# Adiaphora: pretending that eating ice cream is amoral.



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

Is there any act that is amoral ?

How can one act without a motive ? What human act does not invollve the will ?

Even if I willfully try to do something that is morally neutral I am acting morally.

Romans 7 defines two laws. The law of the flesh, and the law of the Spirit.

God said, he that is not for me, is against me.

Do all things unto the glory of God.

Nothing can be done in a morally neutral way.

Prove me wrong.

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Do all things unto the glory of God.
> 
> Nothing can be done in a morally neutral way.







> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Prove me wrong.



No thanks.


----------



## Peter (Oct 19, 2005)

I agree Mark, but you misunderstand Rev Schwertley. As is clear from the statement in his paper on the RPW he does not mean that an act may be done from a neutral motive he simply mean there are many acts that outwardly are neither sinful nor pious. Such as eating ice cream, there is nothing sinful in itself with eating ice cream thus it is adiaphora however the end which we have in eating it is always either moral or immoral.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 19, 2005)

For clarification, Mark, would you agree that the _theoretical, a priori_ act of eating ice cream is amoral in and of itself, but that as soon as it becomes an _actual_ event or instance of doing so, it then becomes either moral or immoral?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

> As is clear from the statement in his paper on the RPW he does not mean that an act may be done from a neutral motive he simply mean there are many acts that outwardly are neither sinful nor pious.



So where does God say this ?

We are called to not judge our brethren when it comes to appearances, and grant them Christian liberty, case in point, the cigar thread.

The idea I have is that there seem to be many things that are circumstances and not elements, and those circumstances are said to be adiaphora. But, as you and I know, the circumstances can violate an explicit command of God, that is more abstract. 

So why is there a distinction at all ?

Whatever is forbidden in public worship, is also forbidden in private worship. 

When Christ said true worshippers worship in Spirit and truth, do both of those refer to element, and not circumstance ? Or do they refer to element AND circumstance ? Or one against the other ? 

I just want to understand. And everyone I have read on both sides is confusing. Williamson, Schlissel, etc . . . 

They all have internal contradictions.

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> For clarification, Mark, would you agree that the _theoretical, a priori_ act of eating ice cream is amoral in and of itself, but that as soon as it becomes an _actual_ event or instance of doing so, it then becomes either moral or immoral?



In a sense, I suppose so. But since no act remains theoretical, all acts can be judged within the motive of the will.

Also, we know that lusting after ice creaam in our hearts is the same thing as ice cream idolatry right ? ? :bigsmile:

[Edited on 10-19-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## JohnV (Oct 19, 2005)

Hmm. You've got me thinking, Mark.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 19, 2005)

_Adiaphora_, in this case, can mean either _indifference_ or _not prohibited_. The thing that it is an adjective of makes for the defintion that applies. So in the sense that nothing is indifferent morally, such as actions from the heart, or that some things fall into a neutral category, such as eating ice cream, or that some things fall into neutral territory such as beliefs that can be neither verified nor excluded, these things make for what the term means. In part I can agree with you, Mark, because I know what brought this to the fore and I see your point; but it is still a misapplication, I think. Its appears to me to be a confusing of the term. 

But....., I'm still thinking.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

> For clarification, Mark, would you agree that the theoretical, a priori act of eating ice cream is amoral in and of itself, but that as soon as it becomes an actual event or instance of doing so, it then becomes either moral or immoral?



Actually, I might even disagree with this. 

A _theoretical, a priori act _ as a concept, cannot even be considered outside of the human discursive noetic process right ? Unless God is immediately thinking of it, but that does not matter. 

The point is, I cannot even think of a single word like "tree" without the possibility of that meaning and idea being tainted by the guilt of Adam. We need the Holy Spirit to even think rightly about the world.

Otherwise we might be formulating a kind of intelectual Pelagianism right ? ?

JohnV,

My main argument is that nothing is neutral, or in a neutral category, since God uses everything for His own glory, evil and good. Note, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not good, evil and all those things in between.


Ultimately, by saying whatever God has NOT commanded is also forbidden, the RPW violates the law of God, by adding to His words.

So, with every action and motive, we should find support in either what He commands, or by what He forbids. The WCF/larger catechism does this by inference when it explains the decalogue.

(Paul Manata could help me out on this one)

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Peter (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > As is clear from the statement in his paper on the RPW he does not mean that an act may be done from a neutral motive he simply mean there are many acts that outwardly are neither sinful nor pious.
> ...



