Legalism Is Real And So Is Its Overreaction- Antinomianism

Jerry Bridges explains:

Admittedly, strong advocates of the new grace emphasis may not feel that it is their responsibility to deal with the behavior issues that concern advocates of the codes. Preachers of grace typically see the old evangelical codes as destructive forms of legalism that need to be dismantled. Many of us have been personally wounded by legalistic attitudes in the church and resonate with the need to fight their spiritually corrosive influences. Still, it is not enough for the advocates of grace simply to react against legalism. We must also respond to the license that always tempts Christians when preachers say, “God will love you no matter what.” Legalism makes believers think that God accepts them on the basis of what they do. Licentiousness makes believers think that God does not care what they do. Both errors have terrible spiritual consequences. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15). Grace should not make obedience optional. When God removes good works as a condition for his acceptance, he does not remove righteousness as a requirement for life. The standards of Scripture glorify God and protect his people from spiritual harm. We cannot undermine the legitimate standards of the Bible without grave consequences. God does not love us because we obey him, but we cannot know the blessings of his love without obedience. Thus, a grace focus that undermines Christ’s own demand for obedience denies us knowledge of and intimacy with him. This is not grace. Grace that bears fruit is biblical. Grace that goes to seed uses God’s unconditional love as an excuse for selfish indulgence. Such egocentric living ultimately burdens us with the guilt and consequences of sin that God has designed his grace to remove. Resting on God’s grace does not relieve us of our holy obligations; rather it should enable us to fulfill them (see Eph. 4:7-13). As the assurance of God’s love allows us to cease striving to please him for our own benefit, our good works will begin reflecting more of the selfless righteousness that is truly holy.*

*Chapell, Bryan (2003-02-10). Holiness by Grace (Kindle Locations 220-237). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

  Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

    —Acts 2:41–42

The early Christians described in these verses desired, as we have seen, above everything else, to know more of this Christian teaching, “the apostles’ doctrine.” This is the exact opposite of what is most popular at the present time. Modern men and women have a rooted objection to Christian doctrine and Christian creeds. This is therefore a very serious matter.

There are people in the world who dislike Christian doctrine, and in a sense I have no complaint at all against them. I would not expect them to like it. They would not be where they are if they did like it. We cannot expect anything from the world except rejection of Christian teaching. There is nothing at all new about this. It was the world that rejected the Lord Jesus Christ and His teaching. It was the same world that rejected the teaching of these apostles. But what is new today—and this is what is alarming and tragic—is that the opposition to Christian doctrine is not confined to the world, but is at the very center of the teaching of the church herself. The church is now speaking against Christian doctrine. She is saying that doctrine is not what is needed and that it is no longer of any value whatsoever...

...The second point is, the astounding thing about these people is that they simply cannot see that it is their own attitude that in many ways has produced the moral problem about which they are so alarmed. Why has there been a declension in morals during the past years? There, surely, is the fundamental problem. And for me there is only one answer. It is not the two world wars, though I know that undoubtedly they have contributed. It is not the advance of knowledge. There are some of us who have had a little scientific training—perhaps more than these people who write so cleverly—but still believe this message.

I have no hesitation in saying that the main factor in the lowering of the moral tone and life of this country [England] has been the loss of the authority of the Bible. And the institution that has been most responsible for the lowering of the authority of the Bible has been the Christian church herself. For the last hundred years or so, “scholarship,” as it is called, has been attacking the truth of the Bible. The Bible has been watered down by Higher Criticism—there is no authority here any longer, they say. Modern theologians have simply put up their own suppositions, their own theories and speculations. The church has undermined confidence in the Bible. It is said that we must not take it as an authoritative word from God because we now know that the Bible is just a man-made compilation, like many similar books.

Or let me put it in another way, a way I find fascinating merely as a psychological study. During this present century in particular there has been a great reaction against the old evangelical preaching, the apostolic doctrine, and instead men have been preaching what was called, before the First World War, “a social gospel.” Preachers used to say, “That old Gospel of individual personal salvation is no good; what we need is a social message.” So they gave ethical teaching and said this was the only way to redeem society. But the interesting thing is that the more they have done that, and the less they have preached the apostolic doctrine, the more immorality and vice and ethical problems have increased. They themselves have aggravated the problem at which they are so aghast.

