RPW violations - No sin as long as not participating?

[CGS]

I have been a member for a while of a PCA church, which, while conservative/traditional, does practice some things I cannot in good conscience participate in (hymns, unison readings, etc.). There's no sin as long as not participating in what one thinks is not prescribed for public worship by Scripture. To say one sins by being present while these things occur but are not participated in is basically the separatist position that Presbyterians opposed in the 17th century; see James Durham's treatise concerning scandal and Rutherford against separatism. See some literature here.

(Bringing this over from the other thread)

Questions for those who hold to a "strict" view of the RPW...

How does one define "participating"? And is there always a clear distinction between just being there (attending a service, observing, etc.) versus participating in the service?

Examples:

• If one holds to acapella exclusive Psalmody, is it OK to sing Psalms to instrumental accompaniment as long as you are not the one playing the instrument?
• Is it OK to observe an Advent candle lighting ceremony as long as you are not the one lighting the candle?
• If one holds to a strict view of congregational singing only, is it OK to sit through a choral anthem as long as you do not sing in the choir?
• If one does not believe in the observance of holy days, is it OK to attend an Advent Sunday service...does this imply consent to or condone all that is going on in these services such as candle lighting ceremonies, Christmas trees in the meeting place, etc.?

These are just a few examples...I'm sure there are numerous others.

Thank you!

 

[TexasPuritan]

I believe attendance would typically be a form of participation because in one regard you have placed yourself inside the assembly and have made the choice to submit to the elders present. therefore, your attendance is a public sign of agreeance in my opinion. For example, my last church had worship practices i did not agree with nor did i partake in the specific practice, though id argue that my presence and membership meant i implicitly participated in their practice. because of this i recommend finding an assembly that you agree with their practices.

 

[Solparvus]

Presence doesn't necessarily imply participation or approval. Christ's presence in the seven churches of Revelation was by no means a confirmation of His approval of their waywardness; yet He was among them.

 

[CGS]

Presence doesn't necessarily imply participation or approval. Christ's presence in the seven churches of Revelation was by no means a confirmation of His approval of their waywardness; yet He was among them.

But wouldn't that same Christ command us to separate ourselves from idolatry? And wouldn't violations of the RPW be a form of idolatry?

 

[Solparvus]

But wouldn't that same Christ command us to separate ourselves from idolatry? And wouldn't violations of the RPW be a form of idolatry?

Indeed He does. Yet Christ acknowledged the righteousness of those who were present in those churches and yet clearly did not participate in their sins of their churches. See Rev. 2:24-25 and Rev. 3:4. If the idea is that presence = participation, it doesn't stand up to Scripture.

I could see some arguing that Jezebel's immorality may in fact itself refer to idolatry, as adultery oftentimes signifies spiritual unfaithfulness. I'll throw that out but want to give that more thought myself.

 

[KMK]

Paul approved of the Corinthian church "coming together" in spite of their "divisions," "heresies," gluttony, and fornication, etc. (1 Cor. 11:17-22)

It might be, Charles, that the Lord is even now equipping you and calling you to ministry at some point so you can help solve some of these problems. In order for you to be a problem solver in the church you have to "belong" to the church. Lead by example but also by brotherly love.

 

[Ploutos]

The command to shine as lights in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation need not only apply outside the church. I'm not saying we should all join ELCA or UCC "churches", just that any church we go to will have enough sin to present us with opportunity to be a light.

 

[Polanus1561]

I see OPC delegates greet the FCoS general assembly. Doesn’t that point to some unity despite these things?

 

[thegoadfather]

I see OPC delegates greet the FCoS general assembly. Doesn’t that point to some unity despite these things?

But that doesn't answer the question about the obligation of a person or family to be members, and attend every time the church gathers even if it for man made holy days, of a local body with there is idolatrous practices. I don't think anyone who is wrestling with being a member/attending such a church would say they are not true churches. If the only time it is proper to divide from a church is if it is not a true church then most of if not all of presbyterian denominations would have sinned because they divided the body, or are sinning because they do not unify. And I understand part of the difference with this is the fear of a believer isolating themselves, which is extremely dangerous, but again I don't think any of us who are asking these questions desire to isolate ourselves. I personally have seen some who are so bent on "purity" that they do isolate themselves, and now they are not members of a church at all and it is a sad thing. But if the only answer to that is that it doesn't matter how much idolatry the church practices you have no right to absent yourself even temporarily, it's just hard to believe that that is what pleases the Lord or is what is good for the soul of the believer.

