00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
Christian Reconstructionism's
War on Biblical Worship. I'm going to be reading the Canterbury
Tales, an extended review and commentary based on the Geneva
Papers by Kevin Reed, 1984, republished 1989. And then I'll interact
with it, and I have a footnote that I wrote on James Jordan
I want to write, but this is primarily on James Jordan. During the past
few years, the Westminster Presbyterian Church and Tyler, that's Tyler,
Texas, I don't even know if it's there anymore, has embarked upon
some lively experimentation in the realm of worship. Their practices
have been drawn from a variety of sources. Before too long,
however, they found it difficult to keep these things to themselves.
Therefore they began exporting their views through articles
in the Geneva papers, the monthly newsletter issued under the auspices
of the Geneva Divinity School. Let me just stop for a moment.
He's talking about the, there used to be a theonomy church
in Tyler, Texas. That's where Gary North was.
Ray Sutton, who's now a Anglo-Catholic, a heretic. And Gary North was
there. David Chilton was there. And
it was the main focus of the Christian Reconstruction Movement,
apart from Calcedon in California, which is R.J. Rush's duty. and that would be in Vallecito,
California, the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. There was a split in the early
80s, I think it was 81, where James Jordan wrote an article
that Rush Dooney found highly offensive, where he was doing
his interpretive maximalism and said things that were highly
offensive. So there was a split with one group being in Tyler,
Texas, and the other in California. So you got Gary Northen really
kind of leading one group, and James Jordan being the main scholar
there, and Rushdeny being the other. Boston was off doing his
own thing. This is important because the
Christian Reconstruction movement primarily has been anti-biblical
worship, anti-regular principle. That's why I wanted to read this
article, and I'll interact with it. Upon examination of these articles,
readers will find many alarming trends within the Tyler mentality
of worship. Specifically, the activities
of the church contain many corruptions of worship under the guise of
liturgical reconstruction. This corruption is evident by
Roman numeral one, the repudiation of the reformed regular principle
of worship. Roman numeral number two, the reintroduction of superstitious
and unwarranted practices into the church. Roman numeral number
three, the rejection of confessional Presbyterianism. Let me just stop it for a moment.
This movement, by the way, has spread. It has deep roots in
the PCA today. It has deep roots in the OPC. Jeffrey Myers, a PCA pastor,
in, I believe it's around St. Louis, Missouri, completely follows
James Jordan and Peter Lightheart in this, the romanizing germs
of worship that they advocate. So this stuff that he wrote,
James Jordan has really had deep roots. It has really spread into
the OPC and PCA. And you say, well, why is that?
Well, it's because the OPC and the PCA doesn't care about the
regular principle. They don't take it seriously at all. They
haven't enforced the regular principle. you know, if ever,
really. Continuing. In order to demonstrate
these points, we wish to interact with the essays on worship written
by Jim Jordan as they appear in the Geneva Papers numbers
21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29. The articles are included in his
studies on Christianity in the Calendar, Liturgical Notes, and
the recently published Symposium, A Manifesto, Geneva Papers number
28, May 1984. the regular principle of worship
and basic definitions. The primary indication of the
Tyler corruption of worship is seen in the repudiation of the
reformed regative principle of worship. This repudiation is
manifested in four ways, by false portrayals of the regular principle,
by a failure to make proper distinctions within the regular principle,
by a faulty pairing of reformed and Anabaptist notions, and a
failure to deal exegetically with the scriptural position
of the Reformers and the Reformed confessions on the topic of worship. Note the following statement
by Mr. Jordan, as published in his series
on liturgical notes, Geneva Papers, number 25, February, 1984. Quote, most Reformed and Anabaptist
Protestants subscribe to the so-called regular principle of
worship. Let me just stop for a moment.
That's a simply false. The Anabaptists never subscribed
to it. That's just false. Later Reformed Baptists in England,
who were influenced by the Puritans and the Presbyterians, adopted
it, and it's reflected in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.
But the first Anabaptist didn't adopt this at all. So he's wrong
right off the bat. Most Reformed Anabaptist Protestants
subscribe to the so-called broader principle of worship. This principle
states that in worship, whatever is not expressly commanded in
scripture is forbidden. There are several problems with this,
as I pointed out in Christianity and the Calendar number 4. First,
no one is able to apply this principle without modifying it
because we find no biblical grounds for church buildings, pews, etc. Second, this principle is almost
always applied dispensationally as if only the New Testament
were allowed to teach us about worship. The proper view is that
the New Testament modifies the Old Testament teaching and practice.
