Anarchy in Worship - James Begg

[Grant]

I picked up this little booklet thanks to a snippet shared by @Reformed Covenanter . Thus far, I can immediately tell it is going to be very edifying and full of jewels and I’m only on page 5. A quote from Pg. 4-5:

I. What is the doctrine of Scripture as understood by Presbyterians in regard to the acceptable way of worshipping God?

The importance of this question as practically settling the whole debate needs not to be argued. Man as a sinner, as all true Christians will admit, has no right to approach into God’s presence at all. The amity which previously existed in Eden was broken up by the fall. God “drove out the man,“ and He alone is entitled to say whether, and on what conditions, he shall ever again be permitted to approach His throne. It is manifest presumption on the part of fallen creatures to dictate to God either that there shall be worship at all or what form it shall assume. In entering the courts of earthly monarchs, even where a right to enter is conceded, every rule and form of the court must be carefully observed; and far more is this important in the entering, by gracious permission, into the immediate presence of the King of kings and Lord of lords.

 

[Grant]

A solid and concise definition of the Regulative Principle of Worship, From pg. 7:

Hence the true spiritual principle and that of our church is, that we must find a Divine warrant or “prescription” for everything that we do in the worship of God. It is not enough that a thing is not forbidden. It must be expressly commanded by God, and that as a duty binding under the New Testament dispensation, or it is absolutely inadmissible in worship.

 

[iainduguid]

A solid and concise definition of the Regulative Principle of Worship, From pg. 7:

Hence the true spiritual principle and that of our church is, that we must find a Divine warrant or “prescription” for everything that we do in the worship of God. It is not enough that a thing is not forbidden. It must be expressly commanded by God, and that as a duty binding under the New Testament dispensation, or it is absolutely inadmissible in worship.

Perhaps Begg clarifies what he means by this later, but as it stands this is NOT the Westminster Confession doctrine of the Regulative Principle but rather a dispensationalist approach to the law of God (whatever is not re-commanded in the NT is not valid for Christians). To be fair, this kind of liturgical dispensationalism is very common in Reformed circles, and the apologetic attractiveness is obvious, since many things Catholics do (incense, robes, choirs, etc) appeal to the OT. But note the more nuanced statement of the WCF:

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 worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture (21:1)

In other words, we must have Scriptural warrant, but not necessarily NT warrant. Note too how in the rest of the chapter, the proof texts don't necessarily have to include a NT reference (see vows and special occasions of religious thanksgiving).

As for "expressly commanded by God", that would rule out much of the Larger Catechism's teaching on the first several commandments. The Confession simply states "prescribed by Holy Scripture", which of course includes concepts like "good and necessary inference" and "general equity". As Jeremiah Burroughs puts in in Gospel Worship:

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

In other words, a proper Reformed understanding of the RPW treats it as we do other aspects of God's law, recognizing moral, ceremonial and civil aspects (see WCF 19). We don't just put an X through OT worship as inappropriate for the present dispensation. Some OT laws concerning worship are of universal significance for all times and places (moral law), some are designed specifically to point forward to Christ and would be wrong to adopt as part of Christian worship (ceremonial law), while others are specific expressions of God's wisdom for Israelite worship that only bind us in their general equity (civil law). You have to do the proper Biblical theological analysis to figure out where things like incense and choirs fit, but that's exactly what we require in our analysis of every other OT law.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Perhaps Begg clarifies what he means by this later, but as it stands this is NOT the Westminster Confession doctrine of the Regulative Principle but rather a dispensationalist approach to the law of God (whatever is not re-commanded in the NT is not valid for Christians).

He does not say that it must be expressly commanded under the New Testament, but a duty binding under the New Testament dispensation. These two things are not exactly the same. I agree, however, that James Begg's use of the term "expressly commanded" is under nuanced. He would have been better just saying commanded either by express statement or good and necessary consequence.

 

[Grant]

Perhaps Begg clarifies what he means by this later, but as it stands this is NOT the Westminster Confession doctrine of the Regulative Principle but rather a dispensationalist approach to the law of God (whatever is not re-commanded in the NT is not valid for Christians). To be fair, this kind of liturgical dispensationalism is very common in Reformed circles, and the apologetic attractiveness is obvious, since many things Catholics do (incense, robes, choirs, etc) appeal to the OT. But note the more nuanced statement of the WCF:

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 worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture (21:1)

In other words, we must have Scriptural warrant, but not necessarily NT warrant. Note too how in the rest of the chapter, the proof texts don't necessarily have to include a NT reference (see vows and special occasions of religious thanksgiving).