Man can not declare something to be sin which God has not, for there is one lawgiver (Jas 4:12), yet may make something sin which God has not per se by using it improperly or to an evil end.



> "The idea I have is that there seem to be many things that are circumstances and not elements, and those circumstances are said to be adiaphora. But, as you and I know, the circumstances can violate an explicit command of God, that is more abstract.
> 
> So why is there a distinction at all ?"



I dont really know what you're getting at here but I'm going to say that if something violates an explicit command it is not circumstantial.




> Whatever is forbidden in public worship, is also forbidden in private worship.



I agree.



> When Christ said true worshippers worship in Spirit and truth, do both of those refer to element, and not circumstance ? Or do they refer to element AND circumstance ? Or one against the other ?



I think a circumstance of worship is necessarily something a-spiritual about something spiritual and nonpropositional but functional about truth. So to take the given example, in the NT it doesnt matter what direction you pray in, you're not more spiritual praying toward Jerusalem and you're not worshipping falsely if you don't. The direction you pray towards does not have spiritual significance and it can not be classified true or false. 



> They all have internal contradictions.



Let's work through them.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

> 1. Man can not declare something to be sin which God has not, for there is one lawgiver (Jas 4:12)
> 
> 2. yet may make something sin which God has not per se by using it improperly or to an evil end.



I believe part 1. 
Part 2, needs some serious explanation.



I said:
Whatever is forbidden in public worship, is also forbidden in private worship. 


You said:
I agree.


So, an EP believer that worships on Sundays with only psalms, is committing grave sin if they listen to ANY other music in their private life ? ?

Because, ALL music is worship in my definition. It is written in praise of something, someone, world view, etc. . .


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> Also, we know that lusting after ice creaam in our hearts is the same thing as ice cream idolatry right ? ? :bigsmile:
> 
> [Edited on 10-19-2005 by Saiph]



Mark, I agree that all acts, and thoughts, are moral and not neutral.

When it comes to ice cream, I take Deut 12:15 as my proof-text and try to indulge my lust to the glory of God:

Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart.



Vic


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 19, 2005)

1Co 8:8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. 

This verse proves that certain acts are outwardly neutral. One can surely look to motives and find sin, but food is neither sinful, nor righteous.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

> This verse proves that certain acts are outwardly neutral.



Why did you feel it necessary to modify the idea of neutral with outwardly ? ?

Because, even food is contingent. 

No thing exists in and of itself. Only God is self existent. All created objects and beings are contingent. Therefore subject to corruption. All creation is subject to vanity, and awaiting redemption.

If God declared all things "good" at creation, and now it is subject to vanity, is it really neutral ? God sanctifies it in us and through our faith does He not ?? By thanksgiving ?

The choicest cut of meat may have bacteria. And all things left to their natural state will rot and decay. So, how can you call it neutral, while entropy prevails ?

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > This verse proves that certain acts are outwardly neutral.
> ...



If you say that meat is sinful because it decays, then you have a different definition of sin than I do! 

Sin is any want of conformity to, or transgression of the law of God.

I would like to see my t-bone do that!


----------



## JohnV (Oct 19, 2005)

> JohnV,
> 
> My main argument is that nothing is neutral, or in a neutral category, since God uses everything for His own glory, evil and good. Note, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not good, evil and all those things in between.
> 
> ...



OK, after getting some sleep and mulling this over, then seeing this post, here's my gut reaction. ( Can't use my head just yet, too many cobwebs yet  )

First: its not _adiaphora_ that you are talking about, then. For if that were so, then not only would it be impossible that man could not sin, but it would also be impossible that Christ made man righteous by taking on manhood, of this creation, of the womb of Mary, and be an acceptable sacrifice for the propitiation of man.

Second: you are using the RPW to refute the RPW, not by internal contradiction, but imposing the same rule you want to over-rule. Like someone using reason to deny reason, and thinking he's being consistent. 

Third: you may not see it, but you're ending up right at the point you are refuting. If you analyze your end position, and use the commonly accepted terms to describe them, then you're talking about a RPW, and imposition of not going beyond the Word, and that some things are indifferent to that, and that our sinful attempts at moral motions are never amoral, but immoral unless sanctified in Christ. That is no different than what EP-ers hold to, what RPW-ers hold to, and what theonomic Doctrines of Grace-ers ( if you will ) hold to. You're just trying to change the terminology, that's all.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

Did I use the word sinful ? Sorry if I did. But it is not morally neutral. It may be potentially good, or evil. 