Another problem, which is obvious when one reads the literature
coming out of these camps, is that this principle leads straight
to a form of legalism. Instead of finding the large
overarching principles of worship in scripture and noting particulars
in that context, we are enjoined to find explicit particular statements
to back up every little thing. End of quote. Initially, we must reject the
construction placed upon the regular principle as Mr. Jordan
defines it. The Reformed regular principle maintains that we must
have expressed scriptural warrant for the means of our worship. From the outset, Mr. Jordan equates
it with a New Testament only hermeneutic, which includes Old
Testament principles of worship. Throughout his discussion in
the Geneva Papers, Mr. Jordan treats the Reformed view of worship
as if the distinction of the regular principle were the principle
itself, this distortion of the regular principle were the principle
itself. As we shall see later, the Reformers
and Reformed confessions consistently appeal to the Old Testament law
as a basis for the regular principle of worship. Let me just stop for a moment.
It's absolutely correct. He doesn't make the distinction
between circumstances of worship and elements of worship. Jordan
doesn't. So he says things like in another
article he wrote, he said, well, according to the regular principle,
we can't eat Chinese food because we can't find anywhere we're
allowed to eat Chinese food in scripture. Well, eating Chinese
food is not an element of worship. So it's a caricature of worship.
And this false view of the regular principle is found in the Chalcedon
Report by Steve Schlissel in the 1990s. And I wrote an article
against that. It's in one of my books. It's
on the web. Continuing. It is extremely important that
the reader grasp this aspect concerning basic definitions.
Otherwise, the subsequent discussions foster spurious impressions. The reader will wrongly believe
that Mr. Jordan is pursuing a moderate course in opposition to an extreme
group of legalists who adhere to a dispensational hermeneutic. It is correct to state, as Mr.
Jordan does, that the proper view is that the New Testament
modifies the Old Testament teaching and practice. Yet, while the
Reformers held to this outlook, they rejected many of the concepts
of worship espoused by Mr. Jordan. See below. Next, note Mr. Jordan's failure
to make the basic distinction and definition of the regular
principle. He would have us believe that a straightforward application
of the principle leaves us in a quandary over our warrant for
using church buildings, pews, et cetera. Such assertions show
a ridiculous sophistry in dealing with Reformed theology. A cursory
glance at the Westminster Standards will clarify the matter. The
Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6 states, the whole counsel
of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory,
man's salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down
in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from
Scripture. And then he has a footnote here,
footnote number one. The confessional recognition of good and necessary
consequence refutes Mr. Jordan's false portrayal of Puritanism.
He complains that the Puritans will not accept something indirectly
or by way of example. Geneva papers number 26. Yet
the Puritans wrote the confession and in it they clearly acknowledge
certain matters as coming indirectly if there is good and necessary
inference. Still, the Puritans expected these consequential
matters to be established by sound exegesis. Hence, their
approach will not allow Mr. Jordan's bizarre technique of
speculative reasoning, as exemplified by his argument on the cosmic
symbol of the cross, drawn from the four rivers of Genesis 2.10
to 14, Geneva Papers number 25. Continuing. Yet the Confession goes on to
declare 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. Consider what is said here. Certain
incidental matters are given to us by implication in the Scriptures.
For example, The scriptures require saints to gather together for
public worship, Hebrews 10.25. Although the Lord's day has been
sanctified for this purpose, we have no biblically specified
place, hour, or furniture to be used. Yet we must gather someplace
at some time if we are to be faithful to our worship of God.
Hence, by good and necessary inference, the elders, as God's
appointed officers, arrange these minor matters. Okay, let me just stop for a
moment. So you design a church building. The elders discuss
it. They have the design. They pick
what kind of chairs that there's going to be. They pick what color
of the carpeting or if there's going to be carpeting. They pick
the acoustics. They pick what kind of windows
and all these things according to the good and necessary consequence.
