Regulative Principle of Worship

[Spokenpassage]

"Why would you compare church services to the aspects of the temple that had to do with the ark and Holy of Holies? (And do you believe the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem is truly the dwelling place of God?)"

Well, we worship in church service, among our families, and in our private time. Israel had a geographical place of worship, even though they were able to practice private acts of worship anywhere.

I believe that Israel and their Temple were typical of the Church. We are the dwelling place of God as the true and anti-typical Temple.

"In the Old Testament, Israel gathered as an assembly, an ekklesia. Shouldn't we consider what they did in their gatherings of their ekklesia when we consider Old Testament patterns regarding the ekklesia of Christ? The Psalms tell people to sing, rejoice, clap their hands, and dance. If you draw from Old Testament examples and commands, why not those rather than issues related specifically to the ark of the covenant."

I used Old Testament to show that God is consistently is zealous for his worship to be true and pure.

"I see those who promote the Regulative Principle of worship using scripture to prop up church services that are either man-made or draw from synagogue and temple liturgy without paying much attention to some of the specific commands to the actual New Testament churches on what to do in church."

So we see differently, because that is not my experience, however, it was yours.

"I Corinthians 14 is the most lengthy passage we have on what to actually do in church gatherings aside form passages on the Lord's Supper. Why may speak? 'Every one of you.' The restriction is that it be done 'unto edifying.' The passage speaks of an individual singing a psalm. An individual doesn't have to be on a stage, but would you count that as a 'performance.'"

Paul's direction to the Corinthians in his day were to be followed. I don't deny that.

"Where is the idea that only clergy, or primarily clergy, must teach the word? The Bible doesn't teach that. It is assumed by much of Protestant tradition. Where does the New Testament teach that there must be one speaker giving a sermon? This seems to be assumed by Protestant tradition. The 'commandments of the Lord' for church meetings in I Corinthians 14 regulate how multiple speakers may prophesy. Some of the Reformed Christians redefine prophesying to mean the preaching of sermons, but how many of them have two or three sermons per meeting? The chapter teaches, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.'"

Reformed Churches, for an example of Protestant tradition, often have a plurality of elders, and not all believe that there is one main speaker. You dont seem to know much about Protestanism.

A form of prophesying is preaching the word, more than predicting the future. Read up on the Old Testament prophets, they spoke more of exhortation to obedience and faithfulness to God than predicting events. We don't need to have prophets now since Scripture contains all that is necessary to edify each other. I agree with Paul, 'For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged..." (1 Cor. 14:30).

"If you are going to use a 'regulative principle' shouldn't you at least start with the very direct commands that tell what to do in church? Instead of having members of the congregation use their gifts in a meeting to edify one another, allowing tongues and interpretation, multiple prophecies, it seems like those who are into the 'Regulative Principle' are into the 'performance' of the one clergyman preaching a sermon. The 'regulative principle' is used as a justification for arguing about whether a psalter should be sung instead of hymns or repetitive choruses, arguing that scripture, like the psalms, should be sung in church. But then the parts of the psalms that say to dance, shout, clap, etc. aren't followed. It seems like the Regulative Principle is applied inconsistently, with a lot of cherry picking, while specific commands for church meeting in the New Testament itself are ignored."

If you desire to learn, not everyone who holds to the believe in Exclusive Psalmody. Just as there is various beliefs within Protestanism, various beliefs within Reformed Theology, so there is various beliefs as to what else is considered RPW. Instead of generalizing, please respectfully consider reviewing it to different camps.

"The Bible does not teach that we are to gather together as a church to worship. One use of 'worship' is to translate a word that might be translated 'service', a word which could be used to refer to a wide variety of 'service' including clipping grass or liturgical activity. That's how we use the word 'worship.' The word most commonly translated 'worship' means to prostrate, to bow down with one's head toward the ground or floor. Jesus taught that they that prostate to the Father must prostate to him in spirit and in truth."

So apparently the apostles never encouraged and directed the believers to gather and fellowship? I would not want to forsake the assembling of the saints, since it is a form of public worship and a means of grace to bless us.

