# RPW and the Nature of Christ



## piningforChrist (Nov 1, 2005)

<P>Colossians 2:16-17 states, "Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." </P>
<P><STRONG>Why does it seem that when RPW is defended, it's always with forms from the OT wrapped in a tight robe of eisegeted NT texts?</STRONG></P>
<P>It may be, that in our hardness of heart, we deem that outward shadows are essential.&nbsp; Because we say,&nbsp;"Shame, shame," to Easter and Christmas celebrations, Christ, his nature as the fulfillment of the OT shadows, is demeaned, I daresay, profaned.&nbsp; </P>
<P>I say it is time to practice semper reformada.&nbsp; Enough ardent regulation.&nbsp; Back to liberal expression.&nbsp; Christ and His glory are&nbsp;at stake.&nbsp; </P>
<P><STRONG>Will you continue to walk in shadows, or worship the LIGHT, in feasts, celebrations, and&nbsp;worship services without number (or regulation)?</STRONG></P>

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 1, 2005)

Matthew, what Confession of Faith do you adhere to?


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 1, 2005)

I hold to the 1689 LBCF.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 1, 2005)

Okay, I'm going to dive in where wiser members fear to tread, or maybe they're just choosing their battles.

The problem seems to me to be who are we worshipping and how are we doing it? I don't believe in any way that we are still under an administration of types and shadows, and I don't get into debates about what we can and cannot do on the Sabbath. Having said that, I fled from a church which had no RPW and don't intend to go to another that doesn't for one reason - experience! Yes, I know that's not too reformed. When I go to churches where anything goes in worship and we sing a lot of "look at me worshipping God, how much I love him" songs, my mind wanders and I eventually get annoyed and discouraged. When I go to a church where we sing a lot of " Look at how great and wise and holy our God is, people are nuts not to worship Him!" songs, I leave feeling (yes feeling) uplifted and strengthened in my faith and ready to face the week because I have an almighty sovereign God, who is for me because of what Christ did, and who can be seriously against me? (Visualize touchy-feely emoticom here)

In my humble opinion, the RPW safeguards the latter type of worship.

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## JohnV (Nov 2, 2005)

I have gone through some churches too. My original church fell to liberalism; the church which split from that one, which I went with, failed to distance themselves from that same trend; the next one fell to sectarianism. This latter one is prevalent in our so-called orthodox circles, where a minister may preach whatever he wants, as long as he believes it is Biblical, and only afterward is it scrutinized by his Session or Presbytery; and then only to see if it is within an allowable parameter of opinion, and not whether Christ actually instituted it through His Word to be taught. 

But an ordinary member like you and I, unordained, may not even sing the famous jeremiad, Great is Thy Faithfulness. This *is* the _stutus quo_ in our denominations: a double standard. 

Look at the argument for the Framework Hypothesis (I like picking on this one because it is so obvious. ) We can read in Ex. 20 that God puts the six work days right side by side to the six creation days. But the FH defender will say that it is only man's opinion that this means a six regular day creation. So it is not man's word against God's word ( i.e.: Framework Hypothesis vs. Six-Day ), but man's word against another man's word ( i.e.: FH theory vs. Six-Day theory ). But then, you see, neither is regarded as God's word, but both as man's theory; therefore so much the less a matter of an elder's mandate. No FH defender will claim that kind of authority that they know with certainty either from Scripture or from the light of nature that the FH is God's clear will; all they are doing, in reality, is denying the six-day teaching of Scripture. But that's OK, because the ordained offices are nor regulated by the RPW. The RPW does not apply; i.e.: what God does not command is not forbidden. 

It applies only to you and me. No matter how biblical Great is Thy Faithfulness may be, it is clearly forbidden by Scripture that you or I sing it in worship. Its Biblical or doctrinal correctness has nothing to do with it; it is here that the direct command of Scripture must be found in order to allow it as an addition to the Psalms. If God does not command it, it is forbidden. 

This is a clear double standard. 

I believe fully in the RPW. And I uphold it with all my heart. That is why I am so opposed to its present day applications to refusing hymns and such like things. It is not that I oppose those who, with all their heart, find their consciences bound by singing only from the Psalms. No, I support them. But you cannot convince me that people know what the RPW is if ministers and elders are given licence to lord their opinions over ordinary members, opinions which have no clear command from Scripture, while things such as Scriptural hymns are disallowed at the same moment in time. The reason the RPW is at the butt end of a lot of criticism at present is because it surely needs it.