As for "expressly commanded by God", that would rule out much of the Larger Catechism's teaching on the first several commandments. The Confession simply states "prescribed by Holy Scripture", which of course includes concepts like "good and necessary inference" and "general equity". As Jeremiah Burroughs puts in in Gospel Worship:

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

In other words, a proper Reformed understanding of the RPW treats it as we do other aspects of God's law, recognizing moral, ceremonial and civil aspects (see WCF 19). We don't just put an X through OT worship as inappropriate for the present dispensation. Some OT laws concerning worship are of universal significance for all times and places (moral law), some are designed specifically to point forward to Christ and would be wrong to adopt as part of Christian worship (ceremonial law), while others are specific expressions of God's wisdom for Israelite worship that only bind us in their general equity (civil law). You have to do the proper Biblical theological analysis to figure out where things like incense and choirs fit, but that's exactly what we require in our analysis of every other OT law.

He does clarify prior to the quote and certainly includes the language from Westminster. However he rebukes those whom pit specific “prescription” and “common to man” against each other as to justify something like incense or choirs or organs. I can add this quote when I return home if you’d like, once I put my girls to nap.

It has been harder for me to quote larger portions as I cannot copy and paste from the google book. I have been having to type it out from my hard copy.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It has been harder for me to quote larger portions as I cannot copy and paste from the google book. I have been having to type it out from my hard copy.

There is an edition on archive.org that you could copy and paste from (I think).

 

[Grant]

This should help give more context, sorry I was unable to copy and paste:

 

[Grant]

And here for more clarity on the view given by Begg, pg. 13-14:

 

[Grant]

Pastor Iain,

Based on the above, I believe Begg would say we must not bring anything that existed in Israel’s Ceremonial Temple worship into NT worship without a NT prescription, BECAUSE not only is our worship today based more on the OT Synagogue but further the Ceremonial Temple worship has passed away (John 4). This avoids the error of saying ONLY OT Temple worship is to be looked at for our worship and also supports the NT idea that the ceremonial is gone unless we see it Continued in Christ. I think he also avoids the charge you lay of having a “Dispensational” worship view because he indeed makes our current NT worship connected to the OT Synagogue.

Ex. They sang songs in the Temple Worship and so we might deem that as temporary and ceremonial, yet we do not because we see it prescribed in the NT setting.

As always, I am open to learning, but this is my current understanding and I would say that I agree with Begg and see no contradiction with the Westminster Standards. Do you know of any Westminster divines that argued for using instruments in worship? I don’t ask that to make some logical fallacy, but rather to understand the scope of worship envisioned by the men who actually wrote the original Westminster.

 

[Grant]

I have almost finished the pamphlet and plan to only burden any onlookers with three more thought provoking excerpts.

What a blessing this has been to read both from an exegetical and historical standpoint. I highly recommend!

 

[Grant]

From pg. 29-30, regarding the argument for instrument use from Psalm 150:

 

[Grant]

From pg. 31-32 and the uniformity that has historical existed among Presbyterians and Instrument use in Worship:

 

[Grant]

Lastly, from pg. 38-39 and I think a very edifying read on this Lord’s Day:

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Thanks for posting these excerpts Grant, very good!

 

[Grant]

Thanks for posting these excerpts Grant, very good!

Thanks Jeri, they seem to point to the same pattern God’s people exhibited in scripture. That being sharp reform and then slow progression back to will-Worship and then a blessing of another reformer. Normally I do not like to post quotes that long, but I think these were VERY important.

If our day I think the visible church is in need of sharp reform again. Family worship, the RPW, and Sabbatarianism seem to be all but forgotten in some of the larger areas of the Visible church that we would likely still label as orthodox. More narrowly it would seem some sects of Presbyterianism have (maybe even with good intentions) let Rome back in with regard to worship practices and that the other categories are also not disciplined.

