To Regulate or To Be Normal

[bradfordl]

The OT had a long list of rules regarding worship, do you suggest we follow them? Or do you prefer to pick and choose which? That is the essential problem for RPW advocates. They want to have some things regulated, but others, like the love feast of the early Church, thrown out. How about people in the congregation prophesiying one at a time?

JR

At the very least it would be an indication to us today to tread carefully in the worship of the Lord. Decently and in order sounds good to me. If by prophesying you mean adding to canon, no thanks. If you mean preaching, sounds a tad chaotic.

As for the love feast, are you advocating handling distribution of the elements and fencing of the table in the format of a pot-luck dinner? And as part of the service of worship? I love church fellowship dinners, but as worship it may seem a little strange.

Brad

 

[myways]

The issue comes down to the answer to the question:

Has God Told us HOW He is to be worshipped?

​

If God has revealed that to us, then if follows that we are to obey that revelation without question...at least where it is clear and explicit.

Agreed!

John 4:19"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." 21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

It seems odd that this discussion could go for two and a half pages without covering John 4. What do you guys (both sides) think about this?

Dave

 

[cubanito]

It is clear from Scripture that communion involved an entire feast, shall we then return to the Love Feast of ancient times? The last supper was no exception, coming as it did during the seder meal. Very early as a Christian I attended a home based Church, with very solid Scriptural teaching, that had a communal brunch after services. It may sound strange to you, but it is clearly biblical, and doable.

As to prophesying, I do not mean adding to the canon. However, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, it was clear that people spoke up during services. Paul did not condemn that, only that it be done one at a time. Now people with RPW often condemn the idea of the laity giving their personal testimony during the service, in an orderly fashion. In fact, leaving out the oportunity for the laity to speak during services is what is against RPW, if it were truly what it claims to be.

More: whatever happened to women covering the head? Was this not the practice in practically all Curches, as per Pauline instruction, until some 50 years ago? What happened to that? Frankly this is one aspect I believe should be returned.

When did grape juice get permission to supplant wine? Even during prohibition allowance was made for sacramental wine. I'm normative, so I'm not all bent out of shape with grape juice, but if you are RPW that's another thing to look at.

Frankly, if one of us were transported back to an Apostle era worship meeting, it would seem strange indeed. Not the message (allowing for translation), I believe that the Protestant message of the Gospel has staid faithful to what the Apostles preached after the encounter with Cornelius. But I think a lot else would be very strange to us indeed.

JR

 

[cubanito]

Worship in spirit, and forsake all the shadows of regulations about which mountain, what day, and all the OT legalistic shadows. As Paul says, one man considers all days the same, another holds some in special honor. Let each be convinced, and do not use your freedom to stumble your brother. Worshiping in spirit and truth is all that is now required, and yes, 2 sacraments over which the Church fights over because the instructions were not all that clear. Do this in memory of me yes, but how often? Once a year like He did, once a month like my local body, every meeting like Calvin?

RPW is a lot like new wine in old wineskins. The old forms are done away, and the NT never gave explicit instructions for worship, only guidelines such as not to be chaotic, not to seat in preferential order, and not to be gluttonous at communion, because communion, my friends like it or not, used to be part of a whole meal.

JR

 

[myways]

Yes, RPW is the pandering of old wineskins. The NT is clear about physical, outward regulations. They are posters and billboards for their replacement: The Spirit. If I were a betting man, I'd say that most of the regulatives posting are also paedobaptists. Am I correct? The same type of person who reads Galatians where Paul says that "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcison has any value. The only thing that counts is a new creation" and says "Amen brother Paul. You tell those Judiazers how it is!" and then heads straight to church to have his infant son "circumsized" by way of baptism.

Right and wrong comes from the heart.
Dave

 

[myways]

Um, can you add something to Christ?

I mean, if Jesus can't be added-to what you're talking about is ... a regulative principle in the new priesthood. It would prevent you from adding things to Jesus.

Do you think there is some kind of ecclesiastical regulation in the New Covenant? I mean, Israel was a redeemed group and they were given ecclesiastical regulation. Why doesn't the New Covenant have such a thing? (By way of explanation, 1 Cor 14 prescribes some ecclesiastical operations in church worship.)