 

[posthuman]

C'mon, man. David was not normative in his worship.

where did David get the explicit command in the Law to make dancing "allowable" under a regulative principle?

where did David get an explicit command in the Law to make writing psalms "allowable" under a regulative principle?
to set them to music?
to make musical instruments for temple use?
to introduce this singing and playing of music into the temple worship?

the law speaks of sacrifices. if it commands dancing, singing and playing music, i do not know where in the law it is.

again -- is David following a regulative principle when he does these things?
and is Christ following a regulative principle when He teaches us about the meaning of the sabbath?
when He declares that the true worshipers of the Father will do so neither on one mountain or another -- in direct opposition to what is written in the law, that the people should worship at the place He has chosen for His name - being interpreted, the tabernacle, and then the temple?

bro, that is not "the regulative principle" at work here.

why is it that the tassels of the pharisees - who elongated them - are unable to heal, but by faith touching the tassels of Jesus the Christ made a woman called "daughter" whole?
pharisees and the Messiah: which is glorifying regulation, and which is making free?
in which of these dwells the power and salvation of God?

what is redemption?

 

[JohnTalmid]

The power to make one Holy is in the law.
If practice you are righteous according to scripture.

Redemption is the work of the cross and when you also do the will of the Father your faith is perfected. Believe and do. Believe and do. God has always in his word taught to guard the commandments. As for Christian beliefs they are but hay destined for the fire unless you find the right works, rightous works of the law of God to grow a relationship within Messiah.

 

[presidente]

"Why would you compare church services to the aspects of the temple that had to do with the ark and Holy of Holies? (And do you believe the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem is truly the dwelling place of God?)"

Well, we worship in church service, among our families, and in our private time. Israel had a geographical place of worship, even though they were able to practice private acts of worship anywhere.

Your average Israelite didn't go into the Holy of Holies either. The high priest went in once a year. to sacrifice. The sacrifical system speaks of Christ's sacrifice. When we gather as a church, we don't travel through time and go to Calvary, literally.

If you are going to argue from the Old Testament patterns regarding the gathering of the assembly of Israel, shouldn't you look at the types of things normal Isralites did? According to the Psalms, they were to sing, dance, clap their hands. Some of them (Levites in their case) would have played musical instruments. How do you spin an argument for what to do in church based on the sacrificial system without looking at the aspects of what they did in the tabernacle/temple that more closely resemble a gathering of believers?

That sort of thing is my concern with the regulative principle. Some who argue for it ignore more relevant scriptures and cherry pick something less relevant. I gave an example of arguing for the use of psalters based on the regulative principle. I've also heard arguments against modern choruses in favor of old hymns. The irony is that some of the modern choruses sung with electric guitars are actually taken right from the Psalms and other scriptures, while some of the hymns aren't.

It just seems like cherry picking and subjecting arguing. Is there even a system to the regulative principle? How do the actual commandments of the Lord for church meetings get so little attention? And why do we hear about Nadab and Abihu offering incense instead?

I believe that Israel and their Temple were typical of the Church. We are the dwelling place of God as the true and anti-typical Temple.

I am not disagreeing with you. Someone may even be able to see a type of aspects of the sacrificial system in the church meeting, possibly. But be that as it may, shouldn't we stick with very clear passages in the New Testament that actually tell Christians what to do in church as most important and most relevant? Why do regulative principle arguments usually just ignore this and skip right to allegorical stuff?

If I took a 'regulative principle' approach, a rigid one, I might argue that we must have multiple speakers in church, if they had edifying things to say. I do believe there are specific commands regarding tongues, interpretation, and prophecy that we should follow. Outright forbidding prophetic utterances, tongues and interpretation, etc. is disobedience to the scripture.

But if I took the rigid approach, I might want to outlaw congregational singing. After all, I Corinthians 14:26 says 'every one of you hath a psalm.' One having a psalm is a solo. Speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiriutal songs. A strict, rigid approach that forbids what is not specifically allow might lead one to conclude that if a clear passage specifies solos, we should forbid congregational singing. It was Jewish tradition for certain psalms to be sung 'congregationally' after the Passover, but we'd have to read Jewish tradition into the Gospels to draw that conclusion, and it says hymn not psalms. A rigid interpretation like that could do away with congregational singing, along with dancing and anything else not specified in the New Testament.

