Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of a Worship

Sola scriptura is one of the fundamental principles of the Protestant reformation. (One could even argue that the other great principal doctrines of the Reformation [such as sola gratia, sola fide] are logically dependent upon sola scriptura.) By making the Bible the sole standard and authority for faith and life, Protestants were able to refute all the Romish doctrines and practices that originated from human tradition. The Calvinistic reformers achieved a greater, more thorough reformation in the church because they applied sola scriptura more consistently, logically and effectively to doctrine, church government and worship than did their Anglican and Lutheran counterparts.

The doctrine of sola scriptura, with its teaching regarding the authority, completeness, perfection and sufficiency of Scripture, needs to be taught today with a renewed zeal and urgency. The reasons for this renewed zeal are not merely because of the current popularity of Romanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, modernism, neo-orthodoxy, the cults, the charismatic movement and the church growth movement. The chief reason is the current declension among the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian denominations today, particularly in the area of worship. Not only are many Reformed and Presbyterian churches allowing human innovations in worship, but the regulative principle of Scripture, and the correlative doctrine of the sufficiency of the Bible in all matters of faith including worship, is openly rejected by many pastors and elders. The regulative principle of worship (which is sola scriptura applied to the worship conducted by the church) is one of the greatest achievements of the Calvinistic reformation. In order to shore up the foundation of Reformed worship we must go back to the doctrine of sola scriptura. We pray that this study will be used for the reformation of the church.

Reformed believers today need to understand the theological relationship that exists between sola scriptura and the regulative principle of worship. The reasons that such an understanding is necessary are manifold. First, the regulative principle of worship is directly related to sola scriptura doctrines such as the infallibility, absolute authority, sufficiency and perfection of Scripture. The Calvinistic reformers and the Reformed confessions often referred to sola scriptura passages (e.g., Dt. 4:2, Pr. 30:6) as proof texts for the regulative principle of worship. When sola scriptura is consistently applied to worship, the result is Puritan and Reformed worship. Second, opponents of the regulative principle often argue against it on the basis of the similarity between sola scriptura proof texts and regulative principle proof texts. Such argumentation usually follows one or two lines of thought. Some argue that the proof texts cited in favor of the regulative principle (e.g., Dt. 12:32) are really only teaching sola scriptura. In other words, it is exegetically illegitimate to use such passages for the strict regulation of worship. Others argue that the similar and even identical nature of the sola scriptura passages and the regulative principle passages does not prove a strict regulation of worship but actually proves the opposite. This argument is based on the following syllogism. Sola scriptura teaches that the Bible regulates all of life. Yet all of life contains many activities that are not strictly regulated (in other words, the Bible gives man a great deal of liberty in things indifferent [adiaphora]). Therefore, it follows that the regulative principle or sola scriptura as it applies to worship also leaves man a great deal of liberty in the sphere of worship. In this study we will examine the relationship between sola scriptura and the regulative principle in order to prove that sola scriptura, properly understood, leads directly to the regulative principle. Then we will refute many of the popular arguments used today against the regulative principle, including the argument based on the similarity between sola scriptura and regulative principle proof texts.¹

I. What Is Sola Scriptura?

Before we consider the relationship between sola scriptura and the regulative principle, we need first to define sola scriptura. After a brief definition of this doctrine is given, we will then turn our attention to the Protestant confessional statements.

Briefly stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura teaches that the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the divinely inspired word of God and therefore infallible and absolutely authoritative in all matters of faith and life. Because God's inscripturated word contains all the extant supernatural revelation of God, and because all forms of direct revelation have ceased (with the death of the apostles and the close of the canon), the Bible alone is the church's sole authority. Because Scripture is perspicuous (i.e., all the necessary teaching for salvation, faith and life are easily understood by the common people), there is no need for any additional sources of authority to infallibly interpret the Bible for the church. The church (whether popes, cardinals, bishops, church fathers, church councils, synods or congregations) does not have authority over the Bible, but the self authenticating Scriptures have absolute authority over the church and all men. Because of what the Bible is (as noted above), the church's job is purely ministerial and declarative. All men are forbidden to add or detract from the sacred Scriptures, whether by human traditions, or so-called new revelations of the Spirit, or by the decrees of councils or synods. The Bible is sufficient and perfect and does not need any human additions. Further, only that which is taught in Scripture can be used to bind the consciences of men.

1. The Reformed Confessional Understanding of Sola Scriptura

The Reformed confessions are in total agreement regarding sola scriptura or the regulative principle of Scripture.

First Helvetic Confession (1536)

French Confession (1559)

Belgic Confession (1561)

Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

The Westminster Standards (1646-1648)

2. Clarifications

According to the Reformed confessional statements the Bible is a perfect, complete and sufficient rule of faith and life. Now that the canon is closed and direct revelation has ceased, the inspired Scriptures are the only rule of doctrine and practice. Although the Bible is the only rule that God has given us to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him, there are a number of issues that need to be clarified before we proceed.

First, the doctrine of sola scriptura is not a denial of natural revelation. The Bible itself teaches that there are things that man can learn about God and himself from nature (cf. Ps. 19; Rom. 1:20ff.). We should note, however, that: (1) Natural revelation was never intended to be used independently of direct revelation. Before the fall God spoke directly to Adam regarding the tree of good and evil. (2) When mankind fell in Adam, both the earth and the human race were affected by sin. Sin and the curse have rendered natural revelation unreliable as a source for ethics. (3) Scripture teaches that although natural revelation is enough to render the human race guilty and without excuse (Rom. 1:18), it is not sufficient to teach man about salvation, Christ and many other crucial doctrines. (4) Further, any doctrines or ethics that could be determined from natural revelation could not contradict and would have to be judged by the perspicuous and sufficient Holy Scriptures.

Second, the doctrine of sola scriptura is not a denial of the progressive nature and diverse means of divine revelation before the close of the canon. A fundamental teaching of the regulative principle of Scripture is that man is not to add or detract from God's word (Dt. 4:2). Yet prior to the completion of Scripture this command did not preclude God himself from adding his own thoughts to that which the people of God already had. It did, however forbid anyone to add or detract from the divine revelation which they did have, whether by false prophecy, divination, human tradition and the neglect of God's ordinances. Further, as Christians we look back to a completed and written revelation. (In times past men received visions, dreams and verbal communication from God, and not every revelation was committed to writing.) Note also that God could have preserved divine revelation by a supernatural preservation apart from committing revelation to written form if he had wanted to. However, in God's good pleasure and infinite wisdom he has committed everything that the church and the world needs to a written revelation. Since natural revelation is insufficient, direct revelation to the church has ceased, and God has committed his will to us "wholly unto writing," the Scriptures are our sole standard for faith and life.

Third, the doctrine of sola scriptura, which says that "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," is not a denial that there were many revelations and historical events that did not make it into the canon. The completed Scripture that God has given to the church is exactly what he wanted us to have. He could have given his people one hundred volumes containing more case laws, more detailed histories of the patriarchs, Moses, Israel, Jesus Christ and the acts of the apostolic church. But Jehovah gave us the 66 books alone, and this completed canon is perfect and in every way sufficient to answer its design. God has many secret things that belong to himself and his divine perfections which are infinite and could never fully and adequately be revealed to us even if a million inspired volumes existed. But in his mercy everything that we do need to know, love and serve him has been given to us in the Scriptures.

II. Aspects of Sola Scriptura

1. The Authority of Scripture

The regulative principle of Scripture rests upon the fact that the Bible is unique. The Bible alone is God's word. The Westminster Confession says, "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God" (1.4). Scripture is inspired by God. Therefore, it is truth and it carries the authority of God himself. It alone among books carries an absolute authority.

There is only one God—the ontological trinity who is transcendent, who has created all things and who gives meaning to all factuality. Likewise, presently there is only one direct verbal or written source of divine revelation. There is only one book which tells us the mind and will of God. Because the Scripture is breathed out by God himself, it is self authenticating and absolute. Its authority does not depend on the church, or empirical evidences, or human philosophy. The church and all men are required to submit to the authority of Scripture without any quibbling or reservations, for it is the voice of the Almighty himself.

Because Scripture is God's Word, it is the final, definitive authority in all matters of faith and life. The Bible is the only absolute, objective standard by which ethics, doctrine, church government and worship are to be judged. The Westminster Confession says, "The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" (1.10). Men who are sinful and fallible can and do receive a delegated authority from God. However, only God, who is the absolute sovereign and creator of all things, has the right to bind men to faith and duty.

2. The Sufficiency and Perfection of Scripture

An understanding of the sufficiency, perfection or completeness of Scripture (which is a crucial aspect of the Reformed understanding of sola scriptura) will lead us to a deeper understanding of the inseparable connection that exists between the regulative principle of Scripture and the regulative principle of worship. By the perfection of Scripture we mean that the Bible is fully sufficient unto the end for which it was designed by God. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Robert Shaw writes: "The Scripture is represented as perfect, fitted to answer every necessary end, Ps. xix. 8, 9; it is sufficient to make 'the man of God perfect,' and able to make private Christians 'wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus.'—2 Tim. iii. 15-17. So complete is the Scripture, that its Author has peremptorily prohibited either to add to, or to diminish ought from it.—Deut. iv. 2; Rev. xxii. 18, 19."⁸ A. A. Hodge writes: "as a matter of fact, the Scriptures do teach a perfect system of doctrine, and all the principles which are necessary for the practical regulation of the lives of individuals, communities, and churches. The more diligent men have been in the study of the Bible, and the more assiduous they have been in carrying out its instructions into practice, the less has it been possible for them to believe that it is incomplete in any element of a perfect rule of all that which man is to believe concerning God, and of all that duty which God requires of man."⁹

When we discuss the Scripture as the inspired final revelation of God that is sufficient and complete for salvation, service to God, faith and practice, we do not mean that there are no truths that can be ascertained outside of Scripture. We noted earlier that certain things about God and ourselves are learned from natural revelation. Further, one does not need the Bible to practice elementary logic, simple mathematics and basic surface observations. The achievements of unbelieving scientists, engineers, artists, architects, medical doctors and others in the world are proof of this assertion. However, even in these so-called "secular" areas of life unbelievers must conduct their affairs in accordance with biblical presuppositions in order to get anything done. In other words, the Bible not only tells us about God, ourselves, redemption and ethics, it also is the foundation of all meaning. Apart from divine revelation man cannot really understand or account for anything. Van Til writes: "Thus the Bible, as the infallibly inspired revelation of God to sinful man, stands before us as that light in terms of which all the facts of the created universe must be interpreted. All of finite existence, natural and redemptive, functions in relation to one all-inclusive plan that is in the mind of God. Whatever insight man is to have into this pattern of the activity of God he must attain by looking at all his objects of research in the light of Scripture. If true religion is to beam upon us, our principle must be, that it is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching, and that it is impossible for any man to obtain even the minutest portion of right and sound doctrine without being a disciple of Scripture."¹⁰ Further, there are no areas of ethical neutrality in the universe. Even in areas in which the Bible does not speak directly, such as structural engineering and rocket science, it does speak indirectly. All of life is to be lived for God's glory, and even the most mundane activities are to be conducted according to general principles of God's word.

By the "perfection and sufficiency" of Scripture the Reformed confessions mean that the Bible is such a perfect and complete guide to man regarding everything that God requires us to believe (salvation, doctrine, statutes, etc.) and everything that God requires us to do (ethics, sanctification, worship ordinances, church government, etc.) that it does not need any supplementation from man. The Reformed confessions emphasize that the Bible is not one rule among many or simply the best or principal rule. It is the only rule of faith and practice. The First Helvetic Confession says: "The Canonical Scripture...doth alone perfectly contain all piety and good ordering of life" (Art. 1).¹¹ The Belgic Confession says: "We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God...the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them..." (Art. 7).¹² The Second Helvetic Confession says: "And in this Holy Scripture, the universal Church of Christ has all things fully expounded which belong to a saving faith, and also to the framing of a life acceptable to God..." (1:2). The Westminster Shorter Catechism says: "The word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him" (A. to Q. 2). The Larger Catechism says: "The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience" (A. to Q. 3). The Confession of Faith says: "The whole counsel 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..." (1.6, emphasis added).

Positively speaking, the Bible is the only rule for faith and obedience. Negatively speaking, men are expressly forbidden to add their own ideas, doctrine and/or precepts to the Scripture in any way. The French Confession says: "And seeing this is the sum of all truth, containing whatsoever is required for the worship of God and our salvation, we hold it not lawful for men, no, for the angels themselves, to add or detract anything to or from that word, or to alter any whit at all in the same" (Art. 5).¹³ The Belgic Confession says: "it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul saith. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away any thing from the Word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees, or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule which the apostles have taught us..." (Art. 7)¹⁴. The Second Helvetic Confession says: "in this respect it is expressly commanded of God that nothing be either put to or taken away from the same [the Holy Scriptures] (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19)."¹⁵ The Westminster Confession of Faith says: "...unto which [Scripture] nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (1.6).

The fact that the Bible is sufficient, perfect and complete renders all attempts at supplementing its teachings regarding faith and ethics with ideas and rules that originate in man's mind to be unbiblical and foolish. Against spiritualistic enthusiasts, charismatics, diviners and all false prophets the Westminster Confession of Faith states that no "new revelations of the Spirit" are to be added to God's word. Against the papists and all who intrude human traditions into the precepts, ordinances, worship or government of the church, the Reformed confessions condemn adding "the traditions of men" to the word of God. The doctrine of the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture protects believers from the tyranny of human requirements. No one (whether a bishop, church father, synod or council) is permitted to bind men's consciences with any doctrine or requirement. Everything must be based on Scripture, either by direct command or by good and necessary consequence. Thus the Westminster Confession of Faith says, "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 and worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience..." (20.2). Regarding good works the Confession says, "Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention" (16.1). Concerning worship the Confession says, "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 other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures" (21.1).

3. The Completeness and Finality of Scripture

When the Reformed confessions assert the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture, and when the Westminster Confession speaks against "new revelations of the Spirit," they are teaching the completeness and finality of Scripture. By Scripture we mean the completed canon (the 66 books of the Old and New Testament), the inscripturated word of God. At this point in salvation history (after the completion of Christ's redemptive work, after the person and work of Christ has been explained by the New Testament prophets and apostles and the government, worship and doctrine of the new covenant church has been fully set forth by the Holy Spirit in Scripture) the revelatory process has ceased. Scripture could not have been completed until after Jesus accomplished his work on earth. Everything in Scripture is related in some manner to the person and work of Christ. Jesus is described as the climax and finality of God speaking to man (Heb. 1:1-2).

Our Lord told his disciples that it was to their advantage that he go away, for after his ascension he would send the Holy Spirit who would guide them into all truth (Jn. 16:7, 13-15). The Spirit-inspired apostles and New Testament prophets gave us the foundation (the N.T. canon) upon which the new covenant churches build (Eph. 2:20-21). Paul said that when the perfect comes (i.e., the completed N.T. revelation), prophecy and other modes of revelation would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-12). It is a fact of history that divine revelation did cease when the last apostle died. Throughout history those who have claimed to have direct revelations from God (e.g., Montanists, Zickau prophets, Irvingites, modern charismatics, etc.) have always been false prophets. Christ and the apostles predicted the rise of false prophets and warned us not to follow their counterfeit revelations (cf. Mt. 7:15-23; 24:11; 2 Pet. 2:1 ff.; 2 Th. 2:9-11; etc.).

The fact that revelation has ceased and that Scripture has been designed by God as fully sufficient to meet all our needs (2 Tim. 3:16-17) means that if we want to know God's mind and will, our only source for this knowledge is the Bible. John Murray writes:

III. The Jewish/Romanist Rejection of Sola Scriptura

The Bible and all the Reformed confessions condemn adding the traditions of men to the word of God. Unfortunately, the principle of sola scriptura has been violated throughout church history. Two prime examples of adding traditions to God's word are rabbinic Judaism and Roman Catholicism.

Rabbinic Judaism teaches that when Moses received the written law on Mt. Sinai, he also received a very lengthy unwritten (oral) revelation. This oral revelation was then supposedly passed down to Joshua, the seventy elders, the prophets and the great rabbinic teachers generationally, until it was committed to writing in the Talmud. Although there is no question that God instructed the church before the time of Moses by unwritten words, or that prophecy continued until the close of the canon, the idea of an unwritten divine tradition continuing after the close of the canon is clearly unscriptural. Even the Pharisaical idea of an authoritative unwritten tradition functioning as a co-equal authority to written revelation while the canon remained open is condemned by Scripture in many ways. First, while the Jews are repeatedly warned not to add or detract from God's inscripturated word (Dt. 4:2; Pr. 30:5-6; Josh. 1:7-8), there are no warnings or even any remarks regarding an unwritten revelational tradition. Second, commands and warnings regarding obedience, whether found in the law (e.g., Ex. 19:7-8; Dt. 31:9, 12, 46-47) or the prophets (Jer. 36:2, 32), refer either to what was already written or to what became inscripturated prophecy. There is not a shred of evidence in the Old Testament for an authoritative tradition. Biblical teaching assumes that there is not an independent source of oral communication standing alongside of the written revelation. Third, Jesus repeatedly condemned the Jews for adding human traditions and doctrines to God's word (e.g., Mt. 15:1-3). Fourth, the Talmud (which in English translation runs to 34 large volumes) is full of contradictions, unethical teaching and blasphemous nonsense. It explicitly contradicts many of the major teachings of the Bible. Modern Judaism is not a religion of the Old Testament but a religion founded upon human tradition. Like various cults, Judaism has transferred the infallibility, absolute authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures to a human collection of writings.

The Roman Catholic Church is very similar to Judaism on the issue of authority. Romanists teach that the Bible and tradition as interpreted by the Church are the final seat of authority in religion. The Council of Trent says: "Seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions" (4th sess.; 1546).¹⁷ The Second Vatican Council says:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the church "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."¹⁹ The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the hierarchy (i.e., the bishops and the supreme Pontiff), with the help of the Holy Spirit, picks, authorizes and adds its own authoritative tradition to the written form of revelation. Romanists do not believe that the church hierarchy is making up doctrine but simply setting forth the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles that were never inscripturated. These teachings were given to the bishops as a parallel source of authority.

Romanist teaching regarding the authority of tradition gives the church hierarchy an authority over the written word of God. Christ emphatically condemned the use of tradition as a source of authority (cf. Mk. 7:5-13), because whenever tradition is set up alongside of Scripture, it eventually is placed above Scripture, and is then used to interpret Scripture. Human tradition was the chief reason that the nation of Israel in the days of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages became apostate. Throughout its history the papal church multiplied traditions until both the gospel and apostolic worship were buried under a pile of will worship and false doctrine.