If you're going to meet in Minnesota, you better have a good heating
system. If you're going to meet in Houston, Texas, you better
have a good air conditioning system, et cetera. These are
circumstances of worship. They're not directly related
to worship itself. Continuing, in arranging these
incidental matters, the elders are governed by Christian prudence
according to the general rules of the word. Hence, they will
refrain from renting a room from the local abortion clinic. Further,
they will not schedule an outdoor service adjacent to a park that
permits nude sunbathing. If the congregation has its own
building with pews, this is strictly an incidental matter. When the confession again speaks
of worship, it proclaims the acceptable way of worshiping
the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his
own revealed will that he may not be worshiped according to
the imaginations and devices of men or the suggestions of
Satan under any visible representation or in any other way not prescribed
in the Holy Scripture. 21.1 from the Confession. The larger
Catechism, 109, listed among the sins forbidden in the Second
Commandment to use, quote, any religious worship not instituted
by God, and condemns, quote, corrupting the worship of God,
adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken
up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though
under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent,
or any other pretense whatsoever, end of quote. Do these latter statements contradict
the former? Not at all. It is simply a recognition of
the difference between incidentals and the institutions of worship.
Mr. Jordan understands these distinctions
also, for he talks very specifically about rites, liturgies, and ceremonies. He waxes eloquent on the symbolic
and didactic nature of such things. At one point, he even speaks
of them as a pedagogy. Geneva paper's number 24, and
here's footnote number two. As examples, Mr. Jordan speaks
of the rite of healing and the rite of the church year, Geneva
Papers 22 and 26. And speaking of incidentals,
we do not mean to imply that these things are terms of no
consequence. If people come to regard church pieces as essential
to proper worship, then we would have to address a new problem
of superstition. back to the paper. Surely he
does not place these elements on the same level with the use
of buildings, pews, and church bulletins. Similarly, rites and
ceremonies are not merely incidentals and only someone concerned with
excessive sophistry will fail to concede this point. And let me just stop for a moment
and I'm going to read, to give you an idea how out of whack
Jordan is and how he adds things, I'm going to read This is from
his Sociology of the Church, Geneva Ministries, 1986, Tyler,
Texas. Quote, this is James Jordan.
This is totally anti-reformed. Quote, biblical teaching as a
whole is quite favorable to Christmas as an annual ecclesiastical festival.
As I study scripture, I find that Lutheran and Anglican churches
are more biblical in their worship than Baptist and Reformed, despite
some problems. That's page 210 of his book.
Here's another one. Here's page 212. What I am saying
is that the custom of crossing oneself is not unscriptural,
and that the conservative church at large should give it some
thought. Now, if you don't know what that is, when you walk into
a Roman Catholic church, you dip your fingers in the holy
water and then you make the sign of the cross. Superstitious,
pagan, popish nonsense. But he advocates it. Here's another
one. This is from page 27. This, in
the scripture, reading, and sermon, is all designed to lead us to
the second F of sacrifice, the offertory. The offertory is not
a collection, but the act of self-immolation. Thus, this is
crazy stuff, thus the offering plates are brought down front
to the minister who holds them up before God, he the offering,
and gives them to him. Here's another one. This is Jordan,
page 32. The whole personal priesthood of all believers means not only
congregational participation, which requires prayer and prayer
books, but also holistic doing. It means singing, falling down,
kneeling, dancing, clapping, processions, and so forth. Here's
another one. Here's this advocacy of pedo-communion. Quote, by requiring knowledge
before communion, the church cuts its children off from the
table. If we were to have reformation, we must reject this residuum
of Gnosticism and return to an understanding that the act of
the Eucharist precedes the interpretation of it. Page 38. Then of course, Jordan
always argues from overarching principles. And anybody who opposes Jordan
or David Shelton or Peter Lightheart, they're accused of being neoplatonic,
Nestorian, Gnostic, nominalistic, Stoic, and having a New Testament
hermeneutic only. So, this little book by Kevin
Reed is quite necessary. Okay, here's the second part,
The Regular Principle and the Reformers. We must also object to Mr. Jordan's
continual pairing of Reformed and Anabaptist notions of worship.
He repeatedly links Reformed worship with a Baptistic New
Testament hermeneutic or Anabaptist thinking. And here's his footnote number
three. Mr. Jordan repeatedly links Reformed
views with Anabaptist notions, especially in Geneva Papers number
25. He claims that a Reformed regular principle almost inevitably
proceeds to a New Testament only hermeneutic. But later in Geneva
Papers number 26, he says, quote, excuse me, the idea that we may
use only New Testament information in formulating our worship is
an Anabaptist notion, not a Reformed one, end of quote. If he sees
this, then why does he implicate Reformed worship in Geneva Papers
number 25 as if it were almost identical to Anabaptist notions?
