Regulative principle of worship

[david01]

This is my third, and final, attempt to respond to your post. For reasons beyond my understanding, my first two attempts failed. I will attempt to address your points individually in separate posts because when I attempted single posts, I failed. So, here goes again,

When we look at Scripture the meaning is quite simple.

Nehemiah 8:4 -7 "And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people and when he opened it, all the people stood up: And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their places.

This is a very nice example. Ezra not only expounded what was written, but provided an application not found in the Law itself. Ezra 9,10 shows that he believed that those who had married non-Jewish wives were to divorce them as well as to abandon any children from such marraiges. Ezra, of course, had the advantage of divine inspiration. There is an extremely fine line today in preaching anything outside the limits of scripture itself. Thus, for any contemporary application of scripture, one might be accused of violating the RPW.

 

[Iosias]

This is a very nice example. Ezra not only expounded what was written, but provided an application not found in the Law itself. Ezra 9,10 shows that he believed that those who had married non-Jewish wives were to divorce them as well as to abandon any children from such marraiges. Ezra, of course, had the advantage of divine inspiration. There is an extremely fine line today in preaching anything outside the limits of scripture itself. Thus, for any contemporary application of scripture, one might be accused of violating the RPW.

The following is from The Directory for the Publick Worship of God produced by those divines who articulated the RPW:

Of the Preaching of the Word.

PREACHING of the word, being the power of God unto salvation, and one of the greatest and most excellent works belonging to the ministry of the gospel, should be so performed, that the workman need not be ashamed, but may save himself, and those that hear him.
It is presupposed, (according to the rules for ordination,) that the minister of Christ is in some good measure gifted for so weighty a service, by his skill in the original languages, and in such arts and sciences as are handmaids unto divinity; by his knowledge in the whole body of theology, but most of all in the holy scriptures, having his senses and heart exercised in them above the common sort of believers; and by the illumination of God's Spirit, and other gifts of edification, which (together with reading and studying of the word) he ought still to seek by prayer, and an humble heart, resolving to admit and receive any truth not yet attained, whenever God shall make it known unto him. All which he is to make use of, and improve, in his private preparations, before he deliver in public what he hath provided.


Ordinarily, the subject of his sermon is to be some text of scripture, holding forth some principle or head of religion, or suitable to some special occasion emergent; or he may go on in some chapter, psalm, or book of the holy scripture, as he shall see fit.


Let the introduction to his text be brief and perspicuous, drawn from the text itself, or context, or some parallel place, or general sentence of scripture.


If the text be long, (as in histories or parables it sometimes must be,) let him give a brief sum of it; if short, a paraphrase thereof, if need be: in both, looking diligently to the scope of the text, and pointing at the chief heads and grounds of doctrine which he is to raise from it.
In analysing and dividing his text, he is to regard more the order of matter than of words; and neither to burden the memory of the hearers in the beginning with too many members of division, nor to trouble their minds with obscure terms of art.


In raising doctrines from the text, his care ought to be, First, That the matter be the truth of God. Secondly, That it be a truth contained in or grounded on that text, that the hearers may discern how God teacheth it from thence. Thirdly, That he chiefly insist upon those doctrines which are principally intended; and make most for the edification of the hearers.


The doctrine is to be expressed in plain terms; or, if any thing in it need explication, it is to be opened, and the consequence also from the text cleared. The parallel places of scripture, confirming the doctrine, are rather to be plain and pertinent, than many, and (it need be) some what insisted upon, and applied to the purpose in hand.
The arguments or reasons are to be solid, and, as much as may be, convincing. The illustrations, of what kind soever, ought to be full of light, and such as may convey the truth into the hearer's heart with spiritual delight.


If any doubt obvious from scripture, reason, or prejudice of the hearers, seem to arise, it is very requisite to remove it, by reconciling the seeming differences, answering the reasons, and discovering and taking away the causes of prejudice and mistake. Otherwise it is not fit to detain the hearers with propounding or answering vain or wicked cavils, which, as they are endless, so the propounding and answering of them doth more hinder than promote edification.


He is not to rest in general doctrine, although never so much cleared and confirmed, but to bring it home to special use, by application to his hearers: which albeit it prove a work of great difficulty to himself, requiring much prudence, zeal, and meditation, and to the natural and corrupt man will be very unpleasant; yet he is to endeavour to perform it in such a manner, that his auditors may feel the word of God to be quick and powerful, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; and that, if any unbeliever or ignorant person be present, he may have the secrets of his heart made manifest, and give glory to God.


In the use of instruction or information in the knowledge of some truth , which is a consequence from his doctrine, he may (when convenient) confirm it by a few firm arguments from the text in hand, and other places of scripture, or from the nature of that common-place in divinity, whereof that truth is a branch.


In confutation of false doctrines, he is neither to raise an old heresy from the grave, nor to mention a blasphemous opinion unnecessarily: but, if the people be in danger of an error, he is to confute it soundly, and endeavour to satisfy their judgments and consciences against all objections.


In exhorting to duties, he is, as he seeth cause, to teach also the means that help to the performance of them.


In dehortation, reprehension, and publick admonition, (which require special wisdom,) let him, as there shall be cause, not only discover the nature and greatness of the sin, with the misery attending it, but also shew the danger his hearers are in to be overtaken and surprised by it, together with the remedies and best way to avoid it.
In applying comfort, whether general against all temptations, or particular against some special troubles or terrors, he is carefully to answer such objections as a troubled heart and afflicted spirit may suggest to the contrary. It is also sometimes requisite to give some notes of trial, (which is very profitable, especially when performed by able and experienced ministers, with circumspection and prudence, and the signs clearly grounded on the holy scripture,) whereby the hearers may be able to examine themselves whether they have attained those graces, and performed those duties, to which he exhorteth, or be guilty of the sin reprehended, and in danger of the judgments threatened, or are such to whom the consolations propounded do belong; that accordingly they may be quickened and excited to duty, humbled for their wants and sins, affected with their danger, and strengthened with comfort, as their condition, upon examination, shall require.


And, as he needeth not always to prosecute every doctrine which lies in his text, so is he wisely to make choice of such uses, as, by his residence and conversing with his flock, he findeth most needful and seasonable; and, amongst these, such as may most draw their souls to Christ, the fountain of light, holiness, and comfort.


