Being a member of the RECUSA, and always being 'poked' for being a bit too catholic in my worship preferences, I decided to study up on this topic. I have read a little concerning this, as well as what the WCF has to say about it. I was told once that there are three basic views;
1) Extremely conservative. Only what is scriptural is allowed. If scripture doesn't mention it or command it, it isn't allowed.
2) Extremely liberal. Anything not forebidden may be allowed. We see this in many churches today.
3) The Via Media. Tradition allows for some practices not mentioned. Every tradition must be checked by scripture and not be against Holy Writ.
Am I wrong? Could somebody offer a better summary? Which is the proper view? I am only interested in the views themselves, as well as their scriptural support and historical understandings.
But, seriously, I have heard of one charismatic church (Reformed Grudem style) here that "basically" uses the regulative principle, but the songs are selected as the worship proceeds and not prior to the beginning of the service, et. al.
How about the category of the "Holy Ghost Bartender" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />
And his "Satan Shootin' Sidekicks"? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/threaddevil.gif" alt="" />
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Holy laughter anyone? Last time I came home from Toronto I laughed for weeks!!!
All kidding aside... It seems that everything should be weighed in the light of scripture and doctrine. Orthodoxy is key and if, weighed against scripture, any worship song, style, or method is found wanting we should throw it out like yesterday's bath water.
I defer to Ephesians 5 as in my post on true worship.
Seems most worship services these days are more like this:
But I prefer this standard: Q96: What does God require in the second Commandment? A96: That we in no way make any image of God, nor worship Him in any other way than He has commanded us in His Word. Heidelberg Catechism
I agree. One of my major problems moving was locating a church without all the "modern" music. I do agree in some worshipful instruments though. Orchestras, pipe organs, etc. sound great IMHO.
I love the Psalms. I read them in metre sometimes. I was hoping somebody could provide a passage (scripture alone) that required their use alone. I was also interested in the historical approaches to this situation. How did the early church worship? How about the reformers?
I'll do my very best to give you the short answer because the long answer tends to put people to sleep.
I should also say that the argument for exclusive psalmody is one of three expressions of the Regulative Principle of Worship (hereafter RPW) found in the Westminster Confession (21:1). There is the exclusive position; the combined psalm-hymn position, and the hymn only position. I have many friends who believe in the RPW who do not worship via exclusive psalmody (hereafter EP). In the Churches I have preached in that are not EP, each of them have selected only Psalms that Lord's Day for my conscience's sake. This is the charity we should expect in the family of God (No, I do not return the favour when they come to our pulpit. But I do let them preach). ;-)
I take it, by your post, that you are a believer in the RPW? Forgive me if I am mistaken but I will assume that you agree with this principle and forgo establishing the biblical foundation of that doctrine and move on to the fulcrum of your question- the biblical mandate to sing psalms only.
The most obvious reason for singing the Psalms is the Book of Psalms. It has rightly been called the Hymnbook of the Church, and since its delivery (piece by piece) to the Church, she has sang it. However this alone will not satisfy the serious inquirer who wants a more explicit command than simple inference.
There are direct commands to sing the Psalms in the Word,'Oh come, let us sing to the Lord!... Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving, Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.(Ps. 95:1-2; cf. 81:2; 98:5; 100:2; 105:2). Add to this the prefatory dedication to the individual psalms to be played or sung (To the chief musician, etc.) and you have the building of the foundation (out of the RPW for ES).
The Old testament is full of examples of the use of Psalms in corperate (cf. 1 Chr. 16; 2 Chr. 5:13; 20:21; 29:30; Ezra 3:11;Ex. 15:1; 2 Sam. 1:18; 2 Chr. 23:13; Ps. 30:4; 137:1 ff). I would imagine that you would have no problem with the use of the Psalms in the Old Testament as the outworking of the RPW, so I will jump to the New Testament.
Keeping in mind the RPW, that the only way of acceptable worship of 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' (WCF 21:1), let me show you our argument for EP in the New Testament.
To me, as I sift through the vast mountain of information on EP (some good, some bad), I have found that the Lord's own example a powerful illustration of EP. Aside from the normal and established synagogical practice of ES, we find the only place in the NT where Christ is said to be worshiping by song, singing a Psalm.
Matthew 26:30 'And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.'
Here the word 'hymn' as Easton's Bible Dictionary says was, 'the latter part of the Hallel, comprehending (Ps 113-118) It was thus a name given to a number of psalms taken together and forming a devotional exercise.' This seems to be a compelling argument for EP in my opinion. The word hymn is used in other places in the New Testament and we should take a moment to look at its use.
Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16
'Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord'(Eph. 5:18-19). 'Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord'(Col. 3:16).
Before we look at the complete text let's remember that Scripture interprets Scripture. We cannot import a definition onto a word that the bible has already established. The difference between the word 'hymn' in Matthew 26 and the word 'hymns' here in these two texts is the plural use 'humnos'in Eph, and Col. It is the same word as Matthew 26:30. This means if we let the Bible interpret itself, that in at least two of the 3 kinds of songs sung in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are Psalms. However one would like to import a modern definition of hymn (Say, 'The Old Rugged Cross') is importing a non-biblical definition into the text. How do we in 2004 know what Paul meant by hymn in the 1st century? We don't. We do however know that the Word says hymn meant. It was a Psalm.
Now, regarding psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.
Paul was writing to Greek thinking Christians and so it makes sense that in his usage of the Scriptures he would quote from the Septuagint (The Greek translation of the Hebrew OT). In fact, when we read quotes from Paul from the OT we often find that the quote does not exactly match the TO text in our Bibles. This is because he was using the Septuagint text. This was the usual text that even out Lord used.
Now, I'll try and make this short.
As we look at the Septuagint, we find that the expressions psalm (psalmos), hymn (humnos), and song (odee) Paul used clearly refers to the Old Testament book of Psalms. 'Psalmos'occurs around 87 times in the Septuagint. 'Humnos'occurs 17 times in the Septuagint. In 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah there over 15 examples in which the Psalms are called 'hymns'(humnoi) or 'songs'(odai) and the singing of them is called 'hymning'(humneo, humnodeo, humnesis) is used 80 times in the Septuagint, 45 of which are in the Psalms, 36 in the Psalm titles. The point being, all there terms used in Ephesians and Colossians are biblical terms for psalms in the book of psalms itself from the LXX. I think we should understand how Paul's audience would understand his words (without explanation or qualification) and use that definition in our own usage.
Believe it or not this is the short answer to your question of the Biblical reasons for EP. I realize that much of what I have written is inferential and consequential, but as the WCF says regarding the truth of God's Word it, 'is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture'(WCF 1:6). I believe EP is both, but I respect the right to disagree. But this is where I stand.
Regarding the historical use of the Psalms, both the early Church and the Reformers (not Lutherans) used the Psalms exclusively up until the 1700's with Keach & Watts introducing paraphrased hymns.
Well said Octavius. If I may add my two cents... I would also add a little more in general on the Regulative Principle. Some misunderstand this and hence reduce it to an absurdity. The RP regards the required elements of worship. That is, these elements are the only elements allowed. The Confession lists many of these required elements such as the reading, hearing, and preaching of the Word, prayers, singing of psalms, and the sacraments. But the RP also allows for the means which help to carry out these required elements. For instance, we are not told anywhere in Scripture to worship in a church building. Does that mean we aren't suppose too? No. It's a circumstantial means to carry out our required worship. It's much more condusive to worship in a church building than during a snow storm in an open field. It is the same with using a liturgy/bulletin to organize the worship service so that the required elements are fulfilled decently and in good order. We put the songs in music books to make them easier to sing. We encourage everyone to read and use their Bibles in English because that is conducive to those required elements of reading, hearing, and the preaching of the Word and our participation in them with understanding. We pray in English so that the congregation can fulfill that requirment of prayer, and do so with understanding. Finally, the issue is not which view of the RP is too extremely conservative or liberal by today's standard, but which view is biblical. Just because many in even reformed churches today have departed from the Westminster view of the RP does not mean they are right to do so.
Good point PuritanSailor. It is always good to delineate between circumstance and element in the RPW. I have found in my limited experience that those who use instruments say that they are a circumstance of worship, but when it comes to parting with them, they manifest themselves as an element. One Dutch Reformed Church in our area, when building their new building, almost had a church split over the organ. Should we go whole-hog and spend $50,000 on a grand pipe organ, or $5000 on a regular one with some good speakers. Guess which one they picked. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" />
1) Extremely conservative. Only what is scriptural is allowed. If scripture doesn't mention it or command it, it isn't allowed.
2) Extremely liberal. Anything not forebidden may be allowed. We see this in many churches today.
3) The Via Media. Tradition allows for some practices not mentioned. Every tradition must be checked by scripture and not be against Holy Writ.
I have always heard there is regulative (like your conservative) and normative(similar to your liberal) and liturgical (similar to your Via Media). Churches that are regulative would say to worship God only as He has commanded, but differ among themselves concerning what the Bible says we should do. They are almost always conservative. Normative would say worship that is not forbidden is acceptable, but most restrain it in one way or another and are actually regulative (sort of) by some other standard than Scripture. In fact, I believe there are 'conservatives' and 'liberals' in this group. They usually put their own spin on what is allowed or not allowed. I don't know of a church that doesn't have any restraints, even if they are unspoken and unwritten. My former church had special singing, and even women speaking, but they would have freaked out if dancers came and performed.
Liturgical worship is kind of an expanded regulative that uses both tradition and Scripture as measures for what is allowed.
This is what I've understood since going to a regulative church. When I was going to a normative church, nobody even asked why we did things the way we did.
Joe said: I agree. One of my major problems moving was locating a church without all the "modern" music. I do agree in some worshipful instruments though. Orchestras, pipe organs, etc. sound great IMHO.
What makes 'orchestras, pipe organs, etc...' more 'worshipful' than a piano, guitar, bass guitar and drum set ?
FYI, Joe is currently in Germany on a study/vacation. So, it is doubtful that he will be replying to your question for at least a couple of weeks. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> In the meantime, perhaps there will be others who will jump in here with an answer.
Thanks, Pilgrim. I hope to get into a few dozen good convos here.
I ask the question because my take on it is that what some people interpret as 'appropriate' (music style, instrments) is usually a cultural adaptation and not fixed by scripture. I think we should differentiate between a cultural expression of the RPW and making our cultural expression of the RPW the only 'right' interpretation of it.
OS_X said: I think we should differentiate between a cultural expression of the RPW and making our cultural expression of the RPW the only 'right' interpretation of it.
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Could you condescend to this and expand on that a bit?
What I do believe is that Scripture teaches that all that we do, and particularly in worship, which must be done in "spirit" and "truth", must be to the glory of God. And one glorifies God when one reflects on His person, e.g., His attributes. This principle has definite influence upon what is "acceptable" in worship; both private and corporate.
Have you read any of the articles on worship found on The Highway? You can access them by clicking here: Ecclesiology: The Doctrine of the Church. When you scroll down the page, you will see the various headings, for music, worship, etc.
PS: What is the meaning of "OS_X"? Does it have anything to do with MAC computers?
OS_X said: I think we should differentiate between a cultural expression of the RPW and making our cultural expression of the RPW the only 'right' interpretation of it.
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Could you condescend to this <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/gramps.gif" alt="" /> and expand on that a bit?
Sure! (pardon me for coming back 6 months later...LOL). I believe that while the elements of the RPW should be present and adhered to in every worship gathering every Sunday morning, we must not confuse the cultural expression of them with the thing itself. For example, one person mentioned that they preferred more 'worshipful' instruments - what makes a pipe organ more 'worshipful' than a piano or a full band and a 3-4 member praise team leading the congregation in song ? Music led by pipe organ (or organ, period) is a reflection of the culture of the 1600's and 1700's. All of the music looked/sounded like that during that time period. It was what the culture of the time had developed.
I believe our music should look and sound 'modern' (within limits, of course). We are living in the 21st century and not the 17th.
Likewise, the style in which the music is sung should not be a major issue, provided that the CONTENT of the songs is theologically sound and that the songs are sung with reverence. A great example of this is Bob Kauflin of Sovereign Grace Ministries. I got to talk to him for about 10 seconds this morning (he had a plane to catch) at Covenant Life Church over in Gaithersburg. He has taken many older hymns with explicitly reformed content and added new melodies to them (you can head to their website and pick up a copy of one of their CD's), as well as wrote many new hymns/praise songs which get sung on Sunday morning (and other times) with explicitly reformed content. You won't find a more reverent bunch of folks who realize that all to God in Christ they owe than these folks. And it doesn't make them quiet.... but it makes them raise their hands and voices aloud in praise and adoration of the one true God who took on flesh and died for them.
Quote
Have you read any of the articles on worship found on The Highway? You can access them by clicking here: Ecclesiology: The Doctrine of the Church. When you scroll down the page, you will see the various headings, for music, worship, etc.
