Some of the saddest words in the Bible are those that describe the condition of the church in the days of the judges. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. These words describe a spiritual anarchy that was absolutely devastating. Our days are marked by the same anarchy, not only in culture, but also in the church. Congregations and individuals are doing their own thing. When a congregation excommunicates a man for immorality, he goes down the street, joins another congregation, which not only receives him, but also makes him an officer. This spiritual anarchy is particularly evident in the area of worship. Not that long ago, if you visited a Presbyterian Reformed church, or a Reformed Baptist church, you would have found a basic uniformity in worship. It mattered not whether you were in the United States, Mexico, or Korea. Today in worship, everyone is doing what is right in his own eyes. A multitude of diverse forms of worship confronts us under the guise of making worship understandable and contemporary. Along the way, it seems that people began to experiment and then began looking around for some theological justification for what they were doing. In the process, some have redefined the principles that govern worship. The earlier uniformity to which I referred grew out of a common commitment to the biblical foundation for worship. Today, many are altering or even denying such a foundation. Two of the primary proponents of new principles for the regulation of worship are John Frame, who redefines the regulative principle in his book, Worship in Spirit and Truth, and Steve Slissel, who denies the regulative principle for worship in a series of articles in the Calcedon Report, numbers 404 to 409. That's this past March through May. You can also access those articles on the website of his congregation. Although beginning with different presuppositions, both men argue in a similar fashion and reach similar conclusions. They claim that Scripture does not regulate worship in the manner stated in the Reformed Confessions. According to them, God requires certain basic things to be done in worship, like preaching, prayer, praise, but leaves to the elders who oversee worship to determine the specific details of application. I intend in this message to demonstrate the biblical basis for the regative principle of worship as part of the unfolding and understanding of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. Before proceeding, let me define my terms. At the time of the Reformation, two principles developed with respect to our acts of worship. Luther taught that in our worship we may do anything that the Bible does not forbid. The regulation is permissive. If something is not forbidden in scripture, then we may do it. Hence, we may worship God according to the tradition of the church, as long as that tradition does not violate and express prohibition of the word of God. As Calvin, though, studied the scriptures, particularly the second commandment, He concluded that Luther had not gone far enough. Calvin enunciated the principle that we may only offer to God in worship that for which we find warrant in the Bible. He wrote, I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them being seated as it were in their very bones and marrow, is that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards us fruitless but also plainly abominates whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if it variants with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct. Obedience is better than sacrifice. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere will-worship is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate." Professor Frames and Pastor Schlissel's new definition is that the Church is free to determine the ways she will do the few things God has commanded, such as pray, preach, and praise. Frames states, quote, typically, Scripture tells us what we should do in general and then leaves us to determine the specifics by our own sanctified wisdom, according to the general rules of the Word. Determining the specifics is what I call application." End of quote. The application of his principle allows Professor Frame to allow for dance and drama as meaningful ways to express praise to God or to communicate his word as in preaching. He teaches that the elders may work out the manner in which the few required things are to be applied. Again, quoting, may never presume to add to its commands, the Bible's commands. The only job of human wisdom is to apply those commands to specific situations. Now that sounds good, until you understand the specific commands are very few and far between. And the application left to human wisdom really entails what we do then in the acts of praying and praising God and preaching. Pastor Schlissel I think more straightforwardly, and let me just say at this point I intend no disrespect to either one of these men and would hope that we can have ongoing dialogue. I particularly have a great respect for Pastor Schlissel. I believe that he's wrong-headed, headed in a wrong direction. his approach to worship, but I mean no disrespect. He denies the regulative principle by his own admission and substitutes for it what he calls the informed principle of worship. He writes, all parties agree that what is forbidden must be excluded. But for the rest, what? High churchers say, not forbidden, then fine. Regulatives say, if it's not commanded, it is forbidden. Both propositions fail to meet the test of Todah Scriptura. We propose the IPW, the informed principle of worship. What is not forbidden might be permitted. It depends. Now, I think it's interesting that although ultimately they begin with the same foundation, although Professor Frame says he's holding to the