# Accused of Legalism in the SBC



## W.C. Dean (Feb 25, 2020)

Greetings, tonight I had an upsetting discussion. At the SBC church I attend with my mother where we became Reformed (the Reformed Baptist pastor is now gone) I've worked on the 'production team' for a while. I change slides or something else for each service. I informed the man who is in charge of this (the creative arts pastor) that I felt uncomfortable about some of the things happening in our church on Sunday and I've decided to stop working on the production team. Namely, under an interim pastor (non Reformed) we have added altar calls and skits into our regular services. He told me that I was making a preference issue a sin issue and I'm tending toward a legalistic spirit. He wants to discuss it further. Any advice on what do or say in the future?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 25, 2020)

Are there any confessional Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian churches in your area? My advice would be to seek out such a church, even if it involved a longer commute.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## W.C. Dean (Feb 25, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Are there any confessional Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian churches in your area? My advice would be to seek out such a church, even if it involved a longer commute.



Yes I am a member of an OPC about 45 minutes away but for numerous reasons we have continued to go to this SBC church in the mornings. Would you have any advice on how to respond to what he told me?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Feb 25, 2020)

Is the "creative arts pastor" the one who is in charge of the altar calls and skits? I would find the person behind those things and have a conversation with them, expressing those concerns.

I would say it's a good sign that he wants to discuss things further.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Feb 25, 2020)

JTB.SDG said:


> Is the "creative arts pastor" the one who is in charge of the altar calls and skits? I would find the person behind those things and have a conversation with them, expressing those concerns.
> 
> I would say it's a good sign that he wants to discuss things further.



No the interim pastor from Richmond instated them but our worship leader/creative arts pastor supports them and helps to utilize them.


----------



## jw (Feb 25, 2020)

"No thank you."?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## JTB.SDG (Feb 25, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> No the interim pastor from Richmond instated them but our worship leader/creative arts pastor supports them and helps to utilize them.


Can you have a conversation with the interim pastor?


----------



## W.C. Dean (Feb 25, 2020)

JTB.SDG said:


> Can you have a conversation with the interim pastor?



I could but I don't think it would be beneficial. Both his and my time at the church are limited and departure from this team directly affect the creative arts pastor, who is also a friend. I also am quite sure our interim pastor has not been formally educated or trained in theology, and the creative arts pastor is at least somewhat Calvinistic. It's a strange dynamic but basically it would probably do nothing to talk to the Interim Pastor.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Feb 25, 2020)

Joshua said:


> "No thank you."?



Unfortunately brushing him off is not an option as he is a friend, but also he considers my position harmful to me. He told me he was worried about me. I would like to be able to make it a bit clearer for him.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 25, 2020)

I'd just ignore what he said. No reason to speak further on it. You aren't a member there. He can know you disagree with what they are doing (he does know that). And you are no longer part of the production team there by relieving your conscience of that. That's how I'd respond. By not saying anything. It's probably not beneficial to in this case.

Now as to altar calls happening and other things, if I were in your shoes I wouldn't attend there. That goes against my conscience. If it goes against your conscience your liberty of conscience is being bound by their sin. I'd go somewhere else (i.e. the OPC church you are a member of).

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## W.C. Dean (Feb 25, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> I'd just ignore what he said. No reason to speak further on it. You aren't a member there. He can know you disagree with what they are doing (he does know that). And you are no longer part of the production team there by relieving your conscience of that. That's how I'd respond. By not saying anything. It's probably not beneficial to in this case.
> 
> Now as to altar calls happening and other things, if I were in your shoes I wouldn't attend there. That goes against my conscience. If it goes against your conscience your liberty of conscience is being bound by their sin. I'd go somewhere else (i.e. the OPC church you are a member of).



Thank you, I do believe that our time is limited there but it will be very difficult for me, but especially my mother to leave soon, mostly due to the friendships we have there. We haven't really been able to develop relationships yet with the OPC congregation. Also you can see above why not talking to him is not something I want to do. As untrue as it is I really don't want a friend worrying about me holding to dangerous theology. But I also fear the issues with this church are coming to a head and might soon become problematic or divisive. Which is saddening for me.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 25, 2020)

Certainly, in relation to the issues that you mention in the OP, I think it is fair to say that you are not making a preference issue a sin issue. Given that there are no biblical grounds for introducing such things into worship, the sin lies with the other party.

