# Acceptable Worship - W.C.F.XXI.I



## irresistible_grace (Jan 21, 2013)

From the WCF chapter XXI paragraph I


> the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself



Yesterday, it was stated that "idolatry" is ____(a list of things)_______. However, worshipping the right God the wrong way was not defined a idolatry.

When the question was raised about *churches that violate the Regulative Principle of Worship*, the response was pretty much that it was *not idolatry.*

*Isn't it idolatry to worship the true God (aka the right God) 
in ways not instituted by God himself (aka the wrong way)?*

Exodus 20:4-6 are cited among the proof text for WCF chapter XXI paragraph I 

When we left a church because of the RPW, I was asked by a member of that church to explain how they were violating the 2ND commandment because that is the reason the pastor gave her for our departure. Even though we left on account of the RPW & an issue of conscience. _That pastor obvious believed that worshipping the right God the wrong way is idolatry._ *Is it? And, why/why not?*


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jan 23, 2013)

We cannot worship at many churches now (even "Reformed") because we have been (up until this past Lord's Day) convienced that to do so would be to violate the 2ND commandment. Any thoughts would be helpful. I am not baiting an arguement. I really want to hear everyone's answer to this question with reasons explaining your views. I will not argue. I am here to learn!

*Is it or is it NOT idolatry to worship the true God in ways not instituted by God himself?*


----------



## Zach (Jan 23, 2013)

Jess, I was really interested in this topic when you posted it and am interested in hearing some thoughts of people more qualified because I haven't fully thought through my own. But, in the interest of generating discussion I'll share my initial thoughts. Admittedly, I take a softer approach to the RPW than some on the PB. As for now, my take is that it permits the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, with reverence and awe and in Spirit and in truth, together with the correct administration of the sacrements, with all things done according the instructions we're given in the First-Fourth Commandments. Nevertheless, I think even unregulated worship done with a sincere and true faith in the Lord Jesus is made acceptable in Him, just as all the insufficiencies in our regulated worship are also made acceptable to him. I've used this verse in other places, but I think true faith in the Lord Jesus overcomes all of our shortcomings:



> Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. *And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. *(Romans 14:4 ESV)



So to take the example in another thread of "dancing" in worship. Is it sinful? Yes. But, if done in true faith in the Lord Jesus it will be forgiven, for the Lord is able to make him that does it stand. So I would say, although an error, to worship the true God in ways not instituted by God is not the same as idolatrous false religion.

I hope that is clear and helpful in describing where I am coming from and also hope that it will generate some discussion on an interesting question.


----------



## A5pointer (Jan 23, 2013)

Can you enlighten us on specific activities that are going on that disturb your sense of proper worship?


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jan 23, 2013)

Simplicity of Worship - The Westminster Presbyterian


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 23, 2013)

In terms of the logic of the 10C (as understood and confessed by traditional Reformed/Presbyterian), the 1C prohibits any false god opposed to the one, true God.

The 2C follows as prohibiting the worship of the one true God by false or unauthorized methods. In other words, one can behave toward a false god (a lie) by whatever... it was already a lie before it began.

But suppose one has excluded most of the original error respecting _which_ God is the proper object of worship. There still remains the possibility of basic *idolatry* if the living God is treated improperly, that is falsely.

So, it would seem as if the first pastor mentioned understood your (Jess') objection and reason for departure as RPW-related, and therefore particularly related to the 2C (thus concern for idolatry in the strict sense).

Obviously, because there are disputes over whether a certain thing is authorized by Scripture, those who have a narrower definition may find certain practices/observances, by those ostensibly holding to the same principle, nevertheless borderline or over-the-line into forbidden idolatry.

It is just a fact that for most of the population, it's always possible to find someone to the right of where you are standing. And you just think they are too far, or absurdly far.

Someone is wrong, but here is where charity intervenes. "To his own master he either stands or falls." We all have to decide how different from us those of our closest associates can be, and set the terms of our connections accordingly.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jan 23, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> In terms of the logic of the 10C (as understood and confessed by traditional Reformed/Presbyterian), the 1C prohibits any false god opposed to the one, true God.
> 
> The 2C follows as prohibiting the worship of the one true God by false or unauthorized methods. In other words, one can behave toward a false god (a lie) by whatever... it was already a lie before it began.
> 
> ...



