The Fundamental Principle of Worship
"The true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth,
for the Father seeks such to worship Him. God is a spirit,
and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth"
(Joh 4:23-24)
Content
The Fundamental Principle of Worship
-
Significance of Biblical Examples
-
1. The Fundamental Principle of Worship
Worshiping God is a serious thing and it concerns how we should approach God both in our private worship and in our public meetings. Worshiping our God is a holy thing, a separate thing, which is exclusively devoted to Him. The fundamental principle of Worship says:
What the Bible is silent about concerning the Worship and Service of God, we ought not to introduce it. Alternatively stated, what the Bible does not command concerning the Service and Worship of God, we should not introduce it.
This principle applies only to Worship, and consequently my arguments would not entail that we shouldn't, for instance, drive cars.
What here is talk about is about the Worship of God and the Service exclusively devoted to God. I am not talking about secular matters, like driving cars, but the matters which are of holy character, and should be separated from mundane concerns. Worshiping God is a serious thing. When we approach God in our worship then we ought to know whether our approach expresses respect towards God. Worship is an act of devotion presented to God in His presence, and addressed to Him personally. That cannot be until the one who would worship has been accepted in the divine presence. He must know the way to the throne of grace. There is but one way, and Christ is that way. We must come by the way of the Cross when we approach God to worship Him. It is only the children of God who can offer true worship in the Father's presence, for only they know the way. Our secular culture, with the ideas of tolerance, does not provide this way, and consequently we should not be influenced by modern notions of worshiping God.
The offering of spiritual service to God in the celebration of His Holy Person is one of the highest, noblest employments in which man can engage, the supreme reach of the soul. It is certainly true that an aim of the Church is to seek the salvation of those outside the Kingdom of God, and the comfort, instruction, and edification of believers. But likewise let it not be ignored that primarily and distinctively and preeminently the Church is an organism for worship. If there were no reflex influence on ourselves, if there were no longer need of spiritual culture, if there were no longer need of Christianity as redeeming agency, the obligations of Christian worship would still continue, and will forever continue.
The worship of a Supreme Being seems to be a universal instinct, and because of the sovereignty, majesty, and holiness of God, must be surrounded by such safeguards, restrictions, and sanctities as will preserve the divine honor and secure the acceptance of the worshiper and his worship. It is of the utmost importance that every worshiper of God shall have a definite and clear understanding of what are the means and manner of worship, that it may be acceptable unto God with Whom we have to do. Without this knowledge the great mass of the world's population has for ages, like the Athenians, worshiped unknown gods. Rather than incur the wrath of heaven by a form of worship that is dishonoring and displeasing to God we should, instead of allowing ourselves ignorantly to worship, seek some divine message declaring what the mind of the Lord is, and follow it. Our worship rendered to God is of the utmost importance. It is rendered to the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth Who created us, Who preserves us, Who saves us, and Who is at last to judge us. Because He is the sovereign Lord of all, because He is infinitely high and holy, and has a watchful care over His worship that it be kept pure and holy, we are to be watchful and conscientious that our worship be rendered according to the divine appointment.
The Lutheran and Anglican Churches claim a place for rites and services which may be approved by the Church, so long as they are not forbidden by the Scripture. However, other Churches take much cautious ground and claim the line is to be drawn excluding everything which does not have plain divine appointment. In other words that which is not commanded ought not to be followed. To repeat, this principle relates only to the matters concerning Service and Worshiping God.
Therefore, when the Bible is silent about something concerning our public services in the Church, then I take it as a sign that we should not do it.
Now, why should we accept this principle of worship? I will give two types of reasons: (1) Scriptural examples supporting the principle, and (2) the argument of caution.