regular principle and Pastor Schlissel is honestly saying I deny the negative principle. They begin at the same place. Their conclusions are a little different in that Pastor Schlissel is much more conservative in his applications, but that's because I think it's by nature of the man. It's not his principles that would keep him conservative in these things. Let me illustrate now the three principles, the Lutheran principle, the Calvin's principle, and the new definition from the use of Advent candles. I hesitate to talk about Advent candles because the Directory of Worship tells us in preaching not to introduce things of which the congregation is ignorant. But I've discovered that, unfortunately, most congregations are not too ignorant about Advent candles. Many congregations have incorporated the use of special candles to celebrate the birth of Christ. On the Sundays leading up to Christmas, someone from the congregation will light a candle and read a portion of Scripture. That's the use of Advent candles. According to the Lutheran principle, one would say at this practice, no problem. One following the regular principle would say, no way. An advocate of the new principle would say, a way. By this he would mean that God's Word commands us to praise God, And the Church may introduce a practice like Advent candles to praise God for the incarnation. For all practical purposes, the application of the new definition differs little from the Lutheran principle, as you can see from the illustration. I'm going to seek to defend the Confession's position over against both the Lutheran position and the new principle, particularly dealing with the new principle, since that is a concept that is in our circles as Reformed Christians. The Confessions position is stated in three places in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and you'll find a Confession of Faith in the back of the New Trinity Hymnal if you care to look at the places. One, six, the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man, 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. Chapter 20, paragraph 2, 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 addition to it, in matters of faith or worship. Chapter 21, paragraph 1, 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 Scripture. Now, I want to demonstrate to you that the regular principle is based primarily on a right understanding of the second commandment. Remarkably, both Professor Frame and Pastor Schlissel ignore the role of the second commandment in the development of the regulative principle. The second commandment, however, is the place we must begin in rightly understanding the regulative principle. For it lays the foundation for worship by establishing the principle of the spirituality of worship. The Lord God says in the second commandment, Exodus 24 through 6, you should not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of what is in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God. visiting the iniquity of the fathers and the children from the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing loving kindness to thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments. God prohibits two things here, not to make a physical representation of God, nor to give worship to any object alongside God or to God through such an object. By forbidding any physical representation of himself, God establishes the spirituality of worship. You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. Obviously, we're not to make images of a false god or worship false gods through their images, but the particular focus of the second commandment is that we're not to make any physical representation of the true God. The Bible does not forbid art. Not even some religious art. Note the images used in the temple and the tabernacle. What the Bible forbids is manufacturing any physical representation of the Godhead, or of any of the three persons of the Godhead. God is a spirit. We know him in a spiritual way. God reinforces this principle from Deuteronomy chapter 4, 15 through 19. We read this last night, so watch yourselves carefully. Since you did not see any form on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any animal, of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth, and beware lest you lift up your eyes to the heaven and see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and all the hosts of heaven, and be drawn away, and worship them, and serve them, those which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven." We see the principle further amplified in Exodus 33, when Moses desired to see the glory of God, and God reminded him that no man can see His glory and live. God nevertheless promised to reveal His glory He hides Moses in a rock, which I believe is a type of Christ, and he reveals his glory how? Verbally. We read in chapter 34, the Lord descended in a cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the Lord. Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, the Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in loving kindness and truth. who keeps loving kindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin, if he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. Is it in the iniquities of the fathers and the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generation? Moses beheld the glory of God, not in what he saw, but in what he heard. The Lord God revealed himself to Moses through his names, works, and attributes, and thus establishes the spirituality of God. And God forbids us then to manufacture mental and physical images of him, but by verbal revelation he reveals his glory. Furthermore, he prohibits us from using images in his worship. We may not supplement the worship of the true God by setting up images alongside him as Manasseh did, 2 Kings 21.7. Nor may we offer worship to God through any physical likeness as Jeroboam did, 1 Kings 12.25-30. God therefore establishes the spirituality of worship. The doctrine of the spirituality of worship brings us to the regutive principle. Since God is a spirit, we must worship him spiritually and not according to our imaginations. That's the principle that's established here. Therefore, we must worship him according to revelation. You see the link? Let's spell it out a little bit. In order to understand this development of thought, we must keep in mind two very important principles for interpreting the law spelled out in the Westminster Larger Catechism Question and Answer 99. question asks what rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the Ten Commandments. And I commend that list to you, hermeneutically, very sound list of principles for interpreting the law of God. But in the eight principles listed, note these two in particular. Number four, that as where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden, and where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded. And number six, that under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded, together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. The fourth principle teaches that the opposite of what is forbidden is required, and the opposite of what is required is forbidden. We call it the principle of opposites. For example, the first commandment states, you shall have no other gods before me. When Moses, though, applies the first commandment in Deuteronomy 6, he inculcates the positive duty that we are to have the Lord God as our God. Thus, we are to worship and serve him alone. In other words, to abstain from the worship of false gods is not sufficient. God grants no neutrality. Christ says, either you are for me or against me. The only way to keep the first commandment is to have God as your God by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and to worship and serve him alone as your God. Principle of opposites. The sixth principle we could call the principle of attraction. That under one center duty all the same kind of forbidden are commanded together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof and provocations thereunto. We may illustrate this principle from the seventh commandment. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Under the prohibition of adultery, the most serious sexual offense, the Bible includes fornication, homosexuality, other forms of sexual impurity, as well as sins like drunkenness, which lead to sexual immorality. When we apply these principles to the second commandment, we recognize that the opposite duty of the second commandment then is what? to worship God according to his revelation. Not only may we not worship him in a carnal manner by our imaginations, but we also must worship him as he dictates. Furthermore, we must avoid all occasions that tend to corrupt worship by inventing symbols or introducing liturgical devices or any other things into worship. that would challenge God's proprietary rights. Just as adultery is the most serious violation sexually, and thus all others are summarized under it, making and worshiping a physical image of God is the most serious violation, but it then summarizes all the other aspects of the importance of correct worship. Now, it's on the basis of using these two principles and applying them to the Second Commandment, the Shorter Catechism develops the regulative principle of worship. Question 50. What is required in the Second Commandment? The Second Commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in His Word. 51. What is forbidden in the Second Commandment? The Second Commandment forbiddeth the worshiping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his word. In these two statements, we're reminded that not only may we not make images, but also we must not worship God in any way contrary to his word. Furthermore, we're obligated to keep pure his worship as he has revealed it to us. Now, a wide range of commentators give this interpretation of the Second Commandment. I quote just one at this point, Great Presbyterian theologian William Plummer, someone yesterday I've already mentioned, the release of his book on the law, the second commandment, he says, while the second commandment, no less than all the other precepts of the Decalogue, should be regarded as designed to regulate our tempers, not our anger, but our hearts, it no doubt has special reference to the external worship of God. The things forbidden in it relate to outward acts, It is true, the most gross form of violating God's worship is mentioned, just as the most flagrant form of sinning against our neighbor's life and peace and property are mentioned in the 6th, 7th, and 8th Commandments. Our worship, he goes on to say, must be according to divine directions. Every sovereign, as every court, has a right to regulate the manner in which petitioners shall approach. Nothing more effectually destroys all acceptableness in worship than that our fear towards God be taught by the precepts of men. We may not, therefore, devise any false worship, nor recommend it to others, nor enjoin it upon others, nor use it ourselves, nor in any wise countenance it. The Reformation Church was unanimously committed to this interpretation of the Second Commandment. In what is otherwise a very fine book, Quest for Godliness, J.I. Packer claims, however, that the regulative principle was a Puritan innovation. Professor Frame makes something of the same claim. Quoting Packer, the idea that direct biblical warrant in the form of precept or precedent is required to sanction every substantive item included in the