Doug Wilson's Five Questions On Worship Answered

Doug Wilson's Five Questions On Worship Answered

By:


http://www.puritandownloads.com

Doug Wilson's Five Questions on the Regulative Principle of Worship Answered

By Reg Barrow

Excerpted from: Saul in the Cave of Adullam: A Testimony Against the Fashionable Sub-Calvinism of Doug Wilson (Editor of Credenda/Agenda Magazine); and, for Classical Protestantism and the Attainments of the Second Reformation by Reg Barrow (free on the web at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/saul.htm).

Originally written for email and the email format has been retained.

In our previous correspondence you had asked four questions regarding worship which I have yet to address. You said, "I asked about David and the showbread, and bowing in the house of Rimmon, and worshipping in a synagogue, and sacrificing only to the Lord in the high places." I will take up each question, in order, giving *short* answers to each below. I've also answered one question you have raised outside of our discussions here. This question has to do with using "Hezekiah songs" as a warrant for uninspired hymns in worship.

In answer to "David and the showbread."

I don't see how transgressing a ceremonial law (in the most extraordinary of circumstances -- "hard cases make bad laws") to fulfill a moral law (i.e. the sixth commandment -- "The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others..." _Westminster Larger Catechism_ answer 135) would somehow overthrow or annul the duty to obey another moral law (i.e. the second commandment or the regulative principle). All 10 commentaries I checked are in essential agreement, but I think that Matthew Henry best gets to the heart of the matter when he writes, "*Ritual observances* must give way to *moral obligations*; and that may be done in a case of necessity, which otherwise may not be done" (_A Commentary of the Whole Bible_ volume 5, p. 463, Henry is commenting on Mark 2:25-26, emphases added). Calvin (on Matt. 12:3) writes "that the *ceremonies* of the Law are not violated where there is no infringement of godliness (i.e. the moral law--RB)" for "if David had attempted to do what was contrary to (moral--RB) law, it would have been in vain for Christ to plead his example" (emphasis added). Matthew Poole, on 1 Sam. 20:5, states that ceremonial enactments "must give place to the great law of necessity and charity (the law of love or the moral law--RB), because God will have *mercy* preferred before *sacrifice*" (emphasis Poole's). "The ceremonies of the Law are not against the love of our neighbour" (The 1599 _Geneva Bible_, sidenote on Matt. 12:8). Or, finally, as our Lord said, in answering this question (and in rebuking the *real* Pharisees; those who added to the moral law and burdened men's consciences with man-made innovations and ceremonies), "But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless" (Matt. 12:7).

In answer to "bowing in the house of Rimmon."

Your question about Naaman's "bowing in the house of Rimmon" is answered in Anderson's _Alexander and Rufus_ on page 15. Anderson writes,

"They who have justly withdrawn from the communion of any particular church on account of its corruptions; and yet allow themselves in the practices of occasional communion with the church in her public ordinances, are far more involved in the guilt of its corruptions, than Naaman the Syrian was, in the guilt of worshipping Rimmon, when he bowed in the temple of that idol: for they cannot pretend, that communion with such a church is no end of their attendance on her public ordinances; as Naaman pleaded, that his intention, in going to the temple of Rimmon and being present there, was not to worship the idol, but to serve his master. Grotius, indeed, and some other commentators, justify or excuse the conduct of Naaman. But more candid interpreters hold that the indulgence, which Naaman desired, was unlawful; that there was such an appearance of evil, such a countenancing of idolatry in it, as he ought to have avoided, that his presence in the temple of Rimmon in the time of worship of that idol, was a dangerous example to others; that, on such an occasion, he ought either to have obtained leave of absence from his master, or to have quitted his service; and that even his desire of pardon intimated his consciousness of something sinful in this matter."

Matthew Henry takes a stronger line on Naaman's dissimulation, but ultimately tempers it with his usual pastoral insight. See Henry's commentary (volume 2, p. 716) on 2 Kings 5:18. I especially like his following comment, which faithfully answers your question, because in the final sentence he uses the words "house of Rimmon" analogously for sin.