 

[iainduguid]

Pastor Iain,

Based on the above, I believe Begg would say we must not bring anything that existed in Israel’s Ceremonial Temple worship into NT worship without a NT prescription, BECAUSE not only is our worship today based more on the OT Synagogue but further the Ceremonial Temple worship has passed away (John 4). This avoids the error of saying ONLY OT Temple worship is to be looked at for our worship and also supports the NT idea that the ceremonial is gone unless we see it Continued in Christ. I think he also avoids the charge you lay of having a “Dispensational” worship view because he indeed makes our current NT worship connected to the OT Synagogue.

Ex. They sang songs in the Temple Worship and so we might deem that as temporary and ceremonial, yet we do not because we see it prescribed in the NT setting.

As always, I am open to learning, but this is my current understanding and I would say that I agree with Begg and see no contradiction with the Westminster Standards. Do you know of any Westminster divines that argued for using instruments in worship? I don’t ask that to make some logical fallacy, but rather to understand the scope of worship envisioned by the men who actually wrote the original Westminster.

Hi Grant,
Thanks for confirming that my reading of Begg is correct and he is indeed going beyond the Confession in restricting the relevant teaching on worship to "the worship God has prescribed in the NT" (see p.13). I don't want to get into the question of musical instruments, because that is a distraction from my point which is that Begg is following a different hermeneutic from the one advocated in the Confession. You can see that clearly from the WCF quotes he cites, which nowhere distinguish between OT and NT as authoritative sources of doctrine. This is, if not outright dispensationalist, at least reminiscent of NCT approaches to OT law, which only allow appeal to the Ten Commandments if they are restated in the NT.

One easy way to see that he is inconsistent with the WCF (and probably in his own thinking) is that the confession allows "solemn fastings and thanksgivings" upon special occasions (see 21.5, cited on p.13 above). Where is the warrant for these "holy days" of church assembly with public worship? The proof texts are all OT, and would have centered on the temple, not the synagogue.

Second, along with many Reformed theologians of the past, he is simply wrong in equating the church's worship with the synagogue and not the temple. The NT language describing the church is all temple language not synagogue language, and if we are not the new temple of God (as the body of Christ) then we can't apply Hebrews 10-12 to gathered worship. I'd recommend Greg Beale's book, The Temple and the Church's Mission as a good starting point for these issues.

I understand the appropriate fear that an over emphasis on continuity between OT and NT ends up in Roman worship, but we don't allow the relevance of the same charge when it come to infant baptism (where we suddenly seem very comfortable with Biblical theological arguments rooted in the OT!) And there are dangers on the other side. The Sydney Anglicans, for example, refuse to use the language of worship for gathered church assemblies at all because they (plausibly, if contemporary research is accurate) question whether there was any singing or acts of devotion in the synagogue, beyond Scripture reading, exhortation and prayer. For them, the church as new synagogue ends us with Sunday assemblies being purely about edification, not doxology. In my view it is likely the church introduced new ideas into the distributed gathering of God's people (like singing and benediction, which wasn't part of the synagogue liturgy pre-AD70 because it belonged in the temple).

Again, I don't want this to devolve into a discussion of instruments; that is merely one application. I have very litte time (or appetite) to debate things that have been thoroughly explored elsewhere on this site.I simply wanted to point out that in his enthusiasm to rule them out, Begg goes significantly beyond our confessional standards

 

[Grant]

Hi Grant,
Thanks for confirming that my reading of Begg is correct and he is indeed going beyond the Confession in restricting the relevant teaching on worship to "the worship God has prescribed in the NT" (see p.13). I don't want to get into the question of musical instruments, because that is a distraction from my point which is that Begg is following a different hermeneutic from the one advocated in the Confession. You can see that clearly from the WCF quotes he cites, which nowhere distinguish between OT and NT as authoritative sources of doctrine. This is, if not outright dispensationalist, at least reminiscent of NCT approaches to OT law, which only allow appeal to the Ten Commandments if they are restated in the NT.

One easy way to see that he is inconsistent with the WCF (and probably in his own thinking) is that the confession allows "solemn fastings and thanksgivings" upon special occasions (see 21.5, cited on p.13 above). Where is the warrant for these "holy days" of church assembly with public worship? The proof texts are all OT, and would have centered on the temple, not the synagogue.