Why is the Romanist doctrine of an unwritten tradition (as a co-equal authority with Scripture that somehow is kept pure by the church hierarchy and then delivered to the laity throughout history) unbiblical? There are many reasons why the Roman Catholic doctrine of an authoritative tradition must be rejected. First, the doctrine of the perfection, completeness and sufficiency of Scripture renders an authoritative tradition or further revelation from God unnecessary. Second, God's inscripturated word forbids adding or detracting from the completed canon. Third, many of the Romanist traditions that have been added as authoritative doctrine and practice explicitly contradict the clear teaching of the Bible. Fourth, many Roman Catholic traditions contradict each other. Fifth, most of the additions of the papal church had their origins long after the death of the apostles. Sixth, human tradition is dependent upon sinful, fallible men and thus is obscure, unprovable and indefinite.²⁰ An "authoritative" human tradition requires faith in sinful man's fluctuating opinions. Only toward Scripture, which is perfect, complete, sufficient and perspicuous, can we direct our faith, for it is the very word of Christ and gives us a full assurance. Seventh, the Bible itself condemns all doctrines and worship practices that are not derived from the Scriptures. "In vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Mt. 15:9; Isa. 29:13). Turretin writes:

Roman Catholic apologists attempt to justify their doctrine of an authoritative tradition by appealing to certain passages of Scripture. A brief examination of some of these passages is needed to reveal their true meaning. As we consider these passages we must keep in mind that the apostles had a unique authority. The apostles' oral teaching was authoritative and binding. Therefore, those men and churches who sat under the teaching of the apostles were obligated to obey the apostles' Spirit-inspired instruction as the very word of God, a rule for faith and life. However, the fact that the apostles could orally teach inspired authoritative truth while they were still alive (and that the churches were morally obligated to obey their teaching) does not at all prove that there is an oral authoritative tradition that is somehow preserved among the Romanist hierarchy throughout history. Scripture alone must define the phrase "apostolic tradition." Furthermore, why would the God of infinite wisdom commit some of his revelation to writing and the rest to oral tradition? While written revelation is easily preserved from corruption, oral tradition is easily corrupted and lost. Also, when a bishop or pope comes up with a new teaching from the supposed trough of unwritten apostolic tradition, how are we to determine whether or not he simply made up that doctrine out of his own imagination? Are we supposed to simply accept his own word on it? Is this not a blind faith in the words of men? The Romanist foundation of an authoritative tradition rests upon its doctrine of the special authority of the church (i.e., the sacerdotal hierarchy). It is a doctrine that in itself is totally contrary to the Bible. The only way that we can know with absolute certainty what the apostles taught is to read their inscripturated writings.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2 Paul says: "keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you." Is Paul here agreeing with the papal doctrine regarding a body of unwritten tradition transmitted by a succession of bishops from generation to generation? No, not at all. Paul is simply instructing the Corinthian believers to obey the doctrine and exhortations that he had given them when he was personally present among them. The word (paradosis) translated as "tradition" or "ordinance" (KJV), when used in reference to the rule of faith in the New Testament, always refers to the immediate instructions of inspired men. "When used in the modern sense of the word tradition, it is always in reference to what is human and untrustworthy, Gal. 1, 14. Col. 2, 8, and frequently in the gospels of the traditions of the elders."²²

A favorite proof text of Romanist apologists is 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught whether by word or by epistle." Note that Paul refers to oral or spoken doctrine as well as written teaching. Doesn't this passage perfectly fit the papal doctrine of a two-fold revelation: one written and one oral? No, absolutely not! Once again Paul is referring to inspired teaching given personally. This passage does not support the idea of a secret teaching handed down through the centuries by bishops. "Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to them via second or third hand reports. On the contrary, he was ordering them to receive as infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips."²³

In order to show the absurdity of the Romanist position let us consider one more point. Assume for a moment that the Roman Catholic position is true, that a large deposit of apostolic doctrine was given to the church orally for its own sanctification. This orally delivered doctrine is inspired, authoritative and thus all believers are required to obey it without reservation. If the church was given this great deposit of apostolic teaching, then why not simply write it all down so that everyone could immediately benefit from its divine wisdom? If this teaching is authoritative and required, why dish it out in little snippets over a period of almost two thousand years? Why not simply place it all out in the open for all to immediately benefit from it? Why did the church wait until A.D. 1079 to learn that God required the celibacy of the priesthood? Why wait until A.D. 1854 to learn about the immaculate conception of Mary? It is obvious from both the biblical and historical evidence that the papal doctrine of an authoritative tradition is merely a clever human attempt at justifying centuries of man-made doctrines and practices. The Romish doctrine of authoritative tradition is merely a human invention used to shift authority from the Bible to the church hierarchy. The reason that the pope and bishops dish out small amounts of the supposed oral apostolic tradition here and there throughout history is that it gives them incredible power. When some doctrine or practice is needed to control the laity and increase the hierarchy's power, a new doctrine or practice is simply made up or discovered by a church bureaucrat and then imposed on the laity. This gives the Roman Catholic hierarchy a cult-like power over their flock. The fact that many Roman Catholic bishops and popes may have been very sincere in their beliefs does not detract from the fact that their doctrine of authoritative tradition is a doctrine of demons. Beware of false prophets; their doctrine can devour you (cf. Mt. 7:15).

As a result of such teaching regarding authority, the Roman Catholic Church has more in common with a pagan cult than apostolic Christianity. Turretin writes:

If the papal church is to be cleansed of its damnable heresies and gross, blasphemous idolatries, it must return to the biblical doctrine of sola scriptura. The root must first be cured before the diseased and poisonous fruit is replaced.

IV. Protestant Inconsistencies

While, happily, all Protestants affirm sola scriptura, many Protestants teach and practice things which contradict the doctrine that Scripture is the sole standard for faith and life. An implicit denial of sola scriptura, whether by teaching or practice, can be found in Lutheran, Episcopal, evangelical and even Reformed churches. A brief examination of some of these inconsistencies will aid our understanding of this crucial teaching.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is both affirmed and implicitly denied in the creedal statements of the Church of England (the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion [1563, American version 1801]) and the Lutherans (the Augsburg Confession [1530] and Formula of Concord [1576, 1584]). Article six of the Thirty Nine Articles contains a good statement regarding the Bible. "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."²⁵

1. Episcopalianism

Unfortunately, the Lutheran and Episcopal symbols both contradict sola scriptura in their discussions of ecclesiastical ceremonies, church authority and tradition. The Thirty Nine Articles give the church an authority that is clearly incompatible with sola scriptura. Article 20—Of the Authority of the Church reads:

The Thirty Nine Articles give the church a power independent of Scripture. Not only can the prelates determine or abolish rites or ceremonies as they please solely on their own authority without scriptural warrant, they also reserve to themselves the power to discipline believers who "openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church." Although their creed does say that the church cannot "ordain any thing contrary to God's word written," it nevertheless give the church hierarchy a power independent of Scripture. Thus while article six affirms sola scriptura in theory, articles 20 and 34 deny it in practice. The latter articles not only give the church power to determine or abolish rites or ceremonies as she pleases without any scriptural warrant whatsoever, they also give the church the authority to discipline believers who "openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church." Article 20 does say that "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written." This statement, however (which follows the Lutheran confessions), would offer little comfort to the Puritans and Covenanters who were disciplined and persecuted for refusing to submit to man-made rites and ceremonies.

The Episcopal position on church authority and human tradition is derived from: (1) a deficient view of the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture; (2) a false understanding of the role of human reason in determining church ordinances; (3) a fallacious concept of the crown rights of the resurrected Christ.

When it comes to the government and worship of the church, Episcopalian theologians and apologists openly admit that Scripture is not a perfect rule for the church but only a partial rule. Anglicans (at least in such areas as worship and government) view the Bible as incomplete, vague and general. The Bible is like a defective map with some large roads noted yet with the details missing. If the map is to be really useful, the prelates must fill in the missing pieces. How are the details to be arrived at? The bishops will use their reason to glean from the traditions of the ancient church and add some lovely traditions of their own. The fact that God has made it abundantly clear that he despises human inventions in ethics or in worship is ignored (cf. Gen. 4:3-5; Lev. 10:1-2; Dt. 4:2; 12:32; Num. 15:39-40; 2 Sam. 6:3-7; 1 Chr. 15:13-15; 1 Kgs. 12:32-33; Jer. 7:24, 31; Isa. 29:13; Col. 2:20-23).

There is a great contrast between the Anglican and the Reformed understanding of sola scriptura and the sufficiency of Scripture. Reformed confessions regard the perfection and sufficiency of the Bible as extending not only to doctrine but also to worship and church government. If the worship and government that God has instituted in his word is sufficient, then obviously it does not need supplementation. Davies writes: "The main principle of the absolute authority of God's word in the Scriptures for faith, ethics, and worship was expressed by all Puritans. To depart from this is the utmost human impertinence and pretentiousness, for it implies that one knows God's will better than He does, or that the inherent weakness of original sin does not blind one's judgment through egocentricity."²⁹

The Episcopal concept of church authority and tradition also derives from a wrong use of human reason. Sixteenth century Anglican apologists, in their attempt to refute the dogmatic biblicism of the Puritans, gave reason a role independent of Scripture in determining the worship and government of the church. The Puritans were not against the use of reason. However, for them reason was always to be submitted to Scripture and reason was to be used to deduce doctrine and practice from the Bible itself. It was not to be used independently of Scripture. The Westminster divines refer to explicit teachings from Scripture and those deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence (1.6). Anglican apologists (especially Richard Hooker) used reason to give church authorities autonomy from the strict parameters of the word in order to justify their human traditions. (Most of these traditions were a continuation of medieval Roman Catholic practices.) Regarding Richard Hooker (the greatest of Anglican apologists), Cook writes:

Closely related to the Anglicans' improper use of human reason is their defective understanding of original sin. Davies writes: "Anglicans found man to be deficient in spiritual capacity; his other powers were weakened, but not desperately wounded and in need of redemptive blood transfusions, as the Puritans claimed. Man's reason was, for the Anglicans, unimpaired; it had a natural capacity to distinguish between good and evil in a moral order. Cranmer assumed, for example, that men could choose the good without the help of sanctifying grace. Jewel affirmed that 'Natural reason holden within her bonds is not the enemy, but the daughter of God's truth.' Donne held that reason must be employed when the meaning of Scripture is unclear, but, 'Though our supreme court...for the last appeal be Faith, yet Reason is her delegate.'"³¹ As a consequence of such a defective view regarding the effects of the fall, Anglicans did not understand the danger of allowing sinful, fallen men the right to determine rites and ceremonies of the church. The Puritans recognized that the corruption of the human heart rendered man unable to determine acceptable forms of worshiping a thrice holy God. Even the regenerated mind cannot be trusted to autonomously determine worship ordinances, for it is still struggling with the remaining effects of the fall. The only safe thing to do under such circumstances is to study what God says and follow it. "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding" (Pr. 3:5). Bushell writes:

The church fathers and theologians of the medieval era, who added many human traditions to the worship of God, no doubt thought they were inventing things that would benefit and edify the church. The result, however, was the Romish whore, the church of the Antichrist. It is for this reason that the Scriptures repeatedly warn the covenant people not to add or detract from the laws, statutes and ordinances that Jehovah has prescribed. "When the LORD your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.' You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it" (Dt. 12:29-32).

The Anglican concept of church authority and tradition is an implicit rejection of the crown rights of Jesus Christ. Episcopalian theologians are not obedient to the great commission in which Jesus commanded the church to teach the nations "to observe all things that I have commanded you" (Mt. 28:20). Their version of the great commission should read, "teach the nations to observe all things that I have commanded you and all things that the bishops decide are unto edification." When prelates or anyone else places human laws, religious ordinances, ceremonies or rites alongside of God's revealed will, then such men are giving themselves an authority that belongs solely to God. Only God has the authority to declare an act moral or immoral. Yet men and women have been disciplined and persecuted simply for refusing to submit to humanly-devised rites and ceremonies. Every use of human tradition in the worship of Jehovah is implicitly Romanist and tyrannical. Although evangelical congregations and backslidden Reformed churches may not use the rack, the boot, imprisonment, confiscation or banishment to punish modern Puritans, they do use many subtle and not-so-subtle forms of coercion, discipline and disapproval. Regardless of many churches' disapprobation of biblical worship, we must never place our faith in the autonomous religious ordinances of finite sinful men.³³ It is wicked and foolish to look to human traditions in worship as if they were a part of God's word. Biblical faith must be directed solely to Christ and His word, "for all our obedience in the worship of God is the obedience of faith. And if the Scripture be the rule of faith, our faith is not, in any of its concerns, to be extended beyond it, no more than the thing regulated is to be beyond the rule."³⁴

Jesus Christ is the only king and sole lawgiver to the church. Whenever men add human laws, ordinances, rites or ceremonies to what Christ has authorized in his word, they deny believers the liberty they have in Christ. Owen writes:

Ironically (today), opponents of sola scriptura as applied to worship (i.e., the regulative principle of worship) have attempted to turn the tables against modern Puritans by arguing that the regulativists are the ones who deny believers liberty by not allowing non-regulativists the opportunity to introduce human innovations into the worship of God. The problem with such an argument is that liberty as defined by Scripture never means liberty from God's law or liberty to devise one's own worship ordinances or ceremonies apart from God's word. Biblical liberty refers to: (1) our freedom from obedience to the law as a means of justification before God (e.g., Rom. 3:28); (2) our deliverance from the power of sin in us (e.g., Rom. 6:6 ff.); (3) the abrogation of the ceremonial law and thus our freedom from it; (4) our freedom in areas that are truly adiaphora, that is, things indifferent (e.g., Rom. 14:20). Christian liberty never means that we are permitted to add to God's moral precepts or that we can add to the worship that God has prescribed. Such a notion assumes that the most important and reverent activity that Christians engage in (the worship of God) is somehow within the sphere of adiaphora. That idea is plainly unbiblical and absurd.

True freedom comes from a proper understanding of the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura and the correlative doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. Of the Puritans Rawlinson writes:

Because consistently Reformed churches do not allow humans traditions in worship, they never discipline people for adhering only to the worship prescribed in Scripture. It is only in churches that add human traditions that believers are ostracized and persecuted, and ministers are fired for holding to pure gospel worship. How can modern Puritans be accused of denying anyone's liberty when all they are guilty of is following the laws and ordinances of Scripture without human admixture? "[T]he value of providing a biblical warrant for all the ordinances of Puritan worship was that this gave these ordinances an August authority for those who used them, as the Puritans did, in the obedience of faith."³⁷ Those who add human inventions to the worship of God can never adequately deal with the issue of authority for their human innovations. There is no divine authority undergirding their practices, and there is no divine authority behind the coercion that is involved in their implementation and continuance. John Owen writes:

Those who do not consider divine warrant an important issue for the government and worship of the church should remember that over 18,000 men, women and children who were dedicated Scottish Presbyterians (Covenanters) were murdered simply for refusing to submit to the human ordinances of Prelacy.

A consideration of non-authorized man-made worship reveals not only that such worship is by nature without divine authority and therefore tyrannical but also anthropocentric. What is the purpose of all the pomp, pageantry and spectacle of Anglican worship? Why the dramatic cathedrals? Why the stained glass, special holy days, special gestures and special priestly dress? The reason is not that God has commanded such things and thus takes delight in them. God is by no means impressed with fancy cathedrals, bells, smells and silly vestments. The whole purpose of the various man-made adornments (aside from high church sacerdotalism) is to have some psychological effect upon man. The popish paraphernalia and medieval trappings retained in Anglican churches were considered aids or helps to devotion. They were intended to strike awe, reverence and inspiration among the worshipers. The cathedral with its pomp and ceremony served a similar function to the LSD, reefers and light show that a hippie would experience during a rock concert. They set the mood and manipulate the heart. At bottom all such human devices invented for human enjoyment and psychological effect reveal a serious lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to accompany pure gospel worship. The pomp and pageantry of Anglican worship is an implicit denial that the worship authorized and designed by Jesus Christ is adequate unto the end for which it was intended. George Gillespie warns that human ceremonies obscure true religion. He writes:

For the opponents of the regulative principle of worship who accuse Puritan worship of being guilty of a "nominalistic minimalism" or a "color-blind iconclasm" we ask the following questions: What human improvements can be made to the singing of God's inspired Psalms? What (in the words of John Bunyan) ear-gate, mouth-gate and eye gate human additions are needed to supplement hearing God's word read and preached and looking and feasting upon the flesh and blood of the Son of God? What are fancy buildings, silly popish dress, ceremonies and Romish pomp compared to the ordinances given to us by our most blessed Lord and Savior? Is placing our faith in the infallible words of Christ not enough? Must we also place our faith in the words and inventions of men?⁴⁰

2. Lutheranism

The Lutheran churches have also departed from sola scriptura in their understanding and regulation of public worship. The Augsburg Confession (A.D. 1530) reads:

The Formula of Concord (1576 [1584]), Article 10, Of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies, reads:

The confessional Lutheran position on worship is basically one in which men can add to the worship of God as they please, as long as the human additions are not considered a part of worship. The church is permitted to add rites and ceremonies as long as they are not condemned by the word and are deemed profitable. The human traditions that are added, however, are "neither divine worship, nor even a part of divine worship." According to Lutheran theologians the man-made rites and ceremonies are merely external matters and are not actually worship; therefore, they can be different in different places; they can be added to or detracted from at will; and they cannot be imposed upon the laity as compulsory.

The Lutheran understanding of worship was developed early in the Reformation and was directed primarily against Rome. For Luther and Melanchthon the main problem with papal rites and ceremonies was that they were compulsory and considered necessary for salvation. Luther writes:

In his Apology Melanchthon writes: "For Scripture calls traditions doctrines of demons, when it is taught that religious rites are serviceable to merit the remission of sins and grace (218, 4). If the adversaries defend these human services as meriting justification, grace and the remission of sins, they absolutely establish the kingdom of Antichrist (220, 18). Daniel (11, 38) indicates that new human services will be the very form and constitution of Antichrist (221, 19)."⁴⁶

The major differences between Reformed and Lutheran worship are the result of the different theological viewpoints of Luther and Calvin. One could add that with regard to church practice Luther was very conservative. For Luther the major doctrine to which practically every other teaching must be considered in order to be understood was justification by faith. It was the chief doctrine by which the church stood or fell. Therefore, when Luther turned to the reformation of the medieval style worship that he was accustomed to he used a scalpel and not an axe. Although Luther was a champion of sola scriptura, he never made the connection between Scripture alone and the need of divine warrant for worship ordinances, as did Calvin. When Luther looked at worship practice his major concern was, Is this practice motivated by a belief in justification by works? Does this ritual or practice detract in any way from the perfect, all-sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ? With these criteria Luther eliminated may abuses (e.g., the Roman Catholic Mass, pilgrimages, the saints as mediators, the sacerdotal priesthood, etc.). Luther also held that any worship practice that contradicted the clear teaching of Scripture must be avoided. Therefore, the church service should be intelligible to the people. It should be conducted in their own language. Communion should be served in both kinds—the bread and the wine. Preaching should be emphasized so the flock will receive instruction and edification rather than a vain mumbling in Latin. Another important issue with Luther was the matter of Christian liberty. Human traditions in worship were adiaphora and should not be forced upon the people. Such coercion smacked of Romanism and merit-mongering.

Luther had a favorable view of church traditions. Human traditions in church should be respected and considered valuable as long as they do not contradict Scripture. This view of tradition is observed in Luther's doctrine of the "orders." Davies writes:

The Lutheran confessions faithfully reflect Luther's teaching regarding human ceremonies. Church traditions (i.e., humanly devised rites and ceremonies not prescribed in Scripture) are permissible if: (1) they are not Romanizing (that is, no human merit is connected to the ceremonies), (2) the ceremonies do not violate the teaching of Scripture, (3) they are not over-multiplied to the point where believers think less highly of real biblical commandments (e.g., the Lord's supper), (4) they are not compulsory (that is, they are not to be conformed under pressure). In other words, they are not to be considered necessary acts of worship. (A necessary act of worship is that which is commanded by Scripture [e.g., the sacraments].)

Lutherans teach that the church is permitted to add rites and ceremonies only within the sphere of adiaphora (Gk. for "things indifferent"). Allbeck writes:

The Lutheran understanding of sola scriptura does not permit the church to add its own doctrines to the teachings of Scripture, nor does it allow the church to add to "essential" or "commanded" worship (i.e., the sacraments). It does, however, give the church a very large role in determining rites and ceremonies simply by declaring the human additions to be within the realm of adiaphora. In theory the Lutheran statements regarding worship are superior to the Episcopalian teachings. At least the Lutherans do not regard their human additions as an actual part of worship. They also claim that the human rites and ceremonies are not compulsory like the worship ordinances commanded in Scripture. In practice, however, the Lutheran churches are no better than their Episcopal counterparts. Both deny the sufficiency of Scripture in the realm of worship. Both are guilty of allowing human corruptions to displace pure gospel worship. They both deny that the worship of God in the new covenant era is fixed or limited by the canon of Scripture. As a consequence both leave the parameters of acceptable worship in a state of flux. The boundaries of worship are always changing because they are determined not by Scripture alone but also by human tradition, and there are an infinite number of worship options available to man that do not violate the Lutheran principle of allowing anything not expressly forbidden.

There are a number of reasons why the Lutheran understanding of worship must be rejected as unscriptural and irrational. First, the idea that external rites or ceremonies are adiaphora is unbiblical. Every act in the moral and religious sphere is always either good or bad. The only activities that may be considered adiaphora are matters that are truly circumstantial or incidental to the ceremonies such as setting up chairs, turning on lights, etc. Activities that are circumstantial do not need to be proven by Scripture. However, they do need to be conducted according to the general rules of the word. Williamson writes:

The style of church architecture, lighting, heating, seating arrangements and length of service are circumstantial to the worship of God. However, sprinkling holy water, making the sign of the cross, disallowing meat on Fridays, using salt and cream during infant baptism, confirmation, Christmas and Easter celebration, special ceremonial priestly garments and kneeling at the Lord's supper are not circumstantial to worship but additions to the worship itself.