public worship of God, was in fact a Puritan innovation, which crystallized out in the course of the prolonged debates that followed the Elizabethan settlement. Pastor Schlissel claims that very few, for example, in the Continental Reformed Church, except those who through cross-pollinization from Puritans, have embraced a version of the regular principle of worship. He quotes with approval a minister in the Orthodox Christian Reformed Church to prove that the regulative principle is really a Presbyterian distinctive and not part of the Continental Reformed tradition, thus enforcing what Dr. Packer says. Quote, I must say, I never heard of the regulative principle of worship until exposure to my ministerial colleagues here in the OCRCs who were from Presbyterian background. It's most unfortunate. When one compares with Reformation and post-Reformation statements, Packer's and Schlissel's claims, one quickly sees that their statements are absolutely wrong. Consider what some of the Reformed creeds say. The Heidelberg Catechism. Question 96, what does God require in the second commandment? Answer, we're not to make an image of God in any way, nor to worship him. any other manner than he has commanded in his word." Written long before the Puritans wrote on worship. The Belgic Confession, Article 32. We believe that although it is useful and good for those who govern the Church to establish a certain order to maintain the body of the Church, they must at all times watch that they do not deviate from what Christ, our only Master, has commanded. We reject all human inventions and laws introduced into worship of God which bind and compel the consciences in any way. Earlier I quoted Calvin, but consider a couple of other statements from him with respect to the regulative principle. There was no Puritan that was more radical than Calvin in this regard. I have also no difficulty in conceding to you And this is in his response to Saddlet in the Reformation debate. I have no difficulty in conceding to you that there's nothing more perilous to our salvation than a distorted and perverse worship of God. The primary rudiments by which we want to train those whom we wish to win as disciples to Christ are these. Namely, not to frame any new worship of God for themselves at random and after their own pleasure. but to know that the only legitimate worship is that which he himself approved from the beginning. For we maintain what the sacred oracle declared, that obedience is more excellent than sacrifice. In short, we train them by every means to be contented with the one rule of worship which they receive from his mouth and bid adieu to all fictitious worship. The necessity of reforming the church, he wrote, if it be inquired then by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts and consequently the whole substance of Christianity. Now, if I asked you at this point to fill in the blanks and to give Calvin's two most important principles of Reformation, well surely the first one would be salvation by grace alone, wouldn't it? No. First, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped, and secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. Now for the sake of those like Schlissel in the Continental Reformed tradition, I will quote three other sources. 1st Zacharias, one of the framers of the Heidelberg Catechism, wrote regarding the Second Commandment. The true worship of God is therefore here enjoyed and a rule at the same time given that we sacredly and conscientiously keep ourselves within the bounds which God has prescribed and that we do not add anything to that worship which has been divinely instituted or crept in any part, even the most unimportant. To worship God truly is to worship him in the manner which he himself has prescribed in his word." End of quote. A century later, Abrako wrote on the Second Commandment, the third sin is will-worship, talking about the violations of the Second Commandment. The third sin is will-worship. This consists in serving God in a manner of our own devising or in a manner which has been suggested to us by men. doing so without concern and investigation as to the manner in which God wants to be served. You can imagine that God will be pleased with our work as long as we have good intent to serve him by means of that activity. The Lord rejects this in Matthew 15.9. And then a more modern example, an interesting example, because he brings together the Continental tradition and the Presbyterian tradition, R.B. Kuyper, who was the president of Calvin's Seminary for three years before teaching practical theology at Westminster Seminary, writes in The Glorious Body of Christ, what has been said constitutes the most important principle governing the content of worship in general, and of corporate worship in particular. Sad to say, not all churches subscribe to it. The Church of Rome takes the position that everything is permissible in public worship, which is not forbidden by the Word of God. Reformed churches have upheld the principle that only that is permissible in the content of public worship, which has the positive sanction of Holy Scripture. And that principle is biblical. It is plainly implicit in the second commandment of the moral law. While the first commandment forbids the worship of false gods, the second forbids the worship of the true God in a wrong way. I give you these few quotations to illustrate that the regular principle which the Westminster divines taught was not some peculiar English Puritan twist on worship, but was in fact the reformed understanding of the Second Commandment and its regulation of worship. Since the principle is based on the Second Commandment, we rightly infer that it has continuing validity in the New Testament. Pastor Schlissel