30/12/2005

  • Dialogue on worship - Part 3


    (PREFACE: "Skr" is the intentionally abbreviated alias of the aforementioned brother that goes to Sovereign Grace's Philadelphia church.)


    SKR Wrote:

    ~This is difficult to imagine. You go to a church that uses instrumentation and I know personally is intensely passionate. Yet you claim that singing only churches are more passionate in your experience.

    WHIT:
    No, that is not what I claim. I am only saying that my experience of acappella churches is not the same as Ken's experience of acappella churches. I am comparing experiences of acappela churches, not acappela churches to non-acappela churches.

    SKR:
    ~I would go as far as to say impossible. I mean, I appreciate you being candid about this but I would think you’d be about as effective as trying to focus on just the music and screening out the singing. There are gaps between the words where there is only music. the four count of the music tells you when to start the next part of the song. Your worship sounds like it involves more rigorous work to keep from letting the music in than enjoying God. I can’t think of any greater distraction in worship than constantly guarding yourself against letting in any instrumentation for fear of violating God’s commands or even sinning as you put it. I am really curious. Wouldn’t it be easier and more fulfilling to go to one of these Covenanted churches instead? According to your experience they are more passionate anyway. Also, how do you deal with your conscience when it comes to bringing people to church - a church that, according to your belief, is a step away from heresy?

    WHIT:
    Screening out the music has not detracted from my enjoyment of God nor has it made me loose time or make it harder to know when to start. The only time that detracted from my enjoyment of God is when I was Exclusive Psalmodist when I didn't sing at all. Yes, it would be easier to go to a Covenanter church. However, God has not given me the green light to transfer, and the (CLC) Elders have affirmed that the differences do not preclude membership. Hence, I am staying where He wants me to stay. As I clarified to my Care Group brothers CG yesterday, since there are 2 camps in Reformed Charismatic worship, I except SGM from my regard as CLC is of the more conservative camp and is nowhere near heresy. Also, if you remember what I've written, I said that although CLC is TAD erroneous in doctrine, CLC (and thus SGM) is faithful to Christ (and hence still a great distance from heresy) when considering the overall picture of doctrine AND life. So, since CLC is sound, passionate church, I have no reservations about inviting people to Public Worship.

    SKR:
    I’m trying to be objective. So please pardon my own feelings bleeding through. It’s just that this worship you espouse sounds (to me) very rigid and flat, sterile and imaginationless with heavy limitations on creativity and expression. Please don’t be offended by that. it’s just my own feedback.

    WHIT:
    No worries. What sounded to you is what was experienced by Ken; my experience (and also those of Covenanter and the modern Resolutioner churches) is the opposite of Ken's. The Reformed Baptist pastor Charles Spurgeon, 300 years after Calvin, rejected instrumentation in worship:

    "We might as well pray by machinery as sing by it" and "Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes... we do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto Him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice." -- Commentary on Psalm 42

    ""Under a dispensation of types and shadows, the use of musical instruments seemed to be necessary and suitable; but in the early Christian Church, in her purest ages, these things were discarded as tending towards Judaism; and at this day, the sweetest singing in the world is heard in the assembly which utterly abjures the use of every musical instrument" -- Metropolitan Pulpit, 41.495

    SKR:
    I think the view presents problems. Since all of life is worship, wouldn’t we be outside the “code” in other creative ministies such as music, mural, dance, arts etc as well?

    WHIT:
    As I mentioned yesterday, I conceded that the RPW does have some problems as no view is perfect. However, the RPW does not have as much as the Catholic-leaning, judaizing "non-traditional" view of John Frame. (Mind you I am not equating Frame's "non-traditional" view with SGM's different Reformed charismatic view.)

    With dance and drama, we would not be inside the "code" (or rather, Scripture). The modern Reformed Pastor Brian Schwertley has already addressed the "all of life is worship" point in his article "Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship" :

    "An argument that is closely related to the argument from Deuteronomy 4:2 is one which claims that all of life is worship, and since life contains many activities that are not strictly regulated by Scripture, therefore worship is not strictly regulated either. Although, as Christians, everything we do is to be done to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), and thus we are to live to the Lord (Rom. 14:7-8) and present our bodies as living sacrifices to God (Rom. 12:1), the idea that all of life is worship and therefore no distinction exists between public worship and activities like mowing the lawn is absurd. There are several reasons why we must regard “the all of life is worship” argument as unscriptural.

    First, there are several passages from both the Old and New Testaments which teach and/or assume that public worship is special and set apart from everyday life.

    Psalm 22:22, 25. “I will declare Your name to My brethren; in the midst of the assembly I will praise You.... My praise shall be of You in the great assembly; I will pay My vows before those who fear Him.”

    Psalm 27:4. “One thing I have desired of the LORD, that will I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in His temple.” David Dickson writes:

    A third ground of confidence, is the conscience of his purpose to study to have constant communion with God, in the use of the means, and the conscience of his very earnest desire to have the benefit of all the public ordinances, in the fellowship of the church. Whence learn, 1. Hearty resolution to subject ourselves to all God’s ordinances, and to follow the appointed means of communion-keeping with God, is a sound mark of solid faith; and the conscience of this resolution, serveth much to confirm our confidence in God, if we can say with the prophet, this one thing have I desired, &c. 2. In the using of the means and ordinances of God’s house, the glory of the Lord may be seen, counsel and direction in all things may be had, with comfort and spiritual delight to our souls; for in the ordinances David was to behold the beauty of the Lord, with delight, and to enquire in his holy temple. 3. The desire of communion with God, and love to his ordinances, where it is sincere, should have the chief place in the heart, above all earthly desires and delights whatsoever: one thing have I desired. 4. A sincere desire must not be suffered to go away, but should be pursued resolutely, and recommended to God daily; this I will still seek after, saith he: and the means of communion with God in the public fellowship of the church must be constantly continued in, even all the days of our life.65

    In his application of this passage to believers in the new covenant era Calvin writes: “The Word, sacraments, public prayers, and other helps of the same kind, cannot be neglected, without a wicked contempt of God, who manifests himself to us in these ordinance, as in a mirror or image.”

