# Definition of Worship



## Greg (Nov 8, 2009)

I know this will sound like a very elementary question, but:

What is worship? How is it properly defined?


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 8, 2009)

Good question. I have asked the same question many times over the years, and each time the Lord show's me a different aspect of worship. 

Utlimately worship could be summed up in the answer to the question: 



> What is the chief end of man


 Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

It seems to me that worship is about honoring God with our whole substance, and it manifests itself in all sorts of ways, loving and obeying God, loving and serving our neighbor and giving Him the glory in everything that we do. 

Worship is also about honoring God with our mouths and our hearts when we meet corporately or when we are in private, but to me that is more about the culmination of what should have gone on all the time when we are weren't in corporate or private worship.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 8, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> Good question. I have asked the same question many times over the years, and each time the Lord show's me a different aspect of worship.
> 
> Utlimately worship could be summed up in the answer to the question:
> 
> ...



Worship, though, should not be confused with daily life. We honor God by giving him glory, but honor is not the same as worship. There are acts of worship, both private, family and corporate, that differ from the acts of every day life. When we gather as the church - or gather before God as a family - or enter our closet to privately read, pray and praise God, we are engaging in a distinct activity. 

YES we must honor and glorify God in all we do by being people who strive after holiness in thought, word and deed - but worship is a particular activity that we undertake, among all the rest.


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 8, 2009)

> Worship, though, should not be confused with daily life. We honor God by giving him glory, but honor is not the same as worship. There are acts of worship, both private, family and corporate, that differ from the acts of every day life. When we gather as the church - or gather before God as a family - or enter our closet to privately read, pray and praise God, we are engaging in a distinct activity.
> 
> YES we must honor and glorify God in all we do by being people who strive after holiness in thought, word and deed - but worship is a particular activity that we undertake, among all the rest.



I see your point, but I don't believe it's possible to separate worship from service. The command to have no other gods included worshipping and serving. Jesus referred back to the command, "Thou shalt worship the Lord your God and Him only shalt thou serve." when He was tempted. He also used the same kind of wording in John 9:31 "We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him." And these are just two obvious examples. Any bowing down to God without the service and life is false worship. 


So while I agree that worship itself is an act, I believe scripturally that it cannot be separated from a life of honoring and glorifying God in all that we do.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 8, 2009)

> but worship is a particular activity that we undertake, among all the rest.



Like our previous caller, I see your point, but this kind of 'worship means just praise' (I'm simplifying for brevity) definition never helps.

Worship is the chief end of man, glorifying God and enjoying Him forever, and we can worship publicly and privately. In one sense everything we do is worship (or can be if to the glory of God).

In another sense, what we do when we meet together to praise God and hear His word is a distinct activity. But I think it does not help to insist that this, and this alone, is 'worship'.

I do not believe that what I have said is contra the regulative principle, as I certainly hold it. I don't think we have an adequate range of words in our vocabulary to distinguish things.

I tend to use the expression 'corporate worship' to make a distinction.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 8, 2009)

Worship has many dimensions to it: corporate worship of the Church, our lives, heavenly worship, private devotions and expressions of personal piety, informal gathering of Christians, Church Bible studies where songs are sung, etc... For the corporate worship of the Church I am a strong advocate of the RPW who is cautious about using non inspired lyrics and using music but open it as belieiving it has historical worship in Scripture. For the others it largely depends on wisdom that is less regulated by the RPW but more so by Christian prudence and extreme common-sense boundaries. I remember at C4C this one guy was near screaching out of tune so loud that finally they asked if he could quiet down and I (being a young jerk) had just to say ''How dare you restrict the movement and work of the Holy Spirit you HOly Ghost quencher you!''. needless to say being a soft spoken advocate of trying to reform slightly the worship at Campus for Christ (only when asked my thoughts and never trying to like take over) I got ice cold glares from my more charismatic friends . Good times


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 8, 2009)

Jonathan and Leeanne -

To be clear, I never said "worship is just praise". That's not true, nor was it my intent to convey that.