Second, along with many Reformed theologians of the past, he is simply wrong in equating the church's worship with the synagogue and not the temple. The NT language describing the church is all temple language not synagogue language, and if we are not the new temple of God (as the body of Christ) then we can't apply Hebrews 10-12 to gathered worship. I'd recommend Greg Beale's book, The Temple and the Church's Mission as a good starting point for these issues.

I understand the appropriate fear that an over emphasis on continuity between OT and NT ends up in Roman worship, but we don't allow the relevance of the same charge when it come to infant baptism (where we suddenly seem very comfortable with Biblical theological arguments rooted in the OT!) And there are dangers on the other side. The Sydney Anglicans, for example, refuse to use the language of worship for gathered church assemblies at all because they (plausibly, if contemporary research is accurate) question whether there was any singing or acts of devotion in the synagogue, beyond Scripture reading, exhortation and prayer. For them, the church as new synagogue ends us with Sunday assemblies being purely about edification, not doxology. In my view it is likely the church introduced new ideas into the distributed gathering of God's people (like singing and benediction, which wasn't part of the synagogue liturgy pre-AD70 because it belonged in the temple).

Again, I don't want this to devolve into a discussion of instruments; that is merely one application. I have very litte time (or appetite) to debate things that have been thoroughly explored elsewhere on this site.I simply wanted to point out that in his enthusiasm to rule them out, Begg goes significantly beyond our confessional standards

Thanks for giving your angle Pastor Iain. I would just add that Synagogue worship was in the OT as well, so I do not see the "dispensational approach" or "NCT approach" charge as sticking the landing. Further, I would like to wait for your book to come out in order to have my views challenged on this subject!

 

[Grant]

@iainduguid

Further, I would like to add in a respectful manner. Advocating for a change in the Moral Law (and really pre-fall creation ordinances), as NCT does, is vastly different than advocating for a change in how our Lord has commanded worship. From a confessional perspective, we know the Moral law to be eternal and forever-binding. This seems to be the consistent teaching of scripture. This law certainly picked up some temporary ceremonial applications (ex. slaughtering bulls and the 2nd Commandment).

Constantly, the reformed also acknowledge that our Lord has ordained the modes of worship to have changed in different dispensations (using dispensation in the way the Westminster does). The ends of worship have always been the same post-fall, to glorify God the Father through a mediator. However the means have been changed even prior to the NT (by Divine Authority only). Pre=Temple era, Temple era, and Post-Temple era seem to have notable differences. So I do not believe it fair to apply NCT to Begg's view (anachronistically mind you). Assuming you mean it negatively or as being somehow anti-confessional. Jesus himself sets us up for BIG NT worship changes in John 4.

Of course I will also readily admit that I could be misunderstanding the main thrust behind NCT. The reason I see Paedo-Baptism as continuing is in fact similar to my approach to worship. I see the principle of federal headship and the household principle continue in the NT. I can certainly see how a Baptist might say that the "giving of the sign" to the natural offspring was temporary and maybe even ceremonial or civil. However, what converted me from Baptist to Presbyterian (aside from the HS) on the matter of baptism was the concepts of Federal Headship and household faith and seeing them continued in the NT for the covenant entry sacrament.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Is it better, or more precise, to say the NT church finds its parallel for its form (rather than basis) in its worship and government in the synagogue? Note what James Bannerman writes in a footnote in one of the magnum opuses of Presbyterianism.

Next to the direct scriptural evidence for Presbyterianism, one of the strongest arguments in its favour is to be drawn from that form of government which we find in the Jewish synagogue since the time of what was probably its first formal establishment by the hands of the inspired men who led back the exiles from Babylon. That the polity of the Christian Church was framed on the model, not of the temple, but of the synagogue, just as its Sacraments arose out of Jewish ordinances which had no connection with the temple services, is a point on which almost all theologians agree, at least since the date of Vitringa and Selden's great works on the subject. The evidence is of course partly drawn from extra-scriptural sources; but it is strongly confirmed by many incidental notices in the Old and New Testament. The names of the office-bearers, the general nature of the offices, the powers of discipline in the hands of a consistory of elders, the elements of worship, the imposition of hands in ordination instead of the anointing, as in the consecration of priests, are all points in common between the synagogue and the Church. "the ordinary and regular form of government proper to the synagogue, Says Mr. Litton, "was on the Presbyterian model; as indeed there is only one passage of Scripture (Luke xiii. 14) which appears to imply that there existed any other.... The names which Christian ministers bear in the New Testament, presbyter or episcopus, and deacon, are all derived from the synagogue; while never once are they designated by the term ιερεύς, or priest, the proper title of those who officiated in the temple. The very term itself, synagogue, is, in James ii. 2, applied to a Christian assembly.... But as regards Episcopacy, the analogy of the synagogue fails us. While there can be no reasonable doubt respecting the derivation of the presbyters and deacons of a Christian congregation from the corresponding officers of the synagogue, that institution does not, with anything like the same degree of certainty, present us with the historical type of a Christian bishop." See Bannerman, Church of Christ, note, vol. 2, p. 282.