I don't take such a rigid approach. What I prioritize in my understanding are passages that directly address activities in church gatherings, including I Corinthians 14 and little bits and pieces throughout the epistles. I do believe we are to 'exhort one another.' I Corinthians 11 indicates a church is to partake of the Lord's supper in a proper manner, and I believe we should look at the passages where Jesus instituted it.

In regard to speaking and singing, an overarching rule is 'Let all things be done unto edifying.' I wouldn't want to forbid what God has not forbid, particularly if we see examples of the righteous doing it in scripture. So I am not against congregational singing, and activities in the psalm like dancing, clapping hands, rejoicing, etc., as long as it is 'unto edifying' and/or doesn't detract from edifying. I don't see how an interpretive dance that no one can interpret edifies others, so I don't see a spiritual benefit to having this without singing in church gatherings, but I don't have a probably with someone dancing while singing edifying songs of praise. There are instructions to dance in the Psalms and the Psalms are edifying.

I suppose some could interpret my approach as a form of 'regulative approach.' It just seems like when I hear that term, actual New Testament instructions may be ignored, and instead the one arguing relies on allegorical interpretations of the Old Testmaent or just cherry picking scriptures.

"I Corinthians 14 is the most lengthy passage we have on what to actually do in church gatherings aside form passages on the Lord's Supper. Why may speak? 'Every one of you.' The restriction is that it be done 'unto edifying.' The passage speaks of an individual singing a psalm. An individual doesn't have to be on a stage, but would you count that as a 'performance.'"

Paul's direction to the Corinthians in his day were to be followed. I don't deny that.

Why wouldn't the rest of it be applicable today? Even if you take a cessationist approach, having 'every one of you' have a psalm or doctrine 'unto edifying' is still possible. And I suppose one could apply the passages on prophesying to the loose definition of 'prophesy' so popular among the reformed. Of course, in the passage, prophesying is revelatory. Paul says, 'if a revelation cometh to one sitting by' and writes of the secrets of one's heart being made manifest.'

"Where is the idea that only clergy, or primarily clergy, must teach the word? The Bible doesn't teach that. It is assumed by much of Protestant tradition. Where does the New Testament teach that there must be one speaker giving a sermon? This seems to be assumed by Protestant tradition. The 'commandments of the Lord' for church meetings in I Corinthians 14 regulate how multiple speakers may prophesy. Some of the Reformed Christians redefine prophesying to mean the preaching of sermons, but how many of them have two or three sermons per meeting? The chapter teaches, "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.'"

Reformed Churches, for an example of Protestant tradition, often have a plurality of elders, and not all believe that there is one main speaker. You dont seem to know much about Protestanism.

I know that there is a lot of variety in Protestantism, which is why I tried to avoid blanket statements. Do you know of any Protestant churches that seek to obey I Corinthians 14 regarding prophesying by having multiple speakers in the church meeting?

Reformed scholar T.F. Torance wrote an article explaining how the Reformed elder was created out of the city government official role of Geneva Switzerland, while they considered their 'pastors' to be Biblical elders. Some of the Reformed elders these days may be 'pastoral elders.' But the non-pastoral board elder role with a pastor over them is not what I think of when referring to a 'plurality of elders' in the Biblical sense.

A form of prophesying is preaching the word, more than predicting the future.

Predicting future event is the secular definition of prophesying, though some Biblical prophesying did that. I am talking about what prophesying means in the Bible as opposed to in Reformed terminology, not what it means in the secular sense as opposed to Reformed terminology.

Read up on the Old Testament prophets, they spoke more of exhortation to obedience and faithfulness to God than predicting events.

Typically, these exhortations were preceded by 'Thus saith the LORD', quoting God in the first person. They weren't just the prophets' sermons. Peter says that holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Paul lists prophesying, teaching, and exhortation as separate gifts in Romans 12. In I Corinthians 12, prophets and teachers are listed as separate ministries. In Ephesians 4:11, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers are listed as distinct categories.

The example we have of a man identified clearly as a prophet speaking in the New Testament begins with 'Thus saith the Holy Ghost' which is in line with what we read in the Old Testament, 'Thus saith the Lord.'

There may be cases where the Holy Ghost moves an individual to speak and he doesn't say 'thus saith the Lord' and there are those who do not perceive it as prophesying. I suspect some who heard Caiaphas prophesy of the death of our Lord Jesus did not percieve that it was prophesying.