    Psalm 84:1-2. “How lovely is Your tabernacle, O LORD of hosts! My soul longs, yes, even faints for the courts of the LORD; my heart and my flesh cry out for the living God.” Calvin writes:

    David complains of his being deprived of liberty of access to the Church of God, there to make a profession of his faith, to improve in godliness, and to engage in the divine worship.... He knew that God had not in vain appointed the holy assemblies, and that the godly have need of such helps so long as they are sojourners in this world.

    Plummer writes: “The appointed worship of the true God has in all ages possessed great attractions for the regenerate.”

    Psalm 87:2. “The LORD loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.” David Clarkson writes:

    But it may be replied, the Lord had worship, not only in the gates of Zion, in the temple, but also in the dwellings of Jacob. We cannot suppose that all the posterity of Jacob would neglect the worship of God in their families; no doubt the faithful among them resolved with Joshua, “I and my house will serve the Lord.” Since, therefore, the worship of God was to be found in both, how can this worship be the reason why one should be preferred before the other? Sure upon no other account but this, the worship of God in the gates of Zion was public, his worship in the dwellings of Jacob was private. So that, in fine, the Lord may be said to love the gates of Zion before all the dwellings of Jacob, because he prefers public worship before private. He loved all the dwellings of Jacob, wherein he was worshiped privately; but the gates of Zion he loved more than all the dwellings of Jacob, for there he was publicly worshiped. Hence we have clear ground for this: Observation. Public worship is to be preferred before private. So it is by the Lord, so it should be by his people. So it was under the law, so it must be under the gospel. Indeed, there is difference between the public worship under the law and gospel in respect of a circumstance, viz., the place of public worship. Under the law, the place of public worship was holy, but we have no reason so to account any place of public worship under the gospel; and this will be manifest, if both we inquire what were the grounds of that legal holiness in the tabernacle or temple, and withal observe that none of them can be applied to any place of worship under the gospel.69

    Ecclesiastes 5:1-2. “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few” (KJV). This passage alone proves that public worship is unique and special. There is to be a solemn recognition of the special presence of God in public worship and thus great care must be taken to be sincere, reverent, composed, deliberate and attentive. Matthew Henry writes:

    Address thyself to the worship of God with a solemn pause, and take time to compose thyself for it, not going about it with precipitation, which is called hasting with the feet, Prov. xix. 2. Keep thy thought from roving and wandering from the work; keep thy affections from running out towards wrong objects, for in the business of God’s house there is work enough for the whole man, and all too little to be employed.... When we are in the house of God, we are in a special manner before God and in his presence, there where he has promised to meet his people, where his eye is upon us and ours ought to be unto him.70

    John Gill writes:

    All which may denote the purity and cleanness of the conversation of the true worshipers of God; for, as the feet are the instruments of the action of walking, they may intend the conduct and behaviour of the saints in the house of God, where they should take care to do all things according to his word, which is a lamp to the feet, and a light unto the path.71

    It is obvious from this and many other passages that public worship is to be treated by God’s people far differently than attending a sporting even or going to a barbecue. Frank Smith writes:

    One of the privileges of a worship service is that of coming into the special presence of God and communing with Him. Anything which detracts from this clearly should not be allowed. If we were to be in the royal presence of the Queen of England, it would not be proper protocol to interrupt that audience with the monarch in order to talk with one another. How much more important it is that we do not interrupt our audience with the King of kings by trivial items which center on ourselves.72

    Leviticus 23:3. “Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work in it; it is the Sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.” After Israel was settled in the land, this requirement of weekly public worship could only be put into practice if there were many congregations meeting throughout the land of Israel. These decentralized congregational worship services would of course not contain the ceremonial elements of tabernacle or temple worship (such as animal sacrifices). Matthew Henry writes:

    It is a holy convocation; that is, “If it lie within your reach, you shall sanctify it in a religious assembly: let as many as can come to the door of the tabernacle, and let others meet elsewhere for prayer, praise, and the reading of the law, ” as in the schools of the prophets, while prophecy continued, and afterwards in the synagogues. Christ appointed the New Testament Sabbath to be a holy convocation, by meeting his disciples once and again (and perhaps oftener) on the first day of the week.... Note, God’s Sabbaths are to be religiously observed in every private house, by every family apart, as well as by many families together in holy convocations.73

    Acts 15:21. “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (cf. Ps. 74:8).

    Hebrews 10:24-25. “And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” Unlike everyday activities such as skateboarding, gardening and driving a car, public worship is not an area that believers can treat with indifference, for it is not an optional activity. Those who regard “all of life as worship” (like those who misinterpret Deuteronomy 4:2) completely misunderstand the difference between public worship, the commanded elements of that worship and matters indifferent or common to human actions and societies. Once an activity is commanded and set apart by God, we cannot treat that activity as optional or adiaphora. Singing praise to God in public worship is in an entirely different category than planting tomatoes, even though both are done to God’s glory.

