Maro Ga Nozomu Eien

Augustine on His own limitations

2008-05-28T21:08:00.002Z

I promise I will get to actually posting this blog really I do and Tim will make me if I don't. so if this is still here blame Tim.

I am NOT in the business of saving souls

2008-05-25T07:31:00.000Z

It is the work of the Holy Spirit

Sometimes the inevitable is hard work

2008-05-25T07:29:00.000Z

to be filled in later ... its inevitable

A Little something Personal This Time

2006-05-02T21:07:00.000Z

I haven't posted anything in a while and since for the immediate time being I am in between churches (doing some filling in here and there as needed till I can start down at Heritage this summer). Different from my normal posts here I thought I would define a few things from my own perspective:

Reformed: Conforming to one of the Historic Confessions / catechism i.e.:

39 Articles of Faith
Belgic Confession of Faith
Heidelberg Catechism
London Baptist Confession 1644/1689
Westminster Confession

An alternate definition I have considered would be: Covenantal in Hermeneutic and Calvinistic in Soteriology.

Evangelical: Ascribing to the Protestant Reformation's 5 Sola's

Sola Scriptura:
Scripture is the sole source of written divine revelation. Scripture alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured. The Holy Spirit does not speak independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible and personal spiritual experience can not ever be a vehicle of revelation.
Solus Christus:
Sola Gratia:In salvation, we are rescued from God's wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.
We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.
Sola Fide:
Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.
Soli Deo Gloria:
Because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God's glory and that we must glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone.

Covenantal: Or New Covenantal as opposed to one of the dispensational forms

Calvinist: Adhering to the doctrines of grace with regards to salvation

What I am:
OK now is the time I throw down some "big words" to establish my theological positioning. If you are interacting with me with reagrds to this then I ask that you not describe your position as "Biblicist: I just believe what the bible says" or "Pan-Millennial: as it will all pan out in the end" these are excuse positions. If you don't know, that is fine read, pray about it and figure it out.
I have debated how best to order these. Ways I have considered:

Alphabetically

Logically

Phenominally

Theologically / Dogmatically

Confessional: I ascribe to slightly modified forms of
The LBC 1644
The LBC 1689
Westminster Confession
The 39 Articles
and can I hang with the rest of them pretty well. Issues I have are the Pope being 'THE' anti-Christ, I can give him 'AN' anti-Christ but I don't see him as 'THE' and Paedo-Baptism
Soteriology: I am a Calvinist
Hermeneutic: I favor the "Redemptive Historical Christocentric" model which is effectively:
1. The assumption of corporate solidarity or representation.
2. That Christ is viewed as representing the true Israel of the Old Testament and true Israel, the church, in the New Testament. Christ and the church fulfill what is prophesied of Israel in the OT.
3. That history is unified by a wise and sovereign plan so that the earlier parts are designed to correspond and point to the latter parts.
4. That the age of eschatological fulfillment has come in Christ.
5. As a consequence of (C) and (D), the fifth presupposition affirms that the latter parts of biblical history function as the broader context to interpret earlier parts because they all have the same, ultimate divine author who inspires the various human authors, and one deduction from this premise is that Christ as the center of history is the key to interpreting the earlier portions of the Old Testament and its promises. Be sure to make note of both continuity and contrast.
Baptismally: Credo Baptist
- I favor Credo-Baptism but since:
  1. I do not ascribe regeneration to baptism,
  2. Nor do I see the efficacy as coming from the baptizer
- I believe it to be a wrong thing to be baptized a second time.
So let me be as clear as possible about this:
1. Baptism may proceed regeneration, but
2. It should not
Further, baptism should be performed ideally in living (flowing) water.
The Order of Decrees: Infralapsarian or Supralapsarian
- I don't want to waffle on this and there is the issue that AA Hodge brings up: "The question as to the Order of Decrees is not a question as to the order of acts in God decreeing, but it is a question as to the true relation sustained by the several parts of the system which He decrees to one another," (Outlines, p. 230).
- The other part of me wants to shout out: What part of "out side of time" do you people not get!
- If you are going to make me pick one then right now I am probably Supra with some leanings towards Infra.
Bibliology/ Inspiration: Plenary Verbal
1. The word plenary means "full" or "complete". Therefore, plenary verbal inspiration asserts that God inspired the complete text(s) of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, and including both historical and doctrinal details.
2. The word verbal affirms the idea that inspiration extends to the very words the writers chose. The Holy Spirit guided the writers along with allowing them the freedom of their own personalities to produce the Bible we have today. This view recognizes both the human and divine element within Scripture.
Ecclesiology: Elder lead which I consider to be one of the following models:
- Single Elder within a synod / where affiliated churches share elders: This model should likely be limited to small congregations, but does have some flexibility. This is probably a young subset of the Episcopal model below
- Presbyterian / Synod Model: Plurality of elders in a single location where representative elders routinely gather for discussion of issues and then their representatives and representatives of the laity then gather to form normative statements. This seems to be a concession to congregationalism.
- Episcopal Model: Hierarchical with one or more Archbishops presiding over Bishops over dioceses.
If I were to go far enough with this I would probably set things up where candidates for clergy would spend 1-2 years studying under their local clergy, spend another 2 years at a regional seminary where the Professors would be retired Bishops and Clergy presided over by an Archbishop and then the last year of study would be as an assistant to an Archbishop doing whatever needs to be done, filling in for clergy, research, getting to know the system etc.
Eschatology: Amillenial
1. Redemptive-Historical form of modified idealism in the line of Beale and Hendriksen
2. The purpose of Revelation is to 'comfort the militant Church in its struggle against the forces of evil'.
3. Amillenial means that I do not understand scripture to impose a literal 1000 year block to the reign of Christ on the earth. Which the Posties(1) have also adopted. Further however while the Posties are "positive" in their outlook on history I do not see a general increase in the "Christianization" of the world. I do however believe that at the Parousa there will immediately come the resurrection (2nd) and the judgment followed immediately by the renewal of creation so there will be no literal 1000 year reign of Christ on this fallen world.
I tend to throw around some vernacular that is particular to me: It is not meant to be depreciating but sometimes people regard it as such: I should probably get over it
- Posties- or Postie Toasties a.k.a. Post-Millennial As notably compared to
- Amies (Amillennial)
- Premies (Historic pre-millennial) or
- Dispies Dispensationalist
- Baby sprinkling a.k.a. Paedo-Baptism, as opposed to
- Drowning out the demons or Credo-Baptism.
Covenantal Model: Covenantal
In brief, Covenant Theology teaches that God has established two covenants with mankind and one within the Godhead to deal with how the other two relate.
1. The first (in logical order), usually called the Covenant of Redemption, is the agreement within the Godhead that the Father would appoint his son Jesus to give up his life for mankind and that Jesus would do so.
2. The second, called the Covenant of Works, was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam and promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. Adam disobeyed God and broke the covenant, and so the third covenant was made between God and all of mankind, who also fell with Adam according to Romans 5:12-21.
3. This third covenant, the Covenant of Grace, promised eternal blessing for belief in Christ and obedience to God's word. It became the basis for all future covenants that God made individually (with Noah, Abraham, and David), nationally (that is, with the Israelites as a people), and universally with man in the New Covenant. These individual covenants are called the "biblical covenants" because they are explicitly described in the Bible.
Worship: High Liturgical:
This is another waffling point for me.
1. You see I love liturgy. Much of my teenage and young adult years were spent in liturgical churches.
2. However I am open to the regulative principle which of course is the exact opposite of High Liturgy.
3. I will say that contemporary services are rarely if ever done well and tend to at the best bring glory to the musical participants and at worst detract from the worship of God.
4. High liturgy when done well draws the participant into the worship of God.
Charisma: moderate concentric cessationist
I believe that the miraculous gifts are now non-normative That is to say:
- It is not the standard / the expression is very limited in the mainstream church and evangelized areas
- May appear in unreached areas as an aid to spreading the Gospel.
On Orthodoxy: I ascribe to the following ecuminical councils:
- First Council of Nicaea, (325); repudiated Arianism, adopted the Nicene Creed.
- First Council of Constantinople, (381)
  Council of Ephesus, (431); repudiated Nestorianism, proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God.
- Council of Chalcedon, (451); repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism, described and delineated the two natures of Christ, human and divine; adopted the Chalcedonian Creed.
- Second Council of Constantinople, (553); reaffirmed decisions and doctrines explicated by previous Councils, condemned new Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite writings.
- Third Council of Constantinople, (680Â681); repudiated Monothelitism, affirmed that Christ had both human and Divine wills.
- Council of Constantinople of 754 (754). Dismissing #15 and 17
On Hetrodoxy:
On Heresy:
I do firmly believe that the teaching of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism is heretical, that Arminianism is wrong and should not be taught, nor should Amyraldianism. Heresy here however brings up an interesting discussion which I am not going to take the time to go over in any depth: Can a heretic go to heaven while still believing heresy? Well I think that heresy is the teaching of things contrary to scripture. Note a heretic must be teaching to be a heretic; otherwise the person is simply in error. I have to say that since salvation is not based on the individual but rather completely relies on the redeeming work of Christ and the regeneration by the Holy Spirit that yes a Heretic can believe and be teaching wrong things and still go to heaven. I do however believe that God will not allow his people to continue in error so the heretic is highly suspect to simply be non-regenerate.

An Audience of One

2006-02-15T03:51:00.000Z

The Regulative Principle of Worship
I am going to start by posting an article on the regulative principle and Puritan Worship Practices. If we as Reformed Baptists are going to claim that our inheritance lies with the Puritans then we should be mindful of our heritage and be aware of any differences and be able to espouse reasons for such changes. A discussion shall follow.