Everyone and every church has a rpw of some kind. There are reasons why some things are allowed and some not; and these are claimed to be Biblical reasons. That is a rpw. For a church to posit that they will not adhere to the RPW is for them a rpw. It is of no use to argue against *the* RPW, whether it is derived from Deuteronomy or from the Second Commandment. 

What it actually is, though, seems to be still up in the air. If it too is a matter of personal interpretation, then it really does not exist at all except as an ordinance put in place by the elders under the authority to rule the church according to good order. And that too is divinely granted.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> <P>Colossians 2:16-17 states, "Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." </P>
> <P><STRONG>Why does it seem that when RPW is defended, it's always with forms from the OT wrapped in a tight robe of eisegeted NT texts?</STRONG></P>
> <P>It may be, that in our hardness of heart, we deem that outward shadows are essential.&nbsp; Because we say,&nbsp;"Shame, shame," to Easter and Christmas celebrations, Christ, his nature as the fulfillment of the OT shadows, is demeaned, I daresay, profaned.&nbsp; </P>
> ...



Are you really interested to understand us? Or are you just here to attack other brothers?

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 2, 2005)




----------



## Rich Barcellos (Nov 2, 2005)

Matthew,

Must "ardent regulation" and "liberal expression" be sworn enemies? If you hold to the 1689 Confession, then by implication, you hold to some form of regulation (22:1-6, esp. 22:1). As far as "liberal expression" goes, if you mean by that fervency, joyfullness, love, grace, all these terms are used in the Confession. It seems to me that you may be overstating your case. Are you reacting to perceived abuses?


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 2, 2005)

I'm not really interested in understading all of you; I am only here to attack my fellow brothers. Obviously I'm being facetious. I'm here to challenge myself and others by providing questions that will hopefully examine why we hold to the things we do, and in what way they conform to the truth of Scripture, and necessarily following from that, the exaltation and celebration, and adoration of Christ.

By ardent regulation, I mean legalism defined as, "The erecting of specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of Scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for full participation in the local family of God, the church." Either forbidding or requiring special days of worship, such as the Lord's birth and resurrection would fall under this category of legalism. Moreover, forbidding singing of a wide variety of Spirit-wrought, Truth-bound songs would also show a holding on to legalism. I have fallen into this trapping before, and I still continue to do so from time to time. Therefore, I first and foremost call myself to semper reformada. 

In my opinion, the testimony of Christ in the heart of the believer is at stake. We will either show Christ to be the God of the nations in our worship, or show Him to be the God of our comfort-zone. 

I want to choose the former.

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by piningforChrist]

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 2, 2005)

Scripture regulates what is or isn't a comfort-zone in worship, Matthew. You have no justification to label things as "legalism" when God's Word itself teaches us against doing such things, as is the conviction of many in the Reformed world and otherwise in regards to worship. In my estimation, your entire 'argument' is little more than emotionalism and straw men. Don't come onto a Reformed/Puritan message board and presume to lecture its members about putting the testimony of Christ in our hearts at stake; that is unwelcomed and unsubstantiated by anything you have said thus far. If you joined this board to discuss the things of God and to grow in knowlege and wisdom, then have a nice stay and God bless you in your pursuits; if you came on here with an agenda from what you have learned from your pastor or elsewhere, then keep it to yourself. This board isn't about pushing agendas, but respectful, intelligent, informed discussion. I don't think you will find anyone on here apologizing for being Reformed or holding to the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Nov 2, 2005)

The only day we require for worship is the Lord's Day - a very special day of worship every week in celebration of the resurrection.  When "Christmas" or "Easter" falls on a Lord's Day, we hold SS, and am and pm worship as usual. Sometimes we capatilize on the fact that many people are thinking about Christ's birth and/or resurrection at that time and preach accordingly, sometimes we don't.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> The only day we require for worship is the Lord's Day - a very special day of worship every week in celebration of the resurrection.  When "Christmas" or "Easter" falls on a Lord's Day, we hold SS, and am and pm worship as usual. Sometimes we capatilize on the fact that many people are thinking about Christ's birth and/or resurrection at that time and preach accordingly, sometimes we don't.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 2, 2005)

