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.
by Sam Waldron | May 18, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle
The second argument for the regulative principle of the church has to do with the inevitable tendency of human tradition. The introduction of extra-biblical practices into worship inevitably tends to nullify and undermine God’s appointed worship (Matt. 15:3, 8, 9; 2 Kings 16:10-18).
Matthew 15:3 suggests the inevitable tendency of following human traditions: “And He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?’” Human traditions when incorporated into the holy church of God inevitably tendency to lead to the transgression of the divine ordinances.
2 Kings 16:10-18 is a penetrating moral tale and striking illustration of what happens to the ordinances when human invention intrudes itself into the ordained worship of God.
Now King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and saw the altar which was at Damascus; and King Ahaz sent to Uriah the priest the pattern of the altar and its model, according to all its workmanship. So Uriah the priest built an altar; according to all that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus, thus Uriah the priest made it, before the coming of King Ahaz from Damascus. When the king came from Damascus, the king saw the altar; then the king approached the altar and went up to it, and burned his burnt offering and his meal offering, and poured his drink offering and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings on the altar. The bronze altar, which was before the LORD, he brought from the front of the house, from between his altar and the house of the LORD, and he put it on the north side of his altar. Then King Ahaz commanded Uriah the priest, saying, “Upon the great altar burn the morning burnt offering and the evening meal offering and the king’s burnt offering and his meal offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the land and their meal offering and their drink offerings; and sprinkle on it all the blood of the burnt offering and all the blood of the sacrifice. But the bronze altar shall be for me to inquire by.” So Uriah the priest did according to all that King Ahaz commanded. Then King Ahaz cut off the borders of the stands, and removed the laver from them; he also took down the sea from the bronze oxen which were under it and put it on a pavement of stone. The covered way for the sabbath which they had built in the house, and the outer entry of the king, he removed from the house of the LORD because of the king of Assyria.
The altar of the Lord is not replaced by the new altar. It is only displaced. This is the usual subtlety of human error. We would never dream of getting rid of God’s ordinances. We will treat them with great respect. But they will not have the central place in our worship. That will be occupied by the inventions of our wisdom.
This tendency is illustrated in evangelical churches today where mundane or silly announcements in the middle of worship, the unwise tradition of hand-shaking in the middle of worship, badly organized testimony times, clown shows, mime, liturgical dance, movies, and drama completely replace or severely restrict the clearly ordained parts of worship. These and other traditions of men, for instance, often leave only 15-20 minutes for preaching. Similarly deafening worship bands and the predominance of special music can push congregational singing into the corner of corporate worship.
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 16, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle
Four biblical arguments for the Puritan regulative principle of the church and its worship must now be presented. Here is the first one. It is the prerogative of God alone to determine the terms on which sinners may approach him in worship.
Bannerman eloquently states this first argument.
The fundamental principle that lies at the basis of the whole argument is this, that in regard to the ordinance of public worship it is the province of God, and not the province of man, to determine both the terms and the manner of such worship… The path of approach to God was shut and barred in consequence of man’s sin: it was impossible for man himself to renew the intercourse which had been so solemnly closed by the judicial sentence which excluded him from the presence and favour of his God. Could that path ever again be opened up, and the communion of God with man and of man with God ever again be renewed? This was a question for God alone to determine. If it could, on what terms was the renewal of intercourse to take place, and in what manner was fellowship of the creature with his Creator again to be maintained? This, too, was a question no less than the former for God alone to resolve.1
But not only does God possess this prerogative, the Bible shows that He exercises it. Contrary to the many unjustifiable assertions of various commentators, God does not just object to Cain in Genesis 4:1-5, but to Cain and his offering. Similarly, he does not merely accept Abel, but Abel and his offering. Again in Exodus 20:4-6 God exercises His right to regulate the way in which worship is brought to him by forbidding the making of any image of Himself as a “help” to worship. Should God decree that He will be worshipped only by those wearing orange shirts and green ties, He would have the right to do so. What arrogance for man to think that he has any business in determining how God will be worshipped!
1 James Bannerman, The Church of Christ,.1: 340-41.
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 11, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle
The Distinctive Regulation of the Church of God as the Place of His Special Presence—1 Tim. 3:15
1 Timothy 3:15 is, of course, a key text for the doctrine of the church, but I had never realized its full implications for the regulative principle till I was doing the preparations for a conference I was asked to do some years ago in South Africa. You will notice that in this text the special character or unique identity of the church is emphasized by means of three descriptions. It is “the house of God, the church of the living God, and the pillar and support of the truth.” Our particular interest is in the first two of these three descriptions.