Thank you.



A5pointer said:


> Can you enlighten us on specific activities that are going on that disturb your sense of proper worship?



It is not about what disturbs my sense of proper worship.
It is about the Regulative Principle of Worship and the acceptable way of worshipping the true God.
It is about ONLY doing that which has been instituted by God himself.
Prayer, Reading of God's Word, Preaching of God's Word, Singing of God's Word (unaccompanied by musical instruments), and the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper)


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 23, 2013)

EP Churches don't consider non-EP Reformed Churches to be doing the equivalent of worshipping the Golden Calf when they use hymns or musical instruments, otherwise they'd break off all fraternal relations with them.

Some EPers may speak this way in order to "up the ante" in the debate over hymns and musical instruments, but what we really think about the non-EPers is that their form of worship is not ideal in respect to the 2nd Commandment and the rest of God's Word, and it opens up the possibility of things slipping further.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 23, 2013)

Jess:

In a sense, one could call _any_ sin "idolatry." Every time you sin you're putting your desire to commit that sin ahead of God. Your sinful desire becomes an idol. This is why, in a sense, the first command to have no other gods is broken every time any of the others is broken. You will never be able to separate yourself from that kind of idolator. Every church is full of them. Sin remains pervasive enough, even in saved people, that you will always be able to look at any church and notice some way that group of people tends to put their own desires ahead of God.

But there are narrower senses of "idolatry," too. These come when you systematically worship a false god or when you worship using images. The fact that the principle that God should only be worshiped as he commanded is based, in part, on the carved images command might not make every violation of that principle "idolatry" in the narrower sense that people often use the word.

I suspect you need to make sure you don't let the semantics of how people in your church tend to use that word get you more upset with them than necessary. Try to move beyond word usage and have fruitful discussions about what is sin and how you (all of you) need to repent.

This much I can guarantee: You surely will never find a church this side of heaven that's perfect in worshipping God as he commanded either in the externals of the worship service or in the internal thoughts of the heart. worshipping _with others_, as we are commanded to do, means joining an imperfect church. It means recognizing first of all that your own sin, despite the many benefits you may bring to that church, will also add to the imperfection of its worship. It means delighting in a church because you delight in her Savior through whom our worship is pleasing, not because you finally found a church perfect enough to meet your standards.

No doubt there are many wrongheaded worship practices that would make it right to leave a church. It's also good to pick a church with the best practices you can find. But the way you talk about how you "cannot worship" at so many churches raises a concern for you in my mind:
-- You can get your sense of righteousness and being pleased with yourself from being in a right church. This leads to judging the church (either a good judgment or a bad one) as the primary thought when you come to worship.
-- Or you can get your sense of righteousness and being pleased with yourself from being in Christ. This leads to glorifying Christ as the primary thought when you come to worship, and it allows you to truly worship even in imperfect settings.

I know those two choices well because I am often strongly tempted toward the first one. It's hard to work for purity in the church yet still be able to worship in a church that does things I disapprove of. I do believe many churches worship so wrongly it would be sinful for me to attend. But when I start to get to the point where I think the vast majority of God's people are unsuitable for me, with my more godly standards, to join them in worship—well, that's when I need to check my heart to see whether I truly love Christ or just love being more right than others.

I don't know If you're tempted that way, but I surely am! So I mention it on the chance that it may apply.


----------



## Edward (Jan 23, 2013)

irresistible_grace said:


> Is it or is it NOT idolatry to worship the true God in ways not instituted by God himself?



Or turn it around. Is it idolatry to put the form of worship over the substance? 

"The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error"

Most of us would agree that failure to follow the RPW is error (although we might disagree as to what exactly RPW encompasses). But can we reach a point where our aspiration for purity in worship becomes our goal to the extent that it becomes our idol? Can the form become more important than the substance?