However, that being said, it is, I believe, a mistake to claim that all of life is worship. It's simply NOT. The chief end of man is not to worship God, either - according to the confessions it is to GLORIFY God and to ENJOY Him forever. The word glorify was specifically used - not the word "worship". Worship is PART of what we do - but it is not ALL that we do. In everything we are to aim for God's glory. In all things we are to have a worshipful attitude. In all things we are to honor Him. However, ALL THINGS are NOT Worship. I am not worshipping when I am teaching a college physics class. I am not worshipping Him when I am disciplining my children. I am not worshipping Him when I am cleaning up the remains of a vase that I've knocked onto the floor. In those acts I can be worshipful, and can glorify God. However, they are not acts of worship. 

On the other hand, when I sit down with God's word and meditate on it prayerfully, I am engaging in private worship. When I lead my family in the Word, and prayer, and song at home, I am engaging in family worship. When we gather corporately as a church family to hear the Word preached, to sing the Word, and to pray together, and to celebrate the sacraments, We are worshipping. The other activities of our lives, however particularly we might be devoted to God and His glory, are NOT worship. Worship is distinct. 

We must distinguish these parts of our lives - they are distinctively worship, distinctively holy, distinctively set apart. You have said, Jonathan, that you recognize distinctions - but is the only distinction "corporate" tacked on to "worship" that supposedly is used to denote every other activity of life? I fail to understand the reason for blurring all these lines. I appreciate the sentiment - we all must be devoted to God in all things, and have Him in view in EVERYTHING we do. That does not make everything we do "worship". I think much more is lost when we declare "all of life is worship" than is gained. We lose the importance of the gathered church worshipping God on the Lord's Day. We lose the importance of family worship day and night as the head of the house leads the family in devotion to their God. We lose the importance of private meditation and prayer as the individual comes before God's feet. The "worship" of everyday activity is not equivalent to these things (and I know that you aren't arguing that it is- or I strongly suspect you aren't, anyway). 

Further, what is the implication of this blurring of boundary markers, when the Westminster Divines CLEARLY marked out worship as a distinct activity by submitting their Directories for Public and Family Worship? Do you think they viewed worship as a word that described every life activity? I don't think they did, and I think they are correct.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 8, 2009)

This is why we have the regulative principle of New Testament worship, and a distinction between formal and informal worship.

If there is no distinction between formal and informal worship them almost anything - e.g. polishing the car! - could be brought into formal worship, and make a mockery of it. 

You can polish the car to God's glory, you can play hymn or psalm tunes on the electric guitar to God's glory, but does that mean that they should be part of a formal New Testament/Covenant worship service?

Aspects of everyday and informal worship/glorifying God, must not be brought into formal worship.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 8, 2009)

Todd - I did put in brackets that I was simplifying for brevity - never implying a 'worship is praise' view from yourself.

I wouldn't refer to the Westminster standards as they are not mine, but I would uphold every part of the 1689 - Ch 22 - Worship and the Lord's Day.

I know what the confession framers mean when they use the word 'worship' - they are referring to corporate worship. We all know that. But to stick with that does not deal with a lot of misunderstandings today.

The word ALWAYS has to be qualified in my opinion. Look at the post before mine, 'formal worship' and 'informal worship'. Once more, a qualification.

If someone asks me 'what is worship' - I would hope above all to take them to Christ and the woman of Samaria in John 4 - showing that true worship (of all types) is a matter of the heart, and the challenge must always be to each one of us as individuals whether we are true worshippers of God, lest we think that by following forms, precendents and traditions alone, we please God.


----------



## Greg (Nov 8, 2009)

Thanks everyone. Just to see if I'm on the right track here, could it be said in a brief defining sense that depending on what aspect of worship one is referring to (be it corporate, private or family), that worship is defined as that activity we engage in with a willing and heartfelt response to God and His graciousness toward us, the activity/activities of proper worship being set forth and established by God's Word?