Interesting thought here. God called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "good" at creation.

Because it was His knowledge, and His prerogative to know. Adam usurped that by eating. So we all fell by eating, and you are arguing that food is neutral . . just a funny observation. I do not know if it is valid.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Did I use the word sinful ? Sorry if I did. But it is not morally neutral. It may be potentially good, or evil.



Would you care to share how something can be not morally neutral yet not sinful or righteous?

You've got three options for the t-bone as far as I see it:

1) Sinful
2) Neutral
3) Righteous


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

JohnV,



> First: its not adiaphora that you are talking about, then. For if that were so, then not only would it be impossible that man could not sin, but it would also be impossible that Christ made man righteous by taking on manhood, of this creation, of the womb of Mary, and be an acceptable sacrifice for the propitiation of man.



How ? Man was not created morally neutral, he was created good, and has sought out many devices as good King Solomon said. . . . And Christ's human nature was not fallen. He was born of Mary not Adam. The seed was God's. Sin is passed through Adam.

On point 2, how am I using the same rule. First, it was probably because I misrepresented the RPW to begin with. WHich I retracted in this post or the other one . . .

It actually never says "whatever is not commanded is forbidden". I got that from Schlissel.

And 3, I do not get it. I am saying the biblical RPW is the law of liberty. And God's command need not be explicit to allow things like Hymns or musical instruments.

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

> Would you care to share how something can be not morally neutral yet not sinful or righteous?
> 
> You've got three options for the t-bone as far as I see it:
> 
> ...



How about corrupt, or incorrupt.
Or good or evil.

Sinful implies will. A will bent towards disobedience to God's law.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

Your point is that matter is neither good or evil. Only human motives use it to those ends ? ?

I wonder what corruption and vanity implies about nature then ? ?

(keep in mind, I am not advocating gnosticism either. matter=evil, spirit=good. I am trying to figure out how far total depravity goes. Like when the whole creation groans for redemption)

(I emailed Paul Manata to ask his opinion. He knows way more about philosophy than I do. I might have just entered some creepy pseudo-gnostic realm with my idea about matter) 



[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 19, 2005)

Aquinas saiys:



> I answer that, As was said above (Article [1]), evil imports the absence of good. * But not every absence of good is evil. For absence of good can be taken in a privative and in a negative sense. Absence of good, taken negatively, is not evil; otherwise, it would follow that what does not exist is evil, and also that everything would be evil, through not having the good belonging to something else; for instance, a man would be evil who had not the swiftness of the roe, or the strength of a lion. But the absence of good, taken in a privative sense, is an evil; as, for instance, the privation of sight is called blindness. *
> 
> 
> Now, the subject of privation and of form is one and the same---viz. being in *potentiality*, whether it be being in absolute potentiality, as primary matter, which is the subject of the substantial form, and of privation of the opposite form; or whether it be being in relative potentiality, and absolute actuality, as in the case of a transparent body, which is the subject both of darkness and light. It is, however, manifest that the form which makes a thing actual is a perfection and a good; and thus every actual being is a good; and likewise every potential being, as such, is a good, as having a relation to good. For as it has being in potentiality, so has it goodness in potentiality. *Therefore, the subject of evil is good.*



Question 48: article 3 On Evil.


Addendum


> Now it is in this that evil consists, namely, in the fact that a thing fails in goodness. Hence it is clear that evil is found in things, as corruption also is found; for corruption is itself an evil.



Aquinas again. So that is where I got the idea. Now lets see if Paul has a good Presuppositional argument as to whether that is wrong or not.

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 20, 2005)

(Rom 14:19) Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

(Rom 14:20-23) 
For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: *for whatsoever is not of faith is sin*.

What thinkest thou?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 20, 2005)

> All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.



This is what Augustine says. And who am I to disagree with Paul eh . . . 

So, matter is still not neutral. It is good, until put to bad use.

My point in this post is that adiaphora is used for circumstance, but not for elements of worship.

A distinction, that seems to contadct Romans 14:20-23.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 20, 2005)

Puritancovenanter, that is precisely what I was thinking.

Food, being created by God, is good. Like all creation, it is corrupted by sin. My desire for food can be holy or it can be sinful. My relationship to food is directly controlled by my relationship to God. 