This method is not prescribed as necessary for every man, or upon every text; but only recommended, as being found by experience to be very much blessed of God, and very helpful for the people's understandings and memories.


But the servant of Christ, whatever his method be, is to perform his whole ministry:
1. Painfully, not doing the work of the Lord negligently.
2. Plainly, that the meanest may understand; delivering the truth not in the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect; abstaining also from an unprofitable use of unknown tongues, strange phrases, and cadences of sounds and words; sparingly citing sentences of ecclesiastical or other human writers, ancient or modern, be they never so elegant.
3. Faithfully, looking at the honour of Christ, the conversion, edification, and salvation of the people, not at his own gain or glory; keeping nothing back which may promote those holy ends, giving to every one his own portion, and bearing indifferent respect unto all, without neglecting the meanest, or sparing the greatest, in their sins.
4. Wisely, framing all his doctrines, exhortations, and especially his reproofs, in such a manner as may be most likely to prevail; shewing all due respect to each man's person and place, and not mixing his own passion or bitterness.
5. Gravely, as becometh the word of God; shunning all such gesture, voice, and expressions, as may occasion the corruptions of men to despise him and his ministry.
6. With loving affection, that the people may see all coming from his godly zeal, and hearty desire to do them good. And,
7. As taught of God, and persuaded in his own heart, that all that he teacheth is the truth of Christ; and walking before his flock, as an example to them in it; earnestly, both in private and publick, recommending his labours to the blessing of God, and watchfully looking to himself, and the flock whereof the Lord hath made him overseer: So shall the doctrine of truth be preserved uncorrupt, many souls converted and built up, and himself receive manifold comforts of his labours even in this life, and afterward the crown of glory laid up for him in the world to come.


Where there are more ministers in a congregation than one, and they of different gifts, each may more especially apply himself to doctrine or exhortation, according to the gift wherein he most excelleth, and as they shall agree between themselves.

 

[david01]

Installment #2

Not sure what your point is here.

My point, as Mikey has brought out, is that there are elements in worship which are not limited to the canon of scripture. As you so carefully established in the lengthy exposition on teaching in your post previous to this one, elements such as the sermon include things outside the canon of scripture itself. In any event, Mikey has made the point well and I need not elaborte further.

 

[heymikey80]

But the Reformed position (incl. Calvin) regarding the issue of musical instruments has consistently been that musical instruments were tied to the shadows of the old dispensation, tied to the Levites and the worship of the Temple. With the ending of that by Christ's coming the old was done away with and instruments included.

Excluding Lutheranism and Anglicanism, the Reformed position was unified around this approach up to the mid-1800's in the US.

There was a different ancient motivation, with music being generally associated with lasciviousness and debauchery. It's not quite the ceremonial motivation. But it did contribute to simplicity in worship. That, and the financial level and oppression of believers would impact how music was practiced and presented.

I understand that changed visibly with Gregory in the west; but it was apparently already changing among others up to that time.

Calvin restricted song to inspired words as Scripture commands. Public worship was silent until David introduced instruments and psalmody (by God's command) into worship. That is not to deny that song had been used prior to David but it was not ordinary (Exodus 15; Judges 5) and take note, not once did public worship through song take place when the song was not by direct inspiration.

Actually, this isn't the case. Songs existed and were sung to God prior to David, as the Books of Moses attest. Trumpets were used, not as accompaniment, but as celebration. Tambourines, though, were used in accompaniment and celebration.

Of course there were requirements for instruments as the Law instructed. These were indeed to indicate to people, "This is a time of celebration".

The composition of the Apostles' Creed for instance is well-known to've come from Calvin's own employed composer in Geneva. As is the Doxology.

But their unity belied some basic disconnection as well. Zwingli removed all song entirely from public worship for a period of time -- which is flat-out anti-RPW.

Reformed worship also excluded Easter, which has an unassailable history back to the Apostles.

Instruments aren't required among the Reformed who use instruments. They're encouragements to worship. When they don't encourage worship, then they are committed to futility. But suppressing them does not always encourage worship, either. When suppressing instruments suppresses worship, I rather think that to be discouraged as well.

 

[david01]

Installment #3.

This is a much more elegant (not to mention accurate) definition than I was able to provide. Given this definition, one must conclude that all of the orders of service used in present-day worship must be condemned because none of them have been revealed by God and are, in truth, the result of the "imaginations and devices of men, etc." I have searched diligently in the New Testament to find teaching regarding the worship services of the primitive church and have found none. There are, to be certain, examples such as those seen in the Acts. but they are not uniform nor do they indicate anything as being instituted by God.

 

[david01]

Installment #4.

Not too sure where you got this from. Some Puritans may have done this but none of which I am aware of.

There are no surviving meeting houses from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in New England with any modes of heating. To be sure, some were retrofitted with stoves (and organs) in the nineteenth century. The Puritans took Exodus 35:3 quite seriously and saw the observance of the Sabbath as part and parcel with the RPW. Thus, no fire was kindled on the Sabbath.

 

[david01]

Evidence? Further, the Puritans taught that the RPW governed worship and that alone.

The umbrella imbroglio was a short-lived issue, at best, and, as you noted probably was not supported by the RPW. However, as Mikey has pointed out, there were strictly enforced prohibitions against the annual celebrations of Christ's nativity and of His resurrection, Although a very clear case can be made that December 25 had little, if anything, to do with His nativity, the remembrance of His resurrection in the primitive church was not an annual event, or even a quarterly event, but was done at least on the first day of the week. How can this be aligned with a clear understanding of the RPW?

 

[david01]

Installment #6.

Unfortunately (a) scholars disagree with you includng Professor John Murray who was at Westminster Theological Seminary, and (b) you offer no evidence to support your claim.