----------



## MW (Nov 8, 2009)

Archibald Hall (Gospel Worship):



> Worship in general, is the respect or honour we pay to another, on the account of his excellence or superiority. When this honour is applied to a creature, denoting the inward esteem or veneration we have of him, and that respect is the outward expression of regard we pay him, it is civil honour or worship, and is always subject to proper limitations, answerable to the limited excellence or superiority of its object. But when it is applied to the infinitely great and perfect God, denoting the adoration of our hearts, and suitable expressions of it in our words and actions, it is properly Religious or Divine Worship, and admits of no limitation, being founded on the absolute supremacy, and all other infinite perfections of the divine nature. It lies in acknowledging the boundless perfections of the supreme Being, and owning our dependence on him, for what we are, and for what we have; for what we need, and for what we wish. Where there is not this proper cause of divine worship, to give it is idolatry; where there is this proper cause of divine worship, to withhold it is atheism. Matt 4:10, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."



The difference between what we do in all of life and what we do in specific acts of devotion is aptly described by John Murray as generic and specific worship.


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 8, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Archibald Hall (Gospel Worship):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So if I understand this correctly, serving is a generic form of worship whereas the acts of devotion, i.e. prayer, singing of psalms, praise, reading of Scripture are specific worship?


----------



## MW (Nov 8, 2009)

JBaldwin said:


> So if I understand this correctly, serving is a generic form of worship whereas the acts of devotion, i.e. prayer, singing of psalms, praise, reading of Scripture are specific worship?



100% correct. I might also add, that we follow a normative principle for all of life and a regulative principle for specific acts of devotion. A good illustration follows: Law abiding citizens honour their magistrates by obeying their laws as norms for every day life; but when those citizens are summoned to the bar of the magistrate they follow the regulative forms of procedure which the court prescribes.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 9, 2009)

Generic and Specific Worship. I like that, thank you Matthew!


----------



## D. Paul (Nov 9, 2009)

Dr. Peter Masters has said "Worship is words". Stated in the context of the popular belief that worship is emotional experience or some other "feeling".


----------



## wookie (Nov 10, 2009)

I like the biblical theological approach that David Peterson, formerly of Oak Hill College, used in his book _Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship_ when he discusses worship. Peterson approaches the subject by examining key OT themes (e.g. revelation, redemption, God's covenant with Israel, temple) and worship terminology (e.g. _proskynein_, _latreuein_, _sebomai_).

*What is worship? *


> Throughout the Bible, acceptable worship means approaching or engaging with God on the terms that he proposes and in the manner that he makes possible. It involves honouring, serving and respecting him, abandoning any loyalty or devotion that hinders an exclusive relationship with him. Although some of Scripture's terms for worship may refer to specific gestures of homage, rituals or priestly ministrations, worship is more fundamentally faith expressing itself in obedience and adoration. Consequently, in both Testaments it is often shown to be a personal and moral fellowship with God relevant to every sphere of life. (page 283)



*How is it properly defined?*


> Although there is a preoccupation with what may be termed specifically "religious" activities in various Old Testament contexts, ritual provisions are set within the broader framework of teaching about life under the rule of God. In fact, worship theology expresses the dimensions of a life orientation or total relationship with the true and living God. This becomes even more obvious when the theme of worship in the New Testament is examined. Contemporary Christians obscure the breadth and depth of the Bible's teaching on this subject when they persist in using the word "worship" in the usual, limited fashion, applying it mainly to what goes on in Sunday services. (page 18)





> Worship in the New Testament is a comprehensive category describing the Christian's total existence. It is coextensive with the faith-response wherever and whenever that response is elicited. Consequently "our traditional understanding of worship as restricted to the cultic gathering of the congregation at a designated time and place for rite and proclamation will no longer do. This is not what the New Testament means by worship." (page 18-19)