Man-made innovations in worship are strictly forbidden by Scripture. The Bible teaches that men are not to add or detract from God's moral precepts (cf. Dt. 4:2; Josh. 1:7-8; Pr. 30:5-6) and men are not to add or detract from the worship that God has instituted in His word (cf. Dt. 12:32; Lev. 10:1-2; 2 Sam. 6:3-7; Jer. 7:31; 19:5). The Lutheran idea that man-made rites or ceremonies are not worship is unbiblical and totally arbitrary. We know that God considers human rites or ceremonies to be unauthorized, unacceptable and sinful additions to worship. Jehovah killed Nadab and Abihu for conducting a humanly-devised ceremony (the burning of strange fire, Lev. 10:1, 2). Although Lutheran theologians do not regard humanly-devised acts of worship as real worship, God refers to all such human inventions as "will worship" (Col. 2:20-23). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for the humanly-devised rite of religious hand washing (Mt. 15:1-3). The Jews received this rebuke from our Lord not because there is anything intrinsically immoral regarding hand washings but because the church does not have the authority to add her own religious ceremonies to what God has authorized in His word. Some have argued that Jesus was only condemning bad or unedifying human traditions being added to what God has commanded. The problem with this argument is that religious hand washings from a strictly ethical standpoint harm no one. Jesus picked the most innocent, innocuous religious human tradition possible to make the point crystal clear that no human additions are acceptable to God no matter how small or "innocent."

Second, the Lutheran assertion that man-made rites and ceremonies are not obligatory or compulsory is not the actual practice of the Lutherans or anyone else. Why? Because when human ceremonies are introduced into the public worship of God they are always practiced under some form of human compulsion. The moment that human traditions are introduced into the church service people are forced either to depart from that church to avoid the human additions or to commit sin by participating in unauthorized ceremonies. Whenever a church adds man-made ceremonies to the worship of God there is always ecclesiastical and social pressure to submit to the man-made ordinances. Church members are expected and urged to follow the church calendar, go to the Christmas and Easter service, sing uninspired hymns, listen to the musical groups, watch the children's choir, participate in the altar call, etc. Even in many "Reformed" churches there is pressure or coercion applied to people so that they will conform to the various corruptions that have accumulated over the years. People have even been disciplined for refusing to participate in silly and Romish human inventions (e.g., uninspired hymns, holy days, children's church, etc.).⁵⁰

The Lutheran concept of non-compulsory human traditions may sound good as a theory, but in practice it corrupts the church and destroys Christian liberty. The Bible teaches that God alone speaking in His infallible word has an absolute, unqualified authority over men's consciences. Thus, the Westminster Confession of Faith asserts: "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to His Word; or beside it, if 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" (20.2). Believers in Christ are free not only from doctrines and commandments which are contrary to God's word, such as confession to a priest, the Mass, celebrating holy days besides the Lord's day, etc., they also are free from doctrines and commandments which are additions to the Bible, that is, they may not explicitly contradict Scripture but are not taught in Scripture; they are derived from human authority. "Any doctrine or commandment contrary to or besides His will in matters religious the Christian not only may but must disobey. Liberty of conscience means the liberty of the individual to obey God rather than man."⁵¹

Although Lutherans insist (as noted above) that their human additions are not compulsory (in order to avoid the appearance of being Romanistic) they indeed are compulsory. Even the great Martin Luther was inconsistent. Davies writes:

Are we supposed to believe that a Lutheran minister and his congregation would be left unmolested by church authorities if they decided to discard the church calendar, extra-biblical holy days, hymnals, organs, crosses and all other human innovations that lack divine warrant? Sadly, Lutheran congregants, like their Anglican counterparts, are expected to submit to the ceremonies and commandments of men with an implicit faith and blind obedience. Remember, "Whatsoever is not done in faith, nor accompanied with a personal persuasion of the obligation or lawfulness of it in the sight of God, is pronounced to be sin—Rom. xiv. 23."⁵³ Hodge writes: "[I]t is a great sin, involving at the same time sacrilege, and treason to the human race, for any man or set of men to arrogate the prerogative of God and to attempt to bind the consciences of their fellow men by any obligation not certainly imposed by God and revealed in his Word."⁵⁴ Furthermore, when men participate in worship ordinances that originate in the mind of man—that are not based upon Scripture but ecclesiastical authority—they are not doing religious homage to God (who never appointed such rites or ceremonies) but to man. They are in principle bowing down to the autonomous authority of sinful men. Worshiping God without a divine appointment is an implicit acknowledgment of popery and prelacy. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 Jn. 5:21).

Third, the Lutheran position suffers from an irreconcilable internal contradiction. According to the Lutheran confessions men are permitted to add their own traditions, rites or ceremonies to the worship of God, only if the additions are edifying and are not regarded as compulsory. These qualifications raise an important question. If men have the ability to devise a tradition, rite or ceremony that truly sanctifies believers, should not that ceremony, if it really edified God's people, be mandatory? The Anglican articles which state that the church can make up rites or ceremonies that she regards as edifying and then impose them on the flock with ecclesiastical discipline if necessary is more logical. If a human tradition, rite or ceremony sanctifies then it should be mandatory. It is important to note, however, that the apostle Paul teaches that human commandments and ordinances do not edify or sanctify the church. He writes: "Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—'Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,' which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh" (Col 2:20-23). Human rites and ceremonies are the commandments of men. They appear to be wise and edifying; however, the truth is that they do not sanctify at all. The Holy Spirit does not use human traditions, rites or ceremonies to edify the church. He uses the word of God. "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth" (Jn. 17:17). If we want to receive edification, then we must only follow God's laws, statutes and religious ordinances. Papal, prelatic and/or fundamentalistic legalism does not edify.⁵⁵

Fourth, the Lutheran assertion that man-made rites or ceremonies are not worship is fictitious nonsense. When ecclesiastical authorities devise a religious ceremony and then place it into the public worship service alongside of worship ordinances authorized in Scripture, they are implicitly teaching that the man-made ceremonies are of the same type and carry an equal authority to divinely instituted ordinances. When men intermingle human ceremonies with divine ordinances in the worship service, do they expect the worshipers to distinguish between the two (human and divine) as the service proceeds? Furthermore, if the man-made religious ceremonies are not worship, then what are they? What is their purpose? Why are they conducted during the worship service? Why are they listed in the church bulletin as part of the public worship of God? Frank Smith writes:

The Lutheran idea that their human additions to worship are not really worship shows the deceitfulness of the human heart. Men are so in love with their non-authorized human traditions that they will twist the plain meaning of words and resort to illogical and unsound arguments and exegetical gymnastics to justify their sinful practices. The Lutheran conception is very similar to the absurd Roman Catholic assertion that worship of the saints and the virgin Mary is not really worship. It is alleged that when Romanists bow and worship God, it is a special worship (latria). But when they bow down to and worship the saints and blessed virgin, it is doulia (or, for Mary, hyperdoulia). We must recognize that all such pharisaical-type distinctions are nothing more than clever excuses for departing from the worship that God has prescribed. Against all tyrannical usurpations and encroachments of the church Christ says: "And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Mt. 15:9; cf. Isa. 29:13).

3. Evangelicalism

Evangelicals are also guilty of restricting the application of the Bible's authority. When it comes to worship, evangelicals do not believe that Scripture is sufficient. They would say that nothing sinful ought to be a part of worship. However, they believe that men have the authority to make up any form or content of worship that they think is useful. Unfortunately, the Lutheran or Episcopal understanding of worship has been embraced by the vast majority of professing Christians. This pragmatic understanding of worship has predictably led to liturgical chaos in evangelical churches. Whenever churches abandon sola scriptura in the sphere of worship and adopt pragmatism, the result is a worship service that becomes increasingly anthropocentric and pagan.

This fact has become increasingly evident in the last thirty years as churches have adopted the worship paradigm of the church growth experts. These "experts," who look to business, psychology and sociology for wisdom rather than the Bible, argue that the best method for attaining church growth is to make the church user-friendly to unbelievers. This tactic involves a de-emphasis on the preached word and the sacraments in favor of a service that titillates and entertains. The emphasis in most modern evangelical worship services is on entertainment. Such services do not feed the intellect but rather stir the emotions. Modern worship services have little in common with apostolic worship and much in common with Las Vegas, Hollywood and Broadway. In many churches people even applaud after a performance, as if they were at a play or concert.

As a result the modern evangelical worship service does not glorify God but instead glorifies man. It is basically a show for man, directed to man, with man-pleasing songs and lots of entertainment: comedian pastors, music soloists, rock groups, "gospel" bands, celebrity guest speakers, plays, skits, videos, singers, choirs, liturgical dancing and so on. Pragmatic man-centered worship has even influenced church architecture. The central feature of a Puritan meeting house was the pulpit on which rested a large Bible. The central feature of the modern mega-church is the stage. The men who designed Episcopal and Lutheran worship with all its man-made defects at least attempted to be reverent and majestic. Modern evangelical worship is usually neither; it is crass, tasteless pablum.

When we approach a thrice-holy God who is infinite in perfections, should not our sole concern be to learn what He has prescribed and then focus our attention on what pleases him rather than on what pleases us and makes us feel good? When we consistently adhere to sola scriptura and thus depend solely upon God's infallible and sufficient word to determine what is acceptable worship, we eliminate the possibility of popish, pagan, prelatic, or pragmatic will-worship from being intruded upon the church. Worship is arguably the most important activity engaged in by the church. Therefore, when we seek direction regarding worship, should we not place our trust in God and his infallible word rather than the opinions of sinful man? "We have to do with a God who is very jealous; who will be worshiped as He wills, or not at all. Nor can we complain. If God be such a Being as we are taught in the Holy Scripture, it must be His inalienable right to determine and prescribe how He will be served."⁵⁷ The idea that sinful men can add to, improve upon and make more sufficient the worship that God has authorized in his word is arrogant and foolish. Young writes:

4. Reformed Declension

Many Reformed churches have also abandoned the Bible's sole authority over worship. Many Reformed and Presbyterian denominations still officially hold to sola scriptura in the sphere of worship. The rule of Scripture over worship is called the regulative principle of worship. This principle declares that all the parts or elements of worship must have divine warrant, that is, everything that is a part of worship that holds a religious significance (i.e., things or acts that are not circumstantial) must be authorized either by a direct command in Scripture (e.g., "Do this in remembrance of Me," Lk. 22:19); or by logical inference from Scripture (i.e., there may not be an explicit command but when several passages are compared they teach or infer a scriptural practice [e.g., infant baptism]); or by biblical historical example (e.g., the change from the seventh day to the first day of the week for corporate public worship). Simply put, every worship practice must be proven from Scripture. This principle (if strictly followed) eliminates all human innovation, pragmatism and pagan syncretism from worship and thus leaves the church in the same state as it was in the days of the apostles.

Unfortunately, most Reformed churches today have departed from the regulative principle and thus allow many practices that have not been prescribed by the Bible (e.g., extra-biblical holy days such as Christmas and Easter, uninspired hymns, choirs, instrumental music, etc.). Many Reformed churches are following in the footsteps of Arminian, revivalistic, charismatic, and the church growth movement style of worship. An excellent example of the current deterioration is the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The following statistics document their declension. Twenty-five years ago the PCA had approximately 2% exclusive Psalms singing churches; 40% "traditional" (e.g., Trinity Hymnal with piano and organ); 50% "traditional" with a few "Scripture songs" and a variety of musical instrumentation; and only 8% had a "traditional/contemporary" mix. Today, approximately 70% of their churches have a "traditional/contemporary" mix. Hurst writes: "If [they] don't have dance and drama, it's only because there is no one to lead it; women and young people may lead worship as individuals praying and reading Scripture, applause [is] acceptable for [a] job well done; music may take the form of [a] performance."⁵⁹ Less than 1% of PCA churches today adhere to exclusive Psalmody (i.e., biblical worship).

Some conservatives within Reformed denominations have expressed a concern regarding the rapid trend away from "traditional" worship toward "contemporary" or "celebrative" worship in their denominations. These men attempt to stem the tide of new-fangled worship with discussions on how worship must be dignified, majestic and reverent. Their battle cry is "decently and in order." While we heartily agree with our brothers regarding the need for reverence, decency and orderliness in the public worship of God, we disagree regarding the fundamental problem that is causing such a rapid declension in worship. To cure the disease, one must do more than attempt to alleviate the symptoms; one must go to the root of the problem. As long as Reformed denominations reject or redefine the regulative principle of worship, rendering it virtually useless, all efforts at serious reformation in worship will be defeated. Without a strict interpretation of the regulative principle, the debate over worship shifts from an exegetical discussion of what is warranted by Scripture to primarily a debate over human preferences. The beauty and wisdom of the regulative principle of worship is that it protects the church from our own sinful hearts. Worship that is fixed and founded deep upon the bedrock of Scripture is immune from the wind and waves of human opinion, fashion and fad.

V. Some Contemporary Objections to Sola Scriptura
in the Sphere of Worship Considered and Refuted

Today, the most vocal critics of sola scriptura applied to the sphere of worship (i.e., the regulative principle) are men who consider themselves "truly Reformed."⁶⁰ These apologists for declension and the status quo have come up with some interesting arguments that they think justify a wholesale abandonment of the regulative principle of worship in favor of a Lutheran/Episcopalian conception of worship. In order to sharpen our understanding of sola scriptura's relationship to biblical worship, we will examine and refute such arguments.

1. The "False Understanding of Ethics and Adiaphora" Argument

The first argument used against the regulative principle of worship is based on a false understanding of the meaning and relationship of sola scriptura, the regulative principle and Christian liberty or adiaphora. Schlissel writes:

Schlissel's statement is perhaps the most popular modern argument against the regulative principle. He argues that Deuteronomy 4:2 refers to the whole law which regulates all of life. Since all of life contains many activities that are not strictly regulated, that are left to the free choice of man (e.g., "Should I wear blue pants or grey pants?"). Therefore, the virtually identical regulative principle proof text passages such as Deuteronomy 12:32 must also be interpreted in such a manner that leaves man a great deal of liberty in the sphere of worship.

Schlissel's argument against the regulative principle is founded upon a complete misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 4:2 and therefore should be rejected as unscriptural. His false understanding of this passage and its application to the area of worship is based on a glaring failure to distinguish between God-given ethics and areas of adiaphora. Schlissel's assertion that Deuteronomy 4:2 "was not to be taken absolutely when it forbids additions and subtractions" is totally false. Deuteronomy 4:2 teaches that men are not permitted to add or detract from God's commandments. In other words, God is the sole source of ethics for personal, family, institutional and civil life. Men do not have ethical autonomy. They do not have any authority to make up ethical absolutes, nor are they permitted to ignore or detract from God's law in any way. R. J. Rushdoony has a clear understanding of the implications of passages such as Deuteronomy 4:2. He writes:

Men do not have the authority to declare a thought, word or deed evil or sinful apart from proving such by a biblical commandment or deduction from the Bible.

Does the fact that there are many matters in life that are adiaphora or indifferent ⁶³ (e.g., skateboarding, planting tomatoes, riding a bike, etc.) mean that Deuteronomy 4:2 was not meant to be taken strictly? Does it mean that men are permitted to add or detract from God's law? No, absolutely not! Likewise in the sphere of commanded or authorized worship men do not have liberty to add or detract one iota from the worship that God has instituted. However, men do have a great deal of liberty in areas that are circumstantial or incidental to worship itself. Schlissel's arguments fail to recognize the distinction between ethics and adiaphora, worship ordinances and the circumstances of worship.

If opponents of the regulative principle of worship want to use Deuteronomy 4:2 as a proof text against the Reformed understanding of a strictly regulated worship, they need to demonstrate that worship ordinances belong to the sphere of life that is adiaphora. Are the parts or elements of worship that are delineated in Scripture in the same category as riding a bike, or wearing blue pants instead of grey pants, or planting beefsteak tomatoes instead of early girl tomatoes? The answer is: obviously not. Adiaphora refers to matters that are indifferent to ethics (e.g., Should I boil my eggs or scramble them for breakfast?). That is, they involve activities that are neither commanded nor forbidden, and therefore the decision whether or not to commit the act or not commit the act does not involve sin or a violation of God's word. As long as men act in accordance with the general rules of Scripture (i.e., Is it done to God's glory [1 Cor. 10:31; Rom. 4:7-9]? Does it cause a weak brother to sin [Rom. 14:21]? Can it be done in faith with a clear conscience [Rom. 14:14, 23]? Can I engage in this activity without coming under its power [1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23; e.g., tobacco addiction]?), men have liberty to commit or refrain from the act.

Worship ordinances do not involve the liberty to do as one desires and therefore cannot be placed in the category of adiaphora. Are Christians free to omit or add to the elements of religious worship as they please? Can a church lawfully eliminate the Lord's supper and replace it with a new sacrament? Would the elders of a church be obedient to Christ if they replaced trinitarian baptism with a man-made ritual? Is it permissible to eliminate the Scripture reading and replace it with Shakespeare or a rock video? Would it be sinful to eliminate the preaching of God's word and replace it with a "Christian" movie or a "Christian" comedy hour or variety show? The answer to these questions is obvious (no, no, no and no). If one places worship ordinances in the category of adiaphora, then everything involved in public worship and even public worship itself is optional. Furthermore, one could have two, zero or 20 sacraments.

Because worship ordinances are required by Scripture, they should never be treated as adiaphora. Rather, they should receive the same treatment as God's moral law. Areas of life that are adiaphora correspond not to worship ordinances but to the circumstances of worship (e.g., Should we start the service at 10:30 a.m. or 11:00 a.m.? Should the meeting house have blue carpeting or maroon carpeting? Should we use wooden pews or folding chairs? etc.). Ironically, Deuteronomy 4:2, when properly understood, is one of the strongest proof texts for the regulative principle of worship, for the regulative principle logically follows sola scriptura. Protestant reformer John Knox concurs:

2. The "All of Life Is Worship" Argument

An argument that is closely related to the argument from Deuteronomy 4:2 is one which claims that all of life is worship, and since life contains many activities that are not strictly regulated by Scripture, therefore worship is not strictly regulated either. Although, as Christians, everything we do is to be done to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), and thus we are to live to the Lord (Rom. 14:7-8) and present our bodies as living sacrifices to God (Rom. 12:1), the idea that all of life is worship and therefore no distinction exists between public worship and activities like mowing the lawn is absurd. There are several reasons why we must regard "the all of life is worship" argument as unscriptural.

First, there are several passages from both the Old and New Testaments which teach and/or assume that public worship is special and set apart from everyday life.

Psalm 22:22, 25. "I will declare Your name to My brethren; in the midst of the assembly I will praise You.... My praise shall be of You in the great assembly; I will pay My vows before those who fear Him."

Psalm 27:4. "One thing I have desired of the LORD, that will I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in His temple." David Dickson writes:

In his application of this passage to believers in the new covenant era Calvin writes: "The Word, sacraments, public prayers, and other helps of the same kind, cannot be neglected, without a wicked contempt of God, who manifests himself to us in these ordinance, as in a mirror or image."⁶⁶

Psalm 84:1-2. "How lovely is Your tabernacle, O LORD of hosts! My soul longs, yes, even faints for the courts of the LORD; my heart and my flesh cry out for the living God." Calvin writes:

Plummer writes: "The appointed worship of the true God has in all ages possessed great attractions for the regenerate."⁶⁸

Psalm 87:2. "The LORD loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob." David Clarkson writes:

Ecclesiastes 5:1-2. "Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few" (KJV). This passage alone proves that public worship is unique and special. There is to be a solemn recognition of the special presence of God in public worship and thus great care must be taken to be sincere, reverent, composed, deliberate and attentive. Matthew Henry writes:

It is obvious from this and many other passages that public worship is to be treated by God's people far differently than attending a sporting even or going to a barbecue. Frank Smith writes:

Leviticus 23:3. "Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work in it; it is the Sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings." After Israel was settled in the land, this requirement of weekly public worship could only be put into practice if there were many congregations meeting throughout the land of Israel. These decentralized congregational worship services would of course not contain the ceremonial elements of tabernacle or temple worship (such as animal sacrifices). Matthew Henry writes:

Acts 15:21. "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath" (cf. Ps. 74:8).

Hebrews 10:24-25. "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." Unlike everyday activities such as skateboarding, gardening and driving a car, public worship is not an area that believers can treat with indifference, for it is not an optional activity. Those who regard "all of life as worship" (like those who misinterpret Deuteronomy 4:2) completely misunderstand the difference between public worship, the commanded elements of that worship and matters indifferent or common to human actions and societies. Once an activity is commanded and set apart by God, we cannot treat that activity as optional or adiaphora. Singing praise to God in public worship is in an entirely different category than planting tomatoes, even though both are done to God's glory.