1 Cor 14 gives regulations of course, but they address spiritual principals like charity, edification, clairity etc... This is consistent with all the laws in the new testament. The OT regulations were temporary, outward, and symbolic and always held by God as secondary to the transcendant NT laws. That's why they have no clear corresponding operations in the new testament.

Dave

 

[bradfordl]

Decently and in order has some regulative aspect to it, doesn't it? I guess that may be subjective. But the speaking that was done by laity in the early church I thought was the exercise of then extant spiritual gifts. If those gifts are extant now then I suppose it would be "normal". But are they? And which ones?

(1Co 11:4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
(1Co 11:5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
(1Co 11:6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
(1Co 11:7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
(1Co 11:8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
(1Co 11:9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
(1Co 11:10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
(1Co 11:11) Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
(1Co 11:12) For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
(1Co 11:13) Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
(1Co 11:14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
(1Co 11:15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
(1Co 11:16) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Still some around that practice head covering, but in the passage above it says her hair is her covering. I was always confused that those who go in for head-coverings also tended to be against women speaking aloud in church, when the covering was to facilitate her praying and prophesying appropriately.

I always thought grape juice was a concession to the world.

Right and wrong comes from the heart.

Whose heart?

Brad

 

[edie19]

RPW is a lot like new wine in old wineskins. The old forms are done away, and the NT never gave explicit instructions for worship, only guidelines

I think Scripture is pretty clear about worship - first we have the law (quoting Michael Horton), "We can only speak where God has spoken, but if there is any subject upon which He has pronounced Himself clearly, it is worship. . . . The first commandment tells us that we must worship the correct God, while the second tells us that we must worship the correct God correctly."

Maybe it's semantics - but I think the NT is pretty clear on worship also.
Acts 2:42 speaks to the fellowship of believers

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
​

Ephesians 5:19 speaks to our worship music

addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,
​

And 1 Corinthians 1:23 tells us clearly what we should be preaching

addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,
​

 

[heymikey80]

The OT had a long list of rules regarding worship, do you suggest we follow them? Or do you prefer to pick and choose which?

I prefer the argument in the excluded middle. I don't pick; but the ceremonies have passed. Still, some things you and I might consider "ceremonies" don't seem to be terminated in the New Testament: singing, sacraments, speaking, order of worship.

I think it's permitted to extend that to what other parts of worship are commanded by the Psalms, for instance, as well as what's regulated in public worship in the New Testament.

That is the essential problem for RPW advocates. They want to have some things regulated, but others, like the love feast of the early Church, thrown out. How about people in the congregation prophesying one at a time?

I'm all for it. Much better than people in the congregation prophesying all at once, y'can't hear a word edgewise.

I'm for a whole lot more than most people "advocating the regulative principle" would be for. But that's because I don't see the church as "mature in Christ", as Calvin appears to have, on the basis of Galatians 4.

 

[heymikey80]

the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

It seems odd that this discussion could go for two and a half pages without covering John 4. What do you guys (both sides) think about this?

I think it's crucial. It's required by both the normative and regulative principles, so it hasn't been subject for discussion.

But I agree, it's far more pertinent to the present day. We rarely point it out. If we're not worshipping in spirit and truth then we're not worshipping at all, according to Christ.

Westminster emphasizes this point:

III. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of His Spirit, according to His will, with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love and perseverance; and, if vocal, in a known tongue.

V. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving beside religious oaths, of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.
​

But we don't emphasize it enough, I think. Without spiritual worship, where is there worship? "You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." Compelling people into worship services doesn't always have the effect of their worshipping.

We're admittedly talking about public worship, which is visible. I think this passage applies to public and private worship.

 

[myways]

Decently and in order has some regulative aspect to it, doesn't it? I guess that may be subjective. But the speaking that was done by laity in the early church I thought was the exercise of then extant spiritual gifts. If those gifts are extant now then I suppose it would be "normal". But are they? And which ones?


Still some around that practice head covering, but in the passage above it says her hair is her covering. I was always confused that those who go in for head-coverings also tended to be against women speaking aloud in church, when the covering was to facilitate her praying and prophesying appropriately.

