"Mixed modes" of Worship

[panta dokimazete]

JD,

Do you always use the least didactic and most figurative passages to defend your positions? Just like a passage about a "new song" in Isaiah that comes right after a command for the beaches and mountains to sing praise to God is not meant to be taken didactively regarding the regulations on the mode of singing,

And yet Christ Himself said that the stones would cry out...

I do not believe you are using Scripture to interpret Scripture on the Isaiah passage, but you are certainly welcome to start another thread on that, if you'd like.

...other passages like the one you've quoted from the Psalms here don't seem to be very helpful in deciding what singing is.

That's because the mode of singing and the expression of the "modes" in general is not as Scripturally restricted as it being presented.

That is the didactic...

 

[MW]

Re. Col. 3:16:

There certainly seems to be an allowance for "mixed modes" in this passage.

Sound exegesis requires us to note the use of the participles, and to see singing as the means of carrying out the duty to teach and admonish. Else this verse would not teach the exclusive use of the psalms in praise song but their exclusive use in teaching as well.

 

[MW]

So...mute people cannot worship through singing? One would assume they would sing in their mind/heart.

Where there is genuine disability the Lord accepts the action for the willingness of the heart; but this does not excuse those who are able from performing the actions which Scripture requires.

Does singing and making music in your heart refer to audible sound?

The qualifier, "in your heart," refers to making music, not singing, as is clear from Col. 3:16, where singing is to be carried out "with grace in your hearts to the Lord." The singing must be audible if it is going to be spoken to others and serve the purpose of teaching and admonishing.

Also, please note the mixing of "speaking" to one another and "singing" songs.

There is no mixing -- the one qualifies the other.

Again - you attempt to apply a mandate that is not Scriptural.

I think we have established conclusively that your experience is being used to veto the Scriptures.

Once more - it is not a matter of strictly one or another "mode" at any one time. Each may be fully separated - some may be juxtaposed - some may be co-mingled and still be orderly.

To date, all of your experimental arguments only serve to undermine singing as a distinct element in the worship of God. If you genuinely hold to the RPW, I think you bear the burden of proving that singing as a distinct action is warranted by the Word of God at all. If it is, then I would ask, what rules do the Scriptures set down to govern the practice of singing. At the end of this process, you will be shown to either (a) contradict your confused notions about mixed modes of worship, (b) show that you do not really hold to the RPW. Let's take this seriously.

 

[panta dokimazete]

The qualifier, "in your heart," refers to making music, not singing, as is clear from Col. 3:16, where singing is to be carried out "with grace in your hearts to the Lord." The singing must be audible if it is going to be spoken to others and serve the purpose of teaching and admonishing.

I think it is strange that you are so adamant concerning "mixed modes" yet you confuse and mix the mode of speaking and singing...

Anyway, let's examine the core of your argument through the Scriptures (all NASB) concerning "singing...in your heart":

Ephesians 5:19

(a)speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, (b)singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;


Colossians 3:16

(a)Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, (b)singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

First - The (a) portion of both verses clearly establishes that psalms, hymns and spiritual songs may be spoken (as well as sung - one may even propose read and signed - why legalistically limit the transmission media? otherwise no reading Psalms in worship, either) and used to teach and admonish the brethren with the content of each type.

I will simply refer you to the Psalms as the clearest example of (a) - and trust that I will not have to show where the Psalms are quoted to teach and admonish. Nor elaborate on the transmission media (speech, text, song, etc, by which these types were transmitted).

So, secondly and to the point - the (b) portion of both clearly establishes singing in and with your heart.

what precedence does Scripture establish for the (b) section?

Job 29:13
"The blessing of the one ready to perish came upon me,And I made the widow's heart sing for joy.

Psalm 84:2
My soul longed and even yearned for the courts of the LORD; My heart and my flesh sing for joy to the living God.

Psalm 108:1
My heart is steadfast, O God;I will sing, I will sing praises, even with my soul.

Psalm 30:12
that my heart may sing to you and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give you thanks forever.

Now - all this to establish that one may indeed sing in and with their heart as well as audibly.

I'll look at your other points in a bit...

 

[MW]

JD, I think it is quite clear from your argumentative replies that you are not interested in simply learning the rationale for distinct modes of worship, as per your OP. If you would like to engage in a debate please feel to open a thread which better represents your intentions, and which avails the opponent of the opportunity to rip your strawy method of interpretation to shreds. Blessings!

