Accused of Legalism in the SBC

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

I hope you do more than mere dabbling now.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.:detective:
 
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 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.:detective:
I am aware, please re-read my post. I personally subscribe to the RPW.
 
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).
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.
 
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.

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.:detective:
 
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.:detective:
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.
 
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.:detective:
What resources would you suggest for reading on this outside of the WLC and WSC themselves?
 
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. :detective:
 
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.:detective:
It is hard to do in-depth study on a topic in forum format. I sometimes get lost in the threads.
 
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.)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top