> Jesus removes the need for a cultic approach to God in the traditional sense. Yet the New Testament demonstrates that our understanding of his work can be greatly enriched by viewing it in terms of transformed worship categories. His sacrifice on the cross, his entrance into the heavenly sanctuary, and his intercession for us, provide the only basis for relating to God under the new covenant. The whole of life is to be lived in relation to the cross and to the sanctuary where Christ is enthroned as our crucified saviour and high priest. Indeed, it is ultimately our destiny to share with him in the fellowship of that heavenly or eschatological reality and to "serve him day and night in his temple" (cf. Rev. 7:15). Meanwhile, we worship God as we acknowledge these truths and respond to his mercies with grateful obedience. (page 286-287)


----------



## MW (Nov 10, 2009)

wookie said:


> > Jesus removes the need for a cultic approach to God in the traditional sense.



 This is contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 21, sections 3-5. Please desist from propagating this unconfessional view.


----------



## wookie (Nov 10, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> wookie said:
> 
> 
> > > Jesus removes the need for a cultic approach to God in the traditional sense.
> ...


I apologize if I cause you to conclude that Peterson teaches doing away with Christian meetings. He does not. By "cultic approach", he means this (which I believe you would agree with):


> The uniqueness and total adequacy of Christ's work is obscured by any doctrine of human priesthood, charged with some form of sacrificial ministry in the Christian congregation. There are no sacred buildings where God is especially present in the gospel era. There is no divinely ordained ritual of approach to God for believers under the new covenant. (page 287)


Peterson immediately notes the need for Christian meetings:


> Nevertheless, several texts suggest that God presences himself in a distinctive way in the Christian meeting through his word and the operation of his Spirit.
> 
> The purpose of Christian gatherings is the edification or building up of the body of Christ. We minister to one another as we teach and exhort one another on the basis of his word, using the gifts that the Spirit has given us, in the way that Scripture directs. Edification is to be our concern even when we sing or pray to God in the congregation. All this is not purely a human activity, however, for God is at work in the midst of his people as they minister in this way. Edification is first and foremost the responsibility of Christ as the 'head', but he achieves his purpose as the various members of the body are motivated and equipped by him to play their part. We meet together to draw on the resources of Christ and to take our part in the edification of his church.
> 
> From one point of view, the gathering of the church is meant to be an anticipation of the heavenly or eschatological assembly of God's people. It is to be characterized by worship or divine service in the form of prayer and praise directed to God and in the form of ministry to one another. Worship and edification are different dimensions of the same activities. Put another way, participation in the edification of the church is an important aspect of that total obedience of faith which is the worship of the new covenant. From another point of view, we gather together to encourage one another to live out everyday life the obedience that glorifies God and furthers his saving purposes in the world. (page 287)


I believe this understanding of Christian meetings does not clash with the WCF. We meet in obedience to God and to edify one another through "the reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ" (WCF XXI.5).


----------



## the Internet (Nov 10, 2009)

I like Matthew's approach but, based on John Murray's note "The difference between what we do in all of life and what we do in specific acts of devotion is aptly described by John Murray as generic and specific worship." this still makes the whole of life a form of worship. It is clear that there are formal acts of worship [corporate, group], and there may be informal acts [praying with adoration while driving].

But is that latter truly worship? If we could follow Paul's advice and in everything give thanks, if we could rejoice in the Lord always, I guess its possible to think of all of life worship. When we sin? When we knowingly sin?

I prefer to keep the notion of worship to be restricted to only those acts in which the intent is explicitly to give praise to God according to scriptural warrant, and in a context in which the same is clearly evident. All other 'pious' acts are just ... well they are 'pious' acts aren't they.


----------



## MW (Nov 10, 2009)

wookie said:


> I believe this understanding of Christian meetings does not clash with the WCF.



I disagree. The WCF calls our public assemblies "worship." Perterson calls them "edification." It does not take a great deal of insight to see there is a shift from vertical to horizontal focus in the Christian gathering.

