basis in the Word), imposed by tyrannical Puritans (meaning the secular understanding of who the Puritans were) etc.

There seems to be a cavalier attitude toward changing worship, without careful thought, on the part of many in the evangelical and now even the reformed traditions. I personally am not opposed to careful, considered, biblically warranted changes, although In my humble opinion those would be limited in area and scope due to already biblically warranted forms in worship having little "œwiggle room" for change.

So my approach with those resistant to regulative principal and "œtraditional worship" has been to emphasize the historical context of the regulative principle WCF and the procedure which gave them too us; as being a prayerful, careful, thoughtful, and God honoring process. Of course acknowledging or more like insisting that such things have not the weight of scripture (like that should need to be stated!). Also stressing that it may be extra biblical, but not anti biblical. They have been painstakingly with great effort by a great number of scholars been compiled as a valid summary of Christian belief as set down in the Word of God.

Now my point being if it is claimed that these men (assumed to be guided in their understanding of the Word by the Holy Spirit) cannot come to a valid (although with the possibility of error) understanding, than how can WE expect to come to a valid understanding (presumably also guided by the Holy Spirit in the understanding of Scripture). My point being that although God may not have inspired the work of the Westminster Divines, he could most certainly bless it!

At this point my concern particularly at the local church level is that we prayerfully, carefully, thoughtfully, and in a God honoring process consider such changes in the worship of the one true God. It seems to me to be unquestionable that Scripture shows that God cares about how we worship him!

So I thy to encourage those who are resistant to "œcareful worship" (my words) to study first why we do certain things in worship now, before they grab up the next book on "œrelevant worship" and adopt its conclusions as biblically warranted and demand change.

Please Comment


----------



## blhowes (Apr 4, 2005)

One place to start, and I don't mean it to sound condescending, is to first establish that they've indeed read the confession through, studied it, and know what they're rejecting. There is such a wealth of information contained in it that not only establishes the right way to worship, but is practical and helpful to a person who wants to prepare their heart for worship. 

It may not be the case at your church, but I've met people who are strongly opposed to the confessions and catechisms who have most likely never read them. This may not be the case in your church, but its not uncommon.

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 4, 2005)

Are you talking about all aspects of worship or just the music ?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 4, 2005)

I think the proper understanding of the RPW in the WCF needs to be more carefully respected, especially in light of the times it was developed. The Puritans were not just some rigid legalists. They had good reasons to oppose the many superstitious practices of their day which the Anglicans were promoting and enforcing upon them. But with that said, we also need to understand the difference between the principles they taught, and the cultural application of those principles. But when we read the WCF on the RPW you find very little application in it. It is primarily principle. The Westminster Directory of Worship as well, enforces this. The Puritans, contrary to popular belief, did not lay out a strict liturgy but general guidelines of what was essential, what was forbidden, and suggestions as to how to go about in practice. Sometimes, presbyterians have become too rigid in trying to oppose changes to these applications long practiced. But even on the Puritan practice, there was flexibility as to how to organize worship. The Puritans differed among themselves as to the execution of their worhsip services. So long as the essentials were maintained, the circumstances could vary. And really when you think about it, when you stick with the essentials, there really isn't going to be that much difference in worship practice from denomination to denomination. It's when other elements are added to the essentials, and the pride of man elevated, that confusion and division begins. So if you wish to advocate change, you must judge if that change compromises or adds to the essential elements of worship. If so, then you must discard it as a perversion of worship. But if the change doesn't conflict with the essentail elements, but helps to carry out the service in good order, then let the church decide upon it, and hopefully people will be humble in discussing the matter. If the disagreement is simply over a circumstance and not an essential element then people should be able to surrender their differing judgments to the common consent of the church without feeling their conscience violated.