Yes. As a matter of fact, there's some 'questioning' I have on one of the articles - the one on evaluating rock n' roll states:
Quote
Any music that does not incorporate these eight things —any lyrics that are not true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report [among young and old], virtuous and praiseworthy — should have no part in a Christian’s life. After we have listened to music, we should be able to say, “Praise the Lord, for that music.”
I disagree with this statement. Everyone isn't going to like the same type of music. I personally think some music sung in churches is stiff, sterile, emotionless and has no real depth to it beyond the words. What criteria are you using to determine what music is 'lovely' ? Would you badger your kids into 'well, this music is lovely because I say it is and that's final', though they may protest that music is dry as a desert ? We are talking about the God of the Universe who gave Himself for me. You're telling me that the music celebrating this great truth is dull, stale, sterile and lifeless ?
A great example is the lyrics from Cruz Cordero - one of the former members of the hip-hop gospel group, the Cross Movement. Cruz is a Calvinist and his lyrics were/are very Biblical and explicitly calvinistic. At the end of any of his songs, I can, with a clean conscience, head still boppin' back and forth from the beat, say 'Praise the Lord for that song!'. But hip-hop isn't going to have a 'good report' among both young and old. Some older folks just don't like it - it's not their preference. What the author has done is insert his personal preference into the text of scripture as the criteria for judging what is 'good' and 'not good'.
I believe it is unwise and unbiblical to force one 'style' of music on all believers, simply due to your personal preference (hence my above comments on the RPW).
Quote
PS: What is the meaning of "OS_X"? Does it have anything to do with MAC computers?
Yep. No virii in four years and only ONE trojan horse, built-in firewall protection that most hackers couldn't break with a month's straight work (24-7), access to all major software titles, a secure, faster and more stable OS than WinAnything and even when Leghor.....er...Longhorn finally comes out, it'll still be 3-5 years behind anything that gets put out from Cupertino, CA.
*waits for the first few PCs to start imitating the iMac G5, just like everything else....*
Hey OS X, I did not read that quote from the article in context; if it is stating that we can listen to "christian" music only, which it seems to be saying, then i would disagree as well. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" /> ...i love how the label on this little guy is "peace" when he clearly is not giving a "peace" sign but more of a "rock on" sign. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" />
Soli Deo Gloria said: Hey OS X, I did not read that quote from the article in context; if it is stating that we can listen to "christian" music only, which it seems to be saying, then i would disagree as well. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" /> ...i love how the label on this little guy is "peace" when he clearly is not giving a "peace" sign but more of a "rock on" sign. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" />
He's more arguing for a particular style of music. He doesn't like music that sounds like Rock (in this specific article). But he's also arguing against listening to anything else than Christian music as well.
I wonder how many people he can relate to and establish relationships with if he doesn't know what's going on in the culture.....
I think your criticism fails in a major point, and that is whether music is morally neutral. An important component to the argument against rock music in the church is that rock music itself, regardless of lyrics, is immoral. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the issue, as to my mind neither side has adequately addressed it. But I know that the argument for changing the music of the church that relies on changing cultural norms is not sound. The church should not change simply because the world does, especially in a matter as central as worship music.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
I think your criticism fails in a major point, and that is whether music is morally neutral. An important component to the argument against rock music in the church is that rock music itself, regardless of lyrics, is immoral. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the issue, as to my mind neither side has adequately addressed it. But I know that the argument for changing the music of the church that relies on changing cultural norms is not sound. The church should not change simply because the world does, especially in a matter as central as worship music.
Happy New Year to you all!
I've been enjoying this thread and, particularly, the contributions of OS_X to the discussion.
Regarding your post, Kyle, I wonder if those folks in the 18th and 19th centuries who wrote sound biblical hymns to the tunes of old saloon/bar songs would have considered those pieces of music -- regardless of the lyrics -- as being immoral (because they were essentially saloon/bar songs)! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />
Regarding your post, Kyle, I wonder if those folks in the 18th and 19th centuries who wrote sound biblical hymns to the tunes of old saloon/bar songs would have considered those pieces of music -- regardless of the lyrics -- as being immoral (because they were essentially saloon/bar songs)!
What hymns do you know that were written to the tunes of popular drinking songs? A "bar tune" is something else entirely from a drinking song, I should note. It refers to the structure of the song, not to its place of origin. Neither Luther nor the Wesleys used the tunes drinking songs in the composition of their hymns, as is often claimed of them.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
Neither Luther nor the Wesleys used the tunes drinking songs in the composition of their hymns, as is often claimed of them.
Really?? Wow!! now if this is true, then I've come under the same false information that Ted has. I have heard that too about some of the hymns written to bar/saloon tunes!! (unfortunately I don't remember which ones though)
Sorry for my ignorance, but I'm honestly in some shock. I didn't know there were churches out there that purposely do not use instruments in church!!
How do you respond to these verses in scripture?
1 Chronicles 15:16 "David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brothers as singers to sing joyful songs, accompanied by musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals."
Psalm 150:3-5 "Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, praise him with tambourine and dancing, praise him with the strings and flute, praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals."
Likewise, the style in which the music is sung should not be a major issue, provided that the CONTENT of the songs is theologically sound and that the songs are sung with reverence.
I agree with OS-X that the issue of content of songs, hymns being theologically important is key.
My opinion with the drums, guitars, etc. is that I'm not necessarily against them, but in my own observances in my church (which we have the guitars and drums, etc.) is that I get the feeling that people are into the "beat" of the music itself. I could be wrong because I really don't know. I think that's probably the problem some people have out there with these instruments because one could easily be coming to church to be "entertained" by the music. Also the content in some of these songs today is terrible. I have been really questioning what I'm singing at my own church in the last year and some of the songs or parts I won't even sing anymore because they are not theologically correct. We do have a decent hymn here and there that is refreshing. I personally miss hymns with a piano. I grew up with mostly hymns at my home church. Well those are just my thoughts.
Dear OS_X Could you please explain what that symbol is that you are doing with your hand <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" /> in the picture you posted. Does it mean peace or it is supposed to be a little head with horns. Perhaps I'm a bit superstitious.
This idea that Luther and others borrowed "bar tunes" for their sacred music belongs on the "Snopes" website as an urban myth. There isn't a shred of truth to this charge, which is used by those who would try and justify nearly any form of music for worship. One of the most informative articles on musicology for the church can be found here: Congregational Singing and the Ministry of the Word.
Here is a short section taken from that article which addresses this matter of "bar tunes", etc.
As soon as I say this, someone will retort, "But Luther used songs from the bar." This is a regrettable misconception widely popularized in our time. Similarly, some will triumphantly respond with that famous Luther quotation: "Why should the Devil have all the good tunes?" Anyone who has read Luther extensively knows that when Luther spoke of the Devil, he usually meant the papacy. In truth, when Luther asked, "Why should the Devil have all the good tunes?" he did not mean, "Why should the good tunes remain out there in the bar when we could use them in church?" Rather, he meant the Reformation church should not leave all the fine old hymns to the Roman Catholic Church. He was making a passionate plea for the use of traditional music!
As for Luther borrowing tunes from the bar, this is a misunderstanding of both music theory and music history. The "bar form" is a label for a musical/architectural form, not a description of musical activity occurring in a public place of alcoholic consumption. In Luther's time, there were academic societies called Meistersingers.22 They existed for the purpose of composing songs based usually on biblical texts, and the musical form they used was called a "bar form."23 The bar form is like a fixed recipe. It has as much to do with consuming alcoholic beverages in a public place as does "bar oil" for a chain saw, attorneys "passing the bar," or Jewish boys and their "Bar Mitzvahs."
Immediately after the section where the above quote is taken, Dr. Payton discusses the matter of "style". It would definitely be worth everyone's time to read that entire article and then take some time to re-evaluate their relative positions on this matter of music.
Yankee said: Dear OS_X Could you please explain what that symbol is that you are doing with your hand <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" /> in the picture you posted. Does it mean peace or it is supposed to be a little head with horns. Perhaps I'm a bit superstitious.
Yankee,
That little animated Smiley has nothing to do with "horns" or anything "demonic", etc. It's just a silly little gesture, actually poking fun at modern society, that some Rock & Rollers use(d) to symbolize: "right on, Dude!". In other words, it was an ignorant expression of emotional agreement of something. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />
I was also under the impression that some of Luthers songs were written to "bar songs." This didnt strike me as odd considering katharina ran a brewery. I am pretty sure at least a few of his songs were originally folk songs. Whether they were or not would not change my opinion on music.
The type of music that you sing a hymn to does not matter to me. The question i would ask is, "what is the reason for changing the music style." Worshiping is all about God and not our own desires. My church does sing both "contemporary" worship songs and hymns. I often think music is used in the wrong way, to spark emotions or whatever. I personally prefer to sings hymns at church with the organ. In my free time i listen to all kinds of music including heavy rock music. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/peace.gif" alt="" /> I would probably be more in line with that OS X believes. Although i hate rap music, it is only music and im sure i could worship God with it playing.
Pilgrim You have misunderstood me I was addressing a person not the smiley. The smiley is for amusment and rather funny that I understand. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sorry.gif" alt="" /> I should not have included him or a her in my post.
This idea that Luther and others borrowed "bar tunes" for their sacred music belongs on the "Snopes" website as an urban myth. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> There isn't a shred of truth to this charge, which is used by those who would try and justify nearly any form of music for worship. One of the most informative articles on musicology for the church can be found here: Congregational Singing and the Ministry of the Word.
Hi, Pilgrim. Please accept my apologies for fostering a falsehood among the brothers and sisters here at the message board. I did some checkin' (beyond what is on this article) and I agree that my understanding of Luther's use of "bar tunes" was wrong. Please forgive me.
Quote
Immediately after the section where the above quote is taken, Dr. Payton discusses the matter of "style". It would definitely be worth everyone's time to read that entire article and then take some time to re-evaluate their relative positions on this matter of music.
Per your suggestion, Pilgrim, I read this article and found it to be quite edifying. However, it has not changed my position in regard to worship music. In Biblical worship music, the melody (or tune or style, etc.) is not necessarily what matters, I believe. It is the use of the Word of God (or similar praises/Biblical theology) that is what matters. PLEASE NOTE, HOWEVER: I am in agreement with the author (and with Martin Luther) that I would be VERY uncomfortable with Biblical lyrics being brought together with a clearly profane piece of music. This, however, does not preclude, in my mind, the use of Rock, Rap, etc. music with appropriately Biblical lyrics.
Thanks for your input, Pilgrim. I ALWAYS appreciate your contributions to the discussion!
I think your criticism fails in a major point, and that is whether music is morally neutral. An important component to the argument against rock music in the church is that rock music itself, regardless of lyrics, is immoral.
How is it immoral ? What makes it immoral, exactly ? (and I haven't stated or NOT stated that I believe that music is or is not morally neutral, by the way.)
:lol: Pic from my fraternity days. It's our hand sign. Depending on where you are in the country and WHO you are, it could mean several different things. It could mean 'Longhorns' if you're in Texas, it could be the 'funk' sign used frequently by George Clinton of Parliment/Funkadelic fame; it could be the fraternity hand sign (with or without the thumb in or out) for Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc (which I'm a member of, though I'm not active right now) or Kappa Kappa Psi National Honorary Band Fraternity (which I'm not a member of, though I do play musical instruments).
SDG, I think there is a RIGHT way to spark the emotions with music. David didn't write Psalm 51 in an emotional vaccum. You can hear the sorrow and contrition in his words 'against YOU ONLY have I sinned'.
I doubt Psalms like 95 were sung sitting still in ancient Israel. In fact, I personally wonder what kind of person who claims to be saved (specifically if you're reformed) can sing through Cowper's Hymn
"There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Immanuel's veins And sinners plunged beneath that flood Lose all their guilty stains"
and not have his/her emotions stirred within him with gratitude for the salvation which God has given. Sunday, I saw men and women come to tears as we sung through some modern rendition of one of Cowper's old hymns... and the words were so rich with theological truth, the music so appropriate at the moment that yes, our hearts were stirred, our emotions welled up and some of us came to tears at the singing of words which expressed God's providence and preservation of us and His giving of Himself for His sheep.
*edit* That being said, I do have problems with music which takes familiar secular melodies and remakes with Christianized lyrics. Sorry, but it's very difficult to get into the right frame of mind for worship and remain there when the music is bringing up stuff probably from where you came from.
Please read the article called "Evaluating Music Intended for Christian Worship and Enjoyment" by Leonard Seidel, here on the Highway, for a good discussion of music's morality or amorality!
How is it immoral ? What makes it immoral, exactly ?