Perhaps it is best for you not to be so involved with this church, as you are a member of a congregation in another denomination. I realise that there are some issues that prevent you from going to the OPC church twice on the Lord's Day, and so you are wise to go somewhere else rather than sitting at home and profaning the fourth commandment by neglecting to assemble for public worship. That said, attendance at public worship is enough; you do not need to be involved in all this other stuff. 

Still, I would urge you to consider to be wary of falling into an addiction to unnecessarily hardline positions. Over the years, I have noticed that all you have to do is dangle a hardline viewpoint in front of some people and they swallow the arguments without exercising any critical discrimination as to whether or not such a position is warranted. I could mention some specifics, but I will refrain for the time being.

Reactions: Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 25, 2020)

The plan: 

Step 1: Every week during the altar call, you approach the front of the church weeping loudly and giving a dramatic testimony. Include possible criminal activities in your testimony. 

Sometimes do this twice if the alter call is a long one. 

Step 2: Volunteer to be part of ALL the skits and do it so badly they re-evaluate the drama portion of their service. 

Within 3 months the church will cancel the altar call and all skits.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1 | Funny 12


----------



## W.C. Dean (Feb 25, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Certainly, in relation to the issues that you mention in the OP, I think it is fair to say that you are not making a preference issue a sin issue. Given that there are no biblical grounds for introducing such things into worship, the sin lies with the other party.
> 
> Perhaps it is best for you not to be so involved with this church, as you are a member of a congregation in another denomination. I realise that there are some issues that prevent you from going to the OPC church twice on the Lord's Day, and so you are wise to go somewhere else rather than sitting at home and profaning the fourth commandment by neglecting to assemble for public worship. That said, attendance at public worship is enough; you do not need to be involved in all this other stuff.
> 
> Still, I would urge you to consider to be wary of falling into an addiction to unnecessarily hardline positions. Over the years, I have noticed that all you have to do is dangle a hardline viewpoint in front of some people and they swallow the arguments without exercising any critical discrimination as to whether or not such a position is warranted. I could mention some specifics, but I will refrain for the time being.



Thank you for your response. I do understand what you're saying about hardline positions and I do try to avoid letting differences be divisive. I didn't bring up anything about my views on psalmody because I consider them secondary (but still important) to the other issues.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Feb 25, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Certainly, in relation to the issues that you mention in the OP, I think it is fair to say that you are not making a preference issue a sin issue. Given that there are no biblical grounds for introducing such things into worship, the sin lies with the other party.
> 
> Perhaps it is best for you not to be so involved with this church, as you are a member of a congregation in another denomination. I realise that there are some issues that prevent you from going to the OPC church twice on the Lord's Day, and so you are wise to go somewhere else rather than sitting at home and profaning the fourth commandment by neglecting to assemble for public worship. That said, attendance at public worship is enough; you do not need to be involved in all this other stuff.
> 
> Still, I would urge you to consider to be wary of falling into an addiction to unnecessarily hardline positions. Over the years, I have noticed that all you have to do is dangle a hardline viewpoint in front of some people and they swallow the arguments without exercising any critical discrimination as to whether or not such a position is warranted. I could mention some specifics, but I will refrain for the time being.


 
I forgot to add this, the problems with this church are strange. In some ways it is much more solid than many SBC churches, but there are so many things that would be less important on their own, but put together is where my concerns arise. Unqualified elders who purposefully avoid discipline or aid, the worship mentioned, preaching exclusively about evangelism, pretended efforts toward unity despite actual efforts to divide or undermine others in the church. I love the church, and it's impacted me more than probably any place in the future ever will, but these issues are becoming more apparent to me.


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 25, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> The plan:
> 
> Step 1: Every week during the altar call, you approach the front of the church weeping loudly and giving a dramatic testimony. Include possible criminal activities in your testimony.
> 
> ...


My dad, an IFB pastor, was telling me a few years ago that they had a guy of questionable mental health attending who came forward to the front of the church, sobbing, and gave a testimony about how he wished he were a woman and had breasts. 

It did kill "testimony time," at least until he left the church several months later. Not sure if they started it up again or no....


----------



## ZackF (Feb 25, 2020)

Andrew35 said:


> My dad, an IFB pastor, was telling me a few years ago that they had a guy of questionable mental health attending who came forward to the front of the church, sobbing, and gave a testimony about how he wished he were a woman and had breasts.