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 4, 2005)

Indeed, Bob this is exactly the case. They are not familiar with them. That is why I am trying to construct an arguement that will cause them to consider that they may be missing something by not reading them. Their preconceptions as to the nature of the WCF and the regulative principal within are such as to cause them to reject even the idea that there is any profit to be gained from a reading of such documents. I believe that such people will not only profit from such a purusial of said materials, but if carefully examined will come to different conclusions in relation to worship in the church. (corporate worship)


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 4, 2005)

Patrick, 
In essence I agree with your post, and my concern here (in this thread) is not change itself in worship, but the fact that such change is becoming increasingly affected cavalierly without careful regard to biblical principals. I am speaking of those who pick up the next book on making worship "RELEVANT" and accept it uncritically. Then campaign to make the changes advocated therein. I am not necessarily opposed to change, only to changes made in haste without a thorough examination of the "principals" involved. The kind of folks that I am hypothesizing here would be someone who would be more inclined to be concerned with what worship feels like to them as opposed to how it worships and glorifies the God we have gathered to honor.

Kerry,

I am speaking about worship in general, and my focus is on "how careful are we really with God's worship."


----------



## blhowes (Apr 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> Indeed, Bob this is exactly the case. They are not familiar with them. That is why I am trying to construct an arguement that will cause them to consider that they may be missing something by not reading them.



Here are some 'arguments' that I assume would be meaningful to those who are in charge of the worship:



> Chapter 22, paragraph 6
> Neither prayer nor any other part of religious worship, is now under the gospel, tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed; but God is to be worshipped everywhere in spirit and in truth; as in private families daily, and in secret each one by himself; so more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly nor wilfully to be neglected or forsaken, when God by his word or providence calleth thereunto.


*The regulative principle not only teaches people how to worship on Sundays, but also teaches people to worship as a family and privately.*



> Chapter 22, paragraph 8
> The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts...


*The regulative principle teaches that people should come to church with their hearts prepared to meet with God, instead of just attending a worship service*


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 5, 2005)

I think the most imporant thing to consider is Authorial Intent in regards to the WCF on all matters it speaks of. Many of the authors of the confession wrote other works and volumes, and some insight as to their beliefs and values can easily be seen in other ways than simply looking to the WCF itself.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> This started with Bob in the prayer forum and I'd like to start a thread here not specifically on discussion of the regulative principle but on the best way to discuss (from the pro side) with those who have a bias not based on a study of the derivation of the principal from scripture but on general principals such as: out dated, completely human (meaning without basis in the Word), imposed by tyrannical Puritans (meaning the secular understanding of who the Puritans were) etc.
> 
> There seems to be a cavalier attitude toward changing worship, without careful thought, on the part of many in the evangelical and now even the reformed traditions. I personally am not opposed to careful, considered, biblically warranted changes, although In my humble opinion those would be limited in area and scope due to already biblically warranted forms in worship having little "œwiggle room" for change.
> ...



I'll respond from (slowly fading) ignorance...but what else is new. 

My beef with the RPW arises out of 2 things:

First I haven't really studied it too much...but that seems to be what you are trying to ferret out.

The second, is that I find that avid adherents of RPW seem to be much more into *regulation* than *principle*.
In other words, it seems to be for some an exercise in pseudo-piety and imposing their views on others. I am speaking from perceptions here.

I'm really not opposed to RPW...I just don't think it is as regulatory as many seem to want to make it.


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 5, 2005)

There absolutly are nuances with the RPW that are debated, but the current drift seems to be toward the desire to discard the principle that God cares how we worship him. It is that attitude that I would like to combat. The idea of tossing out the RPW entirely is often accompanied by a "complete" lack of understanding of just what the underlieing principle is, and folks who would never say, "Show me where the Trinity is in the bible," are very inclined to say," show me where it states the RPW in the bible." Also so many people if you use the terms RPW or WCF, well, you can see their eyes glaze over, conversation terminated.