maintains that God carefully regulated the tabernacle temple worship with its sacrificial system, but not the rest of Old Covenant worship, nor then new covenant worship, quoting him. The point, however, is that what is strictly regulated is the sacrificial system of worship, not worship per se. In fact, mere sacred assemblies are not covered by this rule. From the beginning God hath made known that the path by which man might be restored to him is a path of shed substitutionary blood. This was indicated in the animal sacrifice God had made when providing coverings for Adam and Eve. And again, in his acceptance of Abel's blood offering brought in faith, the atoning path of blood was laid out by God. Now you see what he's saying here is because the temple, tabernacle temple, was appointed by God to be in its ceremonies and sacrifices a type of Christ, it had to be precisely and carefully regulated. But the rest of Old Testament worship, and by inference, New Testament worship, is not under such a regulation. Note, however, that God established the principle in the second commandment. Its application must be broader than tabernacle, temple. Rather, God has established the moral principle that the only way people may approach God in worship is in the way that he has revealed. We therefore do not need a specific New Testament commandment to regulate the worship by the Word of God. Professor Frame also sees a fulfillment of Old Testament types that negates the more narrow regulative principle in the New Testament. Quoting, from a New Testament perspective, we can see all the various elements of Old Testament worship point to Jesus. The great changes from the Old Testament to the New imply that there will be changes in worship. As a new Israel in Christ, the Church worships in a way that is parallel to that of the Old Testament, in that every ordinance of the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ. We too have a covenant, priesthood, sacrifices, a tabernacle, circumcision, atonement, and feast. But in our actual practice, there are great differences, for all of these institutions now exist in Christ and in him alone. And our worship in Christ presupposes the once-for-all accomplishment of the redemption to which the Old Testament Jews look forward. One difference that should already be evident is that in the New Testament, the traditional terminology for worship is typically used in the broad sense. It means by that all of life lived in obedience to God. Essentially what is left is worship in the broad sense, a life of obedience to God's work, a sacrifice of ourselves to his purposes. All of life is our priestly service, our homage to the greatness of our covenant Lord. Admittedly, Christ fulfilled all the Old Testament types. Professor Frame, however, fails to distinguish between the ceremonial and typical elements of temple worship and the trans-covenantal elements of old covenant worship like preaching, prayer, and singing. He also fails to prove that the broad sense is essentially what is left in the New Testament. The New Testament is full of descriptions and exhortations with respect to corporate worship. By failing to consider the trans-covenantal nature of corporate prayer, praise, preaching, reading of Scripture, he's able to suggest the possibility that it's very difficult in the New Testament to distinguish between broad and narrow worship. But Christ teaches us how he fulfills the types and ceremonies and applies them to New Covenant worship in John 4, 21-24, in his interview with the Samaritan woman. And there we see that because Christ has fulfilled the ceremonies and types, New Testament worship is not confined to any particular place. Rather, it is worship offered in spirit and truth. Namely, it is worship freed from the external elements of the types and ceremonies. Now, he's in no way saying that Old Testament worship did not have a heart issue, that it was spiritual, but it had the types and ceremonies, and Christ now shows it's freed from that. worship that's offered in Christ, who is the fulfillment of all the types and ceremonies, and worship that's governed then by the truth of the Word of God, where we're to worship God in spirit and in truth. Hendrickson points out in his commentary on John 4 that such worship does not invalidate the regulative principle. Quoting, he says, in such a setting it would seem to us worshiping in spirit and truth can only mean, A, rendering such homage to God that the entire heart enters into the act, and B, doing this in full harmony with the truth of God as revealed in his word. Thus the rule of the regulative principle continues in the New Testament age. Calvin, commenting on the change in worship and the Jews' refusal to embrace Christ, wrote, "...the same is true of all who have left the pure faith of the gospel for their own and other men's inventions." This is where Christ says that salvation was of the Jews, but then, of course, they're going to become like the Samaritans. However much in their obstinacy those who worship God from their own notions or men's traditions flatter and praise themselves, this one word thundering from heaven overthrows every divine and holy thing they think they possess. You worship that which you know not. So, if our religion says Calvin is to be approved by God, it must needs rest on the knowledge conceived of his word. when we grasp the significance of the second commandment, or the regulative principle. Not only do we see the principle must continue in the New Testament, but then we also see that it also would have governed the synagogue worship in the Old Testament. Both Frame and Schlissel concede that the synagogue was of divine origin in the Old Testament. They assert, however, that its liturgy was unregulated. And