I really don't think matter could be describe as being good until being put to bad use. It is good because it is God's creation yet it is corrupt in the sense that it decays. This quality, it seems to me, remains regardless of whether an evil or a holy man uses it. The creation mandate directs God's people to subdue the earth, and I take this to mean to improve it and to put it to holy use. 

But I don't think that anything we might do could "redeem" matter in the sense of changing its intrinsic quality.

Vic


----------



## Saiph (Oct 20, 2005)

Good point.

So if matter doesn't matter, can there really be adiaphora in human works ? ?

Can the circumstance of worship really be adiaphora ? Morally neutral ?

(In other words, if the color of the carpet, or the arrangement of the pews is done by faith, and acceptable to God, why is the singing of hymns not ? ?)

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Good point.
> 
> So if matter doesn't matter, can there really be adiaphora in human works ? ?
> ...



I don't believe it can be. I will be trembling when I stand before God to give an account on that day because my poor mind just doesn't see the Glory of God as it should. *All of creation proclaims the Glory of God*. There is nothing neutral about that. My problem is that I don't see it nor act upon it even closely. Nothing is neutral. Even corruption still proclaims God's perfection and Holiness.

For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 20, 2005)

I think part of the problem is the word adiaphora and the understanding of it to mean "indifferent things". It places all the focus on things. In one sense, indeed, matter does not matter with regard to the worship of God. The color of carpets, the placement, or even presence of pews, are truly indifferent things.

But matter does matter in the sense of our life-view. When I was an empiricist pagan, I could pick up a rock and, in contemplative times, imagine it to have resulted from ancient and powerful random forces, a coalescence of sub-atomic particles showing up "just so". But now, when I pick up a rock, I can contemplate it as a work from the hand of God. It still might be made of atoms, but they are God's atoms.

So my attitude to the rock is not indifferent, and it wasn't when I was a pagan. Both views were controlled by my moral point of view.

But none of that seems to really apply to the RCW. I'm reluctant to enter the fray after so much effort on the part of others, but I will say that I agree with you about hymn singing. But my agreement is not because I disagree with the regulative principle. Instead, as some have already said, I take the directive to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs as a fairly straightforward command.

So, I think there is much liberty in the mode of worship, but we are to be very careful not to approach it in a sinful manner. Some favor a liturgical style. Having roots as a primitive (small "P") Baptist, I don't. But I would say that the OPC or BPC churches I've visited took their worship seriously and did not violate the regulative principle as they understood it. 

I think it is obvious that self-focused worship (I would include here praise bands, myself) violates the RPW. Certain hymns violate the RPW. But not all hymns. Even singing psalms with an indifferent heart would violate true worship.

Vic


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 20, 2005)

Ice cream is good. All created things are good and they glorify God. The tree of Knowledge was created good. It glorified God as a part of creation. They are not sinful. Neither are they nuetral in this capacity. Their complex make up as a part of creation shows God's power and His attributes.

(Rom 1:19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

(Rom 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

No neutrality. Sinfulness is defined by God. In whole it finds it defining in God's being. In Him is no darkness. So in all of creation there is no neutrality. Holiness is not neutral and everthing has a relationship in it's eternal sphere.


----------



## crhoades (Oct 20, 2005)

Cookie-dough ice-cream = good and edifying
Rainbow flavored = bad and yucky

{so much for objectivity!}


----------



## Saiph (Oct 20, 2005)

> No neutrality. Sinfulness is defined by God. In whole it finds it defining in God's being. In Him is no darkness. So in all of creation there is no neutrality. Holiness is not neutral and everthing has a relationship in it's eternal sphere.




I think you are right.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 20, 2005)

One more thing. A part of the equation that is left out is Liberty. There is freedom in choosing between between many good things. God has allowed us options as Paul noted that he was at liberty to marry or not marry.

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 20, 2005)

All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 20, 2005)

Yes. The scripture is correct again. It was expediant for Paul not to marry. It was definitly better for him not to. But that is not the case for 99% of the male population. The best thing for most men is marriage. So the rule of thumb is that God has a different purpose for each of us. What is beneficial and good for someone may be worse for the other. God knows.

That is why he had Paul write Romans 14. 

Let me post it again as I did in another thread.