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (2000). Authentic Christianity (1st U.S. ed.) (119–120). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

A Congregationalist's View On Worship

This particular congregationalist is John Owen:

Q. 8. How may we sanctify the name of God in the use of gospel institutions?

A. By a holy reverence of his sovereign authority appointing of them; 2a holy regard unto his special presence in them; faith in his promises annexed to them; 4delight in his will, wisdom, love, and grace, manifested in them; constancy and perseverance in obedience unto him in their due observation.

EXPLICATION.—This is the first thing that God requireth us to attend unto in the celebration of the ordinances of his worship,—namely, that we therein sanctify his name, the greatest duty that we are called unto in this world. This he lays down as the general rule of all we do herein: Lev. 10:3, “I will,” saith he, “be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified.” Whatever we do in his worship, we must do it that he may be sanctified, or whatever we do is an abomination to him. Now, the principal ways how we may herein sanctify the name of God are expressed; as,—

First, When in every ordinance we consider his appointment of it, and submit our souls and consciences unto his authority therein; which if we observe any thing in his worship but what he hath appointed we cannot do. Not formality, not custom, not the precepts of men, not anything but the authority and command of God, is to be respected in this obedience. This is the first thing that faith regards in divine worship; it rests not in any thing, closeth not with any thing, but what it discerns that God hath commanded, and therein it eyes his authority as he requireth it: Mal. 1:6, “If I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear?” Rom. 14:11, “As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” Reverence, then, unto the authority of God appointing his worship is a principal means of sanctifying the name of God therein. This was the solemn sanction of all his institutions of old: Deut. 6:4–7, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: and thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children.” And the observation of them he presseth on this account, that the people might fear that “glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD,” Deut. 28:58; which name he had so often engaged in his commands, saying, “Thou shalt do it; I am the LORD.” And in the New Testament, our Lord Jesus Christ proposeth his authority as the foundation of his commanding, and our observation of all the institutions of the gospel: Matt. 28:18–20, “Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” And he is to be considered in all our obedience as the great and only lawgiver of his church; as the “one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy,” James 4:12; the sovereign Lord over his “house,” Heb. 3:4–6, unto whom every knee is to bow and every conscience to be in subjection: and he who heareth not his voice is to be cut off from the people of God: Acts 3:23, “It shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.”

Secondly, God hath frequently promised his special presence in and with his instituted ordinances of old, both unto the things themselves and the places wherein they were according to his appointment to be celebrated, those places being also his special institution. Under the New Testament, all difference of and respect unto place is taken away: John 4:21, 23, “The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” And we are commanded in all places equally to make our prayers and supplications. But his presence is promised and continued with the due celebration of the things themselves by him appointed for his service: Matt. 28:20, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” In them is the “tabernacle of God with men,” and he “dwells among them, and they are his people,” Rev. 21:3; the promise of Christ being, that “where two or three are gathered together in his name, there he will be in the midst of them,” Matt. 18:19, 20. And this promised presence of God, or Christ, consisteth,—1. In the power and efficacy which he by his Spirit implants upon his ordinances to communicate his grace and mercy unto his church, it being his covenant that his Spirit shall accompany his word for ever unto that purpose, Isa. 59:21. 2. In the special blessing which he gives his people in those duties, both in the acceptance of them and testifying his good-will unto them: Exod. 29:42, 43, 45, “At the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God;” Zech. 2:10, 11; Ezek. 20:40, 41, “I will accept you with your sweet savour;” chap. 43:27;—in both giving them intimate communion with himself by Jesus Christ, 1 John 1:3. By all these he gives that special presence, which he requires an especial reverence and regard of faith unto, whereby his name is yet farther sanctified.