he, the regulativist, knows that he cannot find so much as a sliver of a divine commandment concerning what ought to be done in the synagogue. And according to his principle, if God commanded a sinful abomination, that brings him back to Christ attending upon the service of God there, and Christ following its liturgy. Did he sin by participating in an entire order of worship that was without express divine warrant? The thought is blasphemous. End of quotation. I have two problems with Schlissel's assertion here. First, we have good inference for the synagogue's divine establishment. Leviticus 23.3, as God lays out the seventh-day Sabbath as well as the Sabbaths of the festivals, he says that every Sabbath the people are to have a holy convocation. This would have to have been done in all the cities and villages of Israel. They could not have traveled to Jerusalem. every Sabbath for a holy convocation. So the very commandment of Sabbath-keeping in Leviticus 23.3 entails a synagogue. This inference is confirmed when we read in Psalm 74-8 when the psalmist is lamenting the destruction of the Jewish ordinances by the Babylonians and he speaks of the destruction of the temple, he then says they also destroyed the meeting houses, or as the King James says, the synagogue. Psalm 74-8. And so we know that from this, or I infer anyway, you will, that the synagogue is a divine institution and was part and parcel of the worship life of the Old Covenant Church throughout her inhabitation of the land, and thus it is of divine origin. Second, we rightly infer on the basis of the Second Commandment that and the synagogue's close relation to the temple that its worship was regulated. Just think about this for a moment. The synagogue was an extension of temple worship without sacrifices, other typical ceremonies. They were only to be performed in the place where God would put his name, Deuteronomy 12. Sacrifices and the typical acts involved because that was center of mediation, the picture of Christ, the constant proclamation of the gospel, and all the life of Israel, individually, domestically, civilly, flowed out of that temple worship. And when Solomon dedicates the temple, he says, and when your people pray to this place, facing here, you will hear them. And we understand then that what went on in the synagogue was not divorced from the temple. But it surely is, if you go into your house tonight, you turn on a water faucet and water comes out because there's a line between your house and the reservoir. So the temple had a line, the synagogue had a line to the reservoir of temple worship. And it had no existence apart from the daily sacrifices. and all the other rituals that were being performed there. God's people could not have approached him in the synagogue without the constant mediation of the priesthood. Furthermore, what was done then in the synagogue was exactly what was done in the temple, minus those typical ceremonial things that could only be done at the temple. There was nothing new in the synagogue, was there? And thus the regulation of the worship of God's people at the temple under the principle of the second commandment would have to apply to how they worship God in the synagogue. Please follow that. So we don't have an unregulated worship in the synagogue. Because of the second commandment, no faithful Jew would have dreamed of introducing something in the synagogue of human invention. God therefore prepared it. for its use in New Testament worship. Now, in addition to the second commandment, the Bible gives several other reasons why we should worship God only according to his word. We can summarize them under two headings, the sufficiency of Scripture and other explicit statements in Scripture regulating worship. Of course, the doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture has been well explained by Dr. Smith and others in the conference, and we've read the Westminster Confession of Faith, Paragraph six where it applies that doctrine to worship So I will skip that and look more specifically at certain scriptures that affirm That we're to worship God only according to his word. We'll just take two examples one from the Old Testament one from the New and Leviticus 10 1 and 2 this is the story where Nadab and Abihu are offering in their priestly role incense to God and And it says that they used strange fire, and because of that, God struck them dead with strange fire. Very strange fire. It didn't burn their clothing or their bodies. It just killed them immediately. Now, Reformed people, after history of interpretation, have said that we find here a specific teaching with regard to the regular principle of worship, because God punished these men for doing something, adding something to his worship. They weren't forbidden by any commandment of God to offer this strange fire, but they should have inferred from the divinely ignited fire of the altar that that was the fire that they should have used. Thus, they offered the appropriate incense, but they used strange fire to offer it. You need to grasp that difference because, again, Pastor Schlissel says that this text does not prove the point because they did not offer something in addition to God's Word, but rather disobeyed God's Word. He told them what kind of incense to burn, Exodus 30 verse 9, and they broke his commandment by offering strange That's not what the text says. God destroyed them with fire because they offered strange fire. And thus God establishes the principle that men may not worship him according to their imaginations. An excellent discussion of that, thank you, Kyle, is found in Jeremiah Burroughs' Gospel Worship, pages 3 through 7. A New Testament example is Christ Quoting Isaiah 29 13 and Mark 7 6 through 8 Remember