    Second, Christ the king and head of the church has appointed public officers with special public functions that require a special public use. “Therefore He says: ‘When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.... And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:8, 11, 12). The Bible has certain requirements for preaching, reading the Scriptures and administrating the sacraments in public worship. These worship elements are only to be conducted by an ordained teacher or preacher and must not be treated as indifferent activities of everyday life. If there is no distinction between all of life and public worship, then why are public ordinances restricted to ordained officers in the church? If all of life is worship, then such rules and distinctions would be unnecessary.

    Third, when the apostle Paul discusses the conduct of believers during public worship, he sets forth regulations that presuppose a sharp distinction between public worship and all of life. For example, women may speak at a barbecue and may teach their children during home school, yet they are strictly forbidden to speak or teach during the public worship service (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12-14). Regarding the Lord’s supper, Paul tells believers that they must conduct themselves in a proper manner when coming to the Lord’s table. They are to examine themselves and are to make sure that they have a special regard for their brethren (1 Cor 11:17-34). The regulations regarding this sacrament obviously do not apply to the local picnic or volleyball game. There is also a special decorum for public worship that is commanded by Paul. Men are not to wear head coverings in church while women are (1 Cor. 11:2-16). However, men may wear baseball caps at the ball park. If all of life is worship (as some assert), and thus worship is not to be strictly regulated by Scripture, then the apostle Paul’s inspired instructions regarding public worship would be superfluous.

    Fourth, the term for church (ekklesia) often denotes a society of professing Christians who constitute a local church that meets together for public worship in a particular location (Ac. 5:11; 11:26; 1 Cor. 11:18; 16:19; Rom. 16:23; Gal. 1:2; 1 Th. 2:14; Col. 4:15; Phm. 2; Rev. 1:11; 20, etc.). Hodge writes:

    God has commanded ecclesiastical communities with constitutions, laws and officers, badges, ordinances and discipline, for the great purpose of giving visibility to his kingdom, of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of gathering in all its elect subjects.74

    The New Testament church met together for public worship on the Lord’s day (Ac. 2:1; 20:7; 1 Cor. 14:23, 26, 34, 35; 16:1, 2). Lord’s day public worship was commanded by God (Lev. 23:3; Heb. 10:24-45). It is a period of time that is set apart from everyday life. Public worship consists of certain elements that are authorized by Scripture such as: reading the Scriptures (Dt. 31:9-13; Neh. 8:7-8; 13:1; 1 Th. 5:27; Col. 4:16; 1 Tim. 4:13); prayer (Ac. 4:31; 1 Cor. 11:13-15); preaching from the Bible (Ac. 17:13; 20:8; 1 Cor. 14:28; 1 Tim. 4:13: 2 Tim. 4:2); the administration of the sacraments (Mt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:18-34) and the singing of Psalms (1 Chr. 16:9; Ps. 95:1-2; 105:2; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). It clearly would be inappropriate to treat public worship conducted by the church in the same manner as areas of life that are indifferent or adiaphora.

    Fifth, the Bible teaches that there is a special presence of God in public worship. In a special sense Christ is speaking to his covenant people through the preached word. The people as a covenant body respond to God’s word with prayer and praise. The confession of sins to God includes both individual and corporate sins. When the one body partakes of the Lord’s supper (the bread and wine), there is a special blessing that is received from our Lord. Yet an unworthy partaking of the supper (e.g. when the corporate assembled body is disregarded, etc.) involves covenant sanctions and even death (1 Cor. 11:27-34). Cases of serious public sin and excommunication are to be announced during public worship where Christ is present in his court (Mt. 18:20), where the excommunicate is delivered to Satan by Christ’s power (1 Cor. 5:4). Not only does the congregation receive a special blessing from the public means of grace and God’s unique presence, but God is more glorified when he is praised by the corporate body of Christ. Clarkson writes:

    The Lord has engaged to be with every particular saint, but when the particular are joined in public worship, there are all the engagements united together. The Lord engages himself to let forth as it were, a stream of his comfortable, quickening presence to every particular person that fears him, but when many of these particulars join together to worship God, then these several streams are united and meet in one. So that the presence of God, which, enjoyed in private, is but a stream, in public becomes a river, a river that makes glad the city of God. The Lord has a dish for every particular soul that truly serves him; but when many particulars meet together, there is a variety, a confluence, a multitude of dishes. The presence of the Lord in public worship makes it a spiritual feast, and so it is expressed, Isa. xxv. 6. There is, you see, more of God’s presence in public worship, ergo public worship is to be preferred before private.75

    One should not be surprised that God is present in public worship in a special manner, for nothing on earth more resembles the throne room of God in heaven than public worship. Heaven is described in Scripture as a place of continued public worship where an innumerable host of angels and saints behold the face of God and the Lamb (Rev. 1:9-12). “The innumerable company of angels, and the church of the first born, make up one general assembly in the heavenly Jerusalem, Heb. xii. 22, 23. They make one glorious congregation, and so jointly together sing the praises of him that sits on the throne, and the praises of the Lamb, and continue in this public worship to eternity.”76

    To argue that all of life is worship and thus public worship is not strictly regulated by God’s word is akin to comparing the Lord’s supper to that which is common or profane.