The Puritan Regulative Principle of the Church
How did they worship God? Though I do not agree with everything in this article, it is still helpful to have a consensus on what some of the Puritans believed.
The Puritan Principle of Worship
By Dr. William Young
“The Puritan principle of Worship was no invention of the Puritans. On the contrary, it is the principle regulative of Worship formulated by Calvin and adopted by all the Reformed Churches, as will appear from a consideration of passages in the writings of Reformed writers and the Reformed creeds. The reformed view of the principle regulative of the external worship of God stands out by way of contrast with the Lutheran view. Lutherans have held that what is not forbidden in the Word of God may be allowed in the Worship of God. Ceremonies in worship are thus regarded as to a large extent indifferent (Adiaphora), i.e. things neither commanded nor forbidden in the Scriptures... .The Reformed view has uniformly been that only that which is prescribed be the Word of God may be introduced into the Worship of God. Calvin formulated this regulative principle with clarity and applied it with great consistency in the Reformation at Geneva. It is implicit in his celebrated definition of pure and genuine religion as "confidence in God coupled with serious fear -fear which both includes in it willing reverence, and brings along with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed by the law."
Expressed more precisely, the subject of the present study might be formulated as The Regulative Principle of Reformed Worship in the Puritan Writers and Its Application to the Element of Sung Praise in Worship." The less cumbrous title "The Puritan Principle of Worship" or, if one prefers, The Principle of Puritan Worship" will be assumed to cover the material referred to by the lengthier title.
The central significance of the principle of worship in Puritanism has been made clear in the opening chapter on The Nature of English Puritanism" in Horton Davies' standard work on The Worship of the English Puritans" (Dacre Press, Westminster, 1948). The importance of the regulative principle of worship for the origin and essential character of the Puritan movement appears in the definition of Puritanism with which Davies opens the chapter: "Puritanism is most accurately defined as the outlook that characterized the radical Protestant party in Queen Elizabeth's day, who regarded the Reformation as incomplete and wished to model English church worship and government according to the Word of God." (p.l). He supports this definition by a reference to the "Ecclesia Restaurata, or History of the Reformation1' by Heylyn, an opponent of the Puritans. Under "Anno Reg. 7" Heylyn writes: This year the Zwinglian, or Catvinian Faction began to be first known by the name of Puritans, which name hath ever since been appropriated to them because of their pretending to a greater Purity in the Service of God, than was held forth unto them (as they gave it out) in the Common-Prayer Book; and to a greater opposition to the Rites and Usages of the Church of Rome than was agreeable to the Constitution of the Church of England (ed. 1661, p. 172).
While Horton Davies' definition includes Church Government with Worship as part of the basic issue, Heylyn's statement is restricted to the controversy concerning Worship. The Worship and the Government of the Church are both subject to the regulative principle in the Reformed conception. Yet the application of the regulative principle may be said to enjoy a certain primacy with respect to Worship rather than to Church Government. Worship is central to the life of the Church. The Church exists to worship God, not to function as an organization. Church Government also appears to have numerous features to which the regulative principle does not apply in the way in which it does apply to the modes of worship.
Judicial procedure in a Church trial, for example, must include numerous circumstances of considerable weight which are not prescribed in scripture, if the requirements of justice are to be observed. Nothing analogous to this necessity appears, so strikingly at least, in connection with worship.
On the other hand, due weight ought to be ascribed to the consideration that the regulative principle of Reformed Worship provides a norm for the practice of worship paralleled by the Scripture norm for the constitution of the Church as an organized institution. Though the organization of the Church may not be an end in itself or even so directly related to the final end, The Glory of God, as is the Worship of the Church, yet the form of Church Government in the sense of the offices that are to be found in the Church, the qualifications for and functions of church officers, the nature of an offence and the essential procedure for dealing with offenses, is entirely prescribed in the Word of God. The striking difference between the extent to which worship is prescribed in Scripture and that to which Church Government is may prove to be only superficial and apparent. Church Government has a larger number of types of attendant circumstances that are inseparable from its exercise, but no part of its essential structure, whereas Worship is simpler and has relatively few types of attendant circumstances accompanying it. In principle, however, both Worship and Church Government in their essential structure and procedure are entirely prescribed in Holy Scripture according to the regulative principle as understood by Reformed Theologians and especially by the Puritans.
Whatever may be the last word as to the ideal relationship of Worship and Church Government to the regulative principle, in actual historical fact, Puritanism began with the application of the principle to worship and later became increasingly concerned with the application of it to questions relating to the form of Church Government and the relations between the Church and the State. While on the latter issues Puritans divided into diverging camps, Presbyterians and Independents, those who would remain in the State Church and Separatists2 all were of one mind as to the application of the regulative principle to the Worship of the Church. The regulative principle of Worship may then be regarded as in a historical sense, the originating and also the unifying principle of Puritanism. An adequate understanding of this principle is a necessary condition of a proper comprehension of the significance of the Puritan movement in the past and its relevance to our present problems.
In the narrow sense of the terms "Separatist" and "Puritan", the Separatists may be opposed to the Puritans. Horton Davies, however, says of the term "Puritan", "Whilst the term is strictly applicable only to the ecclesiastical party who urged this concern in Elizabeth's day and renewed it in the days of James I, it may be extended, in a wider sense, to the semi-separatists such as John Robinson, who would never allow himself to deny that the Church of England was a true Church," (The Worship of the English Puritans, p. 11).
The Puritan principle of Worship was no invention of the Puritans. On the contrary, it is the principle regulative of Worship formulated by Calvin and adopted by all the Reformed Churches, as will appear from a consideration of passages in the writings of Reformed writers and the Reformed creeds.
The reformed view of the principle regulative of the external worship of God stands out by way of contrast with the Lutheran view. Lutherans have held that what is not forbidden in the Word of God may be allowed in the Worship of God. Ceremonies in worship are thus regarded as to a large extent indifferent (Adiaphora), i.e. things neither commanded nor forbidden in the Scriptures. The Augsburg Confession treats of Ecclesiastical Rites in Part 1, Article XV: "Concerning Ecclesiastical Rites (made by man - W.Y.), they teach that those rites are to be observed which may be observed without sin, and are profitable for tranquility and good order in the Church; such as are set holidays, feasts, and such like. Yet concerning such things, men are to be admonished that consciences are not to be burdened as if such service were necessary to salvation." (Schaff, The Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches, p. 16). The article goes on to condemn human traditions, instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sins as opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith. Likewise in Part II, Article V, which treats "Of the Distinction of Meats and Traditions:" "Yet most of the traditions are observed among us which tend unto this end, that things may be done orderly in the Church: as, namely, the order of lessons in the Mass and the chiefest holidays. But, in the mean time men are admonished that such service doth not justify before God, and that it is not to be supposed there is sin in such things, if they be left undone, without scandal. This liberty in human rites and ceremonies was not unknown to our fathers." (Schaff, Op. cit. p. 48). Cf. The Formula of Concord, Art. X "Of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies": "For the better taking away of this controversy we believe, teach, and confess with unanimous consent, that ceremonies and ecclesiastical rites (such as in the Word of God are neither commanded nor forbidden, but have only be instituted for the sake of order and seemliness) are of themselves neither divine worship nor even any part of divine worship. For it is written (Matt. 15:9): 'In vain did they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men'" (Schaff, Op. cit., pp. 161 f.)
The 34th of the 39 articles of the Church of England follows the Lutheran line: "It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly alike; for at all times they have been divers and be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing can be ordained against God's Word." (Schaff, Op. cit., p. 508).
CALVIN'S FORMULATION OF THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE
As opposed to the Lutheran view that there is a substantial area of Adiaphora in the service of Worship, the Reformed view has uniformly been that only that which is prescribed be the Word of God may be introduced into the Worship of God. Calvin formulated this regulative principle with clarity and applied it with great consistency in the Reformation at Geneva. It is implicit in his celebrated definition of pure and genuine religion as "confidence in God coupled with serious fear - fear which both includes in it willing reverence, and brings along with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed by the law." (Inst, 1,11,3. Beveridge Trans.). The pertinent expression in the definitive Latin edition (1559) reads "et secum trahit legitimum cultum qualis in Lege praescribitur." The French text of 1560 accentuates the Divine origin of acceptable worship;"et tire avec soy un service tel qu'il appartient, et tel que Dieu mesmes i'ordonne en sa Loy." (ed. published by Jean-Daniel Benoit, Vrin. 1957). In his account of superstition, Calvin proceeds from the regulative principle: "In this way, the vain pretext which many employ to clothe their superstition is overthrown. They deem it enough that they have some kind of zeal for religion, how preposterous soever it may be not observing that true religion must be conformable to the will of God as its unerring standard; (Latin: 'sed non animadvertunt, veram religionem ad Dei nutum, ceu ad perpatuam regulam, debere conformari.' Fr.'Mais ils ne notent pas que la vraye religion doit estre du tout conforme a la volonte de Dieu, comme une reigle qui ne fleschit poin.') that he can never deny himself, and is no specter or phantom, to be metamorphosed at each individual's caprice. It is easy to see how superstition, with its false glosses, mocks God, while it tries to please him. Usually fastening merely on things on which he has declared he sets no value, it either contemptuously overlooks or even undisguisedty rejects, the things which he expressly enjoins, or in which we are assured he takes pleasure. Those, therefore, who set up a fictitious worship, merely worship and adore their own delirious fancies; indeed, they would never dare so to trifle with God, had they not previously fashioned him after their own childish conceits ... It remains therefore to conclude with Lactantius (Instil. Div. lib. 1,2,6) 'No religion is genuine that is not in accordance with truth.'"(I,IV,3). The corruption of pure religion by the introduction of worship invented by man is for Calvin a mark of the vanity and blindness of fallen human nature. Inst. I,V 13 unfolds this thought in detail: "Hence we must hold, that whosoever adulterates pure religion (and this must be the case with all who cling to their own views) make a departure from the one God. No doubt, they will allege that they have a different intention; but it is of little consequence what they intend or persuade themselves to believe, since the Holy Spirit pronounces all to be apostates who, in the blindness of their minds, substitute demons in the place of God. For this reason Paul declares that the Ephesians were "without God' (Eph. 2:12), until they had learned from the gospel what it is to worship the true God. Nor must this be restricted to one people only, since in another place, he declares in general, that all men 'became vain in their imaginations,' after the majesty of the Creator was manifested to them in the structure of the world . . . But if the most distinguished wandered in darkness, what shall we say of the refuse? No wonder therefore, that all worship of man's device is repudiated by the Holy Spirit as degenerate. (Lat. "Quare nihil mirium si cultus omnes hominum arbitrio excogitates tanquam degeneres repudiet Spiritus sanctus.' Fr. 'II ne se faut done esmereiller si le sant Espirit a reiette tout service de Dieu contreuve a la poste des hommes comme bastar et corrompu.') Any opinion which man can form in heavenly mysteries though it may not beget a long train of errors, is still the parent of error. And though nothing worse should happen, even this is no light sin - to worship an unknown God at random. Of this sin, however, we hear from our Saviour's own mouth (John 4:22), that all are guilty who have not been taught out of the law who the God is whom they ought to worship."
In arguing against idolatry and Image worship, Calvin also appeals to the regulative principle. Referring to Psalm CXV, 4 and CXXXV, 15, the Reformer inquires: "Whence had idols their origin, but from the will of man?" He argues: "It is, moreover, to be observed, that by the mode of expression which is employed, every form of superstition is denounced. Being works of men, they have no authority from God (Isa. 2:8,13; 7:57; Hos. 14:4; Mic. 5:13); and therefore it must be regarded as a fixed principle, that all modes of worship devised by men are detestable." (Inst I, XI, 4). Lat. *Ut hoc fbcum sit, destestabiles esse omnes cultus quos a seipsis homines excogitant.' Fr. 'afin que nous ayons une reigle infallible que tous les services divins que les hommes se forgent sont detestables') cf. also I, X, 13.
Again in distinguishing true religion from superstition, Calvin observes that the latter "seems to take its name from its not being contented with the measure which reason prescribes, but accumulate a superfluous mass of vanities." (Inst. I,XII,1) "Religion" in Calvin's opinion "is used in opposition to vagrant licence - the greater part of mankind rashly taking up whatever first comes in their way, whereas piety, that it may stand with a firm step, confines itself within due bounds." These due bounds are determined by the law of God. "But God, in vindicating his own right, first proclaims that he is a jealous God, and will be a stern avenger if he is confounded with any false god: and thereafter defines what due worship is, in order that the human race may be kept in obedience. Both of these he embraces in his Law when he first binds the faithful in allegiance to him as their only lawgiver, and then prescribes a rule for worshipping him in accordance with his will." (Ibid). The Law, according to Calvin, among other uses "is designed as a bridle to curb men, and prevent them from turning aside to spurious worship." Cf. I, XII, 3. "He has been pleased to prescribe in his Law what is lawful and right, and thus constrict men to a certain rule, lest any should allow themselves to devise a worship of their own."
In discussing the sufficiency of the Moral Law as a rule of conduct, Calvin again refers to the regulative principle of worship (II, VIII, 5). "The Lord, in delivering a perfect rule of righteousness, has reduced in it all its parts to his mere will, and in this way has shown that there is nothing more acceptable to him than obedience. There is the more necessity for attending to this, because the human mind, in its wantonness, is ever and anon inventing different modes of worship as a means of gaining his favour. This irreligious affection of religion being innate in the human mind, has betrayed itself in every age, and is still doing so, men always longing to devise some method of procuring righteousness without any sanction from The Word of God
God foreseeing that the Israelites would not rest, but after receiving the Law, would, unless sternly prohibited, give birth to new kinds of righteousness, declares that the Law comprehended a perfect righteousness ... How do we act? We are certainly under the same obligation as they were ; for there cannot be a doubt that the claim of absolute perfection which God made for his law is perpetually in force. Not contented with it, however, we labour prodigiously in feigning and coining an endless variety of good works, one after another. The best cure for this vice would be constant and deep-seated conviction that the Law was given from heaven to teach us a perfect righteousness; that the only righteousness so taught is that which the divine will expressly enjoins; and that it is, therefore, vain to attempt, by new forms of worship, to gain the favor of God, whose true worship consists in obedience alone; or rather, that to go a wandering after good works which are not prescribed by the Law of God, is an intolerable violation of true and divine righteousness."
Calvin also finds the regulative principle of worship established by the second commandment of the decalogue. He expounds the commandment this: "As in the first commandment the Lord declares that he is one, and that besides him no gods must be either worshipped or imagined, so he here more plainly declares what his nature is, and what the kind of worship with which he is to be honoured, in order that we may not presume to form any carnal idea of him. The purport of the commandment, therefore, is that he will not have his legitimate worship profaned by superstitious rites. Wherefore, in general, he calls us entirely away from the carnal frivolous observances which our stupid minds are wont to devise after forming some gross idea of the divine nature, while at the same time, he instructs us in the worship that is legitimate, namely, spiritual worship of his own appointment." (Institutes II, VIII, 17).
In Calvin's refutation of the claims of the Church of Rome, the regulative principle of the Reformed Worship provides a charter of Christian liberty. A superficial view might suppose the regulative principle to be a confining, restricting principle that condemns Christian worship to barrenness and ugliness. In Calvin's doctrine and practice, as in that of the Puritans in the following century, the regulative principle was a liberating power, cutting off at the root of tyrannical imposition of men in the worship of God and exhibiting that worship in its native beauty, the beauty of holiness. The implication of the regulative principle for Christian liberty is expressed in Calvin's stirring words: The power we have now to consider is whether it be lawful for the Church to bind laws upon the conscience? In this discussion, civil order is not touched; but the only point considered is how God may be duly worshipped according to the rule which He has proscribed, and how our spiritual liberty, with reference to God, may remain unimpaired. In ordinary language, the name of human traditions is given to all decrees concerning the worship of God, which men have issued without the authority of His word. We contend against these, not against the sacred and useful constitutions of the Church, which tend to preserve discipline, or decency or peace. Our aim is to curb the unlimited and barbarous empire usurped over souls by those who would be thought pastors of the Church, but who are in fact its most cruel murderers. They say that the laws which they enact are spiritual, pertaining to the soul, and they affirm that they are necessary to eternal life. But thus the Kingdom of Christ, as I lately observed, is invaded; thus the liberty, which He has given to the consciences of believers, is completely oppressed and overthrown ... What I contend for is, that necessity ought not to be laid on consciences in matters in which Christ has made them free . . . They must acknowledge Christ their deliverer, as their only king, and be ruled by the only law of liberty, namely the sacred word of the gospel, if they would retain the grace which they have received in Christ: They must be subject to no bondage, be bound by no chains." (Institutes IV, X, 1).
The Christian is free from the commandments of men in matters of worship because God is the only lawgiver and His will is the perfect rule of all righteousness and holiness. Consequently, human constitutions are contrary to the word of the Lord, if they are devised as part of the worship of God and their observance is bound upon the conscience as of necessary obligation. Calvin points out that in Colossians Paul "Maintains that the doctrine of true worship of God is not to be sought from men, because the Lord has faithfully and fully taught as in what way He is to be worshipped (Inst. TV, X, 8). Calvin comments on 'ETHELOTHRESKIAS', will worship: "That is, fictitious modes of worship which men themselves devise or receive from others, and all precepts whatsoever which they presume to deliver at their own hand concerning the worship of God." (Ibid).
Throughout the further discussion of ecclesiastical legislation in Inst. TV, X, Calvin repeatedly appeals to the regulative principle of worship as the chief ground for rejecting the traditions of men. A few passages may be quoted in addition to those given to show how pervasively the regulated principle has penetrated the Reformer's outlook. "Since Paul then declares it to be intolerable that the legitimate worship of God should be subjected to the will of men, wherein do we err when we are unable to tolerate this in the present day? Especially when we are enjoined to worship God according to the elements of this world - a thing which Paul declares to be adverse to Christ (Col. 2:20)." (IV, X, 9). "Moreover, the worst of all is, that when once religion begins to be composed of such vain fictions, the perversion is immediately succeeded by the abominable depravity with which our Lord upbraids the Pharisees of making the commandment of God void through their tradition, if this is not done when recommending the ordinances of God only frigidly and perfunctorily, they nevertheless studiously and anxiously urge strict obedience to their own ordinances, as if the whole power of piety was contained in them -- when vindicating the transgression of the divine Law with trivial satisfactions, they visit the minutest violation of one of their decrees with no lighter punishment than imprisonment, exile, fire, or sword?" (IV, X, 10). Commenting further on the show of wisdom in will-worship, Calvin remarks: "But what does Paul say to all this? Does he pluck off these masks lest the simple be deluded by a false pretext? Deeming it sufficient for their refutation to say that they were devices of men he passes all these things without refutation, as things of no value. Nay, because he knew that all fictitious worship is condemned in the Church, and is more suspected by believers, the more pleasing it is to the human mind - because he knew that this false show of outward humility differs so widely from true humility that it can be easily discerned; - finally, because he knew that this tutelage is valued at no more than bodily exercise, he wished the very things that commended human traditions to be ignorant to be regarded by believers as the refutation of them." (IV, X, 11). Calvin complains of the imposition of a multitude of ceremonies as a restoration of Judaism which burdens rather than aids the weak, To the question "Are no ceremonies to be given to the more ignorant, as a help to their ignorance?" he replies: "I do not say so; for I think that help of this description is very useful to them. All I content for is the employment of such a measure as may illustrate, not obscure Christ. Hence a few ceremonies have been divinely appointed, and these by no means laborious, in order that they may evince a present Christ. To the Jews a greater number were given, that they might be images of an absent Christ. In saying he was absent, I mean not in power, but in mode of expression. Therefore to secure due moderation, it is necessary to retain that fewness in number, facility in observance, and significance of meaning which consists in clearness," (IV, X, 14). (Lat. "in numero paucitatem, in observatve facilitatem, in significatione dignitatem, quae etiam claritate constat").
Although Calvin is directing his argument towards abuses prevalent in his own day, he recognizes that the regulative principle is applicable to all ages. "For whenever men begin the superstitious practice of worshipping God with their own fictions, all the laws enacted for this purpose forthwith degenerate into gross abuses. For the curse which God denounces - viz. to strike those who worship him with the doctrines of men with stupor and blindness Isaiah 29:13f.) - is not confined to any one age, but applies to all ages. The uniform result of this blindness is, that there is no kind of absurdity escaped by those who, despising the many admonitions of God, spontaneously entangle themselves in these deadly fetters. But if, without any regard to circumstances, you would know the character belonging at all times to those human traditions which ought to be repudiated by the church, and condemned by all the godly, the definition which we formerly gave is clear and certain - viz. That they include all the laws enacted by men, without authority from the word of God, for the purpose either of prescribing the mode of divine worship, or laying religious obligation on the conscience, as enjoining things necessary to salvation." (IV, X, 16). For the passage referred to in this quote, see IV, B, 1 and cf. Calvin's tract on the "Necessity of Reforming the Church" (Edinburgh Ed. Tracts, Vol I pp. 127 ff.).
Calvin supports the regulative principle by further appeal to Scripture passages. He points out that "it is not property of the Church to disregard the limits of the word of God, and wanton and luxuriate in enacting new laws. Does not the law which was once given to the Church endure for ever?" Deut. 12:32 and Prov. 30:6 are quoted with the following observations: "Since they cannot that this was said to the Church, what else do they proclaim but their contumacy, when, notwithstanding of such prohibitions, they profess to add to the doctrine of God, and dare to intermingle their own with it? . . . Let us understand that the name of Church is falsely pretended wherever men contend for that rash human license which cannot confine itself within the boundaries prescribed by the word of God, but petulantly breaks out, and has recourse to its own inventions. In the above passage there is nothing involved, nothing obscure, nothing ambiguous; the whole Church is forbidden to add to, or take away from the word of God, in relation to His worship and salutary precepts ... Now, if the Lord does not permit anything to be added to, or taken away from the ministry of Moses, though wrapt up, if I may so speak, in many folds of obscurity, until He furnish a clearer doctrine by His servants the Prophets, and at last His beloved Son, why should we not suppose that we are much more strictly prohibited from making any additions to the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Gospel? The Lord cannot forget Himself, and it is long since He declared that nothing is so offensive to Him as to be worshipped by human inventions." (IV, X, 17). Calvin further quotes Jer. 7:22, 23. 11:7 and I Sam. 15:22, 23 to show that human inventions may not be defended by appeal to the authority of the Church.
THE WITNESS OF REFORMED CREEDS
The witness of the Reformed creeds to the Regulative Principle of Worship is along the lines laid down by Calvin. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), used in the German and Dutch Reformed Churches gives us the answer to question 96, "What does God require in the second commandment?", "That we in nowise make any image of God, nor worship him in any other way than He has commanded in His Word." The Belgic Confession by Guido de Bres (1561) used by the Dutch Reformed Churches, in expounding the sufficiency of the Scriptures, declares "The whole manner of worship which God requires of us in written in then at large." (Article VII). Likewise in discussing the order and discipline of the Church, the Belgic confession rejects "all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever." (Article XXXII).
Among the Reformed creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms excel in the accuracy with which doctrine is formulated and the balance with which the various elements of Scriptural truth are set in relation to one another. These standards, it should be remembered, were the work of a body of divines consisting almost entirely of English Puritans. The following passages, in Carruthers' Text of the Confession edited from the original manuscript written by Cornelius Surges in 1646, provide a succinct formulation of the regulative principle.
"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that 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." Chapter I, Sec. VI.
"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also." Ch. XX, Sec. II.
"The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation or any way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture." Ch. XXI, Sec. I.
The sense of the regulative principle may be rendered clear and precise by certain observations on the Westminster formulation which we may safely take as the unanimous consensus of Puritan conviction on this subject.
1. The regulative principle is a consequence of the sufficiency of Scripture. Nothing need or may be added to the Word of God as a rule of faith and practice. Therefore only what is prescribed by the written Revelation may be admitted in the worship of God.
2.
The mode of prescription need not be that of explicit command in a single text of Scripture. Approved example warrants an element of worship as surely does an express precept.
Moreover, good and necessary consequence may warrant acceptable worship.
Without entering upon disputed questions as to the proper subjects of Baptism, all would agree that Scripture warrants the admission of women to the Lord's table although no express command or approved example can be adduced. There is a sound adage sometimes quoted by Reformed divines that the sense of Scripture is Scripture.
3.
The regulative principle does not entail an impossible demand that an indefinite number of minute circumstances concerning the worship of God should be deduced from Scripture.
The time and place of worship for a Christian congregation are not minutely prescribed.
4.
Yet this does not mean that all circumstances are Adiaphora.
The circumstances not prescribed by the Word of God are only such as are "common to human actions and societies" and only some such.
5. The general rules of the Word of God are to be observed in the ordering of the circumstances "by the light of nature and Christian prudence." This implies that acts of worship itself are regulated in a much more specific manner by Scripture than are other human actions.
An act of worship is never a thing indifferent, something neither commanded nor forbidden by God, while some civil actions and even circumstances accompanying acts of worship may be thus classed among the Adiaphora.
6.
This distinction between acts of worship and civil acts is implied in the distinction between things contrary to God's Word and things beside God's Word. In all things human laws contrary to the Word of God are not binding, though in some things human laws beside the Word of God may be binding , as in laws passed by the civil magistrate that may restrict conduct in things indifferent.
With respect to matters of faith and worship, however, human laws beside the Word of God even though not directly contrary to it have no binding force.
7. The reason for this state of affairs is that the entire content of faith and worship is revealed in the Word of God. The argument closes with a return to its starting-point, the sufficiency of Scripture revelation as prescribing the entire content of worship including all the ways in which God may be worship acceptably.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE PURITAN AUTHORS
The Westminster Standards contain the consensus of English Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian judgment as to the Regulative Principle. Whatever difference of opinion there was in the assembly as to Church Government, there was unanimity as to the regulation of worship. Where the English Puritans were more scrupulous than their Scottish brethren in objecting to the singing of a doxology as the close of a Psalm, the Scottish divines were willing cheerfully to give up their time honoured custom for the sake of uniformity in a matter where they were not called to sacrifice principle.
The same view of the regulative principle that appears in Knox* argument against the Mass and in George Gillespie's dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies was used by the English Puritans themselves against the Mass and the Ceremonies. (Cf. W. Ames A Reply to Dr. Morton's general defence of three nocent ceremonies, 1622, and A Fresh Suit against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship, 1633, as well as the propositions in the Medulla. Ames also wrote a preface to W. Bradshaw's English Puritanism Containing the Maine Opinions of the rigidest sort of those that are called Puritaines. Cf. also the discussion of the 2nd commandment in Perkin's Golden Chain (1609) and his Warning against the Idolatrie Of the Last Times. A full discussion of the regulative principle may also be found in John Owen's Discourse concerning Liturgies.
In his well known Medulla Theologica (Eng. Trans., The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, London, 1642), William Ames, Professor at Franeker, discusses the principle of worship systematically under the heading, De Cultu Instituto (Of instituted worship). The following propositions illustrate the well ordered argument and precise definitions characteristic of Ames' Medulla.
1.
Instituted worship is the meanes ordained by the Will of God to exercise and further natural worship.
2.
All such like meanes ordained of God are declared in the second Commandement, by forbidding all contrary meanes of worship devised by men, under the title of Graven and Image: Which seeing they were of old the chiefe inventions of men corrupting the worship of God, they are most fitly (by a Synechdoche frequent in the Decalogue) put instead of all devises of man's wit pertaining to worship. No worship of this kind is lawful!, unlesse it hath God for the Author, and ordainer of it. Deut. 4:2 and 12:32; I Chron. 16:13.
11. That is declared in those words of the Commandment. Thou shall not make to thy selfe: that is of thine own braine or judgment, for although that particle to thy selfe, doth sometimes either abound, or hath another force: yet here the most accurate brevity of these Commandements doth exclude redundancy, and it is manifest that the vanity of man's cogitations is excluded by other places of Scripture pertaining to the same thing.
As Amos 5:26; Numbers 15:39.
12.
The same is also declared by that universality of the prohibition, which is explained in the Commandment by a distribution of the things which are in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath, or in the Waters under the Earth.
13.
For none beside God himselfe can either understand what will be acceptable to him: or can add that virtue to any worship whereby, it may be made effectual! and profitable for us; neither can there be anything honorable to God which comes not from him as the author of it, neither finally doe we read that such a power was at any time given to any man by God, to ordaine any worship at his own pleasure. Matthew 15:9.
Excerpts from some of these works appear later in this article [ed.]
14.
Hence implicitly and by interpretation of God himselfe, we make him our God, and give the honour due to God to him, whose authority or ordinances we subject our selves unto in religious worship.
15.
In this respect also men are sometime said to worship the Devil!, when they observe those worships which the Devill brought in. I Cor. 10:20; Levit. 17:7; Deut. 32:17.
16.
But we must obseve that worhsip which God hath appointed with the same religion, as we receive his word or will, or call upon his name. Deut. 6:17-18 and 12:25, 28 and 13:18 and 28:14.
17.
The meanes which God hath ordained in this kind, some of them doe properly, and immediately make to the exercising and furthering of Faith, Hope and Charity, as publique and solemne preaching of the word, celebration of Baptisme and the Lord's Supper, and prayer.
And some of them are meanes for the right performance of those former, as the combination of the faithful! into certaine Congregations or Churches, Election, Ordination, and Ministration of ministers ordained by God, together with the care of Ecclesiastical! Discipline.
