Introduction

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)

Art. 1. Scripture. The Canonical Scripture, being the Word of God, and delivered by the Holy Ghost, and published to the world by the prophets and apostles, being of all others the most perfect and ancient philosophy, doth perfectly contain all piety and good ordering of life.²

French Confession (1559)

Art. 5. We believe that the word, contained in these books, came from one God; of whom alone, and not of men, the authority thereof dependeth. 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, not for the angels themselves, to add or detract any thing to or from that word, or to alter any whit at all in the same.³

Belgic Confession (1561)

Article 7. The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to be the Only Rule of Faith

We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, 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, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God. Likewise, If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house.⁴

Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

I. Of the Holy Scripture Being the True Word of God....

2. 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; and in this respect it is expressly commanded of God that nothing be either put to or taken from the same (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19).

3. We judge, therefore, that from these Scriptures are to be taken true wisdom and godliness, the reformation and government of churches; as also instruction in all duties of piety; and, to be short, the confirmation of doctrines, and the confutation of all errors, with all exhortations; according to that word of the apostle, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof," etc. (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Again, "These things write I unto thee," says the apostle to Timothy, "...that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God," etc. (1 Tim. 3:14-15).⁵

II. Of Interpreting the Holy Scriptures; and of Fathers, Councils, and Traditions....

4. ...Therefore, in controversies of religion or matters of faith, we can not admit any other judge than God Himself, pronouncing by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what [is] to be avoided. So we do not rest but in the judgment of spiritual men, drawn from the Word of God. Certainly Jeremiah and other prophets did vehemently condemn the assemblies of priests gathered against the law of God; and diligently forewarned us that we should not hear the fathers, or tread in their path who, walking in their own inventions, swerved from the law of God.

5. We do likewise reject human traditions, which, although they be set out with goodly titles, as though they were divine and apostolic, delivered to the Church by the lively voice of the apostles, and, as it were, by the hands of apostolical men, by means of bishops succeeding in their room, yet, being compared with the Scriptures, disagree with them; and that by their disagreement betray themselves in no wise to be apostolical. For as the apostles did not disagree among themselves in doctrine, so the apostles' scholars did not set forth things contrary to the apostles. Nay, it were blasphemous to avouch that the apostles, by lively voice, delivered things contrary to their writings. Paul affirms expressly that he taught the same things in all churches (1 Cor. 4:17). And, again, "We," says he, "write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge" (2 Cor. 1:13). Also, in another place, he witnesses that he and his disciples—to wit, apostolic men—walked in the same way, and jointly by the same Spirit did all things (2 Cor. 12:18). The Jews also, in time past, had their traditions of elders; but these traditions were severely refuted by the Lord, showing that the keeping of them hinders God's law, and that God is in vain worshiped of such (Matt. 15:8-9; Mark 7:6-7).⁶

The Westminster Standards (1646-1648)

Shorter Catechism

Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?

A. 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.⁷

Larger Catechism

Q. 3. What is the word of God?

A. The holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.

Confession of Faith

1.2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: ... All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.

1.6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

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:

Scripture occupies for us an exclusive place and performs an exclusive function as the only extant mode of revelation. It is granted by those with whom we are particularly concerned in this address that Scripture does not continue to be written, that it is a closed canon. Once this is admitted, then we must entertain what our opponents are not willing to grant, namely, that conception of Scripture taught and pre-supposed by our Lord and his apostles, and insist that it is this conception that must be applied to the whole canon of Scripture. Since we no longer have prophets, since we do not have our Lord with us as he was with the disciples, and since we do not have new organs of revelation as in apostolic times, Scripture in its total extent, according to the conception entertained by our Lord and his apostles, is the only revelation of the mind and will of God available to us. This is what the finality of Scripture means for us; it is the only extant revelatory Word of God.¹⁶

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:

This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down.... For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fulness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her (Dei Verbum, 8; 1962-1965).¹⁸

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:

Nor can it be replied that the Pharisaical traditions are rejected, not the apostolic. All doctrines taught by men and not contained in the Scriptures are rejected and the assumption is gratuitous that there are any apostolic traditions out of the Scriptures. Believers are called to the law and the testimony (Is. 8:20) and destruction is denounced against those who do not speak according to it. Nor can traditions be meant by the testimony because God everywhere rejects them. Either the law itself (often called "the testimony") is meant as a testimony of God exegetically or the writings of the prophets which were added to the law.²¹

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:

She [the Roman Catholic Church] is apostate and heretical, having failed from the faith once delivered to the saints and teaching various deadly heresies and thrusting them forward to be believed under the pain of a curse. Such are the doctrines concerning justification by works and their merit, human satisfactions and indulgences, transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Mass, sin and free will, sufficient grace, the possible observance of the law, the ecumenical pontiff and primacy of the pope.... she is idolatrous and superstitious, both with respect to the object which she worships and with respect to the mode in which she worships. With respect to the object, inasmuch as besides God (who as alone omniscient, omnipotent and best ought to be the sole object of worship and invocation), she venerates and adores creatures also which are by nature not gods (Gal. 4:8): as the blessed virgin, angels, defunct saints, the consecrated host, the sacrament, the cross, the pope, the relics of Christ and of the saints. With respect of the mode, in the making, worship and adoration of effigies and images, so solemnly prohibited by the law of God. And these things appear not from the private opinion of teachers, but from the public sanctions and constant practice.²⁴

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

The Lutheran confession also contains a strong affirmation of sola scriptura.

I. We believe, confess, and teach that the only rule and norm, according to which all dogmas and all doctors ought to be esteemed and judged, is no other whatever than the prophetic and apostolic writings both of the Old and the New Testament, as it is written (Psalm cxix. 105): 'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.' And St. Paul saith (Gal. i. 8): 'Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed....'

In this way a clear distinction is retained between the sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and all other writings; and Holy Scripture alone is acknowledged as the [only] judge, norm, and rule, according to which, as by the [only] touchstone, all doctrines are to be examined and judged, as to whether they be godly or ungodly, true or false.²⁶

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 Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.²⁷

Article 34—Of the Traditions of the Church states:

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word.

Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like), as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.²⁸

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:

In the defense of Anglicanism, published in eight books between 1594 and 1600, Hooker identifies the real issue in the Anglican and Puritan controversy as the nature of the church. He seeks to repudiate Cartwright's position that the Scripture provides a prototype for the government of the church for all time. Endeavoring to shift the argument away from Scripture, Hooker contends for a principle of natural reason as having equal validity with that of divine revelation. He embarks on an essentially non-Reformed approach to truth, teaching that some spiritual laws are known by reason quite apart from Scripture. Here we have the Catholic mind at work, drawing its strength from Aquinas, operating quite comfortably within the English Church from which it has never been banished; creating, in fact, the characteristic Anglican mentality which has controlled the practice of the Church of England ever since.... There is nothing of sola scriptura in Hooker's contention that to appeal to the New Testament for the polity of the church is to say, in effect, that 'God in delivering Scripture to his Church should clearly have abrogated amongst them the law of nature; which is an infallible knowledge imprinted in the minds of all the children of men' [Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. II, Ch. 8, 6]. Reason is given a validity equal to that of Scripture 'inasmuch as law doth stand upon reason, to allege reason serveth as well as to cite Scripture; that whatsoever is reasonable the same is lawful whatsoever is author of it.'³⁰

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 regulative principle may therefore be seen, in a particular sense, as a natural inference from the doctrine of total depravity. The two are tied together, for example, in Exodus 20:25: 'And if you make an altar of stone for me, you shall not build it of cuts stones, for if you wield your tool upon it, you will profane it.' Any work of man's own hands, that he presumes to offer to God in worship, is defiled by sin and for that reason wholly unacceptable.³²

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:

That abridgement of the liberty of the disciples of Christ, by impositions on them of things which he hath not appointed, nor made necessary by circumstances antecedent unto such impositions, are plain usurpations upon the consciences of the disciples of Christ, destructive of the liberty which he hath purchased for them, and which, if it be their duty to walk according to gospel rule, is sinful to submit unto.³⁵

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:

Moreover, they believed with Calvin that if God had shown how he was to be worshiped by the clear light of His Word, it was sheer presumption, bordering on blasphemy, for men to add to what God had revealed. In 1605 William Bradshaw declared that Puritans 'hold and maintain that the word of God contained in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, is of absolute perfection, given by Christ the Head of the Church, to be unto the same, the sole Canon and rule of all matters of Religion, and the worship and service of God whatsoever. And that whatsoever done in the same service and worship cannot be justified by the said word, is unlawful.' Such Bible passages as 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Matthew 15:9, 13 and Revelation 22:19 were used to justify this position, whilst from such passages as Acts 2:41-42; 1 Timothy 2:1ff.; Ephesians 5:19; Romans 10:14-15; 2 Timothy 1:13 and Matthew 18:15-18, it was argued that there were six ordinances of Gospel worship—Prayer, Praise, Preaching, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, Catechising, and Discipline.³⁶

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:

The principle that the church hath power to institute any thing or ceremony belonging to the worship of God, either to a matter or manner, beyond the observance of such circumstances as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ Himself hath instituted, lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition and idolatry, of all the confusion, blood, persecution, and wars, that have for long a season spread themselves over the face of the Christian world.³⁸

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:

But among such things as have been the accursed means of the church's desolation, which peradventure might seem to some of you to have least harm or evil in them, are the ceremonies of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's supper, cross in baptism, bishoping, holidays, etc. which are pressed under the name of things indifferent; yet if you survey the sundry inconveniences and grievous consequences of the same, you will think far otherwise. The vain shows and shadows of these ceremonies have hid and obscured the substance of religion; the true life of godliness is smothered down and suppressed by the burden of these human inventions; for their sakes, many, who are both faithful servants to Christ and loyal subjects to the king, are evil-spoken of, mocked, reproached, menaced, molested; for their sakes Christian brethren are offended, and the weak are greatly scandalized; for their sakes the most powerful and painful ministers in the land are either thrust out, or threatened to be thrust out from their callings; for their sakes the best qualified and most hopeful expectants are debarred from entering into the ministry; for their sakes the seminaries of learning are so corrupted that few or no good plants can come forth from thence; for their sakes many are admitted into the sacred ministry, who are either popish and Arminianized, who minister to the flock poison instead of food; or silly ignorants, who can dispense no wholesome food to the hungry.³⁹

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:

And unto the true unity of the Church, it is sufficient to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, rites, or ceremonies instituted by men should be alike every where, as St. Paul saith: 'There is one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all' (Art. 7, Of the Church).⁴¹

Concerning Ecclesiastical rites [made by men], they teach that those rites are to be observed which may be observed without sin, and are profitable for tranquility and good order in the Church; such as are set holidays, feasts, and such like. Yet concerning such things, men are to be admonished that consciences are not to be burdened as if such service were necessary to salvation. They are also to be admonished that human traditions, instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith. Wherefore vows and traditions concerning foods and days, and such like, instituted to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the Gospel (Art. 15, Of Ecclesiastical Rites).⁴²