 

[panta dokimazete]

JD, I think it is quite clear from your argumentative replies that you are not interested in simply learning the rationale for distinct modes of worship, as per your OP. If you would like to engage in a debate please feel to open a thread which better represents your intentions, and which avails the opponent of the opportunity to rip your strawy method of interpretation to shreds. Blessings!

Rev. Winzer - it's quite clear that this idea of "mixed modes" is an untenable position that has no Scriptural mandate evidenced by your attempt to flippantly dismiss any attempt to dissect your position. You have seemingly utilized ad hominem and supported mockery during our discussion, which has caused me to challenge your assertions very aggressively.

Nevertheless, I do commend you in your other endeavors and pray that you receive Christ's richest blessings in your life.

Please consider this my last post in this unprofitable exchange.

 

[MW]

Please consider this my last post in this unprofitable exchange.

Please note the rules about unfounded accusations.

 

[historyb]

Well,

I haven't posted in a long time and I'm not about to debate. I will tell you there are many people that can mutli-task. Right now I am typing, listening to the television and thinking ahead for me it's not impossible it's needed. Just like one can worship in different modes at once and pray in difference modes at once.

To say otherwise just sounds like mere legalism In my humble opinion.

 

[MW]

It seems to be a trend to determine what worship is by one's own abilities, and to impugn any restriction the Scriptures might place upon those abilities as legalism. If that is what the reformed regulative principle of worship must be branded, then so be it, but I do find it incongruent for such a label to find acceptance on a board where the Westminster Confession of Faith is professedly maintained, considering that chapter 21, section 1, explicitly states that God may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or any other way not prescribed in holy Scripture. The same chapter, section 5, teaches that singing of psalms with grace in the heart is a part of the ordinary religious worship of God. The Directory for Public Worship, a primary source for interpreting the intent of the Confession of Faith, classifies the worship of God according to specific actions, calling one action, prayer, another action, reading, another action, preaching, and another action, singing. Under each of these headings the Directory provides specific instructions for the dutiful carrying out of the various parts of worship. This, no doubt, will also be branded legalism. In my honest and humble opinion, it is nothing less than a manifestation of a conscientious desire to understand the will of the Lord and to please Him in all things wherein He has made known His will, especially in the matter of public worship, because great fear is due unto the Lord in the meeting of the saints.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Not an essential, not a concern to me, on par with arguing about sabbatarianism and against ethical birth control to me, not worth the fight because salvation and the character of Almighty God are not at stake.

 

[MW]

Not an essential, not a concern to me, on par with arguing about sabbatarianism and against ethical birth control to me, not worth the fight because salvation and the character of Almighty God are not at stake.

Worship exalts the character of Almighty God, Ps. 138:2. Where the corruption of the worship of God is at stake, the character of Almighty God is also at stake.

 

[historyb]

Not an essential, not a concern to me, on par with arguing about sabbatarianism and against ethical birth control to me, not worth the fight because salvation and the character of Almighty God are not at stake.

 

[Davidius]

Well,

I haven't posted in a long time and I'm not about to debate. I will tell you there are many people that can mutli-task. Right now I am typing, listening to the television and thinking ahead for me it's not impossible it's needed. Just like one can worship in different modes at once and pray in difference modes at once.

To say otherwise just sounds like mere legalism In my humble opinion.

If you don't want to debate, why did you even post with your opinion? Does "I'm not about to debate" mean that you just don't want to be called to answer for the fact that you completely disregarded all of the material that has been discussed in the thread so far, made an assertion without any relevant evidence, and then began to call people who take seriously the confessional statements required for Board membership legalists while chirping in "amens" to other similarly unfounded assertions?

 

[historyb]

huh?

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Worship exalts the character of Almighty God, Ps. 138:2. Where the corruption of the worship of God is at stake, the character of Almighty God is also at stake.

Brother how does the use of hymns, psmalmody, a choir, some instrumentation, scripture reading, litrugy and a sermon together sacrifice the sovereign character of God?

If it causes a minority to lose focus then it should be addressed by the elders and congregation but it just isn't worth too much breath otherwise.

 

[Davidius]

Brother how does the use of hymns, psmalmody, a choir, some instrumentation, scripture reading, litrugy and a sermon together sacrifice the sovereign character of God?