Second, Christ the king and head of the church has appointed public officers with special public functions that require a special public use. "Therefore He says: 'When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.... And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Eph. 4:8, 11, 12). The Bible has certain requirements for preaching, reading the Scriptures and administrating the sacraments in public worship. These worship elements are only to be conducted by an ordained teacher or preacher and must not be treated as indifferent activities of everyday life. If there is no distinction between all of life and public worship, then why are public ordinances restricted to ordained officers in the church? If all of life is worship, then such rules and distinctions would be unnecessary.

Third, when the apostle Paul discusses the conduct of believers during public worship, he sets forth regulations that presuppose a sharp distinction between public worship and all of life. For example, women may speak at a barbecue and may teach their children during home school, yet they are strictly forbidden to speak or teach during the public worship service (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12-14). Regarding the Lord's supper, Paul tells believers that they must conduct themselves in a proper manner when coming to the Lord's table. They are to examine themselves and are to make sure that they have a special regard for their brethren (1 Cor 11:17-34). The regulations regarding this sacrament obviously do not apply to the local picnic or volleyball game. There is also a special decorum for public worship that is commanded by Paul. Men are not to wear head coverings in church while women are (1 Cor. 11:2-16). However, men may wear baseball caps at the ball park. If all of life is worship (as some assert), and thus worship is not to be strictly regulated by Scripture, then the apostle Paul's inspired instructions regarding public worship would be superfluous.

Fourth, the term for church (ekklesia) often denotes a society of professing Christians who constitute a local church that meets together for public worship in a particular location (Ac. 5:11; 11:26; 1 Cor. 11:18; 16:19; Rom. 16:23; Gal. 1:2; 1 Th. 2:14; Col. 4:15; Phm. 2; Rev. 1:11; 20, etc.). Hodge writes:

The New Testament church met together for public worship on the Lord's day (Ac. 2:1; 20:7; 1 Cor. 14:23, 26, 34, 35; 16:1, 2). Lord's day public worship was commanded by God (Lev. 23:3; Heb. 10:24-45). It is a period of time that is set apart from everyday life. Public worship consists of certain elements that are authorized by Scripture such as: reading the Scriptures (Dt. 31:9-13; Neh. 8:7-8; 13:1; 1 Th. 5:27; Col. 4:16; 1 Tim. 4:13); prayer (Ac. 4:31; 1 Cor. 11:13-15); preaching from the Bible (Ac. 17:13; 20:8; 1 Cor. 14:28; 1 Tim. 4:13: 2 Tim. 4:2); the administration of the sacraments (Mt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:18-34) and the singing of Psalms (1 Chr. 16:9; Ps. 95:1-2; 105:2; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). It clearly would be inappropriate to treat public worship conducted by the church in the same manner as areas of life that are indifferent or adiaphora.

Fifth, the Bible teaches that there is a special presence of God in public worship. In a special sense Christ is speaking to his covenant people through the preached word. The people as a covenant body respond to God's word with prayer and praise. The confession of sins to God includes both individual and corporate sins. When the one body partakes of the Lord's supper (the bread and wine), there is a special blessing that is received from our Lord. Yet an unworthy partaking of the supper (e.g. when the corporate assembled body is disregarded, etc.) involves covenant sanctions and even death (1 Cor. 11:27-34). Cases of serious public sin and excommunication are to be announced during public worship where Christ is present in his court (Mt. 18:20), where the excommunicate is delivered to Satan by Christ's power (1 Cor. 5:4). Not only does the congregation receive a special blessing from the public means of grace and God's unique presence, but God is more glorified when he is praised by the corporate body of Christ. Clarkson writes:

One should not be surprised that God is present in public worship in a special manner, for nothing on earth more resembles the throne room of God in heaven than public worship. Heaven is described in Scripture as a place of continued public worship where an innumerable host of angels and saints behold the face of God and the Lamb (Rev. 1:9-12). "The innumerable company of angels, and the church of the first born, make up one general assembly in the heavenly Jerusalem, Heb. xii. 22, 23. They make one glorious congregation, and so jointly together sing the praises of him that sits on the throne, and the praises of the Lamb, and continue in this public worship to eternity."⁷⁶

To argue that all of life is worship and thus public worship is not strictly regulated by God's word is akin to comparing the Lord's supper to that which is common or profane.

3. "The Regulative Principle of Worship Only Applies to the Temple" Argument

Another popular argument against the regulative principle of worship is based on the idea that the regulative principle only applied to tabernacle and temple worship. This idea is based on the context of the classic regulative principle text, Deuteronomy 12:32, and the notion that God was very strict with the tabernacle/temple worship solely because the temple service typified the person and work of Jesus Christ. If one accepts this argument then one can conclude that: (1) The decentralized worship in Israel that occurred in the synagogue was not strictly regulated. In other words, the Israelites could do whatever they desired in worship as long as it did not violate the express teaching of Scripture (this is essentially the Episcopal-Lutheran conception of acceptable worship). (2) The regulative principle was abrogated with the death of Christ when his perfect sacrifice rendered the temple cultus unnecessary. (3) Therefore, the new covenant church has nothing to do with the regulative principle and has liberty to devise rites, ceremonies and holy days as it desires, as long as the human inventions do not violate or contradict God's word.

The idea that the regulative principle only applied to the service of the central sanctuary must be rejected for a number of reasons. First, the notion that since Deuteronomy 12:32 is given in a section that deals primarily with the tabernacle, and thus only apples to the tabernacle is simply assumed without exegetical proof. Are we told anywhere in chapter 12 or anywhere in the whole Old or New Testament that the principle of no addition or subtraction is limited to the tabernacle or temple? No, we are not. But can we not infer from the context that this ultra-strict principle applied only to the tabernacle/temple? No. In fact the context proves the exact opposite. While it is true that chapter 12 contains a lengthy discussion of the central sanctuary (in particular the need to offer sacrifices and offerings at the central sanctuary) the context of Deuteronomy 12:32 also speaks to the matters of the repression of idolatry and syncretism with pagan worship that can occur not only at the tabernacle but throughout the whole land of Israel. Note the immediate context of the passage:

The passage applies not just to behavior at the tabernacle but to worship practices throughout the whole land of Israel. If Deuteronomy 12:32 only applied to the central sanctuary, why would it be used as a foundational verse to suppress pagan idolatry throughout the land? Pagan Canaanite worship was decentralized with house idols, local pagan sacred sites, local high places and sacred groves. Are we supposed to believe that Deuteronomy 12:32 is only concerned with syncretism within the tabernacle proper? Is verse 31 only concerned with suppressing child sacrifice within the tabernacle? Of course not! The context of Deuteronomy 12:32 proves that it cannot be restricted to the tabernacle/temple.

Second, Deuteronomy 12:32 cannot be interpreted in isolation from the virtually identical sola scriptura passages that apply not only to the tabernacle/temple but to all of life. The sola scriptura passages teach that the church does not have autonomy or legislative authority with respect to doctrine, ethics or worship ordinances. Note the follow passages. Deuteronomy 4:2. "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Proverbs 30:5-6. "Every word of God is pure.... Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar."

We have already noted in our discussion of Deuteronomy 4:2 that it is sinful for men to make up their own ethical rules. Church members would be justly angry and outraged if their pastor or session issued a decree that eating meat on Fridays, or wearing blue jeans, or riding a bike was now sinful and merited church censure. Deuteronomy 4:2 also forbids church authorities from detracting or adding to the worship prescribed in Scripture. The only way that Deuteronomy 4:2 can be circumvented by opponents of the regulative principle is to argue that the worship of God is not a prescribed matter of law but rather belongs to the sphere of things indifferent (adiaphora). The idea that the worship of Jehovah (the most sacred and important duty of the church) is adiaphora is impossible for two reasons. First, adiaphora refers only to indifferent matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden, that are not directly regulated by Scripture. Worship, however, is commanded by God. Second, areas of adiaphora are optional. Worship is not optional. Deuteronomy 12:32, which is virtually identical to 4:2, is given in the context of worship to emphasize: (1) Scripture's sole authority over worship, (2) the covenant people's lack of legislative authority to determine or make up their own worship and (3) the necessity of sticking strictly to what God's word says to avoid human additions which because of man's inherent depravity lead to syncretism and sin. The regulative principle is simply sola scriptura applied to the sphere of worship. Those who apply Deuteronomy 12:32 solely to the temple do so only because they do not understand Deuteronomy 4:2 and the full implication of sola scriptura.

Third, the idea that the regulative principle only applied to the temple ignores the fact that tabernacle/temple worship contained ceremonial and non-ceremonial ordinances. The sacrificing of animals, the burning of incense and the priestly and Levitical use of instruments during the sacrifice were ceremonial. But the reading of Scripture, prayer and the singing of praise were not ceremonial. This assertion is proved from the fact that Scripture reading (1 Th. 5:27; Col. 4:16; 1 Tim. 4:13), prayer (Mt. 6:9; 1 Th. 5:17; Ac. 4:31; 1 Cor. 11:13-15; Phil. 4:6; Jas. 1:5) and the singing of praise (Mt. 26:30; Ac. 16:25; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 13:15; Jas. 5:13) are all integral aspects of Christian worship after the dissolution of the temple and the abrogation of ceremonial ordinances. Therefore, it is overly simplistic and exegetically unsound to argue that the regulative principle was annulled with the ceremonial order. If the regulative principle applied to the temple worship, then it also regulated the non-ceremonial worship that occurred there.

Those who use the argument that the regulative principle applied solely to the temple and thus was abrogated with the ceremonial law are guilty of making a total antithesis between temple worship and synagogue/Christian public worship. One cannot deny that the temple cultus typified Christ and His work. However, one must not overlook the fact that the temple was also a place of worship (Jn. 4:21) and prayer (Mt. 21:13). A number of the crucial elements of Christian public worship were first practiced in the temple. Bushell writes:

While the attempts to limit the regulative principle to the temple are clever, they have absolutely no foundation in Scripture. The worship of the temple itself proves that the regulative principle cannot be restricted to ceremonial ordinances.

Fourth, there are a number of passages that apply the regulative principle outside the sphere of tabernacle/temple worship. If there is even one passage of Scripture that applies the regulative principle outside of tabernacle temple worship, then the assertion that the regulative principle applied only to the temple falls to the ground. We will examine three passages.

1. In Matthew 15:1-3 Jesus condemned the Pharisees for adding ritualistic washing that occurred in the home and not in the temple to the law. "Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 'Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.' He answered and said to them, 'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?'" This passage poses a serious problem for those who teach that the regulative principle applied only to the temple, and thus man-made traditions are permissible as long as they do not violate the express teaching of Scripture. Where is the washing of hands condemned in God's word? If human additions are permissible in the religious sphere, what could be any more innocent, pragmatic or practical than a simple hand washing? Yet our Lord not only refused to submit to this man-made religious rite but also strongly rebuked the Pharisees for adding a human rule to God's word. "Washing of the hands is a thing proper enough; one could wish it were oftener practiced; but to exalt it into a religious rite is a folly and a sin."⁷⁹ The disciples of Christ were well trained, for they knew that any human tradition, no matter how good and innocent, must not be complied with when it is given a religious significance and status by man without divine warrant. "Note, illegal impositions will be laid to the charge of those who support and maintain them [human traditions in worship], and keep them up, as well as those who first invented and enjoined them."⁸⁰ "Antiquity and Fathers without Scripture is the old charter of superstitious formalists.... Hence learn: That God in wisdom brings men's ceremonies to a dispute and so to be refuted and condemned...."⁸¹

Jesus is a champion of the regulative principle. He rejects the most innocuous of religious traditions and also shows us how human traditions and laws drive out and thus set aside what God has condemned. Rutherford writes:

People who oppose the regulative principle often attempt to circumvent the obvious import of these passages by appealing to the context. They argue that the example set forth by Christ in verses 4 and 5 (of the person who follows a human tradition in order not to provide for his parents in old age) informs us that Christ only had negative traditions in mind, that is, traditions which nullified, set apart or contradicted God's word. The problem with this interpretation is that it completely ignores verse 2 or the original confrontation that elicited Jesus' response in verses 3 to 9. Jesus gives an example of why adding human requirements to God's word is wrong. Human requirements eventually displace God's word. (Anyone with a knowledge of Judaism or the history of the Christian church knows that our Lord's teaching is true.) The fact that Christ gives such an example does not detract at all from verse 2 where the most innocent and apparently harmless of human traditions (hand washing) is regarded as totally inappropriate. How does washing one's hands contradict, violate or set apart God's word? Jesus condemns the Pharisees for assuming (contrary to Scripture) that religious leaders have legislative authority in the church. When church leaders give themselves authority to invent out of their own imaginations doctrines or commandments, the eventual result is declension and even apostasy. Note also that in verse 9 Jesus unequivocally condemns all human doctrines and commandments in religion. "And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Mt. 15:9; cf. Isa. 29:13).

Further, the parallel passage in Mark 7 settles the matter once and for all, because in the Markian account Jesus explicitly identifies the traditions that he condemns as including religious washings.⁸³ "He answered and said to them, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.' He said to them, 'All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition'" (vs. 6-9). "It is just as easy to destroy the authority of God's Word by addition as by subtraction, by burying it under human inventions as by denying its truth. The whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, must be our rule of faith—nothing added and nothing taken away."⁸⁴ Our Lord does not just condemn negative, bad or contradictory human traditions but all of them without exception. Spurgeon writes:

After briefly examining Christ's teaching in context one can only conclude that the argument that our Lord is only condemning certain bad religious traditions rather than any and all human traditions is eisegesis of the worst sort.

Attempts at circumventing passages such as Matthew 15:2-9 which prove the regulative principle are not new but are (in general matters) restatements of old popish and prelatical arguments long ago rejected by the Reformed churches. Note the words of Zacharias Ursinus (written in the 1570s and first published in the 1580s):

2. Another passage of Scripture which disproves the "temple only" theory is Colossians 2:20-23, "Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—'Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,' which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh." The apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit several years after the regulative principle was supposedly abolished, rigorously enforced the regulative principle.

Paul says that any addition to what God has commanded or authorized is self-imposed religion, or as the King James Version says, "will-worship." The Greek word used by Paul (ethelothreskeia) signifies worship that originates from man's own will. "This is worship not enjoined by God, but springing out of man's own ingenuity—unauthorized devotion.... The worship referred to is unsolicited and unaccepted. It is superstition...."⁸⁷

Paul says that adding to God's Word is a show of false humility. Can man improve upon the worship and service that God has instituted? It is the height of arrogance and stupidity to think that sinful man can improve upon God's ordinances. "It is provoking God, because it reflects much upon His honor, as if He were not wise enough to appoint the manner of His own worship. He hates all strange fire to be offered in His temple. Lev. x 11. A ceremony may in time lead to a crucifix. Those who contend for the cross in baptism, why not have the oil, salt and cream as well?"⁸⁹ As Paul says, man-made rules and regulations are "of no value" to the believer (Col. 2:23).

Opponents of the regulative principle attempt to circumvent the teaching of Colossians in a similar fashion to the Matthew 15:2ff. passage. They argue that Paul is not condemning all human traditions but is merely concerned with suppressing certain types of asceticism. In other words, it is wrong to make rules that forbid the eating of meats and other foods, but it is entirely acceptable to invent worship practices, holy days and rites.

There are a number of reasons why Paul's condemnation of human requirements cannot be limited to certain ascetic eating practices. First, the broad context of the passage indicates that Paul emphatically rejects all human traditions in the religious sphere and not merely ascetic dietary laws. The likely problem at the Colossian church was the influence of an early form of ascetic Gnosticism. Paul does condemn Gnostic legalism in chapter 2. However, in his condemnation of this particular philosophy and the false ethical system that flows from it Paul condemns all forms of non-Christian philosophy and all worship and ethics that are founded upon human philosophy and the tradition of men. In this epistle Paul first points the Colossians to Jesus Christ. The Colossian believers need to be reminded that Christ is pre-eminent (1:18); that in Christ, who is the head of all, they are complete (2:10); that some have not been holding fast the Head (2:19); that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (2:3). Christ alone is the king and head of the church. He alone is our sanctification. Through Christ alone and his law-word come right doctrine, meaning and ethics. Thus Paul writes: "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). Calvin writes:

Paul's condemnation of philosophy that is according to the tradition of men is universal. One cannot argue that Paul in this passage condemns only ascetic Gnosticism yet does not also condemn the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Schliermacher, Marx and Dewey. For Paul there is no such thing as philosophical or ethical neutrality. A doctrine or practice is either according to Christ or it is not. And if it is not, then it comes from man's autonomous devising and is (according to Paul) a tradition of men. Therefore, when Paul condemns human regulations in 2:20-23, he uses the same universal language. In verse 20 Paul asks those in error at Colossae the question (to paraphrase): "Why do you act like unsaved people who are still living in accordance with a pagan worldview and thus subject yourself to human regulations?" Then in verse 21 Paul gives specific examples. Are the man-made regulations mentioned in verse 21 the only human traditions that Paul forbids? No. Given the universal condemnation of human philosophy and tradition that both precedes and follows verse 21, the human requirements of verse 21 must be viewed as a few examples taken from the universal category of human philosophy and traditions. There is no way that Paul's statement in verse 22, "according to the commandments and doctrines of men," can be restricted to the regulations of ascetic Gnosticism anymore than the condemnation of human philosophy in verse 8 can be restricted to one Greek sect. Further, the statement in verse 22, "according to the commandments and doctrines of men," mirrors the condemnation of Jewish traditions in doctrines and ethics found in Isaiah 19:13 and Matthew 15:2-9. The Bible condemns human additions and requirements, whether these man-made traditions in doctrines, ethics or worship are Jewish, Greek, Persian, Roman, German, English or American.

Second, the interpretation that says that Paul forbids the addition of some human philosophies and traditions into the doctrines, ethics and worship of the church, yet permits other human traditions, violates standard orthodox Protestant methods of interpretation. A study of both the Old and New Testaments proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God forbids additions or subtractions to the doctrine, ethics and worship set forth in divine revelation (Dt. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Gen 4:3-5; Lev. 10:1-2; 2 Sam. 6:3-7; 1 Chr. 15:13-15; Jer. 7:24, 31, 19:5; Isa. 29:13; Num. 15:39-40; Mt. 15:2-9; Jn. 4:24; Rev. 2:18, 19; etc.). This assertion is simply the Reformed confessional understanding of sola scriptura which has been discussed in earlier portions of this study. The attempt to make Paul a good Episcopalian, Lutheran or Romanist on the issue of human tradition involves a willful ignorance of the overall teaching of Scripture. The human heart is so incredibly deceitful that through self-deception and the subtleties of human reason it develops loopholes for human autonomy where none exist. Therefore, our only hope for maintaining purity in doctrine, ethics and worship is to strictly adhere to and obey God's commands without departing to the right or to the left.

3. Another passage which disproves the "temple only" theory is John 4:21-24: "Jesus said to her, 'Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.'" When Jesus discussed worship with the Samaritan woman and contrasted old covenant worship with new covenant worship, he taught that worship in both dispensations was to be conducted upon the same principles. Note the phrase, "the hour is coming and now is" (v. 23). Although the death of Christ eliminated all the typical and ceremonial aspects of old covenant worship, the need to worship God "in spirit and truth" was not a new principle, for it was already in effect when Jesus spoke these words. According to Jesus, God is to be worshiped in spirit and truth, not because the temple represents Christ and the gospel, but because of God's nature and character. Bushell writes:

This passage of Scripture by itself refutes that idea that the regulative principle applied only to the temple, for when Jesus begins this discussion, it is clear that he was speaking of the temple worship in Jerusalem (v. 21). Therefore, when he says that the same worship principle of "spirit and truth" that is now operative in the old covenant era will also be operative in the new covenant era, he is connecting the strict worship principle that regulated the temple to the new covenant church. If believers of both old and new covenant eras want to worship God properly, they must do so only in accordance with his nature and character. And the only way to approach God in a manner that pleases him is to approach him on his own terms in accordance with his own rules. This means that worship must be prescribed by Scripture and not by sinful men. God who is truth itself must be worshiped according to truth and not man's imagination. The Westminster Larger Catechism says: "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..." (Larger Catechism answer 109). The idea that the regulative principle only applied to the tabernacle/temple worship has no biblical support, contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture and therefore must be rejected.