    The public assembly is a covenantal gathering, a time and place for God to meet directly with His people. He lays down the law, and they are to bless Him in return.... Worship is special and it is dialogical in nature. It is also prescribed. The fact of being in God’s presence means that not only are general principles to be observed, but the very elements of service have been written out beforehand.77

    SKR:
    I think we are not standing with the “men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do” by not recognizing instrumentation as a modern draw to those who wouldn’t otherwise find themselves in church.

    I think we are not standing with the “men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do” by not recognizing instrumentation as a modern draw to those who wouldn’t otherwise find themselves in church. Is God not glorified by those who came to Christ by way of visiting a church because the instrumentation was part of the draw?

    WHIT:
    Indeed, we are not in the OT dispensation and its Christ-prefiguring ceremonies, but we are still not released from the moral part of the Law, which is summarized by "Love the Lord your God ...." and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Most people with whom I've talked were drawn to SGM by the soundness of the words and the passion of the people, not necessarily the instrumentation. However, some may indeed be drawn by the music (and Christ-mass Eve services). Indeed God is Providential and still draws people even when we don't obey him regarding instrumentation. That reasoning is similar my relative's reasoning that we can still do things that may bring about good and that is not obedient to God.

    SKR:
    Could you please tell me in a concise sentence or two why we are restricted from carrying instrumentation from OT times to NT times?

    WHIT:
    Instrumentation does not have any warrant in the NT either by way of the OT or NT, and Christ in the NT did not perpetuate the OT warrant. That is why we are not to carry it over from the OT.

28/12/2005

  • Dialogue on worship - Part 2b


    POST 15 & 16:


    I am shifting my defintion from Reformed Charismatic (a la SGM and CLC) to the Covenanter definition. IOW, Scripture does not make a differentiation regarding corporate/public and private/personal.


    That is, Daily "Quiet Time" (private worship) is not any different from Public Worship on the Lord's Day (corporate worship) since Scripture does not make a differentiation regarding corporate/public and private/personal with respect to how God's Word governs worship.

  • Dialogue on worship - Pt. 2 (The Root - The Regulative Principle of Worship)


    POST 7b:


    For charismatics, I instead recommend teachings by our Pr. Bob Kauflin (sans his Frame recommendation) that treats the RPW in a way that retains Reformed theology and then adds the charismata in a way that does not contradict the RPW. Pr. Bob a year ago lead our church in a variety of worship styles (from traditional staid to african to contemporary) to help us see that the RPW "is not about the music" and "that we worship God according to His Preferences". That also summarizes my understanding of the RPW. The RPW means that (1) we worship God as God commands or warrants in His Word, (2) anything in worship would not add to or subtract from God's commands, and (3) worship also includes holidays and seasons and imagery/graphics.

    I forgot to mention that the Scriptural foundation and warrant for the Regulative Principle of Worship are Ex. 20:2-8, Deut. 12:32, John 4:21-24, Eph. 5:19-20, Col. 3:16, 2.Tim. 3:16-17, and others.


    POSTS 8 & 9:


    It has been asked of me the following:
    1. "could you clarify how using instrumentation in worship would conflict with the verses or or the 3 points you mention?"
    2. "~also, how is your corporate worship experience at CLC affected by the fact that they use instrumentation?"

    It has been claimed:
    3. "(In literature supporting the RPW), most Scriptural support is generally regurgitated or attempted as proof texts rather than exegetically supportive."

    1. Instrumentation does not keep to the whole of God's Word but goes beyond it (adds to it in violation of Deut. 12 and 2.Tim.3) and undermines the sufficiency of Scripture. It does not have warrant from the NT nor any warrant from the OT or NT to carry it over from the OT dispensation into the NT dispensation. Christians in support of instrumentation claim that Scripture is silent and from that we have liberty to use instruments. Such is the Lutheran view of worship, not the Reformed (whether Presbyterian or ana-Baptist) view. The Lutheran view effectively says that whatever is not in Scripture is permitted. The Reformed view is that whatever is not in Scripture, whether explicity or from reasonable deduction (WCF 1:6 cf. 2nd London Baptist Confession 1:6), is not permitted (WCF 21 cf. 2LBC 22).

    2. Worship including Sacraments, "psalms AND hymns AND spiritual songs", the teaching of the word, holidays, etc.
    2a. Summarily, although I am considered a full, communicant member (full fellowship) of CLC and have not been under any Censure by the Elders; I consider myself in general fellowship and participate in worship to the extent that God's Word allows me and have involved my immediate Pastor/Elder and my small group brothers, one of the 3 closest being Ken B.
    2b. I sing all the songs, but I ignore and screen out the instrumentation. Currently, I know of no other way around it than not participate at all. And I don't want to abstain from singing to God.


    2c1. I am fully engaged during the teaching of the Word.
    2c2. I intend to not take part (directly) in any holidays that CLC celebrates corporately (as a church or as small groups) under the Elders' leadership and institution. This evening, I will be serving in Childrens Ministry during the Christ-mass services and won't be participating directly in the worship.
    2d. I do not go out to lunch at a place of commerce on the Lord's Day. (For those unfamiliar with CLC, a number of the Singles small groups and church families go out to lunch on Sunday.)
    2e. I do not take part in the Lord's Supper.
    2f. I listen intently to anything, claiming prophecy, from Bob or the "prophecy mike" or between songs or during Baptisms. As mentioned before, I don't deny that it may be prophecy considering the current age.
    2g. CLC is not perfect in doctrine (nor is any other church) nor is it anywhere near a heretical state. However, it is a little erroneous on doctrine. Despite that, with the Elders' affirmation that the differences would not preclude full membership, I have stayed at CLC since I believe it to be faithful to Christ in the overall picture of doctrine and especially life.