So, from a pro (although I would not concider myself extreme) RPW position I am trying to construct a strategy that would allow me to coax those resistant even to the terms that describe the positions laid out in the WCF, to at least "look" at what is said therein and measure it by God's Word. So in doing this I am looking for suggestions, recommended materials that can help me accomplish this without instantly closing the minds I am working together with.

So I have been approaching it from a "lets look at history" (to avoid the dreaded glaze) angle to introduce them to concepts laid out in the WCF, particularly the RPW and how it is derived from scripture, so we are aware that we must be carefull how we handle the forms of worship. I believe that God sill cares how he is worshiped.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> There absolutly are nuances with the RPW that are debated, but the current drift seems to be toward the desire to discard the principle that God cares how we worship him.



You will get no argument from me on that point. God does care. Where I start getting a little uncomfortable (and again, I freely admit I may be in the wrong) is when people start intoning that they only do what God has commanded; that all other things are forbidden.

I guess I have two responses. First I ask, why then do we worship on Sunday? No matter how you spin it, Sunday worship is a tradition of the Church and not a commandment of God. I agree with the traditon btw! But it does seem to knock the breath out of the "we only do what is commanded" bunch.

Second, it seems that the emphasis is almost always on OT worship. What I mean by that is that most of the regulations of the RPW derive from OT worship models...I struggle with that. (I also find it mystifying why certain OT "commands" are ignored, like the collective command to praise God with dancing found in Ps. 150...Again, not advocating liturgical dance...just observing). In the end the RPW always seems to work out to support the presuppositions of its adherents. For instance, it is curious that in both the Old and New Testaments we have words for worship that imply kneeling (commands even to kneel in worship in the Psalms) and yet these are dismissed by RPW'ers because they are too "Catholic".

One of my difficulties in the whole issue is that I truly believe that the NT lies out parameters for worship in the NT Church but that they are not nearly as restrictive as some RPW'ers seem to want to make it. I truly believe that whatever deficiencies we may have in our corporate worship are perfected in Christ, provided we try to remain biblical.

I'm really on the fence on this one. Fred and I have discussed this in person a number of times. He's been real patient with me as he watches me get sucked further and further into the Reformed world...and I appreciate it. So I'm willing to learn...but I still may argue. Hehehhehe


----------



## Poimen (Apr 5, 2005)

Excellent topic. However you would do well to simply follow these instructions: 

The Heidelberg Catechism 

Q96: What does God require in the second Commandment?
A96: That we in no way worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word.

Who says that the Puritans and the Continental tradition didn't agree on this issue? (Hopefully no one here).

Hebrews 12:28-28 "serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.
For our God is a consuming fire."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 5, 2005)

The principle articulated in the Heidelberg Catechism is indeed the Biblical approach to worship. Regrettably, in the application of this principle, the Continental Reformed were often not as thorough as the Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans. 

Kevin, I'd be interested to know a little about your theological background. I gather that you take exception to the Westminster Confession and Catechism's position on worship and the Fourth Commandment. It would be helpful in this discussion to hear more precisely where you are coming from. 

Your arguments against the historical understanding of the RPW seem grounded in an emotional reaction to perceptions you have about those who hold to it. I don't know what your experience has been in this area, but as I'm sure you know from your conversations with Fred, a man I respect very highly though I've never met him in person, one can adhere to the RPW without being motivated simply by a desire to impose their views on others. Some of us actually, humbly, wish to speak the truth in love concerning this matter of enormous import to all Christians. 

It's not a question of worshipping this way because the Puritans did it. It's a question of worshipping as the Puritans did because they faithfully discerned and applied Scriptural teaching to the question of how to worship God aright. And not just the Puritans, but all those who have adhered to this principle throughout history. Regardless of the historical witness or the flaws of messengers, the RPW stands upon the foundation of the Scriptures.

We all have had difference experiences in life which influence our thinking about subjects. The issue of how to worship God Scripturally (both in terms of form/mode and with respect to attitudes of the heart) is one of the most important issues that Christians can consider because it gets to the heart of true religion. 