4. The "Circumstances of Worship" Argument

A common method of avoiding the full implication of sola scriptura in the sphere of worship is to confuse and blur the distinction between worship ordinances and the circumstances of worship. The statement of the Westminster Confession regarding circumstances of worship (1.6) is often used as a justification to introduce human traditions and innovations into the public worship of God. An opponent to the regulative principle writes:

It is common for opponents of the regulative principle (and for men who claim adherence to the regulative principle yet who refuse to apply to apply it to certain areas of worship because of a love of human traditions) to add human innovations and traditions to the worship of God and then arbitrarily declare the additions to be circumstances of worship. This tactic, which leads to the corruption of worship, is simply a more sophisticated, up to date version of the Lutheran notion that their additions all belong to the sphere of adiaphora. This method of circumventing the regulative principle is not a direct frontal attack upon sola scriptura over worship but rather is clever side-stepping or back-door evasion of the regulative principle. In denominations that adhere to Reformed confessions (thus officially adhering to the regulative principle) yet have backslid and departed from biblical worship, apologists for declension and the status quo have developed some clever unbiblical arguments. Some popular examples of such argumentation are as follows.

1. Some argue that singing is not a separate element of worship but is merely a circumstance of worship. Bahnsen writes, "Is singing a separate 'element' of worship or a 'circumstance' of worship? If the latter, it does not require biblical warrant according to the regulative principle. I have argued that singing is simply a means to (one circumstance through which to) pray, praise, exhort, or teach—rather than an element of worship itself."⁹³ What Bahnsen is saying is that the general command to praise God is an element of worship, but how this command to praise is carried out is a mere circumstance of worship. Thus, a person could praise God through singing, or silent meditation, or speaking, or even through drama or dance, for the circumstances of worship are not strictly regulated by God's word.

2. Many argue that musical accompaniment to the singing of praise in public worship is a circumstance of worship. Theologian John Frame gives a typical example of this argument. He writes:

Others point out that the use of musical instruments in worship is "common to human actions and societies." Therefore (they argue) it must be a circumstance of worship.

3. Many pastors and sessions in Reformed or Presbyterian denominations who have special Christmas and Easter services yet who understand that such services have no warrant in God's word argue that choosing a text for a sermon is a circumstance of worship. Therefore, it is entirely permissible (as a circumstance of worship) for the pastor to preach on the incarnation on or near December 25. Thus, one can find many a Presbyterian church following a Romanist or Anglican church calendar with the excuse that doing so is only a circumstance of worship.⁹⁵

In order to refute arguments intended to circumvent Scripture's sole authority in authorizing worship elements, it is necessary to briefly consider the difference between the circumstances of worship and worship ordinances. The first difference is that worship ordinances are prescribed or determined from Scripture. Every part or element of worship must be based on either an explicit command from the Bible (e.g., "Do this in remembrance of Me" [Lk. 22:19]); or an approved historical example from Scripture (e.g., the change from the seventh day to the first day of the week for corporate worship);⁹⁶ or by logical inference from the Bible (i.e., there may not be an explicit command but when several passages are compared they teach or infer a scriptural practice).⁹⁷ Because the elements of worship must be proved from Scripture, they are finite in number; and, because the canon of Scripture is closed, the elements are fixed and unchanging. The circumstances of worship are not determinable from the Bible. Although public worship is required on the Lord's day (the Christian sabbath), the time to meet is not prescribed. Other circumstances of worship are: the type of building to meet in; the type of seating; the location of the meeting house; the particular psalm selections; the choice of what text to preach on; the choice of Scripture reading, etc. The circumstances of worship are determined by Christian prudence (i.e., sanctified common sense) according to the general rules of Scripture (e.g.: What time to meet would be the most convenient and edifying for the congregation? What Psalm selections are most appropriate for the sermon text? What type of building design will help the congregation focus on the preached word? etc.). Some circumstances are determined by the pastor (e.g., the sermon text); others by the session (e.g., the time to meet) and others by heads of households and individuals (e.g., Should I wear a blue, black grey or brown suit to church? etc.). Unlike worship elements, the circumstances of worship are virtually infinite in number and frequently change. Remember, if something in public worship is determinable by Scripture, then it cannot be a circumstance of worship. Furthermore, note that only God has the authority to take something that is a circumstance of worship and make it a worship ordinance. For example, there is nothing intrinsically special regarding any particular day of the week. Yet God has the authority to set aside a particular day and make it religiously significant. There is nothing religiously significant or special regarding any particular piece of land on the earth. Yet, in the old covenant era, God made Jerusalem and the temple a special religious place. Therefore, when men add their own holy day, or make up a holy place or object, or bring musical instruments or non-inspired hymns into the worship of Jehovah, they are usurping God's authority.

Once one understands that worship ordinances are commanded or prescribed by Scripture then he will not be misguided by those who attempt to blur the distinction between the elements or parts of worship and the circumstances of worship. For example (as noted above), many pastors today argue that the use of musical instruments in public worship is a circumstance of worship. To someone who is not familiar with the Bible this argument sounds plausible. After all, are not musical instruments used in all cultures and nations? Are they not also commonly used in religious ceremonies? The problem with this argument is that the use of musical instruments was commanded by God and only priests and Levites were authorized to play them in association with the temple cultus (Num. 10:18, 10; 1 Chr. 15:14-24, 23:5, 28:11-13, 19; 2 Chr. 5:11-14, 29:26; Ezra 3:10; Neh. 12:27, etc.). If musical instruments were only a circumstance of worship, and if any Israelite could play musical instruments in worship, then such commands would be totally unnecessary and out of place. Something incidental to worship by nature is incidental or discretionary in all circumstances.

Second, anything in worship which holds a religious or moral significance is an element or part of worship and therefore must have divine warrant. The circumstances of worship are "common to human actions and societies." Note the following illustrations for clarification. If a church in first-century Palestine had a bucket of water inside the door that believers used to rinse the dust off their feet before they sat down, then this rinsing of the feet would not be religiously significant. But if the elders of that church instructed church members to dip their hand in the water and make the sign of the cross or take some water and toss it in the air while saying a certain prayer, then they would be guilty of adding a human tradition to the worship of God. Many pastors have a glass of water on or near the pulpit to drink during the sermon. There is nothing religiously significant regarding a glass of water. However, if the pastor blesses the glass of water and then dips a baby rattle in it and starts sprinkling church members while mumbling in Latin, then he has added a human tradition to worship. Today there are many human additions to worship that clearly have crossed the line and are regarded as holding a special, sacred or religious significance (e.g., the sign of the cross, holy water, priestly garments, prayer candles, kneeling at communion, the altar call, religious drama, liturgical dance, the "Christian" calendar, saints' days, holy days [apart from the Sabbath], etc.).

Third, worship ordinances are practices that are required by Scripture and therefore are not voluntary or optional. That is, they are biblically necessary. Church members do not have the option of eliminating the sermon, the Scripture reading or the sacraments, etc. (in fact, evangelicals often consider sects that omit such things as cults). Circumstances are not required or biblically necessary. Worship services are not dependent upon buildings, seating and pulpits. The circumstances of worship are matters that can be changed, eliminated or added without any consequence to public worship. No Christian would argue that the Lord's supper was optional. Yet would anyone be taken seriously who argued that a music soloist, or a drama skit, or a puppet show, or a rock band, or an altar call, or an incense procession, or a whirling dervish were necessary aspects of worship? When churches take non-required and unnecessary human traditions and add them to the worship of God, they detract from what God has prescribed; mix that which is profane with that which is truly religiously significant; and offend God who has not appointed such things.

The attempt to broaden the definition of the circumstances of worship, or to blur the distinction between worship elements and circumstances, or to merge distinct elements into broad categories, is unscriptural and anti-Confessional.⁹⁸ One must never treat the elements of worship as abstractions that can be molded to fit one's own preconceptions of what is permissible in worship. The proper biblical interpretive procedure lets the Bible tell us what the distinct elements of worship are and lets Scripture delineate the rules for each element. Although it is true that the elements of singing praise, preaching or teaching and prayer can have certain aspects in common (e.g., many psalms contains prayer, prayer can contain praise and sermons can contain praise and supplication, etc.), the idea that these distinct elements can be collapsed into one category (e.g., teaching) or that the specific rules given by Scripture for one element can be applied to the other parts of worship completely breaks down when one examines the specific rules and context that the Bible gives to each separate ordinance. Note the follow examples.

1. One element is preaching from the Bible (Mt. 26:13; Mk 16:15; Ac. 9:20; 17:10; 20:8; 1 Cor. 14:28; 2 Tim. 4:2). Preaching involves reasoning from the Scriptures (cf. Ac. 17:2-3; 18:4, 19; 24:25) and explaining or expounding God's word (cf. Mk. 4:34; Lk. 24:27; Ac. 2:14-40; 17:3; 18:36; 28:23). New covenant teachers did not speak by divine interpretation but interpreted divinely inspired Scripture. In the same manner the Old Testament Levitical teachers explained and interpreted the inscripturated law to the covenant people (cf. Neh. 8:7-8; Lev. 10:8-11; Dt. 17:8-13; 24:8; 31:9-13; 33:8; 2 Chr. 15:3; 17:7-9; 19:8-10; 30:22; 35:3; Ezr. 7:1-11; Ezek. 44:15, 23-24; Hos. 4:6; Mal. 2:1, 5-8). There are specific biblical rules that apply to preaching that distinguish it from other elements such as praise and prayer. While both men and women can pray (Ac. 1:13-14, 1 Cor. 11:5) and sing praise (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Jas. 1:5) only men (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14) who are called by God and set apart to the gospel ministry can preach (Mt. 28:18-20; Ac. 9:15; 13:1-5; Rom. 10:14-15; Eph. 4:11-12; 2 Tim. 4:2, etc.). Therefore, the idea that singing praise is not an element of worship but only one way to teach or a circumstance of teaching is clearly unscriptural. If singing praise was simply one given method of teaching, then women would be forbidden to sing praise in church, for they are forbidden to teach in the public assemblies. Furthermore, if singing were a circumstance of worship, then it would be optional and could be excluded from public worship altogether.

2. Another part of worship is the singing of Psalms (1 Chr. 16:9; Ps. 95:1-2; 105:2; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Unlike preaching, where the minister uses his own uninspired words to exposit Scripture, singing praise involves only the use of Spirit-inspired songs. In the Bible prophetic inspiration was a requirement for writing worship songs for the church (cf. Ex. 15:20-21; Jdg. 5; Isa. 5:1; 26:1ff; 2 Sam 23:1, 2; 1 Chr. 25:5; 2 Chr. 29:30; 35:15; Mt. 22:43-44; Mk. 12:36; Ac. 1:16-17; 2:29-31; 4:24-25). The writing of worship songs in the Old Testament was so intimately connected with prophetic inspiration that 2 Kings 23:2 and 2 Chronicles 34:30 use the term "Levite" and "prophet" interchangeably.

3. Reading the Bible is also a part of public worship (Mk. 4:16-20; Ac. 1:13; 13:15; 16:13; 1 Cor. 11:20; 1 Tim. 4:13; Rev. 1:13). Obviously, Scripture reading requires reading from the Bible alone. Reading from the Apocrypha or Shakespeare or uninspired Christian poetry or theology books cannot be substituted for this element. Scripture reading, like preaching but unlike singing praise, is restricted to ministers of the gospel (Ex. 24:7; Josh 8:34-35; Dt. 31:9-13; Neh. 8:7-8; 13:1; 1 Th. 5:27; Col. 4:16; 1 Tim. 4:3).

4. Another element of worship is prayer to God (Dt. 22:5; Mt. 6:9; 1 Cor. 11:13-15; 1 Th. 5:17; Phil. 4:6; Heb. 13:18; Jas. 1:5). Unlike the elements of singing praise and reading the Scriptures, the Bible authorizes the use of our own words in prayer, as long as we follow the pattern or model given to us by Christ (cf. Mt. 6:9). God promises his people that the Holy Spirit will assist them when they form their prayers (cf. Zech. 12:10; Rom. 8:26-27).

A brief consideration of the elements of worship noted above proves that the rules that apply to one element (e.g., prayer) cannot be applied to another element (e.g., singing praise or reading the Bible) without violating Scripture. Our consideration has also proved that collapsing various elements into broad categories violates God's word. The only reason people artificially construct such broad categories is to avoid the specific rules that God has instituted for each particular element of worship. Feminists do so to accommodate women reading the Scriptures and preaching in church. Others do so to allow a drama group to substitute for the sermon. There are also many who do so in order to substitute the uninspired songs of men for the inspired Psalms of God.

5. The "Jesus Accepted and Participated in Human Traditions" Argument

A popular argument against the regulative principle is that Jesus himself did not believe in it, for he accepted and even participated in man-made religious traditions. It is argued that Jesus celebrated the Passover according to the non-authorized Rabbinical tradition; that is, the Jewish Seder with all its human additions. Regarding the Jewish Seder (Hebrew for "order") there is no question but that the Pharisees added their own rituals to the meal. Wilson writes:

What is the textual evidence that is offered as proof that Jesus participated in the various Rabbinical additions? The only "evidence" that is offered is the fact that Jesus drank wine. It is assumed that since Christ and the apostles had wine with their meal, that they must also have participated in a Seder with its additional rituals. Note: Not one of the Jewish additions—the rituals of the Seder—is mentioned in any of the various accounts of the Last Supper. When the virtually universal practice of the Jews in Jesus' day was to drink wine with their meals, is the Jewish Seder theory a necessary inference from the text or pure speculation? Is it theologically and pastorally responsible to develop a theology of worship on pure speculation and guesswork?

But what about the use of wine? Some argue that since the use of wine is not commanded in the original institution of the Passover it therefore is a human innovation in a religious ritual. Is the use of wine a violation of the regulative principle? No, for the Passover was a meal, and the drinking of a beverage is an ordinary, necessary circumstance of eating (especially if one is eating roasted lamb, unyeasted bread and bitter herbs). During the feast of unleavened bread the Israelites were commanded to eat unleavened bread for seven days (Ex. 12:15ff.) Yet nothing is mentioned whatsoever of any beverages to be drunk. Obviously God was not requiring the Jews to die of thirst in the hot Egyptian climate. The fact that Christ and the disciples drank wine with (or after) their meal was not significant at all until Jesus made it a gospel ordinance in the Lord's supper. An argument from an historical account must be based on the written account itself, not on assumptions about what happened.

Not only is the "Jewish Seder" theory totally speculative, but it also violates standard Protestant methods of interpretation (i.e., the analogy of Scripture). Whenever an interpreter encounters a difficult or unclear passage, he must use the clearer portions of Scripture to interpret the less clear. Does it make sense to interpret Jesus' actions at the Last Supper in a manner that contradicts the clear teaching of both the Old and New Testaments? Are the sola scriptura or regulative principle passages unclear or difficult to understand? Should one choose an interpretation that makes Jesus look incompetent and hypocritical? Jesus frequently condemned the Pharisees for adding human traditions to God's word, including religious hand washings (Mt. 15:2ff.). Would our Lord participate in the Jewish Seder which included ritual hand washings¹⁰⁰ after he condemned the Pharisees in the strongest of terms for the exact same behavior?

Note also the foundation of the "Seder theory" is not the inspired Scriptures but the Jewish Mishnah. The Mishnah is a compilation of rabbinical oral traditions that date from around 200 B.C. until about A.D. 200. The Mishnah was compiled primarily by Rabbi Judah ("Ha Nasi" or the "Prince") along with other Jewish scholars around A.D. 189. Because most of what was written down at that time came by way of oral tradition, no one is sure how much the Mishnah accurately reflects Jewish traditions. Edersheim writes: "It has already been hinted more than once that the law laid down in the Mishnah frequently represents the theories and speculations of the Jewish doctors of the second century A.D., and not the actual practice of any given period. Several of their regulations deal accordingly with obsolete customs, and have little regard to the actual circumstances of the time."¹⁰¹ While it is understandable that a Christian scholar would examine the Mishnah in an attempt to shed light upon the social milieu of first century Palestine, it is incredible that pastors and scholars of "Reformed" persuasion would look to such an untrustworthy and blasphemous document ¹⁰² to undermine sola scriptura.

Another popular argument it that Jesus celebrated Chanukah because he was present at its celebration according to John 10:22-23. "Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch." Does this passage of Scripture prove or even imply that Jesus accepted and participated in human traditions in worship? No. There are many reasons why such a view must be rejected. First, one cannot ascertain from the text if Jesus even celebrated the Feast of Dedication. The passage does not say that Christ went to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of dedication, but merely that he was in Jerusalem at that time. Many excellent commentators (e.g., Hengstenburg, Meyer, Weiss and others) argue that Jesus had been staying in Jerusalem since the feast of tabernacles. Second, there is nothing significant regarding our Lord's presence in Jerusalem at the time of this feast, for it was not a feast that occurred only in Jerusalem. Chanukah was celebrated throughout the whole nation. John is not making a statement regarding Jesus' attitude toward Chanukah, but is merely giving an historical setting to the addresses that follow. Third, even if Christ went to Jerusalem to be there during the feast, the chapter as a whole indicates that he went there to teach. Gillespie writes:

There is not one shred of evidence that our Lord participated in any man-made rituals. (Note: Paul preached at the Areopagus [Ac. 17:22ff.], not because he had a favorable attitude toward Greek philosophy, but because it provided an excellent evangelistic opportunity.)

Fourth, Jesus' presence does not prove that he celebrated the Feast of Dedication, for the celebration of Chanukah did not involve any holy convocations. Further, it was not a religious sabbath in which people were required to cease from their labors.

Fifth, most commentators who speculate regarding the apostle's mention of the feast argue that here Jesus dedicates himself to death (cf. Pink, Lightfoot, Stachen, etc.). In other words, the mention of the feast points to Christ, not human tradition.

Sixth (as noted above), one should never choose an interpretation that violates the analogy of Scripture. It is exegetically irresponsible to read into a text what is not there (eisegesis) and then use that speculative interpretation to overthrow the many clear passages of Scripture which unequivocally condemn human traditions in the religious sphere. Such a procedure is nothing more than self-deception, excuse making and a grasping after straw.

Another argument (that Jesus countenanced human traditions in worship) is based on the idea that our Lord gave his blessing to two Jewish ceremonies that were likely added after the close of the Old Testament canon. These rituals were associated with the feast of Tabernacles. It is argued that Jesus' strategically placed statements (that played off these ceremonies) prove that he did not condemn such human traditions. A brief examination of these passages will prove that such a conclusion is unwarranted.

This first passage is John 7:37-39. "On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, 'If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.' But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." F. F. Bruce give an explanation of the festival as it would have been celebrated in Jesus' day.

Jesus made his statement on the eighth day when no water was poured by the priests. Many commentators believe our Lord purposely timed his statement to dramatize and emphasize the need for true spiritual life-giving water.

The second passage is John 8:12. "Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, 'I am the light of the world, He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.'" Some commentators believe that Jesus' statement regarding "the light of the world" was a purposeful comparison of himself to the large brilliant golden lamps that were placed in the Court of Women and were lit at the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles.

There are a number of reasons why the idea that these passages prove that Jesus accepted and approved of human traditions in worship must be rejected. First, neither of the passages in question say that our Lord approved of man-made traditions. The idea that Christ approved of human additions is simply assumed with no textual evidence. Is it not wise to follow what the Bible says instead of rejecting what it says in favor of what it does not say? Second, a theory, hypothesis or speculative interpretation should never be used to overturn the clear teaching of Scripture. The whole idea that Jesus was setting forth his approbation of human traditions is an argument from silence. It is not founded upon the text but on the uninspired Mishnah which was composed by unbelieving Jews in A.D. 189. (Commentators are not in agreement regarding these passages. In fact, most commentators do not believe that our Lord was comparing himself to certain rituals but rather was comparing himself to events in the book of Exodus (the water from the rock [Ex. 17:6; Nu. 20:7-11] and the pillar of fire [Ex. 13:21-22]).¹⁰⁵ Perhaps we should heed Hengstenberg's comment. He writes: "It is needless to spend time in forming hypotheses, externally accounting for the saying of our Lord, by the rising of the sun, the kindling of the lamps in the temple, etc. If anything significant of this kind had taken place, the Apostle would not have left us to guess about it."¹⁰⁶ Third, even if Jesus did make his statements to coincide with certain Jewish rituals, it does not mean that he approved of man-made additions. If a pastor (who happens to be anti-Christmas) passes out gospel tracts at the shopping mall in December, or preaches in the mall and refers to Christ's work of redemption as a gift from God, it does not mean that he approves of Christmas. One should be careful not to read something into a passage that is not there. Fourth, a more logical and scriptural inference from these passages is not that he was approving of their additions but rather that he was teaching that the law and the prophets did not point to silly rituals but to himself.¹⁰⁷ Contrary to modern popular opinion, Jesus was neither a Pharisee or a papist.