    3. The same claim can be returned to some of the Reformed (ana)Baptists as their Baptist Confessions and theologians and Elders, even Charles Spurgeon and Dr. Masters, cite nearly the same Scripture passages for RPW support. Further, John Frame claims to support the RPW (i.e, is claimedly pro-RPW); hence, by that allegation, John Frame would be citing Scripture for proof text rather than exegetical support.


    3b. I will admit that the detractors of the RPW cite Scripture for proof text and also attempt to provide exegetical "support". I used to be gung-ho in support of instrumentation, holidays, ecumenism, etc. and have read many documents against the RPW. However, the "support" does not come close to actually supporting the "non-traditional" view and would lead to considerably more difficulties and eventual compromise and false ecumenism.


    POST 10 & 11:


    By "Scripture" in my statement: "Christians in support of instrumentation claim that Scripture is silent and from that we have liberty to use instruments." I was referring to the NT part of Scripture. Sorry for the confusion.


    BTW, Covenanters and certain Baptists do not follow the institution of Christmas. Despite that, I'll respond to the "Merry Christmas" greeting by saying "Beannacht De leat!" (Irish Gaelic: "God's Blessings to you!")


    POST 12:


    I am not sure what you are saying here. The RPW is applied corporately and individually/personally with some differentiation. For example, take Christmas. (This is an example that I read a month ago from Pastor G.I. Williamson of the OPC.) The RPW would say that the Church cannot celebrate Christmas corporately. By corporately, I mean overall as the Church Universal or smaller as any congregated Christian group of individuals. From Eph. 5 about each person esteeming the day more or less than the other; a Christian on his/her own may celebrate Christmas or not and still be following the Regulative (or rather, Scriptural) Principle of Worship. Hence, the personal application of the RPW has greater Christian liberty than the corporate application.

    Family worship is considered to be corporate worship, but "Quiet Time" (daily time of private worship and Bible reading) is personal worship.


    POST 13:


    That definition of "corporate", loose as it may seem, was taught to me by my Elders and small group leader (Reformed Charismatics) at CLC. I will review their notes to see where in the Bible they got that.


    POST 14:


    You are indeed correct. Christ-mass cannot be celebrated by any group of Christians, and the leaders of the Church and households do not have pastoral, parental, or leadership authority or responsibility to perpetuate the "holy day" of Christ-mass in their denomination, congregation, or household.

    Though summarized at length (the non-tradition position), the Scriptural grounding/teaching and warrant are not clear for the "non-traditional" position. It cites the instrumentation of the OT, which are often mentioned together with the ceremonial part of the Law (sin offerings, sacrifices, etc.) in the OT. The summary does not provide how the instrumentation carries over into the NT by way of the OT or by way of the NT nor does it explain the differentiation between "corporate" and "personal". Although it does not explain the carryover, it does not explain from the NT how Jesus, the Disciples, or the apostolic Church used instrumentation in a way that warrants instrumentation from Jesus's time onward. Jesus's use of the temple and its ceremonies was not to give warrant for us to use the same ceremonial instrumentation but to fulfill the entire law and after fulfillment, to abrogate the Christ-prefiguring ceremonies (and their trappings) of the OT since Christ had come and then established new Christ-remembering ordinances for the Church.

    I do have a great concern regarding the "extreme liberty" (in the RB's words) of the non-traditional position as it is similar license and Libertine reasoning to which the harlot Church of Rome and other false or apostate churches also go in attempting to justify Scripturally its false worship (candles, incense, instrumentation, choirs, Christ-mass, baptising/blessing non-human objects, the Mass, the infalliblity of latter-day prophecy, the infalliblity of the Magisterium, the fallibility of Scripture, etc.). We should avoid the extremes of license and legalism as our pastor Josh nicely and effectively said. Granted that it is less extreme than Catholicism, but the extent of the extremity and the similarity of reasoning are very close. I do not want the Church to go back to harlot Rome from which we have come and from whose heresies and errors we have continually been extirpating and reforming, respectively, since such extremity would threaten to undermine the continuing work of the Reformation all the way back to its beginning. How would it stop short of false worship with the momentum kicking in? How is it consistent with the sufficiency of Scripture?

    Yes, the non-traditional approach to worship is indeed growing. While it does teach us to have great passion in worship, the extremity of it and its line of reasoning is not good. Shall we sin that Grace may abound? Reading non-traditional documents reminds me too frequently of my reading about Catholicism. Considering the signs of rapid growth and given how much it appeals to the world at this time, it typifies the speed through which yeast works its way throughout the leaven. The movement is not heretical but strongly appears one step from heresy. I am very grateful for Brian Schwertly, Kevin Reed, G.I. Williamson, my fellow Covenanters both past and present, John Calvin, John Knox, Rutherfurd, Gillespie, Watson, Presbyterian Puritans, and others of the Regulative Principle of Worship to counter such extreme movements (and their advocates such as Frame, Virgo, and other Rome-ward tending people) that have yet to show clearly and reasonably that their teaching is Scriptural. After such attempts by them to argue their position, they have nicely provided Scriptural counterargument show them the errors of their attempted argument.

    I have provided links to modern Covenanters, which have summarized and argued the RPW against extreme movements. Hence, I hesitate to repeat what has already been said and that more wisely than me.