Brings a whole new meaning to the word “mourner’s bench.”

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## JTB.SDG (Feb 26, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> I could but I don't think it would be beneficial. Both his and my time at the church are limited and departure from this team directly affect the creative arts pastor, who is also a friend. I also am quite sure our interim pastor has not been formally educated or trained in theology, and the creative arts pastor is at least somewhat Calvinistic. It's a strange dynamic but basically it would probably do nothing to talk to the Interim Pastor.


Gotcha. Well, maybe just get together with your friend and try to explain where you're coming from. It might be helpful for him to hear what you have to say. Maybe he hasn't been exposed to other views.


----------



## B.L. (Feb 26, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> He told me that I was making a preference issue a sin issue and I'm tending toward a legalistic spirit. He wants to discuss it further. Any advice on what do or say in the future?





W.C. Dean said:


> Unqualified elders...



Friend, I'd say you've got a great opportunity to sit down and make your case. Don't pass it up, as you never know how the Lord will use you in this situation.

If you decide to do so ensure you keep watch over your own demeanor and try not to pull out your TR hammer and bludgeon the man to death with it. What you describe is serious of course, but remember where you're at (SBC)...the idea of a RPW is probably foreign to those in leadership positions there. When at a vegetarian's house for dinner I don't expect steak to be on the menu.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> Unfortunately brushing him off is not an option as he is a friend, but also he considers my position harmful to me. He told me he was worried about me. I would like to be able to make it a bit clearer for him.



I'd say to him that because of his support of blasphemous worship that _you_ are worried about _him _and fear that his heretical theology is harmful to _him _and that you fear he does not have a proper undestanding of the holiness and transcendance of God.



Reformed Covenanter said:


> Perhaps it is best for you not to be so involved with this church, as you are a member of a congregation in another denomination. I realise that there are some issues that prevent you from going to the OPC church twice on the Lord's Day, and so you are wise to go somewhere else rather than sitting at home and profaning the fourth commandment by neglecting to assemble for public worship. That said, attendance at public worship is enough; you do not need to be involved in all this other stuff.



It would not be profaning the Sabbath to stay at home instead of attending this SBC church and if he is unable to attend the OPC church twice. It is better to worship at home faithfully than to do so publicly but in a way which breaks the Second Commandment. The command to gather together does not void other requirements.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 26, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> It would not be profaning the Sabbath to stay at home instead of attending this SBC church and if he is unable to attend the OPC church twice. It is better to worship at home faithfully than to do so publicly but in a way which breaks the Second Commandment. The command to gather together does not void other requirements.



You misunderstand me. I never said he should partake in second commandment violations. Simply attending a church service where the worship is imperfect does not involve one in breaking the second commandment if one abstains from what is erroneous in its worship. However, other people's violations of the second commandment do not justify your violation of the fourth - separatist purity-spiralling notwithstanding.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You misunderstand me. I never said he should partake in second commandment violations. Simply attending a church service where the worship is imperfect does not involve one in breaking the second commandment if one abstains from what is erroneous in its worship. However, other people's violations of the second commandment do not justify your violation of the fourth - separatist purity-spiralling notwithstanding.



Perhaps I misread your comment. My point was that if one believes it would be a violation of his conscience to attend churches in his area- or that they are all breaking the Second Commandment in some form in their worship- it would not be a violation of the Fourth Commandment for him to remain at home rather than attending public worship.


----------



## Relztrah (Feb 26, 2020)

How interim is your interim pastor? Will the altar calls and skits end when he's gone?


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 26, 2020)

I would take this as a genuine show of concern for your spiritual health by a friend. It is likely he has never even heard the arguments for regulated worship. I would get together with him and gently lay out your understanding of Scripture on this, have a few historical perspectives that show you are not an outlier and that your position is neither radical nor unBiblical, and that you would ask him to respect your views.

Or you can do what some others do: blast him as an idolater and shame him, tell him you question his salvation, and destroy your relationship with him and any chance of future influence so you can be proud of your "reformed" pedigree.

Your choice.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 5


----------



## Taylor (Feb 26, 2020)

I agree with what Pastor @fredtgreco said above. The most important thing is charity.

I think the next most important thing is to ask for definitions. One of my favorite quotes ever comes from J. C. Ryle:

"It may be laid down as a rule, with tolerable confidence, that the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy. If men would only define with precision the theological terms which they use, many disputes would die. Scores of excited disputants would discover that they do not really differ, and that their disputes have arisen from their own neglect of the great duty of explaining the meaning of words."