Thirdly, God hath given special promises, or promises of his special grace, unto them that attend upon him in his worship in a due manner. And hereunto also belongs that sacred relation which, by virtue of divine institution, is between the sacramental elements and the especial graces of the covenant which they exhibit and confirm; and the mixing of these promises with faith, according as they are appropriated unto any particular institution, belongs also to the right sanctification of the mind of God. So also,—

Fourthly, Doth our delight in them. Now, this delight in the worship of God, so much commended in the Scripture, and proposed unto our example, consists not in any carnal self-pleasing, or satisfaction in the outward modes or manner of the performance of divine worship; but it is a holy, soul-refreshing contemplation on the will, wisdom, grace, and condescension of God, in that he is pleased, of his own sovereign mere will and grace, so to manifest himself unto such poor sinful creatures as we are, so to condescend unto our weakness, so to communicate himself unto us, so to excite and draw forth our souls unto himself, and to give us such pledges of his gracious intercourse with us by Jesus Christ. By the contemplation of these things is the soul drawn forth to delight in God.

Lastly, Whereas great opposition lies oftentimes against the church’s obedience unto God in this matter, and much persecution befalls it on that account,—great weariness also being apt, from the remainders of unbelief, carnal wisdom, indwelling sin, weakness of the flesh in believers themselves, to arise in the course thereof, and many temptations also beset them on every hand, to turn them aside from the way of truth and holiness,—constancy and perseverance in the due and orderly celebration of all the ordinances of the gospel belongs unto this duty. And this perseverance respecteth both the things themselves and the manner of their performance, both which are of the highest concernment for us diligently to attend unto.

1. As to the things themselves. Herein do we principally glorify God and give due honour unto Jesus Christ, when we abide in our professed subjection unto him and observance of his commands against difficulties, oppositions, and persecutions. This he taketh notice of, Rev. 2:13, “Thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.” And this he requireth of us indispensably if we will be his disciples, or ever hope to obtain the reward: Matt. 10:38, 39, “He that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me;” and it is “he that shall endure unto the end” that shall be “saved,” chap. 24:13. And unto them who are “faithful unto death,” and them alone, doth he give the “crown of life,” Rev. 2:10; giving us caution not to “lose those things which we have wrought,” that we may “receive a full reward,” 2 John 8.

2. And as to the manner of their performance, two things are to be regarded in this duty of perseverance, and the sanctification of the name of God therein:—(1.) The inward principle of our obedience, our faith and love; which are to be preserved from decay: Rev. 2:4, 5, “I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works.” Chap. 3:3, “Remember how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent.” (2.) The outward manner of observance; which is to be kept entire, according to the primitive institution of Christ: 1 Cor. 11:23, “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,”—not admitting of any corruptions in it, to avoid the greatest trouble: Gal. 5:11, “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution?”

*Owen, J. Vol. 15: The works of John Owen. (W. H. Goold, Ed.) (456–459). Edinburg: T&T Clark.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

Now it seems to me that such a statement must of necessity be wrong, because if you adopt that line of argument then you have nothing whatever to say to the cults. For whatever we may think about them, if our only test is that of experience, then the cults really do seem able to offer what is required. Yet we would not for a moment grant that they are right, or that the experience they claim is true, because the cults say that they do not believe the truth.

In other words, there must be an objective test for what we believe. Experience is not a test; a man may become very happy and live a much better life than he did before, though he believes something that is not true. Things which are not true in and of themselves may at first appear to do us good because, of course, the devil can turn himself into an angel of light: it is pathetic to notice the way in which people forget that teaching. We must never base our doctrines upon experience, but upon the truth. That is the main reason for not accepting this attitude of letting any man believe what he likes. The Scripture tells us to prove the truth. ‘Evil communications corrupt good manners,’ writes Paul, to the people in the church at Corinth. You must not say, he tells them in 1 Corinthians 15, that it is irrelevant whether a man believes in the resurrection or not. It does matter, and if men hold a wrong view, eventually it will lead to something wrong in their behaviour. Our duty, therefore, as Christian people is to discover, as far as we can, the teaching of the Scriptures. Obviously we do not do that in a controversial spirit, since controversy for its own sake is always the work of the devil. Remember, however, that the opposite to that is not to say, ‘Believe anything you like as long as it helps you.’ Rather it is to ‘search the Scriptures’. So it is our duty to discover, if we can, what we are told in Scripture about this important and vital matter of the method of sanctification and we do so now in terms of our Lord’s teaching at this point in the seventeenth chapter of John.*

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (2000). The assurance of our salvation : Exploring the depth of Jesus' prayer for His own : Studies in John 17 (392–393). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

Answering An Objection To Reformed Liturgy

Let me extend my apologies for the lack of blog posts. I am working much and in the process of moving and my time and energy is lacking. With that said we will pick up where we left off- the subject of worship.