18.
Those former are most properly the instituted worship of God; yet the rest are also worship, not only in that general! respect, as all things are said to be acts or worship and religion, which doe any way flow from, or are guided by religion, but also in their special! nature, because the adequate end and use of them is, that God may be rightly worshipped.
19.
All these therefore both in general!, and in special! ought to be observed of us as they are appointed by God; for God must be worshipped by us with his own worship, totally and solely, nothing must here be added, taken away or changed. Deut. 12:32.
20.
That is a very empty distinction, whereby some goe about to excuse their additions.
That only addition corrupting and not addition conserving is forbidden; because every addition as well as detraction is expressly opposed to observation, or conservation of the commands of God, as being a corruption. Deut. 12:32.
21.
Of like stampe also is that evasion whereby they say there is forbidden only addition of essentials, and not of accidental^:
for first although there be accidents or certaine adjuncts of worship, yet there is no worship to be simply called accidental!, because it hath in it the very essence of worship. Secondly, as the least commands of God even to Iotas and Tittles are religiously to be obseved, Matt. 5:18,19. So additions which seeme very small, are by the same reason to be rejected. Thirdly, Moses doth scale up even those lawes of the place of Divine worship, of the manner, of abstinence from blood, and the like which must needs be referred to accidentall worship if any such be, with this very caution of not adding or taking away. Deut. 12:32
22.
This observation is in a special manner called obedience, because by it we doe that which seems right in the eyes of the Lord, although some other may seem lighter in our eyes.
Deut. 12:25, 28.
23.
There is opposed unto this instituted worship, and unlawful!, that will-worship which is devised by men.
Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:23.
24.
The sin which is committed in will-worship, is by a generall name called superstition.
25.
Superstition is that whereby undue worship is yielded to God (Superstitio est, qua Deo cultus indebitus exhibetur).
26.
For in superstition God is always the object, and the end in some measure, but the worship it selfe is unlawful!.
27.
It is called undue worship, either in respect of the manner or measure, or in respect of the matter and substance of the worship. In the former manner the Pharisees offended about the Sabbath, when they urged the observation of it as touching the outward rest, above the manner and measure appointed by God. And they also offended in the latter manner, in observing and urging their own traditions. Mark 7:8.
28.
Hence superstition is called an excesse of religion, not in respect of the formal! power of religion, because so none can be too religious; but in respect to the acts and meanes of religion.
29.
This excesse is not only in those positive exercises, which consists in the use of things, but also in abstinence from the use of some things, as from meats, which are accounted uncleane and unlawful, and the like.
33.
Religious teaching by Images is condemned, first, because they are not sanctified by God to that end . . . . "
34.
Of like kind with Images, are all those ceremonies, which are ordained by men for mysticall or religious signification.
35.
For such ceremonies have no determinate power to teach, either by any power put into them by nature, or by divine institution: but they can receive none by humane institution, because man can effect this neither by commanding, seeing it is beyond his authority, nor by obtaining, seeing GOD hath promised no such thing to him that asketh.
36. Neither can men take to themselves any authority in ordaining such ceremonies from that, that it is commanded to all Churches, that all things be done decently, and in order. I Cor. 14:40. For neither the respect of order nor decency requires, that some holy things should be newly ordained, but that those which are ordained by God, be used in that manner, which is agreeable to their dignity, neither doe order and decency pertaine to holy things only, but also to civil duties, for confusion and indencency in both are vices opposite to that due manner which is required to the attaining the just end and use of them..."
Further discussion of these outward circumstances is found in Ch. XTV, Sees. 20-27.
In his treatise on Gospel-worship (1648), Jeremiah Burroughs gives the following account of the strange fire offered by Nadab and Abihu:
"But had God ever forbidden it? Where do we find that ever God had forbidden them to offer strange Fire, or appointed that they should offer only one find of fire? There is no Text of Scripture, that you can find from the beginning of Genesis to this place, where God hath said in terminis, in so many words expressly, you shall offer no fire but one kind of fire. And yet here they are consumed by fire from God, for offering strange fire. I find in the 30th of Exodus verse 9 that there they were forbidden offering strange Incense, but I do not find that they were forbidden offering strange fire. In Levit. 6:13 and divers verses in that Chapter, we find that God had appointed that they should keep constantly the fire on the Altar burning, and never to let it go out: Now that was it seems God's intention that therefore they should make use of that fire, and that fire only. God would have them to pick out his meaning: God sent fire down from heaven upon the Altar, so in the latter end of the ninth chapter God sent down fire from heaven, and gave them a charge to keep that fire on the altar constantly, and never to let it go out: so that it seems God would have them pick out his meaning, that because he had sent down fire from heaven upon the Altar, and gave them power to keep that constantly, God would have them to understand, that what Incense or Sacrifice he would have the use of fire in, it should be only that fire and no other, though God did never say to them directly in these words, You shall make use of this fire and no other, but God would have them to understand this. That's their sin therefore in offering of strange fire." (Gospel-Worship, p. 3).
Burroughs proceeds to formulate the regulative principle of worship as follows: That in God's Worship there must be nothing tendered up to God but what he hath commanded, whatsoever we meddle with in the Worship of God, it must be what we have a warrant for out of the Word of God." (Ibid. p. 8).
"For this speech of Moses is upon occasion of the Judgment of God upon Aaron's sons for offering strange fire: They offered fire that God had not commanded. Hence I say that all things in God's worship must have a warrant out of God's Word, must be commanded. It is not enough that it is not forbidden. I beseech you observe it: it is not enough that a thing is not forbidden, and what hurt is there in it? But it must be commanded. I confess in matters that are Civil and natural, there this may be enough. If it be but according to the rules of prudence, and not forbidden in the word; we may make use of this in Civil and natural things. But now when we come to matters of Religion, and the Worship of God; we must either have a command or somewhat out of God's Word by some consequence drawn from some command wherein God manifests his will; either a direct command, or by comparing one thing with another, or drawing consequences plainly from the Words. We must have a warrant for the Worship of God. One would have thought that these Priests offering Incense to the true God, what hurt was there in taking other Fire? But there was no command for it, and therefore it was not accepted."(Ibid. p. 9).
Burroughs adopts the standard Puritan distinction of elements and circumstances of worship, terming the latter "natural and Civil helps." "It is true that there are some thing in the Worship of God that natural and Civil helps, and there we need not have any Command: As for instance; when we come to worship God the congregation meets, they must have a convenient place to keep the Air and weather from them: now this is but a natural help, and so far as I use the place of worship at a natural help, I need have no Command." A further important distinction is made between those natural circumstances just described and significant circumstances or ceremonies which require a warrant. Further developing the example of a place of worship, Burroughs writes: "But if I will put any thing in a Place beyond what it hath in its own nature, there I must look for a Command. For if I account one place more Holy than another; or to think that God should accept of worship in one place rather than in another: this is to raise it above what it is in its own Nature. So that when any Creature is raised in a Religious way above what it hath in it by Nature: If I have not Scripture to warrant me I am therein Superstitious. It's a very useful rule for to help you: If any Creature that you make any use of in a way of Religion beyond what it hath in its own Nature, if you have not some warrant from the Word of God (whatsoever specious shew there may be in it) it is tuperstition." (Ibid.)
OBJECTIVITY IN WORSHIP
The regulative principle when applied provides objectivity in worship. By objectivity in this connection is meant simply conformity to the law of God as opposed to subjectivity or rather to subjectivism in worship. There is no doubt a good sense of subjectivity in worship, the sincere, reverent attitude of the true worshipper. This desirable subjectivity, however, will tend invariably to that worship which is agreeable to the Will and Word of God. Opposed to this is subjectivism in worship, worship arising not from the revealed Will of the Lord, but from the desires, inclinations, imaginations and decisions of men.
Subjectivism is precisely what the Reformers and Puritans termed will-worship.
An increasing trend toward subjectivism in worship has marked the practice of professing Protestantism since the seventeenth century. This trend corresponds with a general trend in modern thought and life. The Puritan principle in the 16th and 17th centuries was insisted on in opposition to the tyrannical exercise of power on the apart of an authoritarian Church. In the 20th century, while authoritarian churches still display their characteristic traits, the glaring evil especially in Protestant circles, in unbridled license on the part of individuals and groups within the churches. The Puritan principle stands as a principle of order and of liberty between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy in worship. The extremes in this instance as in others have a common root error more expressly manifest in the one than in the other extreme. Tyranny has in it the seeds of anarchy. Anarchy may reveal itself at a later stage of development than tyranny, but it reveals more clearly the root evil that expresses itself in tyranny as well. That evil is departure from the ways of the living God. Rabbi Duncan has well said that there is but one heresy and that is antinomianism. Legalism itself can be regarded as a disguised type of antinomianism. The Puritan principle is not legalism, for it neither inculcates salvation by works nor does it admit of any impositions beyond the commandments of God. Legalism whether in Judaism or Christianity has involved essentially the rejection of sovereign grace and of the sufficiency of God's Word. Puritanism, far from being legalistic in this proper usage of "legalism," is the one system that has in its distinguishing principle opposed legalism most consistently. If Puritans have sometimes fallen into legalistic errors, this lapse is in spite of, not the natural result of their allegiance to the regulative principle of worship.
The trend toward subjectivism may be illustrated in a multitude of particulars. Observance of days other than the Christian Sabbath or Lord's day (and seasons of Thanksgiving and humiliation) has increased with alarming rapidity. The evils of superstition and idolatry that have come to be connected with the Church observance of Christmas and Easter are notorious. Subjectivism in these instances attaches itself parasitically to observances originally imposed by an authoritarian Church while in other instances it invents days suited to the modern spirit that aims beyond all else at the glory of man. Motherhood, war and labour make inroads upon the Sabbath and on the purity of God's worship in general, while a hundred or rather thousands of lesser humanistic spirits hover about particular occasions in the activities of the modern churches. A Sabbath for the Lodge in on Church and in memory of Robert Burns in another! A peculiarly idolatrous form of deviation from the regulative principle in some circles at present is the erection of "worship centres" and particularly the use of pictures of Christ in worship is a blatant violation of the 2nd commandment. Many other applications and implications of the regulative principle could be mentioned. The Puritans were concerned with ceremonies (of which the three innocent ones singled out were the use of the surplice, kneeling at the Communion and the sign of the cross in Baptism) and with the imposition of liturgies. Since the 18th century, however, a major deviation from the regulative principle in the direction of unbridled subjectivism concerns the musical aspect of the service of worship. The flood of uninspired lyrics commonly miscalled hymns or gospel songs which has inundated a declining Protestant Church has been matched by other musical accompaniments that have transformed Churches into theatres and concert halls featuring preludes, postludes, interludes and who knows what else of the same species?
The godly William Romaine was one of Zion's faithful watchmen in the 18th century who raised voice and pen in protest against the crowding out of divinely authorized and inspired Psalmody by the introduction into public worship of humanly composed ditties suited to tingle the itching ear and to allure the carnal mind. Romaine's words of apology in his "Essay on Psalmody" may well be quoted by one who would introduce this subject in the 20th century, Evangelical Churches.
"I know this is a sore place, and I would touch it gently, as gently as I can with any hope of doing good. The value of poems above Psalms is become so great, and the singing of men's words, so as quite to cast out the Word of God is become so universal (except in the Church of England), that one scarce dares to speak upon the subject: Neither would I, having already met with contempt enough for preferring God's hymns to man's hymns, if a high regard for God's most blessed word did not require me to bear my testimony, and if I did not verily believe, that many real Christians have taken up this practice without thinking of the evil of it; and when they come to consider the matter carefully will rather thank me, than censure me, for freedom of speech." Romaine's "Essay on Psalmody" (1775) in Works (1847 ed.), p. 990.
Romaine explains his position as to the use of hymns referring to Isaac Watts in particular. "Let me observe then that I blame nobody for singing human compositions. I do not think it sinful or unlawful, so the matter be scriptural. My complaint is against preferring men's poems to the good word of God, and preferring them to it in the Church. I have no quarrel with Dr. Watts, or any living or dead versifier. I would not wish all their poems burnt. My concern is to see Christian congregations shut out divinely inspired Psalms, and take in Dr. Watts' flights of fancy, as if the words of a poet were better than the words of a prophet, or as if the wit of a man was to be preferred to the wisdom of God. When the chruch is met together in one place, the Lord God has made a provision for their songs of praise--a large collection and great variety-and why should not these be used in the church according to God's express appointment? I speak not of private people or of private singing, but of the Church in its public service. Why should the provision which God has made be so far despised, as to become quite out of use? Why should Dr. Watts, or any hymn maker, not only take the precedence of the Holy Ghost, but also thrust him entirely out of the Church? Insomuch that the rhymes of a man are now magnified above the Word of God, even to the annihilating of it in many congregations." (pp. 990f.)
Romaine writes of Watts not with rancour but with magnanimity, but is unsparing of the followers of Watts who eliminated the Psalms from the service of praise. Watts never intended to thrust the Psalms from the Church. His words quoted by Romaine from the preface to the hymns are these: "Far be it from my thoughts to lay aside the book of Psalms in public worship; few can pretend so great a value for them as myself; it is the most artful, most devotional, and divine collection of poesy; and nothing can be supposed more proper to raise a pious soul to heaven, than some parts of that book; never was a piece of experimental divinity so nobly written, and so justly reverenced and admired." Romaine remarks: "Happy would it have been for the Christian world, if his followers had stopped just where he did. He declares it was far from his thoughts to do what they have done. It never came into his head to lay aside the book of Psalms in public worship. Think of this and weigh it carefully, ye that idolize Dr. Watts, and prefer his poems to the infallible Word of God. It would be well for you, if you valued psalms as much as he did: for he says none valued them more. Then you would have looked upon them in his light: for having already in your hands the most devotional and the most divine collection, you would not have thought of any other, knowing that it was impossible to have a better, but you would have used this, and would have found it too, as Dr. Watts did, the most proper to raise the soul to heaven. Blessed sentinels! I honour the memory of Dr. Watts for this glorious testimony. I can say nothing that can bear harder upon those persons, who, contary to his opinion, have entirely left off singing the Psalms of God in the Church. He never intended to countenance such a practice. He declares it was far from his thoughts, yea, he abhorred the very thought, and in so saying he has upon record condemned it. Here I rest the matter. .. Farewell. May Lord guide you into all truth." (pp. 9%f.) Romaine's magnanimity does not deter him from quoting references to Watts' Jingle and Watts' hymns from Mr. Hall and Rev. T. Bradbury respectively (p. 999).
Watts was responsible for two innovations in the service of sung praise, both in the direction of subjectivism in worship. He prepared Imitations of the Psalms to supersede the metrical versions commonly used in the Puritan churches. The more drastic innovation was the introduction of a collection of hymns of his own private composition. Watts defends both of these departures from the standard Puritan practice in his "Short Essay Toward the Improvement of Psalmody" and attempts to produce Scripture warrant for the introduction of uninspired hymns, appealing to references to the new song in Rev. 5:9 and 14:3 and to the Song of Moses and the Lamb in Rev. 15:3. Puritan exegesis of these texts will be produced later from a work by John Cotton of New England. The modernizing subjectrvist motive appears more clearly in Watts' plea for what may seem to be the lesser departure from the old ways, namely the provision of imitations of the Psalms. Watts argues as follows for modifying and mutilating the text of the Psalms as used in singing: "Where there are any dark expressions and difficult to be understood in the Hebrew songs, they should be left out in our psalmody, or at least made very plain by a paraphrase. Where there are sentences or whole psalms, that can very difficultly be accommodated to our times, they may be utterly omitted. Such is Ps. 150, part of the 38th, 45th, 48th, 40th, 68th, 81st, 108th and some others as well as a great part of the song of Solomon." (Watts' Works, 1700 London Ed. Vol. VII, p. 7.) One may judge for oneself whether such language is consistent with a fullblooded witness to the inspiration, authority, and perfection of Holy Scripture as expressed in II Timothy 3:16,17. Watts' attempt to distinguish the use of the Psalter in singing from that in reading does not meet this objection. If reverence for the Word of God should induce the reader to retain an unmutilated text despite difficulties of a subjective nature, why alter the text on account of such difficulties for purpose of singing? Watts goes so far as to include the beautiful expressions of Ps. 84:3,6 among "passages which were hardly made for Christian lips to assume without some alteration." The defense of uninspired hymnody entails a modification of the regulative principle of worship, in transferring the content of praise from prescribed matter to a thing indifferent. In answering the objection that there is no instance in Scripture of a human composure sung by the people of God, Watts appeals to the general considerations he has argued from Scripture and adds the words "Since we perform many circumstances of worship under the influence of a general command without express and special examples" (pp. 17,18) Aside from the apparent confusion of good and necessary consequences of general commands with circumstances fo actions in worship which may be adiaphora, the remark itself betrays an attitude of unwillingness to regulate the details of worship by the Scripture pattern. In the conclusion, after admitting that his arguments will not be found conclusive, he quotes Romans 14:2. In identifying Psalmsingers with weaker brethren, Watts shows that he regards the content of praise as belonging to the Adiaphora. This is to say, the regulative principle of worship does not apply. In settling such a question the judgment of man is decisive rather than the appointment of the divine Will. In this, even more than in the innovations themselves with their far-reaching consequences, lies the deepest deviation of Watts from the Puritan position with respect to worship.
PURITAN TEACHING REGARDING CONTENT OF SUNG PRAISE
A consideration of authentic Puritan teaching with respect to the content of sung praise will now be in order. Mention may be made first of all of the witness of the Puritans at the Westminster Assembly of Divines both in the mention of singing of Psalms among the authorized elements of worship and in the concern for a metrical Psalter which could be a faithful rendering of the text of the Psalms.
In his work on Singing of Psalms a Gospel-Ordinance (1647), John Cotton, teacher of the Church at Boston in New-England, finds it necessary first of all to justify vocal singing in the worship of God. He gives the following proofs in justification of the practice (p.2).
Proof. 1. The commandment of the Lord by Paul, Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; I Cor. 4:15, 16. The content of song and manner of singing are not here defended, but in Cotton's words, "That singing of Psalms in the New Testament, is to be dispensed in Christian Churches, not only with inward grace in the heart, making melody to the Lord; but also with outward audible lively voice."(p.3). Cotton replies to various objections raised against the appeal to the Pauline texts. One objection is to the effect that no spiritual gift is exercised in the singing of the letter of the Psalms. Cotton replies that "Singing of Psalms is accompanied and blessed of God (by his grace) with many gracious effects, above nature or art" (p. 4). "Singing of a spiritual song, prepareth to prophecy, by ministering the Spirit, II Kings 3:15. . . The minstrells playing, if it had not been accompanied with a spiritual song, it could not have conveyed such a spiritual blessing." (p. 5) Cotton reasons in like manner from I Samuel 10:5,6. "For prophecy is an utterance only of the Word of God, and of the things of God contained in it; which Instruments without voyce cannot doe. Nor had their playing with Instruments been a means of conveying the Spirit to Saul, had not their voyces concurred and sung with their Instruments." (Ibid.)
Singing of Psalms honours God with our glory, i.e. our tongue, Ps. 108:1, Ps. 57:7,8. To the objection that "these gracious effects and fruits of singing Psalms do plead as much for singing and playing with instruments as for singing with voyces," Cotton gives several answers, the third of which is of particular interest as providing a main ground for the Puritans' rejection of instrumental music in worship: "Singing with Instruments, was typical!, and so a ceremoniall worship, and therefore is ceased. But singing with heart and voyce is morall worship, such as is written inthe hearts of all men by nature: As to pray in distress, so when we are merry, and have cause of solemn thanksgiving unto God, then to sing Psalms, which the Holy Ghost by the Apostle James approveth and sanctifieth, James 5:13. Or suppose singing with instruments were not typicall, but only an external solemnitie of worship, fitten to the solace of the outward senses of children under age, (such as the Israelites were under the Old Testament Gal. 4:,1,2,3). Yet now in the growne age of the heires of the New Testament, such externall pompous solemnities are ceased, and so external! worship reserved, but such as holdeth forth simplicitie, and gravitie; nor is any voyce now to be heard in the Church of Christ, but such as is significant and edifying by significance, (I Cor. 14:10, 11, 26), which the voyce of Instruments is not." (Ibid., pp. 5f.).
Proof 2. The examples of Christ himself, and of his saints and Disciples in the New Testament. "Christ himselfe with his Disciples sung a Psalme or an Hymne together, in the end of the administration of the Lord's Supper, Matt. 26:30. And Paul and Silas are said to have sung a psalme in the prison, so as the Prisoners heard them, Acts 16:25. Now if in singing they had only spiritually rejoiced, and not expressed their joy and their song in audible and lively voyce, the prisoners could not have heard them. The stranger doth not know nor meddle with the spiritual! joy of the heart, Prov. 14:10." (Ibid. pp. 7f.). In reply to the objection that Matt. 26:30 could as well be translated They praysed God' as They sung an Hymne,' Cotton observes: "It is more probable, than any reason can wave, that Christ and his Disciples did shut up the Lord's Supper with singing one of their Hebrew Psalms: so as the Jewes were wont to shut up their Celebration of the Passover (as their own Records tell us) with singing Psalme 111 with the five other Psalmes next following together. But all that I now intend is to show that Christ and his Disciples sang together, and therefore with the voyce as well as the heart." (p.8)
Proof 3. The Prophecies of the Old Testament, foretelling and persuading such a duty in the New, Isa. 52:8: with the voyce together shall they sing. And that is foretold of the times when the feet of the Messengers of glad tydings shall be beautiful, who shall say unto Zion, Thy God reigneth. Which Paul explaineth of the times of the Gospel. Rom. 10:14." (p. 10). Cotton also adds references to Ps. 100:1,2 and Ps. 95:1,2 and shows that both of these Psalms relate to the worship of the New Testament Church.
Against this appeal to O. T. texts, the objection was raised that since singing in the O. T. is associated with the use of Instrumental Music, these texts do not refer to singing in the N.T. Church. Cotton replies, referring to Psalm 95:12, "Here is now no mention of making a joyfull noise with Instruments, but the Psalmes. And therefore the making a joyfull noise with Psalmes doth still continue, even on our Lord's dayes: when making a joyfull noyse with Instruments continueth not, but is laid downe in silence: save only so farre as it is kept alive in the antitype, the affections of our hearts (Our Praecordia) making melody with the songs and professions of our lips, and with the gracious and peaceable conversation of our lives." (p. 12).
Following upon his elaborate argument in support of vocal singing in the worship of God, Cotton proceeds to the heart of the matter, the content of sung praise in worship, or as he expresses it, "the matter of the Psalmes to the sung" (p. 14). He refers to "some who do not scruple singing with the voyce. . . but singing of the Psalmes of David now in these dayes of the New Testament" and summarizes their opinion: "As concerning David's Psalmes were penned for Temple worship, during the Paedogogy of the Old Testament. But now in the dayes of the New Testament, when God hath promised to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, now the whole worship of God should be carried on, not by set formes of Psalmes (no more than by set formes of prayer) but by personall spirituall gifts, whereby some one or other of the members of the Church, having received a Psalme by the inditement of the Spirit, he singeth it openly in the publique Assembly of the Church, and the rest of the brethren say Amen to it in the close." (Ibid. pp. 14f.)
Ignoring at the present stage of discussion the question as to who should sing, Cotton states his view as to the matter to be sung:
1.
That not only the Psalmes of David, but any other spirituall songs. Songs recorded in Scripture, may lawfully be sung in Christian Churches, as the song of Moses, and Asaph, Heman and Ethan, Solomon and Hezekiah, Habbakkuk, and Zachary, Hannah, and Deborah, Mary and Elizabeth, and the like.
2.
We grant also, that any private Christian, who hath a gift to frame a spirituall song, may both frame it, and sing it privately for his own private comfort, and remembrance of some speciall benefit, or deliverance:
Nor doe we forbid the
private use of an Instrument of Musick therewithall;
So that attention to the instrument, doe not divert the heart from attention to the matter of the Song.
Neither doe we deny, but that in the publique thankesgivings of the Church, if the Lord should furnish any of the members of the Church with a spirituall gift to compose a Psalme upon any speciall occasion, he may lawfully be allowed to sign it before the Church, and the rest hearing it, and approving it, may go along with him in Spirit and say Amen to it." (p. 15).
An important reservation accompanies this concession, namely that such spiritual gifts as Psalmes and tongues received by sundry members of the Corinthian Church are not now ordinarily bestowed, "so we would not call upon men now, to preferre their ordinary common gift as more fit for the publique edifying of the Church before the extraordinary gifts of the holy men of God in Scripture, who by the Spirit were guided to prepare spirituall songs, suitable to all the conditions and affections and temptations of the Church and people of God in all ages." (p. 16). Cotton then formulates the issue in a form that is as pertinent to the situation of Reformed Churches of the 20th Century as it was to the Puritans of the 17th: "So then the Question is, whether the Psalmes of David and Asaph and such other Hymnes and spirituall songs indited by the Prophets, and recorded in Scripture, be appointed by God, to be ordinarily sung in Christian Churches, or whether laying aside Scripture-songs, we are to sing only such spirituall songs, as shall be indited by the personall (by ordinary) gifts of any ordinary officer or member of the Church? The former we hold to be the Truth, others the latter." (p. 16).
As a first reason for his faith and practice in this restriction of sung praise in worship to inspired songs to the exclusion of uninspired hymns, Cotton adduces texts which might on a superficial reading seem to support the contrary view, Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16. "In both which places, as the Apostle exhorteth us to singing, so he instructeth us what the matter of our song should be, to wit, Psalmes, Hymnes, and Spirituall Songs: Now these three be the very titles of the Song of David, as they are delivered to us by the Holy Ghost himselfe: (Some of them are called Mizmorim, that is Psalmes; some Tehillim, that is Hymns; some Shirim, that is Songs, spirituall Songs). Now what reason can e given why the Apostle should direct us in our singing to the very titles of David's Psalmes, if it were not his meaning that we should sing them? Yea, either we must exclude the Psalmes of David, from the name of Psalmes, and Hymnes, and spiritual Songs; or else we must be foreced to acknowledge, that we are exhorted to sing them, as well as any other." (Ibid. pp. 16f).
Observe that Cotton rests his argument on the regulative principle. He takes his reasons for faith and practice "from the Commandment, or exhortation of the Apostle." The songs that are approved for use in worship are those appointed by God. Even the fact that the Psalms are inspired by God, significant as it is in indicating the content and character of songs that may be sung in worship, is secondary in relation to the fact that these are the songs which God has appointed or authorized for use in his worship. Sung praise is to be restricted in its content to Divinely inspired songs not simply because they are inspired and therefore superior in quality to be best of uninspired compositions, but basically because inspired Psalms and Songs are warranted by express command and approved example, while uninspired compositions lack such warrant.
Cotton devotes an entire chapter of 19 pages to a clearing of objections against his appeal to Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16. He remarks: The objections are many, and some of them seeme more weighty, and some more light; let us impartially and evenly (by the Lord's guidance) weigh them all in the Ballance of the Sanctuary" (p. 17). Within the limits of the present paper, protracted as it is, the whole range of arguments cannot be considered. A selection of arguments will be made with a view to illuminating some points that have been raised in contemporary discussions of the issue as to the use of inspired or uninspired songs in the worship of God.
One sometimes hears it argued "If Paul meant to enjoin the exclusive use of Bible Psalms, why does he write 'Psalms, Hymns, Spiritual songs' which would then mean 'Psalms, Psalms, Psalms'?" Cotton disposes of a similar objection: "If Paul had meant David's Psalmes, or Scripture songs, it had been an easie matter to have named David's Psalmes, or Scripture-songs, as David himselfe named his songs, The Psalmes or Songs of David, when he delivered them to the chiefe musician, and to his company to be sung" (Ibid.). Cotton answers, first, that it could be as well argued that Paul might have used language explicitly excluding David's Psalms and enjoining "such Psalmes and Songs, as .the Spirit should suggest unto their hearts." Secondly Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual songs are the very express titles of the Psalms in the Book of Psalms, and thirdly, David's name was appropriately set to the Psalms at their first publication but need not be mentioned in every subsequent reference to the Psalms. Cf.Luke 24:44; Acts 13:33.
To the objection that the expression "the word of Christ' is properly the Gsopel, by way of eminency, in way of opposition to the Law given by Moses, Cotton gives a brief but apt reply "Though the words of Christ be the Gospel, yet the words of David are not to be shut out of the Gospel; for the Gospel was preached to Israel, when David and the other Prophets were preached, yea and some parts of Moses also. Heb. 4:2 and John 5:46" (p. 19).
To the somewhat curious argument that "Paul biddeth the Ephesians to be filled with the Spirit in singing the spirituall songs of the New Testament, as drunkards are filled with wine, and in the strength and spirits of ther wine, invent and sing their wanton Sonnets," Cotton gives the folowing instructive reply. "Paul did exhort them to be filled with the Spirit, as drunkards be with wine, not that they might invent, and sing spiritual Songs as drunkards doe wanton Sonnets; for neither do drunkards filled with wine, usually invent Sonnets, but sing such as they learned before, when they were sober; nor doth the Apostle speake of inventing Songs at all, either wanton Songs by drunkards or spirituall Songs by the faithfull: but only to be filled with the Spirit, as drunkards be with wine, that so they might avoyd the riotous and excessive mirth of drunkards, and employ and improve their holy mirth and joy, to the singing of Psalmes and Hymnes and spirituall Songs, for their own mutuall edification and consolation, and for holy thanksgiving and praise unto the Lord" (pp. Cotton's interpretation of Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs as referring exclusively to the inspired compositions found in Holy Scripture is standard Puritan exegesis. This is evident from the Commentary on Col. 3:16 by N. Byfield (4th Ed., London, 1649). "The matter is here three ways to be considered: First, in the ground, foundation, or authority of the Psalmes we use, viz. they must be the word of Christ, that is contained in the Scriptures. Secondly, in the kinds of Psalmes: there are many sorts of Psalmes in Scripture. The Psalmes of Moses, David, Solomon, and other Prophets: but all are here referred to three heads; they are eithre Psalmes, specialty so called, or Hymnes, or Songs, great adoe there is among interpreters to find a difference in these; asome would have Psalmes to be the songs of men, and Hymnes of angels: some think they differ especially in the manner of musicke. Some are sung by voice, some played upon instruments; but the plausiblest opinion is not to distinguish them, by the persons that use them, or by the kind of musicke, but by the matter, and so they say Psalmes containe exhortation to manners or holy life. Hymnes contain praises to God in the commemoration of his benefits. Songs contain doctrine of the chief good, or man's eternall felicity. But I think there needs not any curious distinction: it may suffice us that there is variety of Psalmes in Scripture, and God allows us the use of every kind. Thirdly, the property of the Psalmes, they are Spirituall, both because they are indited by the Spirit, and because they make us more spirituall in the due use of them" (Byfield on Colossians, p. 101). Byfield draws two uses from this text, "first for instruction, when we are merry to sing Psalmes. . . SEcondly, for reproof of such as set their delight in fleshly lusts and sports, in dancing, gaming, etc. in singing of carols, ballads, filthy rhymes, etc. . ." (p. 102). Byfield's metaphrase of the verse runs, "And in special! be carefull of the Psalmes, remembering that they also are the Word of Christ, and the rather considering the exquisite variety of sweet matter in them. . . "