Every Sunday is Resurrection Sunday. It is the Lord's Day, the Victory and Triumph of God on display for the whole world to see and fall down before in dust and ashes. Christ is our Victorious King EVERY WEEK.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 2, 2005)

<P>I think that a good examination of how Jesus deals with the Sabbath will shed some light on how he deals with regulating worship.&nbsp; Surely, those who worship God, worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.&nbsp; I am not saying that we must ignore Scripture or the Spirit in our formulation and practice of worship.&nbsp; Nonetheless, there is a good deal of freedom granted to the church of God to prudently magnify Chirst in a multitude of ways that the OT could not.&nbsp; For example, Chapter 1, Section 6 of the 1689 LBCF states, </P><BR>
<P>"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. <STRONG>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."</STRONG></P><BR>
<P>Therefore, my claim is that, although the Lord's Day is to always be observed according to the below statements of Jesus, He has also given us&nbsp;a larger measure of liberty to determine circumstances concerning the worship of God, such as setting aside non-binding days of celebration of the great acts of Christ, in so far as they concur with the Holy Scriptures, that is, the expressed rules of the Word.&nbsp; As long as the expressed rules of the Word are kept by faith and a yoke of a&nbsp;binding nature is not placed on such celebrations, Christian prudence and the light of nature necessarily give us the liberty to choose specific days throughout the year to proclaim and show the excellencies of Christ.&nbsp; For example, celebrating His resurrection and holding optional services for sorrow during tragedies such as 9/11.&nbsp;</P><BR>
<P>Let´s read Matthew 12:1-14.</P><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "œLook, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." He said to them, "œHave you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? [At this point in the same story Mark 2:27 records, "œAndhe said to them, "˜<U>The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath</U>.´"] Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, <U>something greater than the temple is here</U>. And if you had known what this means, "˜<U>I desire mercy, and not sacrifice</U>,´ you would not have condemned <U>the guiltless</U>. For <U>the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath</U>." He went on from there and entered their synagogue. And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, "œIs it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" - so that they might accuse him. He said to them, "œWhich one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! <U>So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath</U>." Then he said to the man, "œStretch out your hand." And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.</P></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>Dr. John Piper states, </P><BR>
<P>"The upshot of all this is not that there is no special day for the followers of Christ but that there is certainly a new kind of freedom and a new criterion for what is permissible (foreseen in Hosea 6:6). Jesus did not try to settle whether his disciples´ behavior fit the mold of the law. He put the issue on a new plane: The Sabbath is for expressing Jesus´ rule and authority, not Moses´"”it is for worshipping Christ. The Sabbath is for relieving man, not burdening him. The Sabbath is for showing mercy and doing good." <A href="http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/05/100205.html" target=_blank><FONT color=#0000ff>http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/05/100205.html</FONT></A></P><BR>
<P>My claim: worshipping Christ is to be done in Spirit and in Truth.&nbsp; The new type of freedom and the new criterion for what is permissible shown cheifly in Hosea 6:6, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," relates both to the Sabbath and to other means and modes of worshipping God.&nbsp; Therefore, Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, New Years, Birthdays, Reformation Day, etc, may be celebrated with word and sacrament in so far as they do not&nbsp;fall into the legalism that Paul warned against in Galatians 4:10-11, which may be defined as John Piper defines one meaning of legalism as,&nbsp;"The erecting of specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of Scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for full participation in the local family of God, the church."&nbsp; Beyond this, Christian prudence of the local elders may rightly set aside celebrations, worship services, and thanksgivings for the sake of edifying the body and proclaiming the excellencies of Christ.</P>


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 2, 2005)

Matthew, respectfully, you likely will not (or I would hope so) find many people on here that would adhere to Piper's views on worship. Most on this board adhere to historic Reformed confessions and the Regulative Principle of Worship in some form or the other.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 2, 2005)

Gabriel, I appreciate your remarks. 