The Church of Christ

books.google.com

​

​

 

[NaphtaliPress]

On the other hand, G. I. Williamson in responding to some papers against the regulative principle cautions about too closely tying the church to the synagogue.

8. But, now, let me respond to the entire line of argument presented in these papers.

A. And the first thing I want to say is that Rev. Schlissel’s whole split-level concept of worship is without merit [i.e. temple worship is in heaven and regulated, synagogue is on earth and unregulated in the church].

1. It is without merit because the New Testament says the Christian Church is the Temple—God’s final temple. It is the Temple prophesied in such great detail in the last section of the book of Ezekiel.

It is true, of course, that there is an aspect of this Temple which is heavenly. That is true because part of the church is in heaven, where Jesus sits at the right hand of God. Yet Paul does not hesitate to say—to New Testament believers such as ourselves, while we’re right here on earth“You [YE in the KJV] are the Temple of God” (1 Cor. 3:16,17; 2 Cor. 6:16; cf. Eph. 2:21).[7]

[7] I assert that Paul is claiming the very same thing that Moses claimed when he was the organ of the revelation of the plan of the Tabernacle, the very thing that David claimed when he said he had the whole plan from God for the Temple—I assert that Paul the apostle is the third temple architect in the history of God’s kingdom. He was the wise architect, the very Greek word there, who has laid out the blueprint for the final temple of God.​

See the whole piece at http://thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner9-1&3.pdf​

​

 

[iainduguid]

Is it better, or more precise, to say the NT church finds its parallel for its form (rather than basis) in its worship and government in the synagogue? Note what James Bannerman writes in a footnote in one of the magnum opuses of Presbyterianism.

​

​

Yes, I think we are on firmer ground saying the form of government in the church owes much to the synagogue. But even here, we have to be careful. There is a priestly dimension to the work of the pastor, something our Reformed denominations recognize when the first act of a newly ordained pastor is to pronounce the benediction - a priestly (and temple) act if ever there was one. And to whom should Christians go for a torah (an interpretation of God's law in matters that may not be directly addressed in his Word; see Hag. 2:11)? Is not the pastor to perform this priestly role in the new covenant?

As far as the form of worship goes, one problem is that there is almost nothing in the OT that describes the form of synagogue worship. Our earliest sources for what went on in the synagogue are largely drawn from the NT. As far as I can see there are no references to calls to worship, singing or benediction in those synagogue descriptions, only reading and explanation of Scripture, and prayer - let alone vows and days of feasting and fasting. Our extra-Biblical sources (which surely cannot regulate worship for Reformed believers anyway) are mostly past AD70, and therefore affected by the massive changes that happened then. So you cannot establish the WCF form of worship simply on the basis of the synagogue and NT confirmations.

Certainly, there are significant changes in worship in the NT (and, as you perceptively note, already in different times in the OT). But are we limited only to those aspects of worship that are prescribed in the NT, as Begg argues, while all other OT aspects of teaching about worship are automatically off limits? That seems to assert that there are no moral law aspects to any OT teaching on worship, unless explicitly confirmed in the NT, which is where the similarity to NCT comes in. To say that is certainly to go beyond the WCF, with its carefully nuanced categories of moral, civil and ceremonial law - something I don't think Begg intends to do, but nevertheless is where I think he ends up. Perhaps I'm over-reading him, but I've come across that attitude too often in discussions of worship and want to make sure we are really clear about the foundations from which we are arguing. Otherwise, we will draw the wrong conclusions.