BTW, the link between form/mode and attitudes of the heart can be seen clearly in Matthew 15:8-9, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

To advance the discussion on the RPW, I'd like to offer some basic comments and statements on the Biblical foundation for the Regulative Principle of Worship and its proper application. 

First of all, as noted, the RPW is a Second Commandment issue, an extension of the commandment that teaches that God alone may authorize how he is to be worshipped. 

Historically, there are have been two Protestant approaches to worship. The (Puritan/Reformed/Presbyterian) RPW: Whatever God has not commanded in his worship, is not authorized. The Anglo-Lutheran view (which is really the position of all non-Reformed Christians): Whatever is not forbidden by Scripture in worship, is lawful. 

If one adheres to the RPW, the issue becomes a matter of applying postive Scriptural warrant to an issue to show that a particular element of worship is authorized. 

Also, very important, the distinction between a "circumstance" and an "element" of worship is another matter which seems to divide those who adhere to the RPW. 

Rightly dividing the word of truth in terms of application and circumstance vs. element will lead to consistent Biblical worship by Christians. 

For those who adhere to the Anglo-Lutheran view of worship, it must be emphasized that God is a holy God who alone may judge how he is rightly worshipped. The Scriptures teach that Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10.1-3) were consumed not for doing something that was explictly forbidden but rather for offering strange fire that was not explicitly authorized. That is but one example among many that can be adduced to show that good intentions are not sufficient for proper Biblical worship. Biblically speaking, worship based on the idea that man determines what is acceptable to God (even with the proviso that God has forbidden some things explicitly) is most properly called "will worship" (Col. 2.23). 

Helpful RPW References

Westminster Confession of Faith (the Scriptural proof texts are not included here, but should be reviewed by anyone studying this issue): 



> CHAPTER I.
> Of the holy Scripture.
> 
> 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. 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; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the 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.
> ...



Puritan Worship

Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship by Brian Schwertley

Zacharias Ursinus on Scriptural Worship

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 5, 2005)

To offer my , the following was originally part of an entry in my blog on December 21 last year, and it basically summarizes many of the reasons I believe the RPW to be biblical:



> In historic and current Reformed circles, our understanding of biblical worship is basicallly summarized in what is called "the Regulative Principle of Worship," or RPW. The Westminster Confession of Faith XXI.I summarizes it much better than I could: "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." In other words, all practices, rites, traditions or special days not specifically prescribed in the Bible are viewed as unacceptable to serve as elements of worship, which includes even being acknowledged in the public gathering of God's people by His Church on the Sabbath, His instituted day of such worship.
> 
> That principle is abundantly clear from a glance at the biblical text and history. In the account of Cain and Abel, Cain did not intentionally rebel against the Lord or turn away from an attempt to worship Him; for he specifically intended his offering to be pleasing to God in answer to God's request. Yet God rejected Cain's offering of fruits of the soil, and condemned his action, while accepting Abel's offering of fat portions from the flocks. They both had equal intentions of pleasing God, and the only difference between the two was that Abel followed only God's own instructions on how to worship Him, while Cain added his own innovations, presuming that his creativity coupled with good intentions would please the Lord. But the account shows that good intentions are no substitute for simply following God's instituted worship instructions, and that God condemns going beyond them for any reason on intent.
> 
> ...


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Q96: What does God require in the second Commandment?
> A96: That we in no way worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word.



Indeed...but it doesn't really answer the question of what is commanded.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 5, 2005)

> Kevin, I'd be interested to know a little about your theological background. I gather that you take exception to the Westminster Confession and Catechism's position on worship and the Fourth Commandment. It would be helpful in this discussion to hear more precisely where you are coming from.



I was raised in the bitter, angry, calminian, dispensational, pre-trib, pre-mill, KJV only, separated, soul-winning, fundamemtalist, never happy unless I'm making someone else miserable tradition that characterizes most Baptists.