Murray writes:

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica]Paul specifies the character of the songs as "Spiritual" — odais pneumatikais. If anything should be obvious from the use of the word pneumatikos in the New Testament it is that it has reference to the Holy Spirit and means, in such contexts as the present, "given by the Spirit." Its meaning is not at all, as Trench contends, "such as were composed by spiritual men, and moved in the sphere of spiritual things" (Synonyms, lxxviii). It rather means, as Meyer points out, "proceeding from the Holy Spirit, as theopneustos" (Com. on Eph. 5:19). In this context the word would mean "indited by the Spirit," just as in I Corinthians 2:13 logois . . . pneumatikois are "words inspired by the Spirit" and "taught by the Spirit" (didaktois pneumatos).[/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] The question, of course, arises: why does the word pneumatikos qualify odais and not psalmois and humnois? A reasonable answer to this question is that pneumatikais qualifies all three datives and that its gender (fem.) is due to attraction to the gender of the noun that is closest to it. Another distinct, possibility, made particularly plausible by the omission of the copulative in Colossians 3:16, is that "Spiritual songs" are the genus of which "psalms" and "hymns" are the species. This is the view of Meyer, for example.[/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] On either of these assumptions the psalms, hymns and songs are all "Spiritual" and therefore all inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bearing of this upon the question at issue is perfectly apparent. Uninspired hymns are immediately excluded.[/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] But we shall have to allow for the distinct possibility that the word "Spiritual," in the grammatical structure of the clause, is confined to the word "songs." On this hypothesis the "songs" are characterized as "Spiritual," and therefore characterized as inspired or indited by the Holy Spirit. This, at least, should be abundantly clear.[/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] The question would arise then: is it merely the "songs" that need to be inspired while the "psalms" and "hymns" may be uninspired? The asking of the question shows the unreasonableness of such an hypothesis, especially when we bear in mind all that has already been shown with reference to the use of these words. On what conceivable ground would Paul have insisted that the "songs" needed to be divinely inspired while the "psalms" and "hymns" did not need to be? In the usage of Scripture there was no hard and fast line of distinction between psalms and hymns, on the one hand, and songs on the other. It would be quite impossible to find any good ground for such discrimination in the apostolic prescription.[/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] The unreasonableness of such a supposition appears all the more conclusive when we remember the Scripture usage with respect to the word "psalms." There is not the least bit of evidence to suppose that in such usage on the part of the apostle "psalm" could mean an uninspired human composition. All the evidence, rather, goes to establish the opposite conclusion.[/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] We see then that psalms are inspired. Songs are inspired because they are characterized as "Spiritual." What then about the hymns? May they be uninspired? As already indicated, it would be an utterly unreasonable hypothesis to maintain that the apostle would require that songs be inspired while psalms and hymns might not. This becomes all the more cogent when we recognize as we have established, that the psalms and songs were inspired. It would indeed be strange discrimination if hymns might be uninspired and psalms and songs inspired. But it would be strange to the point of absurdity if Paul should be supposed to insist that songs had to be inspired but hymns not. For what distinction can be drawn between a hymn and a song that would make it requisite for the latter to be inspired while the former might not be? We, indeed, cannot be sure that there is any distinction so far as actual denotation is concerned. Even if we do maintain the distinct colour of each word there is no discoverable reason why so radical a distinction as that between inspiration and non-inspiration could be maintained.[/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] The only conclusion we can arrive at then is that "hymns" in Eph 5:19, Col. 3:16 must be accorded the same "Spiritual" quality as is accorded to "psalms" by obvious implication and to "songs" by express qualification, and that this was taken for granted by the apostle, either because the word "Spiritual" would be regarded as qualifying all three words, or because "Spiritual songs" were the genus of which "psalms" and "hymns" were the species, or because in the usage of the church "hymns" like "psalms" would be recognized in their own right and because of the context in which they are mentioned to be in no other category, as respects their "Spiritual" quality, than the category occupied by psalms and songs.[/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] In reference to these two passages, then, we are compelled to conclude:[/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] (a) There is no warrant for thinking that "psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs" can refer to uninspired human compositions. These texts provide us with no authorization whatsoever for the singing of uninspired songs in the worship of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] (b) There is warrant for concluding that "psalms, hymns and Spiritual songs" refer to inspired compositions. These texts provide us, therefore, with warrant for the singing of inspired songs in the worship of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=book antiqua, helvetica] (c) The Book of Psalms provides us with psalms, hymns and songs that are inspired and therefore with the kind of compositions referred to in Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16.[/FONT]​

It is interesting that Professor Murray does not go so far as to say that only the Psalms are in view in these verses, but merely that they are those "kind of compositions."

The thrust of his argument is on the word "spiritual" which he uses to tie all three nouns together. Unfortunately, he provides no discussion of the usage of these words in other Greek literature of the period. This helps to provide a broad overview, especially in light of the very limited usage of these words in the New Testament.

Hymns and odes were written on a wide range of topics, some of which were religious (spiritual) in nature. Greek society was permeated with religion and many are the paeons of praise to their gods and goddesses. Thus, it is not in the least bit unusual for Paul to include hymns and spiritual songs along with psalms, although, as with contemporary music, only a limited number of hymns and spiritual songs are Christian in content.

Another issue which Professor Murray did not touch upon is the lovely confessional ode in I TImothy 3:16. There is not the slightest scintilla of doubt that it is written in Greek poetic form and, thus, is an ode. Whether or not it was sung or merely recited is open to speculation, however.
​

 

[Iosias]

Actually, this isn't the case. Songs existed and were sung to God prior to David, as the Books of Moses attest.

Could you provide some biblical evidence that song was part of the regular worship of God? I do not deny that songs existed prior to David. The songs of Moses and Deborah attest to that but as I noted above, these were extraordinary and were not a part of the regular worship of YHWH. Hence Leithart called his book on worship From Silence to Song.

Trumpets were used, not as accompaniment, but as celebration. Tambourines, though, were used in accompaniment and celebration.

We should differentiate between Israel as a state and Israel as a church. You will see that all of the instances where musica instruments were played in the OT (prior to David introducing the harp, psaltries and cymbols into the Temple) were played at civic celebrations of national deliverance.