----------



## matt01 (Jan 23, 2013)

> Prayer, Reading of God's Word, Preaching of God's Word, Singing of God's Word (unaccompanied by musical instruments), and the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper)



Pardon my ignorance; I am reading this on a very small phone...so maybe I missed something. Are you saying that you would leave, or call idolatrous a church that did not conform its worship to this quote? We are dealing with 2nd Commandment disagreements at this point. The church we attend interprets Scripture and the 1689 differently than we do. It is unfortunate, but we recognize that this is where the Lord would have us at this time. We have decided to not leave and that we will continue to teach our children as our conscience dictates, as well as avoiding some events... Aside from respectfully discussing the issue with the pastor, we are not pursuing the issue. I hate to imagine what would happen if we avoided every church that we had slightly disagreed with over the years...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 23, 2013)

The "separatism" error often dogs pursuit of purity of worship issues.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jan 23, 2013)

matt01 said:


> > Prayer, Reading of God's Word, Preaching of God's Word, Singing of God's Word (unaccompanied by musical instruments), and the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper)
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon my ignorance; I am reading this on a very small phone...so maybe I missed something. Are you saying that you would leave, or call idolatrous a church that did not conform its worship to this quote? We are dealing with 2nd Commandment disagreements at this point. The church we attend interprets Scripture and the 1689 differently than we do. It is unfortunate, but we recognize that this is where the Lord would have us at this time. We have decided to not leave and that we will continue to teach our children as our conscience dictates, as well as avoiding some events... Aside from respectfully discussing the issue with the pastor, we are not pursuing the issue. I hate to imagine what would happen if we avoided every church that we had slightly disagreed with over the years...



That quote that you are questioning is how we worshipped in the RPCNA & how we worship in the Free Church of Scotland (continuing). 

I don't make it my business to call churches "idolatrous." 

This thread has to do with the biblical arguments for the RPW that brought us out & to where we are today. The reason I said, "I cannot worship at many churches" was based on the Reformed/Confessional issue of "acceptable worship." It is because my conscience is bond due to their innovations in worship. And, this issue of conscience is why I asked the question to begin with & bumped the thread yesterday when no one was responding. I am trying to understand where others are coming from in hopes of dealing with my own understanding on the issue of "acceptable worship."

I have never thrown a stool at a minister before but sometimes I know where Jenny Geddes was coming from.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jan 23, 2013)

From The Heidelberg


> Q & A 95
> Q. What is idolatry?
> A. Idolatry is having or inventing something in which one trusts in place of or alongside of the only true God, who has revealed himself in the Word.
> 1 Chron. 16:26; Gal. 4:8-9; Eph. 5:5;Phil. 3:19
> ...


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jan 24, 2013)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The "separatism" error often dogs pursuit of purity of worship issues.


Thank you for commenting but I am not following you. Could you please explain what you mean?


PS - The Confession Presbyterian Journal has a great Survey of the RPW by Frank J Smith that started me on this journey!


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jan 24, 2013)

Belgic Confession Article 7


> For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures



Belgic Confession Article 32


> Therefore we reject all human innovations and all laws imposed on us, in our worship of God, which bind and force our consciences in any way.


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 24, 2013)

Part of the issue here is the common confusion that believing in the RPW necessarily entails a particular list of worship practices, and therefore anyone who doesn't follow our pattern of worship doesn't really believe the RPW. Strictly speaking, however, the RPW simply states that the Bible alone is to regulate our worship. It does not, in itself, do all of the necessary exegesis and interpretation to demonstrate what exactly the Bible teaches on worship. It sets the terms of the discussion (you are going to have to show me from the Bible that this practice is acceptable, not just from history, sociology or emotional attachment) but does not by itself prejudge the conclusion. As a result, there are Reformed believers who come to different conclusions about what exactly the Bible has to say about worship, as about many other things. For example, at the Westminster Assembly the Scots refused to attend the funeral of one of the English commissioners because there was going to be preaching there. They couldn't find Biblical warrant for preaching at a funeral and so declined to attend. We may or may not agree with their conclusion, but at least we have a basis for a conversation: the Bible.
So too, if I am interacting with my dispensationalist brothers and sisters, my starting point is not to say "You don't believe the Bible or you would be Reformed." It is true that I believe that Reformed theology is essentially Biblical theology, but I would appreciate the commitment dispensationalists often have to believe the Bible and then endeavor to show them that a fuller understanding of the Scriptures should lead them to subscribing to the Westminster Confession. Thus the differences in worship practices are not necessarily due to not believing the RPW but due to different exegetical conclusions. That doesn't mean that anything goes, of course. Some interpretations of Scripture are better than others, and some are flat wrong. But we need to do the hard exegetical work to demonstrate that (which on the musical question, to be fair, is often taken far more seriously by EP and non musical instruments camp than the other camp. I may (and do) think that John Girardeau's arguments don't work, but they are exegetical arguments that deserve serious interaction , not just "the Bible tells us to sing new songs").