If it causes a minority to lose focus then it should be addressed by the elders and congregation but it just isn't worth too much breath otherwise.

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD has said, 'Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.'" And Aaron held his peace.

 

[MW]

Brother how does the use of hymns, psmalmody, a choir, some instrumentation, scripture reading, litrugy and a sermon together sacrifice the sovereign character of God?

Worship means to bow down. True worship honours the divine name in submission to the divine will. John 4:24, true worship reflects the nature of the One being worshipped. To offer to God what He has not commanded is to exalt the will of man above God's and to teach in effect that personal taste is worth more than His pleasure.

If it causes a minority to lose focus then it should be addressed by the elders and congregation but it just isn't worth too much breath otherwise.

The Lord is jealous for His worship, Exod. 20:5. The failure of men to expend breath upon Him is the reason why they suffer to the third and fourth generation. Showing oneself indifferent to the cause of the Sovereign of all the earth is effectively an expression of hatred against Him.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Worship means to bow down. True worship honours the divine name in submission to the divine will. John 4:24, true worship reflects the nature of the One being worshipped. To offer to God what He has not commanded is to exalt the will of man above God's and to teach in effect that personal taste is worth more than His pleasure.



The Lord is jealous for His worship, Exod. 20:5. The failure of men to expend breath upon Him is the reason why they suffer to the third and fourth generation. Showing oneself indifferent to the cause of the Soverieng of all the earth is effectively an expression of hatred against Him.

I'm sorry brother but as you've undoubtedly experienced in Queensland when you are starved just to find a gospel preaching church you fight your battles as they come and diplomatically as possible.

Exclusive psalmody and sabbatarianism are not things I worry much about, I count Christ as my rest from all sin even those of omission and ignorance.

That is not a license of apathy but of dealing with the reality of we being sinners turned by grace to saints living in a fallen and perverse world and dealing with the reality of our own unsatisfyingly slow sanctification.

It is Christ I turn to for redemption and obedience and when I cannot fulfill the law (which is pretty much always) I am humbled by having to trust Christ and He alone to fulfill it on my behalf.

That is my view and I will not waver from it at this time.

 

[MW]

Friend, I am in full agreement on the part about trusting in Christ as our righteousness, agonising over the slowness of our sanctification, and of being joyful to find sound preaching where it may be had. But where you stop I am compelled to keep going; for I am called to fight for the crown rights of our glorious Redeemer, and the soldier does not get to choose his battles, but must obey the commander in chief. "Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments," Ps. 119:6. Holiness is not a lottery, where you choose the numbers and hope for the best.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I said I was done with this thread, but I will place one more comment and a recommendation that this thread be locked after Rev. Winzer replies if he so desires.

But where you stop I am compelled to keep going; for I am called to fight for the crown rights of our glorious Redeemer, and the soldier does not get to choose his battles, but must obey the commander in chief. "Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments," Ps. 119:6.

Yes, but we must be careful not to create commandment where none exist, thus becoming one who would "strain at a gnat" of some invented stricture, thus "swallowing the camel" of legalism just as the Pharisees did in their misguided zeal.

2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Lest we forget - liberty is bounded freedom and in the case of Christians, we are bounded by the Holy Spirit and Scripture. Christ's public ministry began by first proclaiming freedom. He then demonstrated the bounds of this freedom with His life and teaching, then prompting the men who would record His actions and significant teachings through the Holy Spirit.

The RPW is a wonderful guiding principle, but we must be careful not to turn it into a heavy yoke. In the areas Scripture is clear - clear adherence is mandated - where it is not so clear - there is liberty.

Holiness is not a lottery, where you choose the numbers and hope for the best.

Rev. Winzer - I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is given. Holding up or boasting in your zeal for holiness in a manner that maligns your brothers' - which, I confess, it seems to me you have done - particularly in this forum with mostly like-minded brethren, is not very charitable. We should only boast in Christ.

Finally - holiness - as evidentiated most clearly by our Lord and Saviour - is not iterating out every rule that could possibly be implied from Scripture and adhering to it.

Holiness for us is worshipping God in Spirit and truth...and where the Spirit of Lord is there is liberty. Again - Liberty is freedom within the boundaries of the Holy Spirit and Scripture. It is not in the polar extremes of licentiousness or legalism.