This was pointed out in the articles linked to above:

Musical instruments are also used for victory celebrations. After God’s deliverance of the people of Israel from the armies of Egypt, the people celebrated and sang the song of Moses. “Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels54 and with dances. And Miriam answered them: Sing to the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea!” (Ex. 15:20-21). It was the common practice of Israel to celebrate great victories with women dancing, singing, and playing musical instruments. “Now it had happened as they were coming home, when David was returning from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women had come out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with joy, and with musical instruments. So the women sang as they danced...” (1 Sam. 18:6-7). After the Lord delivered the people of Ammon into Jephthah’s hands it says: “When Jephthah came to his house at Mizphah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing” (Jud. 11:34). The prophet Jeremiah spoke of the resettlement of the Israelites in their own land in terms of great joy and celebration: “Again I will build you, and shall be rebuilt, a virgin of Israel! You shall again be adorned with your tambourines, and shall go forth in the dances of those who rejoice” (Jer. 31:4). These passages have a number of things in common. First, only the women played the instruments and danced. They are segregated from the men. Second, the use of instruments is always used in conjunction with dancing; the two are never separated. Third, in each instance there is a procession or forward movement. Fourth, each occasion is a direct response to a great national or local victory; that is, these are extraordinary celebrations and not set times of worship (however, there was annual dancing among the unmarried daughters of Shiloh, cf. Judges 21:19-23). Fifth, these celebrations were outdoor events; that is, they never occurred in the tabernacle, temple, or synagogue. Do these national and local victory celebrations with women dancing, singing, and playing taborets justify the use of musical instruments in public worship? No, not at all. Although these celebrations by God’s people were done to the glory of God, there are a number of reasons why they should not be classed as formal public worship assemblies. First, although we repeatedly encounter (in the biblical record) groups of women dancing, singing, and playing instruments at outdoor celebrations, we never encounter women dancing and playing instruments in the tabernacle, temple, or synagogue. Second, the Bible says that everything required for God’s worship in the wilderness was shown to Moses on the mountain (Ex. 25:40; Heb. 8:5). Yet there are no instructions in Scripture giving women the authorization to dance and play instruments in the tabernacle. Third, in the biblical account Miriam leads a group of women in song, dance, and taboret playing. Yet the tabernacle service that was prescribed by God was led and conducted only by male Levites. The use of musical instruments in the temple (as noted below) also was reserved for the Levitical priesthood, all of whom were males. Fourth, these passages are really useless for those who are seeking a divine warrant for the use of pianos and organs in new covenant public worship; for even if they could be applied to new covenant formal worship they would prove that: only women could play musical instruments, only in conjunction with female dancing. Such a practice may be acceptable at a modern charismatic rock and roll jamfest, but is simply unacceptable to most conservative Presbyterians. The author does not know any Bible-believing Presbyterian pastors or elders who allow women to dance, leap, and play tambourines in the aisles of the church during the worship service. “The dance was an essential ingredient in the service in which instruments were used and cannot by any course of reasoning, or any evidence yet obtained, be excluded.... If instrumentation on this occasion furnished a warrant for the use of instruments in the worship of the present dispensation, and that instrumentation was for the purpose of leading the dance, there is no escape from the conclusion that the dance has at least as emphatic a warrant in New Testament worship as has the instrumentation.”

Reformed worship also excluded Easter, which has an unassailable history back to the Apostles.

Well, that is a debateable issue. In general, the Continetal Reformed celebrated Easter (e.g. Turretin) whilst the British (Scottish Presbyterians and English Puritans) did not. The question is really who was right.

 

[Iosias]

Given this definition, one must conclude that all of the orders of service used in present-day worship must be condemned...

Would you mind letting me know who you have read on this issue? The reason I ask is all these objections are fairly common and have been dealt with by writers far better than I. Perhaps I could recommend some reading?

The Worship of God: Reformed Concepts of Biblical Worship

Down to business; we need to differentiate between the following:

Elements of worship: An element of worship is that which the worship of God actually consists of, or, that which constitutes worship, the substance of worship.

Circumstances of worship: A circumstance of worship is something “common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed” (WCF i.6). By this is meant those things needful to facilitate the worship of God and/or those things that are to accompany the worship of God but do not, in and of themselves, formally constitute worship. There are two types of circumstances, the first are regulated and the second are unregulated.


Forms of worship: A form of worship is simply the means by which the elements are ordered within a service. The regulative principle will regulate the form of worship insofar as it regulates the elements that the form contains.

So what you are talking about are forms of worship. The RPW does not cover this, it rather covers the elements which the form contains. That is not to say that Scripture does not help us in ordering our worship. Michael Daniels has drawn to my attention that Leviticus chapter 9 gives us details of the order of sacrifice in worship services. They consist of the following:

Call to Worship - This expresses the truth that none of us can approach God unless he initiates the covenant with us.

Sin Offering - This is where we hear the laws of God and lament our sins and confess our sins corporately, and of our need for forgiveness.

Burnt Offering - Or the Consecration, ascension offering. This represents the ascension of believers into the presence of God. In this way we show we belong wholly to the Lord. We will hear the Word of God read, we offer ourselves in prayer and praise to God, and we hear the sermon as the Lord speaks through the Pastor.

Peace Offering - Communion. Part of the animal was burned, part of it was waved before the Lord and then given to the worshipper to eat. The portion that was burned was called the Lord's good. This offering was unique in that it was the only one of the offerings in which the worshipper was permitted to eat a portion of it. In the peace offering the worshipper ate with God as an expression of deep love, trust and fellowship. Around the table of the Lord there is peace and assurance of his love for us. So it is that the covenant memorial of the Lord's Supper is offered to us by Christ, our peace offering, and he communes with us through it. As part of the regular Lord's Day worship, God gives us the privilege of sharing a covenant meal with him.

Commission - Aaron and Moses concluded the service by blessing the people with God's benediction. As we leave the assembly of the saints, we need to know that we are not leaving God behind.

This is the liturgy the bible gives us to worship God and the order that it should follow. It will only consist of the elements of worship that God has prescribed along with a covenantal dialogue between God and Man within the worship service.

 

[Iosias]

The Puritans took Exodus 35:3 quite seriously and saw the observance of the Sabbath as part and parcel with the RPW. Thus, no fire was kindled on the Sabbath.