I. Scriptural Examples Supporting the Principle:
That which is not commanded ought not to be introduced in the Worship.
a) Gen. 4:3-5. Cain fell under the ban of this principle, in what respect to the matter and the manner of God's worship he set his own will in the stead of God's will. Cain stands forth as the first among rationalists in religion, and as a warning to his race. Observe that it is not reported up till this point in the history of humankind that God forbade offerings of "the fruit of the ground," nor that God forbade it later in the history. God was simply silent on this point. However, we read only of the examples of sacrifices which were approved by God during this dispensation, and through these examples we learn how people pleased our Holy God. There were not even given explicit directives or commandments of how sacrifices should be offered until the start of a new covenant during Moses. Furthermore, there is no verse in the Bible that forbids us to offer "the fruit of the ground" in the Worship, but we clearly do not offer such sacrifices. Why couldn't we offer "the fruits of the ground" in our worship if the Bible nowhere says explicitly that it is wrong? Even the Epistle of Hebrews does not forbid this, an epistle concerned with animal sacrifices. One could argue that a person in private worship could express her love by giving such cute offer, expressing appreciation for God's grace and salvation. This person is not an ignorant person concerning God's grace through Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Her motivation for offering vegetarian gifts are simply of pure artistic considerations. However, the only principle which can rule out such false practice is the principle under discussion.
b) Lev. 10: 1-3. The offering of incense to God with a fire "which He commanded them not" was the sin for which Nadab and Abihu were struck dead. It is not reported that they were punished because they violated some commandment but because they introduced a "strange fire" in the sacrifice. They were killed simply because they went beyond commandments concerning the offering of incense, and not because they did something which was explicitly forbidden.
To repeat, there is no commandment where God explicitly forbids offering of incense by using "strange fire." God only forbade Jews of using "strange incense," in Exodus 30:9.
"Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon."
But "strange fire" is not the same as "strange incense." We use fire to burn incense. We can have right incense but not a right fire, and vice versa.
d) Numb. ch. 20. Moses were excluded from the promised land because he went beyond the command with respect to the rock and water at Kadesh.
e) When Jesus speaks of the Pharisees making void the ordinances of God by their tradition, He says, "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
II. The Argument of Caution
Since our service and worshiping God is a serious and holy matter, then we should know whether we worship God in a correct way. If we are not sure about certain practice then we should not engage in such practice. The assurance has to be 100 % in order to avoid the possibility of displeasing our Lord.
My concluding words of the first section would be the words of our Lord's last commission, which refers not only to the extension of His Church, but to the purity of the doctrine and worship of His Church: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." They were to teach, not what things are not forbidden, but "all things whatsoever I have commanded you."
[ Return to the top ]
2. Significance of Biblical Examples
Through the study of biblical examples, we can learn God's will concerning the Worship. I will take an example of house churches, which will illustrate the significance of biblical examples. In the New Testament we have no evidence that Christians gathered at public church building. On the other hand we have only reports of house churches. A thorough justification for house churches as the correct form of public Christian gatherings is found in the article " House Churches as a True Form of Christian Gatherings - The Necessity and Sufficiency of the House Meetings in Our Christian Gatherings ." Nevertheless, why should these examples be a compelling paradigm for our local gatherings? Is it not the matter of local churches how they wish to gather? Are we not free to gather at public meetings, where we could worship our Lord?
I do not think so. Here follows my arguments for why we should respect and follow biblical examples. It is important to understand why biblical examples have enormous significance for our doctrine and practice.
When we talk about biblical examples, then the reader should note that we do not say that we should follow every kind of biblical examples. There are two types of examples which can be safely ignored.
First type of examples pertains to mere mundane things, things not concerned with the service exclusively dedicated for worshiping Lord. We are not concerned with biblical examples that give us report of daily mundane life, but only concerned with examples which pertains to the Worship of our Lord. What many Christians do is to confuse these two areas of our life. It is certainly true that in everything we do should be motivated by our love towards our Lord. However, our mundane activities are not Worship. Worshiping our God is a holy thing, a separate thing, which is exclusively devoted to Him. If we are, for instance, at some wedding party then we are not there to celebrate God. Confusing these two things could be dangerous. We can come in danger to introduce new things in the Worship. We are free to enjoy music and play musical instruments, and at wedding parties it is quite appropriate to do so. However, we should not introduce music instruments in our Worship. Nowhere in the New Testament have we evidence that Christians used music instruments at their Worship. Music instruments were part of the ritual Mosaic Law and had strict regulations in the Old Testament Worship of God. Music instruments in the Ritualistic Liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church were introduced about 1000 A:D.. However, it was a subject of great controversy. The safe thing to do is to avoid it in our Worship.