For this I turn to Dr. Michael Horton:

Old Testament versus New Testament Worship? First, it is right to point out the break that occurred when the temple curtain was torn from top to bottom on Good Friday. As Jesus told the Samaritan woman, the time has come in Jesus, the true temple, when true worship is tied not to an earthly place but to the heavenly Zion. With Mount Sinai in mind, the writer to the Hebrews declares: For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. . . . But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. 12: 18– 19, 22– 24 NKJV

In fact, the entire Book of Hebrews is aimed at Jewish Christians who were turning back to the shadows of the old covenant with its ceremonies and sacrifices, when the reality to which they pointed had arrived. On this basis, Reformed Christians have rejected liturgical approaches that seek to base Christian worship on the shadowy worship of the Jewish theocracy, especially imitating its ceremonial, sacrificial worship of the temple period.

At the same time, too much can be made of the difference between testaments in terms of an alleged contrast between formal and informal, heartfelt worship. To be sure, Jesus castigates the religious leaders of his day for being so obsessed with the outward form and show of holiness that they could not even recognize their inward depravity. But this was not a New Testament critique of Old Testament worship. In fact, it differs little from the sort of rebuke that God gives Israel and Judah through the prophets: “For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6: 6). Furthermore, judging by first-century Jewish prayer books, Jesus did not regard formal liturgies as inherently stultifying to a personal relationship with his Father. In fact, he tells his disciples not to be like the hypocrites who stand on street corners praying long-winded prayers of many words, and then gives them his famous form: “In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matt. 6: 9– 13 NKJV). Jesus not only did not abandon formal prayers but, as God in flesh, inaugurated one! Similarly, we read in Acts 2: 42 that the early believers gathered for preaching, sacrament, and “the prayers.” Although the definite article appears in the Greek text, it is often not included in English translations that have an anti-liturgical bias. Formal prayers were not viewed by our Savior as magical incantations but as disciplinary structures. Like a trellis, they taught wandering hearts to weave their prayers up to God in a manner that delighted him.

This is not meant to be an argument in favor of using only formal, written prayers but for structure in general. In conversations, my colleague D. G. Hart has compared liturgical structure to rules in baseball to which we gladly surrender our individual freedom and preferences in order to play a common game. Imagine what would happen if we all showed up at the baseball field and decided to do our own thing, enjoying the “baseball experience” in our own special way. There would, of course, be no game if that were the case.

Submitting to particular forms disciplines us not only as the congregation but also reins in pastors and worship leaders at whose mercy congregations too often find themselves. American sectarianism thrives on the unique charisma and personality of its leaders, and this is one of the reasons that worship forms always have to be changing, as a new entrepreneur comes on the scene. Slick services have slick preachers, and boring services have boring preachers. As I know from personal experience, the downside of having an active imagination is idolatry. The little thespian in me could easily construct experimental worship “experiences” for a living, but their very uniqueness and innovative cleverness would undoubtedly grow old fairly quickly, and there would be little similarity in worship over generations. More importantly, there is too much biblical history to remind us that God is pleased only with the simplicity of the worship he has prescribed.

Throughout centuries— in many cases, even millennia— God’s people have sought to chain their worship to Scripture itself. In fact, the Book of Common Prayer (1552)— gem of the English Reformation— consists largely of biblical quotations. Also in the Reformed tradition is the Dutch Liturgy, adopted at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Book of Common Order (commonly called “John Knox’s Liturgy”), which is only slightly freer in style, and the Directory for the Public Worship of God, produced by the Westminster Assembly in the mid-seventeenth century. Luther’s service was an evangelical revision of the Mass, and Calvin produced a simplified yet structured liturgy, as well as the Form of Prayers, for public worship. What the Reformers and their heirs opposed was the imposition of a particular liturgy on the church as a necessary form for the true worship of God.