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jan 24, 2013)

Thank you Pastor Duguid for your response.



iainduguid said:


> Part of the issue here is the common confusion that believing in the RPW necessarily entails a particular list of worship practices, and therefore anyone who doesn't follow our pattern of worship doesn't really believe the RPW. Strictly speaking, however, the RPW simply states that the Bible alone is to regulate our worship. It does not, in itself, do all of the necessary exegesis and interpretation to demonstrate what exactly the Bible teaches on worship. It sets the terms of the discussion (you are going to have to show me from the Bible that this practice is acceptable, not just from history, sociology or emotional attachment) but does not by itself prejudge the conclusion. As a result, there are Reformed believers who come to different conclusions about what exactly the Bible has to say about worship, as about many other things. For example, at the Westminster Assembly the Scots refused to attend the funeral of one of the English commissioners because there was going to be preaching there. They couldn't find Biblical warrant for preaching at a funeral and so declined to attend. We may or may not agree with their conclusion, but at least we have a basis for a conversation: the Bible.
> So too, if I am interacting with my dispensationalist brothers and sisters, my starting point is not to say "You don't believe the Bible or you would be Reformed." It is true that I believe that Reformed theology is essentially Biblical theology, but I would appreciate the commitment dispensationalists often have to believe the Bible and then endeavor to show them that a fuller understanding of the Scriptures should lead them to subscribing to the Westminster Confession. Thus the differences in worship practices are not necessarily due to not believing the RPW but due to different exegetical conclusions. That doesn't mean that anything goes, of course. Some interpretations of Scripture are better than others, and some are flat wrong. But we need to do the hard exegetical work to demonstrate that (which on the musical question, to be fair, is often taken far more seriously by EP and non musical instruments camp than the other camp. I may (and do) think that John Girardeau's arguments don't work, but they are exegetical arguments that deserve serious interaction , not just "the Bible tells us to sing new songs").



I sincerely hope you don't think that the list I gave is the "list" I use to evaluate or define the RPW. It is simply a brief summary of Reformed worship laid out in the Directory for the Publick Worship of God. Since this is a confessional board I would hope that we would not show contempt for the Confessional documents or those who hold to these documents as they are faithful to what Scripture teaches.

I will let the Westminster Assembly's Directory for the Publick Worship of God respond to your comment about the "Scots."


> Concerning Burial of the Dead.
> WHEN any person departeth this life, let the dead body, upon the day of burial, be decently attended from the house to the place appointed for publick burial, and there immediately interred, without any ceremony.
> And because the custom of kneeling down, and praying by or towards the dead corpse, and other such usages, in the place where it lies before it be carried to burial, are superstitious; and for that praying, reading, and singing, both in going to and at the grave, have been grossly abused, are no way beneficial to the dead, and have proved many ways hurtful to the living; therefore let all such things be laid aside.
> Howbeit, we judge it very convenient, that the Christian friends, which accompany the dead body to the place appointed for publick burial, do apply themselves to meditations and conferences suitable to the occasion; and that the minister, as upon other occasions, so at this time, if he be present, may put them in remembrance of their duty.
> That this shall not extend to deny any civil respects or deferences at the burial, suitable to the rank and condition of the party deceased, while he was living.



Also, based on what I've learned and understand form our confessional documents...
The Regulative Principle of Worship is, "If it is not commanded, it is forbidden." (See my above post quoting the WCF, Heidelberg & Belgic Confession (this is not exclusive to the Scottish Covenanters & Westminster Divines).
The Regulative Principle of Worship is not, however, "if we can find a proof text to justify innovation (only to say it is regulated by the Bible). That would be the Normative Principle of Worship aka "if it is not forbidden, it is permissible."


