Adiaphora: pretending that eating ice cream is amoral.
- Thread starter Saiph
- Start date
- Status
One more thing. A part of the equation that is left out is Liberty. There is freedom in choosing between between many good things. God has allowed us options as Paul noted that he was at liberty to marry or not marry.
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by puritancovenanter]
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Yes. The scripture is correct again. It was expediant for Paul not to marry. It was definitly better for him not to. But that is not the case for 99% of the male population. The best thing for most men is marriage. So the rule of thumb is that God has a different purpose for each of us. What is beneficial and good for someone may be worse for the other. God knows.
That is why he had Paul write Romans 14.
Let me post it again as I did in another thread.
(Rom 14:1) Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
(Rom 14:2) For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
(Rom 14:3) Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
(Rom 14:4) Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
(Rom 14:5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
(Rom 14:6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
(Rom 14:7) For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
(Rom 14:8) For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
(Rom 14:9) For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
(Rom 14:10) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
(Rom 14:11) For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
(Rom 14:12) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
(Rom 14:13) Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
(Rom 14:14) I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
(Rom 14:15) But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
(Rom 14:16) Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
(Rom 14:17) For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
(Rom 14:18) For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
(Rom 14:19) Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
(Rom 14:20) For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
(Rom 14:21) It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
(Rom 14:22) Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
(Rom 14:23) And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by puritancovenanter]
That is why he had Paul write Romans 14.
Let me post it again as I did in another thread.
(Rom 14:1) Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
(Rom 14:2) For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
(Rom 14:3) Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
(Rom 14:4) Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
(Rom 14:5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
(Rom 14:6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
(Rom 14:7) For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
(Rom 14:8) For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
(Rom 14:9) For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
(Rom 14:10) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
(Rom 14:11) For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
(Rom 14:12) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
(Rom 14:13) Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
(Rom 14:14) I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
(Rom 14:15) But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
(Rom 14:16) Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
(Rom 14:17) For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
(Rom 14:18) For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
(Rom 14:19) Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
(Rom 14:20) For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
(Rom 14:21) It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
(Rom 14:22) Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
(Rom 14:23) And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
The will by definition is always inclined. To speak of a "œneutral will" is none sense or it can be another way of saying "œno will exists".
Morals are based upon some standard. Morals that are real and true are derived from the eternal standard and that would be God and His holy revealed Law as He sets it forth and not as men think it is to be understood (I.e., that is from the heart as if no Law must dictate it to one, not motions of the Law by mere actions to the Law"˜s dictation). Any moral(s) set forth apart from His holy Law OR derived from it and set forth by men or creatures is by definition evil, even if it appears good to all the eyes of men. Why? For in such men commit the highest of sin which is treason to be apart from God, knowing good or evil for themselves, that is human autonomy. Even if they "œborrow" from God´s Law done in this way man seeks his own fame and glory, that is, "œto be known for my/our good works".
Indeed nothing is morally neutral: "œDo all things unto the glory of God" and similarly "œall things apart from faith is sin". But there is a key to it all"¦faith, that is sole trust in Christ alone. All things regardless of how it appears to the eyes of men is sin and hence evil if done apart from faith, that is without the support of faith alone. Contra: All things done in faith is not sin and if actual evil is committed by the faithful, because of faith´s object, Christ, it is quickly forgiven (this is not presumption but faith, and this sets up the stumbling stone to the highly religious who secretly regard their works and not Christ at all even if they should use His name). Without faith actual murder or murder only from the heart/thought is just as damning and sinful as is saving a man´s life.
As a matter of fact "œgood works and good morals" block a man from grace more than real evil works do. Why? Back to the will, because a man´s will is to do evil fundamentally, it is already fallen and inclined in all things. His will refuses to let go of the good works and die to them, especially when God and Law are involved. He will never let go on his own so that he may nakedly trust in Christ alone and be saved. As a matter of fact when an Armenian for example refuses that the will of man is totally depraved and that God must sovereignly save - he is proving the very fact that his will is, without Divine intervention, completely and totally enslaved to sin, self autonomy and away from God. His will will not let him trust in the real God that is and is sovereign in all things, it is enslaved to its self willed desire to glorify self, it is addicted to self hopelessly.
