by Sam Waldron | May 30, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle
Chapter 1, paragraph 6 of the 1689 Confession provides an important clarification of the regulative principle.
…there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
When the Confessions says, therefore, that what is not commanded in public worship is forbidden, we are speaking of the substance and parts of worship, not its circumstances. Note paragraphs two through six of Chapter 22 and especially paragraphs 2, 3, and 5.
2 Religious worship is to be given to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to him alone; not to angels, saints, or any other creatures; and since the fall, not without a mediator, nor in the mediation of any other but Christ alone.
3 Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one part of natural worship, is by God required of all men. But that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of the Spirit, according to his will; with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance; and when with others, in a known tongue.
5 The reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and hearing the Word of God, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord; as also the administration of baptism, and the Lord’s supper, are all parts of religious worship of God, to be performed in obedience to him, with understanding, faith, reverence, and godly fear; moreover, solemn humiliation, with fastings, and thanksgivings, upon special occasions, ought to be used in an holy and religious manner.
While the parts and substance of public worship are divinely limited, God has left the circumstances of worship to be determined by the light of nature, Christian prudence, and the general rules of Scripture. This distinction naturally and necessarily suggests this question: How may we distinguish between the parts of worship and its circumstances? This is a difficult and important question. Much of the contemporary opposition to and revision of the regulative principle is based on problems and objections raised by the distinction between the parts and circumstances of worship.1 To it I have several responses.
First, Pastor Bob Fisher in his teaching on this subject points out that Chapter 1, Paragraph 6 of the Confession limits these “circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church” to things “common to human actions and societies”. We have seen that it is the unique identity of the church which requires its special regulation. It makes sense, then, that those things which the church has in common with other societies should be regulated in the same way that those societies are governed. Pastor Fisher mentioned the times of the meetings (as long as the Lord’s Day is observed), the place of the meetings, the posture in which people attend the meetings, whether standing or seated on the floor or chairs, the order of the meetings, if the meeting involves singing whether that singing is accompanied by a guitar or a piano or a pitch-pipe or a flute as illustrations of such circumstances.
Second, 1 Corinthian 14 contains two examples of such general rules which God demands that we apply to our specific circumstances. They are the rules of edification and order (vv. 26 and 40). God demands that these two rules be followed, but He has not given us a detailed list of what they mean in every situation and culture.
Third, the circumstances of corporate worship and church government must be understood in light of what we believe to be the parts or elements of worship. Once those parts or elements of worship are defined it becomes much easier to see what things are the circumstances required to carry out or implement those elements of worship. For instance, once we understand that corporate worship requires the assembly of the church for among other things the hearing of the proclamation of the Word of God, it will follow that such circumstances as place, posture, and time will have to be worked out in such a way as to best implement that part of worship. In my view, as well, once it is determined that singing the praise of God is a part of worship (as I believe it to be2), then the issues of circumstance which must be decided become clear. Will there be musical accompaniment? How shall the songs be pitched if there is not? Who will lead the singing? How will everyone know what to sing? Will a song sheet, hymnal, overhead projector, or PowerPoint presentation be used? How long shall we sing? How many songs shall we sing?
Fourth, churches may differ as to where the line is drawn between circumstances and parts of worship without ceasing to be true churches. Just as churches may differ from us on certain doctrinal matters without becoming heretical, so also some differences on this issue of the regulative principle ought not to be a cause of division between churches. Reasonable differences should not be made the source of division. Let the elders of each church be fully assured in their own mind. Differences in application of the regulative principle may be tolerated as long as each church recognizes its unique identity as the house of God and holds seriously to the regulative principle. We may (and must!) be charitable in such things, as long as the substance of the regulative principle is sincerely embraced.
Fifth, a godly fear will result from a genuine embrace of the principle that we must worship corporately only as God has appointed. This must certainly inject an element of caution and conservatism into what we justify as legitimate circumstances of corporate worship. Such caution must not, of course, lead us to adopt the strictest and most conservative application of the regulative principle. Such a reactionary position leads too often to the contradiction of other principles of Scripture.
1Gore in Covenantal Worship, 47-51, rejects the regulative principle partly because of difficulties he sees with this distinction. Frame in Worship in Spirit and Truth, 40-41, bases much of his revision of the principle on similar difficulties.