The church is the house or household of God. The term, house, used here may refer to the church as God’s family (1 Tim. 3:5, 12) or the church as God’s temple (1 Pet. 2:5). In either case the special and close relation of the church to God is emphasized.
The house of God is identified in this text as “the church of the living God.” The term, church, identifies the New Covenant people of God as an organized and governed assembly. This word in Greek culture was used of the official assembly of the Greek city-state. This word in the Greek translation of the Old Testament was used to describe the QAHAL of Israel, the official civil and religious assembly of the nation of Israel. Both of these backgrounds serve to emphasize the formal, official, or organized nature of the assembly to which reference is made.
But this church is described as “the church of the living God.” “The living God” is the one described in Psalm 115:1-8. The significance of the use of this description here is to emphasize the idea that this church is dominated by the Word and Presence and Power of God. It is the church in which He dwells, in which He is active, in which He rules.
Now what is the reason for this tremendous emphasis on the unique identity of the church in this verse? I believe that the stated concern of this verse provides the answer. Paul says that He is writing to Timothy “so that [he] may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” What is Paul’s point? It is that there is a special conduct demanded by the special character of that church in which Timothy moves as Paul’s apostolic delegate or representative. The unique identity of the church requires a unique regulation of Timothy’s conduct in it. Timothy was not ignorant of the laws of God. He was not even ignorant of the regulations which had governed the Old Testament worship. From childhood he had known the sacred writings (2 Tim. 3:15). Why, then, did Paul have to write to Timothy and carefully instruct Him in the conduct becoming in the House of God? The reason is plainly that with the coming of a new temple, there come new regulations for its ordering and worship. Hebrews 9:1 asserts that “even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.” The implication of such a text is that the New Covenant with its true tabernacle also has such regulations as are fitting for the divine worship conducted in the church.
When we understand the unique identity of the church as the new tabernacle and temple of God, it will not seem far-fetched to us to see an application to the church in Exodus 26:30 where Moses was strictly charged, “you shall erect the tabernacle according to its plan which you have been shown in the mountain.” The substance of this command is often repeated in the Bible (Exodus 25:9, 40; Heb. 8:5). Exodus 39 records Moses careful obedience to the detailed divine commands regarding the construction of the Lord’s house. All was completed “just as the Lord had commanded Moses” (v. 1). This statement is repeated in vv. 5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31, 32, 42, and 43.
What is the application of these emphases of the Old Testament? God specially regulates the construction and worship of His house-temple. Nothing short of the precise and complete obedience to those special regulations which was exemplified in Moses is required. God never told Moses precisely how to construct Moses’ tent. God never told Moses precisely how to regulate His family. Those tasks He left to the discretion of Moses because it was Moses’ tent and Moses’ family. But it is for that very reason that God exercises such pervasive control over the tabernacle and its worship. The tabernacle was God’s tent; its ministers His family. Thus, He rules its worship with a special and detailed set of regulations to which He expects precise obedience. As God told Moses when He appeared to him at the burning bush, and as God told Joshua when he appeared to him outside the city of Jericho, the place of God’s special presence is holy ground and requires the removal of one’s sandals from one’s feet. Just so the church is holy ground, and this requires a unique mindset and special regulation of one’s conduct.
Similarly in the New Testament special and even unique regulations are given for God’s New Covenant house. Some illustrations of this are the following. Regulations are given for the speaking and keeping silent of prophets, tongue-speakers, and women which only apply to the meetings of the church and not necessarily to other non-church gatherings (1 Cor. 14:27-40; cf. especially the threefold emphasis on the church as the defined scope of the regulation given about women in vv. 33-35; 1 Tim. 2:1-13). Regulations are given for matters unique to the local church: church discipline (Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13); the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34); the number, nature, qualifications, appointment, support, and protection of church officers (1 Tim. 3:1-13; 5:17-22; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5-9; and the specific arrangements for the conduct of church prayer meetings (1 Tim. 2:1-13). The major elements of the worship of the church are designated (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 14; 1 Tim. 2). This detail of regulation for the church is unparalleled with regard to other divine institutions like the family or the state. Of course, both the Old and New Testaments contain divine regulations for the family and the state, but the focus of biblical concern is on the regulation of the covenant community. In the New Covenant this community is in a new way different from the Old Israel fundamentally distinct from both the family and the state.
Now please do not think that I put all of this forward as my main argument for the regulative principle of the church. All of this does, however, provide the proper framework in which the scope, force and, application of those arguments are best appreciated. In my next post we will begin to take up those arguments which form its main biblical support.
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.