"If, in covenanting with God, we make a reservation for any known sin, which we will continue to indulge ourselves in, that reservation is a defeasance (i.e. a making void or breaking--RB) of his covenant. We must cast away all our transgressions and *not except any house of Rimmon*" (emphasis added).

For Calvin's more lengthy response to your "Naaman question," see "A Short Treatise Setting Forth What the Faithful Man Must Do When He is Among Papists and He Knows the Truth of the Gospel" (1543). This article can be found in the book _Come Out From Among Them: The 'Anti-Nicodemite' Writings of John Calvin_ (Protestant Heritage Publications, forthcoming), pp. 70-73 (in the proof copy).

In answer to "worshipping in a synagogue."

You questioned us (Greg Price and me) regarding "worshipping in a synagogue" in an attempt to weaken the force of the regulative principle. I would suggest that you read Bushell's treatment of "Psalmody and Synagogue Worship" in his book _The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody_. This is found on pages 68-74 of the second edition. Though this was written before Steve Schlissel started pushing his novel views on worship, it does a good job of shooting holes in Steve's over-simplification of the matter. Besides noting some of the differences in synagogue services and those of the early church (destroying the one-to-one identification that Schlissel implies throughout his arguments against the regulative principle), Bushell writes (and shows) that "the temple rather than the synagogue is the ultimate source of a number of the most important aspects of Christian worship" (p. 72). He also shows that "the primary function of the synagogue was instruction, not worship. The Christian Church, however, was a replacement for both the synagogue and Temple, and as such it combined in one structure the instructional aspects of the former and the ritualistic aspect of the latter' (p. 71) -- of course, also incorporating the changes which the New Testament era brought about.

Some useful notes on the synagogue are also found on pages 93-94 in Samuel Rutherford's _The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication: or a Peaceable Dispute for the Perfection of the Holy Scripture in Point of Ceremonies and Church Government; in Which the Removal of the Service Book is Justified..._ (1646). Gillespie's _Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies_ (Naphtali edition) deals with the some aspects of synagogue worship on pages 290-292 and Gillespie even comments, "Yet the synagogue was tied to observe those (and no other than those) ceremonies which the word prescribed" (p. 292).

It is also interesting to me that if the synagogue was not regulated by some kind of divine command (in keeping with the second commandment which is of perpetual moral force), which was not recorded *for us* in Scripture (which was sometimes the case in the Old Testament economy, see Greg Price's outline below),

"1. That there was no such thing as an uninspired hymn ever sung; and
2. That there was no such thing as an instrumental accompaniment to singing ever employed in the ancient synagogue."

(Robert Nevin, _Instrumental Music in Christian Worship_, 1873, pp. 15-16).

All those years of supposed "de-regulation" in the synagogue and no innovations: astounding! Give our modern anti-regulativists and pretended-regulativists a decade and you'll have all sorts of innovations (from instruments and man-made hymns to dance, drama, responsive readings, women preachers, cool-aid communion and a host of other heresies). Were the Jews really that much more holy than men today (in restraining themselves from introducing innovations and violating the second commandment); or did they understand something that the modern anti-regulativists don't?

On the question of the origin of the synagogue and similar ploys to undermine the historic (classic) Protestant/Presbyterian defense of the second commandment (i.e. the regulative principle), Dr. R.D. Anderson, in _Prophetic Singing in the Corporate Worship of the Church_ (unpublished manuscript, p. 13), has written,

START QUOTE

Modern scholarship has come up with a variety of theories regarding the origin of the synagogue. It has been dated from the time of the exile, from the time of Ezra, or even later (long footnote not cited here). What enables scholars to come up with such divergent theories is the fact that we have very little information to go on.

What we do have, however, is a common tradition in the first century that dated synagogue worship back to the time of Moses. Josephus says that Moses ordained "that every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Law and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it" (_Ag. Ap._ 2:175). Likewise, Philo traces the practice in his own day of meeting in synagogues every sabbath, to the command of Moses to set aside the sabbath for the study of the Scriptures (_Vit. Mos._ 2.215-16; cf. _Op. Mund._ 128).