A favorite argument for the supplanting of Psalmody by hymns of uninspired writers or at least for the introductions of such hymns is drawn from Scripture references to singing a New Song (Ps. 96:1; Rev. 5:9; Rev. 15:3,4). Cotton replies in considerable detail: "1. There is no estate and condition that ever befell the Church and people of God, or can befall them, but the Holy Ghost, as he did foresee the same, so he hath provided and recorded some Scripture-Psalme, suitable thereunto. And these Psalmes being chosen out suitably to the new occasions and new conditions of God's people, and sung by them with new hearts and renewed affections, will ever be found new songs. Words of eternall truth and grace, are ever old (as the Godpel is an eternall Gospel) and ever new; as the commandment of love is a new commandment as well as old. . .
2. David's exhortation to sing a New Song, pertained to them in the Old Testament as well as to us in the New. And yet they upon new occasions sang the
old Songs of David, and that with acceptance (II Chron. 5:13; II Chron. 20:21; Ezra 3:11).
3.
Asaph, Heman, and Ethan, were men indued with an infallible measure of a Spirit of Prophecy, in inditing those Psalmes, which the Church of Israel received from them.
Give us the like men with the like gifts, and we shall receive their Psalmes, as the Church of Israel did the other.
4.
The places objected out of the Revelation admit a further answer, though the former might serve; the new song mentioned in Rev. 5:9-10 may either be understood metonymically for a Doxology or Thanksgiving, which the Saints in the Church should give to Christ upon occasion of his revealing a clear exposition of the Revelation; or else, if it be understood, literally that they sang that very song, as it is there penned by the Holy Ghost, then it appeareth, that at such a time that song shall be translated into number and meeter, fit to be sung, and shall be sung by the Church. . . And thus, this place only sheweth, that it will be lawful to sing other songs, beside those of David and Asaph; but yet such only, as are penned by an infallible Spirit; or else upon speciall occasion, by men of spiritual gifts, which we deny not.
The Song of the 144,000 followers of the Lamb, it is not expressly said to be a New Song, but as it were a New Song, Rev. 14:3. New to them who had been wont to hear the worshippers of the Beast to sing and rejoyce in their own merits, and superstitious devotions. And new also in respect of the renewed affections, wherewith they sang it. But yet the same ancient song which the sheepe and Saints of Christ were wont to sing even in David's time, of the righteousnesse of Christ, even of his only, and of their owne blessednesse in his not imputing their sinnes to them. Thus David's Psalmes in the spiritual! use and sense of them are new Songs or as it were New Songs, to this day, unto all that are renewed by grace. . ." (pp. 251).
Cotton gives the following exposition of the Song of Moses and of the Lamb: The Song of those who had gotten victory over the beast (Rev. 15) is said to be the Song of Moses and of the Lamb, ver. 3. And surely the matter of Moses Song (Exod. 15) might justly yield fit matter for the like Doxology (or thanksgiving) upon the like occasion: As the like did fall out in the yeare 88. Rome being spirituall Egypt (Rev. 11:8). And the Pope with his Prelates resembling Pharaoh with his Task-masters, and the Spanish Armada marching forth the like pride and furty. .. upon which miraculous deliverance, not only the matter of Moses' Song, but the very words also were then fitly used and still may be for a spirituall Song of thanksgiving unto the Lord, both for that the like deliverances.
And as for the Songe of the Lamb, which those that had victory over the Beast did sing, surely all those Songs of David, which celebrate either his own deliverances from Saul, or the deliverance of the Church from Egypt, or Babylon, or from other enemies may justly own and bear that Title. For when David acknowledgeth and professeth that in his Songs the Spirit of the Lord spake by him, and that his word was in his tongue (II Sam. 23:2) what Spirit of the Lord was that but the Spirit of the Lord Jesus? And what are then such Songs, but the Songs of the Lambe, through whose Redemption the Church and Saints enjoy all their deliverances? (pp. 27f.). The Song of the Lamb recorded in Rev. 15:3,4 appears to be compiled from Ps. 86:8-10; 111:2,4,7; 71:22;9:16 and 64:9."
Thomas Manton, in his exposition on James 5:13 (Manton on James, 2nd Ed. London, 1653), observes that singing on Psalms is a duty of the Gospel. Although Manton does not forbid the singing of other songs besides Scripture-Psalms, he has no other grounds to adduce for this besides the testimony of Tertullian's Apology C. 29 (Postaquam manualem et lumina, ut quisquem de Scripturis vel proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere). Nevertheless, Manton proceeds to argue that Scriptural Psalms may be sung and beyond this that they are the fittest to be sung. (pp. 572 ff.).
"1. That they may be sung, may be proved by reason; the Word limiteth not, and therefore we have not reason to make restraint. They are part of the Word of God, full of matter that tendeth to instruction, comfort, and the praise of God, which are the ends of singing; and therefore, unless we will bring a disparagement upon Scriptures, we cannot deny them a part in our spiritual mirth.
Besides, thus hath it been practiced by Christ himself, by the Apostles, the servants of the Lord in all ages: and there is no Reason, why, in these dregs of Time, we should obtrude Novel Restraints upon the People of God.
That Christ himself sang Scripture-Psalms, may be probably collected out of Matt. 26:30 Hymnesantes, When they had sung a hymn etc. which Hymn, that it was one or more of David's Psalms, may be proved by these Reasons to those that do not wrangle, rather than scruple. 1. By the custom of the Jews; they were wont to end the Paschal Supper with Solemn Psalms or Hymns: they sang six Psalms in the night of Passover, when the Lamb was eaten; the Psalms were 113 etc. to the 1119 which were called by the Jews the Great Hallelujah, as Lucas Brugensis, Scaliger, Buxtorf and others skilled in their customs, do inform us; and 'tis more than probable, that Christ followed their Custom herein, because in all other things he observed their usual Passover Rites. 2. From the Word itself, they sang an Hymn. Now what shall we understand by this, but such a Hymn as was usual in that age? . . . Now the Psalms or Hymns then in use were the Psalms of David. 3. The Evangelists specified no new Hymn made for this purpose, who are wont to mention matters of far less moment or concernment.
Grotius indeed is singular, and thinketh that the seventeenth of John was the Hymn; but that's a solemn Prayer, not in Meeter or measured words, hath not the stile of other Hymns and Songs; and those words were spoken by Jesus alone, the Disciples could not so properly joyn in them:
These words spake Jesus and lift up his eyes, etc. John 17:1. That Hymn which Paul and Silas sang, Acts 26:25, was probably also a Scriptural Hymn; such as were used in that age: Certainly it must be such an Hymn as both were acquainted with, or else how could they sing it together? If the practice of the Apostles may be interpreted by their Instructions, the case will be clear: In Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 Paul biddeth us to speak to one another, psalmois kai hymnois kai odais pneumatikais, in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. Now those words (which are the known division of David's Psalms, and exactly answering to the Hebrew words, Shurim, Tehillum and Mizmorium, by which his Psalms are distinguished and entitled) being so precisely use by the Apostle in both places, do plainly point us to the Book of Psalms.
"2. Scripture-Psalms not only may be sung, but are the fittest to be used in the Church, as being indited by the infallible and unerring spirit, and are of a more diffusive and unlimited concernment, then the private dictates of any particular person or spirit, in the Church. Tis impossible any should be of such a large heart as the penman of the Word, to whom God vouchsafed such a publique, high and infallible conduct; and therefore their excellent composures and addresses to God being recorded and to the use of the Church for ever, it seemeth a wonderful arrogance and presumption in any to pretend to make better, or that their private and rash effusions will be more edifying. Certainly if we consult with our own experience, we will have little cause to grow weary of David's Psalms, those who pretend to the gift of Psalmody venting such wilde, raw, and undigested stuff, belching out revenge and passion, and mingling their private quarrels and interests with the publique worship of God. But suppose men of known holiness and ability should be called to this task, and the matter propounded to be sung be good and holy, yet certainly then men are like to suffer loss in their reverence and affection, it being impossible that they should have such absolute assurance and high esteem of persons ordinarily gifted, as of those infallibly assisted; Therefore upon the whole matter I should pronounce, That so much as an infallible gift doth excel a common gift, so much do Scriptural Psalms excel those that are of a private composure."
Manton answers a variety of scruples, the last of which concerns "the present translation of the Book of Psalms, the Meeter being so low and flat, and coming so far short of David's original." He gives a sane reply. "I confess this is a defect that needeth publique Redress and Reformation: But 'tis good to make use of present means, though weak, when we have no better; as the Martyrs did of the first Translations of the Bible, which were in many places faulty and defective. At least 'tis far more safe to sing the Psalms as now translated, than to joyn in the raw, passionate, and revengeful eructations of our modern Psalmists. Besides for those that conscientiously and modestly scruple this the Lord hath provided some help by the excellent Translations of Sands, Rous, Manton and others. Thus I have shewed how many ways the devil seeketh to divert men from this comfortable Ordinance." (Manton on James pp. 576 f.)
John Calvin in the preface to La Forme des Prieres et Chantz ecclesiastiques. (1542), had also recommended the singing of Psalms on the grounds of their being from God. Divine authorization and divine inspiration do not appear to be distinguished by Calvin in the following striking statement: "Or qu'est-il doncq question de faire? C'est d'avoir chansons non sealement honnestes, mais aussi sainctes: lesquelles nous soyent comme esquillons pour nous inciter a prier et louer Dieu, a mediter ses oeuvres, afin de 1'aymer, craindre, honorer et glorifier. Or ce que dit S. Augustin est vray, que nul ne peut chanter choses dignes de Dieu, sinon qu'il ait recu d'icelui (Aug in Psal. 34 sermo 1,1 MSL 34,323): parquoy quand nous aurons bien circuy par tout pour chercher ca et la, nous ne trouverons meilleures chansons ne plus propres pour ce faire, que les Pseaumes de David: lesquels le sainct Esprit luy a dictz et faitz. Et pourtant, quand nous les chantons, nous sommes certains que Dieu nous met en la bouche les parolles, comme si luy-mesmes chantoit en nous pour exalter sa gloire. Parquoy Chrysostome exhorte tant hommes que femmes et petis enfans, de saccustomer a les chanter, afin que cela soil comme une meditation pour s'associer a la compagnie des Agnes (Chrysost In Psal. 41:1, 2 torn 5, 156 sqq). "(Calvin, Opera Selecta, ed. P. Earth, D. Scheuner, Vol II, p. 17).
The following is a rough translation of Calvin's text:
"But what then ought to be done? Let us have songs that are not only decent, but also holy. These will incite us to pray and praise God, to meditate on his works, in order to love, fear, honour and glorify him. But what Augustine says is true, that no one can sing things worthy of God, unless he has received them from Himself (Aug. on Psalm 34, sermon 1): Therefore after we have made a thorough search in all regions, we shall not find better nor more proper songs to do this than the Psalms of David, which the Holy Spirit has dictated to him and produced. And moreover, when we sing them we are certain that God puts words in our mouth, as if he himself were singing in us to exalt his glory. Hence Chrysostom exhorts man, women and little children alike to become accustomed to sing them, in order that their practice might be as a meditation to associate themselves with the company of angels."
The importance of the regulative principle of Reformed Worship is eloquently proclaimed by John Owen in his work on communion with God. The third thing in which the saints' chastity unto Christ consists is "in his institutions or matter, and manner of his worship," "Christ marrying his Church to himself, taking it to that relation, still expresseth the main of their chaste and choice affections to him, to lie in their keeping his institutions and his worship according to his appointment ... On this account those believers who really attend to Communion with Jesus Christ, do labour to keep their hearts chaste to him in his ordinances, institutions and worship, and that two ways.
"1. They will receive nothing, practise nothing, own nothing in his worship but what is of his appointment. They know that from the foundation of the world, he never did allow, nor ever will, that in anything the will of the creatures should be the measure of his honour, or the principle of his worship, either as to the matter or the manner . . . Believers know what entertainment all will-worship finds with God. 'Who hath required these things at your hands?' And 'in vain do you worship me teaching for doctrines the traditions of men' is the best it meets with. I shall take leave to say what is upon my heart, and what (the Lord assisting) I shall willingly endeavor to make good against all the world; namely, that the principle that the Church hath power to institute and appoint any thing or ceremony belonging to the worship of God, either as to manner or matter, beyond the orderly observance of such circumstances as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ himself hath instituted, lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition and idolatry, of all the confusion, blood, persecution, and wars that have for so long a season spread themselves over the face of the Christian world; and that it is the design of a great part of the Revelation to make a discovery of this truth . . . This, then, they who hold communion with Christ are careful of; they will admit nothing, practise nothing in the worship of God, private or public, but what they have his warrant for; unless it comes in his name, with Thus saith the Lord Jesus', they will not hear an angel from heaven. They know the apostles themselves were to teach the saints only what Christ commanded them. (Matt. 28:20).
"2. They readily embrace, receive and practise everything that the Lord Christ hath appointed. They inquire diligently into his mind and will that they may know it. They go to him for directions, and beg of him to lead them in the way they have not known. The 119th Psalm may be a pattern for this. How doth the good, holy soul breathe after instruction in the ways and ordinances, the statutes and judgments of God? That I say they are tender in. Whatever is of Christ, they willingly submit unto, and accept of, and give up themselves to the constant practise hereof. Whatever comes on any other account they refuse." (Owen, On Communion, London Ed. 1859, pp. 158 ff).
Perkins: A Warning against the Idolatrie of the last times and An instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship, 1603.
The 2nd way of erecting an Idoll is when God is worshipped otherwise, and by other meanes, then he hath revealed in the Word. For when men set up a devised worship, they set up also a devised God. Augustine saith of the Gentiles, that they refused to worship the God of the Hebrewes, Because if their pleasures were to worship him in any other sort than he had appointed they should not indeed worship him, but that which they had feigned. Aug. de consensu Evang. lib 1 C 18. Si alio modo Deum colere vellent quam se colendum ipse dixisset, non utique ilium colerent, sed quod ipsi finxissent. The Samaritans worshipped the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob: and they waited for the coming of the Messiah: and yet Christ saith of them, 'Ye worship ye know not what,' John 4:22: because they worshipped the true God by a worship devised of old, and set up by men. The Lord saith to the Israelites, 'ye shall call me no more Baali,' whereby he signifieth that because the Jews did some time worshippe God in the same manner - with the same images,rites, and names whereby the heathen worshipped the false God Baal, therefore they made him indeed to be even as the Idol Baal... God's worship must be according to his Nature, heavenly, divine, and spirituall; but all devised worship is according to the nature and disposition of the deviser, foolish, carnal, vaine, as Christ saith, Matt. 15:9. And according to this worship is the God that is worshipped. Therefore, when God is worshipped, not according to his owne will, but according to the pleasure and will of man, the true God is not worshipped, but a God of man's invention is set up. One notable example we have in this kind, When God is either represented or worshipped in any Image of man's devising, there is presently made a double Idoll, the one is the Image representing: the other is GOD represented, who is by this means turned into an Idoll.
The 2nd point, is the rule of worship: and that is, that nothing may goe under the name of worship of God, which he hath not ordained in his owne word, and commanded to us as his owne worship. For we are forbidden under paine of the curse of God, either to adde, or to take away anything from the precepts of God in which he prescribes his owne worship . . . Again, The Lord forbids us in his worship to follow after our owne hearts and eies, or to walk in the ordinances of our forefathers, but only in his commandments. And he holds it a vaine thing, to teach his worship and feare by the precepts of men ... All voluntairie religion and will-service, is utterly condemned. Therefore nothing may goe under the name of God's worship, but that which he prescribes. It is alleadged to the contrarie, that when a worke is done without commandment, so there be an intention to honour God, it is the worship of God. I answer, it is false. For that any worke or action may be the worship of God, foure things are required; the person or doer must be regenerate: the matter of the worke must be a thing commanded; it must be done in faith; and then, in the intention of the minde, it must be directed to the honour of God. Secondly, the intention to honour God is not alwaies good, unlesse it be an intention to honour him by yielding obedience to that which he commandeth. Againe, it is alleadged that a work done in love to God, though there be no commandment thereof, is the worship of God. I answer that love keeps itselfe to the word, and will of God:and things done without a word from God, and will of God: and things done without a word from God are not of love. For love is the fulfilling of the law, Gal. 5:14"
English Puritanisme containening the maine opinions of the rigidest sort of those that are called Puritanes in the Realme of England. Acts 24:14, 28:22 1605 (by W. Bradshaw, preface by Ames). "Chap. I Concerning Religion or the Worship of God in generall.
"Imprimis, They hould and maintaine that the word of God contained in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, is of absolute perfection, given by Christ the head of the Churche, to bee unto the same, the soul Canon and rule of all matters of religion, and the worship of God whatsoever. And that whatsoever done in the same service and worship cannot bee justified by the said word, is unlawful!. And therefore that it is a sinne to force any Christian to doe any act of religion or divine service, that cannot evidently be warranted by the same.
"2. They hould that all Ecclesiasticall actions invented and devised by man, are utterlie to bee excluded out of the exercises of religion? Especially such actions as are famous and notorious mysteries of an Idolatrous Religion, and in doeing whereof, the true religion is conformed (whether in whol or in part) to Idolatrie and superstition.
"3. They hould that all outward means instituted and set apart to expresse and set forth the Inward worship of God, are parts of divine worship and that not only all morall actions but all typicall rites and figures ordained to shadowe forth in the sotemne worship and service of God, any spirituall or religious act or habit in the minde of man, are speciall parts of the same. And therefore that every such act ought evidently to bee prescribed by the word of God, or else ought not to bee done? it being a sinne to performe any other worship to God, whether Externall or Internall, Morall or Ceremoniall, in wholl or in part, than that which God himselfe requires in his word.
"4. They hould it to be grosse superstitions, for any mortall man to institute and ordaine as parts of divine worship, and mysticall rite and Ceremonie of Religion whatsoever and to mingle the same with the divine rites and mysteries of God's Ordinance. But they hould it to be a high presumption to institute and bring into divine worship such rites and Ceremonies of Religion as are acknowledged to bee no partes of divine worship at all but only of crvill worship: and honour: For they that shall require to have performed unto themselves a ceremonial obedience of service and worship, consisting in rites of Religion to bee done at that very instant that God is solemnly served and worshipped? and even in the same worship make both themselves and God also an Idol; so that they judge it far more fearful sin to add unto, and to use in the worship and service of God, or any part thereof, such mystical Rites and Ceremonies as they esteem to be no parts or parcells of God's worship at all, than such as in a vaine or ignorant superstition, they imagine and conceive to be parts thereof."
Wm. Ames: A reply to Dr. Morion's generall defence of three nocent ceremonies, viz. The Surplice, Crosse in Baptisme, and kneeling at the receiving of the sacramentall elements of Bread and Wine. 1622.
Cap. I Sect. II. Whatsoever is objected in this Section for the All-Sufficiencie or perfect fulnesse of the Scripture, I will take for granted, because nothing is denyed by the Defendant. It is granted therefore at the first entrance, that the Scripture condemneth whatsoever is done, not ontly against the warrant and direction of the Word, but also that which is done beside it." Sect. V. Discussion of passage in Calvin, Institutes, IV, X, 30.
"For Calvin's meaning was nothing lesse then to teach that Christ had given libertie unto men for to prescribe at their discretion mysticall signes in the Church, but only to dispose of such circumstances as in their kind are necessarie, but in particular determination doe varie. He instanceth in the next section in the circumstance of time, what houre the congregation should meet: in the place, how large, or in what fashion the Church should be built: in meere order, what Psalmes should be sung at one time, and what another time. These and such like circumstances of order and comelinesse, equally necessary in civill and religious actions are understood by Calvin: Not significant ceremonies, proper unto religious worship, such as ours are now in controversie,"
Sect. XII. "The last place of Scripture handled in this argument is Jer. 7:31, the force of which, as it pertaineth to the purpose in hand, is in the last words, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. The reason lieth thus (to take honorable Calvin's interpretation upon the place) seeing God under this title onely condemneth that which the Jewes did, because he had not commanded it them: Therefore no other reason need be sought for the confutation of superstition, then that they are not by commandement from God.
Sect. XIIII. Tertullian de Cor. 2 That is prohibited which is not permitted.
Sect. XVI. I Cor. XIV 26, 40 "All that is left unto the Churches liberty in things pertaining unto God's worship, is to order them in comely manner. This is manifestly collected out of the place in question; so the Defendant seemeth to grant, so P. Martyr understandeth it, as to be seen in his commentarie on I. Sam. 14 which judgment of his cited and approved by Whitaker de Pont, P. 841 and 844, confirmed also by Junius against Bell. Cont. 31. 4 C. 16 N 86, 87 C. 17 N. 9, 10, 12, 13. where he showeth that Christ is the only lawgiver that appointeth things in his Church: and that he hath appointed all that are requisite: and that the Church maketh no lawes (property so called) to appoint any new things to be used, but only canons, orders, directions, ordering in seemingly manner those things which Christ hath appointed: and that if she addeth anything of her own, she doth decline.
The reason is because unto her is committed no authoritie of appointing new things, but a ministerie to observe and doe t such things which Christ has appointed. Vide etiam Jun. de transl. imper. 1.1 C. 2 N. 26, 27, 31. This is also confirmed by sound reason, but in respect of the wisdome required in all law-makers, and perfectly in Christ, and also in regard of the nature of such institutions. For the former reason teacheth (as Aristotle sheweth Rhet. I, 3) that all which possibly may, should be appointed in the law by the giver of it, and nothing left unto the ministerial judges, but that which must needs be left, as matters of fact, etc. Now in the worship of God, all but particular circumstances of order, may easily bee appointed (as in very deed they were) by our law-giver, Christ. As for the nature of such institutions, that doth also require so much: for whatsoever is above civilitie therein, if it be not a circumstance of order, it is worship, and therefore invented by unlawfull will-worship. For whatsoever is used or acted by him that worshippeth God, in that act, must needs be either grounded on civill humane considerations, and therefore civilitie: or an act and means of worship, and therefore worship: or the ordering and manner of disposing those acts and meanes, and therefore lawfull, if lawfulley and fitly applyed: or else at least idle and vaine, and therefore to be avoided, according to that of Basil, sigastho de kai peritia en ekklesia Theou: offence cannot be given. By all this it may appeare, that the authority of the Church is not to appoint what she will, no not of things in their own nature indifferent, and say they be in order, or for order; but only to order those things which God hath appointed.
Thus farre the proposition, or first part of my syllogisme: the assumption followeth.
But to appoint and use the ceremonies as we doe, is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to God's Worship. The reason is because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thing, but only the right placing and disposing of things which are formerly instituted. This appreareth 1. by the notation which is given of the word itselfe, which both in Greek and Latine is taken from the ranking of soldiers in certain bounds and limits of time and place .... and
2. by the definitions which are given thereof, by philosophers and Divines.....3.
The same also is confirmed by our Divines, who usually giving instances of order, doe insist in time, place, and such like circumstances, making a difference betwixt mysticall ceremonies and order, many times condemning the one, and allowing the other as the Divines of France and the low Countries, in their observations on the Harmonic of Confessions Sect. 17 Beaza Ep. 8 Jun in Bell append. Tract de cultu imaginum C 7 N. 12, 13, 14.
4. By the context of the Chapter, viz. I Cor. XIV it plainly appeareth, that order is opposed to that confusion spoken of V. 33, and therefore importeth nothing but that peaceable proceeding whereby they that should speak, speak one by one, and the rest attend, etc. V. 30, 31.
As for comlinesse, that is nothing but the seemlinesse of order. For as P. Martyr saith in I Cor. XI: it is such a tempering of actions as whereby they may more fitly attaine their end. Otherwhere it may conteine that natural and civill handsomenesse, which is spoken of Ch. XI13, as it doth Ch. XI23, and so includeth all that which is grounded on civility, as a faire cloth and cup for the communion, a faire and firme vessell for baptisme: but not the appointing of new mysticall ceremonies,for then such ceremonies were commanded to all Churches . . . : and then the Apostolick Assemblies should have worshiped God uncomelily.
Thus we have proposition and assumption of our Argument against the Ceremonies confirmed out of this place, which the Defendant choose as the only place that could be brought for them.
Now I hope we may add the conclusion.
Therefore to appoint and use the ceremonies as we doe is not left to the liberty of the Church, i. e. it is unlawfull."
W. Ames: A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God's Worship or Triplication and D. Burgesse His Rejoinder for D. Morton. 1633.
Sec. 12 Concerning that phraze, Jer. 7:31 etc. You doe that which I commanded not.
"1. In the twelft section, we are going to inquire, whether and how that consequence in God's worship, be good: I have not commanded this; therefor, you may not doe it.
The Def. and Rejoynder say it is not good, except by not commanding, be understood forbidding as Lev. 10:1. Deut. 17:3. which is thus fair true, that except some forbidding be included, or (as the Rejoynder speaketh), imported in that not commanding, not commanding cannot make a thing unlawfull. But that is the very question. Whether in things proper to religion, not commanding, doeth not include some kinde of forbidding.
2. The place mentioned by the Rejoynder: out of Lev. 10,1 doeth most strongly make against him. For the sonnes of Aaron are there condemned, for bringing strange, or ordinarie fire to God's worship, as doeing that which God had not commanded, and yet had not otherwise forbidden, then by providing fire proper to his worship and not appointing any other to be used in the tabernacle, and this is the very plea which we make against ceremonies of humane institution, in God's worship.
W. Perkins: A Golden Chain or The Description of Theologie. (John Legate, Cambridge, 1608). Ch. XXI of the 2d Commandment: "The 2d commandment then concerneth the manner of performing holy and solemne worship unto God.
Among things forbidden is mentioned "VI Will-worship, when God is worshipped with a naked and bare good intention; not warranted by the Word of God. Coloss. 2:23. I Sam. 13:9, 10, and 13. Hitherto may we adde popish superstitions in sacrifices, meates, holidaies, apparell, temporarie and beadridden prayers, indulgences, austere life, whipping, ceremonies, gestures, gate conversation, pilgrimage, building of alters, pictures, Churches, and all other of that rabble.
To these may be added comfort in musicke in divine service, feeding the eares, not edefying the minde. I Cor. 14:15. Justinus Martyr in his booke of Christian questions and Ans. 107. It is not the custome of the Churches to sing their meeters with any such kinde of instruments, etc. but their manner is only to use plaine-song.
VIII. Corrupting of God's worship, and that order of government, which he hath ordained for his Church: that which is done, when any thing is added, detracted, or any way, against his prescript, mangled. Deut. 12:32. This condemneth that popish elevation of bread in the Lord's Supper, and the administration of it alone to the people without wine, together with that fearful abomination of the Masse.
By this we may learne to reject all popish traditions. Matt. 15:9. Now it is manifest, that all popish traditions, they eyther on their owne nature, or others abusing of them, serve as well to superstition and false worship, as to enrich that covetous and proud Hierarchic: whereas the Scriptures contained in the New and Old Testaments, are all-sufficient, not only to confirm doctrine, but also to reforme manners. 2 Tim. 3:16."
Perkins on lawful images of Christ.
(Vol. I pp. 660).
"It may be objected, that we may lawfully make an image of Christ, and that this image is no Idol. I answer: it is not unlawful to make or to have the Image of Christ, two caveats being remembered. The first, that this Image be onely of the manhood: the second that it be out of use in religion. For if otherwise it be made to represent whole Christ, God, and man: or, if it be used as an instrument or a signe in which, and before which, men worship Christ himselfe, it is by the former doctrine a flat Idol."
"Hence it follows, that when the historic of the Bible is painted or pictured, as in some of our our Bibles it is, there are no images of God described, but onely such visible appearances as (sometime) were signes of the presence of God, are expressed." Cf. p. 670 "And here it must be remembered, that the painting of the historic of the Bible, though otherwise lawful in itselfe, is not expedient in Churches because danger of idolatrie may rise thence . .. And the case is otherwise with such representations of the historic as are found in sundrie Bibles, because there is not the like occasion of idolatrie."
On the Regulative Principle, (pp. 661)
"For God is not worshipped of us, but when it is his will to accept our worship: and it is not his will to accept our worship, but when it is according to his will."
Notes to Perkins
1. Commandment in the narrow sense is not required. What God reveals to be acceptable to Him is warranted, even though it is not commanded so as to be binding on all. So Perkins in answer to the objection "that vows in the O.T. were a part of the worship of God, and that they were not commanded." "Though God did not bind all men by a commandment to make vowes; yet hath he testified in his word, that vowes were acceptable to him: for he prescribed the manner of vows, and the manner of making, and the keeping of them." Works I, 684.
2. A particular commandment is not required if a general one has been given and the particular is an instance of it. "It is urged that Marie who annointed Christ, had no commandment so to doe, and yet she did a worke acceptable to Christ. I answer, though she had no particular commandment yet she had a generall. For the worke she did, was a confession of her faith and love to Christ, and that is commanded." Ibid
3. The content of worship does not belong to the adiaphora. Perkins considers the case of Paul preaching the gospel freely, and looking for his reward from God, for which he had no commandment. "I answer, to take a stipend for preaching the Gospell, is in itself a thing indifferent, and may be done or not done. Yet was it not a thing indifferent, and may be done or not done. Yet was it not a thing indifferent in the Church in Corinth, by reason of the offence of many. And therefore Paul preaching freely, and he could doe no otherwise, unlesse he would have abused (as he saith) his authoritie. For a thing indifferent in the case of skandall, ceaseth to be indifferent, and is a thing commanded."
4. The prescribing of worship does not belong to ministerial authority. Luke 10:16 is adduced. "I answer, first the place is properly to be understood, not of all teachers, but of the Apostles. Secondly, if it be spoken of all teachers the words may be understood with limitation. And this to the Ministerial Commission, "Teach them to observe all things which I have commanded you.'" "Thus the truth of this rule is manifest; and we must lay it up in our hearts as a treasure, and never suffer ourselves to be deprived of it; for the use of it is great. By it we may discerne the prophaneness of our times. All men can say, God must be worshipped: but when it comes to the point, what is the worship wherewith they honour God? Surely what they list themselves. Some worship God with their good meaning; some with their good dealing; some with the babling of a fewe words, as namely, of the Apostles Creed, and Ten Commandments for prayers. This service of God is very common; but alas, it is poore service. For the rule of divine honour is not the will of him that honoureth, but the will of him who is honoured. Secondly, here we learn to detest the service and worship which is performed to God in the Church of Rome. For it contains many parts and points of will-worship, having no warrant from God, either by commandment or promise . . . For these and many other practices, let them bring forth the Word of God, if they can. They pleade for many things: that they have the word of Traditions. I answer, that Traditions Ecclesiastical are no word of God; but the word of man. And traditions which are called Apostolical! are either of no moment or doubtfull. For how shall we know certainly, that they were the traditions of the Apostles, considering none hath said so, but some of the Fathers, whose testimonies are not sufficient, because they are subject to error?"
Originally published as a series in Blue Banner Faith and Life, vol 14, no. 2, April-June 1959 through Vol. 16, no. 1, January-March 1961. This periodical was edited by J.G. Vos and ceased publication after his death.