----------



## Afterthought (Jan 24, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> But suppose one has excluded most of the original error respecting which God is the proper object of worship. There still remains the possibility of basic idolatry if the living God is treated improperly, that is falsely.


Thank you for your helpful post! For further clarity, I've noticed a distinction between idolatry on the one hand, and superstition and will-worship on the other hand in various places (I quote one below; I've found it also in Durham, Gillespie, Fisher, John Brown of Haddington, and Thomas Vincent). It seems that, though perhaps it is a kind of idolatry (like lust is a kind of adultery?), not all treating of God falsely is seen in the same way? Is this correct?

Thomas Boston on the Second Commandment: "SECONDLY, I come now to speak of false worship and ordinances, which is worship and ordinances not instituted or appointed by God himself. And this is expressly forbidden, _Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image_, &c. Deut. 12.ult. *It is not only a sin not to worship God, and not to regard his ordinances, but to worship him in a way which he has not instituted, to bring in ordinances that bear not his stamp. Of this there are two sorts*. 

_First_, *Idolatry*. There is a sort of idolatry forbidden in the first command that respects the object of worship, when we worship any other than the true God. But the idolatry here forbidden respects the means of worship, when we make use of idols or images in worship, even though we intend ultimately the worshipping of the true God.

_Secondly_, *There is superstition and will-worship; that is, whatever (though not idolatry) is brought into religion as a part of it, which God hath not appointed in his word*. The command says, _Thou shalt not make_, &c. that is, but thou shalt receive the worship and ordinances as God hath appointed them, and not add to them of men's inventions, Deut. 12:29-32. As irreligion regards not God's ordinances, so superstition brings in others; by irreligion men take away from the ordinances of God, by superstition they add to them. Both are hateful to God."




irresistible_grace said:


> The reason I said, "I cannot worship at many churches" was based on the Reformed/Confessional issue of "acceptable worship." It is because my conscience is bond due to their innovations in worship. I am trying to understand where others are coming from in hopes of dealing with my own understanding on the issue of "acceptable worship."


I very much liked the articles on the Naphtali website concerning separation and schism, especially the ones by Samuel Rutherford and Thomas Boston. The idea of "negative separation," which I think Rutherford mentions, is currently part of my basis for being able to worship (without compromise) at churches who have worship practices I disagree with.



> The Regulative Principle of Worship is not, however, "if we can find a proof text to justify innovation (only to say it is regulated by the Bible). That would be the Normative Principle of Worship aka "if it is not forbidden, it is permissible."


Of course, if the proof text is such that it is a proof from Scripture that the worship practice is of divine right and command, then that is the RPW, so far as I understand it. Though I myself sometimes use the language of, "We will show this practice is acceptable from Scripture", by such I do not mean the NPW, but rather, I understand "acceptable" to be such things as are of divine right and command in the Word.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 24, 2013)

I'm happy you found that RPW series helpful. It was a fascinating study. My only point was that not every corruption in worship requires separation from a church. The second reformation reformers fought two fronts; reforming corrupt practices that had been forced upon their church, and rebutting those who were contending separation from the national church was necessary due to the corruptions. This is similar to what I posted on another thread regarding the Lord's supper. Corruptions are grievous, and we should do our best appropriate to station to work to change them, but while demurring for conscience sake is necessary, departing is not. There are many reasons in such situations folks may determine it is time to leave, but it is not "simply" necessary due to the corruptions. That is the separatist error. If you want to read more on the subject, the work by Durham I referenced in the other thread is a place to start; or there are several overview works as well as 17th century pieces, that introduce the subject online at the Naphtali Press site.



irresistible_grace said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > The "separatism" error often dogs pursuit of purity of worship issues.
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 24, 2013)

Afterthought said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > But suppose one has excluded most of the original error respecting which God is the proper object of worship. There still remains the possibility of basic idolatry if the living God is treated improperly, that is falsely.
> ...


I was going to post Fisher at one point yesterday on thiis, but other things intervened; thanks for this.