Despite a rich Protestant liturgical inheritance, our churches (regardless of where they are on the spectrum) seem to give too little attention to why we do what we do. In many cases, hours are spent (hopefully) in preparing a sermon, but the rest of the service may be haphazard and lack a clear sense of a movement from point A to point Z. We are familiar with services that begin with miscellaneous introductions and announcements. Next, the choir sings and perhaps provides background to special music of some sort, followed by a congregational song, an offering, more singing, a sermon, more singing or special music, and a much anticipated benediction. When churches are contemplating moving from this to something else, like a seeker service or a high church service, we cannot help but be somewhat sympathetic to the reasons for their reaction. A worship service should be interesting— we are meeting with God, after all!— and it will be interesting if ministers and their congregations are intentional about its development and meaning. But whether contemporary or traditional, worship will become a boring, purposeless routine if that is in fact what is unintentionally conveyed in its preparation.

If worship is to be Christ-centered, then, we will not move beyond the types and shadows of God’s commands in the Old Testament to our own types and shadows that lead us not to Christ but to our own creatively conceived images and “worship experiences.” But while God has commanded us to gather together on the Lord’s Day, he has not commanded us to meet at 10: 00. Church services will vary in entirely appropriate ways; some things are necessary while other things depend on circumstances of time and place. The former we ordinarily call an element (i.e., it is necessary), while the latter is a circumstance (i.e., it is up to the church’s discretion). Taking an offering is an element, while how it is taken is a circumstance.

Horton, Michael (2003-05-01). Better Way, A (pp. 145-148). Baker Book Group. Kindle Edition. 

Bullying in Apologetics

The History of Christian apologetics has not been the cleanest slate one could acquire at Goodwill. There are now at least 5 different major schools of thought in Apologetics: 1). Classical / Traditional 2). Evidential, 3). Reformed Epistemology, 4). Presuppositionalism, and 5). Ad-Hoc Apologetics (whatever comes up at the moment for whomever is there in the moment). Those brethren without a methodology (such as the ad-hoc crowd) are thought of as “messy” and “unsophisticated” by the rest of us (I will not lie, this has often crossed my mind). Those same brethren will see us as “unable to adapt to many different situations.” But it does not stop there. The Traditionalists and Evidentialists will accuse us and the Reformed Epistemologists with using circular reasoning and “assuming a first principle” (which is a virtue, not a vice!). Everyone (who is uninformed and loves to build straw men) regards my presuppositional system as “fideism.” There goes the fideist, they say. He is reasoning in a circle. The presuppositionalists will accuse the Reformed Epistemologists of not taking the Bible seriously enough, because it is not their prima fascie first principle. The Reformed Epistemologists secretly see the Traditionalists as “antiquated” and the Evidentialists as “market-driven.” They always come up with evidences and never know where to place them, apparently. But the Evidentialists will retort “at least we have evidences – you (Reformed Epistemologists) don’t even know where to gather your first principles from.” (A charge mistakenly advanced against Alvin Plantinga). Do not get me started with some (s-o-m-e) Clarkians and their crusade against who knows what. I am quite the fan of Gordon Clark, but this does not mean that everyone other than him is mistaken. (Then you have the young Van-Tillians who have never picked up Van-Til but can write a book on him only by consulting secondary sources). The horrible trench-warfare that goes on in the apologetics forums between those of the analogical and purely propositional knowledge camps is enough to leave a shell-shock in the minds of those in the fringes, and in some cases, certain popular Christian apologists are labeled “heretics.” Something has gone awry – has been awry.