Please kindly ignore Piper's quote, then, and respond to my interpretation of the text in Matthew 12 and its application to the extent and limitations of the regulative principle.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Nov 2, 2005)

Matthew,

Mt. 12:1-14 is not instituting anything new, in my opinion. Jesus refernces the OT three times (Mt. 12:3-4, 5, and 7) to show that His disciples' Sabbath conduct was a work of necessity and had ample precident in the OT. The Pharisees said, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not *lawful* to do on the Sabbath!" Jesus repsonse was to show that it was *lawful*. Again, in Mt. 12:10, they asked Him, saying, "Is it *lawful* to heal on the Sabbath?" Note that they are asking what is *lawful* under the divine revelation given to date. Jesus argues for the lawfulness of doing good on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:12), not from any "new type of freedom" or "new criterion for what is permissible" but from man's status as a creature more valuable than a sheep. This is nothing new. Man, imago Dei, has always been more valuable than a sheep and always will be. in my opinion, Mt. 12 gives examples of works of necessity and works of mercy that were and are still lawful to do on the Sabbath. Neither the disciples nor Jesus were breaking the Sabbath, nor was He instituting something new.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 2, 2005)

Matthew,

Christ's statements in Matthew 12 relate to the (usual) excess by the Pharisees in making something that God made for man's good to be a hindrance to him. Hence Calvin says:



> The Pharisees saw the disciples of Christ employed in a holy work; they saw them worn out with the fatigue of the journey, and partly with want of food; and yet are offended that, when they are hungry, they take a few grains of corn for the support of their wearied bodies. Is not this a foolish attempt to overturn the purpose of God, when they demand to the injury of men that observation of the Sabbath which he intended to be advantageous? But they are mistaken, I think, who suppose that in this passage the Sabbath is entirely abolished; for Christ simply informs us what is the proper use of it.



The most significant thing that is often missed about passages relating to the Sabbath (or other portions of the OT) is that Christ self-consciously does not take the "easy" way out of saying: _"you are misisng the point; the {Sabbath/RPW/etc} is not applicable any more in this age of grace."_ Instead, Christ goes out of His way to reaffirm the OT institution.

It would appear to me at least that your position on Matthew 12 proves too much. For if Christ were instituting a new change in the Sabbath (and hence, by your analogy, the RPW) instead of a restoration of the true nature of the Sabbath from all time after the manner of the Sermon on the Mount (stripping away the varnish of the Pharisees over the 4th commandment, if you will, to use Pipa's turn of phrase), then the statements in Matthew 12 would imply that the 4th Commandment as given at Sinai:

1. Was not given for man
2. that it was not lawful to do good such as happened on that occasion (i.e. under the Old Covenant the apostles - and Christ - could have been justly punished)

Any such change brings the implicit consequence that Christ's activities with respect to the Sabbath are not sinful solely because of the change in administration - when in fact Christ instituted the New Covenant, and lived under the Old.

Blessings,


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 2, 2005)

I admit that applying Mt. 12:1-14 to the regulative principle of worship is not faithful to the scope of the text. I accept your rebuke of my faulty argument.

I love the Lord's Day and I am happy that Jesus made it for our good and for a greater manifestation of His glory. My questions are, does the church have the freedom to hold non-required worship services on meaningful days (e.g., Reformation Day, Resurrection Day, New Year's Day, days directly following a disaster such as 9/11) in order to serve the body both in times of crisis and in times of thanksgiving? Can the scope of Romans 14 apply to the freedom of prudent celebration/mourning during such days, even though it was originally intended for the Jewish audience who were probably observing days perscribed in the OT? Whether yes or no in relation to public worship services on these days, what of private family worship? What is the typical Reformed Baptist position on this issue as well as the typical Presbyterian position on this issue?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 2, 2005)

Matthew, 


"My claim: worshipping Christ is to be done in Spirit and in Truth. "


I did a brief sermon on this (John 4:1-26) a couple of Sunday's ago. In my sermon and exegesis, I found my conclusions to be the opposite of your phrase "The new type of freedom" in worship, and what you are purporting.

This may be of help:

October 23, 2005 _Culture and Worship (Reforming Worship)_ John 4:1-26 by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
http://www.christcovenantrpc.org/AudioSermons.htm


----------



## JohnV (Nov 2, 2005)

> John Piper defines one meaning of legalism as, "The erecting of specific requirements of conduct beyond the teaching of Scripture and making adherence to them the means by which a person is qualified for full participation in the local family of God, the church."