(Rom 14:1) Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

(Rom 14:2) For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

(Rom 14:3) Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

(Rom 14:4) Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

(Rom 14:5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

(Rom 14:6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

(Rom 14:7) For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

(Rom 14:8) For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

(Rom 14:9) For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

(Rom 14:10) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

(Rom 14:11) For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

(Rom 14:12) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

(Rom 14:13) Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

(Rom 14:14) I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

(Rom 14:15) But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

(Rom 14:16) Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

(Rom 14:17) For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

(Rom 14:18) For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

(Rom 14:19) Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

(Rom 14:20) For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

(Rom 14:21) It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

(Rom 14:22) Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

(Rom 14:23) And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.


[Edited on 10-20-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 20, 2005)

The will by definition is always inclined. To speak of a "œneutral will" is none sense or it can be another way of saying "œno will exists".

Morals are based upon some standard. Morals that are real and true are derived from the eternal standard and that would be God and His holy revealed Law as He sets it forth and not as men think it is to be understood (I.e., that is from the heart as if no Law must dictate it to one, not motions of the Law by mere actions to the Law"˜s dictation). Any moral(s) set forth apart from His holy Law OR derived from it and set forth by men or creatures is by definition evil, even if it appears good to all the eyes of men. Why? For in such men commit the highest of sin which is treason to be apart from God, knowing good or evil for themselves, that is human autonomy. Even if they "œborrow" from God´s Law done in this way man seeks his own fame and glory, that is, "œto be known for my/our good works".

Indeed nothing is morally neutral: "œDo all things unto the glory of God" and similarly "œall things apart from faith is sin". But there is a key to it all"¦faith, that is sole trust in Christ alone. All things regardless of how it appears to the eyes of men is sin and hence evil if done apart from faith, that is without the support of faith alone. Contra: All things done in faith is not sin and if actual evil is committed by the faithful, because of faith´s object, Christ, it is quickly forgiven (this is not presumption but faith, and this sets up the stumbling stone to the highly religious who secretly regard their works and not Christ at all even if they should use His name). Without faith actual murder or murder only from the heart/thought is just as damning and sinful as is saving a man´s life. 

As a matter of fact "œgood works and good morals" block a man from grace more than real evil works do. Why? Back to the will, because a man´s will is to do evil fundamentally, it is already fallen and inclined in all things. His will refuses to let go of the good works and die to them, especially when God and Law are involved. He will never let go on his own so that he may nakedly trust in Christ alone and be saved. As a matter of fact when an Armenian for example refuses that the will of man is totally depraved and that God must sovereignly save - he is proving the very fact that his will is, without Divine intervention, completely and totally enslaved to sin, self autonomy and away from God. His will will not let him trust in the real God that is and is sovereign in all things, it is enslaved to its self willed desire to glorify self, it is addicted to self hopelessly.

So we see all things wrapped up in faith are in the end good and when the faithful do commit real evil, and we do every second either in thought, word or deed, it is immediately forgiven for Christ´s sake. This is why in the Lord´s prayer we should confess not just our gross sins but that Christ would cover our "œrighteousness" which is filthy rags. See how sinful we REALLY are. Contra: all things outside of faith are sin and evil no matter what the work is. Manifestly, all gross acts of sin (e.g. murder, adultery, theft and so forth) are evil and of no value toward righteousness, even blind pagans can see this and it doesn"˜t take a Christian to see this. But it is a complete afront and volley to the fallen will, the flesh, to say that your good deeds are worthy of wrath and hell - especially your best ones, those you treasure highest. One´s saving a man´s life, one´s feeding the hungry, one´s missionary work and so forth are all evil apart from faith (and don"˜t think for a second that some proclaiming to be Christian do not do this without real faith). Apart from faith these to are sins worthy of death, wrath and hell just as much as prostitution, homosexuality and murder. While evil acts may leave the fallen will sleeping comfortably without much ire, the volley against "œgood works" enrages the fallen will and like a great beast it rises to make war with God, Christ and Christ´s real servants on this point. Then it shows itself forth as it really is fallen and totally evil. 

Let´s swing a few contrasts to drive the point further:

Eating ice cream apart from faith is sin, yet drinking beer or wine in faith is glorifying to God. Does this bother you? Then you are considering works, the fallen will is warring against heaven and Christ. And I want to be careful on the next one not to promote gross evil or laxity but to show forth how total faith in Christ alone saves while without Him NOTHING is acceptable and is indeed damnable. The Dali Lama who led a peaceful life and the cause for much human earthly good is in hell, king David who committed murder, adultery and lied (while being a true believer) is with Christ in heaven. If this bothers one, then one is stumbling over the Stumbling Stone, Christ Jesus and worshipping one"˜s own will.

