by Sam Waldron | Jun 6, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle
In my previous blog post I dealt with the application of the regulative principle to the government of the church. Here we take up a second important application.
II. For the Tasks of the Church
I remind you again that fundamental to the regulative principle of the church was its peculiar identity as the house or temple of God. The church is subject to the special regulation of the Word of God precisely because of its unique identity in human society. Neither the family, nor even the state is subject to anything akin to the regulative principle. The unique identity of the church directly leads us to the unique identity of its functions or tasks in the world.
Now it is not my purpose to expound in detail here the subject of the tasks of the church. Neither is it my purpose to deal in any kind of thorough way with the sphere sovereignty of the church, the family, and the state as the three major institutions which by divine ordination compose and regulate human society. I do think it is obvious to anyone with an appreciation of the development of the doctrine of sphere sovereignty in the Reformed tradition that God has given distinct tasks to the family, the state, and the church. This is both the general teaching of the Bible and the plain implication of the regulative principle itself. This suggests to me three plain and closely related duties of the church.
First, it requires that the church carefully fulfill its distinct tasks. The church must clearly define and understand the peculiar functions God has given it. The church must put forth its resources and strength in the completion of those tasks. I understand those tasks to the fulfillment of the Great Commission and the maintenance of the public worship of God in its worship. Related to this are benevolent responsibilities especially to God’s people.
Second, the church must carefully avoid usurping or having thrust upon it functions that are properly those of the state or the family. The danger is precisely the same as that pointed out in one of the arguments for the regulative principle. The introduction of extra-biblical practices into worship inevitably tends to nullify and undermine God’s appointed worship. In the same way the introduction of extra-biblical functions into the church inevitably tends to nullify and undermine God’s appointed tasks. If the temple of God feels a need to function as a political party or as a general educational institution, there will be an inevitable tendency to forget its unique and exalted identity as the temple of God.
Third, the church must carefully refrain from abdicating its own peculiar tasks and permitting other spheres of society to fulfill its own unique functions. This is the great reason that para-church organizations are proliferating. But no other institution can fulfill and certainly can fulfill so well the tasks of the church as the church itself. We are told constantly today that the church cannot do the things that God has ordained that it should do. I do not believe it. In fact, I believe that only the church can adequately perform its divinely ordained tasks. Only the church can maintain the public worship of God. Only the church can fulfill the Great Commission. Only the church can disciple, baptize, and teach the disciples to observe all Christ’s commandments. Only the church can properly train its own leadership. What kind of sense does it make to allow universities or colleges not under the oversight of local church to train the future leadership of the church? Clearly, if anything falls within the sphere of the church it is the training of its own future preachers and teachers.
My brethren, it is crucial that you appreciate the implications of the regulative principle for the tasks of the church. It is only when you begin to appreciate it that, I am convinced, you will begin have a vision for what the church of Christ should be. It is only then that you will begin to grasp practically why Paul said, “To Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen” (Eph. 3:21).
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 | 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 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.