So we see all things wrapped up in faith are in the end good and when the faithful do commit real evil, and we do every second either in thought, word or deed, it is immediately forgiven for Christ´s sake. This is why in the Lord´s prayer we should confess not just our gross sins but that Christ would cover our "œrighteousness" which is filthy rags. See how sinful we REALLY are. Contra: all things outside of faith are sin and evil no matter what the work is. Manifestly, all gross acts of sin (e.g. murder, adultery, theft and so forth) are evil and of no value toward righteousness, even blind pagans can see this and it doesn"˜t take a Christian to see this. But it is a complete afront and volley to the fallen will, the flesh, to say that your good deeds are worthy of wrath and hell - especially your best ones, those you treasure highest. One´s saving a man´s life, one´s feeding the hungry, one´s missionary work and so forth are all evil apart from faith (and don"˜t think for a second that some proclaiming to be Christian do not do this without real faith). Apart from faith these to are sins worthy of death, wrath and hell just as much as prostitution, homosexuality and murder. While evil acts may leave the fallen will sleeping comfortably without much ire, the volley against "œgood works" enrages the fallen will and like a great beast it rises to make war with God, Christ and Christ´s real servants on this point. Then it shows itself forth as it really is fallen and totally evil.
Let´s swing a few contrasts to drive the point further:
Eating ice cream apart from faith is sin, yet drinking beer or wine in faith is glorifying to God. Does this bother you? Then you are considering works, the fallen will is warring against heaven and Christ. And I want to be careful on the next one not to promote gross evil or laxity but to show forth how total faith in Christ alone saves while without Him NOTHING is acceptable and is indeed damnable. The Dali Lama who led a peaceful life and the cause for much human earthly good is in hell, king David who committed murder, adultery and lied (while being a true believer) is with Christ in heaven. If this bothers one, then one is stumbling over the Stumbling Stone, Christ Jesus and worshipping one"˜s own will.
Christ Alone has suffered,
Ldh
Morals are based upon some standard. Morals that are real and true are derived from the eternal standard and that would be God and His holy revealed Law as He sets it forth and not as men think it is to be understood (I.e., that is from the heart as if no Law must dictate it to one, not motions of the Law by mere actions to the Law"˜s dictation). Any moral(s) set forth apart from His holy Law OR derived from it and set forth by men or creatures is by definition evil, even if it appears good to all the eyes of men. Why? For in such men commit the highest of sin which is treason to be apart from God, knowing good or evil for themselves, that is human autonomy. Even if they "œborrow" from God´s Law done in this way man seeks his own fame and glory, that is, "œto be known for my/our good works".
Indeed nothing is morally neutral: "œDo all things unto the glory of God" and similarly "œall things apart from faith is sin". But there is a key to it all"¦faith, that is sole trust in Christ alone. All things regardless of how it appears to the eyes of men is sin and hence evil if done apart from faith, that is without the support of faith alone. Contra: All things done in faith is not sin and if actual evil is committed by the faithful, because of faith´s object, Christ, it is quickly forgiven (this is not presumption but faith, and this sets up the stumbling stone to the highly religious who secretly regard their works and not Christ at all even if they should use His name). Without faith actual murder or murder only from the heart/thought is just as damning and sinful as is saving a man´s life.
As a matter of fact "œgood works and good morals" block a man from grace more than real evil works do. Why? Back to the will, because a man´s will is to do evil fundamentally, it is already fallen and inclined in all things. His will refuses to let go of the good works and die to them, especially when God and Law are involved. He will never let go on his own so that he may nakedly trust in Christ alone and be saved. As a matter of fact when an Armenian for example refuses that the will of man is totally depraved and that God must sovereignly save - he is proving the very fact that his will is, without Divine intervention, completely and totally enslaved to sin, self autonomy and away from God. His will will not let him trust in the real God that is and is sovereign in all things, it is enslaved to its self willed desire to glorify self, it is addicted to self hopelessly.