2Interestingly, Frame does not believe it to be a part of worship, but believes it is a kind of mode by which we do other parts of worship. Cf. Worship in Spirit and Truth, 57.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | May 28, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Missions, Practical Theology
My first blog post on “witnessing” for Christ might leave the impression that I am among those who suggest that evangelism is something only pastors and/or those with a special call to evangelism need to worry about. I am not. In fact, I think the Bible raises serious questions about the genuineness of a person’s Christianity if he has no heart or concern for evangelism. A text I came across in my devotions a few years ago raises such questions. It has triggered in me a deeper insight into my own failures and a determination to be a more biblical Christian in this area. That text is Matthew 12:30. In the NASB it reads this way: “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.”
Notice the uncompromising assertion found in the text: “He who is not with Me is against Me.”
On the surface the first half of Matthew 12:30 might seem to require little explanation. It is straightforward: “He who is not with Me is against Me.” It teaches that with regard to commitment to Christ there is no neutrality. You are with Him or you are against Him.
But some may be thinking of a passage which utters a sentiment which seems exactly opposite to the one contained in our text. What about Mark 9:40: “For he who is not against us is for us”? What about Luke 9:50: “But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.” You may want to look at one of these passages.
In these passages a man is casting out demons in the name of Jesus, and the disciples try to stop him. In response Jesus tells them not to hinder him and gives the reason that he who is not against us is for us. This is clearly a very different situation than the one in our text. The Pharisees here claimed that Jesus was casting out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons. Jesus is actually saying ion Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50 that if a man is using my name to cast out demons, then you should not oppose him because he is actually for our cause and helping in my work. Jesus does not mean in these texts, then, that if a man is simply neutral then he is not against us. The man in question in these other texts is clearly not neutral. He is actually proclaiming the name of Christ as a name of power by which to do miracles. In this way he is actually gathering with Christ.
Lenski supports this view when he says: “In the battle against Satan every man who does not side with Jesus is against Him and for Satan. Luke 9:50 and Mark 9:40 agree with this view: for to do a miracle or a kind deed ‘in Jesus name’ is neither neutral nor hostile to Jesus.”
The real point of both in Matthew 12 and its parallel passage in Luke 11:23 is this reality that there is no neutrality with regard to Christ: “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters.” There is no neutrality with regard to Christ or his mission in the world. You are either supportive of it and join with Christ in it. Or you are his enemy.
Alford remarks: “As usual, this saying of our Lord reached further than the mere occasion to which it referred, and spoke forcibly to those many half-persuaded hesitating persons who flattered themselves that they could strike out a line equally avoiding the persecution of men and the rejection of Christ.”
MacArthur concurs: “It is not necessary to oppose Christ in order to be against Him; it is only necessary not to be with Him. Nor is it necessary to actively interfere with His work in order to be one who scatters; it is only necessary to not gather with Him.”
Many think they are neutral with regard to Christ. They say, “I’m not against Jesus!” I think it would be hard to find a person in my Bible-belt county who would say I am against Jesus. But the question is whether they have entrusted their never-dying soul to him as Savior? Are they gathering with Him? Jesus says, “If you are not with me, you, my dear lady, my dear girl, my dear child, my dear young man, my dear man, are against me.” There is no neutrality with regard to Christ. If you do not follow Him, you fight Him. If you have not committed your soul to Him, you have rejected Him, and you must unavoidably face the consequences!
Men must aspire to be with Christ in all the other He has appointed. They must be with Him in baptism, in the church, and in his mission to the world. If we are really with Christ, then we ought to be with Him in every way you can!
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | May 25, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle
The fourth argument for the regulative principle of the church is found in the explicit testimony of Scripture. The Bible explicitly condemns all worship that is not commanded by God (Lev. 10:1-3; Deut. 17:3; Deut. 4:2; 12:29-32; Josh 1:7; 23:6-8; Matt. 15:13; Col. 2:20-23).
Three of these passages deserve special comment. Deut. 12:29-32 in its original context is addressed precisely to the question of how God should be worshipped (v. 30). The rule given here in answer to this issue is very clear. “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it” (v. 32). This clearly implies that it is a great temptation for God’s people to see how the world worships and to allow that to have a formative impact on our attitudes about worship. Such an attitude is explicitly forbidden of God’s people.