But what about the argument that says, "If Jesus was a strict regulativist, would he not have physically attacked the priests and Levites of the temple who were adding to God's word as he had earlier done with the money changers?" The argument that Christ would have attacked the priests and Levites if he believed in the regulative principle is based on an ignorance of Scripture. Jesus did not come to earth as a civil judge (cf. Luke 12:13-14; John 8:1-11). His opinion of Pharisaical additions to God's law was well known through his teaching (e.g., Mt 5:17-6:8; 15:2-9; 23:1-36; etc.). If Jesus became angry and resorted to whips every time he encountered sin, he would have had little time to preach the gospel, which was his primary didactic mission. Further, the priests and Levites were not common merchants or money changers; they held positions of authority. If our Lord had attacked them, he would have: (1) been committing an act of revolution; (2) precipitated a riot at the temple; (3) prematurely endangered his own life and the lives of his disciples; and (4) possibly even been arrested by the Roman authorities. Jesus dealt with apostate priests and Levites in A.D. 70; however, while on earth he respected lawful governing authorities (cf. Mt. 23:2-3; Ac. 23:1-5). The opponents of the regulative principle are once again grasping after straw.

6. The "Feast of Purim" Argument

Perhaps the most popular argument in support of human traditions in worship is based on the Feast of Purim. It is argued that the Jews without any command or special revelation from God made up their own holy day; therefore, the church can make up its own holy days such as Christmas and Easter.

There are a number of problems with this argument. First, this argument assumes without evidence that Purim was a special holy day like Christmas. The biblical text makes it abundantly clear that Purim was not a special religious holy day but rather was a time of thanksgiving. The events of Purim are: "Joy and gladness, a feast and good day...and of sending portions to one another, and gifts to the poor" (Est. 8:17; 9:22 kjv). "There is no mention of any religious observance connected with the day."¹⁰⁸ There were no special worship services, there were no ceremonies, there were no Levitical or priestly activities. Also, Purim—unlike Christmas and Easter—was not an admixture of pagan and popish monuments and paraphernalia with the religion of Jehovah. Purim should not be compared to popish holy days, such as Christmas, but to special days of rejoicing such as Thanksgiving day. The Westminster divines (who were champions of the regulative principle) used Purim as a proof text (Est. 9:22) authorizing occasional days of thanksgiving (cf. Confession of Faith 21.5, proof text a).

Second, Purim did not come about because the people or church officials got together and decided to make up a holy day. It came about because of a unique historical event in Israel's salvation history. The festival was decreed by the civil magistrate (the prime minister, Mordecai, and the queen, Esther). Religious leaders had nothing to do with it. After the civil decree, it was agreed to unanimously by the people. Thomas M'Crie writes:

Note, the occasion and authorization of Purim are inscripturated in the word of God and approved by the Holy Spirit. Thus, Purim itself satisfied the requirement of the regulative principle as biblically defined.

Third, the notion that Purim proves that men are permitted to make up holy days whenever they desire cannot be true, for if it were, Scripture would contain a blatant contradiction. Not only would it contradict the passages which teach that we are not permitted to add to what God has authorized (e.g. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5; etc.); it also would contradict the book of Kings where God condemned King Jeroboam for setting up a feast day "in the month which he had devised in his own heart" (1 Kgs. 12:33). Not even kings have authority to make up their own holy days. M'Crie writes:

7. The "Misrepresentation of the Regulative Principle" Argument

A rather common method of circumventing the regulative principle today is to give it a false definition that is scripturally and rationally indefensible. After defining the regulative principle in this manner, the opponents of sola scriptura over worship then proceed to make their false straw-man version of the regulative principle look totally absurd. The false version of the regulative principle that is used is: "If it is not commanded, it is forbidden." In other words, there must be an explicit divine imperative for every worship ordinance in the church. Fundamentalist Baptists argue in this manner when they say, "Where are we commanded in the Bible to baptize infants?" Seventh-day Adventists follow this tactic when they say, "Show us where God commanded the apostolic church to rest and worship on Sunday instead of Saturday!" Anti-regulativists use arguments such as: (a) the worship of the synagogue was never commanded by God; (b) Christ and the apostles attended and approved of synagogue worship; therefore, Christ and the apostles rejected the regulative principle.¹¹¹

Once a person understands the true definition of the regulative principle, he will immediately recognize that the objections to Reformed worship offered by Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists and anti-regulativists are not based on Scripture, but on an ignorance of the regulative principle itself. Although it is not uncommon to see a regulativist give a statement such as "if it is not commanded, it is forbidden" as a brief statement or summary of the principle, the Westminster Confession and virtually all Reformed authors define the regulative principle in a much broader fashion. The regulative principle refers not just to explicit commands of Scripture, but also to approved historical examples within the Bible and to good and necessary consequence, i.e., a particular worship practice or ordinance is inferred from many passages of Scripture.

The Confession and various Reformed authors will prove that the genuine, historic and confessional understanding of the regulative principle is broad and easily defended by Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1.6) says:

For the Westminster divines, sola scriptura is the natural starting point for the regulative principle as a spring is to a stream. There can be no question whatsoever but that the phrase "good and necessary consequence" applies to the worship and government of the church. To argue otherwise would render the section on the "circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the church" totally out of place.

John Owen, in his essay, "The Word of God the Sole Rule of Worship," deals with an opponent of Puritanism, Samuel Parker. Owen says that Parker considers the "foundation of all Puritanism" to be this principle: "That nothing ought to be established in the worship of God but what is authorized by some precept or example in the Word of God, which is the complete and adequate rule of worship."¹¹² This accurate definition was formulated by Parker by reading the available Puritan literature of his day (the seventeenth century).

Hetherington writes: "They [the Scottish Reformers] dared, therefore, to conclude that Divine authority might be rightfully claimed, not only for the direct statements contained in the Scriptures, but also for whatsoever could be deduced from Scripture by just and necessary inference."¹¹⁴

James H. Thornwell writes: "We have not been able to lay our hands upon a single Puritan Confession of Faith which does not explicitly teach that necessary inferences from Scripture are of equal authority with its express statements: nor have we found a single Puritan writer, having occasion to allude to the subject, who has not explicitly taught the same things. The principle of inference they have unanimously affirmed. Our own Confession of Faith—and surely that is a Puritan document—does it, in a passage already cited."¹¹⁶

John L. Girardeau writes: "A divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine, government and worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in these spheres is not commanded in the Scriptures, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence from their statements, is forbidden."¹¹⁷

William S. McClure writes: "God's commands are either explicit, clearly stated, or they are implicit, implied as a logical, necessary inference from authoritative example, such as that of Christ or His Apostles."¹²⁰

William Young writes: "The mode of prescription need not be that of explicit command in single text of Scripture. Approved example warrants an element of worship as surely as 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."¹²¹

It is important that one understand the proper, broad interpretation of the regulative principle, for anti-regulativists often point to historical examples in the Bible as proof texts against sola scriptura over worship. When an anti-regulativist comes to a worship practice in the Bible that does not have a prior inscripturated divine imperative behind it, it is assumed that such practices must have originated from human tradition. When a Puritan or Reformed regulativist encounters a worship practice that is approved by God, yet is not accompanied by an explicit command, it is assumed (based on the analogy of Scripture) that such a practice is based on some prior revelation that did not make it into the canon. For example, John Owen writes:

Opponents of the regulative principle argue that the Puritan or Reformed understanding of "approved historical examples" is an argument of begging the question (i.e., assuming that which one sets out to prove); or, that it is an argument from silence; or, that regulativists are guilty of forcing the evidence to fit their own faulty starting point. All these objections, however, are easily refuted if one understands necessary inference from Scripture and follows standard Protestant procedures of interpretation.

One of the most fundamental principles of biblical interpretation is that Scripture cannot contradict itself. Another important principle is that when two or more passages seem to contradict each other, the clearer portions of Scripture should be used to interpret the less clear. If one follows these interpretive rules, determining which understanding of an approved historical example is biblical will be simple.

Note the many reasons why the regulativist approach must be accepted. (1) There are several passages in the Bible which unequivocally condemn adding to God's law-word (e.g., Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5). (2) Man is not permitted autonomously to determine his own ethics, theology or worship. (3) There are also passages where both Christ (e.g., Mt. 15:2-9; Mk. 7:1-13) and Paul (e.g., Col. 2:20-23) condemn human traditions in worship. These passages are not hard to understand. Indeed, they are crystal clear, if one is willing to accept what they say. Given the clear teaching of Scripture regarding adding human traditions to ethics or worship, what interpretation should one choose when one encounters Jesus or the apostles engaging in worship that is not specifically discussed in the Old Testament Scriptures?

If one argues that Jesus by his attendance at synagogue was endorsing human traditions in worship, then one has chosen an interpretation which contradicts clear portions of Scripture. If one argues that the sola scriptura and regulative principle passages must be reinterpreted in light of passages such as Jesus attending synagogue worship or the change of public worship to Sunday, then one is guilty of using passages which do not even speak directly to the issue of human tradition in worship (and thus are not clear passages) to overthrow the clear passages that do speak directly to the issue of human additions. When regulativists approach passages where God accepts the worship offered, yet there are no accompanying divine imperatives, they do not simply argue from silence or impose an arbitrary starting point or assumption on the text. Instead, they stand upon the overall clear teaching regarding worship and therefore legitimately infer that what God accepts cannot be "the doctrines and commandments of men."

The regulativist position is not only supported by standard biblical hermeneutical procedures but is also supported by an inspired New Testament interpretation of an Old Testament worship practice that was not accompanied by any inscripturated divine commands. Genesis 4:3-5 says, "And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell." In this passage Abel's blood sacrifice is accepted, while Cain's bloodless plant offering is not. Note, there are no previously recorded divine imperatives regarding blood sacrifice in the book of Genesis. If one applies the same anti-regulativist interpretation to this passage that has been used of Jesus and the synagogue service, then one would have to conclude that God preferred Abel's human tradition over Cain's. The author of Hebrews implicitly rejects the anti-regulativist's interpretation when he says that "by faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain" (Heb. 11:4). Biblical faith presupposes divine revelation. Throughout Hebrews 11 true faith is spoken of as a belief in God's word that results in obedience to God's revealed will. Any idea that Abel's offering was based on reason alone, or that God's acceptance of the blood sacrifice was arbitrary or based on the subjective state of Abel's heart alone, must be rejected as unscriptural. John Brown concurs.

The Hebrews 11:4 passage offers indisputable biblical proof that acceptable worship cannot be based on a human tradition which involves, not a faith in God and his infallible Word, but a faith in man's wisdom and imagination. Acceptable worship can only be based on faith in divine revelation. Therefore, when one notes that Noah offered clean animals, or that the apostles observed a first-day Sabbath, or that Jesus and Paul read and exposited the Scriptures in the synagogue (all without accompanying explicit divine imperatives), one should never assume that these accepted worship practices were based on human tradition. They were based on faith in the spoken word of God. ¹²⁵

Summary and Conclusion

This study regarding sola scriptura and its relation to the regulative principle of worship has proved a number of important assertions. First, it has shown that the scriptural law of worship formulated by the Calvinistic reformers and set forth in all the Reformed creeds and confessions is thoroughly biblical. Reformed worship should be embraced by all professing Christians. Those men who mock the regulative principle and who urge Reformed believers to abandon this crucial pillar of the Reformation should not be heeded at all. (Indeed, they should be intellectually honest and join an Episcopal church.)

Second, an analysis of non-Reformed views of worship has uncovered a number of insurmountable theological, exegetical, logical and ethical problems that are intrinsic to all such theories:

1. The idea that men are permitted to add to the worship authorized by God in his word contradicts the express teaching of Scripture. There is simply no way that men can circumvent the plain meaning of the sola scriptura passages without ignoring or altering their obvious contextual and historical meaning. Jehovah says, "Do not add or detract from what I have commanded." There is nothing complex or difficult or esoteric regarding the regulative passages. A charge that is so often made is that the regulative principle itself is a human addition to Scripture. This charge is totally unfounded. God says, "Do not add or detract," and therefore regulativists refuse to add or detract. The regulative principle is simply a theological restatement of the plain teaching of God's word. To those who regard the regulative principle as an unbiblical addition, we ask: How can a strict obedience to what the Bible teaches be wrong? Has the church been harmed when she followed the teaching of Scripture without turning to the right or to the left? Are regulativists guilty of sin when they refuse to obey the traditions of men that have no warrant from God's word? Can a church member be disciplined for refusing to participate in a man-made ritual? If the answer to this question is yes, then please explain how a Christian can be disciplined when nothing in Scripture was violated. Romanists and prelatists have an answer to this question. However, we do not heed the words of Antichrist.

2. The idea that men are permitted to add their own innovations to authorized worship is also a denial of the sufficiency and perfection of God's word. Are the ordinances that God has given to the church sufficient or are they inadequate? If one believes that they are not sufficient, then please identify what is lacking. If one believes that the Scriptures are sufficient, then why add worship ordinances that are not needed? Also, please explain how the doctrines and commandments of men can perfect God's word and lead to edification. Did not the apostle Paul warn the church that human commandments are not real wisdom and do not sanctify (Col. 2:23)? What would a great painter such as Claude Monet (1840-1926) have thought if imbeciles and children were given paints and then permitted to alter and "perfect" his paintings as they saw fit? Such acts would be the height of stupidity and arrogance. Yet men do far worse when they add to the holy, sufficient and perfect Scriptures of God.

3. Non-Reformed theories do not properly take into account God's nature and character (e.g., his infinite holiness, majesty, righteousness, etc.), and man's sinful nature. The idea that men (even regenerate men) after the fall can acceptably approach in worship a thrice-holy God on their own terms, according to their own rules, is contrary to Scripture and sanctified common sense. James Begg writes:

The worship of Jehovah must be sincere, through Jesus Christ, and it must be of divine appointment. Fallen human reason should never have an independent creative role in determining doctrine, ethics, or worship ordinances. It must be totally dependent on Scripture.

4. It is impossible for men to impose human innovations in public worship without violating their congregants' Christian liberty. All man-made rites and ceremonies in public worship invariably involve some type of human compulsion. Believers are commanded by God to attend Sabbath day public worship. When bishops, pastors or sessions place a man-made rite or ceremony in the public worship service, they force their congregants either: (a) to participate in non-authorized will worship or, (b) to separate themselves from the unbiblical corruptions. The non-regulativists' idea that human traditions are permissible in public worship (from the standpoint of Christian liberty) can only be defended in two ways, both of which are unbiblical and arbitrary.

One method of defense is to argue that God has given the church a power independent of Scripture. In other words, not only can bishops, pastors and sessions add their own inventions to public worship, they also have an authority to order church members (under the threat of discipline and excommunication, if necessary) to submit to the new human ordinances. This position is nothing less than popery and prelacy at its worst. (This author is unaware of any anti-regulativist "Reformed" or "Presbyterian" writers who have used such a blatantly Romanist argument.)

The most common defense is that humanly devised rites and ceremonies are within the sphere of adiaphora or matters indifferent. The problem with this view is that it is based on a false, arbitrary definition of adiaphora. What are indifferent matters? For something to be indifferent, it must be: (1) a matter that is not determinable or required by Scripture, (2) something that is truly circumstantial to worship and not an element or essential part of it, (3) something that is optional or voluntary or (4) something that is unnecessary (i.e., something that can be eliminated at any time, unlike prayer, preaching, the Lord's Supper, etc.). When a congregation adds a human tradition to the public worship service, that practice cannot honestly be regarded as adiaphora, for, (1) as part of the service it is no longer optional or voluntary, unless one leaves or refuses to attend; (2) it is placed alongside of and receives the same treatment as commanded elements; (3) it is part of essential worship or (4) as part of public worship it is enforced by implicit and/or explicit compulsion. Although churches may refer to human traditions as adiaphora to justify their use in public worship, they never act as if the additions are indifferent in practice. When words are defined in an arbitrary manner, one can prove any proposition. The adiaphora argument is an excuse founded upon a lie.¹²⁷

Third, an analysis of the most common objections to the regulative principle has shown that these objections are not based on a careful exegesis of Scripture but upon misunderstandings, misrepresentations and pure speculation. Some arguments are founded upon a misunderstanding of the sola scriptura passages and adiaphora. Others are based on a false definition of the regulative principle. Similarly, others are dependent upon a false understanding of the circumstances of worship. Most arguments, however, are based on pure speculation. Theories are developed using extra-biblical materials (e.g., the Mishnah) and then are imposed upon the passage of Scripture in question.

The doctrine of sola scriptura and the regulative principle of worship must be taught, emphasized, and rigorously defended in our day of declension, ignorance and apathy. The heroic struggle by men such as Calvin, Knox, Melville, the English Puritans and Scottish Covenanters for the reformation of worship must continue. This point cannot be too strongly pressed in the present day when biblical worship is attacked from all sides; when the greatest opponents of Reformed worship come from the supposedly Reformed and theonomic camp. Such men, in defiance of Scripture, seek to "improve" the worship of God by their own inventions. They seek to remove the liberty that we have in Christ from the doctrines, commandments and traditions of men. They arrogantly mock the Reformation attainments of our spiritual forefathers. These so-called teachers of the law offer us human autonomy and the tyranny of church officials, all in the name of Christian liberty. What is the "weighty" evidence that is offered to lead us to abandon our creeds and confessions in favor of adding human traditions to worship? It is primarily speculations founded upon the Mishnah. A love of human traditions has caused many normally competent teachers and scholars to resort to exegetical gymnastics and twisted reasonings of the worst sort. Our best defense against all such Romanizing arguments is a vigorous offense. The great truth of sola scriptura taught and accompanied by the Spirit of God will penetrate the mists of confusion and ignorance, rending asunder the pillars of popery and prelacy. To secure this great end, let us earnestly work and pray.

Appendix A
John Calvin and the Regulative Principle

John Calvin (1609-1564) was the greatest theologian and expositor of Scripture of the Protestant Reformation. Through the theological academy at Geneva and his abundant writings, Calvin did more to shape the doctrine and worship of Presbyterian, Reformed and Puritan churches than anyone else. Calvin's teaching regarding worship is clearly reflected in all the various Reformed creeds and confessions: the French Confession (1559), the Scottish Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), and the Westminster Standards (1643-1648).

It is important that believers who take upon themselves the name of Reformed or Presbyterian have some acquaintance with Calvin's views on worship (in particular the regulative principle) for a number of reasons. First, we live in a time of serious declension regarding worship in many denominations that are considered Reformed. Many pastors, teachers and elders in "Reformed" churches either directly or through subterfuge reject Reformed worship in favor of a Lutheran or Episcopal conception. Second, because of this declension and ignorance there has been a reductionism of what it means to be Reformed. For both Calvin and Knox Reformed meant more than a biblical soteriology; it also meant a biblical conception of worship (i.e., the regulative principle). Today the word Reformed is used of anyone who merely accepts the five points of Calvinism. Thus, we have pastors and organizations today which boast of being "truly Reformed" or "neo-puritan" who a few centuries ago would have been considered anti-puritan and non-Reformed. Third, today many hold the opinion that purity of worship should not be a major concern of the church. People who concern themselves with such matters are often held in contempt. Yet Calvin regarded the true worship of God to be (as far as the Christian religion) is concerned second to none in order of importance. In "The Necessity of Reforming the Church" he writes: "If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshiped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain."¹²⁸

What follows is a series of quotations from John Calvin that reveal his doctrine of worship. Calvin was the champion and chief expositor of what would be called the regulative principle of worship.

Footnotes

¹ Many professing Christians today regard theological matters as of little or no importance. Some even regard theological debate and the refutation of false teaching as unloving, arrogant and insulting to brethren of different theological persuasions. Some believers make comments such as: "Should we not be building bridges rather than erecting walls and fortresses?" While there is no question that theological debate and refutation must be conducted in a spirit of Christian love and concern for professing Christians of different theological opinions, the idea that theological precision, debate and refutation are somehow bad or unworthy of our time is blatantly unbiblical for a number of reasons. First, every Christian, and especially every minister, has a moral obligation to defend the truth, to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and to convict those who contradict (Tit. 1:9). In a world full of heresy, apostasy and wolves in sheep's clothing, a lack of theological precision and an unwillingness to defend the truth on the part of ministers is unpastoral and inexcusable. Second, one of the great lessons of church history is that God has used heresy and theological controversy to corporately sanctify his church. Enemies of the truth, heretics and theological perverts have arisen and assaulted the church from within. Yet God in his infinite kindness and wisdom has used such occasions to advance his own cause and kingdom. Many crucial doctrines have been clarified and purified in the flames of controversy and persecution. Should we expect our times to be any different? James Begg writes (1875): "Our own day has furnished abundant illustrations of the general truth, thus so well stated, although the worst is probably yet to come. The point of attack from time to time is varied, but the struggle continues unabated. When Christian men and women have got somewhat accustomed to defend one true position, the assault is directed to another, and perhaps from a new quarter. Although we shall not venture to apportion the relative importance of great principles, it may safely be affirmed that nothing can be more important than questions connected with the acceptable worship of God" (Anarchy in Worship [Edinburgh: Lyon and Gemmell, 1875], 4). Third, the only method and ground for true biblical ecumenicity is not to ignore truth or theology but to vigorously study it, adhere to it, advocate it and defend it. Any type of "Christian" union or cooperation that ignores, downplays or alters the truth is destructive of the faith. Such a union arises not from the bedrock of Scripture but from the shifting sand of backslidden and apostate bureaucrats.