the story Pharisees rebuke the disciples for not observing the ceremonial washings baptisms Christ defends his disciples by showing that these were traditions of men and thus contrary to God's Word Quoting Christ as he quotes Isaiah rightly that Isaiah prophesied you hypocrites as it is written this people honors me with their lips But their heart is far away from me But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." Now you understand that the ceremonial washings of the Pharisees were not forbidden by any explicit commandment of Scripture. And I can't see how they would have done much harm to the people in terms of they seem to be a fairly innocent tradition. that Christ condemns them as traditions of men because they cause men to neglect the commandments of God and eventually to nullify the commandments of God. Now again, Pastor Schlissel misunderstands this passage. He says, without doubt, our Lord condemned any human tradition which obscured, nullified, set apart, or contradicted the Word of God. Is that what he condemned? we condemned this tradition of washings." Continuing the quote, there's no indication that he opposed traditions which supported, magnified, or drew attention to the word and works of God. Well, surely ceremonial cleansing would draw attention to the fact that I'm defiled by the world and I need to constantly seek cleansing in God. Continuing, it's not for us a question merely of an observance that can be traced to human tradition, but it's also a question of fidelity to Scripture Propriety and worship and profitability to the people of God. We certainly have a new standard of worship. Propriety and profitability. If the traditions meet those standards, then they're okay. But that's not what Christ says. Christ condemns what would appear to be a very innocent tradition. Because all humanly invented traditions lead to the neglect of the Word of God and ultimately nullification. of the commandments of God. And so Christ, here by his teaching, enforces the irregulative principle. Now, Pastor Schlissel goes on to build on this concept of tradition. He takes the Feast of Purim and Hanukkah, maintaining that both of these were derived from tradition, and yet we find them observed by Christ and practiced in the Bible. Let me remind you that Purim, which was the feast called by Esther and Mordecai in a civil capacity, was in the first place by inference revealed in Scripture by its being placed in canonical book. But second, it's on the basis of Purim that the Westminster divine said that the civil magistrate does have the right to ask the church to observe days of special thanksgiving. Now, they didn't go to the temple on this day. that they had thanksgiving to God and they annually at the call of the magistrate observed such. And that's what the Puritans said that we should learn from that. There was no human tradition that added to the liturgical worship of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hanukkah was the feast to celebrate the victory of Judas Maccabee over Antiochus Epiphanes and the cleansing and rededication of the temple a few years later. And in the Gospel of John, John tells us that Jesus was at Jerusalem one time during this feast. Quoting from John 10, 22, Then came the feast of dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's colonnade. On the basis of this, Pastor Spitzel says Jesus participated in the feast of dedication. Jesus was in Jerusalem. Hendrickson suggests he'd been there probably for a good while. He always took advantage of the gatherings of crowds, just as Dr. Grant told us earlier. He'll go anywhere and preach, asked or unasked, and I hope all of us will be willing to do that. But Jesus did not participate in the Feast of Hanukkah. He was walking in the portico, John tells us, because it was winter. After living in California in exile for seven and a half years, I learned that that means it was raining. And so he was walking under the porch to stay out of the rain. Hendrickson writes about this, the rainy season had arrived, hence it does not cause surprise that Jesus was walking in the covered colony that ran along the eastern wall of the temple. This portico is said to have been the only remnant of the original temple. And so we see nothing in the life of our ministry of Jesus that ever enforced the concept that non-divine tradition would be acceptable in worship. We understand the reason that God carefully regulates his worship when we ponder who he is and who we are. The very nature of God demonstrates the necessity of scripture regulating worship. God is a spirit. We must worship him in spirit and truth. The speech of Zophar in Job. I know that a lot of the speeches, you have to be careful, but this is a great insight. Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty? They are as high as the heavens. What can you do? Deeper than Sheol, what can you know? Its measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea. If he passes by or shuts up or calls an assembly, who can restrain him? Or the passage that Dr. Grant read this morning, Isaiah 55, 9 and 10. Since God is an infinite God, he must take the initiative. He must reveal himself to us. He must tell us who he is and what is pleasing to him. We cannot discover by our wisdom what pleases him. Thus he comes to us as a self-revealing God in covenant. He teaches us how to respond to him. This is the essence of theism. Of course, related to his infinity is his sovereignty. And as sovereign, God alone is Lord of the conscience. And one of the reasons that the reformers taught that worship must be regulated by the word of God exclusively is because to allow men to introduce their traditions into worship is allowing men to dictate to the conscience. This one didn't hit