If you would like to discuss the Scriptural basis for the confessional position I am sure it would be a fruitful discussion, but you must desist from contradicting the confessional position. We could begin with the New Testament allusions to the Old Testament sacrifices whenever elements of worship are prescribed or described. E.g., the preaching is called a sweet savour to God, the praise is called a sacrifice, etc. These are the terms of "cultic worship." The failure of modern studies to account for these allusions omits a vital part of the New Testament picture, which undoubtedly thought of the Christian gathering as itself an act of special worship.


----------



## wookie (Nov 10, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> wookie said:
> 
> 
> > I believe this understanding of Christian meetings does not clash with the WCF.
> ...


I am honestly not attempting to challenge or contradict the confessional position or its Scriptural basis.  I think you may have misunderstood this position. I have no problem calling public assemblies "worship". What I'm simply saying (as well as Peterson) is that such corporate worship consists of both vertical ("prayer and praise directed to God") and horizontal ("ministry to one another"). I have not equated public assemblies with "edification" alone.

I do concur that there are certain NT allusions to OT cultic acts of worship. I have read and heard some of these arguments. Many, not only Presbyterians, have argued for paralleling OT cultic activities with NT worship. But I wonder if the WCF have this in mind? I may have missed something, but I could not find anywhere in the WCF XXI or its Scriptural proofs that our corporate worship must be viewed as cultic activities (which you gave examples such as "the preaching is called a sweet savour to God, the praise is called a sacrifice") or derived directly from the OT cult.

I could be wrong, but it appears to me that the WCF is silent on your particular understanding of defining corporate worship.


----------



## wookie (Nov 10, 2009)

Since we are on the WCF, it is my observation that the WCF has not made any categorical distinction between formal and informal worship, or generic and specific worship.

In fact, the WCF XXI.6 states the following:


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


It seems that in the minds of the WCF framers, there is only one category: religious worship. Religious worship is to be done "everywhere". Religious worship is done in "private families". Religious worship is done in "secret". Religious worship is done "more solemnly in the public assemblies".

And so, by introducing artificial theological distinctions such as formal versus informal worship and generic versus specific worship, wouldn't we be going beyond the WCF and adopting an unconfessional position?


----------



## whc999 (Nov 10, 2009)

Not sure where I heard this definition of worship but I have heard it said:
"True worship happens when we set our mind's attention and our heart's affections on the Lord, praising Him for who He is and what He's done."
<Wish I could have claimed that as my own..lol>


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 10, 2009)

Worship is when glory that has been revealed by God is lovingly returned to him.


----------



## MW (Nov 10, 2009)

wookie said:


> I am honestly not attempting to challenge or contradict the confessional position or its Scriptural basis.  I think you may have misunderstood this position. I have no problem calling public assemblies "worship". What I'm simply saying (as well as Peterson) is that such corporate worship consists of both vertical ("prayer and praise directed to God") and horizontal ("ministry to one another"). I have not equated public assemblies with "edification" alone.



First, I credit your honesty, but you have been asked to desist by a moderator, so desist. (You have the privilege of contacting the admins to discuss this action.) You obviously haven't thought through the ramifications of Peterson's position, and especially how it undermines the regulative principle of worship as it comes to bear on instituted worship. You may want to take note of what Peterson calls acceptable worship (see especially pp. 187, 293), and what the Confession calls acceptable worship (WCF 21.1). The regulative principle is negated by his thesis.