² Translated from the Latin by Peter Hall, The Harmony of Protestant Confessions (Edmonton, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1992 [1842]), 4.

³ Ibid., 8.

⁴ Joel R. Beeke and Sinclair B. Ferguson, eds., Reformed Confessions Harmonized (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 14, 16.

⁵ Ibid., 10, 12.

⁶ Ibid., 14, 16.

⁷ The Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow, Scotland: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1976), 287. Note: all quotations in this book from the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms are taken from this edition.

⁸ Robert Shaw, Exposition of the Confession of Faith (Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, n.d. [1845]), 16.

⁹ A. A. Hodge, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955), 124.

¹⁰ Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955), 124. Van Til quotes John Calvin, Institutes, I.VI.2.

¹¹ Harmony of Protestant Confessions, 4.

¹² Reformed Confessions Harmonized, 14.

¹³ Harmony of Protestant Confessions, 8.

¹⁴ Reformed Confessions Harmonized, 14, 16.

¹⁵ Ibid., 10.

¹⁶ John Murray, "The Finality and Sufficiency of Scripture" in Collected Writings (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1976), 1:19. Cults (e.g., Swedenborgianism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, the Unification Church, etc.) are notorious for setting up a new (false) revelation that is then used as an absolute and superior standard to judge and reinterpret the Bible. Infallibility, absolute authority and sufficiency are shifted from the Bible to the latest revelation. This gives the cult leader or leaders total power over their deluded followers. The non-cessationist charismatic movement believes in continuing direct revelation from God. However, tongues, the word of knowledge and prophecy are inconsistently given a secondary status to the Bible. There are no attempts (by charismatics) to add new revelations to the canon of Scripture. Some intellectual charismatics have even developed the idea that prophecy now is different than Old Testament prophecy—that inaccuracies and mistakes are acceptable in new covenant post-apostolic prophecy. All such teaching is an implicit acceptance of the cessation position and sola scriptura. When Pentecostal preachers have insisted that their "prophecies" be written down and treated as the very word of God, they very often have become cult leaders. Modern charismatics claim to have direct revelation from God, yet in practice they treat those supposed revelations as what they actually are—the words of man.

¹⁷ "The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent" in Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983 [1876, 1931]), 2:80.

¹⁸ Walter M. Abbott, ed., The Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herden and Herden, 1966), 116.

¹⁹ Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 31.

²⁰ Charles Hodge writes: "It is of course conceded that Christ and his Apostles said and did much that is not recorded in the Scriptures; and it is further admitted that if we had any certain knowledge of such unrecorded instructions, they would be of equal authority with what is written in the Scriptures. But Protestants maintain that they were not intended to constitute a part of the permanent rule of faith to the Church. They were designed for the men of that generation. The showers which fell a thousand years ago, watered the earth and rendered it fruitful for men then living. They cannot now be gathered up and made available for us. They did not constitute a reservoir for the supply of future generations. In like manner the unrecorded teachings of Christ and his Apostles did their work. They were not designed for our instruction. It is as impossible to learn what they were, as it is to gather up the leaves which adorned and enriched the earth when Christ walked in the garden of Gethsemane. This impossibility arises out of the limitations of our nature, as well as its corruption consequent on the fall. Man has not the clearness of perception, the retentiveness of memory, or the power of presentation, to enable him (without supernatural aid) to give a trustworthy account of a discourse once heard, a few years or even months after its delivery. And that this should be done over and over from month to month for thousands of years, is an impossibility. If to this be added the difficulty in the way of this oral transmission, arising from the blindness of men to the things of the Spirit, which prevents their understanding what they hear, and from the disposition to pervert and misrepresent the truth to suit their own prejudices and purposes, it must be acknowledged that tradition cannot be a reliable source of knowledge of religious truth. This is universally acknowledged and acted upon, except by Romanists. No one pretends to determine what Luther and Calvin, Latimer and Cranmer, taught, except from contemporaneous written records. Much less will any sane man pretend to know what Moses and the prophets taught except from their own writings" (Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989], 1:21).

²¹ Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:139.

²² Charles Hodge, 1 and 2 Corinthians (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1958 [1857], 206.

²³ John MacArthur, "The Sufficiency of the Written Word" in Don Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 177.

²⁴ Frances Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3:123-125.

²⁵ Creeds of Christendom, 3:489 (all quotes are from the American revision of 1801).

²⁶ Ibid., 3:93-94, 96.

²⁷ Ibid., 3:500.

²⁸ Ibid., 3:508-509.

²⁹ Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England from Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1534-1690 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996 [1970]), 1:258.

³⁰ Paul E. G. Cook, "The Church" in Puritan and Anglican Thinking (Northamptonshire, England: The Westminster Conference, 1977), 26.

³¹ Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England, 1:54.

³² Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody, 120. William Young writes: "The total corruption and deceitfulness of the human heart disqualifies man from judging what is to be admitted into the worship of God. It may be that before the fall, our first parents had written on their hearts the law of worship and by looking within the depth of their own beings, could read off the commandments of God. Yet even then, they were not without direct external communication of the will of Him who walked and talked with them in the garden.

"Since the fall, however, though the human conscience still witnesses in all men that worship is due to the supreme Being, no information can be gained from the heart of man as to how God is to be worshiped" (Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman, eds., Worship in the Presence of God [Greenville, S.C.: Greenville Seminary Press, 1992], 81).

³³ John Knox writes: "It is not enough that man invent ceremony, and then give it a signification, according to his pleasure.... But if that anything proceed from faith, it must have the word of God for the assurance; for ye are not ignorant, 'That faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.' Now, if ye will prove that your ceremonies proceed from faith, and do please God, ye must prove God in expressed words has commanded them: Or else shall ye never prove, that they proceed from faith, nor yet that they please God; but that they are sin, and do displease him, according to the words of the apostle, 'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin'" (William Croft Dickenson, ed., John Knox's History of the Reformation in Scotland [New York: Philosophical Library, 1950], 1:87).

³⁴ John Owen, "The Word of God the Sole Rule of Worship" in Works (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1967), 13:473.

³⁵ John Owen, "A Discourse Concerning Liturgies" in Works (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1965 [1850-53]), 15:55.

³⁶ Leslie A. Rawlinson, "Worship in Liturgy and Form" in Anglican and Puritan Thinking (Cambridge, England: Westminster Conference, 1977), 74.

³⁷ Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England, 1:71.

³⁸ John Owen, quoted in William Cunningham, "The Reformers and the Regulative Principle" in The Reformation of the Church (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1965), 40-41.

³⁹ George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of Scotland (Dallas, TX: Naphtali, 1993 [1637]), xxx.

⁴⁰ One of the most common misconceptions regarding the regulative principle of worship is that it was developed haphazardly as an overreaction to the abuses of Romanism. It is even argued by some that it was only good for that early period of the Reformation when many people were coming out of the papal church; however, now that Protestantism is settled and established it is too extreme and is no longer necessary. There are a number of reasons why the scenario noted above should be regarded as pure fiction. First, the idea that Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Farel, Bucer and the early English Puritans were all pragmatists who were willing to twist Scripture for a good end is ludicrous. These were men who would rather be tortured and killed than compromise the truth of Scripture. For example, John Calvin spent his whole life preaching, writing commentaries and refining his Institutes. The regulative principle is clearly taught in his writings from beginning to end (see Appendix A). It is obvious to any student of history that he did not adopt his position on worship in a sloppy or haphazard manner. Third, the Lutherans also came out of Romanism yet rejected the regulative principle. If pragmatism was involved in adhering to the regulative principle, it was not exhibited by the Reformed churches or theologians. Humanly speaking, the Reformed churches would have been physically much safer from the assaults of Rome and her minions if they would have compromised their understanding of worship and joined the Lutherans. Fourth, the theologians of the Second Reformation period in both England (e.g., John Owen) and Scotland (e.g., George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, James Durham), who studied the issue of worship in more detail than even Calvin or Knox, came to identical conclusions on the matter of worship. If anything, the men of the Second Reformation were even more consistent and stricter than some of the earlier theologians. Fifth, the undergirding principles that produced full-blown Romanism are still with us and pose a threat to Protestants. Although the physical danger is no longer with us in many countries, the spiritual danger of Popish doctrine is as great as ever.

⁴¹ Creeds of Christendom, 3:12.

⁴² Ibid., 3:16.

⁴³ Ibid., 3:160-163.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 3:163-164.

⁴⁵ Martin Luther, "The Pagan Servitude of the Church" in John Dillenber, ed., Martin Luther: Selections from His Writing Edited with an Introduction (New York: Anchor, 1961), 343-344.

⁴⁶ Philip Melanchthon as quoted in J. L. Neve, Introduction to the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church (Columbus, OH: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1926), 260-261.

⁴⁷ Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997 [1948]), 17.

⁴⁸ Willard Dow Allbeck, Studies in the Lutheran Confessions (Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg, 1952), 283.

⁴⁹ G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), 164.

⁵⁰ Gordon Clark writes: "The twentieth century church in America seems to have fallen into a curious self-contradiction. The lust for power and control over men and organizations has produced an almost papal claim to authority on the part of bureaucratic ecclesiastical officials. When the majority speaks (and the officials manipulate the majority) it is the voice of God" (What Do Presbyterians Believe? (Philadelphia, Pa: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1965), 191). Sadly, many elders in "Reformed" denominations see their job as one of maintaining the status quo or current backslidden state of their church's spiritual condition. Unfortunately this often means an unquestioning acceptance of all sorts of unbiblical human traditions. If often also means treating Christians concerned with reformation as kooks, as people who need to be kept quiet in order to maintain the defections of past generations.

⁵¹ James Benjamin Green, Harmony of the Westminster Presbyterian Standards (Collins World, 1976), 155.

⁵² Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, 18.

⁵³ Robert Shaw, Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 206.

⁵⁴ A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, 267.

⁵⁵ Gordon Clark writes: "Strange to say, evangelicals, fundamentalists, pietists or other devout people, who would be horrified at the sign of the cross or bowing to images, have invented religious requirements and taboos of their own. There is a Bible school which insists that the girls put their hair up in buns, for a looser hair-do would be 'worldly'" (What Do Presbyterians Believe? 192-193).

⁵⁶ Frank Smith, "The Singing of Praise" in Worship in the Presence of God, 223.

⁵⁷ Samuel H. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.), 240.

⁵⁸ William Young, "The Second Commandment" in Frank Smith and David C. Lachman, eds., Worship in the Presence of God, 81-82.

⁵⁹ Peter Hurst, "Lesson 4: Congregational Worship" in Byron Snapp, ed., The Presbyterian Witness (Hampton, VA: Calvary Reformed Presbyterian Church, fall 1997), XI.4, 13. All statistics used in this paragraph are taken from Hurst's article.

⁶⁰ One of the great problems that Reformed denominations have today is the existence of corrupt and dishonest ministers and elders. There are a number of ordained men today who, after having professed their allegiance to the Westminster Standards, work to undermine them in their writing and teaching. There are men who consider themselves Reformed who openly attack the regulative principle which is one of the pillars of the Calvinistic reformation. There are sessions that are introducing many innovations in public worship. The long-term goal of some ministers and elders is a Presbyterian church with Episcopal worship built upon prelatical principles. To such men the words of James Begg are appropriate. He writes: "If it be true, it ought to be firmly maintained, and all worship for which a divine warrant cannot be pleaded, ought to be opposed and discarded. Till it is abandoned, every Presbyterian minister can only be an honest man by maintaining it. It is utterly vain, and worse, to dispose of our solemn obligations by vague and pointless declamation. The position taken up by the Presbyterian Church is either sound or unsound. 'To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.' And the only class of men more inconsistent and criminal than those who leave such a matter in doubt, are those who, in accepting office, profess to hold the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, and promise to maintain it, but who afterwards treat their solemn professions and vows with faithlessness and disregard.... Now we are not proving this [the regulative principle of worship] for the sake of the office-bearers of the Presbyterian Church. They have all solemnly vowed that, according to their convictions, these are the principles of Scripture which they will defend to the utmost of their power. To do anything else therefore, to make any other profession, without abandoning the office which they received in connection with their previous avowal, is simply an act of perjury, fitted to bring disgrace on the Christian Church, and to give the enemies of the truth cause to blaspheme. Every Presbyterian office-bearer is as much bound as we are to maintain and vindicate these principles, and neither directly nor indirectly to connive at their subversion. We live, however, unfortunately, in a day when 'truce breaking' is not uncommon; and when many, instead of following 'no divisive courses,' according to their solemn vows, seem to make the promotion of innovations in the worship of God one of their favourite employments. Religion is wounded in the house of her professed friends. We can imagine nothing more fitted to eat like a canker into the faith and morals of the community" (Anarchy in Worship [Edinburgh: Lyon and Gemmell, 1875], 10, 12-13).

⁶¹ Steve Schlissel, "All I Really Need to Know about Worship I Don't Learn from the Regulative Principle" (Part IV), Messiah's Mandate.

⁶² R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977 [1973]), 4-5, 9-10.

⁶³ Regarding areas of life that are ethically indifferent or adiaphora, there are at least four biblical principles that must be followed. First, everything that we do, no matter how mundane, must be done to God's glory. "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31). "For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's" (Rom. 14:7-8). Second, a matter that normally would be indifferent ceases to be indifferent if it would cause a weak brother to sin. "It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak" (Rom. 14:21). Third, an activity that in itself is indifferent ceases to be indifferent if it cannot be done in faith with a clean conscience. "To him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean....he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:14, 23). Fourth, an act that normally is adiaphora ceases to be adiaphora if a person becomes enslaved to or comes under the power or control of that activity. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any" (1 Cor. 6:12). "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify" (1 Cor 10:23). There are many things that are lawful, such as Twinkies, Big Macs, candy bars, Coca-Cola and fine cigars, that can be abused and thus do not edify. Even organic brown rice can be abused and used in a sinful manner.

⁶⁴ John Knox, "A Vindication of the Doctrine That the Sacrifice of the Mass Is Idolatry" in Works, David Laing, ed. (Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club, 1854), 3:37-38.

⁶⁵ David Dickson, Commentary on the Psalms (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1959 [1653-55]), 1:141-142.

⁶⁶ John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 1:455.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 3:353-354.

⁶⁸ William S. Plummer, Psalms (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1975 [1867]), 794.

⁶⁹ David Clarkson, "Public Worship to Be Preferred Before Private" in The Blue Banner (Dallas, TX: First Presbyterian Church Rowlett, July/August, 1999), 1.

⁷⁰ Matthew Henry, Commentary (McLean, VA: MacDonald, n.d.), 6:1006.

⁷¹ John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament (Streamwood, IL: Primitive Baptist Library, 1979 [1810]), 4:579.

⁷² Frank Smith, "An Introduction to the Elements of Worship" in Worship in the Presence of God, 135.

⁷³ Matthew Henry, Commentary, 1:536.

⁷⁴ A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1958 [1869], 312.

⁷⁵ David Clarkson, 3.

⁷⁶ Ibid., 6.

⁷⁷ Frank Smith, "What is Worship?" in Worship in the Presence of God, 14-15. David C. Lachman, in refuting the "spiritual gift" argument, makes an important observation that is germane to our discussion: "Much ingenuity has been exercised in attempting to justify various worship practices. Some have even argued that music is a spiritual gift, claiming that the lists of spiritual gifts given in Scripture are not exhaustive, but rather illustrative. But such arguments generally contend only for a few other supposed gifts, usually including such artistic accomplishments as dance, drama and even magic. Beyond these and similar forms of entertainment, no one ever suggests that a surgeon perform some particularly difficult operation or a plumber clear a clogged drain as a part of worship, however talented they may be. Although all these may be legitimate parts of our lives, Scripture nowhere suggest that God is pleased by any of them when they are included as part of our worship. What we may well do to the glory of God in our lives in general is not thereby given any warrant to be intruded into our worship of Him" ("Christian Liberty and Worship" in ibid., 99).

⁷⁸ Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, 71-72.

⁷⁹ Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1987), 201.

⁸⁰ Matthew Henry, Commentary (McLean, VA: MacDonald, n.d.), 5:210-211.

⁸¹ David Dickson, Matthew (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1987 [1647]), 207.

⁸² Samuel Rutherford, The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication (London: John Field, 1647), 138.

⁸³ The second half of verse 8 beginning with "the washing of" is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament (e.g., United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament [third edition]; the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament [26th edition]). Most modern translations (ASV, RSV, NASB, NEB, JB, NIV) reflect modern textual criticism by leaving out the second half of verse 8. The expanded reading of verse 8 is found in the Textus Receptus (or the Received Text) and the Majority Text (or the Byzantine/Traditional Text). The KJV and NKJV are based on the Textus Receptus. In short, the critical editions of the Greek New Testament (that virtually all modern translations are based upon) depend primarily on a few older manuscripts that were discovered chiefly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (e.g., Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). The majority texts are not as old as those used in the critical editions; however, they are far greater in number and were used by Christ's church since at least as early as the fifth century. Modern scholarship regarding the majority texts (i.e., archeology, verification of various readings by older papyri, ancient versions and quotations from the early church fathers [e.g., the disputed ending of Mark was accepted as canonical by the second century A.D.]), serious problems with the presuppositions and methodology of the early critical scholars such as Wescott and Hort, and great variations between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts have pointed many Christians back to the Majority Text as superior to the modern critical text. This author accepts the KJV or NKJV reading of Mark 7:8 as reflecting the actual words of Jesus Christ. Accepting the regulative principle, however, is not dependant upon accepting the Majority Text reading of Mark 7:8.

⁸⁴ J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Mark (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 101-102. Ryle (1816-1900) was an Anglican minister and bishop (of Liverpool) and therefore did not adhere to the regulative principle. Nevertheless, his remarks on Mark cited above are true.

⁸⁵ Spurgeon, Matthew, 203.

⁸⁶ Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, n.d. [from the 1852 edition]), 518-519.

⁸⁷ John Eadie, Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 [1884]), 199-200.

⁸⁸ Kevin Reed, Biblical Worship (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1995), 56.

⁸⁹ Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1986 [1692]), 63.

⁹⁰ John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 181.

⁹¹ Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, 149, 151-152.

⁹² Steven Schlissel, "All I Really Need to Know About Worship I Don't Learn From the Regulative Principle" (Part IV) in Messiah's Mandate.

⁹³ Greg Bahnsen, "Exclusive Psalmody" in Antithesis 1:2 (March-April, 1990), 51. The argument that singing is not a separate element of worship was popularized by Vern S. Poythress, professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and a PCA minister. In 1974 he wrote, "We regard teaching-by-singing and teaching-in-the-narrow-sense as simply two forms of teaching, each particularly effective in meeting certain needs and expressing certain aspects of Christian doctrine. Each has its advantages and limitations, due to the nature of the medium of expression. We challenge the exclusive psalmist position to prove from Scripture, rather than assume, that teaching-by-singing and proclaiming are 'two separate elements of worship.' To us they appear little more 'separate' than preaching to a visible audience versus preaching over the radio" ("Ezra 3, Union with Christ, and Exclusive Psalmody," Westminster Theological Journal 37 [1974-75], 225-226). The latest expression of this argument comes from the pen of John M. Frame: "Even if we accept the division of worship into elements, it is not plausible to argue that song is an element of worship, independent of all others. As we saw in the preceding chapter, song is not an independent element, but rather a way of dong other things. It is a way of praying, of teaching, of confessing, etc. Therefore, when we apply the regulative principle to matters of song, we should not ask specifically what words Scripture commands us to sing, but rather, what words Scripture commands us to use in teaching, prayer, confession, etc." (Worship in Spirit and Truth: A Refreshing Study of the Principle and Practice of Biblical Worship [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1996], 124).

