|
Appendix B |
|
| John Frame’s Worship in Spirit and Truth is a Sunday School manual purporting to summarize biblical principles and practices of worship. Yet it really constitutes an abandonment of both scriptural and confessional views on worship. |
| Reviewing a book like this is a frustrating exercise in several respects. |
| First, there is the matter of definitions. Frame claims to embrace the regulative principle, the Westminster Confession, and other historic formulations of reformed worship. Yet, upon close examination, the reader will find that Frame has actually departed from the historic parameters of Reformed worship |
| Second, Frame’s methods of establishing his own practices of worship are cursory at best. Numerous proof texts are parenthetically scattered throughout the pages of his book; yet, he does not provide a careful exegesis of these scripture references to demonstrate how they support his more controversial conclusions. Perhaps we cannot expect a detailed exposition of the Bible in a slim Sunday school manual. Nevertheless, readers should ponder the scriptures carefully, instead of assuming that the parenthetical texts actually provide support for the propositions adjacent to them. |
| Third, Frame raises so many issues with respect to both the doctrine and practices of worship, that it would take a book-length response to sort through all his aberrations and reply to them thoroughly. |
| Since we are called to be judicious stewards of our resources, we shall not waste precious time chasing Frame down every rabbit trail. Yet, because of the misconceptions created by Frame’s remarks on the regulative principle and the Westminster Confession, we will review the historical development of the regulative principle of worship. We will then address some of the troubling implications of Mr. Frame’s position, especially as it undermines the teaching of the Westminster Confession. |
| Readers interested in the biblical foundation for the regulative principle should study the Reformation documents and writings referenced in the following discussion; examine the accompanying proof-texts in the original sources (especially in a complete edition of the Westminster Standards), to see the scriptural basis for the reformed view of worship. Also, since the present reviewer has already written a brief summary of his own understanding of the scriptural teaching on worship,113 we will not rehearse that same discussion here. |
|
|
| The regulative principle did not burst forth ex nihilo during the Puritan era; its ultimate foundation comes from scripture. The Protestant Reformers defended both the authority and sufficiency of scripture, and they sought to apply the sola scripturarule to the subject of worship. |
| The Preface to the French Confession of 1559 illustrates the connection between the regulative authority of scripture and the proper worship of God: |
|
| Article 5 of this confession stresses the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Article 24 rejects a variety of Popish practices, especially purgatory |
|
| Similar testimony will be found in a confession drafted by John Calvin for the Reformed churches of France (1562). TheConfession states: |
|
| The Confession continues with a specific application of the regulative authority of Scripture with respect to practices of worship: |
|
| The Geneva Bible (1560) contains marginal notes reflecting a Reformed understanding of worship. For example, a note on Matthew 15:9 says, “God will not be honoured according to man’s fantasy, but detesteth all good intentions which are not grounded on his word.” |
| Therefore, we see that at the heart of Reformed worship is the concept that God may not be worshiped by means of human devising, even upon the pretense of good intent; rather, genuine worship must be offered by the means which God has enjoined in his word. |
| To illustrate how the regulative principle provides the basis for practices of corporate worship, we turn to the Genevan Order—a directory for worship which was adopted by the congregation of English exiles living in Geneva at the time of Calvin.118 |
| In the Preface to the Order, a connection is drawn between the sufficiency of Scripture, and the worship of the church: |
|
| Therefore, the worship practices of the church, here styled “ceremonies,” are restricted to those modes enjoined by Scripture: |
|
| Having stated these general principles, the Genevan Order goes on the summarize the basic practices of worship which will be found in Christian worship: |
|
| Following this statement, there is a brief defense of congregational psalm-singing, which was a practice recently restored among Protestant congregations. |
| The contents of Genevan Order reflect the principles outlined in the Preface. The order allows only such elements of worship as may be established by God’s word. The weekly service on the Lord’s day is composed of the following items: (1) a congregational prayer for confession of sin; (2) congregational singing of a psalm, followed by (3) a prayer before the sermon; (4) the sermon (coupled with the reading of scripture); after the sermon, (5) a prayer for the whole estate of Christ’s Church; (6) congregational singing of another psalm; (7) the minister pronouncing a blessing (taken from scripture) upon the congregation. Forms are also provided for the more occasional aspects of public service, such as baptisms and the administration of the Lord’s Supper. |
| Although the Order contains a number of prayers and admonitions for worship, it includes an explanatory note making it clear that ministers are not bound in a slavish adherence to the book: |
|
| Elsewhere in Reformed creeds, readers will find ample testimony to the regulative principle. The Heidelberg Catechism(1563) states it in a nutshell: |
|
| So far, we have restricted our citations to public formularies and documents drawn from the era of the Reformation. These quotations are representative of many other public testimonies, as well as the opinions of individual Reformers. |
| Calvin considered the subject of worship to be foundational to the Christian faith. In his tract On the Necessity of Reforming the Church, the Genevan reformer states that the entire substance of Christianity may be comprised under two principal heads: “first, of the mode in which God is truly worshipped, and secondly, of the source from which salvation is obtained.”123 Elsewhere, he writes, “to debate about the mode in which men obtain salvation, and say nothing of the mode in which God may be duly worshipped, is too absurd.”124 |
| Calvin says that “the rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunctions of him who alone is entitled to prescribe.” The reformer continues: |
|
| Among the reformers, none was so forceful as John Knox. Speaking plainly on the subject, Knox said: “All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without his own express commandment, is idolatry.”126 Knox’s views led him to oppose both the worship of Rome, and many elements of the Anglican liturgy. |
| In another succinct statement, the Scottish reformer said: “I feared not to affirm, that of necessity it is, that such as hope for life everlasting avoid all superstition, vain religion, and idolatry. Vain religion and idolatry I call whatsoever is done in God’s service or honour, without the express commandment of his own word.”127 |
| It should now be clear that the regulative principle, although not called by that term, was a concept already widely understood among Protestants; it was not a latter-day invention of the Puritans.128 |
| Note specifically that the Reformation documents clearly show that the regulative principles grows out of the sola scriptura rule of Protestant theology. The central idea is that the church must restrict its worship to the means enjoined by Scripture, and may not worship God “in any other way than he has commanded in his word” (to borrow the words of theHeidelberg Catechism). It is further noted that good intention is not a sufficient basis for adopting methods of worship which are human innovations. |
|
|
| Having traced the regulative principle within earlier Protestant formularies, we now come to a brief consideration of the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Standards were produced amidst a convulsive period in English history. By the mid-1600s, matters of worship had been brought to the forefront of theological controversy in England. Thus, the doctrine of the Westminster Standards is quite exact and discriminating when touching the subject of worship. |
| Following Reformation theology, the Westminster divines begin with an assertion about the authority and sufficiency of scripture. The Confession illustrates the connection between the sola scriptura principle and the proper worship of God. |
| The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added (1:6). |
| More specifically touching the subject of worship, the Confession states: |
|
| Note that the crucial word in that last sentence is the term prescribed. The text does not say that men are free to utilize any mode of worship unless it is prohibited in Scripture; but it expressly says that worship is limited to ways prescribed in Scripture. This marks an essential difference between the Reformed regulative principle, and the looser notions of Anglicans and Lutherans.129 |
| The Confession then describes various “parts” of worship which are enjoined by Scripture: |
|
| When speaking more particularly of the sacraments (in relation to the covenant of grace), the Confession notes certain distinctions between the Old Testament ordinances and worship in New Testament. |
| Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory; yet, in them, it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles (7:6). |
| Thus, even a cursory glance at the Westminster Standards reveals the scope of the regulative principle of worship. The proper exercises of worship are restricted to those “parts” of worship specifically enjoined in Scripture. Later writers sometimes refer to the parts of worship as “elements,” just as earlier writers sometimes spoke of “ways” or “modes” of worship. Regardless of the specific terminology used, the concept is clear enough: the only proper means of worship are those which God has established in the scriptures for our present use. |
| Men are not free to invent new methods of worship for themselves, nor to impose such innovations on others. “God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship” (WCF 20:2).131 |
| For the sake of clarification, the Westminster divines added the following statement, which is often abused: |
|
| This statement actually constitutes another restriction: that is, it serves as a reminder that even in circumstantial matters not expressly covered in Scripture, the church is still to be governed by the “general rules of the Word.” Nevertheless, some modern authors try to use this statement as an escape clause, by claiming that numerous aspects of worship are merely circumstantial matters left to the broad discretion of the church. |
| Other writers have covered this subject thoroughly,132 so we will not provide a lengthy discussion of the topic here. But we pause to note that “circumstances” described in this statement are matters “common to human actions and societies”: meaning that they pertain to the corporate organization of any society, whether secular or sacred. |