Second type of examples concerns all things that pertains to Worship and Service exclusively dedicated for our Lord, but which we do not follow because there are clear instructions from the Bible that they were either (1) belonging to parts of Laws, for instance of the Mosaic Law, valid only under old Covenants between Mankind and God, or (2) that we are free regarding them. In the second case, we can follow them if we wish, but it is not obligatory. For instance, there is nothing wrong in observing Sabbath. But we are not required to observe it. Paul is quite clear on this point:
Rom 14:2-6 - "For one believeth that he may eat all things another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind . He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it . He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." What we are concerned with are examples concerning Worship of our Lord, but where there is no clear instruction that these examples should be ignored. Why are they so important if there are no clear instructions of ignoring them? This question is the central question of the whole article, and the rest of this paper will dwell on this important question.
From now on we are only concerned with biblical examples concerning our Worship, and where there is no clear instruction that these examples should be ignored.
The most significant feature of such biblical examples is that they serve one important function in avoiding to introduce new elements in the Worship which might be alien to God's will. Let us take the example of House Churches.
By observing how Christians in the 1st century were gathered, I can be assured that God approved their practice of house meetings, and thus not be worried whether house meetings are according to God's will. However, I do not have the same assurance when concerned about the meetings in established public buildings. If the New Testament is silent of the Christian public service in public buildings, then I take it as a sign that we should not build church buildings, or make of some already public building into a church building. Can we be 100% sure that God approves of gatherings at church buildings? If not, then we ought not to do it, so that we can avoid the danger of introducing new elements in the Worship, alien to God's will. Thus, ought not the report of their practice of house churches serve as an example to follow? Are they just written for the sake of historic curiosity?
Furthermore, we should ask ourselves about the historic origin of meetings at church buildings, since there is no report of Christian church buildings in the New Testament. Such form of public meetings is highly suspect in the light of how it was introduced among Christians. It was introduced as a design for strengthening the union of "Church" and the State during the reign of Constantine. Let us again recall what was said in the first section of the article dealing with house churches.
Christians in the first three centuries didn't know about church buildings. After establishing the union of the "Church" and the State, during the reign of the Constantine, Christians began to gather in church buildings. Those church buildings were usually pagan temples that were transformed into the "Christian" style and taste. This form of Christian gatherings has dominated almost two thousand years after Constantine, and has also infected genuine followers of Christ. Under the reign of Constantine, the Roman Catholic "church" was born. This "church" had a great influence in creating false notions about the church, priesthood, bishops, breaking the bread, salvation, worship, etc. However, it was not so easy for the Catholics to transform the three century aged house-oriented praxis into the temple-oriented praxis. The proponents for the Catholic Institution had to convince other Christians that their praxis was correct and blessed by God. Only way to convince other Christians was to apply the Old Testament teachings about the priesthood, rituals, etc. This had leaded the Catholic Church to renew the Old Testament ritualism, to build new temples, to create new orders of priesthood, etc.
In the light of the above historic perspective coupled with no biblical evidence for church buildings, should we continue to gather in public buildings? I believe that we should not, especially in the face of biblical reports that clearly speak of house churches.
[ Return to the top ]
3. Possible Objections and Answers
Let us consider some objections towards our understanding in importance of biblical examples, especially examples of house churches.
OBJECTION 1
Jesus told the Samaritan woman in John 4 that neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem would the true believers worship. We dare not make a sacrament out of the place of worship, whether it be the temple at Rome, the Protestant church on the corner, or our brother's house.
But do we make a sacrament out of the place of worship by simply gathering in the homely atmosphere of our brother's house? I don't see how is this possible, when such house is used for numerous domestic activities, which are quite of mundane nature. It is precisely for avoiding the danger of sacralizing places of worship, so that we perform public service at private house meetings.
OBJECTION 2
But don't we sacramentize our practices.
What do we understand with the term "sacramentizing practices"? It might be that we put different notions around this expression, and therefore have a disagreement concerning the practice of church buildings. I understand the term in a following way: a recognition of a certain activity as serious and holy for our relation towards God. So understood, our gatherings, preaching, baptism, communion in Lord's supper, reading the Bible, praying, etc., are holy activities. In this sense, there is nothing wrong with sacramentizing some practice.
The crucial point is that we should not put a wrong activity as a holy one. For instance, worshiping idols, or regarding material objects, buildings or places as holy objects are clearly unbiblical.