Secondly, on Peterson's work, as much as it provides some positive thoughts on an exegetical level, it is flawed in various ways. The very title is a challenge to Christian concepts of worship. We do not seek to bind, hire, induce, attract or charm God in worship, yet these are by definition what it means to engage with God. We simply give to the Lord the glory due unto His name. Is it a biblical theology? I suppose it is if it is judged by the standard of biblical theology taught in modern evangelical schools. But this is a-dogmatic whereas reformed biblical theology is genuinely up front about its dogmatic commitments. Further, Peterson's work is more of a thematic treatment undertaken in chronological order than a biblical theology. No biblical theology can ignore creation and the fall and begin its focus on Exodus. In true biblical theology creation is seen as providing norms and patterns which influence the flow of the history of revelation. Even in innocence the cool of the day (however this is understood) provided a special time when God walked with man. Exegetically Peterson utilises a poor semantic method whereby key terms are collapsed into broader categorical terms in order to demonstrate his thesis. Service and worship are undoubtedly two distinct concepts in both Old and New Testaments and fear is as much linked to cultic worship as it is to obedience. Finally, on a dogmatic level, it is impossible to develop a systematised understanding of worship without also incorporating one's view of church, sacraments, and ministry. Peterson's work fails miserably in this regard. There is no excuse for neglecting to bring together key biblical teaching into one coherent system.


----------



## wookie (Nov 10, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> You obviously haven't thought through the ramifications of Peterson's position, and especially how it undermines the regulative principle of worship as it comes to bear on instituted worship. You may want to take note of what Peterson calls acceptable worship (see especially pp. 187, 293), and what the Confession calls acceptable worship (WCF 21.1). The regulative principle is negated by his thesis.


From what I gather, there are mainly two statements in pages 187 and 293 that you may be concerned about. They are: 1) "expressions of faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ and ministries that encourage such faith are specifically the worship acceptable and pleasing to God in the gospel era"; and 2) "Members will seek to discover how every aspect of congregational ministry may be a means of offering to God acceptable worship."

I am trying to understand the area in which you perceive Peterson and I to be in violation of the regulative principle, which I will say that we are not. The last thing I wish to do is to violate the regulative principle. It seems to me that we differ on the meaning of the regulative principle. if I read you correctly, you seem to be concerned over the _elements_ of corporate worship. In my case, I believe "the regulative principle for worship is the same as the regulative principle for all of human life" (John Frame, _A Fresh Look at the Regulative Principle_, http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/joh_frame/Frame.Ethics2005.AFreshLookattheRegulativePrinciple.pdf, p. 3). But I must qualify this doesn't mean, therefore, that anything goes in worship. Like Frame, I find it difficult to accept the artificial distinction between _circumstances_ and _elements_ when it is nowhere to be found in Scripture (or in the WCF). I do not see Scripture (or the WCF) providing a limited divine list of _elements_ for a Christian meeting. Scripture (and the WCF) simply teach the general principles of what pleases God and allow each congregation to work out the specifics in their own cultural context. With this in mind, I do not see how Peterson and I undermine the regulative principle.

As far as it goes, my commitment is to the actual language of the WCF. Is it, therefore, the position of you and PuritanBoard that members are to adhere only to a particular understanding of the WCF?



armourbearer said:


> Secondly, on Peterson's work, as much as it provides some positive thoughts on an exegetical level, it is flawed in various ways. The very title is a challenge to Christian concepts of worship. We do not seek to bind, hire, induce, attract or charm God in worship, yet these are by definition what it means to engage with God. We simply give to the Lord the glory due unto His name. Is it a biblical theology? I suppose it is if it is judged by the standard of biblical theology taught in modern evangelical schools. But this is a-dogmatic whereas reformed biblical theology is genuinely up front about its dogmatic commitments. Further, Peterson's work is more of a thematic treatment undertaken in chronological order than a biblical theology. No biblical theology can ignore creation and the fall and begin its focus on Exodus. In true biblical theology creation is seen as providing norms and patterns which influence the flow of the history of revelation. Even in innocence the cool of the day (however this is understood) provided a special time when God walked with man. Exegetically Peterson utilises a poor semantic method whereby key terms are collapsed into broader categorical terms in order to demonstrate his thesis. Service and worship are undoubtedly two distinct concepts in both Old and New Testaments and fear is as much linked to cultic worship as it is to obedience. Finally, on a dogmatic level, it is impossible to develop a systematised understanding of worship without also incorporating one's view of church, sacraments, and ministry. Peterson's work fails miserably in this regard. There is no excuse for neglecting to bring together key biblical teaching into one coherent system.