Is the truth twisted the truth at all?

2006-02-15T03:40:00.000Z

James 4:17

So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

Psalm 34:12-13

What man is there who desires life
and loves many days, that he may see good?
Keep your tongue from evil
and your lips from speaking deceit.

2 Corinthians 4 4-8
The Light of the Gospel

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants[b] for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair;

Hebrews 3:13

But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

More than a small amount of discussion on the issues arising from the movie "The End of the Spear". In discussing the matter the issue seems to constantly come down to two facets. One, should an actively homosexual actor have been cast to play the lead role? Secondly, what is the role of the Gospel in this film? To the first let me say that if Chad Allen was not using the film to act as a springboard in promoting the homosexual lifestyle then I wouldn't care in the least what his particular lifestyle was. My reasoning works like this: The unregenerate are dead in their sins and trespasses. The duty of the regenerate believer to the unregenerate is two fold. First and foremost the regenerate is to espouse the Gospel. The second is that the regenerate should be a means of common grace to the unregenerate the relationship between the two is such that the second flows from the first so much that it is more of a 1a and not a 2

The Law & the Gospel

2006-02-14T17:46:00.000Z

Michael S. Horton

©1996 Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
In order to recover the sufficiency of Scripture we must once again learn to distinguish the Law and the Gospel as the "two words" of Scripture. For the Reformers, it was not enough to believe in inerrancy. Since Rome also had a high view of Scripture in theory, the Reformers were not criticizing the church for denying its divine character. Rather, they argued that Rome subverted its high view of Scripture by the addition of other words and by failing to read and proclaim Scripture according to its most obvious sense.

At the heart of the reformation's hermeneutics was the distinction between "Law" and "Gospel." For the Reformers, this was not equivalent to "Old Testament" and "New Testament;" rather, it meant, in the words of Theodore Beza, "We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the 'Law,' the other the 'Gospel.' For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings." The Law "is written by nature in our hearts," while "What we call the Gospel (Good News) is a doctrine which is not at all in us by nature, but which is revealed from Heaven (Mt. 16:17; John 1:13)." The Law leads us to Christ in the Gospel by condemning us and causing us to despair of our own "righteousness." "Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel," Beza wrote, "is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity."1

Luther made this hermeneutic central, but both traditions of the Protestant Reformation jointly affirm this key distinction. In much of medieval preaching, the Law and Gospel were so confused that the "Good News" seemed to be that Jesus was a "kinder, gentler Moses," who softened the Law into easier exhortations, such as loving God and neighbor from the heart. The Reformers saw Rome as teaching that the Gospel was simply an easier "law" than that of the Old Testament. Instead of following a lot of rules, God expects only love and heartfelt surrender. Calvin replied, "As if we could think of anything more difficult than to love God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our strength! Compared with this law, everything could be considered easy...[For] the law cannot do anything else than to accuse and blame all to a man, to convict, and, as it were, apprehend them; in fine, to condemn them in God's judgment: that God alone may justify, that all flesh may keep silence before him."2 Thus, Calvin observes, Rome could only see the Gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is "a compensation for their lack," not realizing that the Law requires perfection, not approximation.3

Of course, no one claims to have arrived at perfection, and yet, Calvin says many do claim "to have yielded completely to God, [claiming that] they have kept the law in part and are, in respect to this part, righteous."4 Only the terror of the Law can shake us of this self-confidence. Thus, the Law condemns and drives us to Christ, so that the Gospel can comfort without any threats or exhortations that might lead to doubt. In one of his earliest writings, Calvin defended this evangelical distinction between Law and Gospel:All this will readily be understood by describing the Law and describing the Gospel and then comparing them. Therefore, the Gospel is the message, the salvation-bringing proclamation concerning Christ that he was sent by God the Father...to procure eternal life. The Law is contained in precepts, it threatens, it burdens, it promises no goodwill. The Gospel acts without threats, it does not drive one on by precepts, but rather teaches us about the supreme goodwill of God towards us. Let whoever therefore is desirous of having a plain and honest understanding of the Gospel, test everything by the above descriptions of the Law and the Gospel. Those who do not follow this method of treatment will never be adequately versed in the Philosophy of Christ.5

While the Law continues to guide the believer in the Christian life, Calvin insists that it can never be confused with the Good News. Even after conversion, the believer is in desperate need of the Gospel because he reads the commands, exhortations, threats, and warnings of the Law and often wavers in his certain confidence because he does not see in himself this righteousness that is required. Am I really surrendered? Have I truly yielded in every area of my life? What if I have not experienced the same things that other Christians regard as normative? Do I really possess the Holy Spirit? What if I fall into serious sin? These are questions that we all face in our own lives. What will restore our peace and hope in the face of such questions? The Reformers, with the prophets and apostles, were convinced that only the Gospel could bring such comfort to the struggling Christian.

Without this constant emphasis in preaching, one can never truly worship or serve God in liberty, for his gaze will always be fastened on himself--either in despair or self-righteousness--rather than on Christ. Law and Gospel must both ever be preached, both for conviction and instruction, but the conscience will never rest, Calvin says, so long as Gospel is mixed with Law. "Consequently, this Gospel does not impose any commands, but rather reveals God's goodness, his mercy and his benefits."6 This distinction, Calvin says with Luther and the other Reformers, marks the difference between Christianity and paganism: "All who deny this turn the whole of the Gospel upside down; they utterly bury Christ, and destroy all true worship of God."7

Ursinus, primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, said that the Law-Gospel distinction has "comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures," are "the chief and general divisions of the holy scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein."8 To confuse them is to corrupt the Faith at its core.9 While the Law must be preached as divine instruction for the Christian life, it must never be used to shake believers from the confidence that Christ is their "righteousness, holiness and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). The believer goes to the Law and loves that Law for its divine wisdom, for it reveals the will of the One to whom we are now reconciled by the Gospel. But the believer cannot find pardon, mercy, victory, or even the power to obey it, by going to the Law itself any more after his conversion than before. It is still always the Law that commands and the Gospel that gives. This is why every sermon must be carefully crafted on this foundational distinction.

As he watched the Baptist Church in England give way to moralism in the so-called "Down-grade Controversy," Charles Spurgeon declared, "There is no point on which men make greater mistakes than on the relation which exists between the law and the gospel. Some men put the law instead of the gospel; others put gospel instead of the law. A certain class maintains that the law and the gospel are mixed...These men understand not the truth and are false teachers."10

In our day, these categories are once again confused in even the most conservative churches. Even where the categories of psychology, marketing and politics do not replace those of Law and Gospel, much of evangelical preaching today softens the Law and confuses the Gospel with exhortations, often leaving people with the impression that God does not expect the perfect righteousness prescribed in the Law, but a generally good heart and attitude and avoidance of major sins. A gentle moralism prevails in much of evangelical preaching today and one rarely hears the Law preached as God's condemnation and wrath, but as helpful suggestions for a more fulfilled life. In the place of God's Law, helpful tips for practical living are often offered. (In one large conservative church in which I preached recently, the sermon was identified in the program as "Lifestyle Perspectives." Only occasionally was one reminded that it was a church service and not a Rotary meeting.) The piety and faith of the biblical characters are often preached as examples to imitate, along with Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. As in Protestant liberalism, such preaching often fails to hold Christ forth as the divine savior of sinners, but instead as the coach whose play-book will show us how to achieve victory.

Sometimes it is due less to conviction than to a lack of precision. For instance, we often hear calls to "live the Gospel," and yet, nowhere in Scripture are we called to "live the Gospel." Instead, we are told to believe the Gospel and obey the Law, receiving God's favor from the one and God's guidance from the other. The Gospel--or Good News--is not that God will help us achieve his favor with his help, but that someone else lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness. Others confuse the Law and Gospel by replacing the demands of the Law with the simple command to "surrender all" or "make Jesus Lord and Savior," as if this one little work secured eternal life. Earlier this century, J. Gresham Machen declared, "According to modern liberalism, faith is essentially the same as 'making Christ master' of one's life...But that simply means that salvation is thought to be obtained by our obedience to the commands of Christ. Such teaching is just a sublimated form of legalism."11 In another work, Machen added, What good does it do to me to tell me that the type of religion presented in the Bible is a very fine type of religion and that the thing for me to do is just to start practicing that type of religion now?...I will tell you, my friend. It does me not one tiniest little bit of good...What I need first of all is not exhortation, but a gospel, not directions for saving myself but knowledge of how God has saved me. Have you any good news? That is the question that I ask of you. I know your exhortations will not help me. But if anything has been done to save me, will you not tell me the facts?12

Does that mean that the Word of God does not command our obedience or that such obedience is optional? Certainly not! But it does mean that obedience must not be confused with the Gospel. Our best obedience is corrupted, so how could that be good news? The Gospel is that Christ was crucified for our sins and was raised for our justification. The Gospel produces new life, new experiences, and a new obedience, but too often we confuse the fruit or effects with the Gospel itself. Nothing that happens within us is, properly speaking, "Gospel," but it is the Gospel's effect. Paul instructs us, "Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ..." (Phil. 1:27). While the Gospel contains no commands or threats, the Law indeed does and the Christian is still obligated to both "words" he hears from the mouth of God. Like the Godhead or the two natures of Christ, we must neither divorce nor confuse Law and Gospel.

When the Law is softened into gentle promises and the Gospel is hardened into conditions and exhortations, the believer often finds himself in a deplorable state. For those who know their own hearts, preaching that tries to tone down the Law by assuring them that God looks on the heart comes as bad news, not good news: "The heart is deceitful above all things..." (Jer. 17:9). Many Christians have experienced the confusion of Law and Gospel in their diet, where the Gospel was free and unconditional when they became believers, but is now pushed into the background to make room for an almost exclusive emphasis on exhortations. Again, it is not that exhortations do not have their place, but they must never be confused with the Gospel and that Gospel of divine forgiveness is as important for sinful believers to hear as it is for unbelievers. Nor can we assume that believers ever progress beyond the stage where they need to hear the Gospel, as if the Good News ended at conversion. For, as Calvin said, "We are all partly unbelievers throughout our lives." We must constantly hear God's promise in order to counter the doubts and fears that are natural to us.

But there are many, especially in our narcissistic age, whose ignorance of the Law leads them into a carnal security. Thus, people often conclude that they are "safe and secure from all alarm" because they walked an aisle, prayed a prayer, or signed a card, even though they have never had to give up their own fig leaves in order to be clothed with the righteousness of the Lamb of God. Or perhaps, although they have not perfectly loved God and neighbor, they conclude that they are at least "yielded," "surrendered," or "letting the Spirit have his way"; that they are "living in victory over all known sin" and enjoying the "higher life." Deluding themselves and others, they need to be stripped of their fig leaves in order to be clothed with the skins of the Lamb of God. Thus, Machen writes,A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens... 'Making Christ Master' in the life, putting into practice 'the principles of Christ' by one's own efforts--these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's obedience to God's commands. And they are undertaken because of a lax view of what those commands are. So it always is: a low view of law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace.13

We must, therefore, recover Law and Gospel, and with such preaching, the Christocentric message of Scripture, or no good will come of our work, regardless of how committed we are to inerrancy. We cannot say that we are preaching the Word of God unless we are distinctly and clearly proclaiming both God's judgment and his justification as the regular diet in our congregations. To recover Scripture's sufficiency we must therefore, like the Reformers, recover the distinctions between Law and Gospel.

NOTES:
1 Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, trans. by James Clark (Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1992), 40-1. Published first at Geneva in 1558 as the Confession de foi du chretien.
2 Calvin, 2.7.5 -1536 Institutes, tr. by F. L. Battles (Eerdmans, 1975), 30-1; cf. 1559 Institutes 2.11.10.
3 Calvin, 1559 Institutes 3.14.13.
4 Ibid.
5 Battles edition of 1536 edition, op. cit., 365. Delivered by Nicolas Cop on his assumption of the rectorship of the University of Paris; there is a wide consensus among Calvin scholars that Calvin was the author.
6 Ibid., p. 366.
7 Ibid., p. 369.
8 Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism Presbyterian and Reformed, from Second American Edition, 1852), p. 2.
9 Ibid, p. 2.
10 Charles Spurgeon, New Park Street Pulpit, vol.1 (Pilgrim Publications, 1975), p. 285.
11 J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism (Erdmans, 1923), p. 143.
12 Machen, Christian Faith in the Modern World (Macmillan, 1936), p. 57.
13 Machen, What is Faith? (Macmillan, 1925), pp. 137, 139, 152.

The Preacher and the Seeker

2005-06-06T11:05:00.000Z

How should evangelism really happen? What have we forgotten today about the way we witness?

The Preacher and the Seeker
by C. Matthew McMahon

The following is a fictional conversation between a young unconverted inquirer and a minister. I say fictional though in reality such conversations take place, and should take place, for all those who desire their conversion. It demonstrates the need to wed together two ideas in relation to salvation: the sovereignty of God and the depravity of the human soul – but it must do this without rendering men inactive in their duty to repent and be saved, or ascribing to some form of fatalism in salvation.

PREACHER: Hello young man, how are you doing on this glad Lord’s Day afternoon?

SEEKER: I am distressed sir, quite distressed.

PREACHER: Why so?

SEEKER: I am not sure I have been converted, but I am in dire straights to settle upon it quickly.

PREACHER: Well, why not settle upon it then? What is hindering you?