 

[Ploutos]

But if the only answer to that is that it doesn't matter how much idolatry the church practices you have no right to absent yourself even temporarily, it's just hard to believe that that is what pleases the Lord or is what is good for the soul of the believer.

I don't think anybody is saying that, not here.

 

[thegoadfather]

I don't think anybody is saying that, not here.

I am taking into account everything that has been said on all three threads, I even thought about saying that in my previous post. I also forgot to which thread specifically I was commenting on, since they all are so interconnected. I know that no one has said that explicitly but that seems to be the implication if there is not another local church you can attend or if you cannot move.

 

[Ploutos]

I am taking into account everything that has been said on all three threads, I even thought about saying that in my previous post. I also forgot to which thread specifically I was commenting on, since they all are so interconnected. I know that no one has said that explicitly but that seems to be the implication if there is not another local church you can attend or if you cannot move.

It's not the implication, not even close. We are talking about generally Reformed Bible-preaching churches here. There should be a distinction in one's mind between singing uninspired hymn with a piano and having an openly practicing gay pastor. I don't think there is a single person here who would advocate for going to that latter church over staying home, if those were the ONLY options. When confronted with a choice between a Catholic church, a Pentecostal church, and my hotel room, I pulled up a sermon on Sermon Audio and stayed put.

What we are talking about here is churches that agree on first order doctrines and on many second and third order doctrines. And this particular issue is one that some believe can be a matter of conscience up to a point. I would be among those that encourage church attendance even when there are some bothersome impurities. I understand that some don't feel that it can be a matter of conscience because they view the offenses so negatively. My opinion is that it needs to be weighed with the command to be part of a church and to accept as part of our calling a duty to contribute to the church's purity.

But nobody is taking that as far as saying to attend mass or a female-led Methodist service. There is a line.

 

[CGS]

Examples:

• If one holds to acapella exclusive Psalmody, is it OK to sing Psalms to instrumental accompaniment as long as you are not the one playing the instrument?
• Is it OK to observe an Advent candle lighting ceremony as long as you are not the one lighting the candle?
• If one holds to a strict view of congregational singing only, is it OK to sit through a choral anthem as long as you do not sing in the choir?
• If one does not believe in the observance of holy days, is it OK to attend an Advent Sunday service...does this imply consent to or condone all that is going on in these services such as candle lighting ceremonies, Christmas trees in the meeting place, etc.?

These are just a few examples...I'm sure there are numerous others.

Thank you!

Could someone speak to the specific examples I provided in the original post, especially the one in bold?

If God has commanded us to sing only Psalms without instrumental accompaniment, is it a sin to sing Psalms with instrumental accompaniment? For those who hold to the acapella EP position, would you refrain from singing Psalms in corprate worship if there is instrumental accompaniment? Assume someone else is playing the instrument(s).

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Could someone speak to the specific examples I provided in the original post, especially the one in bold?

If God has commanded us to sing only Psalms without instrumental accompaniment, is it a sin to sing Psalms with instrumental accompaniment? For those who hold to the acapella EP position, would you refrain from singing Psalms in corprate worship if there is instrumental accompaniment? Assume someone else is playing the instrument(s).

I don't refrain from singing psalms when the piano is playing. I'm not playing the piano; it's the same principle that someone coming unworthily to the Lord's Table does not corrupt my coming to the table. They don't make the ordinance illicit to others by their corruptions. Thankfully our piano is minimal, we normally sing the last half any psalm acapella and in the evening service, it is all acapella. So compared to other situations it is quite minimal instrumentation with the singing.

 

[CGS]

it's the same principle that someone coming unworthily to the Lord's Table does not corrupt my coming to the table. They don't make the ordinance illicit to others by their corruptions.

Does substituting grape juice instead of wine corrupt the Lord's Supper? If one believes that only wine is commanded, does one sin by partaking with grape juice?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Does substituting grape juice instead of wine corrupt the Lord's Supper?

We serve a split tray because of a couple of members. I don't believe juice corrupts the supper so as to make it not the Lord's supper to all or to those who take the juice.

 

[Edward]

Questions for those who hold to a "strict" view of the RPW

I suspect there might be quite a distance between your 'strict view' and my 'strict view'. But I understand what you are trying to fence in this thread, so I'll refrain from substantive comment. Just understand that not everyone has the same understanding of the requirements of the RPW.