No-one here is proposing anarchy.

We are (at least I am) protesting a stricture that seems to have passed the boundaries of the spirit of the RPW into a more legalistic context than Scripture or the Spirit demands.

Rev. Winzer - I will once more say that I have great respect for you - for your contributions to the PB - particularly your willingness to minister in the place the Lord has placed you. I cannot imagine your daily struggles and lift you up in prayer with thanksgiving for such a servant of the Lord.

Thank you and Christ's richest blessings on you and your ministry.

-JD

 

[KMK]

First of all JD, keep in mind that you asked Rev Winzer specifically to give you reasons for his stance. He has done that repeatedly. He has graciously granted your request.

Secondly, from your posts it seems apparent that the RPW that you refer to is not the RPW that Rev. Winzer refers to. Perhaps if you stated clearly what you believe the RPW is, you might better understand where Rev Winzer is coming from.

I am pretty sure Rev Winzer is coming from 21:1 of WCF "He may not be worshipped...any other way not prescirbed in the holy scriptures."

This means you would have to find scripture that commends (not just allows) the worship of God by mixing modes of worship.

It is not my intention to put words into Rev Winzer's mouth but just trying to focus the discussion.

 

[panta dokimazete]

First of all JD, keep in mind that you asked Rev Winzer specifically to give you reasons for his stance. He has done that repeatedly. He has graciously granted your request.

Secondly, from your posts it seems apparent that the RPW that you refer to is not the RPW that Rev. Winzer refers to. Perhaps if you stated clearly what you believe the RPW is, you might better understand where Rev Winzer is coming from.

I am pretty sure Rev Winzer is coming from 21:1 of WCF "He may not be worshipped...any other way not prescirbed in the holy scriptures."

This means you would have to find scripture that commends (not just allows) the worship of God by mixing modes of worship.

It is not my intention to put words into Rev Winzer's mouth but just trying to focus the discussion.

It is difficult for me to speak of "my RPW" versus "his RPW", since I agree with the RPW that we may not worship God in any way not prescribed by Him in Scripture.

I think where the difference is the application of the RPW.

I try to apply the RPW as it seems Christ taught - proclaiming freedom - the yoke is easy and the burden is light - where the Spirit is there is liberty - worship Him in Spirit and in truth. Not seeking out every conceivable iteration of compliance and rigorously mandating it - that is legalism.

What God has commanded through Scripture for His worship - so shall it be.

What Scripture is not clear on - in this instance this "mixing of modes" prohibition - violates liberty and should not be placed as a yoke on the brethren.

If anything "mixing" should be considered circumstantial and let it go at that.

 

[panta dokimazete]

First of all JD, keep in mind that you asked Rev Winzer specifically to give you reasons for his stance. He has done that repeatedly. He has graciously granted your request.

Just make sure we are all on the same page - this origination of this thread included the Rev. Winzer's quote:

The sooner you concede the obvious, the sooner this discussion can proceed apace.

This was not just to understand the Rev's position, but also to challenge that statement - that his position was obvious and that I should concede the point.

Obviously, I am unwilling to concede that his position is an obvious RPW directed position.

Blessings, brother.

 

[KMK]

JD, first you said this...

I agree with the RPW that we may not worship God in any way not prescribed by Him in Scripture.

The word 'prescribed' means 'ordered' or 'directed'.

Then you said...

What God has commanded through Scripture for His worship - so shall it be.

But then you said...

What Scripture is not clear on - in this instance this "mixing of modes" prohibition - violates liberty and should not be placed as a yoke on the brethren.

The RPW as the Puritans understood it, states that we are to worship in the church only in the ways specifically commanded in scripture and no other.

Your view is that, yes we are to worship as commanded but in those things where scripture is not clear, it is also allowable to worship.

The Puritan's RPW would require you to find scripture showing that mixing modes is commanded or prescribed, and if no scripture could be found, then it is not to be so.

I think this is the root of your disagreement.

 

[panta dokimazete]

JD, first you said this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire

I agree with the RPW that we may not worship God in any way not prescribed by Him in Scripture.

The word 'prescribed' means 'ordered' or 'directed'.

ok - we may not worship Him in any way not ordered or directed.

The RPW as the Puritans understood it, states that we are to worship in the church only in the ways specifically commanded in scripture and no other.