| For example, to convene its assemblies, every society must have a method of establishing a time and place for meeting. Thus, the church, in order to fulfill its duty for corporate worship (Heb. 10:25), must establish an hour and location for its services. Scripture does not mandate a specific time or place; this is clearly a “circumstance,” to be governed by the general rules of Scripture. Therefore, the elders, as the biblical officers of the church, will establish a time and place conducive to the edification of the congregation. |
|
|
| The collective testimony of the Reformed creeds and writers proclaims the following principle: Each part of worship must be enjoined by scripture, if it is to be admitted as valid form of service to God. (Regardless of the terms used to designate theparts of worship—terms such as modes, elements, means, forms, ways—the Reformed creeds and authors were speaking of the same basic concept.) |
| We are now prepared to examine Mr. Frame’s paradigm for worship and the regulative principle. We shall see that he departs from Reformed doctrine of worship; and he specifically repudiates the teaching of the Westminster Confession. |
|
|
| John Frame claims to believe in the regulative principle and the Westminster Confession. In chapter 4 of his book, he opens a discussion of the regulative principle, rightly noting the deficiencies of Rome, Canterbury, and Lutheranism. He quotes WCF 21:1, noting that the operative word is “prescribed” (p. 39). So far, so good. |
| He then moves to a section of applications, asking, “Is there, then, no role for human thought, planning, or decisions, in the worship of God?” (p. 40). He provides a negative assessment of some (unnamed) Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians who supposedly drew a sharp distinction between secular and sacred matters. Yet, the Puritans or Scots did not claim that decisions on circumstances were purely secular; rather, circumstances may be considered indifferent matters considered abstractly, but they obtain a sacred significance when implemented in some way for the service of God. |
| Because circumstances are restricted to actions “common to human actions and societies,” Frame concludes that matters such as specific words in prayer are not covered by the confessional doctrine of circumstances; and thus, the church is endowed with wide latitude in applications pertaining to prayer. Here he is setting up the reader for later deviations from the confessional paradigm. |
| Frame claims that his formulation “does not contradict the confession, but goes beyond it” (p. 43). But is this so? |
| Moreover, Frame caricatures the Puritan position, by accusing it of drawing a sharp distinction between formal services and other meetings at which worship takes place (such as family worship). Certainly some modern churches have drawn that distinction, but we challenge Frame to find this as a general teaching of either Puritans or Scottish Presbyterians. To Puritans and Scots alike, the elements of worship used in corporate worship were the same elements employed in the home, except for the public ordinances (the sacraments). (See the Westminster Directory for Family Worship.)133 |
| Frame now carries his “application” further, treating the content of singing in church on the level with minor discretionary matters. “Different churches legitimately apply God’s commands in different ways. God commands us to sing; some churches may apply that command by singing three hymns during their services, others four. Some may sing primarily traditional hymns, others contemporary songs” (p. 45). Notice how Frame encompasses in his view of application, not only thenumber of songs used, but the content of the singing as well. With the wave of his hand he has just dismissed one of the most serious controversies in Presbyterian history, by putting the content of song in worship on a level with the decision to sing a particular number of songs. Incredible! |
| In chapter 5, Frame sets the focus on public worship. He opens by disclaiming a paradigm composed of “elements” of worship: |
|
|
| Now this a very crafty description. Frame speaks of the “Puritan” view, and then goes on to describe a paradigm which parallels the Westminster Confession. Strictly speaking, this is not wholly inaccurate, since the Westminster Confession was written by Puritans. Yet, it might have been more shocking to his Presbyterian readers if Mr. Frame simply had come out and said directly, “I oppose the teaching of the Westminster Confession in its description of the parts of worship.” |
| It is important to realize that, in rejecting the idea of elements (or parts) of worship, Frame has undermined sections 3-6 of chapter 21 of the Westminster Confession. The Confession specifically uses the term “part” or “parts” three times within these sections, in its description of worship. Therefore, to reject the concept of parts to worship, is to reject the teaching of the Confession. |
| Moreover, as we have seen, the concept of parts of worship is much older than the Puritans. It is interwoven within numerous Reformed creeds and advocated by writers from the outset of the Reformation. Thus, Mr. Frame has not only dismissed the Puritans, and the Confession; in his self-proclaimed wisdom, he has also cast off the teachings of the Reformers. |
| Further still, Frame resorts to exaggeration when he characterizes the Puritans as holding to rigidly “independent” elements, since Reformed writers do not deny the interrelationship and overlapping nature of various parts of worship. The key to the Reformed view is its demand for all means of worship to have clear scriptural warrant, not whether each part is rigidly independent of others. |
| Frame speaks against the “technical sense of Puritan theology,” and “the elaborate Puritan methodology” (p. 54) which he decries as insufficient. He has now moved from damning the Puritans with faint praise, to unveiled opposition. And let it be remembered that, by opposing the Puritans, he is in some respects heaping more scorn upon the confessional standards, since they were written by the Puritans. |
| If Mr. Frame clearly demonstrated where the Puritans were wrong, with firm exegesis from Scripture, we would take his arguments more seriously. But the professor is given to general assertions which he does not prove, either from scripture or history. Are we supposed to accept matters as Mr. Frame characterizes (and caricatures them), simply because he says so? |
| Mr. Frame cannot wholly escape a dilemma created by his own denial of the confessional description of elements of worship. He still has to find some nomenclature in the English language to describe the various “parts” of worship. Thus, Frame speaks of “aspects” of worship. He then formulates his own list of the parts—okay—“aspects”—of worship. These fit under a heading entitled, “My List,” which in itself reveals the direction of his reasoning. Since Frame has rejected the Reformed/confessional/Puritan idea of biblically-mandated parts of worship, he does not provide us with a divine pattern for worship. Instead, we discover Frame’s tidy list of “things to do in worship” (p. 55). (Perhaps with the acumen of the medieval schoolmen, Mr. Frame can explain to us the subtle differences between “things,” “aspects,” and “parts” in worship.) |
| Frame uses the assumptions he has introduced (against the parts of worship) to raise controverted issues in which he has an interest. Obviously if he can dispense with the confessional paradigm on worship, it leaves him with greater latitude to inject numerous “aspects” which do not fit within the confessional paradigm of worship. |
| Throughout the course of the book, Frame makes allowance for uninspired hymnody, instrumental music, ecclesiastical festival days, choral anthems, drama, and sacred dance in worship. He defends the idea of children’s church and, in a footnote, he leaves the door open for paedo-communion. Is it any wonder Frame is uncomfortable with the confessional paradigm for worship, since it would exclude such extravagant claims? |
| In arguing his case, Frame adopts a dubious method of hermeneutics. For example, consider his section on drama in worship (pp. 92-94). Frame does not produce a scriptural command to employ drama in worship. Instead, the symbolic actions of prophets, the typological character of OT feasts, and Christ’s use of parables within scriptural narratives, are produced as sufficient grounds to justify drama in worship. Frame has now stretched his construction of the regulative principle beyond any form which would be recognized in historic reformed paradigms of worship. Make no mistake about it: we can adhere to reformed and confessional views, or we can adopt Frame’s position; but there is no way to have them both. The disparity is too great. |
| Now this fact raises a troubling issue about the author’s integrity. In the Preface to the book, Frame claims, “In my view, the Westminster Confession is entirely right in its regulative principle—that true worship is limited to what God commands” (p. xiii). (Including drama, right?) Turning the page, we are assured, “My own theological commitment is Presbyterian; I subscribe enthusiastically to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and I trust that that commitment will be quite evident in this book” (pp. xiv-xv). Unfortunately, Frame’s commitment to confessional Presbyterianism is precisely what is not apparent in the book. |
| Indeed, what Frame professes to give with one hand, he takes away with the other. In the Preface, he shows his true colors: |
| Presbyterian worship—based on the biblical “regulative principle,” which I describe in these pages—was in its early days very restrictive, austere, and “minimalist.”134 It excluded organs, choirs, hymn texts other than the Psalms, symbolism in the worship area, and religious holidays except for the Sabbath.135 Presbyterians in the “Covenanter” tradition, such as those in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America and a few other denominations, still worship this way, but they are in that respect a small minority of conservative Presbyterians today. |
| Nevertheless, the Puritan theology of worship that produced this minimalism is still taught in theologically conservative Presbyterian churches and seminaries as the authentic Presbyterian and Reformed view of worship. This is partly because that theology is reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, to which these churches subscribe. But the Westminster standards actually contain very little of the Puritan theology of worship. The Puritan and Scottish divines who wrote the Westminster standards were wise enough not to include in them all of their ideas on worship. |
| The result has been that although few conservative Presbyterian churches actually worship in the Puritan way, the Puritan theology of worship remains the standard of orthodoxy among them. This discrepancy sometimes leads to guilty consciences. I have talked to pastors, for instance, who are unwilling to go back to exclusive use of the Psalms in congregational singing, yet feel awkward about singing hymns. They almost seem to think that they ought to worship as the Puritans did, even though they have no intention of doing so. They worry that this wavering amounts to an inconsistency in their commitment to the Reformed faith and to Presbyterian orthodoxy. |
| These remarks contain a startling admission. Frame rightly notes a discrepancy between what Presbyterians profess in their doctrine and what they practice in worship. Rather than demand conformity in practice to confessional doctrine, Frame is encouraging Presbyterians to abandon the doctrine. |