But notice how, throughout the last paragraph, I was throwing a few little jabs myself. This was deliberate and must not be taken more seriously than is warranted. But why?  Why would a command to state my claims with “gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15) be mistaken for a call to strip the medals off of my Christian colleagues? I am not one to allow myself to be out-argued, but I certainly do not have time nor desire to entertain the thoughts that some of my brethren have with regard to others who do not see eye to eye with them on apologetic method. The term “heretic” must not be so easily allowed to slip from our tongues. So let us read 1 Peter 3:15 in context and search our hearts. If we have any repenting to do, let us do it now.

Felipe Diez
Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com

Now If I Said This About Worship (And I Have)...

Jon D. Payne:

Before we can properly prepare our hearts for public worship, we must first and foremost understand what worship is. Sadly, present-day churches are rife with confusion regarding worship, and this has led to much discord and division among congregations, families, and friends. Worship should unite Christians, not divide them (see Romans 15:6; Eph. 5:19-21).

A big part of the problem is that Christians are locking horns over worship styles or preferences that please themselves rather than honestly and carefully exploring what constitutes biblical worship that pleases God. It is not uncommon to hear believers say something like: “You worship in your way, I’ll worship in mine … As long as we are sincere it doesn’t really matter.” Not only is this statement audaciously relativistic, but it is also theologically remiss. God has not left us without direction concerning the most important and sublime activity of the Church. On the contrary, as I hope to show in the following pages, God has provided clear instruction on how His people are (and are not) to worship Him. The following are some points which have helped to shape my own thinking on the nature and practice of Christian worship.

1. Biblical Worship is Biblical Yes, I know … a clear redundancy. But, dare I say, a necessary one. Indeed, in the minds of many believers, biblical worship embodies not so much what the Bible commands as rather what makes believers happy or seekers comfortable. Worship must, however, in its form and content be rooted in the authoritative Word of God. Theology, and not a pragmatic philosophy for church growth or the weekly quest for a mountaintop experience with God, must drive our worship.

In the Reformed tradition, Christians have generally held to what is called the Regulative Principle of Worship. The Regulative Principle states that Christians are to do nothing in worship except that which has been prescribed or commanded in Scripture. Not only does this principle underscore the fact that God has revealed in His Word how He desires to be worshiped, but it also wonderfully safeguards worship from the innovations of sinful mankind. Calvin once remarked that our minds are idol factories, always inventing new objects of worship and dreaming up new ways in which to worship. The Regulative Principle takes very seriously both the truthfulness of God’s Word and the deceitfulness of men’s hearts.

In Leviticus 10:1-11 we are taught a sobering lesson concerning the seriousness with which God takes worship. Nadab and Abihu, ordained priests and sons of Aaron, offered strange or unauthorized fire in their censors before the LORD, fire which God “had not commanded them” (v. 1). As a result, “fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD” (v. 2).

Lest we think that God regarded these matters differently in the Old Covenant, the writer to the Hebrews reminds us that God continues to command acceptable (read: biblically-regulated) worship in the New Covenant, when he states: “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:28-29). Commenting on this passage, John Owen, the seventeenth-century English Puritan, asserts that “it is religious worship, both as unto outward form of it in divine institution, and its inward form of faith and grace, which God requires”  (John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. VII, 378). In other words, God requires worship that is both outwardly biblical in form and inwardly sincere through faith.

In addition to these illuminating passages, the second commandment reinforces the Regulative Principle of Worship. In it God states: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is under the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5a). What is God more jealous for than anything else? His own glory. Indeed, to worship God in a way not prescribed in His Word is to undermine His divine authority and rob Him of the glory due His Name. Commenting on the second commandment, the Westminster Divines wrote that “the sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God Himself” (Westminster Larger Catechism, A. 109). In other words, what we do in worship must be regulated by God, in His inspired Word—nothing less and nothing more. No one’s conscience should be bound in a worship service to do anything more or anything less than what God requires in Scripture. Thus, for a liturgy to include, for example, drama, the lighting of Advent candles, or the singing of a patriotic hymn is to ask worshipers to participate in elements of worship that are not prescribed by God in His Word.*

*Payne, Jon D. (2008-05-01). In The Splendor Of Holiness: Rediscovering the Beauty of Reformed Worship for the 21st Century (Kindle Locations 169-212). Tolle Lege Press. Kindle Edition.