Well, like I said, I'm not entirely convinced either way. But we might consider how music communicates, and what it communicates thereby (leaving aside lyrics, which I think we can generally agree upon). Rap and rock music quite obviously have a different style of communication than does classical, for example, and because of the stylistic differences they communicate different things.
Pilgrim said: Immediately after the section where the above quote is taken, Dr. Payton discusses the matter of "style". It would definitely be worth everyone's time to read that entire article and then take some time to re-evaluate their relative positions on this matter of music.
And the author's argument for one particular style of worship falls flat on its' face when we look at worship in other cultures. Fact is, everyone's worship service doesn't look or sound like a 17th century presbyterian church.... nor is it supposed to. This is the typical (for lack of a better term) eurocentric slant on Christianity that gets shoved down the throats of everyone from differing cultures than the 'host culture' of reformed theology.
I skimmed (I'm at work) his points on style and each has an error in it, based on his assumption of what is acceptable and what isn't. I may actually print this and take the time to write a rebuttal to this section alone (my degree is Music Education, so yes... I am qualified). I'm not saying he doesn't make any good points... just that his whole premise is wrong.
OS_X said: That being said, I do have problems with music which takes familiar secular melodies and remakes with Christianized lyrics. Sorry, but it's very difficult to get into the right frame of mind for worship and remain there when the music is bringing up stuff probably from where you came from.
Amen, OS_X. I totally agree. (I picture in my mind the music to a McDonald's ad or a Coca-Cola ad with the words to a Psalm as the lyrics. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" /> )
Please read the article called "Evaluating Music Intended for Christian Worship and Enjoyment" by Leonard Seidel, here on the Highway, for a good discussion of music's morality or amorality!
Hi Ruth - looking at his criteria first for determining what is 'good music', it's decidely eurocentric/western in its' definition. There are more styles and genres of music around the world that western music.
Quote
1. Is the Music Well-Written?
All good music, that is, music that has stood the test of time or will endure forever, is characterized by five things: a beautiful melody, supported by a rich harmony, carried along with a subtle rhythm, that comes to a conclusion or a resolution, and has meaningful communication.
Who determines what makes the melody beautiful ? There are a few classical songs and songs from the Romantic period that were very popular in their time and are still so among string players that I find to be 'average' and not necessarily 'beautiful'.
Harmony - what type of tonality, major, natural minor, harmonic minor, melodic minor, or some of the atonal music (like some pieces by Debussy which seem to have no tonal center).
A subtle rhythm ? What about some of the African drum music that our brothers and sisters in Christ worship to which have strong rhythmic patterns to them ? Are they excluded as well ?
Who exactly determines what a meaningful resolution is ? Comparing to the literary world, which one of you would've written the book of Acts to end the way it does ? No real resolution ? Likewise, there are plenty of pieces (especially in Jazz) that seem to have no real 'ending' as we traditionally know an ending to sound.
And lastly, who determines what is being communicated and how effectively ? What's your standard for all of this ? Is it universal ? So why doesn't eastern music, some African music and a host of other cultures fit into this mold ?
This is just ONE item that needs to be challenged. I don't believe music is morally neutral, but at the same time, I don't believe that one style of music is correct and others are not. Most proponents of the RPW that argue for a particular style, consciously or not, argue for a 16-18th century, western style of music and impose their values on those they criticize as the 'norm' which should be followed. It takes humility and exposure to other cultures to take off your own cultural blinders and remember that the body of Christ is indeed DIVERSE and not composed of one tribe, nation, tongue and people. And as different as the people are, expect their expression (not the CONTENT, but the expression) of the gospel and their worship (which includes the music) to be different as well.
Thanks for the reply Pilgrim and setting the record straight on this issue. I do not like knowing that I've held incorrect information even with something kind of minor like this. Another "deception" unfolded for me!
What no instruments? What do we do with all the descendants of Jubal? Genesis 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
I do not appreciate the "contemporary" music scene that seems more like a rock concert than a worship service. Once I observed maybe ten or fifteen minutes of one and had to walk out. It was dreadful.
We do however, have examples of David dancing, tamborines, and various instruments being used in a jubilant procession.1 Chronicles 15:27 And David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, and all the Levites that bare the ark, and the singers, and Chenaniah the master of the song with the singers: David also had upon him an ephod of linen. 28 Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, making a noise with psalteries and harps. 29 And it came to pass, as the ark of the covenant of the LORD came to the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul looking out at a window saw king David dancing and playing: and she despised him in her heart.
Guess it didn't go over well with his wife but, there certainly are examples of various kinds of vocal and instrumental music being used in the worship of God.
I don't think you can compare the moving of the Ark to our Sunday worship meetings. I do think there are times that that kind of music is okay, but do not agree that it is acceptable in a worship service. I think that kind of music brings in an emotional, humanistic beat and rhythm that is not awe inspiring and honoring in itself. Just my 2 cents!
Oh, but I am in agreement. As I said, I did once walk out of a service where that was the practice. The "worship" was actually a rock 'n roll concert. The church bills itself as "not your grandfather's church." They live up to it. It is not friendly toward all ages. Plus, as you mentioned it is quite humanistic in focus, in fact, I found it to be blasphemous therefore, I left. Thankfully, my church doesn't practice the seeker sensitive movement and we do sing the psalter and Trinity hymnal. My point is that the use of musical instruments is not prohibited in scripture. The misuse of them is.
(We have done the same thing, only we didn't even wait for the service to start! When the big screen lowered from the ceiling and the band set up on stage, we were "out of there!")
I don't think you can compare the moving of the Ark to our Sunday worship meetings. I do think there are times that that kind of music is okay, but do not agree that it is acceptable in a worship service. I think that kind of music brings in an emotional, humanistic beat and rhythm that is not awe inspiring and honoring in itself. Just my 2 cents!
In His Hands,
Ruth
So our emotions aren't to be moved at all in any kind of worship ?
And as I asked earlier - what do you do with worship music from other countries which doesn't sound like what you consider to be 'awe inspiring' ?
OS_X said: So our emotions aren't to be moved at all in any kind of worship ?
Funny, but I don't find anyone who has participated in this thread even hinting that the emotive element of man isn't to be involved in worship? You bringing that up is affectionately known as a "wringer"! God is to be worshipped with the whole man, mind, emotions and will. The issue is what part each element is to play in worship and of what does worship consist?
I would contend that the emotions are that which are effected by the truth, first understood by the mind; i.e., the objective truths of God, for example through the preaching of the Word and its compliment, the singing of the Word. To focus upon the emotions apart from the mind is not biblical worship. Unfortunately, many today do exactly that by using musical "styles" to directly effect the emotions and in so doing, by-pass the mind, which is in direct contradiction to such texts as Rom 12:1, 2:
Romans 12:1-2 (ASV) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, [which is] your spiritual service. And be not fashioned according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, and ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Quote
OS_X then asks: And as I asked earlier - what do you do with worship music from other countries which doesn't sound like what you consider to be 'awe inspiring' ?
Actually, what you asked earlier was:
looking at his criteria first for determining what is 'good music', it's decidedly eurocentric/western in its' definition. There are more styles and genres of music around the world that western music. . . . who determines what is being communicated and how effectively ? What's your standard for all of this ? Is it universal ? So why doesn't eastern music, some African music and a host of other cultures fit into this mold ? . . . This is just ONE item that needs to be challenged. I don't believe music is morally neutral, but at the same time, I don't believe that one style of music is correct and others are not. Most proponents of the RPW that argue for a particular style, consciously or not, argue for a 16-18th century, western style of music and impose their values on those they criticize as the 'norm' which should be followed. It takes humility and exposure to other cultures to take off your own cultural blinders and remember that the body of Christ is indeed DIVERSE and not composed of one tribe, nation, tongue and people. And as different as the people are, expect their expression (not the CONTENT, but the expression) of the gospel and their worship (which includes the music) to be different as well.
The problem here is that it would appear that you consider "culture" to be amoral, i.e., the various cultures found throughout the world are to be considered initially acceptable from which to draw various elements; specifically their music. But I would suggest that Scripture would argue against you in that it teaches that ALL cultures by nature are antithetical to God and have been from the beginning. Culture is nothing more than the out-working/expression of men's philosophies and desires, which by nature are at enmity with God. The worship of the living God is to be "in truth" (Jh 4:24). But the nations "exchange the truth for a lie" (Rom 1:25) The apostle John tells us further what the world consists: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (Jh 2:16)
Secondly, music undeniably has been used by mankind to evoke the emotive element of men to serve purposes which are unseemly, idolatrous, provocative in nature, etc. A cursory study of these various cultures from which you would have us extract music shows how profane this music is when one also compares the bodily movements associated with their respective musical forms; aka: dance. One could hardly approve of such bodily expressions in the worship of the thrice Holy God of the Scriptures. One particular rhythm, the syncopated beat, has been studied in great detail and its effects upon the human psyche and emotions is well documented. The evidence gathered from these studies shows incontrovertibly that the effects of this "beat" is counter to that which Scripture enjoins upon those who would follow after Christ and who desire to be conformed to His image.
Thirdly, your objection to "euro-centric" music is easily countered by an appeal to the fact that God chose to bless certain areas of the world with His transforming Spirit and grace and to by-pass the majority of the world's population, leaving it to it's paganism, idolatry and sin. There can be no denying that the Gospel was given exceptional power in Europe whereby men where transformed by its power and from which the greatest achievements in mankind resulted. As the Gospel spread throughout Europe, men cast off their previous lifestyles and adopted those which emulated Christ and glorified God according to His self-revelation in His Word. We are given examples of this in Scripture, e.g., in Ephesus when the Gospel arrived in power, men took those things which they once held to be precious and burned them publicly. (Acts 19:19)
Much more could be said concerning "beauty" and other criteria which should be incorporated into music which seeks to glorify (reflect God's attributes and nature), but perhaps that would be best considered in a separate thread.
I will address all of your arguments in time, Pilgrim.
But this statement particularly, stuck out to me:
Quote
Thirdly, your objection to "euro-centric" music is easily countered by an appeal to the fact that God chose to bless certain areas of the world with His transforming Spirit and grace and to by-pass the majority of the world's population, leaving it to it's paganism, idolatry and sin. There can be no denying that the Gospel was given exceptional power in Europe whereby men where transformed by its power and from which the greatest achievements in mankind resulted.
So you're saying that because of the music produced by the culture in Europe or something that Europe did, God chose to bless them ? How calvinistic of you. :lol: God could've just as easily blessed any other part of the world with growth (and is doing so NOW...look at the decline of the church in Europe and in America, but its' growth in other countries...). God's blessing and choosing one nation to bless over another is NEVER contingent upon man's works, culture, etc....
OS_X said: So you're saying that because of the music produced by the culture in Europe or something that Europe did, God chose to bless them ? How calvinistic of you. :lol: God could've just as easily blessed any other part of the world with growth (and is doing so NOW...look at the decline of the church in Europe and in America, but its' growth in other countries...). God's blessing and choosing one nation to bless over another is NEVER contingent upon man's works, culture, etc....
That isn't what I said at all; you have it reversed. BTW, I hold to orthodox, historic Calvinism which is totally consistent with what I actually said, which was that BECAUSE God blessed Europe for a time, the RESULT was that men were transformed and thus the worship of God was restored to its biblical expression. Yes, God could have blessed other nations, but He chose not to. But if He had, then their paganism would have been cast off and similar results would have occurred. The fact that the blessings of God and the restraining power of the Spirit have now been basically withdrawn is the reason why Europe and the Western nations have fallen once again into debaucherous living and its music is reflective of their godless thinking.
I look forward to your counter arguments along with biblical support. In His Grace,
The issue is what part each element is to play in worship and of what does worship consist?
And it is a notable fact that the Bible never refers to New Testament church meetings as "worship services" or anything similar. While one could say that being obedient to biblical principles regarding the Lord's Day church meeting is a form of worship, I do not believe that it is any more or less a form of worship than being obedient to scriptural precepts in other aspects of the Christian life. The primary purpose of the church meeting, I believe, is not to perform "worship service" but to instruct the brethren in how to manifest the worship God throughout one's life by properly applying the commandments of God throughout one's life. Worship consists of much more than the things one does for a few hours in a building once or twice per week.
I've heard that argument before and I even believed it for a while, until I started looking into what worship really is. The problem with that view of worship is that we end up calling worship whatever we feel we doing "for God" that measures up. In other words, we become the measure of what is right and how well we are doing.
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
I totally agree with you! Same thing for the "institutional words" around the Lord's Supper, it seems that some people think "everyone should do as he thinks is right" according to his own eyes! There has to be order, a correct fencing of the table, and someone to " regulate" things! Otherwise there would soon be chaos, and our God is a God of order.
gotribe said: I've heard that argument before and I even believed it for a while, until I started looking into what worship really is. The problem with that view of worship is that we end up calling worship whatever we feel we doing "for God" that measures up. In other words, we become the measure of what is right and how well we are doing.