We don't need to have prophets now since Scripture contains all that is necessary to edify each other.

The Bible doesn't teach that. Do you hold to extra-biblical doctrine on this subject?

We are hold to 'the faith once delivered to the saints.' But the Bible doesn't tell us what was prophesied over Timothy, that by it he should fight a good warfare, or the words of all the similar prophecies that might be uttered to strengthen and encourage the brethren.

If you desire to learn, not everyone who holds to the believe in Exclusive Psalmody. Just as there is various beliefs within Protestanism, various beliefs within Reformed Theology, so there is various beliefs as to what else is considered RPW. Instead of generalizing, please respectfully consider reviewing it to different camps.

I gave that as an example. I know that not all who refer to the regulative principle use only psalters. But it is an example that closely relevant scriptures are paid little attention, while this sort of thing is argued. It's like people assume Protestant liturgy is generally right on the mark and argue about the details, rather than examining whether this liturgy really has much to do with what the scriptures that actually address the issue of what to do when we gather as a church.

"The Bible does not teach that we are to gather together as a church to worship. One use of 'worship' is to translate a word that might be translated 'service', a word which could be used to refer to a wide variety of 'service' including clipping grass or liturgical activity. That's how we use the word 'worship.' The word most commonly translated 'worship' means to prostrate, to bow down with one's head toward the ground or floor. Jesus taught that they that prostate to the Father must prostate to him in spirit and in truth."

So apparently the apostles never encouraged and directed the believers to gather and fellowship? I would not want to forsake the assembling of the saints, since it is a form of public worship and a means of grace to bless us.

[/quote]

Please re-read what I said. Gathering and fellowshipping is not the same thing as prostration. The word for 'prostration' is the word most often translated 'worship' in the KJV translation of the New Testament and several other scriptures. Many people use those scriptures to refer to whatever they think 'worship' means, which could mean a 'service' or singing a certain genre of music, or any other number of things.

The New Testament does not say that we gather to 'worship.' Saints did come together 'to break bread.' Paul also wrote that when ye come together 'Let all things be done unto edifying.'

 

[JohnTalmid]

I think the "regulatory" approach is a word used to define as the scripture calls ordinance. Would some of you agree?

If so the order of service also known of as the ordinance of the law are based on command that is either a positive, " you shall do" or negative, " you shall not do". If you practice these orders that are usually prescribed by "the church" or other authority besides YHWH Elohim it is simply a witness and usually many more than two witnesses that a regulatory system of legalism has taken root. If we have learned anything from scripture it should be sure that this doesn't please Father in Heaven. However it should be obvious that the scripture meant to correct and perfect in us Messiah to maturity we should take hold of it and boldly approach Elohim without a work you have done being held against you. I have mourned with every aspect of me for the ripping of the vale that is my flesh. I would rather be enslaved and completed in righteousness than enslaved to the world. When I do live life it is not me doing it or fulfilling the commandments that makes me right or wrong because they are right and truth. They are the seed that sprout and bring fruit in my heart and life. I survey the body's extremity and it is broken. My mind betrayed me countless times today to call them to words would bring all of us to shame. The way you seek understanding through ordinance is not right and brings a curse. You fear it for just reasoning however we see not how it ensnares us ourselves. All the teaching of Shaul he counted as useless dung to be cast away from him, why? Because the teaching of his earthly father's stole the joy of seeking out Elohim himself. Now he is able and has the best he knows how and gained life and the hope of eternal life as perfect as Yeshua Messiah.

You see regulatory systems keep from God His people, to bring them all back together in one body He has given all of us His Instruction even at his enemy's house. He is not mocking you he wants you to return to Him and His ways so you can fully understand. Look, seek first the Kingdom then all things will be added to you.

In love and Messiah Yahshua the Son of YHWH Elohim my Father. John Talmid

 

[zone]

"...Paragraph 5 carefully delineates the elements of worship, which are: 1) the reading of the Scriptures, 2) preaching and hearing the Word of God, 3) singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs unto the Lord, 4) prayer with thanksgiving for all things lawful, and 5) the administration of the sacraments. These are the non-negotiable elements of worship. They are to be observed in worship as commanded elements from God, not to be withheld from the church nor expanded by additions from “good and necessary consequence.”..."