Christ Alone has suffered,

Ldh


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2005)

I was going to add that the words _adiaphora_ and _neutrality_ are somewhat abused, but I think that that is already covered quite well. What I would add is that, in the case of defending the RPW I come out supporting the EP-ers. The idea of this thread is to question the validity of the RPW, and if that does not stand, then neither can EP. And I disagree with that view. 

EP, if true, can and will stand with or without the RPW. That is what I am pressing EP for, so that it stands properly, if my thinking is correct. What I am saying is that, if EP is true then the RPW applies in the sense of formal worship. If the RPW falls to the ground, EP is still valid. That's how I'd like to see EP argued for; that's how I see it has to be argued for for me to be turned to believe the arguments. 

Where this fits in with this thread is that some things are indifferent to worship. They are considered circumstance, but not all circumstance would be indifferent. Formal dress, for example, is a circumstance, but not indifferent. And this applies to things in the work-a-day world too: if there is no indifference in a chunk of oak wood, then it would be a sin, so to speak, to use it for something that it was not specifically intended for. I could make a cabinet instead of a piece of furniture with it, for example. So also, the choice between the singing of Psalms or of hymns also is not an indifferent matter. 

Again, I believe that the first principle of _Church_ is that of preaching of the Word. This we share with almost every existent church regardless of flavour or creed. Therefore they all have, by definition, a RPW. Even a denial of it is a RPW of some kind. Just like a church which claims to have no doctrines has that as their first doctrine, and usually as an excuse for all kinds of abberant doctrines. Even so, a church that says it has no RPW is really only saying that they don't have the formal Presbyterian definition of it. I grew up in a church that had never heard of the RPW, but adhered to it better than Presbyterians, I believe. So if there is no _adiaphora_, then so much the more does each church own some kind of RPW. And if such a church which sees nothing as neutral exists, it has a very stringent RPW if it applies it, strictly speaking. 

I have not yet spent much effort in arguing for the inclusion of hymns; I have, so far, only argued against EP. And that only to the degree of trying to get the EP side to express their notion in a way that can convince. You see, I am going to be with them, on their side, if their goal is the beauty and holiness of the worship of God. If it is their goal not so much to institute EP but to apply the RPW consistently, then I am all for that. We are about as far away from that in our day as NASA is from landing men on Mars. That's why I am pushing EP toward grounding it on necessary inference, and not on the RPW. That way they can still enforce a RPW consistently and rightly. 

Where we stand at the moment is that there is a duplicity about the RPW as it is practiced, a double standard. To exaggerate it somewhat, it could be that the Ruling Elders ( RE ) could clamp down on someone for singing Amazing Grace in church, because "If God does not command it, it is forbidden"; but for RE's and TE's a different rule applies, namely that as long as the WCF does not forbid it, it can stand right alongside God's commanded worship from the pulpit and defended from the offices. Not only has Presuppositionalism been raised to doctrinal level, but they are now preaching the Framework Hypothesis, and worse, Federal Vision. Where is the principle for them, that what God does not command is forbidden? And they represent the authority of Christ in worship. I am all in favour of the long road that EP-ers want to take, because it will, hopefully, establish a consistent RPW in the churches. 

That is why I said, Mark, that this is where we part ways. I am definitely not on the side of questioning the validity of the RPW. It is a principle applied to worship, not a command itself. I believe you are right that, applied this latter way, it is self-contradictory. And I believe you are right that EP grounded upon the RPW is self-constradictory too. But that in no way undermines a proper instituting under the rulership of the RE's jurisdiction of "good order"; nor does it at all touch a properly grounded EP.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 20, 2005)

> Eating ice cream apart from faith is sin, yet drinking beer or wine in faith is glorifying to God. Does this bother you? Then you are considering works, the fallen will is warring against heaven and Christ. And I want to be careful on the next one not to promote gross evil or laxity but to show forth how total faith in Christ alone saves while without Him NOTHING is acceptable and is indeed damnable. The Dali Lama who led a peaceful life and the cause for much human earthly good is in hell, king David who committed murder, adultery and lied (while being a true believer) is with Christ in heaven. If this bothers one, then one is stumbling over the Stumbling Stone, Christ Jesus and worshipping one"˜s own will.



Agreed.