    I am saying all this in overall worship, not just instrumentation though my 2nd paragraph is particular to instrumentation.

    "Non-traditional" is nothing new as Knox and Calvin railed against such extremities in worship. Hence, "non-traditional" is a misnomer. "Non-traditional" is nothing more than Catholicism in new clothes, or rather, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    Granted the RPW has its difficulties but those difficulties (spiritual and practical) are far less in number than the nontraditional position. What would the "non-traditional" position say about the other aspects of worship such as "psalms, hymns, and spriitual songs", holy days, the Sacraments, hedging the Lord's Table, Censure/Discipline, terms of membership and communion, etc.? Does it say to only sing hymns and spiritual songs? Does it say that all Christians can approach the Lord's Supper? Where is the "non-traditional" position going? The RPW does not just apply to instrumentation.

  • Dialogue on worship - Pt. 1


    I've been dialoguing with Sovereign Gracer in Philly and a charismatic-leaning Reformed Baptist about worship especially about the Regulative Principle of Worship.  It is in the Reformed Charismatic blog group of MySpace.  The SG-er asked me about my beliefs on the gifts and other things.  Once he confused Ken Maresco for Ken Boer, but that was my fault for being clear enough.  (Ken Boer is the "Ken" to which I refer.)  The following are what I've written (which explains the change of my beliefs to Covenanted Reformed and explains what the Covenanters believe about gifts, worship, etc.):


    POST 1


    For the past 6+ years, I have attend Covenant Life Church where CJ served and Josh now serves as senior pastor (along with Jeff Purswell as one of the 20+ pastors). However, I am one of those who you describe "a non-cessationist that doesn't refer to themselves as charismatic". It seems that the most common use of "charismatic" is charismatic in the ordinary sense. In the ordinary sense, I would not regard myself as charismatic, but in the extraordinary sense, I would consider myself charismatic. (Ordinary and extraordinary explained in the 4 categories below.) Over the past 2 years, my beliefs have gone from "essentially Reformed with an (ordinarily) charismatic dimension" to entirely/Covenanted Reformed (which includes an extraordinarily charismatic belief/dimension). I can't comment much on practice since I attend an ordinarily charismatic church. Regarding how I view the practice as it happens during worship, I view the prophecy (whether through Pastor Bob's or his assitant Ken's song or from a person at the "prophecy mike") as encouragement. However, considering the times, I will not deny that it is possibly prophecy.

    I am both cessationist and charismatic (i.e, ordinary cessationist and extraordinary charismatic). I agree with Grudem, Purswell, Virgo, and other ordinarily charismatic Christians in so far as extraordinary charismaticism agrees (i.e, that the gifts are operative and available after the Canon's close). However, that is the limit at which I agree with them since I do not believe that the gifts were always operative and available after the Canon's close.

    There are 4 camps regarding charismatic beliefs:
    1. Corinthian heresy - no Scriptural regulation of charismatic gifts, desiring the charismatic gifts more than the greater gifts of faith, hope, and love
    2. Ordinary charismatics - the gifts have been operative and available at all time after the Canon's close, proper desire of the gifts, some Scriptural regulation of the gifts
    3. Ordinary cessationist / Extraordinary charismatic (where I, John Knox, and my fellow Covenanted Reformed Christians are) - the gifts are operative and available at certain times after the Canon's close of Scripture but not at all times, prophecy and tongues happen inside AND outside of corporate worship
    4. Categorical cessationist - the gifts have ceased at the Canon's close and will never be operative again

    A paper that nicely explains ..3 can be found at the following URL:
    http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/prophecy/prophecy.pdf


    POSTS 2 & 3:


    "Certain times and not all times" means the charismatic gifts are active and available at certain periods in history, not all periods.

    With a new believer, I would start with the Gospel and the 3 greater gifts.


    It ("considering the times") is linked as it is based on my perspective of the current age in which we live.

    I would agree with Grudem's definition (that NT prophecy is "something God brings to our mind) as it wouldn't differ with View 3.


    POST 4:


    Right now, I cannot elaborate on what periods were not as I am stil trying to figure that. I can elaborate on those periods where I certainly know the gifts were active: 300's-400's (evangelisation of Ireland and the rise of Catholicism), the Waldensian frame (1100's), the Reformation (1500's), the Second Reformation (1600's), the Great Awakening, and 1960's onward. There are probably more periods.


    POST 5a:


    To clarify my belief, I believe that Scripture does not indicate that the gifts were always available post-closed-canon. Most of the the Dark Ages would probably be one range where the gifts were not available.

    What would keep me from believing that the gifts were always available (in addition to other things regarding worship such as holidays)? The Regulative Principle of Worship (and yes, I have talked with my friend Ken, who assists Pr. Bob Kauflin, about it)

    What makes our current age meet the criteria? Keep in mind that it is my perspective, not necessarily the official Covenanter position. The acceleration of the Tribulation, Marked increase in false worship and false Ecumenism since Vatican II, the sharp increase in political postmodernism, etc.