....

sounds right.

 

[presidente]

"...Paragraph 5 carefully delineates the elements of worship, which are: 1) the reading of the Scriptures, 2) preaching and hearing the Word of God, 3) singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs unto the Lord, 4) prayer with thanksgiving for all things lawful, and 5) the administration of the sacraments. These are the non-negotiable elements of worship. They are to be observed in worship as commanded elements from God, not to be withheld from the church nor expanded by additions from “good and necessary consequence.”..."
.

These are all good things, but not all that scripture commands the church. There are commands regarding speaking in tongues, interpretation, and prophesying given specifically related to the context of the church meeting. Even those who regard themselves or prophets or spiritually gifted should acknowledge that these commandments are from the Lord.

 

[presidente]

where did David get the explicit command in the Law to make dancing "allowable" under a regulative principle?

Miriam did use the timbrel and dance as recorded in the Torah Presumably this is before the assembly.

So I suppose there is a 'regulative principle' argument for dancing, but who promotes the 'regulative principle' who teaches dancing in church? And who promotes it who actually teaches churches to do the things specifically taught in I Corinthians 14, one of the only passages that actually gives commandments on what to do in church (and even calls them commandments)?

 

[JaumeJ]

Reading in Jeramiah today it teaches how Israel turned to teaching what they conceived turning away from the teachings of God.

 

[JohnTalmid]

What of when the King danced naked before the ark

 

[JaumeJ]

King David danced with joy before teh Ark.

He was not naked, but in his joy he accidentally exposed himself......reread the account, and do not be like Micchel in attitude, the people surely were not.

What of when the King danced naked before the ark

 

[presidente]

They may have seen his thighs when he was dancing around.

 

[JohnTalmid]

That's great so we can see how religious practice over Torah or God's i instruction as religion had infiltrated the assembly even then. Maybe this too is why the "woman" is not fruitful so often today. If the Churches today are still under grace because who am I to judge that. They are all called to walk accordingly to truth. Because they grasp only a little and warp even this into license to sin they have nowhere to fall back to, they have not found the light. What I am saying is I have seen some people in the Churches today that strive to do what is right in man's eyes more than in God's word and more important those who do what is in God's word over Man's opinion and suffer for it. Who would want to suffer for their religious practice over what is taught as truth in some assembly's? We are routinely taught that the law of sin and death has been victoriously overcome by our Lord. We are then scared by stories of super religious zealots that will make you work yourself out of salvation. I was afraid to meet Elohim on His terms for sure. The problem initially was not that I was afraid to get it wrong but that I would somehow undo the work of Messiah. How foolish that was but I was afraid and young believers are like children. I still am not afraid to get it wrong but that is because I now understand more fully the redemption Messiah offers mankind. We are taught that their is nothing we can do to be saved. This is important to those who easily become religious legalists.
Let me try something new.
When Laban came to meet his son in law Moshe. An astonishing thing was witnessed. All day Moshe would answer all the things of the law. Moshe kept record and this later became a testimony against the people. We have taught that the law of Elohim was the testimony against the people however I propose that it was the regulations of the law that a man should know or understand through keeping the law. The sin of the people was that they did not love YHWH Elohim with all their heart, mind, and strength. This too is our sin today as we teach the law has been done away with and if you keep it you're under a curse. Judah won't be provoked to jealousy as scripture says for that messiah. Messiah must be the truth and it is not true that the law will ever perish. Even the BC, (Baptist Convention) says the law will never perish. They have to because God doesn't change.
In truth the order of service that Jewish religion prescribe is no longer the authority it is a great place to start without forgetting the order done is still a shadow until its full fulfillment to come in the Kingdom of Messiah Elohim. It may even continue to be a shadow until all things are given to YHWH Elohim after the thousand year reign of Messiah. Instead of teaching the Law has been fulfilled we should be rejoicing at what has been done so we can approach God and help each other do it instead of talking about it.

 

[JohnTalmid]

Romans put it as the law is of the spirit. The argument you make is against the law of sin and death. There are not two laws like was explained in Exodus one law for the Israeli and the sojourners among you. Same law that beings life also brings death. Who do you fallow is the question folks.