Again you have not provided any evidence. William Ames took this to be specific to the Jews and to my knowledge this was the common understanding amongst the Puritans. On this verse John Gill (1697-1771) wrote " This law seems to be a temporary one, and not to be continued, nor is it said to be throughout their generations as elsewhere, where the law of the sabbath is given or repeated; it is to be restrained to the building of the tabernacle, and while that was about, to which it is prefaced; and it is designed to prevent all public or private working on the sabbath day, in anything belonging to that; having no fire to heat their tools or melt their metal, or do any thing for which that was necessary; for it can hardly be thought that this is to be taken in the strictest sense, as an entire prohibition of kindling a fire and the use of it on that day, which is so absolutely useful, and needful in various cases, and where acts of mercy and necessity require it; as in cold seasons of the year, for the warming and comforting of persons who otherwise would be unfit for religious exercises, and on the account of infants and aged persons, who could not subsist without it; and in cases of sickness, and various disorders which necessarily require it; and even for the preparation of food, which must be had on that day as on others, the sabbath being not a fast, but rather a festival"

 

[Iosias]

However, as Mikey has pointed out, there were strictly enforced prohibitions against the annual celebrations of Christ's nativity and of His resurrection, Although a very clear case can be made that December 25 had little, if anything, to do with His nativity, the remembrance of His resurrection in the primitive church was not an annual event, or even a quarterly event, but was done at least on the first day of the week. How can this be aligned with a clear understanding of the RPW?

The Reformed have disagreed amongst themselves on how the RPW relates to Holy Days. The Continental Reformed generally accepted the celebration of Christmas and Easter (although they left it up to the individual) however the Scottish Presbyterians and the English Puritans rejected the practice.

So the Second Helvetic Confession states:

"Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord's nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly. but we do not approve of feasts instituted for men and for saints. Holy days have to do with the first Table of the Law and belong to God alone. Finally, holy days which have been instituted for the saints and which we have abolished, have much that is absurd and useless, and are not to be tolerated. In the meantime, we confess that the remembrance of saints, at a suitable time and place, is to be profitably commended to the people in sermons, and the holy examples of the saints set forth to be imitated by all....The fast of Lent is attested by antiquity but not at all in the writings of the apostles. Therefore it ought not, and cannot, be imposed on the faithful."
​

The Westminster Directory stated:

There is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord's day, which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.
​

I know which I agree with.

Another issue which Professor Murray did not touch upon is the lovely confessional ode in I TImothy 3:16. There is not the slightest scintilla of doubt that it is written in Greek poetic form and, thus, is an ode. Whether or not it was sung or merely recited is open to speculation, however.

What you have done he is make assumptions. You cannot demonstrate that the NT contains 'hymns' that were sung, all you can show is that there are sections within the NT that have a certain rythmn, but so what? That does not mean Paul was telling us to sing them.

But anyway, the meaning of the phrase 'psalms, hymns and spiritual songs' should be determined not by a crass attempt at etymology because in most case the meaning of a word is determined by its context and by letting Scripture interpret Scripture. We can look at the etymology, then we should see how these terms were used within Scripture, and guess what? The Psalms are all called psalms, hymns and songs.

The LXX, the Greek version of the Old Testament, translates Ps. 72:20 as “the hymns of David”. As Brian Schwertley notes,


Before we consider the question of how these passages relate to public worship, we first will consider the question “what does Paul mean by psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?” This question is very important, for many advocates of uninspired hymnody (who claim to adhere to the regulative principle) point to this passage as proof that uninspired hymns are permitted in public worship by God. When examining passages such as Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, one should not make the common mistake of importing our modern meaning or usage of a word, such as hymn, into what Paul wrote over nineteen hundred years ago. When a person hears the word “hymn” today, he immediately thinks of the extra-biblical non-inspired hymns found in the pews of most churches. The only way to really determine what Paul meant by “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” is to determine how these terms were used by Greek-speaking Christians in the first century. When interpreting religious terminology used by Paul in his epistles, there are certain rules of interpretation that should be followed. First, the religious thinking and worldview of the apostles was essentially from the Old Testament and Jesus Christ, not Greek heathenism. Therefore, when Paul discusses doctrine or worship, the first place to look for help in understanding religious terms is the Old Testament. We often find Hebrew expressions or terms expressed in koine Greek. Second, we must keep in mind that the churches that Paul founded in Asia consisted of converted Jews, Gentile proselytes to Old Testament Judaism (God-fearers) and Gentile pagans. These churches had a Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. When Paul expressed Old Testament ideas to a Greek-speaking audience, he would use the religious terminology of the Septuagint. If the terms hymns (humnois) and spiritual songs (odais pheumatikais) were defined within the New Testament, then looking to the Septuagint for the meaning of these words would be unnecessary. Given the fact, however, that these terms are rarely used in the New Testament and cannot be defined within their immediate context apart from a knowledge of the Old Testament, it would be exegetically irresponsible to ignore how these words are used in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.

When we examine the Septuagint, we find that the terms psalm (psalmos), hymn (humnos), and song (odee) used by Paul clearly refers to the Old Testament book of Psalms and not ancient or modern uninspired hymns or songs. Bushell writes: “Psalmos…occurs some 87 times in the Septuagint, some 78 of which are in the Psalms themselves, and 67 times in the psalm titles. It also forms the title to the Greek version of the psalter…. Humnos…occurs some 17 times in the Septuagint, 13 of which are in the Psalms, six times in the titles. In 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah there are some 16 examples in which the Psalms are called ‘hymns’ (humnoi) or ‘songs’ (odai) and the singing of them is called ‘hymning’ (humneo, humnodeo, humnesis)…. Odee…occurs some 80 times in the Septuagint, 45 of which are in the Psalms, 36 in the Psalm titles.”25 In twelve Psalm titles we find both “psalm” and “song”; and, in two others we find “psalm” and “hymn.” “Psalm seventy-six is designated ‘psalm, hymn and song.’ And at the end of the first seventy two psalms we read ‘the hymns of David the son of Jesse are ended’ (Ps. 72:20). In other words, there is no more reason to think that the Apostle referred to psalms when he said ‘psalms,’ than when he said ‘hymns’ and ‘songs,’ for all three were biblical terms for psalms in the book of psalms itself.”26 To ignore how Paul’s audience would have understood these terms and how these terms are defined by the Bible; and then instead to import non-biblical modern meanings into these terms is exegetical malpractice.