| In doing so, Frame speaks out of both sides of his mouth. As noted, he wants to assure readers of his commitment to the Westminster Standards. Yet, in the same breath, he acknowledges that he is constructing a new paradigm for worship: |
| The result of our rethinking, I hope, will be a somewhat revised paradigm for Presbyterian worship: one thoroughly Reformed in its assumptions, affirming the regulative principle and the statements of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, but allowing greater flexibility than the Puritans did in applying God’s commands for worship. |
| Here again, Frame has tried to cast the Puritans in a negative role, and get readers to accept his distorted portrayal of the Westminster Standards. It’s a bold play on Frame’s part—similar to a straight-faced press conference given by a political spin doctor. |
| Can he really expect readers to believe that, “the Westminster standards actually contain very little of the Puritan theology of worship”? Has he seriously studied the Confession (chapters 1, 20-22, 27-29), the Larger Catechism (#104-121), and the Shorter Catechism (#45-62)? Further, we have not even considered the Westminster Directory for Public Worship, as well as the Directory for Family Worship. Now, we know that Frame does not adhere to these documents, because they do not have constitutional status in his denomination (cf. Frame, p. 17, note 2). Nevertheless, it is certain that the Westminster Assembly would not divorce these documents from the rest of the Standards; and thus the divines would not accept Frame’s characterization that “the Westminster Standards actually contain very little of the Puritan theology of worship.” And how would they react to Frame’s patronizing nonsense that they “were wise enough not to include in them all of their ideas on worship”? Certainly the Westminster Standards contain enough Puritan theology to refute Mr. Frame’s ideas about worship.136 |
| We applaud Mr. Frame’s pastoral desire to help his fellow Presbyterians who are suffering from “guilty consciences.” Might we suggest that the true remedy for their “wavering” and “inconsistency” is repentance, and a return to the biblical teaching and practices of the Reformed faith and Presbyterian orthodoxy? |
| The larger tragedy is that Mr. Frame’s book is in itself a testimony to the low spiritual condition of “conservative” Presbyterian churches in America. Frame has openly admitted the discrepancy between confessional doctrine and ordinary practice within Presbyterian denominations. Consider further, that Mr. Frame teaches at a Presbyterian seminary; he is also a Presbyterian pastor (PCA); his book is published by a Presbyterian publisher; the blurb printed on the back cover of his book includes endorsements by four other seminary instructors who teach at institutions which profess to be Presbyterian and Reformed. |
| These facts raise distressing implications regarding the disingenuous nature of confessional subscription within both the churches and the seminaries. There are also troubling ramifications concerning the doctrine of Scripture, since the regulative principle rests upon the foundation of the sufficiency of Scripture, with respect to worship. Frame’s book furnishes patent evidence that ecclesiastical discipline is lacking in the churches, and that seminary professors can teach heterodox views with impunity. If Presbyterians took their creed seriously, Mr. Frame would be removed from both the seminary and the pastorate, and not allowed to teach. But in the current situation, the majority of pastors, seminarians, and the people are partners in the crimes of corrupt worship and confessional laxity. “A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so” (Jer. 5:30-31). |
|
||
1 “Worship is the natural outgrowth of salvation, the inevitable and necessary response of the sinner to the grace of God. But if we have nothing to add to the salvation sovereignly bestowed upon us by God, is it likely that we should have anything to add to the worship prescribed for us in Scripture? An admixture of human effort to salvation is salvation by works (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 11:6). An admixture of human prescription of the worship of God is ‘will-worship’ (Col. 2:20-23). Both are condemned by God in the strongest of terms, and yet the history of mankind could not be better characterized than as one of inordinate zeal for these very things” (Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion: The Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody [Pittsburgh: Crown and Covenant Publications, 1977], p. 120). |
||
2 The first section of this book is expanded from the author’s The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas (Southfield, MI: Reformed Witness, 1995). |
||
3 Thomas Ridgely, Commentary on the Larger Catechism (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1993 [1855]), Vol. 2, p. 329. “By worship, is understood some tribute paid by the reasonable creature to God as the Great and Sovereign Lord Creator, whether it is immediately and directly paid and performed to Him, as prayer and praise, or for Him and at His command and for His honor, as preaching, hearing, and receiving of sacraments, which are worship when rightly gone about. In a word, we call that worship, more strictly and properly, which is a duty of the first table, and comes in as commanded in it for the honor of God, and not for our own or another’s external profit, which though commanded in the second table, cannot be so properly called worship, much less immediate worship. Thus, teaching others the duties of piety may be worship when teaching the duties of any other ordinary calling is not” (James Durham, The Fourth Commandment (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1989 [1653]), p. 10). |
||
4 M. C. Ramsay, Purity of Worship (Church Principles Committee, Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, 1968), p. 7. Also: “Many believe that they naturally have the will and the power to worship God acceptably. This is a delusion. God alone implants the spirit of worship. Therefore worship owes its origin to the sovereign activity of the Holy Spirit in the soul of men. Indeed every movement of the human soul Godward, whether in penitence, petition or praise is divinely produced. The [total] disinclination of man, if left to himself, to seek God, is due to the ravages of sin in human hearts, and is one of the penal consequences of the transgression of Adam, as set forth in the Book of Genesis and confirmed throughout the Old and New Testaments.” |
||
5 This declension and perversion of worship is not new for evangelicals. In 1881 United Presbyterian Pastor P. W. Collins wrote: “Secular music is being cultivated in this age with immense enthusiasm. Whatever be the motive, the Church has caught the spirit, and is, at least in some measure, seeking to keep pace with the world. The theory is, that if we can introduce into the ritual of the church that which in itself is innocent, as an attraction, it will be a means of saving our children to the Church, and bringing sinners within the sound of the Gospel; and when we set out upon this theory, there is no limit to those resources upon which we may lay our hands—innocent in themselves, and capable of being made immensely attractive in the Church. This theory is one great element of the system by which the Romish Church holds her sway over the masses of her followers. But it is the very opposite of the principle which Christ has engraved upon the humble worship of His Church” (Musical Instruments in Divine Worship Condemned by The Word of God, [Pittsburgh: The Press of Stevenson and Foster, 1881], p. 88). In the history of the Christian Church there is almost always a direct correlation between the purity of worship and the purity of the gospel. Since the scriptural attainments of the Reformation there has been a steady decline in the doctrines of sovereign grace and exclusive Psalmody. Pragmatism drives out spiritual gospel worship in every age. |
||
6 All Scripture New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), unless otherwise noted. |
||
7 Writing about ‘Christian’ television, secular author Neil Postman concurs: “On television, religion, like everything else, is presented, quite simply and without apology, as an entertainment. Everything that makes religion an historic, profound and sacred human activity is stripped away; there is no ritual, no dogma, no tradition, no theology, and above all, no sense of spiritual transcendence. On these shows, the preacher is tops. God comes out as second banana” (Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, [New York: Penguin Books, 1985], pp. 116-117). This is the generation of the church growth movement, parachurch fads, unbiblical ecumenism (which says doctrine must be ignored), and pop-psychology. To see how things have degenerated, look at how things have changed in the last few centuries. The Puritans preached the law of God and justification by faith in order to add to the Church. D. L. Moody tried to love people in and the modern church attempts to entertain them in. |
8 Discussing the degeneration that has occurred in most Presbyterian and Reformed churches, Michael Bushell writes: “Each generation, it seems, inherits the liturgical mutations of those who went before and without much reflection adds a few of its own. Considered individually, each generation’s changes may not seem all that significant, but the cumulative effect is one of substantial, if not drastic, change. The end product of such a process is a church whose worship practice has drifted far from its Biblical moorings but whose people are largely unaware of the changes that have taken place. The ignorance and apathy that feed this process are two of the Church’s greatest weaknesses just as they are without doubt two of Satan’s most potent weapons, and they must be confronted head-on if present trends are to be affected materially…. A church that is unconsciously in sin is still in sin. One can only hope that apathy towards the truth is not as widespread as the ignorance of it” (The Songs of Zion, pp. 4-5). |
9 “The regulative principle when applied provides objectivity in worship. By objectivity in this connection is meant simply conformity to the law of God as opposed to subjectivity or rather subjectivism in worship. There is no doubt a good sense of subjectivity in worship, the sincere, reverent attitude of the true worshiper. This desirable subjectivity, however, will tend invariably to that worship which is agreeable to the Will and Word of God. Opposed to this is subjectivism in worship, worship arising not from the revealed Will of the Lord, but from the desires, inclination, imagination and decision of men. Subjectivism is precisely what the Reformers and Puritans termed will-worship” (Dr. William Young, The Puritan Principle of Worship [Vienna, VA: The Publications Committee of the Presbyterian Reformed Church], pp. 16-17). |
10 Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, p. 110. |
11 “There is a course of careful distinction to be made between the Word of God and inferences drawn from the Word of God. We may challenge the validity of inferences drawn from Scripture and attempt to determine whether they are indeed scriptural, but we may never in the same way challenge the validity of the explicit statements of Scripture. The words and statements of Scripture are absolutely authoritative. Their authority is underived and indisputable. The authority of valid inferences from Scripture on the other hand, is derivative in nature, but one cannot argue that such inferences are therefore less authoritative than the express declarations of Scripture. They simply make explicit what is already expressed implicitly in Scripture” (Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, p. 124). Some of the most important and foundational doctrines of Christianity are drawn from inferences of Scripture, such as the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. That the use of “good and necessary consequence” or logical inference from Scripture to formulate doctrine is biblical can be seen in the following passages: Luke 20:37ff, Matt. 22:31ff, Mark 12:26, Matt. 19:4-6, 1 Cor. 11:8-10. |