I truly appreciate your critical commentary on Peterson's work, which makes me understand better where you are coming from and where your objections lie. And I will refrain from arguing with you. However, as a matter of clarification, is it the position of you and Puritanboard that unless the writers are dogmatically committed to a Reformed confession, Puritanboard members are to refrain from quoting their works? I'm thinking of men like D. A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, J. I. Packer, Walter Kaiser, and Graeme Goldsworthy who do not adhere to the traditional Reformed confessions.


----------



## MW (Nov 11, 2009)

wookie said:


> With this in mind, I do not see how Peterson and I undermine the regulative principle.



Why are you continuing to question this on the thread when I gave you the option to contact the admins? I am trying very hard to avoid infracting you but it seems you are trying very hard to earn yourself an infraction.

Your explanation shows you may not grasp the difference between a normative principle and the regulative principle, which would be understandable if you have derived your ideas from John Frame. The normative principle is, if Scripture does not forbid it then it is permissible. The regulative principle is, if Scripture does not command it then it is forbidden. The normative principle is for all of life whereas the regulative principle is for faith and worship. Please see the Confession of Faith, chapter 20, section 2, for a clear statement on this difference.



wookie said:


> As far as it goes, my commitment is to the actual language of the WCF. Is it, therefore, the position of you and PuritanBoard that members are to adhere only to a particular understanding of the WCF?



Members are required to refrain from contradicting the teaching of the reformed confessions. The regulative principle is clearly stated in the WCF, which is accepted on this board as a reformed confession. If you would like to know what the WCF teaches there are excellent commentaries available for your instruction. Robert Shaw: "It is not left to human wisdom to make any alterations in, or additions to, God's own appointments" (213). A. A. Hodge: "It hence necessarily follows that since God has prescribed the mode in which we are acceptably to worship and serve him, it must be an offence to him and a sin in us for us either to neglect his way, or in preference to practise our own" (271). This is the only interpretation which the words of the Confession will honestly admit.



wookie said:


> However, as a matter of clarification, is it the position of you and Puritanboard that unless the writers are dogmatically committed to a Reformed confession, Puritanboard members are to refrain from quoting their works?



No; one only need refrain from supportingly quoting statements which contradict the confessional stance of this board.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 11, 2009)

wookie said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > You obviously haven't thought through the ramifications of Peterson's position, and especially how it undermines the regulative principle of worship as it comes to bear on instituted worship. You may want to take note of what Peterson calls acceptable worship (see especially pp. 187, 293), and what the Confession calls acceptable worship (WCF 21.1). The regulative principle is negated by his thesis.
> ...


I am not familiar with Graeme, but all the other men while respected by Reformed men are certainly not Reformed... they maybe calvinistic in certain elements of their theology but they do not confess the confessions of the Reformed churches thus logically cannot be considered Reformed even though we all can profit from their work and recognize that we stand in the same theological tradition as them in comparison to all of christendom, protestantism, evangelicalism, etc... I would also note that John Frame on the subjet of worship is all over the place the more I read him. But in effect I think he comes down on the Lutheran side though doesn't want to admit it. 

That being said I would reccomend the chapter on scripture in ''[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Reformed-Dogmatics-Van-Genderen/dp/0875525776/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257916484&sr=8-1"]Concise Reformed Dogmatics[/ame]'' which talks about Scripture v. tradition. The point is made that there is a difference between tradition and doctrine though they are always intertwined in some way. The command in scripture is the RPW but in each generation with new governments, money, technology, languages, historical situation and keeping in mind Christian wisdom/prudence each generation's liturgy WILL and to a certain extend SHOULD be different though all that we do is guided and filtered through the RPW which is taught in scripture. 