—John Charles Ryle, _Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion, from the Standpoint of an Evangelical Churchman_, 10th ed. (London: William Hunt and Company, 1885), 1.​
How is this person defining "legalist"? The problem is that when most evangelicals say someone is a "legalist," they simply mean either (1) that "you have a more strict view of something than I do," or (2) that "you have a different view on something than I do." Neither of these constitute legalism in the slightest. It's similar to people who call everyone they deem morally deficient "Hitler." "Legalism" in today's context is most often truly a meaningless term.

Therefore, why not ask this person what they mean by "legalist"? Then, offer to study the Bible to see if you both can come to a biblical definition and description of legalist, and see if you in fact are being a legalist. This will lead to repentance from at least one of you—you if you are in fact a legalist, and this person if they wrongfully accused you.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 26, 2020)

I would echo what Fred has said in the above post. Following the suggested pattern of destroying everyone as heretic and idolaters whom we do not instantly see eye to eye with is not only immoral in itself, but is likely to do immense damage to the Reformed cause in the long run. 

In my experience, many of the more hard-core "Reformed" types (if they may even be called Reformed at all) are more interested in simply being what Paul calls an annoying sound than they are in converting other Christians to their opinions.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2020)

I agree with @Taylor Sexton and @Reformed Covenanter

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Feb 26, 2020)

Here is a google search page on Lloyd Jones, who would not do altar calls. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=mar...rome..69i57.9471j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

One thing I found personally helpful in two situations was to ask "is that the altar?". "Hebrews says that we have an altar...is that it?" "The altar was the place of sacrifice, is that what you mean by altar?". They get confused, befuddled, and finally admit that up front by the podium or stage or wherever is not the altar. For whatever the reason, just dropping the word "altar" takes some of the power out of the stronghold. And yeah, I think it is more than habit and ritual, I think there is a demonic stronghold behind it. 

Anyway, maybe ask the guy to read a couple of the articles referring to LLoyd Jones ( he was Baptist so use him in the SBC instead of paedos lol, gotta pick your back ups carefully). 

By the way, you do not need to defend or explain yourself the rest of your life when you get an intuitive red flag that something is off. It helps to articulate why obviously, but don't fall into the trap that you have to argue perfectly some point. God gives us the gift of intuition, or call it discernment, that something just isn't right, and you need to listen to that. Make an attempt to reason it out, but don't expect instant reasoning all the time. Smile and be pleasant but firm and just say No.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Jonathco (Feb 26, 2020)

fredtgreco said:


> I would take this as a genuine show of concern for your spiritual health by a friend. It is likely he has never even heard the arguments for regulated worship. I would get together with him and gently lay out your understanding of Scripture on this, have a few historical perspectives that show you are not an outlier and that your position is neither radical nor unBiblical, and that you would ask him to respect your views.
> 
> Or you can do what some others do: blast him as an idolater and shame him, tell him you question his salvation, and destroy your relationship with him and any chance of future influence so you can be proud of your "reformed" pedigree.
> 
> Your choice.



@W.C. Dean, I can sympathize with your situation, as I too attend a non-reformed church (my post here). I am at times told I am legalistic, "majoring in minors", etc. when addressing concerns over unregulated worship in our Lord's day gathering. Having said that, I too would echo what Fred said.

It was not too long ago that I knew nothing about reformed theology - many of us simply were not raised in churches where this was taught. If your friend is willing to meet and discuss this further with you, I think you would do well to sit and explain your biblically-based understanding of the matter, and doing so with grace and patience.

"preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, _with complete patience_ and teaching." 2 Timothy 4:2 (ESV)​I would imagine that like me, your time in this church may come to an end eventually, if the church continues down their path and does not align themselves to scripture, but until then, you have an opportunity to teach truth respectfully and with grace to anyone willing to hear it. Use this time wisely.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Feb 26, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> Would you have any advice on how to respond to what he told me?