12 An instance of historical example is Lord’s day public worship. There is no explicit command or divine imperative changing public worship from the seventh day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday) of the week, recorded in Scripture. Yet in the New Testament, the change from the seventh day to the first day is recorded as an accomplished fact (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10). Not every divine command or prophetic word has been inscripturated (i.e. included in the Bible). The universal practice of the apostolic church, such as Lord’s day public worship, is binding because of the unique authority given to the apostles, i.e., direct revelation. When the apostles died, direct revelation ceased and the canon was closed; now our doctrine, worship, and all historical examples are limited to the Bible, the Word of God. Those who appeal to church traditions, invented after the closing of the canon, for authority in establishing worship ordinances are, in principle, no better than Jeroboam, the son of Nebat (1 Kings 12:26-33). |
13 William Young, “The Second Commandment” in Worship in the Presence of God, Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman, eds. (Greenville, SC: Greenville Seminary Press, 1992), p. 75. |
14 James H. Thornwell, Collected Writings (Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1872), 2:163. The Westminster Confession of Faithsays that “the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men…or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture” (Chap. XXI, sec. 1). |
15 Thomas E. Peck, Miscellanies (Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1895), 1:82. |
16 “The Christian is free from the commandments of men in matters of worship because God is the only lawgiver and His will is the perfect rule of all righteousness and holiness. Consequently, human constitutions [or ordinances] are contrary to the word of the Lord, if they are devised as part of the worship of God and their observance is bound upon the conscience as of necessary obligation. Calvin points out that in Colossians, Paul ‘maintains that the doctrine of true worship is not to be sought from men, because the Lord has faithfully and fully taught as in what way He is to be worshiped (Inst. IV, X, 8)’” (Dr. William Young, The Puritan Principle of Worship, p. 7). |
17 The Westminster Larger Catechism, from the answer to question 109. Puritan Pastor Thomas Boston writes: “The matter of this command is the worship of God and his ordinances; and it says to every man, Thou shalt not make any thing whereby thou wilt worship God. And as the seventh command meets him that defiles his neighbour’s wife, saying, Thou shalt not commit adultery; so this meets the church of Rome, and says, Thou shalt not make any graven image &c. But as the seventh says also to the fornicator, Thou shalt not commit uncleanness; so this says also to the church of England [i.e., the Anglican or Episcopal Church], thou shalt not make crossing in baptism, kneeling, bowing to the altar, festival days, &c.—And to every sort of people, and to every particular person, it says, thou shalt not meddle to make anything of divine worship and ordinances out of thy own head. All holy ordinances and parts of worship God has reserved to himself the making of them for us, saying, with respect to these, Thou shalt not make them to thyself. Men are said, in Scripture, to make a thing to themselves, when they make it out of their own head, without the word of God for it. But when they make anything according to God’s Word, God is said to do it, Matt. xix.6. If there be not then a divine law for what is brought into the worship and ordinance of God, it is an idol of men’s making, a device of their own. And so Popery, Prelacy, ceremonies and whatsoever is without the word, brought in God’s matters, is overturned at once by his word. Thou shalt not make, be thou Pope, King, Parliament, minister, private person, synod, or council” (Commentary on the Shorter Catechism, (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1993 [1853]), Vol. 2, pp. 138-139). |
18 Thomas Ridgely, Commentary on the Larger Catechism (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1993, [1855]), Vol. 2, p. 331. “Will-worship” is an excellent phrase to remember, for that is what it is—worship of one’s own will. Man tries to become God and decides what is worship. It is a form of idolatry, whether in the restricted area of worship, or the broader area, as is prevalent today under the name of humanism, i.e., man as the measure of all things. In such cases, man worships the creature rather than the Creator; and God condemns it. God commands how He will be worshiped. We are not to add to or take away“ (Carl W. Bogue, The Scriptural Law of Worship [Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications], 1988, p. 10). |
19 Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, p. 145. |
20 Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel-Worship (London: Peter Cole, 1650), pp. 2-3. |
21 G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 155. |
22 Carl W. Bogue, The Scriptural Law of Worship, pp. 16-17. |
23 The regulative principle of worship is seen in practice in the construction of the tabernacle and the temple. Moses was told by God: “And see to it that you make them according to the pattern which was shown on the mountain” (Ex. 25:40). God prescribed the building of the tabernacle and temple down to smallest detail. Man was not permitted to improvise at all in the construction of either dwelling. This fact should teach God’s people that whatever is not commanded is forbidden. God’s people are not to turn aside to the right hand nor to the left. This point is further illustrated in God’s command to make altars of unhewn stone: “And if you make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone; for if you use your tool on it, you have profaned it” (Ex. 20:25). Before the establishment of the ceremonial law which appointed fashioned altars, God required that only unhewn stones were to be used. The use of man’s tools are said to profane the altar; the likely reason is that man contributes nothing of his own to salvation and thus should add nothing of his own to the appointed means of worship. |
24 William G. Blaikie, Commentary on Second Samuel (New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1893), p. 88. |
25 John Calvin, Sermons on 2 Samuel (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1992), p. 246. |
26 William Young, “The Second Commandment,” in Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman, eds. Worship in the Presence of God, p. 85. |
27 Samuel H. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, N.D.), p. 240. |
28 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and Lamentations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), Vol. 1, pp. 413-414. |
29 Another king who ignored God’s regulative principle of worship to his own peril was King Uzziah. Carl Bogue writes: “King Uzziah entered the temple to burn incense before the Lord. That he was king was now irrelevant. The priests were horrified, and eighty of them rushed in after him and opposed him, saying, ‘It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Get out of the sanctuary, for you have trespassed! You shall have no honor from the Lord God’ (2 Chronicles 26:18). The king was offended to think his worship was not acceptable to God. Enraged, he persisted, and sacred Scripture tells how that God caused a leprosy to appear on his forehead. ‘They thrust him out that place. Indeed he also hurried to get out, because the Lord had struck him’ (verse 20). The king was a leper to the day of his death. For anyone, even the king, to intrude into the temple, and thus add to God’s command, was an offense to God; and God showed His displeasure” (The Scriptural Law of Worship, p. 10). |
30 W. G. Blaikie, “The First Book of Samuel,” in W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositors’ Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943), Vol. 2, p. 57. |
31 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing Company, N.D.), Vol. 2, p. 347. |
32 “Saul’s foolishness did not end with this first incident. A short time later, he led the Israelites in battle to destroy the Amalekites, and their livestock as well, taking no booty. Instead, ‘Saul and the people spared Agag,’ King of the Amalekites, ‘and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs.’ His subsequent explanation was that these choice animals would make an excellent sacrifice unto the Lord. From a human perspective this decision might sound reasonable. After all, when they considered the best of the livestock, it probably seemed like a terrible waste simply to destroy them. Wouldn’t it be better to retain them as an offering unto God? If the motive was sincere, how could such a generous act of worship be tainted? Samuel’s response was blunt: ‘Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.’ The lesson of this incident is simple. No motive or action in worship is acceptable, if it runs contrary to God’s revealed word. At no point had Saul professed the worship of another god; yet the king’s actions toward the Lord were unacceptable, because they deviated from God’s revealed word. Therefore, Saul’s deeds are likened to the very opposite of true worship—to witchcraft andidolatry.” (Kevin Reed, Biblical Worship [Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1995], pp. 14-15). |
33 Alfred Edersheim, Old Testament Bible History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982 [1890]), Vol. 2, p. 138. |
34 Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 137. |
35 John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament (Streamwood, IL: Primitive Baptist Library, 1979 [1810]), Vol. 2, p. 731. |
36 “And although the Son was, and is man, having taken on him that nature, and united it to his Godhead, yet he is not a mere man; therefore, that image, which only holds forth one nature, and looks like any man in the world, cannot be the representation of that person which is God and Man. And, if it be said, man’s soul cannot be painted, but his body may, and yet that picture represents a man: I answer, it does so because he has but one nature; and what represents that, represents the person: But it is not so with Christ; his Godhead is not a distinct part of the human nature, as the soul of man is (which is necessarily supposed in every living man) but a distinct nature, only united with the manhood in that one person, Christ, who has no fellow: Therefore what represents him, must not represent a man only, but must represent Christ, Immanuel,God-man, otherwise it is not his image. Besides, there is no warrant for representing him in his Manhood; nor any colourable possibility of it, but as men fancy: and, shall that be called Christ’s portraiture? Would that be called any other man’s portraiture, which were drawn at men’s pleasure, without regard to the pattern? Again, there is no use of it: for, either that image behooved to have but common estimation with other images, and that would wrong Christ; or a peculiar respect and reverence, and so sins against this commandment [the second] that forbids all religious reverence to images: But he being God, and so the Object of worship, we must either divide his natures, or say that image or picture does not represent Christ” (James Durham, A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments [Thomas Lumisden and John Robertson Printing House, M.DCC.XXXV], p. 54). |