SEEKER: I have been told that I should “flee the wrath to come.” I thought I have accomplished this and yet, I am unsure. Actually, I am quite sure that I am not converted and a true Christian.

PREACHER: That may be true. It may be that you are not converted but seeking to be. Tell me, how did you come upon such a dire distress? What caused you to enter into such a state as this?

SEEKER: Well, two weeks ago I attended my brother’s church, a Baptist church. The sermon was given, and it seemed to me to be thoroughly biblical. I was captivated by the message. I was even moved by it. When the preacher had ended the sermon, he invited those who would like to be Christians to come to the front of the church and accept Christ. I was quite eager to do so, and I went. But even after praying the prayer, which I repeated after him, I felt no different.

PREACHER: It is often the case that preachers today say that men should “accept” Christ where it is really Christ who needs to accept them. But might I ask, why did you think you would immediately feel different?

SEEKER: I assumed I would.

PREACHER: Why did you assume such?

SEEKER: Well, I know enough about Bible doctrine to understand that those who have been saved by Jesus Christ are taken out of the kingdom of darkness, and transferred to the Kingdom of God’s Son. I also know that such people become new creations. But I did not feel any different. I thought I would after such a glorious act.

PREACHER: I see.

SEEKER: The preacher gave the altar call while the church sang “Just as I am” and then a chorus of “I Surrender All.”

PREACHER: Do you know that God does not accept us just as we are?

SEEKER: He doesn’t?

PREACHER: No not at all. We must be covered in the blood of Christ before he will accept us. And even then it is Christ in us that He is accepting.

SEEKER: I have not heard it in those words before. I thought we could come just as we are, or that we could surrender ourselves to God. So the hymn and the chorus are wrong?

PREACHER: They are quite wrong. I see you may be somewhat misguided on these matters. Might I ask you a question?

SEEKER: Surely sir, please do.

PREACHER: Do you think you are a sinner?

SEEKER: I certainly do believe I have sinned profusely before God in all sorts of heinous ways. I must admit I am a sinner; I have no doubt of this.

PREACHER: I see you believe that you are a sinner because you sin. Am I correct?

SEEKER: Of course. How else would you define a sinner?

PREACHER: I would not define a sinner in that way. I think you are holding onto a common misconception here. We are not sinners because we sin; rather, we sin because we are sinners.

SEEKER: I am not sure I understand. I always thought that until the age that we may be held accountable for our actions we are not held accountable. That is what I have been told by other ministers. I suppose they could be wrong but I am unsure how to remedy my thinking.

PREACHER: Well, at what age do you think the age of accountability may begin?

SEEKER: I am not sure, but I would imagine it would be around 12 or 13, when they become mature. Would you agree?

PREACHER: Not at all. There is no basis in the Word of God for the age of accountability, nor is there any basis for pinpointing the ages of 12 or 13 as “mature”. I know many 20 year olds that are quite immature, and many 9 year olds which are very mature for their age.

SEEKER: But so many preachers have said this time and time again, how could they all be wrong?

PREACHER: Actually, not many preachers have said this if you look at the whole history of the church. It is a new novelty as doctrinal novelties go. In any case, they are very mistaken. They have fallen into a newly fabricated theological blunder while giving credence to an ancient church heresy. The ancient heresy gives their new theological blunder a foundation.

SEEKER: Have I done the same?

PREACHER:I believe you have. The heresy is called Pelagianism. It is an old heresy of the early church.

SEEKER: Tell me about it.

PREACHER: Briefly, a man named Pelagius, who was a British monk living in the late 4th century, argued with Augustine, an orthodox bishop in the church at that time, about the nature of original sin. Pelagius believed that Adam’s original sin (his first sin in the garden) did not affect the human race at all, but that each person was liable and responsible to God on their own, and for their own sin. He believed that we are all born “blank slates,” and then as we sin, we become sinners.

SEEKER: I agree with him. Why is this a mistake? How could I be a sinner based on someone else’s sin? That makes little sense to me. It makes no sense to me.

PREACHER: Then I believe the problem you are having goes back to the imputation of sin, and the fall of Adam in the garden. I think we should pause here and address that issue first. Are you aware of the account in Genesis 3?

SEEKER: Somewhat. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and so God cast them both out of the garden. This would seem right to me since it was their fault and their sin. No one sinned for them. But you are saying their sin affects me. How? I am unable to see the connection here.

PREACHER: Adam was your representative. He represented all humanity for all time. His sin is your sin.

SEEKER: I definitely do not understand that. If I was not yet born, how could his sin be my sin? And where in Genesis does it say this?

PREACHER: Let me explain some preliminary ideas since this seems new to you. God ascribed to Adam the role of “representative.” A representative is one who acts on behalf of another, or of a group. In this case, Adam was representing mankind, a group of people. Theologically, this is called Federal Headship, but you really do not need to concern yourself with the term, perse. The concept, though, is quite simple: if Adam passes the test to abstain from eating the fruit, which is really just saying that he was to obey God’s command, then all people pass the test. God would have imputed these good works to all mankind. If Adam fails the test, and disobeys the command, then this is ascribed, or imputed to, all mankind. Unfortunately, Adam disobeyed God, and so God imputed to all mankind the transgression.

SEEKER: I am not sure I fully understand the word “impute.” I seem to understand the idea of a representative, though at this point I think it is unfair. But I am unsure of what “impute” really suggests.

PREACHER: I will try to deal with both of these terms simply for you (both “representative” and “impute”). First, the word “impute” would more easily be understood as “reckoned to one’s account.” Let us imagine you owed someone $100. If I transferred $100 from my account to your account that would be a base form of understanding the idea. I paid the $100 for you, but your debt is paid. One’s actions are ascribed to the other. I know you may think that being represented is not fair. But again, you are misconceiving the idea.

SEEKER: How so?

PREACHER: Do you think Adam was a worthy representative?

SEEKER: I am not sure what you mean. Why is this important?

PREACHER: I would imagine that you believe if you had been given the chance, you could have done better in the garden than Adam did in light of all this information.

SEEKER: You are very right. I believe I could have.

PREACHER: I must say, you are not thinking clearly. Do you suppose that you as a fallen sinner, in whatever form you may be thinking about your fallen condition, could do better than Adam who was not fallen in all of his faculties and being? Or for that matter, do you think God made a mistake in choosing Adam as a representative for us all? I suppose you should be asking yourself if God makes mistakes?

SEEKER: I see your point.

PREACHER: I thought you would. That is often something that slips right by us if we do not take the time to think that through. Certainly, God had chosen the perfect representative for us. If anyone could have passed the test it was Adam. However, he gave into sin and fell from grace. We know from this that we often have a wrong view of what it means when we say “Adam was perfect.” If perfect means “without sin” then I agree. But that is as far as the term takes us. Adam was mutable, he could change, though before the change he had not experienced sin. As a result of the fall, all people are imputed with his transgression. Do you see where this idea of imputation leads us?

SEEKER: Yes, I do, but I do not like it. I understand now that it is not something which I can deem unfair, but what a most miserable estate men are bound to if such a thing is true!

PREACHER: Yes, men are in a very miserable state. All men are bound miserably to this state and need a Savior. You asked before, though, where it says this in Genesis.

SEEKER: Yes. Please show me this.

PREACHER: Well, though it is evident in the narrative that such a fall took place, the idea of imputation is only hinted at in the passage. Do you know where?

SEEKER: No, I am a bit fuzzy on the specifics.

PREACHER: After they had sinned, God killed two animals and clothed them with the skins of those animals. It seems that they were a sacrifice for them and those animals died in the place of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve should have been immediately killed by God, and this argues very favorably for God’s mercy. I do understand that those animals and their skins did not impart saving grace to them, but it certainly shadowed the idea of imputation.

SEEKER: I see how that could be.

PREACHER: If we desire to turn to a more explicit explanation of this passage, a New Testament explanation of an Old Testament text, then we need to turn to Romans 5:12-21. That passage is an explanation of the historical narrative in Genesis. It says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned -- (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

SEEKER: I see your point, and Paul’s. You almost do not even have to explain it – it seems most evident to me. That makes my standing before God quite distressing.

PREACHER: Yes it does. So, then, how could we “account” for the age of accountability?

SEEKER: We would have to deem it as completely foreign from the Bible if this single point concerning the imputation of sin is true, and I believe it is. The idea must have been some sort of settling of the conscience because people do not like the idea that infants are guilty before God by immediate imputation.

PREACHER: Yes, that is correct. David says in Psalm 51, “In sin my mother conceived me.” Even from the very moment of conception David has a relationship with God as a sinner. This argues Paul’s point well. Imputation is immediate by the hand of God upon the conceived soul. Adam’s sin is transferred to our account, and we, then, need the redeeming power of a Savior to change us.

SEEKER: I do understand the idea of imputation, and the representation of Adam on my behalf. It was as if I was committing the sin right there with him. Correct?

PREACHER: Yes, that is a good way to look at it.

SEEKER: Okay, I accept that, though, as I said I am distressed over it, and I think I should be.

PREACHER: Yes you should be very distressed over it.

SEEKER: Now that I think about it, if I am in such a state, am I able to perform any good works at all? Does it argue that I am incapable of pleasing God or doing any good works, such as surrendering to Him and obeying His commands?

PREACHER: The Bible says that those who live in the flesh cannot please God. It is quite clear in Romans 3:10ff.

SEEKER: I am still unclear how this can be true? I am persuaded the Bible is true and that Romans 3:10ff is true, but I am not understanding it clearly. Just because my account has been defiled with Adam’s sin, how does that prove I am incapable of producing good fruit or morally acceptable fruit?

PREACHER: You hit the nail on the head when you said “morally acceptable.” That is helpful and makes the answer to that aspect of your dilemma easier to understand. Are you perfect?

SEEKER: What do you mean by “perfect?”

PREACHER: I mean are you without sin? Have you ever sinned? Even once.

SEEKER: We already established that since I have Adam’s sin imputed to me, and that I am a sinner by God’s immediate imputation of that sin, that I then do sin in reality. I sin because I am sinner. That shows I am not perfect. I suppose then that since I cannot morally please God because I have a bad heart, then I am really incapable of performing anything pleasing in His sight.

PREACHER: If that is the case, which you and I now both know it is, then our imperfection is eternally hated by God. That means He hates us as sinners and His wrath remains on us unless the blood of Christ covers us.

SEEKER: I am thoroughly confused now. I thought God loved everyone. Didn’t Jesus die for everyone?

PREACHER: Where did you hear that?

SEEKER: John 3:16 says that God loves the whole world.

PREACHER: I see. Well, might I address that Scripture in a more responsibly exegetical way?

SEEKER: I am not sure what you mean by “exegetical.”

PREACHER: That is the manner in which the responsible student pulls out from the bible the meaning of the Bible instead of reading into it. There are rules to follow and certain ideas which must be kept in mind – especially keeping the whole of the revealed revelation in our minds as we look at particular passages. And it is also important to look at the original languages.

SEEKER: I see. Okay then, please “exegete” this for me so I have a better understanding. I am persuaded that you do not think that God loves everyone.

PREACHER: No, not savingly. I grant that God has a lower degree of “goodness” which He shows to all men. That is a “type” of love which God follows after all creatures. He is good to all. He provides food for all, and breath and life. In this sense we may say He “loves” them, but certainly not in a saving sense. Some people term this kind of “love” common grace, but I find that term too loosely used. I am more apt to think of it as His indiscriminate providence over the whole earth. He is really not pleased with men at all, rather, He is quite the opposite; He hates them in Adam.

SEEKER: It disturbs me to hear that, but I suppose if we are all sinners by the imputation of Adam’s sin, and God hates sin, that means He hates us. But, even then, I have heard that God hates the sin but loves the sinner. Is that true?

PREACHER: No, that is certainly not the case. But we are moving too quickly here. I can address both of these for you if you give me a chance. First, let me deal with John 3:16. If you read the text you will find that the good news of the Gospel is directed towards those who “believe.” You see, the Arminian believes that God loves all men, and that this “whosoever” verse is a foundational verse which proves their point.

SEEKER: What is an “Armenian?” I have not heard that term used before.

PREACHER: Not Armenian, but Arminian, named after James Arminius who taught that men have wills that are not in bondage to sin, though they are affected by sin. Armenians live in Armenia. Arminians live in “happy contradictions.”

SEEKER: So this Arminius fellow believes that “dead in sin” really does not mean “dead in sin” but “sorta alive in sin?”

PREACHER: That would be an interesting way to put it, but yes. Arminians believe that the fallen human will can be exercised toward good or evil any time before conversion. As a result, they believe that their own personal exercise of faith initiates God’s change in them. God responds to them instead of them responding to God after they are changed by Him. They believe that faith precedes regeneration. But the Bible is quite clear. Jesus tells us in the very same chapter of John 3, which we need to get back to soon, that regeneration precedes faith.

SEEKER: Regeneration? Is that the change that occurs by the work of God in the heart?

PREACHER: Yes, exactly. The Spirit of God sovereignly “blows” upon the heart of man and changes him. Then He bestows the ability to exercise faith in God and Christ’s work.

SEEKER: I seem to understand this. That is not so confusing.

PREACHER: Jesus was quite clear when He said that “flesh gives birth to flesh” and the “the Spirit gives birth to Spirit.” Men cannot produce anything “spiritual.” Jesus even says in John 3:3 that they are unable to “see” or “perceive” anything about the Kingdom of Heaven in a saving manner until they are first born from above, or born again.

SEEKER: So men cannot fabricate, create, form or exercise faith first. God must first save them in order for them to do this. Is that what you are saying?

PREACHER: No, that is not what I am saying, that is what Jesus is saying. But we should return to John 3:16.

SEEKER: Okay then, I am still a bit unsure about the “whosoever” idea in the passage. It does say “whosoever.” I thought it was a “whosoever Gospel.” That is what I have heard from many preachers. They say God loves the whole world, each and every individual person.

PREACHER: If that is the case did Jesus die for those who had already died and gone to hell, like Korah or Cain?

SEEKER: I cannot see how, but then that would argue Jesus’ death accomplishes nothing.

PREACHER: That would be correct. It would be hypothetical redemption instead of actual redemption. Jesus would have, as the Arminians like to say, “made a way” for men to be saved, but really saves no one. When Jesus says “it is finished” He really did not finish anything.

SEEKER: I cannot see how that could be true. But what about the word “whosoever?”

PREACHER: It would be more accurate to say it is a “whosoever believes” Gospel, not just “whosoever.” Actually, the word “whosoever” in the Greek text does not even appear. It is nowhere to be found.

SEEKER: Are you telling me that the word “whosoever” is not in the original text at all?

PREACHER: No, not at all. It is more of an interpretive help in understanding the verse by the translators. Scholars have added the word in an attempt to help you understand the verse and Christ’s meaning there. It actually reads “the believing ones.” The text literally says, “God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that the believing ones will not perish but have everlasting life.” Is that more clearly stated?

SEEKER: Yes, and it makes better sense as well. But still, doesn’t God love the whole world, as the verse states? I mean, even if the “believing ones” come to God, it still says He loves the world.

PREACHER: Well, what do you mean by this? Are you speaking about the planet earth, the terrestrial planet?

SEEKER: No, I do not mean the planet, but the people on the planet.

PREACHER: If that is the case, then you are not taking the passage literally and have now entered into exegeting the passage. You are becoming a good exegete not to take things simply at face value. Otherwise we would end up with all sorts of crazy theological conundrums. Certainly God does mean “people” in some way in this passage, but He does not say “people.” Rather, He uses the word “world” which refers to all ethnic races of peoples. Why would he do so? Why not just say “I love all people?”

SEEKER: I am sure you are going to tell me.

PREACHER: Our Lord, in this passage, is speaking with a Jewish Pharisee who believed that God only loved Israel. Jesus corrects him and states that God loves all nations, not just Israel. But that, in no way, proves that God loves every individual in each nation. Jesus was simply expanding the boarders of God’s love to reach outside of the nation of Israel, in order to reach all nations over the whole world.

SEEKER: I see your point. But does that prove that He does not love the whole world? Is that logically and texturally airtight?

PREACHER: Actually, no. It is not airtight. But we can turn to another word in the passage that does make it airtight for us. The clincher here is the little word “so.” The word “so” amplifies the Greek word “loved” which means that this is a love which Jesus deems as the greatest love God has ever had. If this is true, and I believe the Greek text is right, then we have a problem. Can you see the problem?

SEEKER: Yes, I certainly do. If I am an Arminian, as you described, and I believe this text says that God loves every individual, then I have created a huge problem. If this is the greatest love of all, the highest form of love that God can demonstrate, exemplified by this little word “so,” then God loves the lost of mankind more than He loves His own redeemed people. At least, that is what this would mean if I were interpreting it as the Arminian would. Thus, there is a greater love which is higher than the love He has through Christ for His redeemed people. This would assert that God loves the lost more than he loves the saved in Christ. And that would argue He loves the lost more than He loves what Christ accomplished for the redeemed. In the end I guess we must ask the question, “Does God love the lost more than He loves the saved in Christ?” Am I right?

PREACHER: Most definitely. That is a great problem for those who think God “so loves the world” in that respect. But there is even more to this than that.

SEEKER: More?

PREACHER: Yes, even more than the “so,” there is the word “gave.” This also heightens their problem to an infinite degree. God does not give His Son for all men. The giving of a sacrifice is only on behalf of those who will be atoned for their sin. It is a word that is applied to imputation in a positive manner. Think about the Old Testament. The sacrifice for the Day of Atonement was on behalf of the people of Israel, and for no one else outside the camp. It was particular to the Israelites. This was a type or shadow in the Messiah’s sacrifice to come. When Jesus dies on the cross willingly, He will be given as a sacrifice by God on behalf of His people, but that cannot be all people. It certainly means that he dies for all the people He is sacrificed for all over the world for all time, but that does not argue, in any way, that His death is for every individual in the whole world for all time. One of the reasons is that there were already people in hell when Jesus died on the cross. He certainly did not die for those already condemned to hell. Just in that respect Christ did not die for all men literally. But, those for whom He died will receive the benefit of His death and resurrection in time. They cannot avoid it.

SEEKER: This is distressing me even further. You are telling me that God gave His son for some people and not all, and that the “world” here refers to those who will be redeemed one day. Is this true?

PREACHER: Yes that is true.

SEEKER: I seem to be understanding things a bit better, though I am uneasy about what the truth is. Jesus could not die for all men because all men would then be saved. Giving Christ for some is the only way to explain the atonement practically.

PREACHER: You are right, but why do you say that?

SEEKER: Well, like the Old Testament sacrifice, Jesus is given on behalf of an allotted people, a finite number only God knows, like Israel was a finite number of people. His sacrifice, as I understand it, atones for sin as the Old Testament sacrifice atoned for sin, but better. The people did not do anything to merit forgiveness. The priest offered the sacrifice and the people were atoned. The sprinkling of the blood and the sacrifice itself were types of the death of Christ. Their sacrifice was given over and over in the Old Testament, but Jesus’ sacrifice was given once for all.

PREACHER: So?

SEEKER: It is the “all” that I am thinking about. Jesus’ death can only do one of three things that I can think of: 1) He either died for all the sins of all men – which would mean all men are saved because Jesus is the Savior not men, and this would include even those in hell. 2) Or He died for some of the sins of all men – but that would make the atonement incomplete. Men would have to do something to fill up the rest of the atonement needed which they could not possible do. That smacks of Roman Catholicism. 3) Or He died for all of the sins for some men – which seems to be the correct choice.

PREACHER: Yes, you are right. That, again, was very insightful. Many theologians have not understood it that way, but it seems you have a good grasp of it. The Puritan John Owen said that very same thing, but in a more technical manner in his book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It is a watershed book on the subject that every Christian should read. But I digress. Could we go back to John 3:16? You were saying something about God hating the lost.

SEEKER: Yes. John 3:16 does not say that God hates the lost. You told me earlier that God hates the lost. Even if John 3:16 does not say that all men are saved, is there another place which states this?

PREACHER: Yes, most emphatically. Romans 9:13 says, “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated.”

SEEKER: But is this speaking about his sin, or himself? I thought it meant his sin.

PREACHER: It cannot be speaking about his sin because the verse is what we call “synonymous.” What is done on one side of the verse must be done on the other. If you cram the word sin on Esau’s side, then you need to synonymously cram it on Jacob’s side. The verse would then read “Jacob’s sin I loved, and Esau’s sin I hated.” This is a theological monstrosity. Actually, the words here speak about the person of Jacob and the person of Esau. God hates Esau himself but loves Jacob himself. And in light of our conversation so far it is not hard to understand why Esau is hated, but very difficult why God would bother to love Jacob! Jacob was a liar and a cheat. It is amazing that God would bother to love him!

SEEKER: But what about those ministers and theologians I have heard who say that God simply loves other men less? He loves Jacob, but He loves Esau less. Would that be a good translation of “hate”.

PREACHER: No not at all. The Greek word here is actually the word “hate.” It is used all through the New Testament for that designation. It never means “loved less.” It doesn’t change its meaning here simply because we are talking about people and not broccoli or cauliflower.

SEEKER: Yes, I see your point, again. I am not happy about it, but it is evidently plain. No one has ever explained it all that way before. So may I summarize things so far?

PREACHER: Please do.

SEEKER: I am a sinner, not because I sin, but because God has immediately imputed Adam’s sin to me at my birth. This is fair of Him to do so because Adam was my representative, the representative for all mankind, for the probation he was given in the garden. Am I right so far?

PREACHER: Yes, quite right, and I like your use of the word “probation.” That is helpful.

SEEKER: Thank you. So, as a result of this imputed sin reckoned to my account, God hates me, and I am dead in my sins. But how dead am I? We did say that sin permeates my entire being. I am completely affected in my mind, emotions and will by the fall. But I also know I am not as bad as I can be. Does this argue for my goodness?

PREACHER: Let me stop you here. You are still missing a point and overlooking something vital. The enmity that is between you and God is only reconcilable through Christ. This you know. But the fact remains that you are a child of wrath, and God’s displeasure remains on you. Your deadness is a result of the imputation, not simply a hindrance. That means you cannot possibly please God unless God redeems you and changes your reckoning status in His sight. Though you are not as bad as can be, you are still wicked in His sight; actually you are like a filthy rag. A cracked vase, whether it has one crack or fifty in it, is imperfect and unacceptable if perfection is the prerequisite.

SEEKER: So that means that though I am not as bad as I can be, I am still completely unacceptable because I am not completely perfect.

PREACHER: That is correct.

SEEKER: So we are not even on level ground here at the start. Rather, I am in a deep ditch. And all my works, while in this ditch, are covered in dirt.

PREACHER: The Bible uses the expression “miry clay.” Your deep ditch illustration is good. Do you know why you are in the miry clay?

SEEKER: Because of Adam’s imputed sin.

PREACHER: But how do you know you are in such a dire estate as this?

SEEKER: I am not sure? Is it because you told me so?