So, bringing it back to the adiaphora, if we act in faith, do we have the freedom to worship God with musical instruments, worship music other than the Psalms, Dance, or even Drama ? ? So long as it is reverent, orderly, and directed to God.


Seems to me the answer is YES. Even according to this:



> "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 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." *
> 
> Westminster Confession (I:VI):


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 20, 2005)

Randy,

I agree concerning Christian liberty. Men are called differently and the point of Christian liberty is that we do not have to differentiate among good works (not evil ones) saying X is a really "good work" while Y is ok but not really a "good work". That's part of the joy and freedom. 

For God respects only Christ's works not men's. If I, for example, try to say "my calling" is what "YOU" should be doing, implication being that my calling is a better work in God's eyes and yours is not - then I evidence not being in the faith and a respector of works toward God. 

We see this a lot with people in the formal ministry versus the laity and a lot of ill feeling is built up because of it. Funny though how these type of ministers (I'm speaking of a particular ilke of modern minister that is more like a Roman priest or monk in reality) enjoy the good things of this life that the Christian laity labor to produce, cars, fuel, energy, homes, food, clothing, medicine and etc... 

Fundamentally all schisms great or small, national or local are driven because faith has been lowered and works, even the gifts of God, are raised in the eyes of those raising them as "pleasing to God". That is Paul's point to Corinth and also the point of James's epistle.

ldh


----------



## Saiph (Oct 20, 2005)

JohnV,

I have no problem with EP, if it is because in your conscience you want to sing only God's inspired Psalms to him. Just do not try to bind my conscience by saying the RPW demands it. (I know you are not trying to do that) 

The arguments against RPW _per se_ are not against EP. But, some EP advocates only believe it because of the strict and rigid pplication of the RPW. . .

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 20, 2005)

Mark,

My only concern is that if such things no longer communicate the Gospel and grace and the receiving from a holy God His grace which is the basis of all true worship need be observed. I've belonged to "drama" churches and they do not communicate this at all in their drama and it dwindles every time into human worship.

It is even harder to see how dance does this. Hymns and Psalms that communicate this do so so as to set in our mind what Christ has done for us. Musical instruments do not cause problems here nor does the "style" of music per se unless it degrades into meaningless love songs. But we have too seen where otherwise good form can be done mindlessly. All things should be setting forth God's holiness and God's grace in worship, if it cannot do this I don't see how it could rightly be called worship.

We see this with Israel: On the one hand they "rose up to play" with their own "strange fire" worship on one hand and we know what happened then. But they also rigorously adhered to proper form when Jesus appeared on the scene and over turned their money tables. So, I suppose we see that we can be in danger of looseing true worship either way by dumping the real content (Holiness of God/Grace of God) for either playful paganism disguised as 'Christian' or dead form. The only thing dead form has going for it that the other may not, is that in the forms if the hymns and scriptures are read, even though the form has died, someone might be present and hear the Gospel in spite of the dead form. The same cannot be said of "innovative" worship forms which can dump both form and content.

But that's a lay persons observation so I'd caveat it as such.

Ldh


----------



## Saiph (Oct 20, 2005)

Larry,

I have the same concerns, and seen the same abuse, but true biblical good and necessary inference would keep us from those extremes. I am sure of it.

And I am no theologian or minister either. Just the average Joe Sixpack. 
So I like to stir things up, because it is fun, (and I really want to understand) but I respect those in authority like elders and deacons and pastors. I believe even the most extreme RPW or EP advocate is zealous for God's glory, holiness, and worship.

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> JohnV,
> 
> I have no problem with EP, if it is because in your conscience you want to sing only God's inspired Psalms to him. Just do not try to bind my conscience by saying the RPW demands it. (I know you are not trying to do that)
> ...



Well, that's in part what I am saying. No orthodox church as of this moment in time is in a position to institute EP on the basis of the RPW, because it will be a blatant double standard. RE's and TE's are exempt from the RPW while you and I, non-officebearers are not. But what I am saying to your argument is that it does not incline EP-ers one way or the other. 

Right now we are all floundering somewhat as to the place of song in worship. More precisely, we're collectively up in the air about what the Eph. and Col. texts mean by "hymns and spiritual songs". Individuals are convinced on both sides, but collectively we're not established. I want to be neutral as to EP itself, because of the advance I think will be made in the discussions. So I'm pushing for anwers in that direction. I would do the same for those espousing hymns. I've done the same thing in Theonomy discussions: though I oppose Theonomy, I support their noble concept of the righteousness of God's law. What I personally would like to see as a fruit of these discussions is an application of the RPW in the first order, even if its a start. It has to apply first to the rulership of the church in Christ's name. After that I'll consider the extent of it as it applies to the response of the congregation.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Larry,
> 
> I have the same concerns, and seen the same abuse, but true biblical good and necessary inference would keep us from those extremes. I am sure of it.
> ...