me very hard until I experienced it a few months ago. My wife and I visited a church one Sunday evening. And in the process, and this was a corporate worship service, they were singing a little ditty, and most of the people were clapping their hands. And at the end of the first time, the man who was leading worship told us that basically that we were not worshiping properly, that everybody had to stand up and sing and clap their hands. Now suddenly my conscience had come under the tyranny of a man. God alone is Lord of the conscience. Of course, the other important reason for Scripture regulating worship is the fact that we're sinners, not just finite but corrupt, there's in us a remnant of corruption. How in the world can we imagine that we could ever think what would be pleasing to God? He does not tell us. We do not know. I've got some quotes here from Bannerman and Calvin, but I need to skip over them. I'll skip over as well. I point out then the true nature of circumstance and forms of worship, why these are important, and why God then grants us liberty in these areas that are not in and of themselves the elements of worship that we offer to God. But let me point out quickly then simply how we take the principle and derive the elements. Professor Frame pleads in agnosticism here. The scriptures give us little, if anything, in this area. But we know differently. The Westminster Standards teach us that they derive these elements of worship in chapter 21. And Bannerman shows us how to do it. There are three principles. The first, express precepts contained in Scripture and designed to regulate the practice of divine worship in the church as to ordinances and service, so direct command. Second, particular examples of worship and its various parts recorded in Scripture and both fitted and intended to be binding and guiding models for subsequent agents, so approved example. And third, when neither express precepts nor express examples are to be met with, There are general scripture principles applicable to public worship, enough to constitute a sufficient directory in the matter. Anything beyond that directory in the celebration of worship is unwarranted and superstitious. And by using those principles, we can come, although at times with some difficulty, and recognizing that there'll be some differences of opinion. Do we sing psalms? Are psalms an uninspired hymn? Do we use musical instruments? Do we have choirs? These are areas where we need to keep studying and laboring together. And there are a few of them, but in the great broad outlines of revealed and regulated worship, reformed mind has been of one, reformed church has been of one mind throughout the centuries. And we can worship God then according to this. Let me conclude then with the importance and seriousness of the principle Earlier I quoted Calvin saying, God not only regards us fruitless, but also abominates whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if it variants with his command. What do we gain by contrary course? You can imagine what would happen to us if we stood up in the General Assembly and said, God hates your worship. That's what Calvin said. God highlights the importance of the second commandment, saying, I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God. This is the iniquity of the fathers and the children. in the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing loving kindness to thousands. Reminds us he's our covenant king, our husband. We're his people, his subjects, his bride. As Lord, he is jealous for his own glory and worship. And this is a principle throughout scripture. Thus, if we're jealous for his glory, we shall desire that he be honored in the way he is appointed. He enforces the relative principle with a threat and a promise. He threatens to visit the iniquity of the fathers and the children to the third and fourth generation. Now, in a sense, we can apply this to all the commandments, but we must note he particularly applies it to the second commandment. If we grasp the seriousness of the threat, we can understand why Calvin said this is so absolutely important to the salvation and well-being of the people of God. Calvin said, I have also no difficulty in conceding to you that there's nothing more perilous to our salvation in the distorted and perverse worship of God. God will not take lightly unregulated worship. True, he is long-suffering. He does not strike us dead as he struck Nadab, Abihu, and Uzzah, but he will vindicate his honor. He will manifest his displeasure and for a parent in a much worse way, by cutting off the third and fourth generation of those who refuse to worship him according to his words. The promise, on the other hand, encourages us to seek to worship according to it. He blesses us in ways that defy description. He promises covenant blessings unto thousands of generations of those who love him and keep his commandments. Herein lies the prosperity of the Church. and you see why correct worship is important. The issue involved here is the well-being of the church. Therefore, let us be jealous for God's worship and zealous for him to regulate our worship by his word. Christ's crown rights demand this commitment The time for tolerance and a nonchalant attitude to worship has long since passed. We must not be obnoxious, but we must be strong and courageous. I fear that our denominations are already under God's anger as we allow idolatrous worship to multiply in our day. Let us pray. Our God in heaven, we pray that you will give us grace to think through the principles of your word, to be zealous for the sufficiency of scripture in our worship, to repent of our own false worship, our own compromises, and give us grace in Christ and for his sake. Seek you and your way. Amen.