So we see all things wrapped up in faith are in the end good and when the faithful do commit real evil, and we do every second either in thought, word or deed, it is immediately forgiven for Christ´s sake. This is why in the Lord´s prayer we should confess not just our gross sins but that Christ would cover our "œrighteousness" which is filthy rags. See how sinful we REALLY are. Contra: all things outside of faith are sin and evil no matter what the work is. Manifestly, all gross acts of sin (e.g. murder, adultery, theft and so forth) are evil and of no value toward righteousness, even blind pagans can see this and it doesn"˜t take a Christian to see this. But it is a complete afront and volley to the fallen will, the flesh, to say that your good deeds are worthy of wrath and hell - especially your best ones, those you treasure highest. One´s saving a man´s life, one´s feeding the hungry, one´s missionary work and so forth are all evil apart from faith (and don"˜t think for a second that some proclaiming to be Christian do not do this without real faith). Apart from faith these to are sins worthy of death, wrath and hell just as much as prostitution, homosexuality and murder. While evil acts may leave the fallen will sleeping comfortably without much ire, the volley against "œgood works" enrages the fallen will and like a great beast it rises to make war with God, Christ and Christ´s real servants on this point. Then it shows itself forth as it really is fallen and totally evil.
Let´s swing a few contrasts to drive the point further:
Eating ice cream apart from faith is sin, yet drinking beer or wine in faith is glorifying to God. Does this bother you? Then you are considering works, the fallen will is warring against heaven and Christ. And I want to be careful on the next one not to promote gross evil or laxity but to show forth how total faith in Christ alone saves while without Him NOTHING is acceptable and is indeed damnable. The Dali Lama who led a peaceful life and the cause for much human earthly good is in hell, king David who committed murder, adultery and lied (while being a true believer) is with Christ in heaven. If this bothers one, then one is stumbling over the Stumbling Stone, Christ Jesus and worshipping one"˜s own will.
Christ Alone has suffered,
Ldh
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I was going to add that the words adiaphora and neutrality are somewhat abused, but I think that that is already covered quite well. What I would add is that, in the case of defending the RPW I come out supporting the EP-ers. The idea of this thread is to question the validity of the RPW, and if that does not stand, then neither can EP. And I disagree with that view.
EP, if true, can and will stand with or without the RPW. That is what I am pressing EP for, so that it stands properly, if my thinking is correct. What I am saying is that, if EP is true then the RPW applies in the sense of formal worship. If the RPW falls to the ground, EP is still valid. That's how I'd like to see EP argued for; that's how I see it has to be argued for for me to be turned to believe the arguments.
Where this fits in with this thread is that some things are indifferent to worship. They are considered circumstance, but not all circumstance would be indifferent. Formal dress, for example, is a circumstance, but not indifferent. And this applies to things in the work-a-day world too: if there is no indifference in a chunk of oak wood, then it would be a sin, so to speak, to use it for something that it was not specifically intended for. I could make a cabinet instead of a piece of furniture with it, for example. So also, the choice between the singing of Psalms or of hymns also is not an indifferent matter.
Again, I believe that the first principle of Church is that of preaching of the Word. This we share with almost every existent church regardless of flavour or creed. Therefore they all have, by definition, a RPW. Even a denial of it is a RPW of some kind. Just like a church which claims to have no doctrines has that as their first doctrine, and usually as an excuse for all kinds of abberant doctrines. Even so, a church that says it has no RPW is really only saying that they don't have the formal Presbyterian definition of it. I grew up in a church that had never heard of the RPW, but adhered to it better than Presbyterians, I believe. So if there is no adiaphora, then so much the more does each church own some kind of RPW. And if such a church which sees nothing as neutral exists, it has a very stringent RPW if it applies it, strictly speaking.
I have not yet spent much effort in arguing for the inclusion of hymns; I have, so far, only argued against EP. And that only to the degree of trying to get the EP side to express their notion in a way that can convince. You see, I am going to be with them, on their side, if their goal is the beauty and holiness of the worship of God. If it is their goal not so much to institute EP but to apply the RPW consistently, then I am all for that. We are about as far away from that in our day as NASA is from landing men on Mars. That's why I am pushing EP toward grounding it on necessary inference, and not on the RPW. That way they can still enforce a RPW consistently and rightly.
