The point overlooked is that if the boss asked for a Big Mac and you brought him a Big Mac and coffee, then you did NOT do as the boss said.
Yes, he did. It's a matter of basic logic. The boss asked for a Big Mac and got a Big Mac.
There is a problem with the analogy. It would have been more accurate if the boss had told the employee in times past.
"It is good to bring your boss coffee with a Big Mac."
and
"When you buy a Big Mac, it is good to bring your boss coffee."
That would be analogous with certain Psalms.
Following your "logic", anyone can ASSUME anything they want to into the bible.
You are the one assuming. You are assuming an Old Testament principle about the tabernacle applies specifically to church meetings and not the rest of our Christian life.
The Campbells were of Presbyterian background, from Scotland if I remember correctly. John Knox preached on Nadab and Abihu. He compared doing things in the liturgy that weren't specified in scripture to the offering of strange fire. This is a justification for what the Reformed movement calls the Regulative Principle.
But there is a difference between the tabernacle and the church meeting? Do you offer animal sacrifices at church? Do you have special places that only descendants of Aaron may enter? Regarding the tabernacle, God told Moses "And look that thou make
them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount." (Exodus 25:40.)
But where did He say that regarding their holy convocations, regarding what would become the synagogue, or the reading of the law that Ezra did? There are references to the 'church' in the wilderness. The 'church' is the ekklesia, the assembly. The assembly in the Old Testament, and the 'ekklesia' in the Septuigint does not correspond with the tabernacle.
And if the Old Testament has been abrogated, as you seem to believe, then you shouldn't be drawing on Nadab and Abihu for how to interpret scripture.
Where is your Biblical authorization for saying that it is a sin to do something in church that is not specifically authorized in scripture? You allow things outside of church that aren't authorized in scripture (e.g. the use of electricity, the use of Internet for Bible study, etc.) You also allow for many things in church that are not specified in scripture as long as they don't contradict one of your traditions, as the use of musical instruments does.
Also, I suspect that while you make much of departing from the 'pattern' when it comes to musical instruments since they are not specified in certain texs, that you probably think little of totally ignoring the actual
commandments of the Lord for church gatherings. I Corinthians 14:26 commands to 'Let all things be done unto edifying." What things? "very one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation." The verses that follow make it clear that speaking in tongues may be done in church and give commands regarding their interpretation.
The passage gives specific commands regarding prophesying in church. It commands "Let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge." It commands for the first to "hold his peace" if another sitting by receives a revelation. It instructs us that 'ye may all prophesy one by one...."
Of course, cessationist theology is no excuse for disobedience. Disbelief of scriptures teaching is no excuse for not believing it. But even as a cessationist, one should believe that the noncessationist aspects of the commandments of the Lord in the passage still apply. Do you allow that regular folks 'in the pew' can stand and sing a solo or give a teaching in the church meeting, or even someone else's revelation (from the scripture)?
It seems really messed up to me when people say "This is forbidden in church because New Testament scriptures don't mention it. Ignore the Old Testament." But then they think nothing of ignoring and disobeying the direct commands of New Testament scripture for church meetings, instead relying on Protestant tradition.
What the Reformed movement did was take aspects of the Roman Catholic liturgy and modify it into a church service based on whether elements of it could be backed up with scripture. That is different from going back to the scriptures and really see what the Bible teaches a church meeting is to be like and doing that. Like it or not, your movement is very much influenced by Reformed culture and theological ideas, though it differs in regard to doctrines related to water baptism.