Not really. If you are Reformed in your convictions and choose to attend a church with a "worship arts pastor" you can pretty well expect to be called a legalist before too long. Can two walk together unless they be agreed? And I honestly do not think you would do yourself any favor by responding. I would simply advise you to either attend the church of which you are a member or if you cannot, attempt to attend one that is more doctrinally sound.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 26, 2020)

This is a hard position to be in, brother. You've gotten good advice here. I don't believe I read this explicitly, but I would suggest sitting down with your friend with a copy of the Westminster Standards with proofs and your Bible. Offer to go through it with him so that you two can understand each other. There's a reading plan that you both can go through in about a month (Give him a copy of the Standards. You should be able to get that from the OP you attend). Thank him for caring about your Christian walk. It might be that the Lord uses you to convict this young man of the goings-on in that church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## rookie (Feb 26, 2020)

I had a similar experience when I left the brethren. One brother replied to an email that was initially a prayer request for my wife's co-worker doing through sickness. He responded by being concerned that I was dabbling in Calvinism. It was a fairly lengthy email.
So I responded back with 33 verses, that supported my theology and told him, in the email, when he responds to those verses with their context, we'll sit down. 

A few days later, an elder wanted to meet me for lunch about my doctrine. I obliged, and went. He's a dear brother, and very compassionate and careful with his wording, all the time. 

We discussed it at length, but disagreed in the end. However, with both appreciated the conversation, myself knowing I wasn't going to "convert" him, and he wasn't going to "convert" me.

In the end, I did leave, there was more to the story, but that meeting, we laid all our cards on the table.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 27, 2020)

rookie said:


> I had a similar experience when I left the brethren. One brother replied to an email that was initially a prayer request for my wife's co-worker doing through sickness. He responded by being concerned that I was dabbling in Calvinism. It was a fairly lengthy email.
> So I responded back with 33 verses, that supported my theology and told him, in the email, when he responds to those verses with their context, we'll sit down.
> 
> A few days later, an elder wanted to meet me for lunch about my doctrine. I obliged, and went. He's a dear brother, and very compassionate and careful with his wording, all the time.
> ...



I hope you do more than mere dabbling now.


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Feb 27, 2020)

Maybe providing the pastors understanding of the Regulative Principle versus the Normative Principle. All Reformed Churches that I know adhere to the Regulative Principle of Worship. While the conclusions can be different the overarching principles remain the same. Perhaps outlining the history for them would be helpful. 

** Here is a Baptist View on the Topic and its not intended to spark debate ** 

*Here are a few resources: *
_"It can be persuasively argued that a more consistent view of the regulative principle led seventeenth-century English Separatists to become Baptists in the first place. The principle recovered in the Protestant reformation, that Scriptural warrant is required for a worship practice to be permitted, was applied with full vigor by many Separatists, leading them to reject infant baptism, which is not commanded or otherwise authorized by good and necessary consequence in the Bible, and instead to adopt believers’ baptism."_
~~ Reisinger, E. C., & Allen, D. M. (2001). Worship: The Regulative Principle and the Biblical Practice of Accommodation (pp. 64–65). Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press.

Here is an article from Founders Ministries that outlines the history of the Regulative Principle with scripture references. Click Here 

_"Similarly, Chapter XXII of The Second London Confession of Faith, “Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day,” in Article I states:

The Light of Nature shews that there is a God who hath Lordship, and Soveraigntye (Sovereignty) over all; is just, good, and doth good unto all; and is therefore, to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the Heart, and all the Soul, and with all the Might. But the acceptable way of Worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself; and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations, and devices of Men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures."_

Hope that this helps...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## rookie (Feb 27, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> I hope you do more than mere dabbling now.



I haven't studied as intense as I did a few years ago due to my family circumstances...however, no, I have graduated from dabbling. And that was his term, you might say I was consumed.


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 27, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Certainly, in relation to the issues that you mention in the OP, I think it is fair to say that you are not making a preference issue a sin issue. Given that there are no biblical grounds for introducing such things into worship, the sin lies with the other party.


I would be very careful with this statement. While I agree that our confessions hold that these are not found within Scripture, Scripture also does not forbid it. There is also the possibility that we _could be_ wrong on the issue. So to tell someone it is sin with certainty is a bit over the line for me. I am sure many here disagree with that position but I think it is something we should be cautious on.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 27, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> I would be very careful with this statement. While I agree that our confessions hold that these are not found within Scripture, Scripture also does not forbid it. There is also the possibility that we _could be_ wrong on the issue. So to tell someone it is sin with certainty is a bit over the line for me. I am sure many here disagree with that position but I think it is something we should be cautious on.