Col. 2:23 condemns what may be literally translated as “will worship.” Herbert Carson states the unavoidable implication of this phrase: “The words…imply a form of worship which a man devises for himself.”1
Lev. 10:1-3 is the frightening account of what happened to Nadab and Abihu when they displeased God in the way they worshipped Him. What was it that brought upon them such a shocking judgment? Verse one is explicit. They “offered strange fire before the Lord.” The meaning of the phrase, “strange fire,” is expounded in the following clause. It is not fire which God had forbidden. The Hebrew clearly and literally reads that it was fire “which He had not commanded them.” The mere fact that they dared to bring unauthorized fire brought fiery death upon them.
1 Herbert Carson, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and Philemon, (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Co., 1976), p. 79.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | May 23, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle
A third argument for the regulative principle of the church is grounded on the sufficiency of the Scriptures. The wisdom of Christ and the sufficiency of the Scriptures is called into question by the addition of un-appointed elements into worship.
The reasoning behind the addition of un-appointed elements in worship illustrates how this happens. John Owen remarks:
Three things are usually pleaded in the justification of the observance of such rites and ceremonies in the worship of God:-First, That they tend unto the furtherance of the devotion of the worshippers; secondly, That they render the worship itself comely and beautiful; thirdly, that they are the preservers of order in the celebration thereof. And therefore on these accounts they may be instituted or appointed by some, and observed by all.1
Reasoning such as Owen describes impugns the wisdom of Christ. With all our weakness, sin, and folly, will Christ leave us without an adequate guide in the most important matter of worship? Has He left us who are in such a spiritual condition without a sufficiently devotional, beautiful and orderly worship of God? Says another Puritan, “For he that is the wisdom of the Father, the brightness of his glory, the true light, the word of life, yea truth and life itself, can he give unto his Church (for the which he paid the ransom of his blood) that which should not be a sufficient assurance for the same?”2
Not only is such reasoning out of accord with our needy spiritual condition; not only does it, therefore, bespeak not a little spiritual pride; but such reasoning also impugns the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Dr. Tulloch, an opponent of the regulative principle, attempts to evade this charge that his view denies the sufficiency of Scripture by arguing that the Bible was never intended to be a rule of church polity. He remarks, “The Christian Scriptures are a revelation of divine truth, and not a revelation of church polity. They not only do not lay down the outline of such a polity, but they do not even give the adequate and conclusive hints of one.”3
The key text biblical text on the sufficiency of Scripture provides us with explosives necessary to destroy Dr. Tulloch’s view of Scripture. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is that text. The man of God referred to in this text is not every individual Christian. There are compelling reasons rather to identify him as minister of God’s people charged to provide order and leadership to the church of God. The sufficiency of the Scriptures spoken of in this text is its sufficiency precisely for the man of God charged to order and lead the people of God. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 requires us to raise this question to those who think like Dr. Tulloch. Is ordering the church for the glory of God a good work which the man of God is peculiarly required to perform? Then, the Scriptures are able to thoroughly equip the man of God for this task. They teach the man of God an adequate form of biblical church order and the essential elements of the worship of the church.
1 John Owen, The Works of John Owen, vol. XV, (London, the Banner of Truth Trust, 1960), p. 467.
2 The Reformation of the Church, selected with introductory notes by Iain Murray, (London, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), p. 75.
3 The Reformation of the Church, p. 44.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | May 21, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Missions, Practical Theology
As I read books on missions and evangelism, I often feel that important, biblical distinctions are getting lost in the shuffle. The New Testament root which in its verbal infinitive form means to witness or testify is often and without explanation applied to the whole church and to the activity of the church’s evangelism or speaking of the gospel to the world. Let me hasten to say that I do believe that the whole church till the end of the age is called to the work of evangelism and missions. I just don’t think that the word used to describe our evangelism and missions in the New Testament is witnessing-testifying. Let me explain why.