These contradictory statements may be just the result of muddled
thinking. The bottom line is that he criticizes those who
advocate the reformed regular principle as though they hold
to this faulty hermeneutic. If they do not agree with his
advocacy of the ecclesiastical year, crosses, and other forms
of ceremonialism, if you disagree with him, he be prepared to be
accused of a rationalist approach, a baptistic hermeneutic, Baalism. Geneva Papers number 24. Anabaptism,
Dispensationalism, Legalism, Cultic Minimalism, Stoic Asceticism,
Neoplatonic Mysticism, number 25, that's Puritan paper, Geneva
Papers number 25, Puritanism, Modern Rationalism, and Greek
Rationalistic Intellectualism, that's the Geneva Papers number
26. Therefore, since Mr. Jordan reacts in this manner,
he implicates the reformers since they rejected many of the things
he now advocates. Let me just stop for a moment.
And what is it that distinguishes
the Reformed faith from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism or Anglicanism? What is it that really separates
it apart? Luther was a Calvinist. The early
Anglicans were all Calvinists. They had a Calvinistic soteriology
or Augustinian soteriology. What separates them? Worship.
and the view of the Lord's Supper. Lutherans? Now, Lutherans, it's
really bizarre. They held to the regular principle,
but they denied it by making anything that they wanted to
add simply adiaphora. They just said, well, this is
something indifferent. Men can add it if they want to. The Episcopalians
were much more honest and said that men have the right, churchmen
have the right to make up their own worship. They have the right
to make up rites and ceremonies. They have that right. They can
simply make it up, which is the same as Roman Catholicism. The
Reformed, and this is consistent, whether you're German Reformed,
Dutch Reformed, Puritan in England, Presbyterian, or Puritan New
England, they all taught the same thing, and all the creeds
and confessions of the Reformed faith teach the same thing. You
have to prove what you wanna do as an element of worship from
Scripture, either by an explicit command, do this in remembrance
of me, or by logical inference, for example, the change of the
day from Saturday to Sunday, the Sabbath, that's logical inference,
there's no direct command, but it's when you see throughout
the whole New Testament and Christ and the apostles always meeting
for worship on Sunday, the first day of the week, so you have
logical inference, historical example, you have to prove it. That separates the Reformed faith
from Lutheranism, and Anglicanism and Romanism. And Jordan has
rejected the Reformed faith. What he taught was accepted by
Peter Lightheart and David Chilton, who before he died converted
to the Greek Orthodox Church and claimed he was healed. He
had a heart attack. He claimed he was healed by a
piece of the cross laid on him by a priest. So you have to be
wary of the Romanizing germs within the Christian Reconstruction
movement. Let me continue. Also note his comment, being
different from Rome, is the first law of Presbyterian worship,
it seems. That's a quote of Jordan. Mr. Jordan's statements are an
insult to the integrity of the Reformers and the Reformed confessions
of the Protestant churches. The Protestant Reformers universally
rejected the Anabaptists and classified them among the limbs
of Antichrist, along with the Papists. Further, the position
of the Reformers was not simply a knee-jerk reaction against
Roman Catholicism. The Reformers established their major distinctives
upon a careful exposition of scriptural revelation. In no
area was their position more clearly expressed than in the
area of worship. And see citations below. Let
me just stop for a moment. If you read the Criticisms of
the Regular Principle by Steve Schlissel and by other Reconstructionists, they all almost unanimously say,
well, what the reformers did, the reform did was an overreaction
to Roman Catholicism. And nothing could be farther
from the truth. Everything. Look at Calvin, look at Knox,
look at Rutherford, Gillespie and these guys, look at Gillespie's
book. They did everything from a very careful, deliberate exegesis
of scripture. And if Jordan wants to prove
his fantasies, by exegeting scripture, let him try. But Jordan doesn't
have any biblical authority, so his autonomous thought and
Romanizing germs should be rejected. Continuing. Jordan's repetitious
caricature of the reform position is comprised of broad undocumented
generalizations. He often runs roughshod over
the historical facts with vague, uninformed, unfounded historical
generalizations. This is the case not only as
pairing of the reform view with the Anabaptists. Slippery comments
of a similar nature can be found in Mr. Jordan's discussion of
Christianity in the calendar. For example, he says the Feast
of the Christmas came to be very important in the early church.
to the early church. For so many heresies centered
on the incarnation and the festival of the incarnation provided the
annual affirmation of orthodoxy, Geneva Papers number 24. Actually,
no record of Christmas observation is found until the fourth century.