37 The idea of dividing up Christ’s life into events and pieces and then attaching festival days or distinct holy days to each event was brought into church practice in imitation of Roman Emperor worship. The New Testament teaches that the church of Christ is to celebrate the whole work of redemption every Lord’s day. Thus, God has ordained 52 days each year as special days for restful concentrated worship. “There is no day commanded in the Scripture to be kept under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly [commonly] called holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued” (An Appendix, Touching Days and Places for Public Worship, as annexed to the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God [1645]). |
38 Kevin Reed, Biblical Worship, p. 21. |
39 William Young, Worship in the Presence of God, p. 86. |
40 John Calvin, Commentary on A Harmony of the Evangelists: Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), Vol. 2, pp. 253-254. |
| “Jesus said: ‘God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth’ (Jn. 4:24). Jesus here is not saying that Christians are to worship God internally in their spirits but that the Holy Spirit is and should be the source of true worship; as in John 3:5; Rom. 8:1,4-5, 13; 1 Cor. 14:2, etc., where ‘spirit’ without the article clearly refers to the Holy Spirit. The fact that the Holy Spirit and truth are often conjoined in John’s Gospel and Epistles (e.g. 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 4:6;5:7), together with the fact that the preposition ‘in’ occurs only once with the two words, in John 4:24, thus uniting them in thought, points decidedly in this direction. With this interpretation, ‘spirit and truth’ then becomes something of an equivalent to ‘Spirit of truth’...‘truth’ here is a reference to God’s revealed will in Scripture as the epitome, the source of truth (cf. John 16:13). The point, then, that Jesus is making in this passage is that true worship is such as is consonant with the character of God as life-giving spirit. As in salvation it is the Spirit of God who takes the initiative in the giving of life, so in worship it is the Spirit of God who through His Word takes the initiative in determining how and where and under what conditions God is to be worshiped” (Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, p. 151). |
41 William Young, Worship in the Presence of God, pp. 87-88. |
42 G. I. Williamson, On the Observance of Sacred Days (Havertown, ND: New Covenant Publication Society), pp. 9-10. |
43 John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 [1884]), Vol. 4, pp. 199-200. |
44 Kevin Reed, Biblical Worship, p. 56. |
45 Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (London: Passmore & Alabaster, [1692] 1881), p. 267. |
46 Most attacks against what is called the strict view of the regulative principle are accomplished by misrepresenting the regulative principle (either knowingly or by ignorance) in order to make it look absurd. For example, theonomist pastor and author Steven Schlissel argued (cf.Chalcedon Report) that Jesus Christ did not believe in the regulative principle for He attended and even preached in the Jewish synagogue even though there is no explicit command in the Old Testament requiring synagogue attendance. Schlissel’s argument is based on a false understanding of the scriptural law of worship for he restricts it only to explicit divine imperatives when it also includes approved historical example and deduction by good and necessary consequence. Schlissel argues against a position that was never held by the Puritans or early Presbyterians. There is no explicit command in the Bible to baptize infants. The Calvinist divines of the 16th and 17th centuries who held to the strict view of the regulative principle argued that the practice was based on “good and necessary consequence.” Likewise, there is no explicit command changing the Sabbath to the first day of the week. Presbyterian and Puritan Lord’s day sabbatarianism is based on the historical example of the apostolic church and good and necessary consequence. It is true, that there is no explicit command to attend synagogue worship in the Old Testament. But the simple fact that the Bible recognizes it as an acceptable practice is warrant enough. The original command (like that of Lord’s day worship) was never inscripturated; but approved historical example is sufficient. |
47 “The first idea contained in them, is that they are religious duties, prescribed by God, as an instituted method in which he will be worshiped by his creatures…. Now the ordinances as thus described must be engaged in according to a divine appointment. No creature has a warrant to enjoin any modes of worship, pretending that these will be acceptable or well-pleasing to God; since God alone, who is the object of worship, has a right to prescribe the way in which he will be worshiped. For a creature to institute modes of worship would be an instance of profaneness and bold presumption; and the worship performed would be ‘in vain’; as our Saviour says concerning that which has no higher sanction than ‘the commandments of men’” (Thomas Ridgely, A Body of Divinity [New York: 1855], 2:433). |
48 The authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) clearly make a distinction between those things taken directly from Scripture and circumstances “common to human actions and societies.” “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men...and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed” (chap. 1, sec. 6). |
49 Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), chap. XXI, sec. 1. Emphasis added. |
50 John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Havertown, PA.: New Covenant Publication Society, 1983 [1888]), p. 22. |
51 Ibid., pp. 22-23. |
52 G. C. Aalers, Bible Students’ Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), Vol. 1, p. 131. |
53 The fact that these developments were made by the ungodly line should not in any way reflect negatively upon these cultural developments. Unbelievers often excel in the development of culture (the arts, medicine, technology, etc.). As a postmillennialist, the author believes that Christians will inherit the achievements of the heathen and then use them to God’s glory. |
54 “The Hebrew name of this musical instrument is..., toph. The timbrel, tymanum, or tambourine, was used chiefly by women, and was employed in choral dances, or occasions of religious or festal processions.... The principle of the..., toph, or timbrel, was that of a prepared skin stretched upon a hoop or frame” (James Anderson, Calvin’s Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. 5, p. 310, footnote 3). The timbrel was very similar to the modern tambourine. It was struck with the hand, small batons or with a knotty whip with many thongs. |
55 D. W. Collins, Musical Instruments in Divine Worship Condemned by the Word of God (Pittsburgh: Stevenson and Foster, 1881), p. 38. |
56 G. I. Williamson, Instrumental Music in the Worship of God: Commanded or Not Commanded?, p. 5. |
57 “No psalmody was employed when the trumpets were first introduced, but when a psalmody was prepared and formally introduced into the temple service by David, the trumpets were employed conjointly with the voice and the instruments as employed by the Levites. The connexion of the three—the trumpets, the voice and the instruments—was so essential that in every instance in which the voice and the instruments are noted as being employed in the psalmody of the temple, the use of trumpets is specified also. It is specially noted on the occasion of the dedication of the temple that the four thousand singers and players on the instruments of the Levites, together with the one hundred and twenty trumpeters of the priests, were as to make one sound. The great feature of this one sound was that of the trumpets which, in the hands of the priests, was ceremonial. So in 1 Chron., XXV, 5, it is said ‘All these were the sons of Heman, the king’s seer in the words of God to lift up the horn.’ The horn is the trumpet, and the Levites are here represented clearly as acting in that ceremonial relation to the priests designated by their original consecration” (D. W. Collins, pp. 60-61). |
58 “David stands as the central figure between Moses and Christ, and the very epoch for the introduction of the grand ceremonial order, which he gave to the worship of God, was significant of the greater perfection and glory of the New Testament Church. For it was the millennium of the Jewish Church and the height of the glory of the Nation” (D. W. Collins, p. 66). |
59 “David proceeded irregularly, because he was without scriptural authority. Thus, instead of consulting the priests and Levites to whose custody the ark belonged, he ‘consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and every leader’ [1 Chron. 13:1]; that is, with political and military advisors. This, in modern times, would be regarded as an Erastian interference of the magistrate in sacris. The result in David’s case implies a permanent inhibition of introducing any religious observance without divine authority. If David could not do this, how can it, without sinful responsibility, be done by men in the nineteenth century? Instead of allowing the ark to be borne by Levites, he had it placed on a cart—which he doubtless thought was done ‘decently and in order.’ This, however, was not appointed, and therefore he erred in doing it” (James Glasgow, Heart and Voice: Instrumental Music in Christian Worship Not Divinely Authorized. C. Aitchison; J. Cleeland, Belfast, Northern Ireland, no date, p. 48.). Furthermore, if the people in general played upon musical instruments (1 Chron. 13:8) and not the Levites alone, this also would have been a violation of Scripture. During the second and successful attempt at moving the ark, it is carefully noted that only the Levites played upon musical instruments (1 Chron. 15:16-24). |
60 D. W. Collins, Musical Instruments in Divine Worship, pp. 51-52. |
61 “The first acceptable use of instruments in the praise service of the church was in the initiation of the temple worship by David, and it was exclusively employed in that worship. We have not another instance on record to the close of the canon of Scripture of its being used apart from the peculiar form given to it in its inauguration by David” (D. W. Collins p. 55). |
62 As Moses received the pattern of the tabernacle and its vessels by divine inspiration (Ex. 25:9, 40; 27:8), so the chronicler, while giving David the credit for preparing the plans for the Temple, declares that Yahweh was the source of David’s knowledge. “The hand of Yahweh upon...” is a frequent expression for divine inspiration (cf. 2 Kings 3:15; Ex. 1:3; 3:14, etc.). (Edward Lewis Curtis and Albert Alonzo Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976 (1910)], p. 229). |
63 “This way of praising God by musical instruments had not hitherto been in use. But David, being a prophet, instituted it by divine direction, and added it to the other carnal ordinances of that dispensation, as the apostle calls them (cf. Heb. 9:10). The New Testament keeps up singing of psalms, but has not appointed church music” (Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible [T&T Clark], Vol. 2, p. 875). |