Mark:

You have added a great deal to the discussion by raising these questions. And I think they are legitimate to the degree that EP misrepresents itself in the arguments given. Not all their arguments are misrepresentations, however. But because they try to stand it on the RPW, your concerns are a natural response, I think. So don't get me wrong about this. I too am just and ordinary Joe. But I am trying to be consistent: if I raise arguments against EP because they stand it on the RPW, then I also have to raise arguments against non-EP which objects on that same basis.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 20, 2005)

JohnV,

How does a non-EP argument objects on that same basis as EP resting on RPW ? 

You lost me there, and I think you mentioned this before but I was not able to understand what you meant.

Is it because both sides use Colossians 3:16 to affirm their position ?


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2005)

Mark:

What I meant was that some EP proponents try to stand EP on the RPW instead of standing it on necessary inference from Scripture. When they cannot clearly stand it upon Scripture, and they cannot establish the necessary inference upon Scripture alone, they derive it secondarily as necessary inference from the RPW. When non-EP argues against that argument, retaining the same notion that EP must stand upon RPW in that manner, then I think no progress is made. It is not that I am saying that non-EP also stands upon the RPW in the same respect. Non-EP applies the RPW against the imposition of EP that has no Scriptural warrant: i.e., imposing EP based upon the RPW is a breaking of the RPW. But non-EP stands upon the open-ended command to worship in song and with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, not excluding anything that results or is directly implied in that. Therefore the command to make melody, compose ( i.e., "sing a new song" ), etc., without certain specific exclusions cannot help but to be regarded as an inclusive command, not an exclusive command. That is why the EP argument is vary important to non-EP-ers.

[Edited on 10-20-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2005)

I just want to remind you, Mark, that my objections to EP are based upon the double standard that it implies: the RPW applies to non-office-bearers, but not to office-bearers.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I just want to remind you, Mark, that my objections to EP are based upon the double standard that it implies: the RPW applies to non-office-bearers, but not to office-bearers.



How does it apply to non-office-bearers but not to office bearers ? ?

Here is the RPW again: (Or at least the only formulation of it I will accept for the sake of any argument)



> "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 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."
> 
> Westminster Confession (I:VI):




John, you said,



> But non-EP stands upon the open-ended command to worship in song and with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, not excluding anything that results or is directly implied in that. Therefore the command to make melody, compose ( i.e., "sing a new song" ), etc., without certain specific exclusions cannot help but to be regarded as an inclusive command, not an exclusive command.



For the record:

MY view of non-EP does stand upon the open command you mention, but I add that scripture is our example, and the Psalms show us what acceptable praise looks like. We should use the Psalms, and other songs in scripture, as patterns of what our hymns and spiritual songs be in content, and structure, and object (God).

Is that inclusive or exclusive ? ?


----------



## JohnV (Oct 20, 2005)

Mark:

In reverse order:

I was only expressing the non-EP view so far as it has been expressed so far; I was not making an assertion as to what it ought to stand on. I would agree with it, but I would add provisos. 

As you quoted the WCF, you will notice that it is in Chapter One of the WCF. This is about the Word. So this applies to doctrine and the application of rule according to God's Word. In itself, as pertaining to the RPW, this is more a matter of doctrine and of the general goevernment of the church according to God's Word. It would not exclude discretionary rulings, expediencies which tend toward the peace and order of the church, but it does rule that these ought to be in accordance with Christ's will for His church. So here we have the difference between element and circumstance. But also, I would suggest, we have a clear distinction between representing Christ to the church and representing the church before God, i.e., the two-way priesthood of office. So I see the RPW applying also in two ways. I agree that what is not commanded is forbidden as it pertains to representing Christ to the church, but have to be very careful about applying that in representing the congregation before Christ without destroying Christian liberty of conscience. 

I was expressing the state of affairs in our churches at present. I am not suggesting the the RPW does not apply to the offices; I am suggesting that the churches are not applying it to the offices.$ But they should be doing that first if they want to impose it upon the worship of God by the people.


----------