Where we stand at the moment is that there is a duplicity about the RPW as it is practiced, a double standard. To exaggerate it somewhat, it could be that the Ruling Elders ( RE ) could clamp down on someone for singing Amazing Grace in church, because "If God does not command it, it is forbidden"; but for RE's and TE's a different rule applies, namely that as long as the WCF does not forbid it, it can stand right alongside God's commanded worship from the pulpit and defended from the offices. Not only has Presuppositionalism been raised to doctrinal level, but they are now preaching the Framework Hypothesis, and worse, Federal Vision. Where is the principle for them, that what God does not command is forbidden? And they represent the authority of Christ in worship. I am all in favour of the long road that EP-ers want to take, because it will, hopefully, establish a consistent RPW in the churches.
That is why I said, Mark, that this is where we part ways. I am definitely not on the side of questioning the validity of the RPW. It is a principle applied to worship, not a command itself. I believe you are right that, applied this latter way, it is self-contradictory. And I believe you are right that EP grounded upon the RPW is self-constradictory too. But that in no way undermines a proper instituting under the rulership of the RE's jurisdiction of "good order"; nor does it at all touch a properly grounded EP.
EP, if true, can and will stand with or without the RPW. That is what I am pressing EP for, so that it stands properly, if my thinking is correct. What I am saying is that, if EP is true then the RPW applies in the sense of formal worship. If the RPW falls to the ground, EP is still valid. That's how I'd like to see EP argued for; that's how I see it has to be argued for for me to be turned to believe the arguments.
Where this fits in with this thread is that some things are indifferent to worship. They are considered circumstance, but not all circumstance would be indifferent. Formal dress, for example, is a circumstance, but not indifferent. And this applies to things in the work-a-day world too: if there is no indifference in a chunk of oak wood, then it would be a sin, so to speak, to use it for something that it was not specifically intended for. I could make a cabinet instead of a piece of furniture with it, for example. So also, the choice between the singing of Psalms or of hymns also is not an indifferent matter.
Again, I believe that the first principle of Church is that of preaching of the Word. This we share with almost every existent church regardless of flavour or creed. Therefore they all have, by definition, a RPW. Even a denial of it is a RPW of some kind. Just like a church which claims to have no doctrines has that as their first doctrine, and usually as an excuse for all kinds of abberant doctrines. Even so, a church that says it has no RPW is really only saying that they don't have the formal Presbyterian definition of it. I grew up in a church that had never heard of the RPW, but adhered to it better than Presbyterians, I believe. So if there is no adiaphora, then so much the more does each church own some kind of RPW. And if such a church which sees nothing as neutral exists, it has a very stringent RPW if it applies it, strictly speaking.
I have not yet spent much effort in arguing for the inclusion of hymns; I have, so far, only argued against EP. And that only to the degree of trying to get the EP side to express their notion in a way that can convince. You see, I am going to be with them, on their side, if their goal is the beauty and holiness of the worship of God. If it is their goal not so much to institute EP but to apply the RPW consistently, then I am all for that. We are about as far away from that in our day as NASA is from landing men on Mars. That's why I am pushing EP toward grounding it on necessary inference, and not on the RPW. That way they can still enforce a RPW consistently and rightly.
Where we stand at the moment is that there is a duplicity about the RPW as it is practiced, a double standard. To exaggerate it somewhat, it could be that the Ruling Elders ( RE ) could clamp down on someone for singing Amazing Grace in church, because "If God does not command it, it is forbidden"; but for RE's and TE's a different rule applies, namely that as long as the WCF does not forbid it, it can stand right alongside God's commanded worship from the pulpit and defended from the offices. Not only has Presuppositionalism been raised to doctrinal level, but they are now preaching the Framework Hypothesis, and worse, Federal Vision. Where is the principle for them, that what God does not command is forbidden? And they represent the authority of Christ in worship. I am all in favour of the long road that EP-ers want to take, because it will, hopefully, establish a consistent RPW in the churches.
That is why I said, Mark, that this is where we part ways. I am definitely not on the side of questioning the validity of the RPW. It is a principle applied to worship, not a command itself. I believe you are right that, applied this latter way, it is self-contradictory. And I believe you are right that EP grounded upon the RPW is self-constradictory too. But that in no way undermines a proper instituting under the rulership of the RE's jurisdiction of "good order"; nor does it at all touch a properly grounded EP.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Agreed.