Some activities are holy in the virtue that they are separated from mundane secular concerns, and are exclusively related to our relation towards God. The word "sacral" is simply another word for "holy."
I rather see some public building used exclusively for worshiping God as a form of sacralizing places, making some place as holy. Such attitude is clearly wrong.
How is it possible to make a sacrament of the place of worship by simply gathering in the homely atmosphere of our brother's house? Perhaps one answer might be: we attribute a special significance to the form of our Worship. But there is nothing wrong in attributing a significance towards a form of Worship as long as this form is approved from the Bible. More importantly, it is not the point of sacralizing a place of worship, but rather sacralizing one form of activity . There is nothing wrong in recognizing a certain activity as holy as long this activity is recognized as holy. Consider baptism and holy communion in Lord's Supper. These two activities are indeed holy activities, and we will talk about them a little bit later.
Any activity has a form and content. Both are equally important. And it might be here that many would disagree. Someone perhaps think that only the content of the Worship is important and that the form of the Worship can be safely ignored. If we adopt such attitude then we can end as extreme Charismatics, who sincerely worship and love God in content only. But are their form of Worship correct? The same applies for Catholics, Lutherans and Methodists. For instance, we might ignore the form of baptism and consequently approve of the infant baptism, or having adult baptism without immersion in water; and such practices are clearly unbiblical.
OBJECTION 3
You make a big assumption when you assume that they met in houses out of conviction.
I do not make any such assumption. I do not say anything about their reasons for gathering at houses. It might be the case that they had such conviction, but it is not for this reason for being suspicious towards the practice of gathering in public buildings, since I honestly cannot know the underlying motive behind their practice. It may be the case that they were not against gatherings at public meetings, but I do not know it as a fact. Since I do not know it, I would be very careful of not making any assumptions which would introduce new elements in the Worship that might be alien to God's will.
So, it might be the case that they were not against church buildings, but can we be so sure about it? Equally, I do not know what kind of convictions they had concerning church houses. But what I do know as a certain fact is that they had their Service and Worship in house churches. On this basis, I can have a full assurance that God approves of our meetings in our brethren private houses.
My attitude concerning church buildings stems from my uncertainty. And the principle, we should follow, concerning the Worship is that we ought not engage in a practice where we do not have a complete assurance of God's will. If we have a minimal doubt concerning a certain practice of Worship then we should not engage in it. What is not commanded should not be introduced, and this principle applies only to the matters of service and worship of God. This would be more explained at the end of this post.
OBJECTION 4
The Bible gives us as Christians many directives, ordinances, commands to follow. Think about communion, baptism, headship veiling. But we're never given explicit directives on how to practice them.
Start with Communion, leavened or unleavened bread?
Grape juice or wine?
Does it matter?
If we say it matters then we are making a sacrament out of it, putting merit on the physical item and not what it represents.
I believe the Bible is intentionally silent on the particulars so that we don't get caught up in that. First let us consider your first part of the objection:
The Bible gives us as Christians many directives, ordinances, commands to follow. Think about communion, baptism, headship veiling. But we're never given explicit directives on how to practice them.
I might agree that there is a certain lack of explicit directives concerning communion, baptism and headship veiling. However, this would not imply that there are no implicit given directives, directives that were implicitly understood. How do we understand an implicit meaning of some biblical expression? By studying how relevant expressions are used in the Bible, their usage context, to observe the practice behind biblical expressions. By doing so, we can attain a greater understanding of these practices that would leave a few uncertainties. Meaning of the words or expressions are determined by their usage and not necessarily of explicit definitions Explicit definitions are found usually in dictionaries. However, it is basically through the usage and practice that we understand the meanings of our words, and in such a way meanings of words are implicitly given. Therefore, the biblical examples are worth to be studied in any serious bible study.
Let me repeat the whole point of the previous paragraph:
It is basically through the usage and practice that the meanings of our words are implicitly given. Therefore, the biblical examples are worth to be studied in any serious bible study.
We can never give a full meaning of our terms and expression only by explicit definitions. We must also consider how these terms and expressions are used . It is basically through a practice and examples that we understand our language. Through the study of biblical examples, we attain a greater understanding of the meaning of biblical terms and expressions. It is through the study of the examples that Greek and Hebrew scholars have determined meaning of a great variety of biblical expressions, and also studied how these expressions were used in daily life by comparing other works outside the Bible.