64 “The Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were yet tender and like children, by such rudiments, until the coming of Christ. But now when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time. From this, it is apparent that the Papists have shown themselves to be very apes in transferring this to themselves” (John Calvin, Commentary on The Book of Psalms, (Grand Rapids: Baker House, 1981) Vol. 2, p. 312). |
65 Determining exactly what the ceremonial use of instruments in public worship typified is not easy. Southern Presbyterian theologian John L. Girardeau writes: “The instrumental music of temple-worship was typical of the joy and triumph of God’s believing people to result from the plentiful effusion of the Holy Ghost in New Testament times…. [It] pleased God to typify the spiritual joy to spring from a richer possession of the Holy Spirit through the sensuous rapture engendered by the passionate melody of stringed instruments and the clash of cymbals, by the blare of trumpets and the ringing of harps. It was the instruction of his children in a lower school, preparing them for a higher” (Instrumental Music in The Public Worship of the Church, pp. 60-63). Girardeau’s view was held by a number of the older Reformed writers. Given the fact that under normal circumstances the instruments were only played during the sacrifice, another possibility is that their use prophesied the dramatic supernatural events surrounding the crucifixion of Christ. The moment Christ died: “the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened” (Matt. 27:51-52). Luke writes: “And it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two” (Luke 23:44-45). The cacophony of sound during the sacrifice in the central sanctuary was dramatic and awe inspiring. The supernatural events surrounding the sacrifice of Christ were awesome and terrifying. “Now when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, ‘Truly this was the Son of God!’” (Matt. 27:54). |
66 G. I. Williamson, Instrumental Music in the Worship of God: Commanded or Not Commanded?, pp. 7-8. “Let it be understood in the outset, that if we fail to show to the satisfaction of the instrumentalists the particular thing typified by instrumental music, the argument for the ceremonial feature of it by no mean fails. For we affirm that the definite meaning of many ceremonial rites and things has never been satisfactorily determined, either by modern Jewish, or Christian learning. Typology is a system of prophecy. Types ‘prefigure, while prophets foretell,’ the same things, and if the definite meaning of many prophecies cannot be ascertained, much less can that of many of the types” (D.W. Collins, pp. 57-58). Fairbairn writes: “We are far from pretending to master every difficulty connected with the practical management of the subject, and reducing it all too clear and undoubtful certainty. No one will expect this who rightly understands its nature and considers either the vastness of the field over which it stretches, or the peculiar character of the ground which it embraces” (cited by Collins, p. 58). |
67 John Calvin concurs: “I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile [i.e., immature] instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him” (Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Vol. 1, p. 539). |
68 John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, p. 79. |
69 The two types of stringed instruments used in public worship by the Levites were the kinnôr and the nêbel. The names of musical instruments in the Bible are the torment of translators. The word kinnôr is translated various as: “lyre” (RSV, NIV); “harp” (KJV, NKJV, NEB) and “psaltery” (KJV, NKJV). Nêbel is translated as “harp” (NIV, RSV), “Lute” (RSV, NEB, KJV, NKJV), “psaltery” (KJV) and “viol” (KJV). “According to Josephus the kinnôr had ten strings and was played with a plectrum [i.e., a small piece of metal, ivory or horn which a musician uses to strike the strings of an instrument]...but David played his lyre ‘with his hand’ when comforting Saul (I Samuel 16:23) which suggests that the kinnôr was also plucked in order to produce a softer, more soothing sound. The pictorial remains show lyre players with and without plectra, and the Greek kithera was played both ways... The nêbel is virtually always mentioned together with the kinnôr-lyre, and must have had a similar or at least complementary character. Comparing the two, the Misha states that the strings of the nêbel were made of a sheep’s large intestine, those of the kinnôr of its small intestine (Kinnim iii. 6). Having thicker strings, the instrument’s register was therefore presumably lower and its sound possibly louder than that of the kinnôr…. According to Josephus…the nêbel had twelve tones...and was played with the finger. Sukkah 5:6 states merely that the nêbel had more strings than the kinnôr…. The term asor, lit. ‘ten’, appears only in Psalms, twice describing the nêbel (33:2; 144:9)” (D. A. Foxvog and A. D. Kilmer in “General Education,” Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986 [1915]), Vol.3 pp. 441-442). Given the scriptural and historical evidence there may have been two versions of the kinnôr (eight- and ten-string) and two versions of the nêbel (ten- and twelve-string). Or there may have been three versions of the nêbel (eight-, ten-, and twelve-string). If the strings of the kinnôr were struck with a piece of ivory or metal, it would more resemble the modern harpsichord than a guitar. |
70 The author has not included the crowning of Joash: “Now when Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and praising the king, she came to the people in the temple of the Lord. And when she looked, there was the king standing by his pillar at the entrance; and the leaders and the trumpeters were by the king. There were all the people of the land, rejoicing and blowing trumpets, also the singers with instruments of music and those who led in praise. So Athaliah tore her clothes and said, ‘Treason! Treason!’” (2 Chron. 23:12-13). Although this event occurred at the temple and the Levites played musical instruments and sang, this event does not appear to be a worship service but a public coronation of some sort. Furthermore, it is not clear if the people were just praising the new king, or praising the king and then praising Jehovah. What is clear is that the thesis of this book is supported by 2 Chronicles 23:18, “Also Jehoiada appointed the oversight of the house of the Lord to the hand of the priests, the Levites, whom David had assigned in the house of the Lord, to offer the burnt offerings of the Lord, as it is written in the Law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, as it was established by David.” Those Old Covenant saints (unlike most modern Presbyterian denominations and seminary professors) held to a rigid, strict, uncompromising view of the regulative principle of worship. |
71 The only exception is that of King David who dressed in the linen ephod and robe of the priest (1 Chron. 15:27), played music (15:29), and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings with the priests (1 Chron. 16:1-2). David (in a more unique manner than other Old Testament kings who offered sacrifice) became a priest for the occasion. “David seemed to be the leader in the service, and, therefore, put on the garb of a priest, perhaps indicating that he had the divine commission to introduce the new ingredients into the temple service, of which this was a part, as Moses introduced the original service of the tabernacle” (D. W. Collins p. 29). |
72 Of all the instances cited, 2 Chronicles 20:28 is the best hope for those seeking a non-Levitical use of instruments for we are not specifically told who played the instruments. The passage does not even specifically say that the instruments were played. However, the context clearly implies that the instruments were played by the Levites. In chapter 20 Judah faced a grave crisis, for a great multitude from these nations was coming to attack Judah (vv.1-2). The king and all Judah gathered at the temple to fast, pray and seek the Lord (vv. 3-13). The Lord answered through Jahaziel, a Levite of the sons of Asaph (v. 14 ff.). The Lord’s instructions were very specific (v. 16 ff.). After the Lord spoke through Jahaziel, the king and people bowed before the Lord and the Levitical singers (the Kohathites and Korahites, the sons of Korah, who was a grandson of Kohath [cf. 1 Chron.6:7, 22; 20:37f.]) stood and praised the Lord. The next day the people arose early, proceeded from Jerusalem and the Lord Himself defeats the people of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir. What is interesting is that the Levites go before the army singing praise (v. 21). After the Lord kills all their enemies, they return to Jerusalem and the temple “with stringed instruments and harps and trumpets.” The whole chapter reads as though the temple worship continues before the army, leaves Jerusalem and then after the battle returns to the temple. It is as though God leaves His holy house crushes Judah’s enemies, and then returns to His house. Those who don’t think that the singers were Levites should note that verse 21 says the king appointed “those who should sing praise to the Lord.” This is an obvious reference to the guild of Levitical singers. Furthermore, verse 28, which implies the proceedings ended at the temple, names only those instruments appointed by David for use by the Levites and priests for the temple worship. This is not coincidence. Whatever one’s interpretation of chapter 20 is, these unusual events are clearly not normative for our New Covenant congregation singing anyway. |
73 F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], p. 64. |
74 John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, p.48. |
75 W. White, Jr., in Merril C. Tenney, gen. ed., The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), Vol. 5, p.556. |
76 M. C. Ramsay writes: “Those who maintain that Jewish worship had associated with it instruments of music fail to appreciate the facts; and some of the facts are as follows: The ordinary worship of the Jew was that of the synagogue, and it was always unembellished. The men of Israel were commanded to attend the temple worship only thrice annually. Throughout the remainder of the year, Sabbath by Sabbath, they met for worship in their synagogues. Their wives and children attended regularly the synagogue where the services were marked by simplicity.... In the synagogue where there was congregational singing, there was no musical instrument” (Purity of Worship, Presbyterian Church of East Australia, 1968, p.11). |
77 John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, pp.39-40. |
78 “Some Christians direct attention to the fact that in many Jewish synagogues in these days, instrumental music accompanies the congregational singing. In this connection the following statements of Rabbi R. Brasch of Sydney should prove helpful. ‘There are no definite records as to the actual introduction of instrumental music into the synagogue until 1810, when Reform Temples in Germany did so for the first time…. In the present-day world, orthodox synagogues still abstain from instrumental music…but every Liberal and Reform Temple accompany the congregational singing and the choir on an organ.’ It is both interesting and informative to notice that the instruments of music were first used in synagogues at the beginning of the nineteenth century, that is, about the same time as they began to be introduced into Protestant [i.e., Presbyterian] churches” (M.C. Ramsay, Purity of Worship, p 12). |