One of the most common objections against the idea that in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 Paul is speaking of the book of Psalms is that it would be absurd for apostle to say, “sing psalms, psalms, and psalms.” This objection fails to consider the fact that a common literary method among the ancient Jews was to use a triadic form of expression to express an idea, act, or object. The Bible contains many examples of triadic expression. For example: Exodus 34:7—“iniquity and transgression and sin”; Deuteronomy 5:31 and 6:1—“commandments and statutes and judgements”; Matthew 22:37—“with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (cf. Mk. 12:30; Lk. 10:27); Acts 2:22—“miracles and wonders and signs”; Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16—“psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” “The triadic distinction used by Paul would be readily understood by those familiar with their Hebrew OT Psalter or the Greek Septuagint, where the Psalm titles are differentiated psalms, hymns, and songs. This interpretation does justice to the analogy of Scripture, i.e. Scripture is its own best interpreter.”27

The interpretation that says that “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” refers to the inspired book of Psalms also receives biblical support from the immediate context and grammar of these passages. In Colossians 3:16 we are exhorted: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly….” In this passage the word of Christ is very likely synonymous with the word of God. “In 1 Pet. 1:11 it is stated that ‘the spirit of Christ’ was in the Old Testament prophets and through them testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow. If, as is definitely stated, the Spirit of Christ testified these things through the prophets, then Christ was the real Author of those Scriptures. Prominent among those prophecies, which so testified concerning Christ, is the Book of Psalms, and therefore Christ is the Author of the Psalms.”28 After Paul exhorts the Colossian church to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly, he immediately points them to the book of Psalms; a book which comprehends “most beautifully and briefly everything that is in the entire Bible;”29 a book far superior to any human devotional book, which Calvin called “an anatomy of all parts of the soul;”30 a book which is “a compendium of all divinity.”31 Do we let the Scriptures, the word of Christ dwell within us when we sing uninspired human compositions in worship? No, we do not! If we are to sing and meditate upon the word of Christ, we must sing the songs that Christ has written by His Spirit—the book of Psalms.

The grammar also supports the contention that Paul was speaking of the book of Psalms. In our English Bibles the adjective “spiritual” only applies to the word songs (“spiritual songs”). In the Greek language, however, when an adjective immediately follows two or more nouns, it applies to all the preceding nouns. John Murray writes, “Why does the word pneumatikos [spiritual]32 qualify odais and not psalmois and hymnois? A reasonable answer to this question is that pneumatikais qualifies all three datives and that its gender (fem.) is due to attraction to the gender of the noun that is closest to it. Another distinct possibility, made particularly plausible by the omission of the copulative in Colossians 3:16, is that ‘Spiritual songs’ are the genus of which ‘psalms’ and ‘hymns’ are the species. This is the view of Meyer, for example. On either of these assumptions the psalms, hymns, and songs are all ‘Spiritual’ and therefore all inspired by the Holy Spirit. The bearing of this upon the question at issue is perfectly apparent. Uninspired hymns are immediately excluded.”33 If one wants to argue that spiritual does not apply to psalms and hymns, then one must answer two pertinent questions. First, why would Paul insist on divine inspiration for songs, yet permit uninspired hymns? We can safely assume that Paul was not irrational. Second, given the fact that psalms refers to divinely inspired songs, it would be unscriptural not to apply spiritual to that term. Furthermore, since we have already established that psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs refer to the divinely inspired book of Psalms, it is only natural to apply spiritual to all three terms. Since the book of Psalms is composed of divinely inspired or spiritual psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, we obey God only when we praise Him using the biblical Psalter; uninspired hymns do not meet the scriptural criteria for authorized praise.

Another question that needs to be considered regarding these passages is: “Do these passages refer to formal public worship services or to informal Christian gatherings?” Since Paul is discussing the mutual edification of believers by singing inspired songs in private worship situations, it would be inconsistent on his part to allow uninspired songs in the more formal public worship settings. “What is proper or improper to be sung in one instance must be seen as proper or improper to be sung in the other. Worship is still worship, whatever its circumstances and regardless of the number of people involved.”34 “If psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are the limits of the material of songs in praise of God in less formal acts of worship, how much more are they the limits in more formal acts of worship?”

 

[Iosias]

The following is from “The Psalms in the New Testament Church” by Prof. W.G. Moorehead in The Psalms in Worship ed. by John McNaughter, pp. 113-118:

IV. Are there traces of hymns in the Epistles? It is affirmed with much positiveness that there are fragments of hymns found in the Epistles, and that these must have been in use in the Apostolic Church. Prof. Fisher cites these passages in proof: Eph 5:14; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 3:10-12. The claim demands careful examination. If it is valid, the position of the Psalm-singers is overthrown. To them at least the matter is vital.

1 Pet 3:10-12 is a quotation, with slight verbal changes, from Ps 34:12-16! Whatever led the learned historian to cite a Psalm in proof of the use of uninspired hymns in the worship of the Apostolic Church passes even conjecture. Is it a case when “Homer nods”? What would be thought of the judgment of a Psalm-singer who should quote a verse from Toplady’s “Rock of Ages” in support of the claim that Psalms are sung in United Presbyterian churches? But the cases are quite parallel.

Eph 5:14 reads: “Wherefore he saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” Who or what is here quoted? The verb “saith” has no subject expressed. King James and both the Revised Versions have “he” as the subject of “saith.” In this case it is God that saith, “Awake.” If we insert “it” as subject of “saith,” then the reference is to Scripture—”Scripture saith.” In either case the result is the same; it is an inspired word the Apostle quotes, no merely human utterance. By no possibility of exegetical dexterity can this verse of Ephesians be made to serve as evidence that “fragments of Christian hymns” are found in the New Testament Epistles. Moreover, Dr. Charles Hodge very strongly holds that “as this formula of quotation is never used in the New Testament except when citations are made from the Old Testament, it cannot properly be assumed that the Apostle here quotes some Christian hymn with which the believers in Ephesus were familiar.” With Dr. Hodge agree Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, Graham, Moule, Brown, Blaikie, Barnes, and Meyer. Every one of these able students of Scripture affirms that Paul quotes from the Word of God, not at all from a merely human composition. They differ somewhat as to what place he cites, but that this is a Bible quotation they are unanimous. Thus it appears beyond peradventure that two of the texts appealed to by Prof. Fisher and others with him do not denote “Christian hymns”; they pertain to the inspired Scripture.