Let us now answer some of above specific questions without providing rigorous justification for my answers.
Leavened or unleavened bread? Our answer is: unleavened bread. Observe the first Lord's Supper, at the institution of Communion. It was instituted at the Jewish Passover, and we know that bread were unleavened.
Grape juice or wine? Our answer is: wine. Do we ever say of grape juice that it is wine? Also, the Bible does not condemn drinking "strong drinks" as long as we drink in a moderate measure. For instance, a passage where both wine and strong drink are mentioned, and where it is clearly accepted in God's sight, is the passage where God in fact instructs us to rejoice in "strong drinks."
De 14:26 - "And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household."
We see clearly that God has nothing against fermented wine, since the term is coupled with the expression "strong drink." However, this passage does not contradict with other passages where both wine and strong drink are abhorrent in God's sight. Reading all these passages, there is always a tacit understanding that we should not abuse in our drinking, to be intoxicated and drunk.
We see clearly from all these passages, that the term "wine" means fermented drink, where both aspects of wine, its positive and negative sides are described. These two aspects of wine, its use and its abuse, its benefits and its curse, its acceptance in God's sight and its abhorrence, are interwoven into the fabric of the whole Bible so that it may gladden the heart of man (Ps. 104:15) or cause his mind to err (Is. 28:7), it can be associated with merriment (Ec. 10:19) or with anger (Is. 5:11), it can be used to uncover shame of Noah (Gen 9:21) or in the hands of Melchisedek to honor Abraham (Gen 14:18).
Hebrew terms used in above examples are yayin , translated as "wine" and sekar , translated as strong drink. These terms are frequently used together, and they are employed irrespective of whether the writer is commending wine and strong drink as desirable or warning against its dangers.
The term "sweet wine" or "new wine", from Hebrew tiros , sometimes has often been regarded as unfermented and therefore unintoxicating wine, but an example such as Hos 4:11, together with usage of the Talmud, makes clear that it is capable of being used in a bad sense equally with others. Furthermore, while there are examples of the grapes being pressed into a cup and presumably used at once (Gen 40:11), it is significant that the term "wine" is never applied to the resultant juice.
The term "new wine" does not indicate wine which has not fermented, for in fact the process of fermentation sets in very rapidly, and unfermented wine could not be available many months after the harvest (Acts. 2:13). It represents rather wine made from the first drippings of the juice before the winepress was trodden. As such it would be particularly potent and would come immediately to mind as a probable explanation of what seemed to be a drunken state.
Modern custom in Palestine, among people who are traditionally conservative as far as religious feasts are concerned, also suggests that wine used was fermented.
The same considerations apply for the New Testament usage.
Does it matter? Our answer: yes, it does.
OBJECTION 5
If we say it matters then we are making a sacrament out of it, putting merit on the physical item and not what it represents. Yes, we make a sacrament out of it, but not for the reason that it is suggested in the objection.
First, we do not put a merit on the physical item but on the correctness of the activity we engage in.
Second, how do we know that, for instance, the grape juice represents Christ's blood in the cup of the communion?
Third, do not certain doctrines matter in our Christian practice? Do we make sacrament of our doctrines? Consider the doctrine of Holy Trinity, Christ's divine and human nature, Christ's Holy Sacrifice for our sins and His Resurrection? If we reject these doctrines then we are not genuine followers of Christ. Now, my point will be clearly seen by the confrontation of a following dilemma, when we try to answer the question: do we make sacrament of our fundamental doctrines?
(1) If we say that we do not make a sacrament of our fundamental doctrines, then why should my insistence on the form of our activities be regarded as "making a sacrament out of it"?
On the other hand:
(2) If we say that we do make a sacrament of our fundamental doctrines, regarding them as holy and indispensable for our practice, then clearly there is nothing wrong in "making a sacrament" in itself as long as it is clearly approved by the Bible.
Fourth reason, let us assume that my attitude is wrong, and that the form of our activities is not important. If so, why should we then perform baptism at all? Why should it matter whether we baptize infants or not? Why should we perform communion in Lord's supper at all? Why couldn't we just use apple juice in the cup? Why should it matter who preach, a woman or a man? All these questions pertains to the form of our Worship.