⁹⁴ John Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth, 62, ftn. 1.

⁹⁵ If a pastor is preaching through a book of the Bible and in the natural course of his exposition he comes to a passage on the birth or incarnation of Christ on or near December 25th, then choosing that text is a circumstance of worship. But, if a pastor is preaching through a book and purposely changes the subject to the incarnation or birth of Christ on or near December 25th then he has deliberately regarded an extra-biblical holy day, and is using the choosing of a text as a circumstance, as an excuse. Some of the reasons that Reformed believers give for not celebrating Christmas are: (1) The Bible has only authorized the Lord's day or the Christian sabbath as a special religious holy day. In it believers are to celebrate the whole work of redemption. (2) Jesus Christ was not born on December 25th and thus Christmas is a lie. Our Lord was born in the fall of the year. (3) It is immoral for Christians to syncretize biblical worship with paganism and popery. Believers should have nothing to do with remnants of paganism or the trinkets of Antichrist. (4) The Bible tells God's people to "love not the world, neither the things that are in the world" (1 Jn. 2:15). Christmas was the invention of rank pagans and apostate Romanists. It is loved and admired by pagans (sodomites, murderers, child molesters, Hollywood, etc.) all over the world as a special "holy day." Therefore, it is unchristian and should be shunned by all believers.

⁹⁶ An instance of historical example is Lord's-day public worship. There is no explicit command or divine imperative changing public worship from the seventh day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday) of the week, recorded in Scripture. Yet in the New Testament, the change from the seventh day to the first day is recorded as an accomplished fact (Ac. 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10). Not every divine command or prophetic word has been inscripturated (i.e., included in the Bible). The universal practice of the apostolic church, such as Lord's-day public worship, is binding because of the unique authority given to the apostles, i.e., direct revelation. When the apostles died, direct revelation ceased and the canon was closed; now our doctrine, worship, and all historical examples are limited to the Bible, the word of God. Those who appeal to church traditions, invented after the closing of the canon, for authority in establishing worship ordinances, are, in principle, no better than Jeroboam the son of Nebat (1 Kgs. 12:26-33).

⁹⁷ "There is of course careful distinction to be made between the Word of God and inferences drawn from the Word of God. We may challenge the validity of inferences drawn from Scripture and attempt to determine whether they are indeed scriptural, but we may never in the same way challenge the validity of the explicit statements of Scripture. The words and statements of Scripture are absolutely authoritative. Their authority is underived and indisputable. The authority of valid inferences from Scripture, on the other hand, is derivative in nature, but one cannot argue that such inferences are therefore less authoritative than the express declarations of Scripture. They simply make explicit what is already expressed implicitly in Scripture" (Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, 124). Some of the most important and foundational doctrines of Christianity are drawn from inferences of Scripture, such as the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the trinity. That the use of "good and necessary consequence" or logical inference from Scripture to formulate doctrine is biblical can be seen in the following passages: Lk. 20:37ff., Mt. 22:31ff., Mk. 12:26, Mt. 19:4-6, 1 Cor. 11:8-10.

⁹⁸ The Westminster Confession of Faith does not just set forth broad categories but rather gives well defined, distinct worship elements that all serve as the ordinary parts of religious worship. The Confession names "prayer with thanksgiving" (21:3); also "the reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence: singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due admiration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgiving upon several occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner" (21:5). The authors of the Confession clearly believed that scriptural authorization or proof was required for each separate part of worship. That is why each distinct element of worship is proof-texted by the Confession. The confessional view of the circumstances and elements of worship is supported and reflected in the writings of the greatest theologians of that time. George Gillespie (1613-1648) wrote: "Beside all this, there is nothing which any way pertaineth to the worship of God left to determination of human laws, besides the mere circumstances, which neither have any holiness in them, forasmuch as they have no other use and praise in sacred than they have in civil things, nor yet were part-determinable in Scripture, because they are infinite; but sacred significant ceremonies, such as cross, kneeling, surplice, holidays, bishopping, etc., which have no use and praise except in religion only, and which, also, were most easily determinable (yet not determined) within those bounds which the wisdom of God did set to his written word, are such things as God never left to the determination of any human laws" (A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded upon the Church of England, Christopher Coldwell, ed. [Dallas, TX: Naphtali, 1993 (1637, 60)], xli). Samuel Rutherford (c. 1600-1661) wrote: "In actions or religious means of worship, or circumstances physical, not moral, not religious, as whether the pulpit be of stone or of timber, the bell of this or this metal, the house of worship stand thus or thus in situation" (The Divine Right of Church-Government and Excommunication [London: John Field for Christopher Meredith, 1646], 109). William Ames (1576-1633) wrote: "The outward circumstances are those which pertain to order and decency. 1 Corinthians 14:40. Let all things be done decently and in order. But the general rule of these is that they be ordered in that manner which maketh most for edification. 1 Corinthians 14:26. Of this nature are the circumstances of place, time, and the like, which are common adjuncts to religious and civil acts. Therefore although such like circumstances are wont to be called of some rites, and religious or ecclesiastical ceremonies, yet they have nothing in their nature which is proper to religion, and therefore religious worship doth not properly consist in them" (The Marrow of Sacred Divinity [London: Edward Griffen for Henry Overton, 1642], 318). John Owen (1616-1683) wrote: "It is said men may add nothing to the substance of the worship of God, but they may order, dispose, and appoint the things that belong to the manner and circumstances of it, this is all that is done in the prescription of liturgies. Of circumstances in and about the worship of God we have spoken before, and removed that pretense. Nor is it safe distinguishing in the things of God where himself hath not distinguished. Indeed, there is nothing in its whole nature, as it belongs to the general being of things, so circumstantial, but that if it be appointed by God in his worship, it becomes a part of the substance of it; nor can anything that is so appointed ever by any be made a circumstance is worship" ("A Discourse Concerning Liturgies and Their Imposition" in Works [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1965 (1850-53)], 15:40). Thomas Ridgely (1667-1734) wrote: "The first idea contained in them [worship ordinances], is that they are religious duties, prescribed by God, as an instituted method in which he will be worshiped by his creatures.... Now, the ordinances, as thus described, must be engaged in according to a divine appointment. No creature has a warrant to enjoin any modes of worship, pretending that these will be acceptable or well-pleasing to God; since God alone, who is the object of worship, has right to prescribe the way in which he will be worshiped. For a creature to institute modes of worship would be an instance of profaneness and bold presumption; and the worship performed would be 'in vain'; as our Saviour says concerning that which has no higher sanction than the commandments of men" (A Body of Divinity [New York: 1855], 2:433).

⁹⁹ M. R. Wilson, "Passover" in Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 3:677.

¹⁰⁰ Alfred Edersheim writes: "the 'cup of blessing,' which was the third, and formed part of the new institution of the Lord's Supper, being mentioned in verse 20. In washing their hands this customary prayer was repeated: 'Blessed art Thou, Jehovah our God, who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments, and hast enjoined us concerning the washing of our hands.' Two different kinds of 'washing' were prescribed by tradition—'dipping' and 'pouring.' At the Paschal Supper the hands were to be 'dipped' in water" (The Temple: Its Ministry and Services as They Were at the Time of Christ [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950], p. 239. Note Edersheim's footnote to the quote above: "The distinction [between two types of ritual hand washings] is also interesting as explaining Mark vii 3. For when water was poured on the hands, they had to be lifted, yet so that the water should neither run up above the wrist, nor back again upon the hand; best, therefore, by doubling the fingers into a fist. Hence (as Lightfoot rightly remarks) Mark vii 3, which should be translated: 'For the Pharisees...except they wash their hands with the fist, eat not, holding the traditions of the elders'" (ibid., ftn. 4). Note, Mark 7:2ff. is a parallel account with Matthew 15:2ff. What all this means is that if Jesus and the disciples celebrated the Seder as it is set forth in the Mishnah (as many assert), then Christ was guilty of participating in the exact same ritual that earlier in the gospel accounts he and his disciples refused to do and which elicited a scathing condemnation of the Pharisees by our Lord. We regard such a scenario as exegetically and theologically impossible. There are other problems with the idea that Jesus followed the Seder according to Mishnah. For instance, the gospel accounts do not speak of four cups but merely one which was shared by all the disciples.

¹⁰¹ Alfred Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation after the Destruction of Jerusalem under Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 [1856]), 381.

¹⁰² Note how the Mishnah perverts the meaning of Leviticus 18:21 and endorses idolatry. "MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH FIRE, OR, THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH. GEMARA. R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry.... R, Simeon said: if to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not [Sanhedrin 64a]. R. Aha the son of Raba said: If one caused all his seed to pass through [the fire] to Molech, he is exempt from punishment, because it is written, of thy seed implying, but not all thy seed [Sanhedrin 64b]" (The Babylonian Talmud quoted in Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990], 1019). (In the Talmud, the Mishnah is always written in all capitals.)

¹⁰³ George Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, 269-270.

¹⁰⁴ F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 181.

¹⁰⁵ Leon Morris writes: "Yet, just as the reference to the water in ch.7 seems to point us back to the rock in the wilderness rather than to the pouring of water from the golden pitcher, so the light may refer us to the pillar of fire in the wilderness. We have noted the reference to the manna in ch. 6, so that in three successive chapters the wilderness imagery seems consistently used to illustrate aspects of Jesus' Person and work. It must always be borne in mind that light is a common theme in both Old and New Testaments, so that it is not necessary for us to find the source of Jesus' great saying in any non-biblical places' (The Gospel According to John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], 437). R. C. H. Lenski writes: "Maimonides states that this ceremony took place every evening during the feast, others are sure that it occurred only on the first evening. The main difficulty in connecting the word of Jesus with this ceremony is that it leaves out an essential part of the figure. Those candelabra were stationary, and men danced in the courts, while Jesus speaks of a movable light: 'he that follows me.' We may say more. In 7:37, when Jesus calls those that 'thirst' and bids them come to him and 'drink,' he does not stop with the ceremony of drawing water from Siloah and pouring it out at the altar, in which no quenching of thirst by drinking is pictured; he reaches back to the original blessing received at Meribah where the thirsty actually received water to drink. He does the same here. One of the great blessings during the desert sojourn of Israel was the pillar of cloud and of fire, evidence of the presence of Jehovah with his people" (St. John's Gospel [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961], pp. 593-594).

¹⁰⁶ E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1980 [1865]), 1:429.

¹⁰⁷ Hengstenberg writes: "The feast was not only one of thanksgiving, it was also one of hope; and of this latter aspect of it, Isa. xii. 3 was the appropriate text. Jesus declares Himself to be the water of salvation, announced by the prophet Isaiah; and Isaiah himself gave the warrant for doing so. The connection of the springs of salvation with the person of the Messiah is plain from the relation of ch. xii. to ch. xi., where all the salvation of the future is bond up with the person of the Messiah. And what Isaiah said in ch. xii. concerning the waters of salvation, receives its consummation also in ch. iv. 1, to which the words 'ean tis dipsa poeto' definitely allude: comp. on ch. vi. 45, iv. 14" (Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:405). Brooke Foss Westcott writes: Nothing can prove more clearly the intimate relation between the teaching recorded by St. John and the Old Testament than the manner in which Christ is shown to transfer to Himself the figures of the Exodus (the brazen serpent, the manna, the water, the fiery pillar)" (The Gospel According to St. John [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], 277).

¹⁰⁸ J. P. Lewis, "Feasts" in Merrill C. Tenney, ed., The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 1976), 2:525.

¹⁰⁹ Thomas M'Crie, Lectures on the Book of Esther (New York: Robert Carter, 1838), 287-288.

¹¹⁰ Ibid., 298-300.

¹¹¹ Let us briefly examine the writings of an independent Calvinistic minister who opposes Reformed worship. He writes: "The very existence of the synagogue, however, undoes the regulativist's position! For he knows that the synagogues existed. And he knows that Christ and the Apostles regularly worshiped at synagogues without so much as a breath of suggestion that they were institutionally or liturgically illegitimate. And he knows that he cannot find so much as a sliver of a Divine commandment concerning what ought to be done in the synagogue. And, according to his principle, if God commanded naught concerning what ought to be done, then all was forbidden. And if all was forbidden, then the whole of it—institution and liturgy—was a sinful abomination. But that brings him back to Christ attending upon the service of God there and Christ following its liturgy: did He sin by participating in an entire order of worship that was without express divine warrant? The thought is blasphemy!" (Steve Schlissel, "All I Really Need to Know About Worship I Don't Learn from the Regulative Principle," Part 1, in Messiah's Mandate, 7).

¹¹² Samuel Parker quoted in John Owen, "The Word of God the Sole Rule of Worship" in Works (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1967 [1644]), 13:462.

¹¹³ Robert Shaw, Exposition of the Confession of Faith (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival, n.d. [1845]), 16.

¹¹⁴ W. M. Hetherington, History of the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, Scotland, 1848), 1:15.

¹¹⁵ Francis Petticrew, "Speech of the mover of the report to the General Assembly, 1873" in James Glasgow, Heart and Voice: Instrumental Music in Christian Worship Not Divinely Authorized (Belfast: C. Aitchison; J. Cleeland, n.d.), 4-5. Glasgow adds the following footnote: "Not religious circumstances entering into and blending with worship, but men's mere social circumstances, as of times, places, persons, &c" (ibid., 5).

¹¹⁶ James H. Thornwell, "Boards and Presbyterianism" in Collected Writings (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974 [1875]), 4:255.

¹¹⁷ John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Havertown, PA: New Covenant Publication Society, 1980 [1888]), 9.

¹¹⁸ A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1961 [1869]), 39.

¹¹⁹ B. B. Warfield, "The Westminster Doctrine of Holy Scripture," in Works (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981 [1931]), 6:226-227 (originally published in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review iv [1893], 582-655).

¹²⁰ William S. McClure, "The Scriptural Law of Worship" in John McNaugher, ed., The Psalms in Worship (Edmonton, AB: Canada; Still Waters Revival Books, 1992 [1907]), 33.

¹²¹ William Young, The Puritan Principle of Worship (Vienna, Va.: Publication Committee of the Presbyterian Reformed Church, n.d.), 10.

¹²² Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion (Pittsburgh, PA: Crown and Covenant, 1993 [1980]), 122-123. Note also Brian M. Schwertley, The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas: "Whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden. Anything that the church does in worship must have warrant from an explicit command of God, be deduced by good and necessary consequence, or be derived from approved historical example (e.g., the change of day from seventh to first for Lord's Day corporate worship)" (Southfield, MI: Reformed Witness, 1996), 4.

¹²³ John Owen, "The Word of God the Sole Rule of Worship" in Works (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1967 [1644]), 13:467.

¹²⁴ John Brown, Hebrews (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1963 [1862]), 493-494.

¹²⁵ One objection to the Puritan and Reformed concept of approved historical examples from Scripture is that it is pharisaical and Romish. It is argued that when Reformed theologians assume that historical examples are based on prior revelation that was not inscripturated, they are advocating a form of binding and normative oral tradition. This comparison with Pharisees and Romanists is a clever yet unwarranted ad hominem attack. The Pharisees and Roman Catholics were and are guilty of adding their own doctrines and commandments to what the Bible teaches. They justify their additions to the Scripture by advocating a source of divine revelation which is independent of the Bible. The Jews have their Talmud (which in English translation runs to 34 large volumes) and the Roman Catholics have the church fathers, councils, decrees and papal declarations. Puritan and Reformed pastors and theologians add nothing of their own to the doctrine or commandment of Scripture. They do not believe in any independent sources of revelation outside of the Bible. They simply infer from the Bible itself that in the few cases where God is described as accepting worship practices that are not accompanied with explicit instructions, the people involved (such as Abel [Gen. 4:4] or Noah [Gen. 8:20]) had based their practice on a previous communication by God. As noted above, the Reformed interpretation is a necessary inference from Scripture. Approved historical examples come only from the text of Scripture, and not from any Pharisaical or Romish type of independent oral tradition. It is one thing to infer a communication based on a particular text of Scripture, and quite another to posit with absolutely no biblical evidence that God spoke the whole Talmud to Moses on Mount Sinai. Opponents of the regulative principle are comparing apples to oranges, and they know it. Who has more in common with a Pharisee or Romanist? Someone who adds his own human traditions to what God has authorized? Or someone who refuses to add to God's word?

¹²⁶ James Begg, Anarchy in Worship, 4-5.

¹²⁷ There are other serious problems with the non-regulativist position that need to be addressed. A very serious problem that every Christian should note from Scripture and church history is that human additions to the ethics, worship, doctrine, or church government set forth in the Bible invariably drive out what God has warranted in favor of the man-made traditions. What happens is that men simply do not have the self restraint to carefully limit their own traditions. An innovation is added here and there and these new additions eventually become loved and "indispensable" to the church governors and their congregations. A few man-made traditions may not seem to be much of a problem at first, but one must keep in mind that the church is a very old institution. Over time man-made innovations accumulate until the doctrine and worship of a church are radically changed. Over many generations so many man-made doctrines, commandments and worship innovations are added to the church that pure gospel worship, and even the gospel itself, is obscured and even lost. This has happened in different degrees to Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, evangelicalism and even many Reformed churches. People who reject the regulative principle do not have any solid limiting factor upon their additions. How many innovations are acceptable? When should we stop adding more? Pastors who argue against the regulative principle say that there is no need for concern, "the session will keep the additions under control." The truth, however, is that apart from the regulative principle it is almost impossible to get rid of human traditions. Once a tradition is loved and accepted by a congregation (e.g., Christmas), woe unto the pastor who attempts to rid the church of such non-commanded elements! The only dependable, safe method for avoiding man-made corruptions is to draw the line on worship content and ceremony where God draws the line. To allow sinful men to draw and redraw the line as they please has been a total disaster for the church. Jesus' rebuke to the Pharisees has a very broad application: "Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition" (Mt. 15:6).

¹²⁸ John Calvin, "The Necessity of Reforming the Church" in Selected Works: Tracts and Letters, Henry Beveridge, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983 [1844]), 1:126.

¹²⁹ John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 3:431-432.

¹³⁰ Ibid., 1:344.

¹³¹ Ibid., 1:365.

¹³² Ibid., 1:344-345.

¹³³ Ibid., 1:353.

¹³⁴ John Calvin, Sermons on 2 Samuel (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1992), 246.

¹³⁵ John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 1:397-398.

¹³⁶ John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 1:397-398 (italics in original).

¹³⁷ Ibid., 1:413-414.

¹³⁸ Ibid., 2:438-439.

¹³⁹ John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists: Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 2:245-246.

¹⁴⁰ Ibid., 2:253-254.

¹⁴¹ John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 201-203.

¹⁴² John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion I.XI.4, Ford Lewis Battles, trans. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1:104.

¹⁴³ I.XII.I, 1:117.

¹⁴⁴ I.XII.3, 1:120.

¹⁴⁵ II.VII.5, 1:371-372.

¹⁴⁶ II.VIII.17, 1:383.

¹⁴⁷ IV.X.23, 2:1201-1202.

¹⁴⁸ IV.X.24, 2:1203.

¹⁴⁹ IV.X.26, 2:1204.

¹⁵⁰ IV.X.1, 2:1179.

¹⁵¹ IV.X.8, 2:1186-1187.

¹⁵² IV.X.9, 2:1187-1188.

¹⁵³ IV.X.10, 2:1188.

¹⁵⁴ IV.X.11, 2:1189-1190.

¹⁵⁵ IV.X.16, 2:1194.

¹⁵⁶ IV.X.17, 2:1195-1196.

¹⁵⁷ IV.X.18, 2:1197.

¹⁵⁸ John Calvin, "Confession of Faith" in Selected Works: Tracts and Letters (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983 [1844]), 2:147-148.

¹⁵⁹ Ibid.

¹⁶⁰ Ibid., 148-149.

¹⁶¹ "The Necessity of Reforming the Church" in Selected Works, 1:128-129.

¹⁶² Ibid., 1:132-133.

¹⁶³ Ibid., 1:151.

¹⁶⁴ Ibid., 1:152-153.

¹⁶⁵ Ibid., 1:189.

¹⁶⁶ John Calvin, "The True Method of Giving Peace to Christendom and Reforming the Church" in Selected Works: Tracts and Letters (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 3:260-261.

¹⁶⁷ John Calvin, "Brief Form of a Confession of Faith" in Selected Works: Tracts and Letters (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 2:133.

¹⁶⁸ John Calvin, "To the Protector Somerset" in Selected Works: Tracts and Letters, 5:189.

Contents