So, bringing it back to the adiaphora, if we act in faith, do we have the freedom to worship God with musical instruments, worship music other than the Psalms, Dance, or even Drama ? ? So long as it is reverent, orderly, and directed to God.
Seems to me the answer is YES. Even according to this:
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Randy,
I agree concerning Christian liberty. Men are called differently and the point of Christian liberty is that we do not have to differentiate among good works (not evil ones) saying X is a really "good work" while Y is ok but not really a "good work". That's part of the joy and freedom.
For God respects only Christ's works not men's. If I, for example, try to say "my calling" is what "YOU" should be doing, implication being that my calling is a better work in God's eyes and yours is not - then I evidence not being in the faith and a respector of works toward God.
We see this a lot with people in the formal ministry versus the laity and a lot of ill feeling is built up because of it. Funny though how these type of ministers (I'm speaking of a particular ilke of modern minister that is more like a Roman priest or monk in reality) enjoy the good things of this life that the Christian laity labor to produce, cars, fuel, energy, homes, food, clothing, medicine and etc...
Fundamentally all schisms great or small, national or local are driven because faith has been lowered and works, even the gifts of God, are raised in the eyes of those raising them as "pleasing to God". That is Paul's point to Corinth and also the point of James's epistle.
ldh
I agree concerning Christian liberty. Men are called differently and the point of Christian liberty is that we do not have to differentiate among good works (not evil ones) saying X is a really "good work" while Y is ok but not really a "good work". That's part of the joy and freedom.
For God respects only Christ's works not men's. If I, for example, try to say "my calling" is what "YOU" should be doing, implication being that my calling is a better work in God's eyes and yours is not - then I evidence not being in the faith and a respector of works toward God.
We see this a lot with people in the formal ministry versus the laity and a lot of ill feeling is built up because of it. Funny though how these type of ministers (I'm speaking of a particular ilke of modern minister that is more like a Roman priest or monk in reality) enjoy the good things of this life that the Christian laity labor to produce, cars, fuel, energy, homes, food, clothing, medicine and etc...
Fundamentally all schisms great or small, national or local are driven because faith has been lowered and works, even the gifts of God, are raised in the eyes of those raising them as "pleasing to God". That is Paul's point to Corinth and also the point of James's epistle.
ldh
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
JohnV,
I have no problem with EP, if it is because in your conscience you want to sing only God's inspired Psalms to him. Just do not try to bind my conscience by saying the RPW demands it. (I know you are not trying to do that)
The arguments against RPW per se are not against EP. But, some EP advocates only believe it because of the strict and rigid pplication of the RPW. . .
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]
I have no problem with EP, if it is because in your conscience you want to sing only God's inspired Psalms to him. Just do not try to bind my conscience by saying the RPW demands it. (I know you are not trying to do that)
The arguments against RPW per se are not against EP. But, some EP advocates only believe it because of the strict and rigid pplication of the RPW. . .
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Mark,
My only concern is that if such things no longer communicate the Gospel and grace and the receiving from a holy God His grace which is the basis of all true worship need be observed. I've belonged to "drama" churches and they do not communicate this at all in their drama and it dwindles every time into human worship.
It is even harder to see how dance does this. Hymns and Psalms that communicate this do so so as to set in our mind what Christ has done for us. Musical instruments do not cause problems here nor does the "style" of music per se unless it degrades into meaningless love songs. But we have too seen where otherwise good form can be done mindlessly. All things should be setting forth God's holiness and God's grace in worship, if it cannot do this I don't see how it could rightly be called worship.
We see this with Israel: On the one hand they "rose up to play" with their own "strange fire" worship on one hand and we know what happened then. But they also rigorously adhered to proper form when Jesus appeared on the scene and over turned their money tables. So, I suppose we see that we can be in danger of looseing true worship either way by dumping the real content (Holiness of God/Grace of God) for either playful paganism disguised as 'Christian' or dead form. The only thing dead form has going for it that the other may not, is that in the forms if the hymns and scriptures are read, even though the form has died, someone might be present and hear the Gospel in spite of the dead form. The same cannot be said of "innovative" worship forms which can dump both form and content.