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

(Which are commonly called adiaphora, or things indifferent.) There has also arisen among the divines of the Augsburg Confession a controversy touching ecclesiastical ceremonies or rites, which are neither enjoined nor forbidden in the Word of God, but have been introduced into the Church merely for the sake of order and seemliness. (Sound doctrine and confession touching this Article.) I. For the better taking away this controversy we believe, teach, and confess, with unanimous consent, that ceremonies or ecclesiastical rites (such as in the Word of God are neither commanded nor forbidden, but have only been instituted for the sake of order and seemliness) are of themselves neither divine worship, nor even any part of divine worship. For it is written (Matt. xv. 9): 'In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' II. We believe, teach, and confess that it is permitted to the Church of God any where on earth, and at whatever time, agreeably to occasion, to change such ceremonies, in such manner as is judged most useful to the Church of God and most suited to her edification.... V. We believe, teach, and confess that one Church ought not to condemn another because it observes more or less of external ceremonies, which the Lord has not instituted, provided only there be consent between them in doctrine and all the articles thereof, and in the true use of the sacraments.⁴³

We repudiate and condemn the following false dogmas as repugnant to the Word of God: I. That human traditions and constitutions in things ecclesiastical are of themselves to be accounted as divine worship, or at least as a part of divine worship. II. When ceremonies and constitutions of this kind are by a sort of coercion obtruded upon the Church as necessary, and that contrary to the Christian liberty which the Church of Christ has in external matters of this sort.⁴⁴

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:

On this same weak basis, the Romanists have attributed to the sacrament of ordination a certain fictitious "character," which is said to be indelibly impressed upon an ordinand. I would ask whence do such ideas arise, and on whose authority and for what reason have they become established? Not that we are unwilling for the Romanists to be free to invent, to say, or to assert, whatever they like; but we also insist on our own freedom, lest they arrogate to themselves the right of making articles of the faith out of their own ideas, as they have hitherto presumed to do. It is sufficient that, for the sake of concord, we should accommodate ourselves to their ceremonies and idiosyncrasies; but we refuse to be compelled to accept them as necessary for salvation, which they are not. Let them do away with the element of compulsion in their arbitrary demands, and we will yield free obedience to their wishes in order that we may live in peace towards each other. For it is mean, iniquitous, and servile for a Christian man, with his freedom, to be subjected to any regulations except the heavenly and divine.⁴⁵

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 implications of this doctrine were that God has so ordered the world that man must not live as a mere individual isolated from society, but as a being sharing certain communal relationships. Such communities ordained by God are the Church and the State. Since they depend for their continuance on the divine sanction, men ought to respect them. Therefore, except when they definitely contradict the revealed will of God, they are to be obeyed. Such a doctrine puts a heavy premium upon tradition and as such it may be regarded as the religious basis of Luther's conservatism. It also helps to explain why the bishops have such an important part to play in deciding what particular liturgical reforms are desirable. Theoretically Luther left the choice of accepting or rejecting his liturgical reforms to the Christians of the local churches, but in practice the decision was left to the discretion of the bishop.⁴⁷

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 Formula of Concord first marks out the boundaries of genuine adiaphora. True adiaphora are never contrary to God's Word, never unionizing, never Romanizing, never useless foolish spectacles, never essentially constitute the worship of God. Concerning their status, it is said that adiaphora may be changed by the church in the interest of good order, discipline, and edification. But there is always the necessity of clear doctrinal confession by word and deed. Adiaphora are matters of freedom. Compulsory adiaphora involve a contradiction of terms. When they cease to be free they must be resisted.⁴⁸

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:

One must be careful to distinguish between the circumstances of worship and the worship itself. For example the Scripture does not prescribe the hour of the day at which public worship of the congregation is to be held. Neither has the Lord prescribed the shape, style, or size of the place of worship. In the nature of the case, such circumstances will vary from country to country, season to season, and place to place. There is a general rule, however, which requires that congregations assemble somewhere on the Lord's Day. The general rule controls the particular situation according to the circumstances. But when the congregation has assembled at the agreed place the worship must be then only that which God has commanded.⁴⁹

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:

Similarly, in liturgical matters, it may fairly be claimed that his doctrine of the Word of God was not logically developed. In extenuation it should be remembered, however, that he was the first of the Reformers and that by the time of Calvin the situation was more stable and men had more time for reflection on the issues. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that in Luther's later years the Reformer displayed a growing conservatism. He desired more uniformity both in the use of ecclesiastical vestments and of liturgical forms. What had previously been optional, became obligatory.⁵²