If you agree with our confessions, then you will agree that introducing elements into worship that are not found in scripture is a violation of the second commandment. No one is saying that we should _rashly_ accuse people of sin without good grounds, but this particular condemnation is neither rash nor unwarranted.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 27, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> If you agree with our confessions, then you will agree that introducing elements into worship that are not found in scripture is a violation of the second commandment. No one is saying that we should _rashly_ accuse people of sin without good grounds, but this particular condemnation is neither rash nor unwarranted.


I don't agree with that at all, nor do I think the LBCF does either.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 27, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> I don't agree with that at all, nor do I think the LBCF does either.



The Westminster Shorter Catechism is pretty clear in its Q&A on the second commandment that all unauthorised worship of God is a sin. Chapter 22 of the 1689 Confession is likewise crystal clear on this point: "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men ..." (paragraph 1).

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 27, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> Scripture also does not forbid it.


This is called the Normative Principle of Worship. This principle is certainly not supported by the historic reformed baptist or Presbyterian position on Worship.

From Chapter 22 of the 1689 LBC:



> Thus, he may not be worshipped according to human imagination or inventions or the suggestions of Satan, nor through any visible representations, *nor in any other way that is not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.*3



I added a format change for emphasis. Search PB to find discussion on the Regulative Principle of Worship, which is what the historic reformed confessions support regarding Worship.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 27, 2020)

G said:


> This is called the Normative Principle of Worship. This principle is certainly not supported by the historic reformed baptist or Presbyterian position on Worship.
> 
> From Chapter 22 of the 1689 LBC:
> 
> ...


I am aware, please re-read my post. I personally subscribe to the RPW.


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 27, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> I am aware, please re-read my post. I personally subscribe to the RPW.


I read your post here at least twice before I posted brother. I also assume you read mine before you reply to me

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 27, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The Westminster Shorter Catechism is pretty clear in its Q&A on the second commandment that all unauthorised worship of God is a sin. Chapter 22 of the 1689 Confession is likewise crystal clear on this point: "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men ..." (paragraph 1).





G said:


> I read your post here at least twice before I posted brother. I also assume you read mine before you reply to me


I did, I read it, and still read it, as you perhaps thinking I may not know the reformed position as opposed to the normative position. My point was simply to say we should be cautious about calling something a sin that the Bible does not explicitly call sin. Personally, I do not see those who follow the normative principle (within reason) as violating the second commandment. I disagree with the catechisms on that point.


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 27, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> Personally, I do not see those who follow the normative principle (within reason) as violating the second commandment. I disagree with the catechisms on that point.


Well my friend, I believe on this particular point the Westminster and the London Baptist both imply that if we worship God in a way he has not commanded (ex. Skits during worship) then it is indeed sinful. Former LBC man myself. There are varying degrees of sin when it comes to worship, but when we introduce an element not commanded, it is indeed sin.



David Taylor said:


> Personally, I do not see those who follow the normative principle (within reason) as violating the second commandment.



Then that makes me think you may still need further study (as we all do, myself included) on the RPW. The foundation of the NPW is contrary to the 2nd Commandment of our Lord.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 27, 2020)

G said:


> Then that makes me think you may still need further study (as we all do, myself included) on the RPW. The foundation of the NPW is contrary to the 2nd Commandment of our Lord.


We may have to agree to disagree. I definitely will study more, but as I read the 2nd commandment I think that it is an unnecessary inference to extend that to varying degrees of worship that may not be found in Scripture. To me, that is reading more into Scripture than what is actually present.


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 27, 2020)

G said:


> Then that makes me think you may still need further study (as we all do, myself included) on the RPW. The foundation of the NPW is contrary to the 2nd Commandment of our Lord.


What resources would you suggest for reading on this outside of the WLC and WSC themselves?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 27, 2020)

Reformedbooksonline has a lot of helpful reading suggestions on the regulative princple. 
https://reformedbooksonline.com/top.../worship/the-regulative-principle-of-worship/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 27, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> What resources would you suggest for reading on this outside of the WLC and WSC themselves?


Well PB of course! I always say that the Puritan Board is a good source to better sources. If you search various threads you are bound to find some good sources. A PB vet like @NaphtaliPress is bound to know some good ones to link.


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 27, 2020)

G said:


> Well PB of course! I always say that the Puritan Board is a good source to better sources. If you search various threads you are bound to find some good sources. A PB vet like @NaphtaliPress is bound to know some good ones to link.


