The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Christian Reformed Church

I do not intend to offend you or any other Christian on this issue, but would still tend to see this as an issue of conviction and liberty/freedom in Christ now to have each local assembly decide freely for themselves on this issue which way to go on this issue.
Ypu and Pilgram could very well be correct on this issue, but would not want to see this as a way to have division, as I can worship the Lord under your guidelines, as well as under ny Church morre ";ooser" guidelines, as worshipping is from the heart either way!

There has been myriad attempts to show you that the issue of head covering is not a matter of personal conviction and/or Christian Liberty, but rather it is based upon God's creation. Paul's reprimand of the Corinthian church's failure to practice head coverings wouldn't even exist if it was a matter of Christian Liberty. Paul begins his criticism by first encouraging the church to be imitators of him as he is of Christ. He then writes that they are to "hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you." Obviously, the matter of how women are to conduct themselves in the assembly was previously taught to them, either in written form or by Paul's actual presents there. He calls these doctrines "traditions", which he refers to again as "custom" in v. 16.

There is not even a hint of "cultural custom" in the entire passage. In fact the ecclesiastical "tradition/custom" of women wearing a head covering in the church was the opposite of women did in Greek culture. The only way someone can reject the doctrine of women wearing a head covering is to completely ignore Paul's teaching on this matter which is again based upon creation. Paul even uses reason in the passage, e.g., "Doth not even nature itself teach you..." which shows that what he was writing was obvious in and of itself.

God's "regulative principle of worship" can hardly be equated with what a person can or cannot eat or drink.

I understand what you are explaining here, its just that we would hold to in worship and yeaching/preaching that we are free todo what is not expressly forbidden in the sctiptures themselves...

That view is what is held by Lutherans and basically all non-Reformed churches. The Reformed and Presbyterian churches, even before the Reformation, the view has been consistently held to be... Whatever is not prescribed by God in Scripture is forbidden. The worship of God in Scripture is never left to the imagination and decisions of man. That view is historically known as the "Regulative Principle in Worship". There is some disagreement among those who embrace this biblical teaching on two points; exclusive psalmody and instrumentation. Otherwise there is full agreement. Unfortunately today, the Regulative Principle is too often ignored and most churches have adopted worldliness into its profane worship. A simple search on the website will give you several excellent articles on this subject. And, you can find many articles on Worship in Calvinism and the Reformed Faith > Ecclesiology > Worship (section).

If I am understanding what you are saying here. You are advocating what is commonly referred to as "the Normative Principle of Worship."
Personally I am an advocate of the Regulative Principle of Worship.
The Highway has many articles written on that subject.

If that means that we allow for musical instruments during worship, yes we do, as we usually sing a combo of classic Hymns and contemporary worship songs.

Have a look at http://the-highway.com/articleOct15.html

Tom

I'm afraid you have misunderstood what I wrote above re: "The Regulative Principle". The matter of instrumentation and exclusive psalmody is an in house difference. It is not applicable to those, like yourself who don't hold to the Regulative Principle. For those who do hold to the Regulative Principle and who do believe that Scripture allows for the use of instruments, e.g., piano, organ for worship, they would be adamantly opposed to the use of those instruments that are associated with the world, e.g., drums, electric guitars, etc. Likewise, those who hold to the Regulative Principle and believe that the use of spiritual songs and hymns in addition to the Psalms would not allow worldly "contemporary music" in the worship of God. We believe these profane the true worship of God.

E.S. Williams (a Baptist and member of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London) has written several articles on the "New Calvinist" movement; providing the who is and what of that movement. Just go to The Highway main page and type in: "New Calvinism" (with quotes) in the Google Search Bar and all his articles will be displayed. You should acquaint yourself with this contemporary movement.

You should also learn about the historic Reformed churches and their biblical teaching of "The Regulative Principle" (of worship). Contemporary so-called worship is a very recent invention, especially in the USA. Again, go to The Highway main page and type in: "Regulative Principle" (with quotes) and the salient articles will be displayed.

Now, this thread is getting . Therefore, if you wish to continue a discussion on worship, please start a new thread.

Thanks to you and Tom for your articles, and I do see where you both come from in this area area, and would say that this again is an issue where there will no doubt be some disagreement on, but I would also add that think both positions can be supported from the scriptures, and that I can enjoy either way of worship services, as have attended both types!

I think that our churches are somewhat different in function, as mine is baptist, but none part of the reformed baptist churches, so there will be those liek myself who would see ourselves as being calvinist, and others who tend to see more free will on issues!

There is disagreement on EVERY doctrine, so does that mean that there is no truth? You have often used this type of reason to justify views which are contrary to Scripture and have offered no biblical defense. One of the most serious has been your defense of the heresy that salvation can be appropriated through false doctrine, false gospels, false conversions, ad nauseam. Contrariwise, I have provided myriad biblical passages that have shown this view to be unbiblical and thus heretical. You have in all these disagreements taken the position, whether you did so deliberately or not, that there is no such thing as "propositional truth", aka: "True Truth" ala Francis Schaeffer. This mentality is what those who believe that Christianity is a "big tent" promote, i.e., there is room for most everyone, despite the fact that the doctrines they embrace are antithetical. The phenomenon is the result of the infiltration of post-modernism which promotes individuality and relativity. God the Spirit did not stutter nor lisp when He inspired those who put to writing the Scriptures. And the Lord Christ made His sheep the infallible promise that the Spirit whom He would send would lead them into all truth. That men may and do err does not negate Christ's promise, for a remnant of the sin nature exists in all believers. However, the essential doctrines of the faith have been hammered out and set forth in the historic Reformed confessions and catechisms and those have been held unanimously among the true churches. When you or anyone else takes issue with those doctrines, the onus is upon you to prove them wrong.

Pilgrim excellent reply.
I especially like your last sentence and recommend to Jesusfan to familiarize himself with these creeds and confessions.
I certainly wish I had when I first discovered Reformed theology, they probably would have helped me sort through a lot of the junk out there.
Tom

Just thought I would add something that CH Spurgeon said on this subject.

http://www.spurgeon.org/catechis.php

By the way years ago I was told that Spurgeon was not a fan of the confessions. Had I known about what is written above, I would have added what they said to my junk pile.

Tom

Note the language used in the Preface to the Savoy Declaration of Faith 1658


These confessions and creeds should be taught and serve to ensure that the congregants are of one mind. Just to remind you that The Highway Discussion Board has a whole forum devoted to creeds, confessions and catechisms and some have commentaries with them which are a very helpful resource. Also note that The Highway has a section as you scroll down the page with creeds and confessions and the Canons of Dordt.

I did use the Spurgeon version of the catechism with my boys!

I am wading thru online the link Pilgram gave me to the 1689 Baptist Confession, meaty stuff!