Only the Scriptures are the measure of what is right and wrong in every part of life. Therefore, only those things which are righteous by biblical standards can rightly be called acts of worship.
The true regulative principle is not that Scripture is to regulate what we do in church meetings, it is that Scripture is to regulate what we do throughout our lives. Those who think of worship as something that one does in a building for an hour or two have a compartmentalized and unbiblical view of the worship of God.
Of course, I will whole-heartedly agree with you that the Scriptures are the measure of what is right and wrong in every part of life. But that was not my point.
My point was this: God requires that we worship Him in Spirit and in truth. He has also given a great deal of instruction as to how we are to do that. Unless you see no connection between the instructions that the Lord God gave the Israelites re: how to approach Him in worship, then surely you would agree that God desires to be worshiped in a corporate setting with Himself as the object of and reason for that worship.
What I see you describing is how the church glorifies God. Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. I believe that proper worship will result in the kind of changed lives that you are describing.
Let me see if I can explain what I mean (anyone can jump in here and help me out!) The proper worship of God requires that we use the means that He has given us. The corporate worship service is about Him, not us. He has ordained the preached Word of God as a means of grace both to bring us to Christ and then to instruct us in His truth and His ways. The acts of service are a result of our worship and informed by our worship, but they are not strictly acts of worship in and of themselves. It is true that our lives should, of course, be regulated by scripture, but I believe that a distinction should be made between the two.
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
gotribe said: My point was this: God requires that we worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
Agreed.
Quote
gotribe said: He has also given a great deal of instruction as to how we are to do that.
Agreed.
Quote
gotribe said: Unless you see no connection between the instructions that the Lord God gave the Israelites re: how to approach Him in worship, then surely you would agree that God desires to be worshiped in a corporate setting with Himself as the object of and reason for that worship.
No, God desires to be worshipped at all times and in all settings. Your error is that you are interpreting what the Bible says about worship in accordance with your compartmentalized concept of worship. The principles that were taught regarding the Temple worship have application today but they have a much wider application than you are ascribing to them.
For example, the story about Nadab and Abihu. They were slain by God because they offered strange fire before the Lord. What was their sin? Those who profess to adhere to the so-called "regulative principle of worship" say that their sin was that they added to the worship of God. That is, they added something to the ceremonial law which was not prescribed therein. This is true. But their sin was not just that they added to the ceremonial worship, it was that they added to the commandments of God. The story does not teach us only that it is wrong to add to the Bible's doctrine regarding what is to be practiced during church meetings. It teaches us that it is wrong to add to the Bible's doctrine. Period.
It is true that the Bible should regulate what Christians are to do in church assemblies, but those assemblies are not "worship services." The Bible does not support the definition that worship is the performing of rituals (even God-ordained ones) at certain times and in particular places, and the delineation, which many maintain, that there are times when a Christian is in worship and other times when he is not in worship, is a delineation which is not made in the Scriptures. Christians are not in a state of worship any more or less when they obey scriptural principles to gather themselves together on the Lord's Day to practice God-ordained functions (such as to hear preaching, sing psalms, exhort and teach one another, etc.) than they are when they obey scriptural principles on the other six days of the week by, for example, laboring diligently (Pro. 13:4, 22:9), submitting themselves to the ordinances of civil government (1 Pet. 2:13), or treating their wives as their own flesh (Eph. 5:28), and their behavior is no more or less biblically-regulated at any one time than it is at another.
The idea that worship consists of performing outward rituals only for brief periods at certain times and in particular places is an Old Testament concept which only applied to the sacrificial rites performed primarily in the Tabernacle, and later in the Temple at Jerusalem. These rites were only symbolic of the true spiritual worship and they have been abolished. In the New Testament, the only times that the word "worship" is used in connection with the performance of particular outward actions at certain times and places, is when referring to the Temple worship in Jerusalem (John 4:20, 12:20, 24:11, Acts 8:27). Neither the term worship, nor any synonymous word or phrase, is ever applied to New Testament church gatherings, nor is it applied to the individual functions performed in church gatherings. The reason that Christians are to gather on the Lord's Day is not to perform "worship services," as if they are meeting in a localized version of the Jerusalem Temple and offering ritual sacrifices. The primary purpose of the church meeting is to instruct, and be instructed, in how to worship God throughout everyday life. Again, the true worship of God is not the performing of devotional rituals only at certain times and places. The true worship is, and always has been, to love God "in spirit and in truth." And this love is manifested by diligently applying His commandments to all of life.
I agree that your viewpoint on this. The "error" is not with you. Worship in spirit and truth requires a putting away of the natural man and his actions, and an attitude of humble adoration of the Almighty God, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As created beings, we owe homage and obedience to our creator. Obedience is performing our daily lives and works conforming to His image. That is not worship.
According to Pink,
"To worship God “in spirit and in truth” means in a manner suited to the full and final revelation which God has now made of Himself in Christ It means to worship spiritually and truly. It means giving to Him the homage of an enlightened understanding and the love of a regenerated heart.
True worship is the adoration of a redeemed people, occupied with God.To worship “in spirit and in truth” stands opposed to a carnal worship which is external and spectacular. It bars out all worshiping of God with the senses. We cannot worship Him who is “Spirit” by gazing on ornate architecture and stained glass windows, by listening to the peals of a costly organ, by smelling sweet incense or “telling” of beads. We cannot worship God with our eyes and ears, or nose and hands, for they are “flesh” not “spirit”. “Must worship in spirit and in truth” excludes everything that is of the natural man Himself.
Worship is the new nature in the believer stirred into activity, turning to its Divine and heavenly Source. It is that which is “spirit” (John 3:6) turning to Him who is “Spirit”. It is that which is the “workmanship” of Christ (Eph. 2:10) turning to Him who recreated us. It is the children spontaneously and gratefully turning in love to their Father. It is the new heart crying out, “Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable Gift” (II Cor. 9:15). It is sinners, cleansed by blood, exclaiming “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ” (Eph. 1:3). That is worship; assured of our acceptance in the Beloved, adoring God for what He has made Christ to be unto us, and what He has made us to be in Christ.
Now just as the sons of Aaron were required under pain of death (Ex. 30:20) to wash at the layer before they entered the holy place to burn incense, so must the Christian today have the defilements of the way removed before he can suitably approach unto God as a worshipper. Failure at this point brings in death, that is, I remain under the contaminating power of dead things. The defilements of the way are the result of my passing through a world which is “alienated from the life of God” (Eph. 4:18). If these are not removed, then I continue under the power of death in a spiritual way, and worship becomes impossible."
If we accept Pink's thought and conclusions, we cannot "worship" God as we go about our daily secular work.
As Jesus went into the synagogues to read and teach,the Apostles also followed this, and when the Jews were converted, they carried over the practices in the synagogues to the new churches being established. The New Testament churches followed the same practice as meeting places where reading of Scripture, expositions of the Word, singing psalms, and praising God was done. We are following their established practice.
Ruth said: Worship in spirit and truth requires a putting away of the natural man and his actions, and an attitude of humble adoration of the Almighty God, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Agreed.
Quote
Ruth said: As created beings, we owe homage and obedience to our creator. Obedience is performing our daily lives and works conforming to His image. That is not worship.
Let me offer a few words of admonition from Samuel the prophet in reference to the symbolic worship rites of the Old Testament, to the end that the reader not be caught up in the error of so many today who do not understand that the worship of God does not now, and never has, consisted of outward rituals performed only during brief periods in particular situations. Again, the true worship is, and always has been, a love for God manifested by an obedience to His will in all of life.
“And Samuel said, 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 as] the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry.” (1 Sam. 15:22-23)
Quote
Ruth said: If we accept Pink's thought and conclusions, we cannot "worship" God as we go about our daily secular work.
It sounds like you are making an unbiblical sacred/secular division when you refer to "secular work."
And I don't see how you reached your conclusion about Arthur Pink's words. But I'm more concerned with Paul's thought, which, like Pink's, tells me that God cannot be worshipped by carnal means. In other words, the things that we do in obedience to God are not worship in themselves, they are only outward manifestations of a heart that is always in worship to God.
“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands...” (Acts 17:24-25)
In the passage of Scripture quoted above, in which an audience of pagan Greeks is being addressed, Paul the apostle is correcting a group of men of their idolatrous concept of God and, in doing so, revealing to them the fundamental truth that those who would worship God rightly must do so in a manner consistent with His nature as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. In this discourse from atop Mars Hill, Paul goes on to say that God “giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (vs. 25), that “he be not far from every one of us” (vs. 27), that “in him we live, and move, and have our being” (vs. 28), and that, therefore,“we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (vs. 29). In other words, Paul is teaching his audience that they ought not to think of God in carnal terms and, likewise, they ought not to think that such a God can be worshipped by carnal means. For “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24)
Quote
Ruth said: As Jesus went into the synagogues to read and teach, the Apostles also followed this, and when the Jews were converted, they carried over the practices in the synagogues to the new churches being established. The New Testament churches followed the same practice as meeting places where reading of Scripture, expositions of the Word, singing psalms, and praising God was done. We are following their established practice.
As you ought to do. But don't make the false delineation that these things are acts of worship, while obedience to other biblical precepts outside of this setting are not acts of worship. That is a compartmentalized view of the worship of God which cannot be biblically supported.
Every true Christian should understand that the Bible regulates all of his actions to the same degree in all facets of his life and that there is never a time when he is to cease from worshipping God “in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24) and doing all things “as to the Lord” (Col. 3:23) Those who make statements such as: “Our worship begins at 10:00 A.M.” or ask “Where do you worship?” -- as if worship is something that is limited to brief periods of devotional activities in certain places -- show that they do not understand what it really means to worship God. And those who allow the Bible to strictly regulate their activities in church assemblies (most don't even go that far) but shrink back from allowing the Bible to regulate every facet of their lives, worship God in vain.
gotribe said: Do you think it is possible to "never cease from worshipping God?"
I suppose that if we were not fallen creatures we could be worshipping God in all that we do at all times. But we are, so we don't.
Quote
gotribe said: Do you think you are always in worship to God?
I doubt that I am worshipping God when I sleep. But I try to manifest a worshipful heart in everything that I do, by being obedient to His Word in all that I do. But I often fail, and I am certainly not worshipping God when I am thinking sinful thoughts or doing sinful things.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you believe that worship is something that a Christian does in a church meeting (or "worship service," as you might call it). Would you please show me from the Scriptures why you believe this? And would you please tell me why you hold to a distinction that what a Christian does in a church meeting is worship, while what he does in other parts of his life is not worship? Where is this delineation expressed in the Scriptures?
Sure, I'd be happy to answer that question, but it will take some doing and I have a very busy day in front of me. So I hope you don't mind me getting back to you when I have had time to compose a thoughtful reply.
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
I think the difficulty we are having is in the definition of worship. Your definition, if I understand you correctly, is that every single thing we do is to be considered worship. If that is true then eating is the same as worship, cooking is the same as worship; gardening, fixing the car, mowing the yard are all worship. This is where I disagree with you. By broadening the definition of worship to include all aspects of the Christians life, you divest it of all meaning.
I agree wholeheartedly that our Christian faith must have a radical impact in every area of our lives. 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” The life we live as Christians is to be glorifying to God. Jesus said, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. When we live a life of obedience, prayer, and devotion, letting our lights shine, so to speak—others will see our good works and give glory to God. I am not at all disagreeing that we are to live lives of obedience before God, only that it is for the purpose of glorifying God.
My concern is that if we say that everything we do is worship we immediately go beyond what God has instructed and begin to make up our own rules about what is proper worship and the measure of what is proper is how we feel about what we are doing. The standard becomes ours and not His.
Worship is not only a verb, it is also a noun. It is a thing that has content and God is the One Who determines that content.
You said:
Quote
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you believe that worship is something that a Christian does in a church meeting (or "worship service," as you might call it). Would you please show me from the Scriptures why you believe this? And would you please tell me why you hold to a distinction that what a Christian does in a church meeting is worship, while what he does in other parts of his life is not worship? Where is this delineation expressed in the Scriptures?
Yes, I do believe that what you call a “church meeting” and I call worship really is set apart as different. Not because I say so, but because God says so. God clearly makes a distinction with the way we go about our lives on the other six days and the way we are to set aside the Sabbath. Why else would He give such detailed instructions?
You said:
Quote
The primary purpose of the church meeting is to instruct, and be instructed, in how to worship God throughout everyday life.
While you promote your definition as one that is fuller and more meaningful than “outward rituals only for brief periods at certain times and in particular places” (your words) what you have done is minimize what is going on when the church comes together as the Body of Christ. You make it little more than a class to learn how to “worship.”