Turn we now to the third proof text, 1 Tim 3:16—”And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Is this passage a fragment of a Christian hymn? So many besides Prof. Fisher affirm. On what ground does the claim rest? Not on history. The passage has no more history back of it or connected with it than a score of others in the Epistles to Timothy. It has nothing like the history which belongs to 1 Tim 1:15-16, for this has a background in Paul’s own life and experience; nor that of 1 Tim 6:13-16, which summarizes two supreme events in our Lord’s life. In all the historical records that have been consulted there is not a hint that this text is the fragment of a Christian hymn. Assertions by interpreters there are in plenty; of historical evidence there is none. The chief, if not the only, proof adduced in support of the view that it is the fragment of a “Christian hymn” is its poetical structure. It has the parallelism that distinguishes Hebrew poetry. Accordingly, the American Revision prints it as verse. Is the plea well founded? All intense thought, whether of writing or public speech, falls into rhythm. This is true of the best writing of uninspired men; it is preeminently true of the penmen of Scripture. There is often a measured beat in the sentences that the reader feels, can almost hear. There are many such rhythmical passages in the Epistles. Let the witness of two Greek grammars be heard. The first is Winer’s, “the prince of New Testament grammars.” Winer furnishes thirteen instances of poetical parallelism, 1 Tim 3:16 being one of the thirteen. Green’s Handbook, the second, gives seven more. Thus in all we have twenty such rhythmical texts in the Epistles. If we include the whole body of New Testament Scripture, the number will exceed thirty. These all have the poetical structure of 1 Tim 3:16. Are they all “fragments of Christian hymns”?

To establish beyond peradventure the truthfulness of the statements just made, three examples are given. Here is a specimen of what one (Humphreys) supposes is a “rhythmical doxology,” 1 Tim 6:15-16:—

“Who is the blessed and only Potentate,
The King of kings,
And Lord of lords;
Who only hath immortality,
Dwelling in light unapproachable;
Whom no man hath seen, nor can see;
To Whom be honor and power eternal. Amen.”

The second is furnished by Green’s Handbook—Phil 3:10:—

“To know Him,
and the power of His resurrection,
and the fellowship of His sufferings,
being made conformable to His death.”

The third, found also in Green’s Handbook, is John 10:14-15:—

“I am the good Shepherd;
and I know My own,
and Mine own know Me,
even as the Father knoweth Me,
and I know the Father;
and I lay down My life for the sheep.”

It thus appears that 1 Tim 3:16 does not by any means stand alone as to poetical structure; it is only one of many passages of the like form. Therefore no weight can attach to its parallelism as proof of its being a “Christian hymn.” The argument breaks down totally because it proves too much. If such exegesis should prevail, then no limit scarcely can be fixed to the hymnal fragments of the New Testament; the Book abounds with them.

One other passage must be briefly noted—2 Tim 2:11-13: “Faithful is the saying: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we endure, we shall also reign with Him; if we shall deny Him, He also will deny us; if we are faithless, He abideth faithful, for He cannot deny Himself” (RV). This great sentence has rhythmical arrangement; its parts balance each other as in genuine parallelism; it is as poetical in its structure as 1 Tim 3:16. But yet it is not the “fragment of a hymn,” nor a brief “creed,” nor yet a “liturgical fragment,” although it has been called all these. The words, “faithful is the saying,” seem to denote a quotation, but in the other places where they occur they cannot be thus understood (1 Tim 1:15; 1 Tim 3:1; 1 Tim 4:9). All these “sayings” of Paul in the Pastoral Epistles belong to a time of extreme danger and persecution. These Letters were written in martyr times. Nero’s persecution of Christians began in AD 64; it lasted till 68—four years of indescribable torture and suffering for the people of God. First and Second Timothy and Titus were written almost certainly after Nero’s atrocities had begun. The peril was that Christians would quail before the dreadful trial, that they would deny Christ. Hence Paul writes to these young ministers of the Gospel to be steadfast, faithful, true even in death. Read in the light of martyr fires, his “sayings” glow with intensity of feeling, with the pathos and the entreaty of one who himself faces death as a witness for Christ. His words ring like a battle shout, like the sharp, abrupt orders of the commander on the field—”Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life”; [1 Tim 6:12] “watch thou in all things, endure afflictions”; [2 Tim 4:5] “hold fast the form of sound words”; [2 Tim 1:13] “great is the mystery of godliness”; [1 Tim 3:16] “if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us.” [2 Tim 2:12] Every one of these texts, and many more like them, have something of cadence; they ring like sharp steel, and there is a rhythm in their ring. Accordingly, they are not fragments of hymns, nor short creeds, nor quotations of any sort. They are the impassioned words of Christ’s servant who appeals to his fellow-saints by the Spirit of God to hold fast, to fight bravely, and to hope to the end.

There are fourteen songs in the Book of Revelation, viz., Rev 4:8,11; Rev 5:9-10,12-13; Rev 7:10,12; Rev 11:8,17-18; Rev 12:10-12; Rev 15:3-4; Rev 19:1,2,5-8. The American Revision of the Bible marks these songs typographically as distinct and different from the rest of the Book. Sometimes these songs are cited as a justification of the use of other songs than the Psalms in God’s worship. Let the following points be noted as a reply to the assertion above referred to:

1. These songs are all inspired by the Spirit of God. More than any other Book of the New Testament Canon, the Revelation insists on its being from God, that in it God unveils His purpose touching the future of this world, of His people, of their enemies, and of His Kingdom. Therefore these inspired songs can afford no ground whatever for the use of uninspired compositions in the worship of God.

2. They are sung almost exclusively by angels and glorified saints. The only apparent exception is Rev 5:13—the song of creation. But even this does not contradict our statement. The voices of angels and saints are joined by the voice of creation, animate and inanimate, now made vocal in its praise to the Lamb. The tuneful utterances of the glorified and of angels before the Throne hardly belong to sinful mortals on earth.

3. They are sung in heaven. Hence, they do not pertain to this world.

4. There is not a shadow of a hint that these and the like songs in the New Testament are divinely authorized to be employed in the worship of Christ’s Church.

5. They are an essential part in the structure of the Apocalypse; they move within the circle of those mighty events which mark the winding up of the world’s affairs, which characterize the final struggle between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. Hence, in the judgment of some of the most earnest students of the Book, they do not pertain to this dispensation.

 

[Iosias]

FYI: An excellent sermon series on the RPW and how it relates to Holy Days can be found here. The first two cover the RPW then the rest apply it. I really could not recommend this highly enough!!!!!!!!!