It is hard to do in-depth study on a topic in forum format. I sometimes get lost in the threads.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 27, 2020)

N.B. I see this "Coldwell," is listed; but that aside, it is still a helpful list of sources.


NaphtaliPress said:


> Reformedbooksonline has a lot of helpful reading suggestions on the regulative princple.
> https://reformedbooksonline.com/top.../worship/the-regulative-principle-of-worship/


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 28, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> Yes I am a member of an OPC about 45 minutes away but for numerous reasons we have continued to go to this SBC church in the mornings. Would you have any advice on how to respond to what he told me?



I don't know if this has been mentioned below, but it seems to me that you probably shouldn't be involved like this not even being a member of the church, not even being a Baptist, and being a member of a church that is much more "strict" than this kind of SBC congregation on a whole host of issues. That they've let you be involved to even this extent shows that they aren't that "serious" about things in general. It is actually a symptom of some of the problems that you've pointed out.

How many OPC congregations have "production teams" and "creative arts pastors?"

Most SBC churches that aren't sold out to "seeker sensitive" ministry or aren't rather Calvinistic probably still have "altar calls." A lot of people don't think the gospel has really been preached without one.

Would your OPC congregation let a visiting Southern Baptist who has no intention whatsoever in joining do anything at all during the worship service? To ask the question is to answer it. (That being said, it was rare for anyone but the TE (and the pianist) to do anything in worship in the OPC congregation I belonged to. I suspect it is similar in many other congregations.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 28, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> We haven't really been able to develop relationships yet with the OPC congregation.



Brother, surely you must have developed some relationships with one or more of the elders to have actually joined there. When I joined my old OPC congregation, I had to attend several weeks of membership classes with the pastor, and had attended for several months before that.

Have you discussed this situation with your OPC elders? (At 50 posts into this thread, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.) They are more likely to be familiar with the situation than anyone here, (and especially your situation and why you may be providentially hindered from attending) and they are the ones who are responsible for shepherding you.

*[EDIT*: I found your other posts where you say you attend the OPC work in the evenings. If you are still doing that regularly, that should give you ample opportunity to discuss these things with the elders. Also, while attending two services on the Lord's Day is preferable, I don't believe there is really any reason to attend this Baptist church regularly if you can make the OPC congregation at least once on Sunday. I don't think there is an obligation to attend two services if you are providentially hindered from doing so. And as you've said, it is perhaps on the verge of becoming divisive and contentious. Do many people there know that you've joined the OPC? Maybe you can attend this Baptist church occasionally if you know you will not be able to make it to the OPC work. But based on what you've posted here, it seems that you'll likely be increasingly grieved by it since the old pastor has left and things have gone in a different direction. If the people there were committed to what the old pastor was doing, most likely they wouldn't be allowing these changes to be made by an interim. It may be that the church you knew and that influenced you so much is "gone" and that the good influence may have largely been due to the pastor's presence and influence. I've been in that situation before. Once the pastor leaves, you may find that things aren't what they seemed, to an extent that may even be shocking. In my case, I had attempted to discuss things with the leadership before the pastor left and thought we were on the same page only to find we were using the same words but had very different understandings of what they meant and that their understanding of certain things was rather shallow.]

I know I may have come across as somewhat harsh here. I do agree with what Fred posted above. But I think I'd probably only discuss it with the man who expressed concern because he expressed concern and not out of desire to reform the church or whatever. It is not your place to reform this church since you aren't a member and are committed to a denomination and presumably a confession that differs from theirs in significant ways. You are coming from a position that is radically different from theirs, especially from their perspective.

Whatever Baptists have done in the past (such as hold to the RPW, their understanding of which was a significant factor in their antipaedobaptism) doesn't carry a whole lot of weight with most Southern Baptists except maybe for those who cling to the "Don't drink, don't smoke" and "altar call" as a necessity mentality. A good many of the younger guys, especially Calvinistic ones, are promoting Lent, for example, something that has very little precedent among any kind of Baptists except for more recent liberals. For these kinds of Baptists, you can do whatever feels good in worship unless it can be shown chapter and verse where it is unbiblical. To them, methodology is entirely neutral so long as heresy isn't being proclaimed from the pulpit. So they tend to follow fads and it is not uncommon for them to change significantly with each pastor unless they have very influential people in the congregation who would strongly object.


----------