As His covenant people, we are not only joining together with members of a particular congregation, in a real spiritual sense we are entering into the heavenlies and join the saints and angels in the worship of God. The components of our worship (remember, this thread was started to discuss the Regulative Principle of Worship) are not simply for the intellectual and spiritual building up of the saints, but they are also for the purpose of showing forth the eternal glories of heaven. These components include the preaching of the Word, reading of the Word, prayer, singing praise, presenting tithes and offerings, the administration of the sacraments and vows. I suspect you seen no continuity between the services and parameters that God established with the children of Israel. God was careful to instruct them on what is permissible and what is forbidden when entering into His presence as an assembly. For, in the final analysis, the service of worship is for Him and to Him.
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
gotribe said: I think the difficulty we are having is in the definition of worship. Your definition, if I understand you correctly, is that every single thing we do is to be considered worship. If that is true then eating is the same as worship, cooking is the same as worship; gardening, fixing the car, mowing the yard are all worship. This is where I disagree with you. By broadening the definition of worship to include all aspects of the Christians life, you divest it of all meaning.
I am saying that no outward actions are really worship. Worship is of the heart, in the spirit. But I am also saying that one can manifest that heart of worship in all that he does because all that he does can be done to the glory of God. I am saying that whenever a Christian is obedient to God in any situation, he is manifesting the worship of God.
Quote
gotribe said: I agree wholeheartedly that our Christian faith must have a radical impact in every area of our lives. 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” The life we live as Christians is to be glorifying to God. Jesus said, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. When we live a life of obedience, prayer, and devotion, letting our lights shine, so to speak—others will see our good works and give glory to God. I am not at all disagreeing that we are to live lives of obedience before God, only that it is for the purpose of glorifying God.
And I'm saying that when one glorifies God in all that he does, he is manifesting a spirit of worship.
Quote
gotribe said: My concern is that if we say that everything we do is worship we immediately go beyond what God has instructed and begin to make up our own rules about what is proper worship and the measure of what is proper is how we feel about what we are doing. The standard becomes ours and not His.
I don't know why you would reach this conclusion. You yourself acknowledged that the Scriptures should regulate all that we do in all facets of life (unless I have you confused with someone else). And Paul made it clear that we can glorify God in all that we do, as you pointed out. In other words, there is no part of life which the word of God does not regulate and there is no part of life where we cannot glorify God. Therefore, I conclude that there is no part of life in which we cannot manifest the worship of God.
Quote
gotribe said: Worship is not only a verb, it is also a noun. It is a thing that has content and God is the One Who determines that content.
True. I believe that the noun constituent of worship is the renewed heart of the believer where God is worshipped "in spirit and in truth." And I believe that the verb constituent of worship is the righteous outward actions produced by that heart of worship.
Quote
gotribe said: Yes, I do believe that what you call a “church meeting” and I call worship really is set apart as different. Not because I say so, but because God says so. God clearly makes a distinction with the way we go about our lives on the other six days and the way we are to set aside the Sabbath. Why else would He give such detailed instructions?
From an article I wrote about worship:
"Another biblically unsupportable delineation made by some is that the Lord's Day (the first day of the week) is a day set apart for worship. It is true that the Lord's Day is not to be like the other six days of the week insofar as what Christians are permitted to do and what they are to refrain from doing. However, this does not mean that one is a day of worship while the other six are not and, indeed, it is never referred to as a day of worship in the Bible. God has commanded that the NT Sabbath Day, just as the OT Sabbath Day, is to be set apart for specific purposes but, unlike the OT Sabbath, it is no longer set apart for the performing of carnal sacrificial rites symbolically designated as worship. The purpose of the Lord's Day is for rest, fellowship, and instruction on how to be obedient to God fully at all times and in all parts of our lives. While it is true that obedience to scriptural precepts concerning the Sabbath Day and its church meeting are acts of worship in themselves, they are not any more or less acts of worship than is obedience to other scriptural precepts on other days. Christians should obey the commands to rest on the Sabbath but doing so is not an act of worship any more or less than obeying commands to labor diligently on the other six days. God's people should obey the precept to gather with the local church on the Lord's Day but doing so is not an act of worship any more or less than obeying the precept that Christians are to minister to each other's needs every day. The godly should obey commands to instruct one another when they meet on the first day of the week but doing so is not an act of worship any more or less than putting the lessons learned into practice during the other six days of the week."
Quote
gotribe said: While you promote your definition as one that is fuller and more meaningful than “outward rituals only for brief periods at certain times and in particular places” (your words) what you have done is minimize what is going on when the church comes together as the Body of Christ. You make it little more than a class to learn how to “worship.”
The primary purpose of the Lord's day church meeting is for instruction of the saints. If you want me to prove this from the Scriptures, I will do so.
Quote
gotribe said: As His covenant people, we are not only joining together with members of a particular congregation, in a real spiritual sense we are entering into the heavenlies and join the saints and angels in the worship of God.
Please show me where this is taught in the Scriptures.
Quote
gotribe said: (remember, this thread was started to discuss the Regulative Principle of Worship)
Yes, and my purpose for participating in this thread is to show that worship is not something that one does in a building once per week. I adhere to the "Regulative Principle of Worship" because I believe that the Scriptures regulate all facets of a believers life and that he can manifest the true worship of God in all facets of his life. Perhaps we should call your regulative principle "The Regulative Principle of Church Meetings," and my regulative principle "The Regulative Principle of Life."
Quote
gotribe said: The components of our worship are not simply for the intellectual and spiritual building up of the saints, but they are also for the purpose of showing forth the eternal glories of heaven. These components include the preaching of the Word, reading of the Word, prayer, singing praise, presenting tithes and offerings, the administration of the sacraments and vows.
Your view of the Lord's day meeting sounds very "high church" and formal. I mostly agree with the components you named but I believe that the scriptural model for church meeting instruction is that it is to take place primarily by discussion or dialogue rather than monologue.
Quote
gotribe said: I suspect you seen no continuity between the services and parameters that God established with the children of Israel. God was careful to instruct them on what is permissible and what is forbidden when entering into His presence as an assembly. For, in the final analysis, the service of worship is for Him and to Him.
Apparently, you see the New Testament church meeting place as a scaled-down and localized version of the Old Testament Temple, only with a simplified form of "worship." But the New Testament church meeting is similar to the synagogue meeting, not the Temple worship. The Temple and all of its symbolic worship has been completely abolished being fulfilled in Christ. It is not appropriate to think of the New Testament church meeting place as if it is a holy temple indwelt by the presence of God and that Christians enter into that presence in some mystical way when they gather together. The Temple was representative of the church (i.e., the believers) and the Spirit of God indwells His church at all times and in all places.
The concept that worship consists of performing rituals at certain times and in certain places was only a symbolic one which has been abolished. For “the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.” “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” (John 4:21, 23) It's important to recognize in these words that Christ did not replace the ritualistic and centralized Temple worship in Jerusalem with a simpler set of worship rituals to be performed in local temples all over the world. Rather, He abolished forever the concept that worshipping God was assembling to perform rituals in particular places (“neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem”), and He set forth the true spiritual nature of worship (“the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth”).
Neither the word worship, nor any synonymous term or phrase, is used in the NT Scriptures to define either the collective actions performed or the time spent in gatherings of the church. Nor is the word worship or any synonymous term or phrase applied to individual God-ordained actions performed (such as prayer, preaching, the sacraments, psalm-singing, etc.) The title of worship which designated the carnal rituals of the Temple assembly has been abolished along with the rituals themselves because these things were never the true worship but only “the figures of the true” (Heb. 9:24) spiritual worship. Now that we “worship God in the spirit” (Phil. 3:3) “by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands” (Heb. 9:11), and “offer up spiritual sacrifices” (1 Pet. 2:5) rather than perform “ordinances of divine service” in “a worldly sanctuary” (Heb. 9:1) we ought not to be defining a word of God in a way that is at variance with God's definition, by misapplying the symbolic designation of worship to the performing of certain New Testament functions, as if we are still performing the “carnal ordinances” (Heb. 9:10) of the Old Testament which are now described as “weak and beggarly elements” (Gal. 4:9) when compared to the greater New Testament revelation.
To come to a proper and biblical understanding of “worship” one needs to have a firm grasp of Biblical Theology, i.e., the progressive development of the self-revelation of God which He Himself has determined to have recorded in Scripture. The concept of worship doesn’t find its origin in the Temple and the festivals celebrated by the nation of Israel but rather beginning in Genesis with the very purpose for which man was created, i.e., to glorify God and to serve Him in the concrete reality of the world.
In the very creation itself we find that the non-human elements of the creation “declare the glory of God” (Ps 19:1), i.e., they show forth God as the sovereign Creator to whom is owed adoration and subservience. Man, however, being created in the imago dei, was far different than all else that God created for it was in this possession of God’s “image” that man was able to have communion with the Creator and to offer to Him that praise and recognition that He is indeed the sovereign Creator and sustainer of all things. It is in this special relationship that “worship” came into being. The original covenant established by God with Adam and Eve, due to the Fall, was broken and thus there existed a natural disfellowship between the Creator and the creature. Yet, it was through the grace of God that this fellowship was to be re-established but through sacrifice to atone for the transgression that broke the covenant that existed. This can be seen initially, in seed form, when Abel and Cain brought offerings to God, which I would suggest was a designated time; the Sabbath, and according to specific regulations given by God Himself. This we see from the fact that Cain’s offering was rejected and Abel’s accepted. (Gen 4:3ff)
The fact that man by virtue of his constituent being and calling is called to worship is seen in the fact that immediately after the Fall men bring an offering. The offerings seems to spring from a desire to satisfy the need for fellowship with God. The offerings were intended to be expressive of gratitude to God, but were also associated with the desire to secure the divine favor and blessing. Based on the previous revelation to Genesis 3, Abel not only has a heart that is right before God (Heb 11:4), but he worshipped according to the command of God. His sacrifice was that which was a response to revelation and contained a germ of substitution, the notion of expiatory sacrifice.
The worship element began to play a prominent role in the days of Enosh (Gen 4:26). “Calling upon the name of the Lord” is an expression denoting the proclamation of that in worship. Calling upon the name of the Lord denotes invocation. It would seem that the people of Enosh’s day were seeking to capture something of the “shalom” ideal which God had ordained form man when He blessed him in paradise. We have here the first explicit account of the commencement of worship that consisted of a celebration of the mercy and help of Jehovah. It may have consisted of prayer, praise and thanksgiving. This is further confirmed when one sees in Gen 8:20ff. that the first thing that Noah did after the flood waters receded was to build an altar for burnt sacrifice, to thank the Lord for gracious protection, and pray for mercy in time to come. This is the first explicit mention of the altar. The altar was erected to God, the offering was presented to Him. Thus we read, “the Lord smelled a sweet savor.” (v. 20) Literally, it was the “odor of rest.” God accepted the offering and responded to this desire for fellowship and creation. It is note worthy that in the intimate relationship between worship and Covenant, sacrifice precedes the institution of the Covenant.
The Patriarchs built altars at various locations where the Lord manifested Himself to them. The altar plays an important part in the history of revelation. The Patriarchs build their own altars and act as their own priests. As the Covenant promise was given to Abraham, he responds by erecting an altar to the Lord which has three features: 1) calling upon His name, 2) acknowledgement of His name, and 3) taking possession of the land in the name of his God. The place of altar building at Bethel is significant. In fact, when he returned from Egypt he erected an altar to the Lord. Leupold writes: “Apparently, this worship was to Abram a matter of personal necessity as well as public testimony. Of personal necessity for he desired to express his penitence at his lapse from truth as well as his gratitude for the undeserved protection of himself and his wife by Yahweh. At the same time, this public act proclaimed the honor of Yahweh, the true and faithful, to whom alone Abram ascribed his safe return.” (H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, Volume I, pp. 432, 433.) When Abram settles down in Hebron, that place is sanctified by the building of an altar to the Lord in contrast to the gods of the Canaanites. A further step in preparation for the Mosaic worship system is found in Genesis 22. Isaac is taken to Mt. Moriah to be offered on a altar. Isaac bears the seed of the Redeemer; thus we see, not a pietistic event, but the principle of substitution illustrated.” All the Biblical sacrifices rest on the idea of the gift of life to God, either in consecration or in expiation, is necessary to the action or the restoration of religion. What passes from man to God is not regarded as property but, even though it be property for a symbolic purpose, means always in the last analysis the gift of life. And this is, in the original conception, neither in expiation nor in consecration the gift of alien life; it is the gift of life of the offerer himself” (Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 107).
There exists in the life of Israel a series of institutions and cultic acts forming the service of Jehovah in a narrow sense. These are cultic institutions and ceremonies. However, by the theocratic ordinance, all human relations have a religious quality and therefore must be called “service” (worship) to God. At the same time, in the narrow sense Israel must present herself before the Lord. Because He has chosen the people and brought them into fellowship with Himself as a community which He has sanctified, Israel must regularly consecrate herself and all that she has before the Lord. Thus we must distinguish between those acts of men which are done throughout the daily lives and that special act, designated as “worship”, in the offering of their hearts to express adoration and gratitude to God according to His dictates, in a corporate setting, as the chosen people of God.