To come back to the point of those names you mentioned, I highly [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Reformed-Confession-Scott-Clark/dp/1596381108/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257917058&sr=1-1"]reccomend R. Scott Clark's book [/ame]''Recouvering the Reformed Confession''. On a couple of points I disagree and I think he is simply reacting by going to the extremes of Reformed theology because of his many theological backgrounds (like me he seems to go from extreme to extreme...), but his overall general thesis (which I hated at first) I have come to agree to a large extent. That doesn't mean I agree that example he sights I agree with but I hope it at least will produce discussions amoung confessionally reformed persons, Confessionally Reformed church members of Reformed Churches and what I call the TULIPers (Driscolalites, Piperianians, Carsonons, the young-restless-and-reformed, etc...).


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 11, 2009)

One of our pastors is currently doing a Sunday morning class on worship. I wish he was on the Puritan board, he could clear this issue up pretty quick. I'll ask him to join again, but I doubt he will join, he doesn't have a lot of free time.


----------



## Don Kistler (Nov 11, 2009)

To worship God is to declare His worth. The word "worship" is from two old English words, "worth" and "scipe." Literally, it is "homage tendered to one based upon their worthiness to receive it." This is our opportunity as individuals and as a corporate body to tell God how much He is worth to us.


----------



## CatherineL (Nov 11, 2009)

Our pastor has been doing a series on this. He's going over the "vision" of the church, which is "making joyful worshipers of Christ." His view seems to be along the lines of worship is everything you do to honor God. I've found it confusing it feels like to say that worship is "everything" than it loses its meaning as something distinct. I appreciate the idea of general versus specific worship - are there specific scriptures that point to this, or is it more of a practical explanation of overall themes? If anyone has further reading on this (please not John Piper) I'd appreciate suggestions - my husband has expressed a desire for us to study it further as a family. Thanks!


----------



## JBaldwin (Nov 11, 2009)

CatherineL said:


> Our pastor has been doing a series on this. He's going over the "vision" of the church, which is "making joyful worshipers of Christ." His view seems to be along the lines of worship is everything you do to honor God. I've found it confusing it feels like to say that worship is "everything" than it loses its meaning as something distinct. I appreciate the idea of general versus specific worship - are there specific scriptures that point to this, or is it more of a practical explanation of overall themes? If anyone has further reading on this (please not John Piper) I'd appreciate suggestions - my husband has expressed a desire for us to study it further as a family. Thanks!




As I mentioned in my earlier post, all throughout Scriptures, worship and service are mentioned in the same sentence. In other words, we have formal worship which works itself out in our daily service to God. Even in the command to have no other gods, we are told not to bow down to other gods or serve them. In other words, don't worship them formally, and don't serve them in your daily life. Romans 12 talks about our reasonable service which is translated in some translation as our "spiritual service of worship". In this case it's obviously not talking about our corporate or private worship, but a behavior in our daily lives.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 11, 2009)

Don Kistler said:


> To worship God is to declare His worth. The word "worship" is from two old English words, "worth" and "scipe." Literally, it is "homage tendered to one based upon their worthiness to receive it." This is our opportunity as individuals and as a corporate body to tell God how much He is worth to us.



With the greatest respect (and I have a lot for you) I don't see what you have done beside explain the origin of the english word 'Worship'. There is a lot more to be learned from looking at the greek and hebrew words that the translators deemed should be translated as 'worship'.

One aspect of worshipping God is declaring His worth, for sure.

Someone earlier referred to Dr Masters' phrase 'worship is words'. It is simplistic, but in some ways helpful in the area of specific, corporate worship. Especially as we are now seeing the idea that 'music is worship' in the specific corporate sense beginning to be accepted in the mainstream, even by some who are reformed.


----------



## Don Kistler (Nov 11, 2009)

And, Jonathan, that's all I meant or intended to do.


----------