    POST 5b & 6: (to answer RB's question on who the Covenanters are)


    I'll try to boil 500 years of Covenanted Reformed (AKA Covenanted Presbyterian) history into one paragraph. The Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church and its related movement (the Covenanted Reformation) started in the 1500's with John Knox and the National Covenant of Scotland. However, through Knox, its roots go back John Calvin and his Huguenot church/movement. The Covenanted Church was the national Church of Scotland. Shortly after the Westminster Assembly adjourned and the Westminster Standards (which includes a 2nd Covenant, the Solemn League and Covenant) were approved by both Church and State, a faction left the Covenanted Church. That faction is called the Resolutioner Church from which most of the current Presbyterian churches and the current Church of Scotland spring. George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherfurd, Thomas Watson, Dickinson, Ridgely, and others remained in the Covenanted Church, and those in that church and movement became known as "Covenanters". The State broke the Covenants and then, together with the Catholics and Anglicans and a few Puritans (including Oliver Cromwell), began a merciless, bloody campaign to oblierate the Covenanters. (That is known at the "Killing Times".) The Covenanted Church pursued ecumenical relations with the Continental Reformed Church in Holland, and Holland and her national church were ready to join the Covenanted Reformation, but political upheavals within the original Covenanted lands (England, Scotland, and Ireland) prevented that. Those of the Resolutioner Church and its descendants adopted a categorically cessationist position whereas the Covenanted Reformation has always had the extraordinary charismatic position. Those Covenanter branches today are the RPNA (Reformed Presbytery of North America), the RPCNA (Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America), RPCI (Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland), the First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, and a few others. RPNA has no ecumenical relations (the strictest Presbyterian church out there). RPCNA has ecumenical relations with RPCI and in NAPARC with the Resolutioner descendants (OPC, PCA, etc.). (My view on what to sing in worship differs with the Covenanters, who are Exclusive Psalmodists. So, my view on that is Huguenot instead of Covenanter.)

    The subordinate Standards ("Statement of Belief/Faith") of most Covenanters are the ENTIRE Westminster Standards, the National Covenant of Scotland, and several others. The RPNCA, claiming to be "Covenanter", has its own Testimony, which is their qualification of the Westminster Confession, but does not recognise the binding nature of the Covenants.


    There are websites that would give more information on the Covenanted Reformation:

    http://www.truecovenanter.com/ (True Covenanter)
    http://www.swrb.com/ (Still Water Revival Books, a Covenanter bookstore with free books, sermons, etc.)
    http://www.covenanter.org/ (The unofficial homepage of one of the Covenanted RP Churches)

    (The Resolutioner Church was also known as the Revolution Church.)

    Simply, the Covenanted Reformation and those churches are one of the 2 Presbyterian lineages; the other being the Resolutioner/Revolution lineage and movement.


    POST 7a:


    I was referring to Ken Boer who is Musical Director under Pr. Bob at CLC and is in my Care/Small Group. At the time, I believed in worship only including the Psalms and not including instrumentation (and regarding the gifts, I was extraordinary charismatic). He referred me to John Frame's book "Worship in Spirit and Truth" (which Elder Randi recommended) and gave me two articles (one by Poythress and one by another Christian whose name I don't remember). Frame's book also ruffles the feathers of even extraordinary charismatics. As I read the entire book, I thought I was reading something from the unorthodox PCUSA with the incredibly loose approach it took on the RPW. I most certainly do not recommend Frame's book as I believe it is borderline Corinthian (i.e, "anything goes"). Brian Schwertley, a fellow Covenanter, gave a very good and recommendable critique of Frame's book: "The NeoPresbyterian Challenge to Confessional Presbyterian Orthodoxy". What convinced me that we may sing other things in addition to the Psalms was not any modern theologian or pastor but rather John Calvin in his Preface to the Genevan Psalter. However, although I am no longer Exclusive Psalmodist, I still believe that instrumentation should not be in worship (Frame's case is anything but compelling regarding instrumentation). Ken mentioned that he found churches without instrumentation to lack passion. My experience and observation of those churches are the opposite.

22/12/2005

  • Political Correctness


    I was at a winery yesterday for a tasting, and I became freshly aware of the heresy of Political Correctness (PC) in the context of the current season's greetings whether "Merry Christmas", "Seasons Greetings", etc.  He mentioned that the USA is getting too PC these days.  I strongly agree. The whole game of Political Correctness is on the dual bases of (1) no offense to an individual and (2) be kind to them but only because they'll be kind in return ("I scratch your back; you'll scratch mine." kinda junk).  Whereas we should not intentionally offend a person, we should not compromise Christ and should "love our neighbor as yourself" regardless of how they treat us.  The Gospel offended many during Paul's time, but nevertheless, Christ commanded us to teach the Gospel (the summary of what Christ taught the 12 Disciples) to ALL nations, even "closed nations". 


    I personally do not believe in Christ-mass since IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY WARRANT FROM GOD'S WORD.  However, that is a gnat.  Although they err (out of mitigating ignorance) in saying "Merry Christmas", what is more important is their good intention.  Therefore, I don't take personal offense if someone wishes me "Merry Christmas" or the equivalent.

14/12/2005

  • My fortune cookie


    I ate at a Chinese restaurant for lunch today and receive the following "fortune" in my cookie: "Nature, time and patience are the three greatest physicians."   I tended to agree since I was processing thoughts on bulging/herniated discs (which occur over time), moderate injury recovery (which heals over time), and alternative medicine (which is sometimes better than what the doctor gives you).  However, in light of Scripture, those 3 are certainly means of God's Grace regarding physical and spiritual healing; however, those means come from God, THE Greatest Physician.


    (BTW, I had spicy curried beef, but it wasn't as good as curry at an Indian restaurant.  I loved the tea...reminded me of Oolong tea.)

12/12/2005

  • The Band Anapra over the weekend


    Marshall Reel has an very good post with pictures and a video clip from Anapra's show last Friday (to which I didn't go as I had Singles/One Meeting at church). 