Let me quickly move on to the next stage of development in the worship of God, which is that of the Tabernacle. In the giving of the tabernacle, God asserts His right to declare how He shall be worshipped. In Numbers 6:26 the formula of blessing which Aaron and his sons put on the congregation of Israel constitutes the epitome of tabernacle service. It was at the tabernacle, and the tabernacle alone, that it was possible to see the face of God and to realize the fullness of strength expressed by the word “shalom”. E. Jacob has observed that the very structure of the tabernacle with its palm trees and cherubim and holy places were calculated to evoke memories of the “shalom” of paradise. (Jacob, The Theology of the Old Testament, p. 259) One can get an idea of the purpose of the tabernacle by the names that are given to it: “the dwelling place,” to signify that here God dwells among His people and is truly their God; “the tent of meeting,” to show that here God meets with His people and has fellowship with them; “the tent of testimony,” because it testifies constantly to the Covenant which God had made with His people; “the Holy Place,” because it is set apart from everything else by virtue of God’s present there, and thus He is to be viewed with reverence and awe. The “meeting” does not refer to a gathering of the people together, as much as it is the “meeting” of Jehovah with His people. The concept of “meeting” implies that God makes the provision and appoints the time. This is important because the Bible emphasizes that in worship there is a conscious intercourse between God and man (Ex. 29:42) The names of the tabernacle imply not only trustful approach but ear and awe. The sanctuary character of the tabernacle emphasizes this element. The people remain at a distance and are confined to the outer court. Only the priests may enter, and this is due to their representative character, not to their ethical qualifications.
It is also true that the tabernacle is the place where the people offer their worship to God. This aspect can be seen in the symbolism of the Hoy Place. The incense stands for prayer. It ascends to God and is received as a delightful smell in the nostrils of the Lord. The Table of the Bread of Face, represents the meat and drink offering. In the light of Lev. 24:5-8 it symbolizes the consecration of the activities of life to God. The significance of the Lamp Stand is more difficult to discern. In the light of Matt. 5:14 it may indirectly refer to the ascriptions of praise to God. The whole phenomenon was not pure symbol but a real means of grace. The Shekinah emphasizes that the tabernacle actually contained the presence of God. (Vos, Biblical Theology, pp. 168-172)
Now, quickly moving on the Mosaic period, the major time of ceremony was the Sabbath. It was by creation ordinance, bound to the service of God. The most prominent feature of the Sabbath was that it was to be observed as a perpetual “berith” (Ex. 31:16). The Sabbath seems to be essential to “berith”. It served as a condition for Covenant standing. It demonstrates faith in what it typifies (creation, redemption, eschatological rest). The Sabbath was a day of special religious assembly (Lev. 23:3). There were also detailed regulations for its observation. In addition to the regular Sabbath meeting, there were special festivals/Sabbaths that were celebrated. But again, these were additional to the regular meetings of the weekly Sabbath. Although they are important in that they reveal more of the redemptive nature of what the Messiah was to accomplish in His atonement, which are revelatory in nature, it was the weekly gathering of the people of God on the weekly Sabbath that is in focus here and which was to be carried over into the New Testament period.
Meredith Kline and George Mendenhall have demonstrated that a great deal of the form of the Covenant corresponds to the Suzerainty treaties of the Near East. An important element of this ceremony was the public hearing of the terms of the Covenant. In Deuteronomy 9 the people heard the renewal of the Covenant “in the day of the assembly” (Meredith Kline, The Treaty of the Great King, pp. 30-48). The tontinued office of the prophet (oracle of God) is also declared. (Deut. 5:15) So here we find a liturgical use of the Word of God. In addition to the hearing of the proclamation wherein God set forth His love and His demands there was a response of worship which was also evident in this Covenant assembly. The oath or vow to keep the Covenant is a supreme act of worship. The song of Moses, A Covenant Witness, is a model of praise. Indeed it becomes a paradigm for the future praise of Israel. The whole congregation participates in this testimony of the Covenant.
Something of the pattern of this assembly can be seen in the Covenant renewal ceremony in Deuteronomy. Their assembly was to express itself in joyful worship. “Ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Deut. 5:7, 12). Their liturgy was to be based on the revealed will of God; no less, no more. “Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deut. 5:32, 13:1). Part of the Covenant response required was a cultic (worship) confession. (Deut. 26:1-11) They were to confess His continuing Lordship and to demonstrate outwardly that Lordship by a tributary offering of first fruits. They were also to confess that their call was attributed to God’s grace. “A wandering Aramean was my father” (26:5). The dependence of Israel on the Lord for continual blessing was expressed in triennial service of presentation. There was apparently a liturgy which followed the presentation of the tithes and first fruits. It involved an avowal of obedience and a petition for divine blessing. (Deut. 26:13-15) This confession and others also involve a historical recital of the great events of redemptive history. The historical recital is seen in the praise of the Psalter. The central act of the assembled people was an oath of allegiance which was given in response to the declarations of the Covenant provisions and stipulations. The people vow and the “Lord graciously acknowledges them as His people and guarantees the blessing of the Covenant (Deut. 26:16-19)
The covenantal aspect is not transient but perpetual as the Lord’s Covenant of Grace extends from Adam to the last believer on earth until Christ returns. Thus the worship of God is to be retained and practiced in its fullness by all of God’s people in every age. This worship, in its narrow sense, i.e., the corporate gathering of the people of God on the Sabbath, varies only in such things as to its meeting place (outward elements) and its depth due to the progressive revelation of God’s redemptive plan as it was made available to God’s people throughout history, culminating in its fullest expression during the time of the Apostles when the New Testament was penned by those holy men of God as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Conclusions to be derived from the above biblical evidence:
The approach to the issue of worship must be Biblical-theological rather than merely textual.
The backdrop of worship is the reality of creation and it therefore assumes the creature-Creator relationship.
Worship is God-centered. It rests on His action, indeed was, and is a proclamation of His action.
Worship is Covenant memorializing. It has its root in response to or reaffirmation of the Covenant. God comes to man as He dwells in the midst of His gathered people but the people also enter afresh into the Covenant, vis-à-vis prayer, praise, confession, etc.
Worship (service) “latreia” must be seen in both its narrow sense (cultic institutions, etc.) and in its broad sense (all of life is a service before the Lord).
The supreme self-realization of the people of God is in their worship. They are the people of God when they gather before the Lord for worship.
Worship is primarily corporate. Perhaps some have been unduly influenced by pietistic individualism in their view of worship and thus diminish and/or denigrate the corporate aspect of the true worship of God.
In another reply, I'll deal with worship in the Gospels, and D.v., thereafter worship during the first 4 centuries of the Christian Church.
[color:"blue"]The Worship of God in the Four Gospels[/color]
By John Murray
It could be assumed that the four Gospels would not provide much teaching relevant to the worship that is permanent in the church of God. The four Gospels are concerned to a large extent with what antedated the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ and their story does not extend to the event of Pentecost. It was by these pivotal events that the typical and ceremonial institution was abrogated as to its observance and it might be thought that the worship reflected on in the four Gospels would be the worship of the ceremonial economy as distinct from the worship of the New Testament. There are two observations respecting this assumption. First, it should be borne in mind that there is much in the worship of the Old Testament that bears upon the worship that abides. Many considerations establish a basic identity in the worship of both Testaments. Examples will appear in the course of this study. Second, the assumption is soon shown to be erroneous when the four Gospels are examined. There is a wealth of material directly pertinent to what is basic and essential in the worship of God and therefore indispensable in the worship the New Testament prescribes. This material may be set forth under several appropriate divisions.
I. The Worship of God (Matthew 4:10; Luke 4:8; 24:53; John 4:23, 24; 9:31)
A. According to Scripture the primary principle of worship is that God alone is to be worshipped. It was our Lord himself who gave unambiguous witness to this principle and exemplified it in the ordeal of his temptation: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8).
1. The test is a quotation (Deuteronomy 6:13). This, at the outset, advises us that the worship of the Old Testament in its essential features is never to be set in antithesis to the worship of the New. There is basic identity and our Lord did not need to state anything new in this respect but to reassert what the Old Testament had emphatically required. This fact of identity is implicit in the principle itself. Since God is one (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4) and God alone is to be worshipped, there could not be any basic discrepancy and so, in respect of essence, the Old Testament is regulative for the worship of the New. To this our Lord himself accords his authority and sanction.
2. The principle lies close to the first commandment, and the correlation implies that worship as to its specific character partakes of the exclusiveness that belongs to God. The absolute distinctness and transcendence of God are to be expressed and verified by that which belongs to him alone, namely, worship. And the rendering to any creature the worship due to God amounts to a denial of that glory which is distinctively and uniquely his. This indictment applies not only to that which is ostensibly worship of the creature but also to that which gives to any creature a deference that amounts to worship. It is in this respect that the first principle of worship may be violated by us and the idolatry of heart and practice exposed.
B. No text in Scripture is more significant for the worship of God than John 4:23, 24: “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” This passage merits a dissertation. Only brief comment can be given now and the points of leading significance mentioned.
1. Our Lord is specific in emphasizing the worship of the Father. This indicates that the worship of God must be characterized by the particularity that exists in the Godhead. Worship must be offered in recognition of the Trinitarian distinctions and to each person of the Godhead in accordance with his distinguishing properties and functions, especially as these are expressed in the economy of salvation. The accent in this passage falls upon the necessity of worship “in spirit and truth.” But this requirement cannot be fulfilled if the truth that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not determine the character of our worship.
2. “God is spirit.” Like other propositions, “God is light” (I John 1:5), “God is love” (I John 4:8, 16), “our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29), this one specifies the nature of God. The thought is not that he is a spirit and belongs to the classification “spirits.” He is spirit essentially and uniquely and this prescribes the nature of the worship to be rendered to him: it must be “in spirit and truth.”
We may not dismiss offhand the view that “spirit” in this case refers to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit and truth are brought into such correlation in the teaching of our Lord in this Gospel (14:17; 15:26; 16:13; cf. I John 4:6; 5:6) that it would be easy to interpret the coordination in John 4:23, 24 in these terms and regard Jesus’ intent to be tantamount to “in the Spirit of truth.” We may not, however, insist on this interpretation. It is probably that “spirit” refers to the human spirit (cf. Matthew 5:3; Luke 1:47; John 13:21; Acts 17:16; Romans 1:9; 8:l6b; I Corinthians 2:11 & 7:34; II Corinthians 7:1; I Thessalonians 5:23) and that the intensive and internal quality of true worship is expressed. “Truth” is coordinated with “spirit” to express the reality that must characterize worship in contrast with make-believe and hypocrisy. Truth also points to reality in contrast with type and shadow. Inwardness and reality are required by the nature of God as spirit and from the correlative that God is truth. These qualities of worship are indicated also in “true worshippers” (verse 23). The “true” finds its antonym not so much in what is false, though this is not wholly absent, but in what falls short of the reality which, in the exercise of worship, corresponds with the reality of God’s being as spirit and truth. It is, therefore, apparent how dependent we are upon the Holy Spirit as the author of “Spiritual sacrifice” when we offer to God the worship that is acceptable. “It is the Spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6:63).
The principle “in spirit and truth” bears directly upon the content of worship. If worship must be consonant with the nature of God, it must be in accord with what God has revealed himself to be and regulated as to content and mode by the revelation God has given in holy Scripture. The sanction enunciated (“in spirit and truth”) excludes all human invention and imagination and warns us against the offence and peril of offering strange fire unto the Lord. No principle more than this inculcates jealousy to ascertain that what we offer has the warrant of divine authority.
3. The words, “for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers” (verse 23) allude to the requirement of worship “in spirit and truth,” implicit in the preceding clause and expressly stated in verse 24. So they accentuate the demand for true worship. But what needs to be observed by way of distinction in this instance is the grace betokened. Again the reference to the Father is to be appreciated. Nothing less than access to the throne of the Father’s grace and to the holy of holies of the Father’s presence is contemplated. And the accent falls upon the assurance that worshippers of the kind stated are sought for by the Father.
It is not merely that they may enter the sanctuary to offer worship but that the Father has delight in this service. In response to the Father’s delight our worship ought to be one of delight and confidence. Language fails to measure up to the benignity of the Father’s good pleasure and to the joy of entering into his courts.
We thus see that in Jesus’ own teaching on this occasion we find a series of principles that are most basic and central in relation to God’s worship.
