Praise Music VS Traditional

[Mark C]

From my perspective, it is legalistic because it both takes away and adds to the Scripture in the name of following Scripture.

Great point, Pastor Randy.

Iron does indeed 'sharpen iron'. But when teaching becomes "doctrine" or (worse still, arguably) the "traditions of men", and then eventually "law", there is a problem.

I contend that this is why YHVH charged Adam with the rule over his own house, and that when a man "abdicates" that Authority, even with the best of intentions, to any other earthly "master", he has submitted himself to obey "another master".

We can learn from many teachers - even those with whom we have substantial disagreement on many aspects of Scripture. But the responsibility for the CHOICES made rest with the man to whom He has given Authority (Gen. 3:16, Numbers 30:15, Joshua 24:15, etc. -- up to the three witnesses in Matt. 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25, and so on...)

Blessings,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

Pastor Randy,

I'm afraid you missed my point an many accounts. As for the singing of hymns, I stated that the "Calvinists" (we're actually Jesus-ists) were not prohibited from singing hymns, they just weren't included in the worship service because hymns weren't mentioned as being sung in the early New Testament church.

The Regulative Principle is not one of purposeful exclusion and bans against different types of worship; rather it is a desire to stay within the careful confines of what the Bible specifically spelled out (to those of the Reformed faith) as part of the worship service in the New Testament church.

As for the Regulative Principle being legalistic because it adds to or subtracts from the Word of God; that's just not accurate. Our Reformed pastor taught on Psalm 145 this evening, and if someone felt so inclined to stand, bow, raise their hands, etc. then they would have the ability to do so.

It's very discouraging to hear other believers speak so incorrectly about something they seem to have no experience with. I could tell horror stories about Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches, out-of-control Pentecostal churches, etc. But I choose to judge a person and their church as Christ-centered believers who deserve my respect until they do something to lose my respect.

As a member of a Reformed church, I do not in any way condemn others that worship in a way differently than I do, and neither does my church. Again, this is an inaccurate depiction of the Reformed faith.

I'm sure there are lots of dead, Spirit-less churches in the world that follow a strict order of worship with no desire to honor the Lord, but just because a church CHOOSES to follow the Regulative Principle out of deference to how they believe God desires them to worship, that doesn't make them legalistic. Just the opposite, it makes them true Christ-filled worshippers because they are honoring what they believe God would have them to do.

Thank you for hearing me out.

 

[DaPastor]

Hello Deut,

I understand what you are saying very much. The fact is that in the 1800's, the Reformed churches began to change the application of the Regulative Principle of Worship. They have a different view now than the original Calvinists. There are many Calvinists who hold to the older view still today. Here are some:

A short summary of the Regulative Principle of Worship is simply this: What Scripture does not authorize it forbids. Most churches (Romish churches, Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, and most Reformed and Presbyterian churches) are operating on an altogether different principle from the one just stated. The principle they are operating on is: What Scripture does not forbid, it permits. Since Christ in the New Covenant has not expressly forbidden drama, dancing, candles, incense, musical instruments, uninspired hymns, crossing oneself, banners, crosses, images etc. within the house of God, the vast majority of churches today permit these (to lesser or greater degrees) and many more practices into their worship services. However, the Regulative Principle of Worship would prevent all the above practices into the worship of God because they are all without the authorization of Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant (Foundation for Reformation: The Regulative Principle of Worship. Greg Price)

Greg Price is one of the authors that the Puritan Reformed Presbytery in North America uses as an example of sound doctrine.

Paul's epistles offer no genuine support for non-canonical hymnody, since the scriptural use of the terminology must govern the meaning of the words used in this context. If the advocates of uninspired hymnody wish to establish their case, they must prove that Paul is using these terms in a manner contrary to their ordinary scriptural usage; or, they must show that, elsewhere, Christians have been enjoined to compose new psalms to supplement those given in the Bible.
In other words, the burden of proof rests upon the advocates of new hymnody to demonstrate that uninspired hymns are part of the divinely-revealed pattern for worship. The opponents of non-canonical hymnody in worship need no further proof of their unlawfulness, since there does not exist a biblical warrant for their use in worship (Biblical Worship, by Kevin Reed)

So, all I am trying to say is I disagree with the Regulative Priciple as it is defined, and to say that the original Regulative Principle was much more restrictive than what is commonly practiced in Reformed Churches today. This is an historical fact. You may be going to a church that advocates "a reguatlive principle of worship", but it doesn't sound like the original one - especially if you have musical instruments in your services.

I used to subsribe to this website's catalog years ago. It is the most complete list of Calvinistic material on the web. You may find it interesting: http://www.swrb.com/

 

[Tlaloc]

"What Scripture does not authorize it forbids."

No swimming! No Biking! No bathroom breaks!

People who believe that line drive me crazy.