    Friday's show went on, but during its course, a member of another band suffered a moderate head injury that caused the remainder of the show to be cancelled.  (Anapra's slot wasn't affected as they played before the incident.)  By God's Mercy, it thankfully was not a severe (life-threatening) head injury


    Saturday's show was interesting unlike some of their other shows. It was a "concept show", a term only of which I previously heard in the context of car and airplane industry shows where they revealed novel technology or models.  So, I looked foward to see what kind of "new airplanes" they would reveal.  It had a plot, and some interesting graphical art and effects (video effects, lighting effects, etc.) to go with it.  The story line was about kidnapped orphan in Mexico (Juarez, Mexico I believe Ryan said) and the teacher willing to risk his own life to rescue her.  The story exemplifies the Bible, 1.John 3:16 where the greatest love is that a person lay down his life for his friend (as Ryan affirmed after the show when Marshall asked him a question).  That is nowhere more perfectly exemplified in the Gospel, Eph. 2:1-8, where Jesus Christ lay down his life for us and died for our sins.  Overall, I would give it a 9 out of 10 (the equivalent of "two thumbs up").  Afterwards, the band and most of those in attedance went to hang at a pizza restaurant in Mt. Airy, MD.

  • Flight Sim Log (22/Nov/05 - 8/Dec/05)


    (Leg, Duration, Aircraft, Altitude, Speed, Registry)


    Note:  I used the Real World Weather function (download real weather from Jeppsen air services) for all of these flights.


    CUR-AMS, 7.9 h, Boeing 747-400, FL 330, M 0.84, PH-BFT (TCA Flt. 1172 / Codeshare KLM 785)


    AMS-SXM, 7.4 h, Boeing 747-400, FL 350, M 0.84, PH-BFT (TCA 1170 / KL 785)


    BGI-POS, 0.8 h, Airbus 320-200, FL 210, 300 kts, PJ-TXA (TCA 0081)


    MQV-CUR, 0.8h, Airbus 320-200, FL 160, 300 kts, PJ-TXA (TCA 0100)


    CUR-AUA, 0.5 h, Airbus 320-200, FL 050, 250 kts, PJ-TXA (TCA 0100)


    AUA-MQV, 0.7 h, Airbus 320-200, FL 220, 300 kts, PJ-TXA (TCA 0101)


    SXM-CUR, 1.3 h, Boeing 747-400, FL 350, M 0.84, PJ-TXA (TCA 1171 / KL 785)


    CUR-AMS, 7.8 h, Boeing 747-200, FL 330, M 0.84, PH-BFT (TCA 1172 / KL 785)


    AMS-SXM, 8.0 h, Boeing 747-200, FL 350, M 0.84, PH-BFT (TCA 1170 / KL 785)


    HSE-SJO, 3.6 h, Learjet 45, FL 390-430, M 0.81, EC-APC


    SJO-RDU, 3.4 h, Boeing 757-200, FL 330, M 0.8, N636DL


    W45-W63, 1.1 h, Cessna 182 Skylane, FL 047-070, ~140 kts, N9COF


    W63-GAI, 0.8 h, Beechcraft King Air 350, FL 100, ~270 kts, N701HB


    ANU-BWI, 3.9 h, Boeing 757-200, FL 350, M 0.8, N606AA


    IATA Airport Codes


    AMS = Schiphol Intl., Amsterdam, Netherlands


    ANU = V.C. Bird Intl., St. Johns, Antigua, Antigua & Barbuda


    AUA = Queen Beatrix Intl., Aruba


    BGI = Grantley Adams Intl., Bridgetown, Barbados


    CUR = Hato Intl., Wilemstad, Curacao


    GAI = Montogomery Co. Airpark, Gaithersburg, MD


    HSE = Billy Mitchell Airport, Hatteras, NC


    MQV = Simon Bolivar Intl., Mariquetia, Venezuela


    POS = Piarco Intl., Port of Spain, Trinidad, Trinidad & Tobago


    RDU = Raleigh-Durham Intl., Raleigh, NC


    SJO = Juan Santa Maria Intl., San Jose, Costa Rica


    SXM = Princess Juliana Intl., Mullet Bay, St. Maarten


    W45 = Luray Caverns Airport, Luray, VA


    W63 = Marks Municipal Airport, Clarksville, VA

10/12/2005

  • Spurgeon and Christmass


    Through Pastor Bob Kauflin's Worship Matters excellent blog site, I found the Founder's Blog ( excellent Reformed-leaning Southern Baptist blog of Founders Ministries) which has more information on Spurgeon and Christmass.  Spurgeon hits the nail on the head on what my main point is.  Scripture and Scripture alone governs worship, and though Christmass is not a Christian holiday and not found in Scripture, we should continue to celebrate Christ this season just as we have all year long but be careful not to give into the worldly, heretical (i.e, unScriptural) trappings out there. 


    (BTW, "Reformed Baptist" and "Reformed (ordinary) charismatic" are oxymorons.  Hence, my intention always refer to those brothers and sisters as Reformed-leaning Baptists or Reformed-leaning charismatics.)

  • Anapra show/concert last Thursday and another one tonight


    Marshall Reel has good pictures and video clip of their show at Brass Monkey Saloon in Baltimore.


    This evening they are having a concept show with drama and other things (although not associated particularly with Christmass or the Incarnation Story).  More info is at Anapra's website.  I'll be going to that and look forward to see what the band has in store.


    (Don't forget to save the wheel!)