Important for us is the fact that this explanation of the origin of synagogues is also recorded in the New Testament. When James delivered his speech at the council of Jerusalem, he noted that "Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath," Acts 15:21. This explanation also fits in with what we discussed above concerning the command of Lev. 23:3 for every Israelite to assemble every Sabbath to worship God.

END QUOTE

Since Greg Price is now preparing a book-length defense of the regulative principle, in light of some of the modern attacks on it (including answers to questions surrounding the synagogue and its institution), I will not elaborate further at this time. But here is the outline for Greg's book (as it stands at present):

_Defending the Reformation Regulative Principle of Worship; or, Was Synagogue Worship Regulated By God's Revealed Word?_

1. The Second Commandment (like the First Commandment) is moral, and therefore of perpetual and universal obligation having been written upon the hearts of all men from the point of creation (i.e. God has written upon the hearts of all men not only that He alone is to be worshipped as is taught in the First Commandment, but also that He is to be worshipped only by those means which He has authorized as is taught in the Second Commandment).

2. The Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) is simply an articulation of the Second Commandment, and therefore is morally binding upon all people from the first man to the last. Since the RPW is a part of the moral law of God, it cannot be limited to the Ceremonial Law. To the contrary, tabernacle/temple worship, synagogue worship, and all public worship must be regulated by the Second Commandment/RPW.

3. The RPW defined and defended from Scripture (both the Old Testament and the New Testament).

4. The RPW expounded in history (especially its articulation from the First and Second Reformation).

5. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance having been instituted as a day of rest and and worship at the creation of the world (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11). The Sabbath was observed as a weekly day of rest and worship prior to the institution of tabernacle worship (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 16:23-30). Since God gave one day each week to be dedicated to Himself in rest and worship, and since God regulated worship from the very beginning of time (Gen. 4:1-7), it is therefore inferred that God's people must have used only worship authorized by God before the regulated worship of the tabernacle was instituted.

6. Worship was in fact regulated by God's authorization prior to the tabernacle/temple, even though one may search in vain to find the original and explicit authorization of God within the pages of Scripture.

a. Blood sacrifices were required by God, though no explicit authorization was recorded (Gen. 4:1-7). Thus, it must be inferred that God revealed His will concerning blood sacrifices to Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, but did not record His original authorization in Scripture.

b. Clean animals were offered in sacrifice by Noah rather than unclean animals (Gen. 8:20-21). Where does God specifically authorize clean animals and forbid unclean animals in sacrifice? Or where does God identify which animals are clean and which are unclean prior to the Levitical law? It must be inferred that the Lord revealed His will concerning clean and unclean animals to Noah, though He did not record the original prescription in Scripture.

c. Melchizedek was priest of the Most High God, and thus performed worship on God's behalf (Gen. 14:18-20). Where is the office of priest instituted prior to Melchizedek? What were his duties as a priest? Abraham paid tithes unto Melchizedek as the priest of God (Heb. 7:1-10). Where is there any warrant for tithing stated in Scripture prior to Abraham? Therefore, it must be inferred that God gave explicit instruction concerning these matters related to worship, although these instructions are not specifically stated in the biblical record.

d. In like manner, God's people faithfully gathered each Sabbath to worship the Lord in synagogues subsequent to the institution of tabernacle/temple worship. Where is synagogue worship specifically authorized in Scripture? It must likewise be inferred that it was explicitly regulated by God (since He authorized their meeting in such assemblies each Sabbath), although that regulation (like the examples above) is not explicitly recorded in Scripture.

7. Even if (for the sake of argument) tabernacle/temple worship alone was explicitly regulated in the Old Testament, that does not alter the fact that New Covenant worship is regulated (according to the Second Commandment and the RPW) by the explicit precepts, the approved examples, and the good and neccesary deductions derived from Scripture, the light of nature, and the general rules of God's Word even as all public worship was regulated in the Old Testament (Mk. 7:6-13; Jn. 4:24; 1 Cor. 11:16; 1 Cor. 14:26-40; Eph. 5:19; Col. 2:23; 1 Tim. 4:2; Heb. 10:1 etc).