You gather incorrectly about my position on the Confessions and 4th Commandment. I find that these arguments, however, are more about our interpretations and applications of the Standards than they are, say, about the 4th Commandment.



> Your arguments against the historical understanding of the RPW seem grounded in an emotional reaction to perceptions you have about those who hold to it. I don't know what your experience has been in this area, but as I'm sure you know from your conversations with Fred, a man I respect very highly though I've never met him in person, one can adhere to the RPW without being motivated simply by a desire to impose their views on others.



If you re-read my post, you will see that I am arguing nothing. I am, as you observed and I admit to, airing my knee-jerk reactions to something I've never thought of before. Again, if you look at my post, I want to learn and understand better. I desire to have my life ever in accord with the Scriptures. But, I'm in a very unique situation and doing a lot of catching up.

Case in point: last year when The Passion was out, I mentioned to Fred that I was going to go see it. He told me it was a violation of the Second Commandment. Whereupon I rolled my eyes and went anyway...We had (well, not just Fred and I, the entire school had) a VERY lively debate on the topic. I still am not convinced about the exegisis of the Divines on the Second Commandment and even less so on their application of it. What bothered me more than anything was that the debate was about our application of our interpretation of the Divine's application of the Divine's interpretation of the 2nd Commandment. That seemed a little off to me. I'm still not convinced of the position that some have on the 2nd Commandment, as I see it linked to public, corporate worship. So I would agree with you on icons etc, but probably not on The Passion.

I have no idea why you brought up the 4th and why you suspected I had problems with it...but hey, I'll answer any question.



> Regardless of the historical witness or the flaws of messengers, the RPW stands upon the foundation of the Scriptures.



Agreed.



> Historically, there are have been two Protestant approaches to worship. The (Puritan/Reformed/Presbyterian) RPW: Whatever God has not commanded in his worship, is not authorized. The Anglo-Lutheran view (which is really the position of all non-Reformed Christians): Whatever is not forbidden by Scripture in worship, is lawful.



At this point I probably am more in what you have called the non-Reformed camp, which is not suprising since I spent most of my life there. As I said in my previous post, my reactions WERE more emotional than studied...but one can only study so many things at once.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> So I have been approaching it from a "lets look at history" (to avoid the dreaded glaze) angle to introduce them to concepts laid out in the WCF, particularly the RPW and how it is derived from scripture, so we are aware that we must be carefull how we handle the forms of worship. I believe that God sill cares how he is worshiped.



History is a good appraoch. You coudl ask, how have the Reformed Churches, who hold such a high standard of God's holiness and honor in their worship, how have they maintained pure and lasting worship in the cultures they confronted? 

Or you could short cut that to their conscience and simply ask them "what would Jesus do?"  (of course be prepared to hear some bad views of Jesus if they really don't understand how to worship Him).


----------



## Peter (Apr 5, 2005)

"Q96: What does God require in the second Commandment?
A96: That we in no way worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word. "

Kevin-"Indeed...but it doesn't really answer the question of what is commanded. "

Kevin, what is actually commanded is besides the point, a second question. The question being, is the RPW scriptural (that we worship him in no way not commanded). The Heidelberg Catechism Q96 answers in the affirmative. Q96 is a definition of the RPW. 

"I have no idea why you brought up the 4th and why you suspected I had problems with it"

I believe Andrews question was not about your view of the 4th commandment, it was about your adherence to the WCF _chapter_ on Worship and the 4th Commandment, ie, chp 21.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> You gather incorrectly about my position on the Confessions and 4th Commandment. I find that these arguments, however, are more about our interpretations and applications of the Standards than they are, say, about the 4th Commandment.
> ...
> I have no idea why you brought up the 4th and why you suspected I had problems with it...but hey, I'll answer any question.