I always thought grape juice was a concession to the world.



Whose heart?

Brad

Brad,
I don't have much to add to what you have already posted as answers to your questions. Of course indecency and disorder need to be rule governed. But these rules are normative rules. To illustrate, let Paul repose his rhetorical question to you:

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
(1Co 11:14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

What little old lady dosen't have short hair these days? And what leather-clad biker dosen't wear a ponytail? Are these things uncomely and shameful or are they indecent and disorderly? Of course not.

Yeah, its a shame about grape juice; it steals some of the romance of such a solemn(partly,that is) ritual. But it is good to do for those with weak faith.

Whose heart? The heart of the doer of the right or wrong action.

Dave

 

[myways]

I think Scripture is pretty clear about worship - first we have the law (quoting Michael Horton), "We can only speak where God has spoken, but if there is any subject upon which He has pronounced Himself clearly, it is worship. . . . The first commandment tells us that we must worship the correct God, while the second tells us that we must worship the correct God correctly."

Maybe it's semantics - but I think the NT is pretty clear on worship also.

Acts 2:42 speaks to the fellowship of believers

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

​

Ephesians 5:19 speaks to our worship music

addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,

​

And 1 Corinthians 1:23 tells us clearly what we should be preaching

addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,

​

I believe any congregation, normative or regulative would agree that to omit teaching, fellowship, and meals; psalm-singing and hymms and spiritual songs; and the preaching of the gospel would be terrible. We all do these things, right?
Ed, are you saying that these lists are meant to be exclusive lists?

Dave

 

[myways]

heymikey;

When I mentioned John 4, what I was getting at was Christ's statment in response to the woman at the well. When she asked a question about kphysical location He said that that is not important because God is a spirit. Then, a good normative guy can take all the NT regulations and argue that they are outward and not enduring through changing times and cultures. Kinda like I try to above

Dave

 

[heymikey80]

When I mentioned John 4, what I was getting at was Christ's statment in response to the woman at the well. When she asked a question about kphysical location He said that that is not important because God is a spirit. Then, a good normative guy can take all the NT regulations and argue that they are outward and not enduring through changing times and cultures. Kinda like I try to above.

Then a good regulative guy can point out there are all sorts of outward regulations that the good normative guy is following (as not being prohibited), and ask why?

Then a good regulative guy can then point out that a consistent normative guy can't complain if people do assert that some outward things are enduring, because the passage doesn't prohibit some other outward things as enduring in worship.

If you extend your theology to cover, then sure, normative worship can look like regulative worship.

A good regulative guy can (and does) equally assert, "Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the Gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed."

The point being, neither normative nor regulative has anything additional to offer here. Jesus explicitly pulled the plug on sacred locations. Jesus also put an end to ceremonial law. What of it? They both reach the same goal when it's explicit declarations and commands.

Jesus made a point that sacred locations once were, but are at an end. Both normative and regulative views submit the same to this declaration. There is no sacred location.

 

[myways]

The point being, neither normative nor regulative has anything additional to offer here. Jesus explicitly pulled the plug on sacred locations. Jesus also put an end to ceremonial law. What of it? They both reach the same goal when it's explicit declarations and commands.

Heymikey,
But what I am trying to say is that He also implicitly pulled the plug on sacred modalities. You can't say that "God's true worshipers will worship in spirit and in truth" is a responce narrowly directed to the specific question of location. A statement like that is clearly an expression of a principal and not a specific responce. I think it is just like the command to not muzzle one's ox while he treds the grain. It does not even adress oxen foremost, but people, then animals--retroactively--by obvious extention.
Dave

 

[edie19]

I believe any congregation, normative or regulative would agree that to omit teaching, fellowship, and meals; psalm-singing and hymms and spiritual songs; and the preaching of the gospel would be terrible. We all do these things, right?
Ed, are you saying that these lists are meant to be exclusive lists?

Dave

2 things -
First and foremost these are marks of a true church. And yes, I believe there are "churches" that don't always meet these requirements - especially when it comes to preaching the gospel. There are churches where the teaching is so watered down that it is barely recognizable as the gospel. Don't even get me started on some of the music that passes for Christian these days - much of it is much more man centered than God centered and worship has the air of a rock concert (right down to the smoke and lights). I know lots of folks who consider the music portion of a Lord's Day service the "worship." As if the prayers, teaching, and sacraments are secondary. There are too many churches that are more like social organizations than true churches.