But that's a lay persons observation so I'd caveat it as such.
Ldh
My only concern is that if such things no longer communicate the Gospel and grace and the receiving from a holy God His grace which is the basis of all true worship need be observed. I've belonged to "drama" churches and they do not communicate this at all in their drama and it dwindles every time into human worship.
It is even harder to see how dance does this. Hymns and Psalms that communicate this do so so as to set in our mind what Christ has done for us. Musical instruments do not cause problems here nor does the "style" of music per se unless it degrades into meaningless love songs. But we have too seen where otherwise good form can be done mindlessly. All things should be setting forth God's holiness and God's grace in worship, if it cannot do this I don't see how it could rightly be called worship.
We see this with Israel: On the one hand they "rose up to play" with their own "strange fire" worship on one hand and we know what happened then. But they also rigorously adhered to proper form when Jesus appeared on the scene and over turned their money tables. So, I suppose we see that we can be in danger of looseing true worship either way by dumping the real content (Holiness of God/Grace of God) for either playful paganism disguised as 'Christian' or dead form. The only thing dead form has going for it that the other may not, is that in the forms if the hymns and scriptures are read, even though the form has died, someone might be present and hear the Gospel in spite of the dead form. The same cannot be said of "innovative" worship forms which can dump both form and content.
But that's a lay persons observation so I'd caveat it as such.
Ldh
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Larry,
I have the same concerns, and seen the same abuse, but true biblical good and necessary inference would keep us from those extremes. I am sure of it.
And I am no theologian or minister either. Just the average Joe Sixpack.
So I like to stir things up, because it is fun, (and I really want to understand) but I respect those in authority like elders and deacons and pastors. I believe even the most extreme RPW or EP advocate is zealous for God's glory, holiness, and worship.
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]
I have the same concerns, and seen the same abuse, but true biblical good and necessary inference would keep us from those extremes. I am sure of it.
And I am no theologian or minister either. Just the average Joe Sixpack.
So I like to stir things up, because it is fun, (and I really want to understand) but I respect those in authority like elders and deacons and pastors. I believe even the most extreme RPW or EP advocate is zealous for God's glory, holiness, and worship.
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by Saiph]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Well, that's in part what I am saying. No orthodox church as of this moment in time is in a position to institute EP on the basis of the RPW, because it will be a blatant double standard. RE's and TE's are exempt from the RPW while you and I, non-officebearers are not. But what I am saying to your argument is that it does not incline EP-ers one way or the other.
Right now we are all floundering somewhat as to the place of song in worship. More precisely, we're collectively up in the air about what the Eph. and Col. texts mean by "hymns and spiritual songs". Individuals are convinced on both sides, but collectively we're not established. I want to be neutral as to EP itself, because of the advance I think will be made in the discussions. So I'm pushing for anwers in that direction. I would do the same for those espousing hymns. I've done the same thing in Theonomy discussions: though I oppose Theonomy, I support their noble concept of the righteousness of God's law. What I personally would like to see as a fruit of these discussions is an application of the RPW in the first order, even if its a start. It has to apply first to the rulership of the church in Christ's name. After that I'll consider the extent of it as it applies to the response of the congregation.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Mark:
You have added a great deal to the discussion by raising these questions. And I think they are legitimate to the degree that EP misrepresents itself in the arguments given. Not all their arguments are misrepresentations, however. But because they try to stand it on the RPW, your concerns are a natural response, I think. So don't get me wrong about this. I too am just and ordinary Joe. But I am trying to be consistent: if I raise arguments against EP because they stand it on the RPW, then I also have to raise arguments against non-EP which objects on that same basis.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Mark:
What I meant was that some EP proponents try to stand EP on the RPW instead of standing it on necessary inference from Scripture. When they cannot clearly stand it upon Scripture, and they cannot establish the necessary inference upon Scripture alone, they derive it secondarily as necessary inference from the RPW. When non-EP argues against that argument, retaining the same notion that EP must stand upon RPW in that manner, then I think no progress is made. It is not that I am saying that non-EP also stands upon the RPW in the same respect. Non-EP applies the RPW against the imposition of EP that has no Scriptural warrant: i.e., imposing EP based upon the RPW is a breaking of the RPW. But non-EP stands upon the open-ended command to worship in song and with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, not excluding anything that results or is directly implied in that. Therefore the command to make melody, compose ( i.e., "sing a new song" ), etc., without certain specific exclusions cannot help but to be regarded as an inclusive command, not an exclusive command. That is why the EP argument is vary important to non-EP-ers.