 

[CGS]

I suspect there might be quite a distance between your 'strict view' and my 'strict view'. But I understand what you are trying to fence in this thread, so I'll refrain from substantive comment. Just understand that not everyone has the same understanding of the requirements of the RPW.

Understood...thank you. Just trying to avoid getting into endless debates over each specific bullet in the list. I get that not everyone thinks that instruments, uninspired hymns, choirs and Christmas/Advent are violations of the RPW, but I intentionally wanted to hear the perspective of those who do hold that these things are violations. There are plenty of other threads debating whether or not this or that is a violation.

 

[CGS]

We serve a split tray because of a couple of members. I don't believe juice corrupts the supper so as to make it not the Lord's supper to all or to those who take the juice.

A few follow up questions about the Lord's Supper:

• I understand your point that the grape juice does not necessarily make the Lord's Supper invalid, but for those who are convinced that wine (and only wine) is prescribed in Scripture, should they refrain from participating in the Lord's Supper if only grape juice is provided?
• If the answer to the above is "yes", then should they refrain from the Lord's Supper altogether (both the grape juice and the bread) or just the grape juice portion?
• Since the Westminster Standards clearly specify "wine" (not "fruit of the vine") should those who advocate for grape juice disclose this as an "exception" when taking vows to adhere to and maintain the Westminster Standards...for example, when being examined for licensing/ordination, election to church office, etc.?

I appreciate your patience with all the questions!

 

[TexasPuritan]

A few follow up questions about the Lord's Supper:

• I understand your point that the grape juice does not necessarily make the Lord's Supper invalid, but for those who are convinced that wine (and only wine) is prescribed in Scripture, should they refrain from participating in the Lord's Supper if only grape juice is provided?
• If the answer to the above is "yes", then should they refrain from the Lord's Supper altogether (both the grape juice and the bread) or just the grape juice portion?
• Since the Westminster Standards clearly specify "wine" (not "fruit of the vine") should those who advocate for grape juice disclose this as an "exception" when taking vows to adhere to and maintain the Westminster Standards...for example, when being examined for licensing/ordination, election to church office, etc.?

I appreciate your patience with all the questions!

i believe that if someone believes it must be wine, then I'd recommend not taking part in it if you have a strong conviction on the outward elements.. i believe that because communion is a package deal, it would not be wise or good to split the sacrament in half.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

A few follow up questions about the Lord's Supper:

• I understand your point that the grape juice does not necessarily make the Lord's Supper invalid, but for those who are convinced that wine (and only wine) is prescribed in Scripture, should they refrain from participating in the Lord's Supper if only grape juice is provided?
• If the answer to the above is "yes", then should they refrain from the Lord's Supper altogether (both the grape juice and the bread) or just the grape juice portion?
• Since the Westminster Standards clearly specify "wine" (not "fruit of the vine") should those who advocate for grape juice disclose this as an "exception" when taking vows to adhere to and maintain the Westminster Standards...for example, when being examined for licensing/ordination, election to church office, etc.?

I appreciate your patience with all the questions!

I don't see but they must refrain because to go against conscience is sin even if they are mistaken; I don't know of any argument one can take half the elements. I agree one should scruple or take exception; denominations may vary on their practice in this but strictly speaking to the original Westminster I think so. But I don't know what the practice is on that in the PCA or if anyone does take that exception. Someone familiar may chime in. Did the RPCNA change or modify their standards when they went teetotal in the late 19th century?

 

[CGS]

I don't see but

Chris - was the "I don't see" a typo or incomplete sentence? I'm not following what this part of the sentence means? Thanks!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Chris - was the "I don't see" a typo or incomplete sentence? I'm not following what this part of the sentence means? Thanks!

I thought it made sense; but to clarify, they must refrain for conscience sake.

 

[Ploutos]

Chris - was the "I don't see" a typo or incomplete sentence? I'm not following what this part of the sentence means? Thanks!

All that work with older English literature is having a bad influence on him; he's starting to talk like they do!

 

[CGS]

All that work with older English literature is having a bad influence on him; he's starting to talk like they do!

Or maybe it's the Southern (by the grace of God) influence that hindered me from understanding "proper" English!