II. The Worship of Jesus
When we keep in view our Lord’s own explicit witness that God alone is to be worshipped, the worship of Jesus in the record of the Gospels constitutes one of the most astounding features of Gospel history. The visit of the wise men to Jerusalem on the occasion of Jesus’ birth is illustrative of the ways in which the history connected with the begetting, conception, and birth of Christ is charged with the unprecedented. Of particular relevance to our present interest is the fact that when they found the child Jesus “they fell down and worshipped him” (Matt. 2:11; cf. 2:2). All the circumstances associated with this incident combine to show that the worship was of that character exemplified in subsequent instances throughout the life of Jesus upon earth. That the infant Jesus should have elicited worship is evidence of the incomparably supernatural and the recognition of this on the part of the wise men.
It is not necessary to discuss all the cases in which worship has been accorded to Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. There are numerous instances in a great diversity of situations (cf. Matthew 8:12; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; 11:9, 10: Luke 18:37, 38; 24:52; John 9:38; 12:13). Suffice it to observe the implications.
1 . In contrast with other instances in which worship had been reproved and rejected (cf. Acts 10:25; 26; Revelation 22:8, 9), Jesus never declined the worship proferred nor did he reprove it as incompatible with the worship due to God alone. Two examples of acceptance and commendation point up the difference in his case (Matthew 15:25, 28; John 20:28, 29). But not only is there acceptance; our Lord expressly provides the reason.
The Father, he says “hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that sent him” (John 5:22, 23). As will be noted, it is the dignity belonging to Him as the Son that not only grounds the propriety of worship but also demands the same.
2. The astounding feature of the worship of Jesus is that his human identity did not interfere with the offering to him of the worship due to God alone. The only explanation of this is the recognition that he was more than man, that is, of his divine identity. How in numerous cases in the days of his flesh this recognition had been formed in the consciousness of his worshippers it is not our purpose now to discuss or investigate. But with varying degrees of awareness there must have entered into their consciousness the implications of the witness borne to him. In this connection is should be observed that his identity as the Son of God is of paramount importance. The import of his divine Sonship is no less than equality with God and Godhood (cf. John 5:17, 18; 10:22). Matthew 14:33 is a noteworthy example of the relation that the intradivine Sonship sustains to worship: “And those who were in the boat worshipped him saying: Verily of God thou art Son.”
The effect of the evidence in the Gospels bearing upon the worship of Jesus is that, in addition to what Jesus taught respecting the worship of the Father, our worship is not true worship if it is not characterized by the worship of our Lord Jesus Christ equally and concurrently with our worship of the Father. The principle already established that the worship of God must take account of the particularity of the persons of the Godhead must apply to the worship of Jesus, and it is in this case that the particularity is peculiarly distinct. The human identity of Jesus must never be absent from our thought of him and so in our worship of him he must ever be conceived of as the God-man. Such a conception is severely excluded in our worship of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. As our Christian faith is constituted by faith in him who is the God-man, so Christian worship consists essentially in the worship of Jesus as the Son of God incarnate, the man Christ Jesus. All of this points up and points to the redemptive conditioning of Christian worship and forcefully reminds us that we worship each person of the Trinity in terms of the distinguishing functions that person performs in the economy of salvation. It would take us too far afield to adduce all the data relevant to this in the teaching of Jesus. Suffice it to mention the prominence given in his own witness to the fact of his being the one sent of the Father and to the place this occupied in the knowledge and faith of him (cf. Matthew 10:30; Luke 4:18, 43; John 5:36; 6:38; 17:3, 8, 18, 23).
III. Regulative Principle (Matthew 15:2-9; 21:12, 13; Mark 7:7-9, 13; 11:15-17; John 2:14-17; 4:23, 24)
We have noted already that John 4:23, 24 bears directly upon the content of worship, that the requirement “in spirit and truth” inculcates the necessity of ascertaining that what we offer in worship has the warrant of divine authority. It is significant that what is implicit in John 4:23, 24 finds its explicit enunciation in Jesus’ teaching elsewhere. Attention may be focused on Mark 7:7-9, 13. It is apparent that the emphasis in this passage is placed on the inviolable sanction of the commandment of God in opposition to the tradition of men and vice versa. This is not restricted to the subject of worship in the specific sense. The occasion particularly in view was the subterfuge by which the fifth commandment has been made void. This, however, was but an example, for our Lord adds: “and many such like things ye do” (vs. 13). For our present interest what needs to be observed is that worship comes within the compass of application and it is with reference to worship that the subject is introduced: “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (vs. 7; cf. Matthew 15:9; Isaiah 29:13). In the discourse that follows we find a sustained antithesis of human prescription to the commandment of God: “Leaving the commandment of God ye hold fast the tradition of men.. . Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition.. .making void the word of God by your tradition” (vs. 8, 9, 13). The conclusions are express. (1) Worship that is regulated by human prescription is vain; it rejects the commandment of God and makes void his word. (2) Adherence to the commandment of God is mandatory; we may not leave it or depart from it. And this means that we must be constantly directed by the prescription of God’s Word.
The repeated reference to the commandment of God is of paramount importance. It shows that nothing less than this is in our Lord’s esteem the regulative principle of the worship of God. It does not mean that “tradition” as such is to be depreciated. But it does require that any tradition which is not based upon and derived from divine prescription is of human origin and sanction and incurs the condemnation so patent in our Lord’s teaching on this subject. Jesus’ cleansing of the temple illustrates his jealousy for the sanctity of the house of God and the holy zeal with which desecration should be expelled.
IV. Requisites of Worship (Matthew 5:23, 24; 6:1-4; 12:7; 18:20; Mark 12:42-44; Luke 21:2-4)
Acceptable worship requires not only conformity to divine prescription in content and form; the frame of mind on the part of the worshipper must also be taken into account. To this our Lord bears witness and therefore inculcates the necessity of adherence to objective norms, on the one hand, and of subjective attitude, on the other. Worship is directed to God alone. But as in ethics so in worship interhuman relations may never be dismissed as irrelevant. This is the lesson of Matthew 5:23, 24: “If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Not only reconciliation with God is indispensable but also reconciliation with our brethren, and the latter is the concrete and practical criterion of our sincerity. “He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen” (I John 4:20).
When our Lord reproved theatrical showmanship (Matthew 6:1-4), he exposed an evil far more prevalent than the demonstrative display to which he expressly refers, the evil of attendance upon the exercises of worship to be seen and have glory of men. The principle underlying Jesus’ reproof is that in worship we come into the holiest of God’s presence and that concern for the notice and praise of men is the contradiction of worshipping the Creator rather than the creature and amounts to idolatry.
Jesus’ observations respecting the widow who cast into the treasury two mites (Mark 12:42-44; Luke 21:2-4) advises us that the criterion of devotion is not the amount we contribute to the service of God but the commitment of which our contribution is the measure. Though Matthew l8;20 has a wider application, the gathering together for worship cannot be excluded from its scope. Two considerations should be observed. (1) The assembly of the saints is the meeting of God with his people (cf. Exodus 29:43-46) and he dwells among them. This meeting and dwelling Jesus applies to his own presence; when he is in the midst, God is there. (2) The minimum of plurality is all that is required. If two come together in Jesus’ name he is always there. To suspend the worship of the church because of meagre attendance is to offer insult to the Saviour and shows more concern for meeting with people than meeting with Christ. The implications for worship are patent. “The name of the city from that day shall be, The Lord is there” (Ezekiel 48:35). It is of this that Jesus’ word is reminiscent and with his own presence the promise is realized. Wherever there are two there are always three and the third is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. Where Christ is, the Father and Holy Spirit are (Cf. John 17:21-23; 14:16, 17). So wherever there are two there are always five — two meeting in Jesus’ name and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The inestimable grace and privilege need no comment.
V. The Ingredients of Worship. The teaching on this subject comprised in the four Gospels merits discussion far beyond what the limits of this study permit. At the best, comment will be brief and in some instances little more than citation of relevant passages.
A. Prayer. No passage in Scripture is of greater importance on the subject of prayer than is the prayer Jesus taught his disciples (Matthew 6:9-15; Luke 11:2-4). Some salient features may be mentioned. We are advised that, by way of eminence, prayer should be addressed to God the Father. This is not only indicated by the title “Father” in the prayer itself (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2) but also by the repeated use of this title in the context (cf. Matthew 6:4, 6, 8, 14, 15). As has been observed above in connection with worship in general, so now we are reminded that prayer must be characterized by the particularity of approach and access required by the differentiation within the Godhead and falls short of its Christian character if it is not directed to God the Father in the marvel of the revelation he comes to sustain to the people of God as their Father in heaven. Paramount in all prayer must be adoration and supreme must be our interest in God’s glory and kingdom. The prayer is that which Jesus taught his disciples. It was not Jesus’ own prayer. John 17:1-26 is the grand example of the latter and the contrasts need to be jealously observed. In prayer to the Father the uniqueness of Jesus’ filial relation must be kept in mind and his exclusion from the address “our Father” always recognized.
Our Lord’s teaching anent attitude in prayer points up the lessons of faith (cf. Matthew 7:7-11; 17:20; Mark 11:24), perseverance (cf. Luke 18:1; 9-14; Matthew 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30), watchfulness (cf. Matthew 26:40, 41; Mark 13:33-35; 14:38; Luke 21:36), forgiving disposition (cf. Matthew 6:14, 15; Mark 11:25), contrition (Luke 18:9-14).
B. Fasting. The sequence in which Matthew 6:16-18 occurs indicates that fasting is an exercise of devotion similar to prayer and on occasion conjoined with it. The propriety and acceptableness of fasting as an element of worship are, however, placed beyond doubt by verse 18. It is in the Father’s presence that believers fast and the Father gives the recompence (cf. Luke 2:37). That fasting has its appropriate occasion and should be restricted to such is equally apparent (cf. Mark 2:20; Luke 5:35). Though there is a question as to the text of Matthew 17:21 (cf. Mark 9:29) the thought is no doubt authentic and illustrates the type of circumstance in which the efficacy of prayer is contingent upon the concentration exemplified in fasting.
C. The emphasis placed upon preaching in the activities of the disciples evinces the place it occupies in the worship of the church (cf. Matthew 10:7; Mark 3:14; 5:18, 20; 6:12; Luke 8:39; 9:2, 6; John 21:15-17).
D. Singing. (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26). This refers to the paschal hymn comprising the Psalms known as the Hallel.
E. Baptism. (Matthew 28:19, 20).
F. The Lord’s Supper. (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:14-20).
G. Scripture Reading. The reading of Scripture was an integral part of the synagogue worship. The instance recorded in Luke 4:16-19 provides an example that would have to be regarded as permanently relevant.
Pilgrim said: Perhaps some have been unduly influenced by pietistic individualism in their view of worship and thus diminish and/or denigrate the corporate aspect of the true worship of God.
And perhaps others have been unduly influenced by institutionalized religion in their view of Christianity and thus reduce the worship of God to the performing of devotional activities for brief periods in particular places.
Pilgrim said: The concept of worship doesn’t find its origin in the Temple and the festivals celebrated by the nation of Israel but rather beginning in Genesis with the very purpose for which man was created, i.e., to glorify God and to serve Him in the concrete reality of the world.
Agreed. And the true worship of God has never consisted of external religious devotions. It has always been a love for God manifested by righteous actions that both glorify God and serve Him in the concrete reality of the world.
Stuart DiNenno said: Agreed. And the true worship of God has never consisted of external religious devotions. It has always been a love for God manifested by righteous actions that both glorify God and serve Him in the concrete reality of the world.
How sad that you didn't read anything other than that one statement, which you also have taken out of context; I was showing the origin of worship only, and ignored all else that I wrote. I showed that true worship is BOTH narrowly defined as the corporate gathering of God's people, etc., and widely defined as the expression of obedience to God in all of life, which is actually one's "service" (Heb 12:1, 2) to God. The biblical evidence is incontrovertible that there is to be a corporate gathering of the people of God for the specific purpose of offering worship to God which consists of the reading/preaching of the Word, prayer, praise, song and offerings. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
Pilgrim said: The biblical evidence is incontrovertible that there is to be a corporate gathering of the people of God for the specific purpose of offering worship to God which consists of the reading/preaching of the Word, prayer, praise, song and offerings.
The biblical evidence is incontrovertible that there is to be a corporate gathering on the Lord's day of the people of God, which consists of reading/preaching/discussing the word, along with prayer, psalm-singing, and offerings. I never disputed that fact. And if you want to call that a worship service, then that is what you will do. But the Scriptures never refer to either synagogue meetings or NT church meetings as worship services or anything synonymous to that, nor is the term worship applied to the individual functions performed in the synagogue or church meeting.
And it is an error to think of the NT church meeting place as a sort of scaled-down and localized version of the OT Temple. The parallel is between the church meeting and the synagogue meeting, not the church meeting and the Temple worship. The latter has been completely abrogated and has no NT counterpart. Therefore, it is erroneous to think of the NT church building as if it is a holy place and apply the nomenclature to it that applied to the Temple ("the sanctuary," "the house of God," etc.). And it is also erroneous to think of the NT church meeting as a ritualistic and formal "worship service" akin to the Temple worship.