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 24, 2013)

Hi Jess,
I'm afraid it's a little more complicated than you suggest. After all, a proof text without a context is a pretext. Every text of Scripture has to be rightly interpreted in order to be rightly applied. For example, there are all kinds of commandments pertaining to worship that we are _not_ to do in our worship services, such as the various sacrificial rituals. And while not every worship practice in Scripture is for our imitation (e.g. David dancing before the ark), some narratives contain important implications for our worship (e.g. Nadab and Abihu). So the Regulative Principle of Worship is not simply a matter of restricting worship to positive commands. Listen to how Jeremiah Burroughs, one of the commissioners to the assembly, puts it:

"I have told you before that in matters of worship we must have warrant from the Word, but it does not follow that we must have a direct, expressed warrant in everything. As it is many times in some kind of picture, the great art is in the cast of the looks. You cannot say it’s in the drawing of this line or the other line, but altogether. It is the cast of the looks that causes the beauty of the picture. So in the Scripture you cannot say that this one line or the other line proves it, but let them all be laid together and there will be a kind of aspect of God’s mind. We may see that this is the mind of God rather than the other and we are bound to go that way."

This is, of course, exactly how we build all of our theology from the Scriptures, though in the field of worship we might reasonably expect to have more direct expressed warrant and less "good and necessary inference" than in some other areas. The difference between the regulative principle and the Normative principle of worship lies in areas where the Scriptures are silent: for the normative approach it is enough that the Scriptures don't forbid a practice, whereas for a regulative approach, you need to construct a Biblical argument that may not depend on one or two proof texts but does depend on the plain teaching or good and necessary inference from particular passages. So sincere believers in the RPW might come to different conclusions about the appropriateness of singing Psalm 23 as the remains of a loved one are laid to rest.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jan 24, 2013)

Afterthought said:


> Thomas Boston on the Second Commandment: "SECONDLY, I come now to speak of false worship and ordinances, which is worship and ordinances not instituted or appointed by God himself. And this is expressly forbidden,*"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image", &c. Deut. 12.ult.**It is not only a sin not to worship God, and not to regard his ordinances, but to worship him in a way which he has not instituted, to bring in ordinances that bear not his stamp. Of this there are two sorts*.*
> 
> "First",**Idolatry*. There is a sort of idolatry forbidden in the first command that respects the object of worship, when we worship any other than the true God. But the idolatry here forbidden respects the means of worship, when we make use of idols or images in worship, even though we intend ultimately the worshipping of the true God.
> 
> "Secondly",**There is superstition and will-worship; that is, whatever (though not idolatry) is brought into religion as a part of it, which God hath not appointed in his word*. The command says,*"Thou shalt not make", &c. that is, but thou shalt receive the worship and ordinances as God hath appointed them, and not add to them of men's inventions, Deut. 12:29-32. As irreligion regards not God's ordinances, so superstition brings in others; by irreligion men take away from the ordinances of God, by superstition they add to them. Both are hateful to God."



Thank you so very much.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Jan 24, 2013)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm happy you found that RPW series helpful. It was a fascinating study. My only point was that not every corruption in worship requires separation from a church. The second reformation reformers fought two fronts; reforming corrupt practices that had been forced upon their church, and rebutting those who were contending separation from the national church was necessary due to the corruptions. This is similar to what I posted on another thread regarding the Lord's supper. Corruptions are grievous, and we should do our best appropriate to station to work to change them, but while demurring for conscience sake is necessary, departing is not. There are many reasons in such situations folks may determine it is time to leave, but it is not "simply" necessary due to the corruptions. That is the separatist error. If you want to read more on the subject, the work by Durham I referenced in the other thread is a place to start; or there are several overview works as well as 17th century pieces, that introduce the subject online at the Naphtali Press site.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have Schism & Separatism | Naphtali Press bookmarked on my phone and read the article often. Thank you for mentioning it in another post (that is where I found it)! 

Please know that I am not advocating leaving a church. We are members of the FCC. It is just very hard to "visit" other churches that [appear to] violate the RPW. I do not ever recommend separating for "the" church. Since coming to the Reformed faith, we have transferred churches more than I would like to admit & if I had it to do over again we would have transferred directly from the first Reformed church we joined to the FCC. But, God has used all of "good, bad, & ugly" for our good and His glory.


----------