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:

Note carefully that worship is an imposition, since we are required to gather with God's people in order to engage in public worship. Therefore, which is the legalistic position (and the one opposed to Christian liberty)—the one which thinks it does not need biblical warrant to require this or that action to be performed in worship, or the one which makes strict appeal to Scripture and wishes not to impose anything upon God's precious flock unless it is found in His Word? In passing, we would note that the Reformed faith is at once the most strict and narrow, and also the broadest and most universal, because of its unwillingness to impose upon people anything unless is it biblical.⁵⁶

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:

The enlightened understanding is content to learn God's precepts and the renewed will to walk in them, but the regenerate heart as such cannot desire to make the slightest addition to God's commandments. Whenever true believers have acted inconsistently in this respect, they have invariably allowed great corruption to be introduced into God's sanctuary.⁵⁸

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:

Some regulativists will attempt to broaden their appeal to the "principle" found in 12:32 by saying that it is found also in Deuteronomy 4:2. But this passage reads. "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." If the Regulativist would bring this passage to bear on the question of worship, he has gone even further from the path leading to the light. For this passage refers to all the Law of God, not simply to laws governing worship. Very few regulativists would seriously argue that God's intent here is to forbid Israel from doing anything whatsoever in any area of life that is not specifically commanded in the Law. I suppose those Amish who eschew buttons for want of finding them mentioned in Scripture might look somewhat favorable on this interpretation, but they'd be mighty lonely in so doing. Yet that is precisely the conclusion which cannot be evaded if 4:2 is cited as supportive of the Regulativist's reading of 12:32. Deuteronomy 4:2 is a general rule, requiring a life that conforms to God's disclosed will in its entirety. The NIV Study Bible note is to the point: "The revelation of the Lord is sufficient. All of it must be obeyed and anything that adulterates or contradicts it cannot be tolerated." God did not intend that the recipients of this verse (4:2) would literally do nothing not mentioned therein (e.g., no skateboarding, using electricity, driving automobiles, or eating lemon ices). Thus, 4:2 as a parallel demonstrates that 12:32 is not to be taken in an absolute sense. If you find a similar phrase used by the same author in the same book, you need to justify applying a radically different sense to each. If it is agreed that 4:2, referring to the whole Law, was not to be taken absolutely when it forbids additions and subtractions, neither is 12:32 to be taken as an abstract and absolute rule. Both are to be interpreted in terms of the whole Word of God, a Word that simply does not teach: if it is not commanded, it is forbidden.⁶¹

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:

It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society. If law has its source in man's reason, then reason is the god of that society. If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is the god of that system.... Modern humanism, the religion of the state, locates law in the state and thus makes the state or the people as they find expression in the state, the god of the system.... Nothing is more deadly or more derelict than the notion that the Christian is at liberty with respect to the kind of law he can have.... Neither positive law nor natural law can reflect more than the sin and apostasy of man: revealed law is the need and privilege of Christian society.⁶²

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 indifferent⁶³ (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:

And that is principal idolatry when our own inventions we defend to be righteous in the sight of God, because we think them good, laudable, and pleasant. We may not think us so free nor so wise, that we may do unto God, and unto his honor, what we think expedient. No! The contrary is commanded by God, saying, "Unto my Word shall ye add nothing; nothing shall ye diminish therefrom, that ye might observe the precepts of your Lord God" (Deut. 4:2). Which words are not to be understood of the Decalogue and Law Moral only, but of statutes, rites, and ceremonies; for equal obedience of all his Laws requireth God.⁶⁴

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:

A third ground of confidence, is the conscience of his purpose to study to have constant communion with God, in the use of the means, and the conscience of his very earnest desire to have the benefit of all the public ordinances, in the fellowship of the church. Whence learn, 1. Hearty resolution