The performing of outward rituals during brief periods in particular situations is not now, and never was, the true worship. Love of God, which is manifested by one's keeping of His commandments (all of them), and, secondarily, love to our fellow man, which is also manifested by the keeping of God's commandments (all of them), is, and always has been, the true worship. This was at least acknowledged by some of the Jews who took part in the symbolic offerings and sacrifices of the Temple worship:
"And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." (Mark 12:32-34)
The love of God and our fellow man is more (much more) than the performance of outward religious rituals. Jesus Christ clearly declared that the love of God and the love of our fellow man is the fulfillment of all of God's will revealed in the Holy Scriptures:
"Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Mat. 22:36-40)
And how is the love of God and of our neighbour manifested? By the keeping of His commandments, not only the commandments regulating our behavior during church meetings but all of His commandments as they apply to all of life. This is a fact expressed repeatedly throughout the word of God (Exo. 20:6; Deu. 5:10, 7:9, 11:1,13,22, 19:9, 30:16; Jos.22:5; Neh. 1:5; Dan. 9:4; John 14:15,21, 15:10; 1 John 5:2-3; 2 John 1:6) The worship of God is to love Him with all the heart, soul, and mind, and that love is manifested by diligently searching out the will of God in the Scriptures and carefully applying biblical precepts to all of life. This "is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices" of ritualistic worship services. The worshippers of whom Christ said that "the Father seeketh such to worship him" are those who love Him and obey Him throughout the entirety of their lives, not those who think that they are worshipping God by performing a few hours of religious devotions while they hypocritically ignore numerous biblical precepts in everyday life.
This might seem like an inconsequential matter to some but it has greatly negative consequences in the church. Words have meaning and when we use a word that God has given us in a way that is at variance with its usage in the Scriptures, this perverts its meaning and consequently perverts our beliefs and practices. When one defines worship as something that he does only during brief periods in certain situations, or something that he does to a higher degree only during brief periods in certain situations, rather than something he does fully throughout all of his life, he is creating a dualistic belief system which invariably leads to a dualistic practice where God is only obeyed and reverenced at certain times and places, or to a higher degree at certain times and places, rather than obeyed and reverenced fully at all times and in all situations of his life. This has certainly become the norm in the denominational congregations where, in the vast majority of cases, the Bible has been partitioned off almost entirely from the congregant's life outside of his few hours of "worship service," and many have come to believe that they are not worshipping God until they enter their "house of worship."
Stuart said: And perhaps others have been unduly influenced by institutionalized religion in their view of Christianity and thus reduce the worship of God to the performing of devotional activities for brief periods in particular places.
When I contemplate your response, I can not help but wonder where you go to Church. I am not aware of any Churches that believe the way you do about worship. Would you mind telling us where?
yeh, yeh, we have read your diatribes before which totally reject the biblical teaching on worship. But what we haven't seen is EXEGETICAL PROOF that "worship" is directly, specifically, and solely related to the individuals keeping of the commandments in contradistinction to the truth believed by the Church for two millennia. Are you capable of doing that? Are you going to do that? Another thing we haven't seen is your answer to the questions, 1) What church/denomination are you a member of? and 2) What writers can you point to that have held the same views that you do in regard to "worship" and the function/responsibilities of "Elders" and "Pastors"?
However, if you continue to post these repetitive replies which simply echo what you have said many times over and which fail to address the issue in a meaningful way, aka: discussion, they will be deleted so as to save space and to prevent the boredom of our members which accompanies the reading of them.
Pilgrim said: But what we haven't seen is EXEGETICAL PROOF that "worship" is directly, specifically, and solely related to the individuals keeping of the commandments in contradistinction to the truth believed by the Church for two millennia. Are you capable of doing that? Are you going to do that?
The burden of proof is on you to show your delineation, not on me to show my non-delineation. I say that the believer can manifest a worshipful heart in all that he does. You say that worship is something which a man does at particular times in particular situations. In other words, you believe that a worship/non-worship delineation exists in the Bible and I do not. Now, I cannot point to a delineation which I do not believe to exist in the Bible and say, "there it is not." If you maintain that a worship/non-worship delineation exists, then you must point to it and say "there it is."
And while you are doing that please tell me:
Where does the Bible draw a parallel between the Old Testament Temple worship and the New Testament church meeting?
Where in the Bible are synagogue assemblies or church meetings every referred to as "worship services" or anything similar to that?
Where in the Bible was anyone ever said to be in the synagogue assembly or church meeting for worship, or said to be going to a synagogue assembly or church meeting for worship?
Where in the New Testament Scriptures is any function of the synagogue assembly or church meeting every referred to as an act of worship?
When the word worship is used in the New Testament Scriptures in reference to a particular location, why is it only applied to the Temple and never to synagogue assemblies or church meetings?
Also, I do not always immediately back up every statement I make with biblical exegesis. But if you quote anything that I said which was not biblically supported and you challenge me to support it, then I will do so.
Quote
Pilgrim said: Another thing we haven't seen is your answer to the questions, 1) What church/denomination are you a member of? and 2) What writers can you point to that have held the same views that you do in regard to "worship" and the function/responsibilities of "Elders" and "Pastors"?
As I wrote in another thread, I am here to discuss biblical issues from a Sola Scriptura perspective and nothing else. if you want to make me the topic of discussion or if you want to compare my doctrine to that of any other man, you may do so. But, again, I am here to discuss biblical issues from a Sola Scriptura perspective and nothing else.
Having said that, I will also say this to all in this forum who call themselves Reformed: I know that this might be hard for you to swallow, but the fact is that although the Protestant Reformation reformed Christian doctrine to a great extent it never fully reformed the church back to apostolic principles. And if you want to build on the work of the Reformers (instead of just resting on it) and you want your motto of "always reforming" to be more than empty words, then you have to be willing to consider the possibility that the Reformers did not complete the job and that more work needs to be done. And if you are going to further the work of reformation, then you must be willing to go directly to the Bible alone rather than filtering every doctrine through their writings to determine its validity.
Stuart DiNenno quipped: The burden of proof is on you to show your delineation, not on me to show my non-delineation.
Give me a break, will ya? Did you READ anything of the post you just replied to? There are myriad biblical references, historical references, etc., all which show the biblical foundation and definition of worship as well as the progressive development of true worship from Genesis through the New Testament.
Again, you can't even give me credit for what I have said about worship, e.g., it is to be seen BOTH in a narrow sense (corporate/public) and in a wider sense (sanctified living). You totally reject the biblical teaching concerning worship in its narrow sense without warrant nor proof. Your lack of biblical knowledge is embarrassing but your lack of a teachable spirit is frightening. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />
Now that Stuart has departed I want to thank you Pilgrim for bringing light to this subject. I also appreciated the input by many others in this thread. Unfortunately Stuart has a lot to learn and resists being taught.
I'd like to submit a portion of an article I've just read today on this topic written by Cliff Bajema who is currently serving as campus pastor at Doort Christian College in NW Iowa. I think he brings out many good points about what our worship should look like and why.
Quote
I think worship is a corporate experience where God's people come together before the face of God to receive a word from Him and to respond. God can speak through songs, proclamation, reading of scripture. and various liturgical moments such as the assurance of pardon, call to confession, and the reading of the law. The people respond through prayers, songs, litanies, confessions, professions of faith, offerings of themselves and of talents and gifts. I also think fellowship should occur in a worship context.
If we pay attention to the biblical models of worship and biblical prescriptions of worship, we do as scripture says in Acts 2: "They devoted themselves to the apostle's teaching, the breaking of bread, the fellowship, and the prayers."
When we say they devoted themselves to fellowship, that wasn't just exchanging handshakes and hugs and waving at each other in the congregation; it was far more substantial. People had a sense of responsibility for one another. This came together in worship.
Another part of worship was "the prayers." For the early church, I take "the prayers" to mean that there was already a collection of prayers that came from the apostles, from Jesus, from the prophets, the Psalms, and from people like David and Moses. Today in individual or small group worship, we break into spontaneous prayers, and say whatever is on our minds and whatever is in our thoughts. That is fine, it's personal. In more formal, corporate worship contexts, some have a time of prayer requests. People say "My Aunt Minnie's got cancer, my Uncle Charlie's in the hospital, or this person is unemployed." The preacher then prays for that. But that likely isn't what was going on in the book of Acts.
Was it more than that? Absolutely. I think it was the collection, the reading, the sharing, the collective memory of God's people, of the prayers they had received from the apostles and the prophets. In other words, they were sharing scriptural prayers with each other. What I have seen happen in prayer in worship contexts in evangelical churches, in which I would include the CRC, is that prayer has become largely petitionary, largely intercessory, largely need-based, and largely spontaneously-offered and collected. Not a lot of attention is given to memorized scriptures and prayers of the saints; and that is where I think the liturgical churches have a much better handle on prayer than we do.
I think he brings out some very good points. When we worship, our focus should be on the one we worship and all that He has given the church to help us to worship Him responsibly. Too often today the focus is on the worshiper and his needs and desires.
May God help us to worship Him in Spirit and in truth. And may we benefit from all He's given us to do this in a way that is pleasing to Him.
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Was it more than that? Absolutely. I think it was the collection, the reading, the sharing, the collective memory of God's people, of the prayers they had received from the apostles and the prophets. In other words, they were sharing scriptural prayers with each other.
Wes, your post reminded me of a little prayer book that came to me when my Grandfather died. He and my Grandmother read it each morning before breakfast. It is a compilation of 365 prayers and was first published in 1916.
Here is today's entry--January 21:
Lord God, Heavenly Father, we Thy children come before Thee to thank Thee and to praise Thee. We thank Thee for the gift of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and that Thou hast kindled faith and love in our hearts through the Holy Spirit. We thank Thee for peace of soul through the forgiveness of sin and for the blessed hope of eternal life. We thank Thee also for the opportunity to labor in our earthly calling and thereby to render service to Thee, to our dear ones, and to our fellowmen in general.
Bless us, Heavenly Father, as individuals, that we may have the strength always to do our duty as it is made clear to us. Bless us as a nation, a Christian people, that the high hopes placed in us by the peoples in distress may not be shattered. Bless Thy church that it may have the power always to witness to the truth and to spread the light of Thy Gospel everywhere. Strengthen and succor us, O God, in our trial and temptations, that we be not overcome. Give us willingness to witness for Christ wherever we go, and help us gladly to share our temporal blessings with those who are in physical want. Lead us through the hours of the day, and watch over us through the night. And when Thou art done with us here on earth, take use to Thyself in glory. We ask it in the name of Jesus, our Blessed Redeemer. Amen.
Carl J. Bengston, D.D. Rock Island, IL
Trust the past to God's mercy, the present to God's love and the future to God's providence." - St. Augustine Hiraeth
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Funny-Above.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Party2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://refdoc4.home.comcast.net/smilies/band2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://refdoc4.home.comcast.net/smilies/band3.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://refdoc4.home.comcast.net/smilies/Guitar.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://refdoc4.home.comcast.net/smilies/me22.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://refdoc4.home.comcast.net/smilies/jam2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.the-highway.com/forumuserpics/RefDoc_sig.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/welcomespin.gif)
to the Board.![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
and expand on that a bit?
There isn't a shred of truth to this charge, which is used by those who would try and justify nearly any form of music for worship. One of the most informative articles on musicology for the church can be found here: ![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/trustme.gif)
That little animated Smiley has nothing to do with "horns" or anything "demonic", etc. It's just a silly little gesture, actually poking fun at modern society, that some Rock & Rollers use(d) to symbolize: "right on, Dude!". In other words, it was an ignorant expression of emotional agreement of something. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />
![[Linked Image]](https://www.the-highway.com/forumuserpics/kami_sig1.gif)
![[Linked Image]](https://www.the-highway.com/forum/images/icons/groovin.gif){kind=icon}
That isn't what I said at all; you have it reversed. 
BTW, I hold to orthodox, historic Calvinism which is totally consistent with what I actually said, which was that BECAUSE God blessed Europe for a time, the RESULT was that men were transformed and thus the worship of God was restored to its biblical expression. Yes, God 
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/blahblah.gif)
yeh, yeh, we have read your diatribes before which totally reject the biblical teaching on worship. But what we haven't seen is EXEGETICAL PROOF that "worship" is directly, specifically, and solely related to the individuals keeping of the commandments in contradistinction to the truth believed by the Church for two millennia. Are you capable of doing that? Are you going to do that? Another thing we haven't seen is your answer to the questions, 1) What church/denomination are you a member of? and 2) What writers can you point to that have held the same views that you do in regard to "worship" and the function/responsibilities of "Elders" and "Pastors"?![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/biggrinking.gif)