Second - is the list exclusive - no, but I do think Scripture is clear about what should be included in worship. Where Scripture isn't clear, I do believe we should err on the side of caution before including something as part of worship. I use the list to show that the regulative principle isn't restrictive or difficult to keep.

edie (feminine as opposed to ed which is masculine)

 

[myways]

edie,

First and foremost, I am sooo sorry for my obliviousness. Please accept this rose as a sign of my apologies @}---,--'---,-- (it's long stemmed)

Second, I believe I have no quarrel with your above post. I've been to churches with worship like that. Its bad enough that the congregants make these certain songs their entire diet, but it's downright disgusting when, after singing the same fifteen word song for twenty minutes, they look down their noses at the hymnal as being "dry and lifeless." It drives me nuts. However, I don't want to come acroos as discouraging things that have only emotional value. These things are obviously the blessings of a good God. Its just that you can't eat only candy in life. Natural or spiritual.

Dave

 

[edie19]

edie,

First and foremost, I am sooo sorry for my obliviousness. Please accept this rose as a sign of my apologies @}---,--'---,-- (it's long stemmed)

Second, I believe I have no quarrel with your above post. I've been to churches with worship like that. Its bad enough that the congregants make these certain songs their entire diet, but it's downright disgusting when, after singing the same fifteen word song for twenty minutes, they look down their noses at the hymnal as being "dry and lifeless." It drives me nuts. However, I don't want to come acroos as discouraging things that have only emotional value. These things are obviously the blessings of a good God. Its just that you can't eat only candy in life. Natural or spiritual.

Dave

First - no apology necessary. I've been dealing with the confusion for ~50 years now.

The music leader at my church refers to them as 7-11 songs. People sing the same 7 words 11 times (or is it 11 words 7 times?). About a year ago we had a member leave our church - one of her reasons, we were starting to sing more hymns and psalms (how shocking!!).

I'm not sure how appropriate this comment is (and I apologize in advance - you might just want to stop reading now), but have you ever watched some of the commercials for Christian worship cd's? You know the ones - they pan large congregations/audiences while the music plays in the background. Here's where my questionable comment comes in - look at some of the faces (especially the women's) - they're almost rapturous (I was going to use an other word, but decided against it as it might not be considered good taste).

edie

 

[myways]

First - no apology necessary. I've been dealing with the confusion for ~50 years now.

The music leader at my church refers to them as 7-11 songs. People sing the same 7 words 11 times (or is it 11 words 7 times?). About a year ago we had a member leave our church - one of her reasons, we were starting to sing more hymns and psalms (how shocking!!).

I'm not sure how appropriate this comment is (and I apologize in advance - you might just want to stop reading now), but have you ever watched some of the commercials for Christian worship cd's? You know the ones - they pan large congregations/audiences while the music plays in the background. Here's where my questionable comment comes in - look at some of the faces (especially the women's) - they're almost rapturous (I was going to use an other word, but decided against it as it might not be considered good taste).

edie

Yeah, I know the ones. That particular kind of rapture to which you reffer is a dead ringer look-a-like in many instances. The only thing inappropriate about it all is that it corresponds to an actual phenomenon that we have to bear witness to. I mean it otherwise would be so harmless and forgivable except that these people start to corrupt their intuitions by their loss of perspective, and then the wheels really come off. We've all seen--or "been" in my case--its paralel in the "young lovers" phenomenon. A boyfriend and girlfriend fall in love and all their sense of moral and social obligation to everyone beside themselves becomes slave to their love and their rapturous feelings. That's why they smile and giggle after holding their friends captive to a show of them making out and crawling all over each other. They feel so stongly that they think everything else is small shallow and expendable compared to the glory of their love: "We wern't being gross, we were being beautiful. And if you say otherwise it just means that you're a cold fish and a negative person--and, you've never truly been in love." So I'll leave it to you to draw the parallels between the attitudes of lovers towards non-lovers and 7-11ers towards us.

Dave