Fifth reason that it matters is that the Bible simply teaches us so. The Bible emphasized the significance of baptism, breaking the bread, and fellowship. All these activities are holy activities because they were heavily emphasized. Since they are significant and holy activities then we should engage in these activities correctly. Paul warns us of the danger in engaging in these activities in an unworthy manner (see 1 Cor 11: 21-30). See how Paul regards the communion of the cup and breaking the bread:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)
Wouldn't Paul's attitude be sacramentizing, since it mattered for Paul this act ? Yes, it would be, for there is nothing wrong with such attitude. And did Paul put a merit on the physical item? Certainly not. Neither Paul nor we put merit on the physical things but on the correctness of the performed act which represents something holy, namely the communion of the blood of Christ. Therefore, it matters whether we shall use wine or grape juice.
OBJECTION 6
The Bible is intentionally silent on the particulars so that we don't get caught up in that.
The objection could be valid if it is actually the case that the Bible is so silent as many Christians perceive it. However, even if we assume that the Bible is so silent, it is dangerous to provide such explanations because our (human) explanations can be after all wrong. But is the Bible so silent concerning our Worship? And if it so silent, for whom it is silent? Perhaps it is silent for the Christians of modern 21st. century, who are not familiar with the cultural context of the Bible. But I do not think that the Bible was so silent for the Christians of the 1st. century. First Christians understood exactly what the New Testament terms "baptism", "breaking the bread", "cup of blessing", etc., implied. The Bible is not so silent, but is written in the language understood by the first Christians, and Paul took for granted that all these terms were clear for the speakers at that time. If you were in Corinth at that time you would exactly understand what Paul meant by 1 Cor 10:16, by observing how these terms were used, by engaging in their practice established in the first Church.
OBJECTION 7
The same can be said for mode of baptism, and style of headship veiling. Anabaptists were persecuted and killed exactly because they rejected infant baptism. Were they killed for nothing?
The Bible provides clear instructions on the baptism. Acts. 8:35-39
"Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, ... "
First, what does the text say about the condition for baptism? The condition is "If thou believest with all thine heart." Believing with all our heart in Christ is per definition being a saved child of God (Acts 16:31, Rom 3:28, etc.). Furthermore, the term "baptism" means in Greek to immerse or submerge. Observe that they "went down both into water."
The same goes for covering the head under prayer. We must simply study all relevant texts for getting better understanding.
Next objection is objection 8. I have divided objection 8 into three parts. However, before reading the answer to the objection, please read 8A, 8B and 8C as a whole, as one objection, as one long sentence. However, I answer the objection by dividing it into three parts.
OBJECTION 8A
The early church picked applications of these principles that were appropriate for them ...
They "picked applications of these principles" not because they were appropriate for them but because they obeyed Christ's commandments as taught and shown by Apostles. Teaching is not just some intellectual doctrine but is life , taught not only by words but by an exemplary life. We do not follow Christ's Teaching because it is appropriate for us but because He commands us to do it.
OBJECTION 8B
... and while the practice of the ordinances, being biblically commanded must continue today ...
Why must they continue today if it is just a matter what is appropriate for us? What if baptism, breaking the bread, certain gender roles in the Church are no longer appropriate for us at all? Should we abolish totally all these practices? It is quite inconsistent in maintaining that these practices must continue today and at the same time insist that it is a question on how it is appropriate for us.
OBJECTION 8C
... that does not necessarily mean that the same applications are appropriate for us today.
Why? Are we not holy and separated people for God? Why should secular culture determine matters that concerns only children of God? Why should people who doesn't belong to God determine how we should worship our Holy God?
Addendum
There is an additional argument for the principle of silence. There are many false practises that the Bible neither forbids nor allows. For instance, in the Roman Catholic Church there are many orders of priests, buildings of statutes and images depicting God or saints used in the Worship. The Bible does not forbid statutes of angels or saints, neither does it forbid images of angels and saints. The Bible does not tell anything about establishing new orders of priests. Neither does it forbid. According to the Anabaptist tradition, all mentioned above practises are false, but the only principle that could rule out these Roman Catholic practises is the principle of silence.
[ Return to the top ]
|