PREACHER: Not at all. It is because you cannot satisfy the demands of the Law. Just because men are fallen in Adam does not mean that God stops being God. He still commands fallen men to obey His holy law though He knows they cannot do so. It is like He is still speaking with an unfallen Adam when He commands men to repent and do righteously. Though they cannot, they have no excuse to reject His commands. They do so because they are wicked, but that gives them no right to do so. The Law then, demonstrates to us that we need to be redeemed. It simply points us to Christ and holds us inexcusable before God. It shows you that your deeds are filthy and you are in a very deep ditch that you cannot escape from.

SEEKER: I see then, the Law is good in that it points me to my need of a Savior, but it is bad in that it renders me inexcusable.

PREACHER: Actually, the Law is good in both ways because it demonstrates the righteousness of God’s justice in the latter and the mercy of God in the former.

SEEKER: I continue to grasp how incredibly lost I am. Okay, I see this, but how then do I get to ground level? The law cannot help me here because I cannot keep it perfectly. So now what?

PREACHER: Understand that ground level is not where you want to be. You need to be higher than that. Simply getting out of the pit is not enough. It is not enough because then you would need to please God by keeping the Law perfectly. You would not be able to do this. You need someone to bring you to heaven, not just get you out of the pit. May I explain?

SEEKER: Please do, because you are really beginning to frighten me as to my situation. I am in a ditch, but getting out of the ditch is not enough! And even if I get out of the ditch, I am still not going to make it to heaven because I cannot keep the law. I would throw myself right back into the ditch again. I am not sure I can bear it.

PREACHER: Be patient, I think I can help. Adam’s sin is imputed to our account at conception. It is reserved for us in this manner and then imputed when we are formed in the womb. However, in the same manner, by imputation, we may obtain Christ’s righteousness and have our imputed sin taken from us so that our standing before God transfers to one of love. Christ will not only redeem us from the pit, but also bring us to heaven clothed in his righteousness.

SEEKER: This is all through Christ?

PREACHER: Yes, completely. We are accepted in Christ and not in anything we can do before or after salvation. In this way, Jesus’ death on behalf of those for whom He died, is both expiatory and propitiatory.

SEEKER: Those are some big words with which I am not familiar. What do they mean?

PREACHER: Jesus is the perfect sacrifice. His sacrifice is accepted by God because He was the perfect man who obeyed the Law at every point - something we cannot do and Adam did not do on our behalf. When Jesus willingly offers His life on behalf of His people and dies on the cross for them, He takes their sin away - that is called expiation. He also removes the wrath of God from them - that is propitiation. The wrath of God is satisfied with the sacrifice of the perfect God-man Jesus Christ. In this way Christ’s double transfer, or as the famous hymn says “double-cure”, takes place: He takes our sin, removes God’s wrath and clothes us in His righteousness. That does not make us righteous, but rather, we are clothed in His righteousness. Martin Luther described it as a pile of dung covered in gold. It is still a pile of dung underneath, but the gold covers it. Though it is a weak illustration, do you think it helps to begin to understand those words?

SEEKER: Yes, I think so. It seems both Jesus Christ and Adam were representatives for two different groups of people. Adam was a representative for all men, and Jesus was a representative for some men.

PREACHER: That is correct.

SEEKER: When Jesus Christ dies, he takes away my sin, takes the wrath of God upon Himself for that sin, and then transfers His perfect righteousness to me and clothes me in light of God’s holy gaze. If this is true, I need to find out if my sins were laid on Christ or not. Otherwise I am on my way to hell. Would this be right?

PREACHER: Not really.

SEEKER: No? I thought we established that sinners are doomed to hell because of the imputed sin of Adam? Am I hell-bound or not?

PREACHER: Oh no, by all means you are hell-bound, at least at present. Hopefully that will change very soon. But I was disagreeing with your idea about finding out if your sins were laid on Christ. That is the wrong question to be asking.

SEEKER: Really? I cannot see how. If Jesus’ death is the only means that can save me, then why is it the wrong question to ask? Should I not wonder if my sins were laid upon Him?

PREACHER: No – again, that is the wrong question due to sinful thinking. It is really the question of a hypocritical seeker.

SEEKER: Why so?

PREACHER: It is because you are more interested in the gift than the Giver of the gift. This brings us full circle back to the beginning, but with a firmer doctrinal base, to understand your initial question and initial feeling of despair.

SEEKER: I suppose that is true. We have come back to the original question. I was holding onto a feeling of despair. I am certain of my despair now. So I am more afraid of hell and damnation than before.

PREACHER: I am sorry to hear that, but that is the very reason I said you are asking the wrong question – you are afraid of hell, not interested in Christ. You are only interested in Him as far as he can cure your feeling of despair and your fear of hell. This shows the depravity of your soul and the wickedness of your mind.

SEEKER: I suppose it does. I am more interested in the gift and the consolation which may have come from it than the Giver of the gift. I have thoroughly deceived myself.

PREACHER: Though it is a damning thing to remain in such a state, it is not necessarily a bad thing that you are sensible of your worthlessness. I must admit, though, it is better for you to go to church, and continue in the present course of hearing the Word, than any other sin. To do a duty that God commands would be better than going to the bar on a Sunday Morning. I commend you for your seeking and inquiry, though they will not save you.

SEEKER: Are you saying that my Gospel inquiries are sinful in some way?

PREACHER: Yes I am, at least so far as you are lost. God commands all men everywhere to repent. But that does not mean He will bestow the proper heart to repent. He holds you accountable in your wickedness and has no obligation to change you. But in your enlightened state, you may be judged more harshly for your sins, though it is better to be in church than at the bar.

SEEKER: I am thoroughly confused. Will I be judged for one sin more than another? Are you saying that hell has degrees of punishment and that one sin deserves a worse hell than another? I thought sin was sin?

PREACHER: That is a common mistake. Yes, all sin is sin, generally. But Jesus told the Pharisees that they would receive greater damnation for their sin. Matthew 23:14 says, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.” Thus, we know, from the words of Christ, that there are degrees in hell. But there are others like Deut. 32:22 which also teach this same truth, “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell.” Hell has degrees. Thus, your seeking may be compounding your sin.

SEEKER: I am in a hopeless situation.

PREACHER: On the contrary, you have as much hope of escaping His wrath as anyone. In God’s mercy, bestowing eternal salvation following your seeking is very possible.

SEEKER: I see.

PREACHER: Let me further explain this for you to be absolutely clear. It is better to go to church than to brothel. Are we agreed?

SEEKER: Yes. I would agree that is the case. God is less angry with those in church than at the brothel. Correct?

PREACHER: Yes correct. You may be in church insincerely, though you believe you are there sincerely seeking – which you should be. You either have the option of walking to the brothel, or walking to the church service. Which would you do? I would advise you that attending the church service while insincerely seeking is not as bad as going to the brothel. Even humanly speaking, you can avoid great physical pain and heartache from avoiding the brothel. So simply from that perspective it is better. But, in any case, you should spend all your energies seeking after God.

SEEKER: I am confused again. I thought seeking does no good?

PREACHER: You are an enemy with God. But you should still be seeking Him, even though you do not have the ability to change your own heart to seek Him rightly. Seeking is sinful, but less sinful that not seeking.

SEEKER: You mean I am not really seeking when I seek?

PREACHER: That is correct. You are a two-faced seeker, not a genuine seeker. You are seeking to escape from hell, not because you are interested in Christ. And the only way someone may gain a true seeking of Christ is through the change that God can bring through His saving grace. That is when He transforms the seeker to be a true seeker and not a hypocritical seeker.

SEEKER: So am I a hypocritical seeker?

PREACHER: It would seem so, but I cannot judge your heart. I will exhort you to continue to seek him though. But you must remember not to trust in your seeking, because that would never save you. Only the death and resurrection of Christ applied to you by the Holy Spirit can save you.

SEEKER: So I must seek after God, though seeking will not save me, though in my natural or fallen state it is all I can do, and I am obliged by God’s command to repent to exercise all I can do towards salvation.

PREACHER: I could not have said it any better.

SEEKER: So how then am I saved?

PREACHER: You are saved through God’s mercy that He is willing to give based on His own good pleasure. God often uses hypocritical seeking to bring a person to the occasion where He may convert that person and then bestow on them true humility and real repentance.

SEEKER: You used the word “occasion.” Why? Isn’t seeking the cause? Oh, wait; I have answered my own question. It cannot be the cause. God’s mercy is the cause, not my hypocritical seeking. I think I understand. Hypocritical seeking only affords an occasion to hear the Word of God which then can be a means by which the Spirit will save me. My seeking opened an opportunity, but the Spirit is the cause of my salvation. God is not disposed to save me just because I am seeking Him. He saves out of His mercy not anything I can accomplish.

PREACHER: That is insightful. God has saved many men who were not seeking Him, and has passed over many men who were seeking Him. It is always important to keep God’s good pleasure at the heart of salvation, not your seeking.

Many Reformed theologians are not as insightful as you are.

SEEKER: Really? I am surprised. Why is that?

PREACHER: They believe that speaking about “seeking” has an Arminian flavor about it. They do not understand that men, naturally, can do this at the very least. They bock at that thought. They think that “seeking” involves some kind of preparation that the individual begins or exercises before they are converted. Thus they believe, fallaciously, that a man is “preparing” himself for grace. They could never bring themselves to consider the doctrine of seeking even though it is thoroughly biblical and a very large theme through the preaching of the best theologians and ministers through the centuries, including the Puritans. Contemporary theologians believe that once you mention “seeking” you are begging the question to ask about the “cause of salvation.” They ascribe “seeking” to “cause” which is really a logical fallacy on their part. I am often surprised that many Reformed Calvinistic Preachers neglect such a weighty doctrine. They forget that natural men in a natural state are able to “grope” after God. Moral inability does not argue against moral responsibility but rather for it.

SEEKER: Yes, I can testify to that. I visited a Presbyterian church where the preacher gave a message without any application. He just left me hanging.

PREACHER: I am aware of such practical abuses to the hearers. That is like Peter preaching on the day of Pentecost and then leaving off “Repent and be baptized…” when the Jews inquired what they must do to be saved. These types of preachers, if we could call them that, seem to miss both the doctrinal and practical point on this because of their unwarranted association with some deranged form of Arminian cooperation.

SEEKER: I guess they do not understand that my seeking, or a lost person’s seeking, is really not truly seeking. Now I understand that. But it seems to me if they understood that one point, they would have little problem prescribing to the idea.

PREACHER: I think you are right. Because of their misconceptions on this point, they throw out the baby, the bathwater and the tub. Not only can a Calvinist believe that natural men seek in this manner, they should believe it and incorporate it into their preaching.

SEEKER: So my condition leads me to believe that I must seek, though it does no saving good, and I may even perish in my seeking. Yet, that is a “better” sin than if I did not do it at all. And it is in the context of that sin, hypocritically seeking, more readily that if I was in a brothel, that God would save me.

PREACHER: That is correct. It is under the context of hearing the word of God, not visiting the brothel, that God would most likely save you. It is also important that you note your own words “perish in my seeking.” It is true that since seeking is really a lesser sin, it is still sin. Seeking God in an unconverted state is not really seeking Him at all. It is not pleasing to God because the only saving means acceptable to Him is the death and resurrection of Christ through the application of the Holy Spirit. Seeking will only damn you, but in a lesser degree.

SEEKER: I may be confusing something, though.

PREACHER: What might that be?

SEEKER: How can you instruct me to seek if I am unable to accomplish any moral good? What is the basis for this?

PREACHER: The foundation is the command of God to do so. There are many things a natural man can do in this respect. The philosopher Kierkegaard made a distinction about men who are debased in a moral degeneracy, and then those who make the leap toward becoming moral. Moral men can naturally accomplish certain acts which are less heinous then others. They are able to deny sin, keep from temptations, perform all sorts of outward duties like reading the bible. They can attend church, talk about religious ideas (like we are doing now) and a variety of other such things. Seeking is externally the right thing to do. It is less wrong than not seeking.

SEEKER: If this were not so thoroughly biblical, and so eminently logical, I would deem it absurd, but I know I cannot. Does that really matter, then? To be damned to hell is to be damned any way you look at it.

PREACHER: Not really. Saying “I am damned if I do or damned if I don’t” is not the way a seeker should assess the situation.

SEEKER: How should I asses it?

PREACHER: You should be encouraged that there are advantages to seeking.

SEEKER: Really? What might these be?

PREACHER: There is a reduction of torment in hell and there is the hope of being saved.

SEEKER: I suppose a reduction of hell’s torments is appealing now that I am still here, but I will not think so when I am there.

PREACHER: But you are not there, you are here, and you should make the most of ever opportunity to lessen your torment at the very least. I think an illustration I once heard will help. Imagine standing on the pier overlooking the turbulent ocean. Let us imagine that the ocean is God’s wrath. Now I take a container, say a glass, and toss it into the ocean. It sinks, but only contains a certain amount of water. I then throw in a bucket and it does the same – it is filled to its capacity. I also do the same with a 55-gallon drum. All 3 are filled to their capacity; all three are filled with the wrath of God. Each one of them contains the exact punishment to the measure of their sin. Each one abides in the ocean of ”wrath” and is filled with the exact measure of wrath apportioned to their capacity. They cannot receive any more than they are fitted with, nor any less than their capacity. Men are like this at the Judgment. They are sentenced to their exact measure of sin. Some men are going to receive greater damnation, like the Pharisees, or Maybe Genghis Kahn and Hitler, where others will receive less, like Mr. Smith around the corner. But hell will be hell for all those who go there. Torment is proportioned to the sin committed.

SEEKER: Are you saying that men are fitted for this while they live on earth?

PREACHER: Yes. Both Jeremiah and Paul use the illustration of a Potter shaping out of the same lump of clay some vessels for honor and others for dishonor.

SEEKER: So while men live and go about their earthly travail they are not only imputed with the sin of Adam, but they are continually adding wrath to their spiritual piggy bank. The sin they commit contributes to forming their capacities as vessels of dishonor under the direction of God. Is that right?

PREACHER: Yes. Paul refers to this as a “filling up of their sins.” There are various Old Testament texts which speak of this as well as New Testament texts like 1 Thess. 2:16, “they always live to fill up the measure of their sins until wrath comes upon them to the uttermost.” God providentially governs and directs these men to fill up their sins, though He commands them to repent. And God is not the author of their sin – no not at all – they sin willfully. Without a new heart to please Him, they simply aggravate their sinful state by filling up the measure of their sin.

SEEKER: If that is the case, what choice do I have? I am seeking hypocritically, but my seeking does me no good. I am required to repent, but cannot because God has not saved me and given me a heart to repent. And now I find out that God is fashioning me this way? How do I know if I am a vessel unto dishonor?

PREACHER: You do not. You can know you are converted, but you cannot know, truly, that you are unconverted. Seeking is the best act you can perform outside of the grace of Christ, but it is still damning. Though you are a hater of God you are still required to ask him for help. Though these are truisms, no man is liable to despair, as I said in the beginning, because you have as much hope as anyone. You should take in as much knowledge about God in seeking as you can, for God may crown that knowledge with converting grace.

SEEKER: If all this is true, and it seems true to me so far as I can tell, both from the witness of the Bible and from the conversation we have had so far, then that leads me to ask a question: how do I get an interest in God, as you said before?

PREACHER: Get on your knees and beg God for mercy.

SEEKER: Beg?

PREACHER: Beg.

SEEKER: How long should I beg Him for mercy?

PREACHER: Until you lay hold of it and know it. Until He bestows it upon you. God is very willing to save, but He is only willing to save humble sinners who know they are perishing. You should pray heartily about this. Prayer prepares us for the blessing God may bestow.

SEEKER: Does prayer move God to act?

PREACHER: No it does not. Remember, as we talked about, God saves out of His mercy and His good pleasure. He already knows all things, so prayer does not inform Him of something He did not already know. He is never moved by the creature, or dependent on the creature for anything, including prayer. But prayer is antecedent to Him bestowing mercy. It is preparatory for the blessing to come. It prepares us, not Him.

SEEKER: Do I have any other choice?

PREACHER: None whatsoever. Seek and beg Him in prayer. It is all you can do. Failing to make use of these means greatly increases your chances of being damned. But you will never know if you will succeed or fail, so it is imperative to continue to do all you can to seek Him. You are still alive and living on this earth. You should view every breath you take as a sign that God may still grant grace to you. There is good reason and great probability that He will. You should have a great hope that He will after all this dialogue. You should strive to enter the straight gate. I suppose “seekers” could also be called “strivers.” Strive to enter and never stop until you have obtained saving grace. God is pleased to grant salvation to seekers and strivers. Be assured of this.

SEEKER: I understand. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about these questions. I will certainly consider all we have looked at biblically and logically. I hope the Lord saves me. I will plead with Him until He does so. I will beg.

PREACHER: I hope that is the case. I will pray that God will save you and that you would come to a true and real saving and seeking knowledge of Him.

SEEKER: AMEN!

The Marks of a True Church

2005-05-17T01:13:00.000Z

Dr. Francis Turretin

Twelfth question; the marks of the church

Is the truth of doctrine which is held in any assembly, or its conformity with the word of God by the pure preaching and profession of the word, and the lawful administration and use of the sacraments, a mark of the true visible church? We affirm against the Romanists.

I. After having treated of the nature, properties and adjuncts of the church, the order demands that we discuss its marks. This question pertains to its external state and is of the highest importance in religion. For since salvation cannot be obtained except in communion with the true church and many glory in this sacred name who are destitute of its truth, it is of great value to know its true marks that we may be able to distinguish the true fold of Christ from the dens of wolves; and the genuine society of pious Christians (to whose communion we are called) from the conventicles of heretics, which must be shunned by us; also that thus we may know what that assembly is to which it is necessary that we should join ourselves that we may obtain salvation. And because the question can be twofold (the first concerning the true marks, which are asserted by us; the other concerning the false and adulterous which are obtruded by the Romanists), we will discuss each separately and now treat of the first.

II. By marks, however, are commonly understood certain external signs striking the senses by which we arrive at the knowledge of a hidden thing, which are called by the Greeks gnorismata. Now these are either only probable and verisimilar (which are called eikota), of which this is the nature that they in some measure designate by a probable but least necessary reason a thing; to wit, those which are drawn from external and accidental adjuncts which clothe and attend the thing itself. Others are necessary and essential (which are called tekmeria, which indicate the thing investigated certainly and infallibly: as smoke, fire; respiration, life; because they are taken from the essence of the thing or from its inseparable properties). Now we do not here treat of marks of the first order, but of the latter.

III. For the truth of a mark, various persons require various things. Some require that it be essential, not accidental; proper and not common; certain, clear and sensible, not doubtful and unevident. Others (as Bellarmine) require that it be proper, somewhat known and inseparable. We think only two are required, to which the others are easily referred that it be proper and that it be somewhat known. For if it is proper, it is also necessary, essential and inseparable; if somewhat known, it is evident and sensible.

IV. (1) As the church can be viewed either as to internal and mystical state and as invisible, or as to external state and as visible and instituted, it can be disputed in different ways about its marks. Either inasmuch as it is invisible for recognizing the true elect and believers, in which sense it has for marks faith, hope and love put on by efficacious calling, from which each one is certain of his own calling (2 Pet. 1:10) and by which he renders it at least probably certain to others (Mt. 5:16; Jam. 2:18). But we do not treat of these marks here. Or inasmuch as it is visible and according to the form of collection and external union. Thus concerning its marks, it is inquired what are the marks and characters by which the true visible church (to which believers ought to join themselves for salvation) can be known.

V. (2) The question does not concern the marks of the Christian church in general; for the profession of Christianity sufficiently distinguishes this from the heathen and other unbelievers. But it is treated in particular of the marks of a particular visible church that we may distinguish an orthodox and purer church from a heterodox and heretical; so that this being found wanting, we may betake ourselves to the communion of that. Thus a twofold confederation of Christians must be distinguished here. One general, founded upon the profession of Christianity and contained in the Apostles' Creed and baptism as marks of Christianity, which indeed can suffice to constitute a baptized Christian, but certainly not to the obtaining of salvation; since it is often exposed to various fundamental errors, in faith as well as in worship. The other special, in a communion which has the purity of the word and the sacraments, mingled with no heresy and idolatry, in which salvation can be obtained (concerning which we properly treat here). Not in what manner a society of Christians can be distinguished from an assembly of pagans, Turks and other unbelievers; but how of the various assemblies which profess the name of Christ, the true and orthodox can be distinguished from the false and heretical, which are unworthy of the name of the true church.

VI. Now although in assigning the marks of the true church, a certain diversity in words occurs among the orthodox, still they agree in the thing itself. For whether it is called one alone (to wit, the truth of doctrine and conformity with the word of God) or many (to wit, the pure preaching of the word with the lawful administration of the sacraments, to which some add the exercise of discipline and holiness of life or obedience given to the word), it is all the same thing. For where the truth obtains publicly, there also love and holiness nourish in their own way; nor can the pure word of God be preached anywhere without the sacraments being also administered lawfully in the same place and the discipline prescribed in the word of God being observed and thriving, since these two flow from the word of God and are appendages of it.

VII. Further we must observe about these marks:
(1) That there are different degrees of necessity and some are more necessary than others. In the first degree of necessity is the pure preaching and profession of the word, since without it the church cannot exist. But the administration of the sacraments does not have an equal degree of necessity which so depends upon the former that it may nevertheless be wanting for a time (as was the case with the Israelite church in the desert, which was without circumcision). The same is the case with discipline, which pertains to the defense of the church, but which, being removed or corrupted, the church is not immediately taken away.
(2) There is a certain latitude of these marks as they admit various degrees of purity now more perfect, then more imperfect, as they more or less approach to the rule of Scripture (hence they argue a church either purer or impurer. But not on this account is this latitude to be extended so far as that fundamental errors should be tolerated, but only faults and lighter errors. As therefore that society cannot retain the name of a true church which cherishes capital errors overturning the foundation of salvation, so it does not straightway lose the name of a true church which impinges anywhere upon doctrine. And although it can no longer be called a pure church, still it does not cease to be a true church. Hay and stubble do not immediately take away the dignity of a church from any assembly, provided it is not built upon them as a foundation, according to the rule of the apostle (1 Cor. 3:12).
(3) The church can be viewed either as constituted or as to be constituted; either in a pure and uncorrupted state or in an impure and partly corrupt state. The question is here instituted concerning its marks with respect to the former and not the latter state.
(4) The opinion of the church is not to be estimated from the private opinions of rulers and bishops who, seized with a frenzy for disputes, often pass over to steep places, which nevertheless are either not understood or are not approved by the church. Rather the opinion of the church is to be estimated from the doctrine and practice publicly received and retained.