Kevin, Thanks for your comments. Concerning what I perceived to be your objection to the Fourth Commandment, as I noted below:



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> Kevin, I'd be interested to know a little about your theological background. I gather that you take exception to the Westminster Confession and Catechism's position on worship and the Fourth Commandment. It would be helpful in this discussion to hear more precisely where you are coming from.



my comments were based on what you said here:



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I guess I have two responses. First I ask, why then do we worship on Sunday? No matter how you spin it, Sunday worship is a tradition of the Church and not a commandment of God. I agree with the traditon btw! But it does seem to knock the breath out of the "we only do what is commanded" bunch.



You seem to say that Sunday worship is a tradition and not a commandment of God. Moreover, you raised the Sunday issue as an objection to the RPW. I believe the Fourth Commandment teaches that we have a duty to worship God publically on the Lord's Day, so I see it, as it is likewise spelled out in the Confession, as precisely a duty, not a traditon. Hence, my perception that you disagree with the Confession on this point. 

Am I missing something?


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 5, 2005)

Frankly if you do not posit an underlying principal that leads to the conclusion that God desires that we worship him as HE chooses, then we are left with the "imaginations of men" to determine how we worship. The arguments that convinced me of the truth of the RPW have already been detailed by others in this tread. I have been accused before of wanting to impose MY form of worship on others, but if worship was left to my imagination it wouldn't look anything like what I envision biblical worship as guided by the RPW to look like.

In fact the tradition I came out of had no concern for any kind of RPW. If we were adhering to anything (and I'm not sure we were) it would have been the Anglo-Lutheran view of anything not directly prohibited was allowed.

It seems to me that if your focus is not on the positive Scriptural warrant of how God guides our worship of him, then worship tends to deteriorate into audience centered services that become ecclesiastical three ring services(circuses) whose purpose is not to worship the one true God, administer the sacraments, preach the Word, but to build up excitement in people so they can FEEL like they worshiped God, to evangelize all those in the AUDIENCE by reaching them with RELEVANT methods of "worship", to meet the FELT NEEDS of the AUDIENCE. It seems also that a real confusion begins to develop between corporate, personal and family worship. Many want to bring to corporate worship all the practices of their personal and family worship.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> You seem to say that Sunday worship is a tradition and not a commandment of God. Moreover, you raised the Sunday issue as an objection to the RPW. I believe the Fourth Commandment teaches that we have a duty to worship God publically on the Lord's Day, so I see it, as it is likewise spelled out in the Confession, as precisely a duty, not a traditon. Hence, my perception that you disagree with the Confession on this point.
> 
> Am I missing something?



Fred and I discussed this at length today. I think my challenge is when I hear the word commandment, I'm looking in the text for a 2nd person singular (or plural) imperative. Obviously there is none where Sunday Sabbath observance is concerned. However, based on Paul's comments to the Corinthian church you can at least argue that a command, while not explicit, can certainly be inferred...sooooo cheerily withdrawn. (Caveat: I still think the word "command" is unfortunate here. "Application" might be more useful...but hey....)


----------



## Peter (Apr 6, 2005)

Kevin, as far as what consitutes a commandment in scripture and first day Sabbath keeping, a 2nd person imperitive is not necessary. Certainly Christ's example and that of the apostles were inscripturated for the purpose of imitation. Christ was raised from the dead on the 1st day, he continued to appear before the disciples for worship every 1st day until his ascension. The apostles and early christians gathered together for breaking bread on the 1st day.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Kevin, as far as what consitutes a commandment in scripture and first day Sabbath keeping, a 2nd person imperitive is not necessary. Certainly Christ's example and that of the apostles were inscripturated for the purpose of imitation. Christ was raised from the dead on the 1st day, he continued to appear before the disciples for worship every 1st day until his ascension. The apostles and early christians gathered together for breaking bread on the 1st day.



Then I would call it an example and not a commandment. Heheheh.


----------