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by JohnV]
What I meant was that some EP proponents try to stand EP on the RPW instead of standing it on necessary inference from Scripture. When they cannot clearly stand it upon Scripture, and they cannot establish the necessary inference upon Scripture alone, they derive it secondarily as necessary inference from the RPW. When non-EP argues against that argument, retaining the same notion that EP must stand upon RPW in that manner, then I think no progress is made. It is not that I am saying that non-EP also stands upon the RPW in the same respect. Non-EP applies the RPW against the imposition of EP that has no Scriptural warrant: i.e., imposing EP based upon the RPW is a breaking of the RPW. But non-EP stands upon the open-ended command to worship in song and with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, not excluding anything that results or is directly implied in that. Therefore the command to make melody, compose ( i.e., "sing a new song" ), etc., without certain specific exclusions cannot help but to be regarded as an inclusive command, not an exclusive command. That is why the EP argument is vary important to non-EP-ers.
[Edited on 10-20-2005 by JohnV]
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
How does it apply to non-office-bearers but not to office bearers ? ?
Here is the RPW again: (Or at least the only formulation of it I will accept for the sake of any argument)
John, you said,
For the record:
MY view of non-EP does stand upon the open command you mention, but I add that scripture is our example, and the Psalms show us what acceptable praise looks like. We should use the Psalms, and other songs in scripture, as patterns of what our hymns and spiritual songs be in content, and structure, and object (God).
Is that inclusive or exclusive ? ?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Mark:
In reverse order:
I was only expressing the non-EP view so far as it has been expressed so far; I was not making an assertion as to what it ought to stand on. I would agree with it, but I would add provisos.
As you quoted the WCF, you will notice that it is in Chapter One of the WCF. This is about the Word. So this applies to doctrine and the application of rule according to God's Word. In itself, as pertaining to the RPW, this is more a matter of doctrine and of the general goevernment of the church according to God's Word. It would not exclude discretionary rulings, expediencies which tend toward the peace and order of the church, but it does rule that these ought to be in accordance with Christ's will for His church. So here we have the difference between element and circumstance. But also, I would suggest, we have a clear distinction between representing Christ to the church and representing the church before God, i.e., the two-way priesthood of office. So I see the RPW applying also in two ways. I agree that what is not commanded is forbidden as it pertains to representing Christ to the church, but have to be very careful about applying that in representing the congregation before Christ without destroying Christian liberty of conscience.
I was expressing the state of affairs in our churches at present. I am not suggesting the the RPW does not apply to the offices; I am suggesting that the churches are not applying it to the offices.$ But they should be doing that first if they want to impose it upon the worship of God by the people.
In reverse order:
I was only expressing the non-EP view so far as it has been expressed so far; I was not making an assertion as to what it ought to stand on. I would agree with it, but I would add provisos.
As you quoted the WCF, you will notice that it is in Chapter One of the WCF. This is about the Word. So this applies to doctrine and the application of rule according to God's Word. In itself, as pertaining to the RPW, this is more a matter of doctrine and of the general goevernment of the church according to God's Word. It would not exclude discretionary rulings, expediencies which tend toward the peace and order of the church, but it does rule that these ought to be in accordance with Christ's will for His church. So here we have the difference between element and circumstance. But also, I would suggest, we have a clear distinction between representing Christ to the church and representing the church before God, i.e., the two-way priesthood of office. So I see the RPW applying also in two ways. I agree that what is not commanded is forbidden as it pertains to representing Christ to the church, but have to be very careful about applying that in representing the congregation before Christ without destroying Christian liberty of conscience.
I was expressing the state of affairs in our churches at present. I am not suggesting the the RPW does not apply to the offices; I am suggesting that the churches are not applying it to the offices.$ But they should be doing that first if they want to impose it upon the worship of God by the people.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
