by Sam Waldron | Jun 1, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle
A clear understanding of and a thorough commitment to the regulative principle of the church is, I am convinced, absolutely crucial if biblical church reformation is ever to become a reality in our churches. The regulative principle is intended, as we have seen, to govern the whole of the church’s life both as an institution and as an assembly. Let me trace out its significance for four areas of church life in this and following blogs.
I. For the Government of the Church
Puritans who held the regulative principle have historically been committed to the jus divinum. In other words, they have been committed to the concept that there is a divinely ordained form of church government given us in the Bible. Historically, Anglicans (beginning with Hooker’s treatise on the government of the Church of England) and many others since then have argued that God has left the church free within very general principles to construct its own government. Richard Hooker in his work, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, expressly denies the regulative principle of the Puritans. One writer says, “Its object is to assert the right of a broad liberty on the basis of Scripture and reason.”1
Hooker’s views have simply anticipated the views of many evangelicals today. But such views can only be entertained while one remains in ignorance of the identity of the church as the house of God and the special regulative principle appropriate to the House of God. Once these things are understood the superficial and even profane character of the view espoused by Hooker is obvious.
Thus, my first observation is simply this. In all your ordering of the order and government of the churches over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers see to it that you remember that your church is the house of God. It is not your house to be ordered in accord with your own traditions, imaginations, or whims. It is God’s house to be ordered as He has expressly revealed in the Scriptures. Your elders’ meetings, your church meetings, your ministerial commands, have no right to alter or add to the government of the church revealed in the Bible. You must impress on yourself, your fellow-elders, and your church the great reality that only God has the right to regulate the proceedings of His house.
My second observation grows out of the first. If you are to remember that the church is the house of God and conscientiously endeavor to order it according to the mind of Christ, you must believe that the Word of God is a sufficient revelation of the way the church is to be ordered. Only a deep-rooted confidence in Scripture will make you search the Scriptures as you must so that your ministry will properly order the church of Christ.
My third observation is that there ought to be no standing office in the church of Christ, but those two standing offices appointed and regulated in the Scriptures. If you are not a biblically qualified and recognized elder or a deacon, you have no true office in the church of Christ. I am, of course, not denying that the church through its elders may designate persons who will assist the pastors and deacons like book-keepers, secretaries, and even Sunday School Superintendents. I am not denying that the elders of the church may have certain specialized ministries like pastor for theological education in my case. I am simply saying that if you are not an elder or deacon, you have no right to rule and by right no authority in the church of Christ. You are simply a servant of the officers of the church. New offices must not be created in the church.
My fourth observation is that the two offices of elder or deacon must be ordered in the way God has ordained in the Scriptures. Those who hold them must be biblically qualified. The relations between the elders and deacons must be biblically ordered. Deacons must understand their peculiar tasks and that they are subordinate to the elders in the execution of their office. Wherever it is biblically possible there ought to be a plurality of elders in any local church. The relation of the officers and members of the church must be biblically ordered so that the church understands both its duty to submit to its officers and its duty to take congregational action on issues like church-discipline and the election of church-officers.
1The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, (Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1909), vol. V, p. 360.
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 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.