79 W. White, Jr., The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 5, p. 556. “The term ‘synagogue’ is used in the gospels over thirty times while an even greater frequency appears in Acts. It is assumed in both the Talmudic literature and the N.T. that this was the valid leadership and execution of Judaism, no matter whether it was in Jerusalem or in Corinth” (ibid.). Although the beginning of synagogue worship is shrouded in mystery, the fact that Jesus Christ and the apostles worshiped in various synagogues and even exposited the word in them proves that God recognized their legitimacy (i.e., they had divine warrant). |
80 According to the Talmud there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem at the time of the destruction of the second temple (A.D. 70). If women and children are factored in, there were probably over 15,000 converts in Jerusalem within a few weeks after Pentecost. However, most of the converts in Jerusalem would soon be dispersed by a severe Jewish persecution of Christians. |
81 G. I. Williamson, Instrumental Worship in the Worship of God: Commanded or Not Commanded?, p. 11. |
82 Robert B. McCracken, What About Musical Instruments in Worship? (Pittsburgh: Crown and Covenant Publications, n.d.), tract. |
83 For example Gordon H. Clark writes: “On one occasion I attended a Covenanter church for several Sundays. The auditorium was filled to capacity. The singing was vigorous. The preaching was superb. At the end of the service...the congregation burst forth with Psalm 150. It was all new to me, and I could hardly refrain from laughing. Read Psalm 150 and compare, or contrast, what the Psalm commands and what the Covenanters did not do. Not that I wish to ridicule the Covenanters: I wish other denominations were half so good” (Ephesians [Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1985], pp. 181-182). Clark’s statement reveals that he is not really familiar with the biblical arguments against the use of musical instruments in public worship. The fact that Gordon H. Clark, a conservative Presbyterian, an ordained minister and excellent scholar, did not know the arguments regarding instrumental music in worship shows the declension of modern conservative Presbyterianism in the area of biblical worship. Furthermore (as noted above), the denominations that use pianos, guitars, and organs are certainly not obeying Psalm 150, even if it did apply to today for these modern instruments are not mentioned in the Psalms. |
84 “We may go further, and not only admit, but affirm, that the terms ‘sing’ and ‘song’ are terms which, as used by the Jews, and especially by David in introducing the praise service for temple use, included the whole service of the trumpets, harps, cymbals, psalteries, and the voice. It is the language describing the one sound—the lifting up of the horn, as clearly the symbolical expression of praise as the incense was the symbolical expression of prayer. When the Psalmist says, ‘I will sing with a psaltery,’ he no more means the literal and personal use of the psaltery, apart from its ceremonial character, than when saying, ‘I will sacrifice,’ he means that he would offer sacrifices apart from their ceremonial use, or than that he himself would burn incense when he says, ‘I will offer unto thee burnt sacrifices of fatlings with incense.’ We repeat, that the whole system of ceremonial allusions, including their lyrical feature, was necessarily interwoven with the Psalms, and imbedded in them, as the result of their having been ceremonially employed” (D. W. Collins, p.65). |
85 John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church, p. 77. |
86 Ibid., p.78. |
87 John Calvin also argues that the discussion of musical instruments in the psalms refers to a ceremonial use. His commentary on Psalm 71:22 says: “In speaking of employing the psaltery and the harp in this exercise, he alludes to the generally prevailing custom of that time. To sing the praises of God upon the harp and psaltery unquestionably formed a part of the training of the law, and of the services of God under that dispensation of shadows and figures; but they are not now to be used in public thanksgiving” (Vol. 3, p.98). Regarding Psalm 92:3, Calvin says: “In the [third] verse, he more immediately addresses the Levites, who were appointed to the office of singers, and calls upon them to employ their instruments of music—not as if this in itself was necessary, only it was useful as an elementary aid to the people of God in these ancient times.... A difference is to be observed in this respect between his people under the Old and under the New Testament; for now that Christ has appeared, and the Church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the Gospel, should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation” (Vol. 3, pp. 494-495). His comments on Psalm 149:3 concur: “The musical instruments he mentions were peculiar to this infancy of the Church, nor should we foolishly imitate a practice which was intended only for God’s ancient people” (Vol. 5, p. 312). |
88 G. I. Williamson, Instrumental Worship: Commanded or Not Commanded?, pp. 9-10. |
89 It should be noted that the Old Testament does use ceremonial types to prophetically describe the non-ceremonial-spiritual worship in the new covenant era: “for from the rising of the sun, even to the going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; in every place incense shall be offered to My name, and a pure offering; for My name shall be great among the nations.” (Mal. 1:11). “Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it. Many people shall come and say, ‘Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” (Isa. 2:2-3). These passages are mentioned to dispel the notion of some that Psalm 150 is prophetic of the “celebrative” worship which will be worldwide in the new covenant era. |
90 John Calvin, Commentary on the Psalms, 5:320. |
91 David Dickson, The Psalms (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1959 [1653-5]) 2:536. |
92 Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (McLean, VA: MacDonald, N.D. [1710]) 3:788-789. |
93 John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament (Streamwood, IL: Primitive Baptist Library, 1979 [1910] 4:327. |
94 “To account for the silence of the New Testament respecting the use of instruments in worship, we think it clear that they were appointed for the temple, and as a companion to the sacrifice; that with these they were connected, and with these they ceased; in fact, that when ‘the tabernacle of David’ fell [Amos 9:11; Isa. 16:5; Acts 15:15-17, etc], the Davidic appointment of Levites fell with it. In reply, attempts are made to show that this instrumental service has a place in the synagogue. But this involves an immense difficulty—that as the synagogue furnished the general platform of ecclesiastical order in the Christian Church, if instruments belonged to the former, they should have had their place in the latter. But this is not accordant with the fact that the apostolic Church did not use them, nor the post-apostolic Church for several centuries. For the use of musical instruments in the synagogue the evidence is very evanescent—is indeed nothing. It is certain that the New Testament supplies none” (James Glasgow, Heart and Voices: Instrumental Music in Christian Worship Not Divinely Authorized, [Belfast: C. Aithchison; J. Cleeland, N.D.], p.12). |
95 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), p 405. |
96 Robert B. McCracken, What About Musical Instruments in Worship?. |
97 Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954), p. 1217. |
98 D. W. Collins, Musical Instruments in Divine Worship, p. 77. |
99 M. C. Ramsay, Purity of Worship, p. 13. |
100 Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The Book of the Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), p. 88. |
101 G. I. Williamson, Instrumental Music in the Worship of God, p. 10. |
102 Ibid., p. 10. |
103 Thomas E. Peek, Miscellanies (Richmond, VA: The Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1895), Vol. 1, pp. 68-69. |
104 Douglas Wilson (in Credenda/Agenda) has argued that the regulative principle applied only to the temple and thus has no bearing whatsoever on Christian worship. Such an argument however, completely ignores the scriptural testimony regarding both old and new covenant worship. The clearest statement in Scripture of the regulative principle (Deut. 12:32) is a very broad command and is not in any way restricted to the tabernacle. Furthermore, it is obvious from the many passages discussed in this book that the regulative principle was applied to situations that had nothing to do with the tabernacle or temple (e.g., Gen. 4:3-5; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 1 Kings 12:26-33; Matt. 15:1-3; Col. 2:20-33). Jesus applied the regulative principle to the Pharisees for adding ritual washings to God’s law that took place in the home and had nothing to do with the temple (Matt. 15:1-3). The apostle Paul believed in the abiding validity of God’s regulative principle and even applied it explicitly to the Colossian church (Col. 2:20-33). The Jews who returned from Babylon believed that the regulative principle was to be applied beyond temple worship for they applied it specifically to the synagogue worship. They did not use musical instruments in the synagogue because they recognized that they were only authorized for the temple worship. Pastors and scholars who advocate musical instruments in public worship, extra-biblical holy days (e.g., Christmas) and uninspired hymnody find themselves in the precarious position of having to defend what is scripturally indefensible. The result is brilliant scholars engaging in sloppy exegesis, fallacious reasoning and appeals to sentimentality. |
105 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973), Vol.3, p.3. “The question occurs: How does this want of spiritual life manifest itself in reference to the worship of God? History inspired and uninspired furnishes but one answer—by discontent and restivenessunder the simplicity of divine appointments in that worship” (D. W. Collins, p. 93). |
106 Many argue that musical instruments are a practical necessity such as lighting, chairs, church buildings, and so on. This argument ignores the fact that Jewish synagogues did fine without musical instruments for more than two thousand years. Christian congregations did not use them for the first seven centuries. Presbyterian churches did fine without them for over 250 years. There are still a number of small Presbyterian bodies that do not use them. Furthermore, if instruments were just a matter of practical necessity, their use in worship would not have had to wait for divine authorization. |
107 James Glasgow, Heart and Voice, p. 9. |
108 G. I. Williamson, Instrumental Music in the Worship of God, p. 15. |
109 Some books and tracts attribute the following quote to Justin Martyr (A.D. 166): “Plain singing is not childish, but only the singing with lifeless organs, with dancing and cymbals. Whence the use of such instruments and other things fit for children are laid aside, and plain singing only retained.” This is actually a quote from Theodoret (5th century) that was mistakenly attributed to Justin Martyr. |