Several forms of the root meaning witness or testify are used as follows in the NT:
19 witness or testimony (marturion)
76 bear witness or testify (martureo)
35 witnesser or testifier (martur)
130 uses of this root in the NT
As I have said, we commonly use this word of the activity and duty of Christians in general. When we speak the gospel we say that we are “witnessing” for Christ. Witnessing is speaking the truth of the gospel to sinners. While this may be a “natural” extension of the uses of this word in the New Testament, the root is never used this way in the NT. The reason for this is that the root denotes personal or eye-witness. Here is how the BAG defines the word for one who witnesses (martur):
witness—1. in a legal sense Mt 18:16; Mk 14:63; Ac 6:13; 7:58; Heb 10:28.—2. in a nonlegal sense, esp. in reference to attestation in response to noteworthy performance or communication Lk 11:48; Ac 1:8, 22; 26:16; Ro 1:9; 2 Cor 1:23; 1 Ti 6:12; Heb 12:1; 1 Pt 5:1; Rv 11:3.—3. of one whose witness or attestation ultimately leads to death (the background for the later technical usage ‘martyr’) Ac 22:20; Rv 1:5; 2:13; 3:14; 17:6. [pg 122]
A witness is (1) one who in trial is qualified to give testimony on the basis of personal or eye-witness. Or (3) it is one who is a witness by giving his life because of his testimony to Christ. Or (2) it is someone who can attest to the truth of some important event. This second category might seem to offer some support to the popular usage, but when the texts cited are examined, none of them actually do. In several of them, for instance, God is called to witness (Romans 1:9) or the reference is to the Apostles as witnesses (Acts 1:8, 22).
Witness is one of the names for the office of apostle of Christ in the New Testament. Acts 1:22 affirms: “… beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us– one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” Likewise Acts 10:41 asserts: “not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.” Cf. also Acts 1:8; 10:39.
All Christians cannot in the above sense bear witness to Christ. Only Apostles can! I suspect that this is why it is never used in the NT of the kind of speaking of the gospel incumbent on all Christians. We are not all eye-witnesses of the gospel. Our “testimony” is not the testimony of the gospel. The testimony is not what we say about the gospel. It is what the apostles say about the gospel. It is the gospel.
- Acts 4:33: And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.
- 1 Corinthians 1:6: even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you
- 1 Timothy 2:6: who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.
- 2 Timothy 1:8: Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God
Our “testimony” is only our affirmation of “the testimony of the gospel.” True, every Christian has some experience of the gospel. To this experience he can bear personal testimony. (It is after all his experience.) But this is not what the NT ever means by this important word. Our experience is not the same as the gospel testimony.
“So,” I can hear someone demand of me, “if our duty is not to testify to the gospel, what is it? Are you saying that it is not the duty of Christians to tell the gospel to the world?” Well, great question! I do believe that it is every Christian’s duty to participate in the mission of the church to the world and as he has opportunity himself to speak the gospel to the world. There is, furthermore, a NT word which is used frequently of what every Christian—indeed every person who would be saved—must do with regard to speaking of the gospel to the world. It is the word confess (homologeo).
- Matthew 10:32: “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.”
- Luke 12:8: “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God.”
- John 9:22: His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.
- Romans 10:9: that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved
- Romans 10:10: for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
- 1 Timothy 6:12: Fight the good fight of faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, and you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
- 1 John 2:23: Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
- 1 John 4:15: Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
It would be more biblical and less confusing of biblical categories if we began to call Christians to confess Christ before the world, rather than calling them to “testify” to Christ. Testifying to Christ is something which they can only do in a way that sits very loose to the meaning of this word in the NT. It would make for more clarity in a lot of books and preaching on missions if the New Testament distinction between testimony and confession was more carefully kept in mind.
One problem with simply taking the witness of Acts 1:8 and willy-nilly applying it to all Christians is that we lose the corporate character of the Great Commission. We cannot “bear witness” to the gospel as private or individual Christians. We can only participate in the mission of the church built on the apostolic witness. The Great Commission is given to the church built on the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20). Remembering this helps us to keep clear that the Great Commission is given to the church corporately. Every private Christian individually is not responsible to go into all the world, make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to observe all that Christ commanded. The church is responsible to do that, and every Christian is required to have a heart for that mission of the church and to be a vital part of a church which is on that mission. The body of Christ is to take the gospel to all nations, and every Christian is to participate in that mission in accordance with who God has made him as a gifted member of the body of Christ.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