Your view is that, yes we are to worship as commanded but in those things where scripture is not clear, it is also allowable to worship.

No - my view is that the "mixed modes" idea is not addressed in Scripture, nor is it part of the RPW - this is also my view of EP as it relates to the RPW, but I am not addressing EP at this time.

The Puritan's RPW would require you to find scripture showing that mixing modes is commanded or prescribed, and if no scripture could be found, then it is not to be so.

I think this is the root of your disagreement.

No - I think the "mixed modes" idea falls, at best, within the circumstantial aspects of worship - unless you are prepared to reject circumstantial aspects. Which I do not believe the Puritans would do. At worst - it is idle speculation and a potential burden to the brethren.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I think a key understanding of the RPW is not only to focus on the negative aspects but also on the positive aspects.

That is - not focus soley on the "Thou shalt not", so as to restrict the worship of God in a narrow and legalistic way, but also focus on the requirement that we are to worship God as completely as He has commanded through Scripture, as well - heart, soul, mind, strength - and all that is tied to it.

Regulate does not mean legalistically restrict or prohibit - regulation helps to insure we do not abuse the liberty given and allow the freedom we have to be bounded by the Holy Spirit and Scripture. The HS and Scripture combined define worshipping in spirit and truth.

 

[KMK]

No - my view is that the "mixed modes" idea is not addressed in Scripture, nor is it part of the RPW

I get you, this thread is not even about the RPW in your mind because whether or not someone sings while praying or prays while singing is not addressed in scripture.

But I think the Westminster Divines looked at it this way: If it is not addressed in scritpure then it is a part of the RPW.

No - I think the "mixed modes" idea falls, at best, within the circumstantial aspects of worship

I understand that. Circumstances are not regulated. The WCF would agree I think. The disagreement would probably be this: Since details about singing and praying are given in scripture then they would not fall into the category of 'circumstantial'. From my limited understanding the Puritans would say that 'circumstances' have to do with those things like what time, what place, what posture etc. This is of course where there is a great deal of disagreement. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 14 that there are to be rules and order concerning corporate worship but he does not deliniate what those rules are.

 

[KMK]

I think a key understanding of the RPW is not only to focus on the negative aspects but also on the positive aspects.

If you are saying that the RPW demands that we focus on the commands, prohibitions and silences of scripture equally, then I agree. If you are saying that we should focus on one more than the other then I disagree.

Also, you keep using that word 'legalism'. When I hear that word I understand it to mean that man has imposed works for salvation. No one here is saying that you must worship a certain way in order to be saved.

However, Matt 18 teaches us that when we are in corporate worship that his Spirit is with us in a very special way and the Lord has out of His own good pleasure placed restrictions on how we worship that He has not placed on us in other areas of our life.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

JD,
One mod's opinion. Frankly, it is easier if folks can simply walk away from a discussion rather than asking the mods to 'save them from themseves,' so to speak. That said, since you started the thread I suppose you can request it be locked in this manner; but I see difficulties if you don't like his last word or it raises other issues, and that puts the moderators in a spot to have to judge Mr. Winzer's post before he can post it. Walking away would certainly be easier on the mods. This mods . Others' miles may vary.

I said I was done with this thread, but I will place one more comment and a recommendation that this thread be locked after Rev. Winzer replies if he so desires.-JD

 

[panta dokimazete]

JD,
One mod's opinion. Frankly, it is easier if folks can simply walk away from a discussion rather than asking the mods to 'save them from themseves,' so to speak. That said, since you started the thread I suppose you can request it be locked in this manner; but I see difficulties if you don't like his last word or it raises other issues, and that puts the moderators in a spot to have to judge Mr. Winzer's post before he can post it. Walking away would certainly be easier on the mods. This mods . Others' miles may vary.

Thanks - absolutely appreciate your position - I was just concerned that we may get into an unprofitable "tit for tat" and really just wanted to offer an equitable closure to the thread, since it seemed to be getting more argumentative than "debative".

I personally am not concerned if Rev. Winzer brought up additional questions. I am willing to give him the last word - someone could start another thread if this is truly a merited debate. I believe I probably would sit it out, having understood the position and drawn a reasonable conclusion concerning its merits.

That being said - I believe Ken and I are having a reasonably non-pejorative discussion.