 

[CGS]

Excerpt from James Durham's Treatise Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 2013):

"But yet two things are to be satisfied. 1. It may be said, ‘But are not the ordinances of Christ someway polluted by the unworthiness of such scandalous partakers? And if so, can polluted ordinances be partaken of without sin?’ Answer. We may consider polluting of ordinances in a threefold sense. (1.) An ordinance may be said to be polluted, when the essentials and substantials thereof are corrupted, so as indeed it ceases to be an ordinance of Jesus Christ. [bold emphasis added] Thus the Mass in Popery is a fearful abomination and a corruption of the sacrament. In this respect the ordinance (if it may be called an ordinance after that, for indeed it is not an ordinance of Christ) is polluted. This may be many ways fallen into, and communion in this is indeed sinful and cannot but be so."

Questions about this...

• What are the essentials and substantials of an ordinance in general, i.e. what is the definition of these words as Durham uses them?
• What are the essentials and substantials of the Lord's Supper specifically?
• Would the wine (as opposed to grape juice) be considered an essential or a substantial, or neither? (I realize grape juice did not exist at the time Durham wrote this)

Durham provided the Mass as one example, but I assume he did not mean this as the only example...so I'm wondering how this idea of essentials and substantials would pertain to corruptions of the Lord's Supper in today's Reformed churches?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Excerpt from James Durham's Treatise Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 2013):

"But yet two things are to be satisfied. 1. It may be said, ‘But are not the ordinances of Christ someway polluted by the unworthiness of such scandalous partakers? And if so, can polluted ordinances be partaken of without sin?’ Answer. We may consider polluting of ordinances in a threefold sense. (1.) An ordinance may be said to be polluted, when the essentials and substantials thereof are corrupted, so as indeed it ceases to be an ordinance of Jesus Christ. [bold emphasis added] Thus the Mass in Popery is a fearful abomination and a corruption of the sacrament. In this respect the ordinance (if it may be called an ordinance after that, for indeed it is not an ordinance of Christ) is polluted. This may be many ways fallen into, and communion in this is indeed sinful and cannot but be so."

Questions about this...

• What are the essentials and substantials of an ordinance in general, i.e. what is the definition of these words as Durham uses them?
• What are the essentials and substantials of the Lord's Supper specifically?
• Would the wine (as opposed to grape juice) be considered an essential or a substantial, or neither? (I realize grape juice did not exist at the time Durham wrote this)

Durham provided the Mass as one example, but I assume he did not mean this as the only example...so I'm wondering how this idea of essentials and substantials would pertain to corruptions of the Lord's Supper in today's Reformed churches?

Someone may correct me, I don't know the theological usage of the terms, but the RCC use bread and wine. So I don't think Durham's talking about what is in or not in the bread or wine but the underlying meaning, the actions, etc., that make it idolatrous. For example, Rome's baptism is not invalid because they add stuff to the water, and those who argue it is invalid do so on the basis it is no longer a church, not the spit or whatever added to the water. So my guess is you will see the Reformers put up with all sorts of hijincs w.r.t. the physical elements while not at all as to the meaning, actions and idolatry of the mass.

 

[Logan]

• Since the Westminster Standards clearly specify "wine" (not "fruit of the vine")

It's worth pointing out that "wine" basically meant "fruit of the vine" in those days. The level of fermentation didn't affect whether it was called "wine" or not. Basically anything squeezed from a grape was called "wine" and there was a gradient in the level of fermentation, not a clear distinction like we treat it today.

The Latin "vinum" is where we in English get our "vine", "wine" and "vinegar".

Point being, even though what they had was for practical purposes almost always fermented, what they thought of when they wrote "wine" isn't exactly what we think of when we read "wine".

 

[Northern Crofter]

Does substituting grape juice instead of wine corrupt the Lord's Supper?

I don't believe it does. Where in Scripture is wine instituted? A common cup seems to be what was instituted, not what was in it. Not sharing a cup would thus seem to be the corruption. But even corrupted, it is still the Lord's Supper.

If one believes that only wine is commanded, does one sin by partaking with grape juice?

Perhaps, on the basis of violating one's conscience as discussed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.

 

[CGS]

Where in Scripture is wine instituted? A common cup seems to be what was instituted, not what was in it.

What was the "fruit of the vine" that was in the common cup? Wine.

Why would we assume/conclude that only the cup, and not what was in it, was instituted?

If only the cup itself, and not what was in it, was instituted...then are any/all liquids valid for use in the Lord's Supper? If not, then once you've conceded that "what was in it" was not specifically prescribed, by what criteria do you limit which beverages can be used?