 

[edie19]

Just like to know how many of your churches practice the following:

1) Psalms only singing

2) No musical instruments

we sing hymns, psalms and spiritual songs (including a good handful of songs written by church members - we have one member who regularly puts Scripture to music).

currently we mostly sing without musical accompaniment, not out of any stance against instruments but rather because currently our one piano player leads the singing and he has trouble doing both at the same time -- we do occasionally have guitar and/or mandolin accompanying us.

edie


p.s. - as I understand it the regulative principle applies to much more than music


Ooops -- should have read the entire thread before my ps comment, but editing to add - if singing psalms only is a reformed distinctive as implied in some posts, why did Luther (father of the Reformation) write hymns that many of us still sing today
http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/mlhymns.htm

seems to me John Bunyan wrote a few hymns also (or at least some of his writings have been incorporated into hymns)

 

[Iosias]

Ooops -- should have read the entire thread before my ps comment, but editing to add - if singing psalms only is a reformed distinctive as implied in some posts, why did Luther (father of the Reformation) write hymns that many of us still sing today

Because Luther was not Reformed, he was Lutheran (tautological I know!). The Reformed and Lutheran are different, Luther adhered to the Normative Principle of Worship (if it ain't forbidden it's allowed) whilst the Reformed went with the Regulative Principle of Worship (if it ain't commanded it's forbidden).

Also, I do not mean to imply that all the Reformed sang only psalms. They didn't. Calvin didn't, however they did not sing human compositions rather they resticted themselves to inspired songs i.e. the Psalter, Magnificat, Nunc Dimitis, Benedictus.

 

[Iosias]

seems to me John Bunyan wrote a few hymns also (or at least some of his writings have been incorporated into hymns)

But did he sing them in the public worship of God? Since when does what Bunyan did determine what God want's in his worship?

 

[edie19]

But did he sing them in the public worship of God? Since when does what Bunyan did determine what God want's in his worship?

Bunyan doesn't - Scripture does - and I agree with those who say that Scripture doesn't restrict us to the Psalms. Nothing against the Psalms (we sing them all the time at my church) but there are other compositions (for lack of a better word) that fall into the regulative principle.

just for curiosity's sake - do you "sing" or do you "chant" - because if you're holding to the early church's practice you should be "chanting" (they didn't sing)

 

[david01]

Again you have not provided any evidence. William Ames took this to be specific to the Jews and to my knowledge this was the common understanding amongst the Puritans. On this verse John Gill (1697-1771) wrote " This law seems to be a temporary one, and not to be continued, nor is it said to be throughout their generations as elsewhere, where the law of the sabbath is given or repeated; it is to be restrained to the building of the tabernacle, and while that was about, to which it is prefaced; and it is designed to prevent all public or private working on the sabbath day, in anything belonging to that; having no fire to heat their tools or melt their metal, or do any thing for which that was necessary; for it can hardly be thought that this is to be taken in the strictest sense, as an entire prohibition of kindling a fire and the use of it on that day, which is so absolutely useful, and needful in various cases, and where acts of mercy and necessity require it; as in cold seasons of the year, for the warming and comforting of persons who otherwise would be unfit for religious exercises, and on the account of infants and aged persons, who could not subsist without it; and in cases of sickness, and various disorders which necessarily require it; and even for the preparation of food, which must be had on that day as on others, the sabbath being not a fast, but rather a festival"

Here is the evidence you seem to have missed:

Old South Meetinghouse, Boston, Massachusetts
Old North Meetinghouse, Boston, Massachusetts
Old West Meetinghouse, Boston, Massachusetts
Old Ship Meetinghouse, Hingham, Massachusetts
Meetinghouse (Unitarian), Quincy, Massachusetts
First Meetinghouse (1640), New Haven, Massachusetts
Second Meetinghouse (1670), New Haven, Massachusetts
Meetinghouse (1670), Salem, Massachusetts
Meetinghouse (1672), Woburn, Massachusetts
Meetinghouse (1684), Bristol, Massachusetts
Meetinghouse, Lynn, Massachusetts
Meetinghouse, Hatfield, Massachusetts
Meetinghouse, West Springfield, Massachusetts

Although many of these are no longer extant, records survive for them. Of the above, extant or otherwise, none were constructed with any means of heating. If you know of a single meetinghouse constructed in New England during the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries with any means of heating whatsoever, please inform me.

I maintain that it was not a minor oversight on the part of the Puritans to somehow overlook a triviality such as heating in a meetinghouse.

 

[Iosias]

Of the above, extant or otherwise, none were constructed with any means of heating. ... I maintain that it was not a minor oversight on the part of the Puritans to somehow overlook a triviality such as heating in a meetinghouse.

I managed to track down a copy online of Thomas Shepad's THESES SABBATICAE

You will find it an interesting reading:

Thesis 5. For, though it be said that the Jews might not bake, nor see the meat upon this day, (Ex. 16:23 ) no, nor make a fire upon it, (Ex. 35:3,) no, nor gather sticks upon it, without death, (Num. 6:15, 30 ) — all which things Christians now may lawfully do, — yet none of these places will evince that for which they are alleged.

Thesis 7. Although also they were forbidden to kindle fire upon this day, (Ex. 35:3 ) in respect of some use, yet they are not forbidden so to do in respect of any use whatsoever. For there was fire kindled for the Sabbath sacrifices, and it would have been a breach of the rule of mercy, not to kindle a fire for the sick and weak in the wilderness. Nehemiah also, a man most strict and zealous for the Sabbath, yet had such provision made every day as could not be dressed nor eaten without some fire upon the Sabbath day, (Neh. 5:18 ) and the Sabbath not being a fast, but a feast in those times as well as these, hence it is not unsuitable to the time to have comfortable provisions made ready, provided that the dressing of meat be not an ordinary hindrance to public or private duties of holiness upon this day, (Ex. 12:16 ) this kindling of the fire here forbidden must therefore be understood in respect of the scope of the place, viz., not to kindle a fire for any servile work, no, not in respect of this particular use of it, viz., to further the building of the sanctuary and tabernacle, made mention of in this chapter; for it is said, whosoever shall do any work therein (i.e., any servile work, which is more proper for the week time) shall be put to death, (ver. 2) there is, therefore, either no dependence of these words in the third verse with those in the second, or else we must understand it of kindling fires restrictively for any servile work, which is there forbidden not only the Jews, but us Christians also.
​

I am afraid that the evidence does not support you.