Wow, does that hit the nail on the head for me. 

Matthew, it seems to me that you are trying to fix what you see as one extreme by positing another, perhaps an opposite one. That wouldn't fix the abuse of the RPW for me. I'm not interested in answering a free-for-all with another free-for-all on the opposite side. That would destroy my defence for my position. I have a claim because there *is* a RPW, and it would be destroyed if there was not. The difference is not whether there is a RPW, but whether it applies to ministers; and then not just equally, but especially, since they are the mouth of God. 

What you are asking is to replace one RPW with another, nothing more. You want us to replace our conscience with yours, that's all. That is what is being unfairly done in the churches, with the blessing of many, by popular leaders of new movements and ideas, using their office as a cloak of protection against contrary opinions from the non-ordained, and using the pulpit to popularize their ideas.

Yes, I agree that today's version of the RPW appears to be nothing more than legalism, visited unfairly upon those who worship God according to their conscience, and applied hardly at all, if at all, upon those who have taken oaths of office, to separate their personal ideas from the clear mandates of office. These latter have an obligation of duty that comes first, and nowhere is there licence in that definition of office to confuse these personal viewpoints with their mandates. Yet it happens all to easily, and often without redress as to the RPW, the very thing that is supposed to forbid it. 

This seems to be what you are taking aim at. You call it legalism. But it is the abuse that is legalism, not the thing itself. How can you fix something that you think is bias by applying another bias? How can fix something that is pejoratively stacked with another pejorative stacking? 

But that is not the RPW then, is it? It is clear that we have not yet worked out some details concerning the RPW, such as whether it is a breaking of it to allow or to disallow hymns. Though I myself feel that it is clearly a breaking of it to disallow hymns, yet if I were an elder I would not think it a breaking of it if it breaks the other's conscience regarding the admission of hymns to what he believes to be holy worship. That is the problem. What breaks one's conscience satisfies another's. And what are the elders to do? They are called to fidelity in duty and calling, not to impose their own wills; a much higher calling than the ordinary member. And the ordinary member, it is true, is called to faith to the best that he knows how, without discrimination against the spiritually or intellectually poorer. The elders are confined in how they may apply the RPW, as they should be, while those in their charge "work out their salvation with fear and trembling."

[edit]
Sorry about that. I was going to edit something out that I should not have added, but my thumb accidentally hit the touchpad (again) and that entered the post before I could edit it out. If you read it before I edited it out, please forgive me for my inattention.

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 2, 2005)

Thank you, Rev. Dr. C. Matthew McMahon...I am listening with humility, by God's grace.


----------



## piningforChrist (Nov 2, 2005)

I recant.

I believe that we must worship the Father with our whole redeemed selves, in spirit and in truth. The regulative principle of worship should be bound to the text of John 4. Christ is seeking whores. He will not leave us in our sin, but will, by His grace through faith in Chirst alone, take away our hearts of stone and give us hearts of flesh, hearts that thirst for the living waters that flow to us through Christ His Son. Then, as His Holy Spirit works in our hearts, the spiritual water He gives us will become in us a spring of water welling up to eternal life. This is what I gather thus far:

1) The whole counsel of Scripture must inform our worship.

2) Worship is not bound to a place, but is meeted out in our everyday lives, for, whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, we are to do to the glory of God.

3) Corporate worship is necessary on the Lord's Day, the first day of every week, where we feed upon Christ spiritually together through the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, the preaching/hearing of the Word, the expression of corporate prayer, the partaking of the Lord's Supper, the administration of baptism, the giving of exhortation, encouragement, and blessing, and the practical happenings that are privy to the local body.

4) Regular family worship is necessary and would be best to be done daily.

5) Humility of heart is the aim, for God delights in a humble and contrite heart. This should be our daily focus as we go about study, prayer, love, and work, striving to humble ourselves by the Holy Spirit throgh the Word.

6) Currently unsure on the holiday issue?

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 2, 2005)

Amen brother. Changing our position (being honest about it) can be very hard. I appreciate your forthrightness.

May we all worship in spirit and truth!


----------