110 Killen also wrote, “Singing in which none but the Levites were permitted to unite, and which was accompanied by instrumental music, constituted a prominent part of the temple service. The singers occupied an elevated platform adjoining the court of the priests; and it is somewhat doubtful whether, in that position, they were distinctly heard by the majority of the worshipers within the sacred precincts. As the sacrifices, offerings and other observation of the temple, as well as the priests, the vestments, and even the building itself, had an emblematic meaning, it would appear that the singing, intermingled with the music of various instruments of sound, was also typical and ceremonial. It seems to have indicated that the tongue of man cannot sufficiently express the praise of the King Eternal, and that all things, animate and inanimate, owe Him a revenue of glory. The worship of the synagogue was more simple. Its officers had, indeed, trumpets and cornets, with which they published their sentences of excommunications, and announced the new year, the fasts and the Sabbath, but they did not introduce instruments into their congregational services. The early Christians followed the example of the synagogue; and when they celebrated the praise of God ‘in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs,’ their melody was ‘the fruit of the lips.’ For many centuries after this period, the use of instrumental music was unknown in the Church” (pp. 216-217). |
111 A study of God’s word reveals that the only choirs (i.e., people set apart to sing during the worship service) that existed in the Bible were composed of Levites (cf. 1 Chron. 9:33; 15:16; 2 Chron. 5:11-13; 29:28-30; 33:15). “Prepare yourselves according to your fathers’ houses, according to your divisions, following the written instruction of David King of Israel and the written instruction of Solomon his son. And stand in the holy place according to the divisions of the fathers’ houses of your brethren the lay people, and according to the division the father’s house of the Levites.... And the singers, the sons of Asaph, were in their places, according to the command of David, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, the king’s seer” (2 Chron. 35:4-5, 15). Since the use of choirs, like musical instruments, was restricted by God to the Levitical temple worship, their use is clearly inappropriate and unscriptural in Christian worship services. Their use (like that of musical instruments) arose as an aspect of the Judaizing Papal mass with its priestly garments and unauthorized rituals. |
112 Used by permission. |
113 See Biblical Worship by Kevin Reed (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1995). |
114 English translation is published in Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom (1931 [6th edition]; rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 3:357. Likewise, the Scottish First Book of Discipline (1560) draws a direct connection between the authority of scripture and ecclesiastical ordinances related to worship. In an explanation to the first heading of doctrine in the Book, the Scottish church declares: “We affirm that,All scripture inspired of God is profitable to instruct, to reprove, and to exhort. In which books of Old and New Testaments we affirm that all things necessary for the instruction of the kirk, and to make the man of God perfect, are contained and sufficiently expressed. By the contrary doctrine, we understand whatsoever men, by laws, councils, or constitutions have imposed upon the consciences of men, without the expressed commandment of God’s word: such as be vows of chastity, forswearing of marriage, binding of men and women to several and disguised apparels, to the superstitious observation of fasting days, difference of meat for conscience sake, prayer for the dead; and keeping of holy days of certain saints commanded by man, such as be all those that the Papists have invented, as the feasts (as they term them) of apostles, martyrs, virgins, of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification, and other fond feasts of our lady. Which things, because in God’s Scriptures they neither have commandment nor assurance, we judge them utterly to be abolished from this realm; affirming further, that the obstinate maintainers and teachers of such abominations ought not to escape the punishment of the civil magistrate.” The First and Second Books of Discipline (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1993), pp. 25-26. |
115 Article 24; as published in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:373-74, emphasis added. |
116 Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters (1844; rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), vol. 2, p. 147. |
117 Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, vol. 2, pp. 148-49. |
118 The Genevan Book of Order: The Form of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacraments, etc., Used in the English Congregation at Geneva (1556; rpt. Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1993). The congregation was pastored by John Knox. It is important to stress that this order is not a liturgy. The Scottish historian, C. G. M’Crie notes: ‘The expression “Liturgy” applied to the Form of Prayers was both unfortunate and infelicitous. For whether the term be taken in the more restricted technical sense in which it is applied to the Communion service at the altar, or in the wider and more popular acceptation according to which it describes prescribed and obligatory forms or offices of worship, it is altogether inapplicable to any Presbyterian service-book, which never aims at being more than a directory, with forms for optional use.’ C.G. M’Crie, The Public Worship of Presbyterian Scotland (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1892), p. 106. |
119 The Genevan Book of Order, page 25. |
120 The Genevan Book of Order, page 27. |
121 The Genevan Book of Order, page 30. |
122 The Genevan Book of Order, page 63. |
123 On the Necessity of Reforming the Church (1544; rpt. Dallas: Protestant Heritage Press, 1995), p.15; or, as published in The Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters (1844; rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), vol. 1, p. 126. |
124 The True Method of Giving Peace to Christendom and Reforming the Church (1548) in Selected Works: Tracts and Letters, vol. 3, p. 260. |
125 On the Necessity of Reforming the Church, p. 18; or, as published in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, vol. 1, pp. 128-29. Cf. Necessity, pp. 23-24, 47-50, 96-97; in Selected Works: Tracts, vol. 1, pp. 132-33, 151-53, 189-90. Also, see the forthcoming book, Come Out From Among Them: ‘Anti-Nicodemite’ Writings of John Calvin (Dallas: Protestant Heritage Press). Also note: Calvin’s Commentary on Deuteronomy 12:29-31; Calvin’s letters, to Somerset (22 Oct. 1548; Letters, vol. 2), to King Edward (Jan. 1551; Letters, vol. 2), to the Frankfurt church (Letters, vol. 3, pp. 117-19), to Richard Cox (as reprinted in Knox’s Works, vol. 4, pp. 58-60). |
126 A Vindication of the Doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry (1550); in Works, vol. 3, p. 34; Selected Writings (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1995), vol. 1, p. 23. Readers interested in Knox’s teaching about worship should obtain the Selected Writings of John Knox, and give special attention to the first 100 pages of the volume. See also the essay on “The Biblical Law of Worship,” in the volume,John Knox: The Forgotten Reformer by Kevin Reed (Presbyterian Heritage, forthcoming). |
127 Appellation from the Sentence Pronounced by the Bishops and Clergy: Addressed to the Nobility and Estates of Scotland (1558), in Works, vol. 4, p. 468; Selected Writings, vol. 1, p.474. |
128 Two forthcoming publications will amply demonstrate the opinions of the preeminent Reformers: Come Out From Among Them: ‘Anti-Nicodemite’ Writings of John Calvin (with an introductory essay tracing Calvin’s concern for worship throughout his tracts and treatises); John Knox: The Forgotten Reformer (by Kevin Reed), chapter 2, “The Biblical Law of Worship.” |
129 The Shorter Catechism states the matter succinctly: “The second commandment forbiddeth the worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his word” (Answer 51). |
130 See the parallel teaching of the Larger Catechism, questions 108-109. For a clearer idea of what the Westminster divines mean by “special occasions” and the extraordinary parts of worship, see the “Appendix” to the Directory for Public Worship. |
131 This is the correct wording of this section or the Confession, as published in the Westminster Confession of Faith by S. W. Carruthers (Manchester: R. Aikman, 1937). Cf. The Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), vol. 3, pp. 291-95). |
132 See John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Columbia, 1888), chapter 4, especially p.135ff. |
133 I dare say that Frame’s own church is more likely to draw a false dichotomy between “formal” worship and other Christian meetings. For example, his book is designed to be used for Sunday schools. When those Sunday schools convene, and instruction is undertaken in the setting of a church meeting, Frame encourages open discussion (p. xiv). Need we ask: Are the women present for these discussions to be regulated by the apostolic injunction which governs the “public worship” services? “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor. 14:34-35). |
| The usual answer given is that since a Sunday school is not a “worship” service, then women may freely participate with comments and inquiry, an outlook which Frame seems to share (cf. p. 75, note 6). The division between “formal” worship services and other “informal” public meetings for instruction is not a Puritan, Scottish, or confessional distinction at all. It is a modern accommodation to feminism in churches which are soft on biblical authority. So we ask Mr. Frame not to blame the Puritans for the errors of our times; for they are not the origin of such sophistries. |
134 Frame is here adopting the language used by James Jordan, another heterodox writer. Mr. Jordan has a history of publishing speculative views on worship. For a brief appraisal of Jordan’s views, see The Canterbury Tales: An Extended Review and Commentary based upon the Geneva Papersby Kevin Reed (reprinted article; Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1984, 1996). |
135 It should be noted that Reformers and Puritans opposed some of these practices upon additional considerations beyond a bare statement of the regulative principle. They often invoked scriptural prohibitions which directly condemn superstitions and imitations of pagan worship (such as Deut. 12:1-4, 29-32). The application of biblical injunctions against superstitions and imitations are not a focal point of this review, and Frame does not deal with such prohibitions in any significant manner. Nevertheless, readers should realize that the Reformed doctrine of worship is broader in scope than might be apparent from the present discussion about the regulative principle. |
136 We encourage serious readers to make an experiment. Compare Mr. Frame’s doctrine with any standard Puritan (or Reformed) exposition of the second commandment, or old-line Presbyterian explanation of the Westminster Standards. Ask yourself: “Which discussion takes scripture more seriously? Which one is really attending to the details of the biblical text?” Compare the Westminster Directory for Public Worship with Mr. Frame’s description of his own worship services in chapter 13. Which service tends most to the honor and glory of God? |
Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing, MI, 1998 (Portions Copyright © Kevin Reed, 1996) |
青春就应该这样绽放 游戏测试：三国时期谁是你最好的兄弟！！ 你不得不信的星座秘密