8. The example of the Lord in worshipping in synagogues during His ministry provides no proof that the Lord approved of unregulated worship outside of temple worship. It must first be demonstrated that the synagogue worship which He attended was not regulated by God's revelation (by revelation not recorded in Scripture). The Lord did indeed forbid His disciples from sitting under the ministry of heretical scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 15:13,14; 16:6,12; 23:2-36), but He did not forbid His disciples from attending faithful synagogue worship.

9. It has been claimed by the opponents of the RPW: "Jesus is our RPW." We agree. However, it is only by His revelation that we know Christ as our RPW.

10. What is the biblical alternative to the RPW? All views of worship principally lead either to Rome or to Westminster. Thus, that which prevents churches from becoming epistemologically consistent with their Romish views of worship is ultimately preference, expediency, and mere pragmatism, not biblical principle.

Lord willing this book will be ready sometime in the near future and if I remember I will send you a complimentary review copy.

In answer to "sacrificing only to the Lord in the high places."

I see nothing in what took place at the high places, rightly considered, which militates against the regulative principle correctly understood. The high places were

"places of worship, specifically of idolatrous worship. So the title was transferred from the elevation to the sanctuary on the elevation (1 Kings 11:7; 14:23) cf. the burning of the 'high place' in 2 Kings 23:15), and so came to be used of any idolatrous shrine, whether constructed on an elevation or not (note 2 Kings 16:4; 2 Chron. 28:4 the 'high places are distinguished from the 'hills'). So the high places in the cities (2 Kings 17:9; 2 Chron. 21:11 [LXX] could have stood anywhere, while in Ezk. 16:16 a portable structure seems to be in point" (_International Standard Bible Dictionary_ hereafter _ISBD_, (Hendrickson, 1939, 1956, reprinted 1994, vol. 3, p. 1390).

Furthermore, the _ISBD_ notes,

"The opposition to the high places had many motives. When used for the worship of other gods their objectionable character is obvious, but even the worship of Jeh in the high places was intermixed with heathen practices (Hos. 4:14, etc.). In Amos. 5:21-24, etc., sacrifice in the high places is denounced because it is regarded as a substitute for righteousness in exactly the same way that sacrifice in the Temple is denounced in Jer. 7:21-24. Or, *sacrifice in the high places may be denounced under the best of conditions, because in violation of the law of one sanctuary* (2 Chr. 33:17, etc.)" (pp. 1391, emphasis added).

One aspect of this question, with which we must be careful if we are to determine a faithful answer to the biblical view of the "high places" (and which may be confusing to those who have not yet be given better insight into the regulative principle worship -- at least to the level which most of the Reformers seemed to enjoy), has to do with the historical chronology of worship in "high places". For example, "in 1 Kings the practice of using the high places is treated as legitimate before the construction of the Temple (1 Kings 3:2-4), *but after that it is condemned unequivocally*" (_ISBD_, p. 1391, emphasis added).

In short, worship (contrary to the second commandment or what we call the regulative principle) in the high places brought national judgement upon the covenanted people of God in the OT (for much Scriptural corroboration see the second column, page 1393, of volume 3 in the _ISBD_ article on the "high places"). Our modern "Reformed" and "evangelical" communities are much like Israel (to give the moderns the benefit of the doubt) when she worshiped Jehovah in the high places. "Reformed" and "evangelical" defection from biblical and Reformation attainments (concerning worship) is of such long standing and has become so much a matter of habit (or the traditions of the elders, Mark 7:9) that she denounces those faithful servants of Christ sent to rebuke

About the Author:
Still Waters Revival Books (SWRB) has been publishing and distributing (free and at discounts) classic and contemporary Christian (Puritan, Reformation, Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist, Covenanter, Calvinistic, etc.) books, audio (lately MP3s), and videos, worldwide, for over 25 years.



Article Originally Published On: http://www.articlesnatch.com


Tags: , , , , ,

|

Loading...
Related....
Videos...

Recent Spirituality Articles

Comments

Still can't find what you are looking for? Search for it!

Loading

Site Navigation:

Copyright 2005-2011 ArticleSnatch, LLC - All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service.