VIII. Since the truth and conformity of doctrine with the word of God or the sincere preaching and observance of the gospel are said to be the proper marks for distinguishing the church, others are not excluded, but included. For whether or not you attend to the voice of God, it is the word; or the faith of men, it is about the word; or life and obedience, it is the fruit of the word; or good order (eutaxian), it is from the word; or the sacraments, they are seals and appendages of the word, and the word visible. And thus wherever we turn our eyes, the divine word is a true criterion (feriterion ) of the church, which on that account is said to be a standard, scepter, light, rule and balance by whose polar star and rule all things must be examined. However, a mark can be spoken of in two ways: either with respect to the efficient cause (to wit, God, who uses it to sealing the true church); or with respect to the receiving subject (when received by the hearers it brings forth the fruits of faith and piety, from which it is known).

IX. It is proved that this is a true and essential mark of the church.
(1) From Scripture, which by this sign distinguishes true Christians as members of the church from false: "My sheep hear my voice and follow me" (Jn. 10:27). Here Christ proves that the unbelieving Jews are not of his fold (i.e., do not belong to the true church) because they do not hear the voice of the shepherd. "Ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you" (this reason being added), because "my sheep hear my voice" (v. 27). As therefore they who do not hear the voice of Christ are not of his fold, so on the opposite, they who hear and follow him truly belong to it and are members of him. However, what is the case with individuals, the same ought to be the case with the whole church, which is gathered together from individuals. Nor ought it to be objected here: (a) "that the mark of the sheep is set forth, not of the church, and it is taught who are the elect, and not where the church is." Both are necessarily contained here. For the sheep of Christ cannot be known or who the elect are without the church being known from this very thing (which consists of sheep and the elect) and where it is. For if the church is a flock of sheep and the sheep are no other than they who hear the voice of Christ, wherever the voice of Christ is heard, there the sheep of Christ (and so the true church) must necessarily be. (b) "It cannot be a sensible mark because that hearing, to be true, ought to be of the heart, not of the body." That hearing ought so to be made with the heart that it should also exert itself outwardly, both by external docility and a profession of the word and by a real obedience to a following of Christ. Now although this docility with respect to others does not produce an infallible certainty, but only a moral certainty from the judgment of charity (because it cannot make us certain of its sincerity), still it forms an indubitable argument both with respect to individuals (because he who is persuaded that he hears the voice of Christ, by that very thing knows that he is a disciple of Christ and a member of the church); and with respect to the whole assembly (because where the voice of Christ sounds and is heard, there the true church cannot but be).

X. (2) To the same belongs what Christ says, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Jn. 8:31, 32); "He that is of God heareth God's words" (v. 47); "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him" (Jn. 14:23). Here the keeping of the word of Christ and his precepts is set forth as a mark of his true disciples and as the means of obtaining his presence in the midst of them. However, where Christ dwells with the Father, there it cannot be denied that the true church is, since it is his house and temple. This is confirmed from Mt. 18:20, where Christ promises his presence in the midst of those who are gathered together in his name. For since the saving presence of Christ has place in the true church alone and it is promised to those who are gathered together in the name of Christ (i.e., who assemble by his authority to preach and hear his word), that is undoubtedly the true church where believers come together in the name of Christ. Nor can it be said that "it is demonstrated from this passage where Christ is, but not where the church is." Christ cannot be found without his church also being found (in which he dwells and which is his body, which cannot be separated from him).

XI. (3) The same thing is proved from Acts 2:42, where the mark of the apostolic church is set forth by a perseverance in the doctrine of the apostles, by communion and the breaking of bread. "The disciples continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Thus the pious exercises of the primitive church are pointed out, which are so many marks of it, by which the church of Christ was distinguished a posteriori from the Jewish synagogue and other assemblies of unbelievers. However, three things are mentioned as the principal: preaching and hearing of the word, prayers and the partaking of the Lord's Supper (described synecdochically by "the breaking of bread," as in Acts 20:7). And thus "fellowship and breaking" (koinonia kai te Uosei) is put by hendiadys for "fellowship of breaking" (fcoinonia te5 klaseos} (as in Virgil, "we make a libation with bowls and gold," Georgics 2.192 [Loeb, 1:128-29], i.e., with golden bowls). As therefore the apostolic church was discerned by these signs (gnorismasi), by the same it ought to be known at this day. Therefore wherever the doctrine of the apostles and the legitimate use of the sacraments and of prayers are, there the true church of Christ certainly is.

XII. (4) Because there ought to be some method for distinguishing a true church from a false, as for distinguishing a false church from a true, and false prophets from true teachers. Now this is no other than falsity of doctrine and its disagreement with the word of God (Is. 8:20; Dt. 13:1, 2; Lk. 16:29). Hence, Christ (speaking of the false prophets) says, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Mt. 7:16); not only as to morals and life, but especially as to doctrine (as is gathered from Lk. 6:45). And John wishes the spirits (i.e., the teachers) to be tried, whether they are of God (1 Jn. 4:1). If you seek the rule of trying, he brings it forward in the following verses from the truth of doctrine: "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God" (vv. 2, 3). And more clearly in the second epistle, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (2 Jn. 9); "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house" (2 Jn. 10). Paul confirms this when he denounces an anathema upon him who wished to preach another gospel than what had been preached: "If I, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8). He not only wishes to be rejected whatever would be foreign to the gospel, but that an anathema should be denounced upon him who should dare to introduce it into the midst of them, whoever he might be, whether an apostle on earth or even an angel from heaven (by whom after Christ nothing more illustrious and more to be revered can be granted). Thus Paul excludes the most specious marks of authority and the greatest miracles which can be obtruded (such as the descent of an angel from heaven). Now if the presence of an angel or the authority of an apostle cannot secure faith from us (if it is opposed to the gospel), how much more ineffectual will that authority be which a local or personal succession can conciliate, since such successors cannot be reckoned greater than the apostles? Again, if the apostles wished the doctrine of the gospel to be the rule by which true or false teachers are known, how much more today when nothing infallible remains to us except the Scriptures?

XIII. (5) Because what always belongs to the church alone and as a whole ought to be an essential and specific mark of it, by which it is discerned from all these assemblies, not only of unbelievers, but also of heretics. And yet the truth of doctrine, which shines forth in the preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments, is such. For the church alone is the house of God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Alone, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:19, 20); alone has the seal of the covenant (Mt. 28:20; 26:28; Acts 2:42; Gen. 17); alone possesses the word and by it is distinguished from other assemblies (Ps. 147:19; Dt. 4:6). Nor do these privileges belong to it for a time, but always and forever even unto the consummation of ages (Eph. 4:11, 12). Thus it is well gathered hence, that where the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments are, there the church is; and in turn, where the church is, there is the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments.

XIV. (6) That by which the visible church is constituted, congregated and conserved, so that, it being posited, the church is posited, it being removed, the church is removed, that also is its proper and essential mark. For no mark is more certain than that which is drawn from its cause and inseparable property. Now such is the preached and received word (1 Cor. 4:15; Eph. 2:19, 20; 5:26; 1 Pet. 1:23; Jam. 1:18; Mt. 28:19, 20), which constitutes, conserves and nourishes the church so that, it being posited, the church is posited, and it being removed, the church is removed. Hence the removal of the candlestick or the ministry of the word draws after it the destruction of the church (Rev. 2:5); and the ceasing of prophecy implies the scattering of the people: "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Prov. 29:18).

XV. (7) The fathers agree with us. Tertullian: "That must undoubtedly be retained which the church received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God" (Prescription Against Heretics 21 [ANF 3:252; PL 2.33]). And speaking of heretics: "Their very doctrine compared with the apostolic from its diversity and contrariety will pronounce that neither was an apostle its author, nor an apostolic person" (ibid., 32 [ANF 3:258; PL 2.45]). And he introduces the church speaking thus: "I am the heir of the apostles; as they provided in their will, as they committed it to faith, so I hold it" (ibid., 37 [ANF 3:261; PL 2.51]). And afterwards: "Whence, however, are heretics extraneous and enemies to the apostles unless from diversity of doctrine, which each one according to his will either brings forward or receives against the apostles?" (ibid.). Chrysostom says, "A Gentile comes and says, I wish to become a Christian, but I know not to whom to join myself. There are among you many contentions, seditions and tumults, I know not what dogma to select, what to prefer. Individuals say, I speak the truth, I know not which to believe, since I am ignorant of the Scriptures, and they cover over both the same, indeed this is much for us. For if we should say we believe reasons, deservedly would you be disturbed; but since we receive the Scriptures, these are simple and true, it would be easy for you to judge if anyone agrees with them, he is a Christian, if anyone fights against them, he is far from this rule" ("Homily 33," Acts of the Apostles [NPNF1,11:210-11; PG 60.243-44]). "Where faith is, there is the church; where faith is not, there the church is not" (Chrysostom, "Homilia sexta," Opus imperfectum: eruditi commentarii in evangelium Matthaei [PG 56.673]). "When heresy, which is the army of Antichrist, obtains, there is no proof of the church, except only by the Scriptures" (Chrysostom, "Homilia 49*," Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum [PG 56.908-9]). The author of the commentary on the Psalms under the name of Jerome on Psalm 133: "The church does not consist in walls, but in the truth of doctrines. The church is there, where true faith is. But fifteen or twenty years before, all these walls of the churches here held heretics. The church, however, was there, where true faith was" (Breviarium in Psalmos [PL 26.1296] on Ps. 133). Ambrose: "The faith therefore of a church especially is commanded to be sought, in which if Christ is a dweller, it is undoubtedly to be chosen, but if the people are faithless or a heretical teacher deforms the dwelling, the communion of heretics is to be avoided, it is to be considered a synagogue to be shunned" (Expositions in LMcam 6.68 [PL 15.1772] on Lk. 9:5). Augustine: "Let us not hear, I say this, you say that; but let us hear, the Lord says this. There are indeed Dominical books, in whose authority we both agree, we both believe, we both observe. There let us seek the church; there let us decide our cause" (Contra Donatistas: De Unitate Ecclesiae 3.5 [PL 43.394]). "I have the most manifest voice of my pastor commending to me, and without any hesitation setting forth the church, I will impute it to myself, if I shall wish to be seduced by the words of men and to wander from his flock, which is the church itself, since he specially admonished me saying, my sheep hear my voice and follow me; listen to his voice clear and open and heard; who does not follow him, how will he dare to call himself his sheep?" (ibid., II*.28 [PL 43.410]). "To salvation itself and eternal life no one comes, except him who has the Head, Christ. No one, however, could have the Head, Christ, except him who was in his body, which is the church, which we ought to recognize as the head itself in the sacred canonical Scriptures; not to seek it in the various rumors and opinions of men, and in their deeds and words. Let them demonstrate their church if they can, not in the discourses and rumors of Africans, not in the councils of their bishops, not in the writings of any disputants, not in deceitful signs and wonders. But in the prescription of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the singing of Psalms, in the words of the shepherd himself, in the preaching of the evangelists, i.e., in all the canonical authorities of the sacred books" (ibid,, 18* .47 [PL 43.427-28]). "The question between us and the Donatists is, where is the church? What, therefore, are we to do? Are we to seek it in our words or in the words of its Head, our Lord Jesus Christ? I think we ought the rather to seek it in the words of him who is the truth and best knows his own body" (ibid., 2.2 [PL 43.392]). Many such things proving our point are to be found in the same place which we omit for the sake of brevity. "In the Scriptures we have learned Christ, in the Scriptures we have learned the church, we have these Scriptures in common, why shall we not retain both Christ and the church in them?" (Letter 105, "To the Donatists" [FC 18:206; PL 33.401]). Vincent of Lerins, as Sixtus Senensis observes, lays down the authority of the Scriptures as the first rule of discerning a true church from a heretical church (Bibliotheca sancta 6, annot. 104 [1575 ], 2:153).

XVI. (8) Not a few Romanists are on our side here. Bellarmine places holiness of doctrine among the marks of the church and defines it "by a profession of the same Christian faith and participation of the same sacraments" ("De Ecclesia Militante," 3.2 Opera [1857], 2:75). Elsewhere, he concedes, "When the Scripture is received and speaks clearly, and the question about the church arises, then the church can be judged from the Scriptures as better known" ("De Notis Ecclesia," 4.2* Opera [1857], 2:108). Thus, while he answers to the dicta of Augustine (in which he affirms that the church ought to be demonstrated from the Scriptures), he confesses that "the Scriptures teach, what are the marks of the church" ("De Notis Ecclesia," 4.2 Opera [1857], 2:108). Hence no less evidently than necessarily, it follows that the Scripture is not only a mark of the church, but also the principal and primary of all marks, since from it and by it its remaining marks are known. Driedo: "The church is to be known and sought from the Scriptures" ("De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus," 4.4 Opera [1572], 1:239). Cassander acknowledges that "the marks of the church are the doctrine of the gospel and the use of the sacraments" ("De Articularis Religionis consultatio," Art. 7 in Gerogii Cassandri Opera [1616], p. 927). Stapleton says, "The preaching of the gospel is the proper and very prominent mark of the Catholic church" ("De Principiis Fidei," 1.22 Opera [1620], 1:25). He also grants that "the church of Christ is known to the wise and spiritual by sound doctrine and the right use of the sacraments" ("Relectionis Principiorum Fidei," I, Q. 4, Art. 5 Opera [1620], 1:577). Gregory de Valentia says, "We confess that the church of Christ can be without neither truth of doctrine, nor the legitimate use of the sacraments and of those with whom these are altogether retained, the true church consists" (Commentariorwn theologicorum, Disp. I, Q. 1, Punct. 7.18 [1603-1609], 3:148). Others also confess the same thing.

XVII. It is one thing to ascribe the marks of the church falsely to themselves and to boast of them; another to , possess them truly. That is of fact; this is of right. The false boasting of heretics claiming the marks for their assembly ought not to prejudice the certain persuasion of believers because we must judge of marks not from the dreams of the sick or the opinion of the proud, but from the truth of the thing. No more can it be said that our marks are not proper, but common because heretics (even schismatics) ascribe them to themselves:
(1) than if one should say the covenant of God is common to the rescinded and cut off Jews with the Christians because they boast of it; or that the justice of a cause belongs as well to the plaintiff as to the defendant because both claim it.
(2) Ad hominem for the same reason, the marks of the Romanists will have to be rejected because not a few besides them ascribe them to themselves (as antiquity, unity, holiness of doctrine and other things of this kind).
(3) Nay, no marks of anything in the world can be granted which some impudent and mendacious sophist will not claim for himself. Who is ignorant that the Devil wishes to hold himself as God; that the prince of darkness transforms himself into an angel of light, Antichrist, to arrogate to himself the name of Christ; and the harlot, to conceal herself under the habit of a matron.

XVIII. It is one thing to know who are the elect singly; another to know where they are and in what assembly they may be found. Our marks do not go so far as to manifest the former to us, but only the latter (which is sufficient that we may ascertain to what assembly we ought to join ourselves). As in the state, it is not necessary to know distinctly and certainly who are true and faithful citizens, who obey the laws heartily; it is sufficient for us to know what is the republic in which such laws flourish.

XIX. Although the pure preaching of the word does not always prevail in the church, it does not follow that this mark is separable from the church and that it is therefore falsely said to be a mark. That purity ought to be understood with a certain latitude, nor does the church at once cease when the purity ceases according to some degrees, provided it does not cease altogether. Purity ought to be in fundamentals in order that it may be a true church, although in other respects various errors can obtain in it from which it could contract various degrees of impurity (which although they take away from it the name of a pure church, still they do not remove the name of a true church, as long as the foundation remains safe and unimpaired). The pure preaching of the word and the purity of the church walk hand in hand. If the former is in every part pure and free from error, the latter also will be pure; but if the church begins to be corrupt it does not at once cease to be a true church until the foundation is assailed.

XX. Although the dispensation of the word and sacraments are good and gifts to the church, still they are no less its marks since the one is not opposed to the other: as in earthly things, possession and use of these is the mark of a transferred ownership, nor moreover does it cease to be a fruit or a good. Thus the word is a mark of the covenant made by God with the church (as its authentic instrument, sealed with the seals of the sacraments, from the lawful dispensation of which the richest fruits redound to the possessors).

XXI. Better known by nature is one thing; better known by us is another. Scripture is better known by nature than the church because it is the principle and foundation of the church. Hence it cannot be certainly and infallibly known except from the Scripture. The church is better known than the Scripture by us with a confused and inchoate knowledge because it is the means and instrument which leads us to the Scripture and which draws it to us. Thus the Scripture and the church give each other mutual help; but the authority belongs to the Scripture and the ministry to the church. The church shows the Scripture by her ministry and a posteriori, as the effect the cause and a light the candlestick; the Scripture shows the church by her authority and a priori, as the cause the effect.

XXII. To no purpose does Perronius cavil when he objects that "doctrine cannot be a mark of the church, neither that which is not controverted because all agree concerning it, and thus it is not a mark of distinction, but rather of union; nor the controverted because it is undecided, nor can a decision be made except by the church." Answer:
(1) we do not say simply that doctrine is a mark of the church, but inasmuch as it is conformed to the Scripture (the principle received among Christians). If there were no rule for deciding controversies or it was so obscure that it could hardly and not even hardly be known, I confess that a doctrine controverted could not be a mark. But we have a canon in the word according to which the pious can be easily taught concerning the truth of its conformity with the rule.
(2) Doctrine not controverted (such as the Lord's sermon, the law and the Apostles' Creed) can decide a controverted doctrine if it agrees with or differs from it. Thus the affirmative articles concerning which we agree are the rule of the negative concerning which we dispute, as the right is the index of itself and of the wrong. For if Christ is our Mediator and Advocate, on that very account he ought to be the only one because he is impatient of an associate. If the sacrifice of the cross of Christ is a propitiation (hilastikon), there can be no room for another; If Christ is the head of the church, therefore there cannot be a pope because they are incompatible (asystata) with each other.
(3) If because an adversary raises a controversy, a certain mark ceases to be a mark, all the marks brought forward by our opponents would be in danger because they can be controverted.

XXIII. No better is his supposition that conclusions concerning faith and infallible decisions cannot be made except by an infallible means which can be neither human reasoning (which is fallible) nor private inspiration (which can often be fallacious) but only the authority of the church (which God has given to us as an infallible interpreter).
(1) The infallibility of the object or of the doctrines is falsely confounded with the infallibility of the subject or the human intellect. Doctrines have an absolute infallibility, but the human intellect has properly no infallibility (although it has its own certainty in working, which does not deceive). Nor is it necessary that what is fallible in its own nature, always actually deceives; otherwise there would be no certainty of knowledge (which nevertheless there is). There is no need, therefore, that the means which lead us to the knowledge of an infallible doctrine should at once be infallible. It suffices that it be such as (rightly employed) does not deceive. Thus the human mind (not alone, but enlightened by the Holy Spirit) can be such a means by which the truth can be distinguished from error. In this sense, Paul says the spiritual man judges all things (1 Cor. 2:15) and John says that the anointing teaches us all things (1 Jn. 2:27). Thus there is no need for a believer to be subjected to any ecclesiastical tribunal to know the doctrine, since there is no apostle (nay, not even an angel and much less any pope or council) who is not subject to that examination, according to the oracle of Paul (Gal. 1:8). Nor if fanatics falsely boast of their inspirations, does it follow that the believer cannot be certainly persuaded of his inspiration; as the wise man does not cease to know certainly that he is sound in mind and reasons well, although an insane man claims the same for himself.
(2) The cardinal falsely confounds the internal means and organs of knowledge with the external object when he compares together reasoning, inspiration and the authority of the church. For reasoning and inspiration are the internal means and organs by which we arrive at a knowledge of the truth; but the authority of the church is the external means which has the relation of the object which proposes it. Now if the two former means are fallible, they will be equally so as much with respect to the church as to the Scripture; nor can they err less in receiving the decisions of councils than in judging the doctrines of Scripture.

XXIV. It cannot be said that the simple crowd and rustics are not capable of examining doctrine and so need other sensible marks which are better suited to their comprehension. It is treated here not of any doctrine whatsoever and of all the questions which can be agitated about it, but only of the doctrine necessary to salvation, in which the essence of faith consists (which stands out perspicuously in the Scriptures and can be perceived by any believer). Otherwise, in vain would the psalmist say the law of God makes wise the simple (Ps. 19:7*) and Paul say that Timothy from a child had known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make him wise unto salvation (2 Tim. 3:15), and that "the spiritual man discemeth all things" (1 Cor. 2:15). Nor is it less difficult for the simple people to ascertain the marks of the church which are brought forward by the Romanists and to assent to their truth than to make an examination of doctrine (as will be proved hereafter).

XXV. Although it is not necessary that a mark should be the essential form of the thing or its specific difference, still it does not hinder it from being a mark; nay, no more certain mark can be granted, since form gives being to a thing. Nor is it an obstacle that the forms and differences of things for the most part lie concealed. The mark, however, ought to be sensible and external. For natural and bodily things which strike the senses and whose marks consequently ought to be external and sensible differ from spiritual and moral, which fall under the intellect. Now such is the church (about which we inquire), which has its own moral and spiritual being, because it is not regarded here simply as an assembly of men united with each other by external acts of religion, but by true faith in Christ and a sincere administration of the sacraments. This truth of faith and purity of divine worship, however, is discerned only in the intellect through a comparison of the doctrine with the word.

XXVI. When the church is shown by doctrine, no more is the same declared by the same than when the thing defined is explained by the definition. For although the definition agrees with the thing defined (nor differs really from it), still it is clearer and plainer than the thing which makes known: as when I say, man is an animal endowed with reason; a grammarian is one who knows or teaches grammar. Nor can it be called a begging of the question, because a thing is explained by its form and difference.

XXVII. Although an infidel and heretic can come to a confused and obscure knowledge of the church sooner than to the knowledge of doctrine, still never could he be certainly and infallibly persuaded of the truth of the church and of its purity and impurity, unless the purity or impurity of doctrine on which the church is founded was first known. Material knowledge is of the sense and does not produce demonstration, but no formal knowledge can be given unless the form is known and it is proved that this form is in this material.

XXVIII. A mark is either regarded in itself and in the abstract or in the concrete inasmuch as it is applied to any subject; as the seal of a prince is either attended to in itself and with respect to its own nature and the use to which it is destined, or with respect to the application which is made to letters, or to the things which ought to be sealed. In the former sense, the mark of the church is in Scripture because this is the rule, canon and standard of all truth. In the latter, this mark is the impress of the church by profession of doctrine and a practice of divine worship conformed to the Scripture. When it is asked concerning the mark of the church (inasmuch as it can be distinguished from other societies), it is not understood in the former, but in the latter sense, by reason of its conformity with the word.

XXIX. From what has been said, it is evident that truth of doctrine or conformity with the word of God is the true and genuine mark of the true church in thesi . Afterwards also it is not difficult to gather in hypothesi what is that true church to which we are bound to join ourselves in order to obtain salvation. Whether it is the modem Roman church, which retains so many capital errors and idolatries altogether (dis dia pason) opposed to the word of God in faith and worship; or, on the other hand, ours, which is content with the word of God alone. But concerning these more must be said hereafter.

Greetings

2005-05-08T02:06:00.000Z

Well,
I am just going to see how this is going to work out. I do want to thank you for dropping by, and taking the time to read and/or reply.