Further, it was then brought into the church by the Roman
bishop as a counterpart to pagan celebrations which the church
could not eradicate. Without defining the early church,
Mr. Jordan's designation gives erroneous impressions. Or for
another example, we would like to know the basis for Mr. Jordan's
claim that the reformers did not object to the act of crossing
oneself, provided it was not done superstitiously, Geneva
Papers number 25. He makes this claim with no documentation. And just by the way, the Puritans
of England, the Puritans of New England, and the Presbyterians,
the early ones when they were faithful, they're covenant breakers
now primarily. If you celebrated Christmas and
you would be in New England or in Scotland in the 1600s, except
for when the British were forcing their prelacy upon them, you'd
be arrested and you'd be put in jail. And if you did not repent,
you'd be excommunicated. So that's what they thought of
the ecclesiastical calendar. Continuing. Mr. Jordan's technique is similar
to medieval papal appeals to the consent of the church fathers.
as if these men represented a unified witness from antiquity, without
bothering to produce any facts to support the claim. This is
hardly a scholarly methodology. Next, we must consider Mr. Jordan's
failure to deal with the exegetical arguments of the reformers and
the reform creeds and confessions. We are struck by Mr. Jordan's
fervor against those who demand a direct scriptural warrant for
our worship, for he has challenged the conclusions of several major
Protestant reformers. Before we follow Mr. Jordan,
perhaps we should consider some comments from the reformers of
old. Of course, in citing the reformers, we advocate no Protestant
form of saint worship, but we believe that the reformers had
at least as much wisdom as the present faculty of the Geneva
Divinity School. Let me stop for a moment. You
know them by their fruits. Jordan has departed from justification
by faith alone and adopted the federal vision. So has Peter
Lightheart. He's a member of CREC. which is really Satan's crack.
And Sutton, who was the pastor of the church in Tyler, Texas,
is an Anglo-Catholic. He calls himself an Anglo-Catholic.
He's not ashamed of it. He's rejected the Reformation.
You know them by their fruit. And David Chilton died in the
Greek Orthodox Church. Continuing. The following selections
are merely representative. A comprehensive study would fill
volumes. As we proceed, we shall try to suggest some sources for
further study for those who are interested. A central passage
cited by numerous reformers and reform confessions is Deuteronomy
12.32. This verse is set in the context of a warning to the Israelites
not to corrupt worship, either through their own inclinations,
12.8, or by imitating the worship of other religions, 12.1-2, 29-31. In the middle of the chapter,
they are enjoined to worship God according to the pattern
that he has given them. In this setting, God decrees,
whatever I command you, be careful to observe it. You shall not
add to it nor take away from it. This passage from Old Testament
law and not a Baptistic hermeneutic, formed an important basis for
the Reformed regular principle of worship. Calvin's comments
on the whole section, Deuteronomy 12, 29-31, are instructive. He closes with these observations,
quote, In this brief clause, he teaches that no other service
of God is lawful, except that of which he has testified his
approval in his word. and that obedience is, as it
were, the mother of piety, as if he had said that all modes
of devotion are absurd and infected with superstition, which are
not directed by this rule. Hence we gather that in order
to the keeping of the first commandment, a knowledge of the true God is
required, derived from his word and mixed with faith. By forbidding
the addition or diminishing of anything, he plainly condemns
as illegitimate whatever men invent of their own imagination.
Whence it follows that they, who in worshiping God are guided
by any rule, save that which he himself has prescribed, make
to themselves false gods, and therefore horrible vengeance
is denounced by him against those who are guilty of this temerity
through Isaiah. For as much as this people draw
nigh to me, et cetera, by the precept of men, therefore, behold,
I will proceed to be a marvelous work and wonder, for the wisdom
of their wise men shall perish, et cetera." Isaiah 29, 13, and
14. Now, since all the ceremonies
of the papal worship are a mass of superstitions, no wonder that
all her chief rulers and ministers should be blinded with that stupidity
wherewith God has threatened them. That's from Calvin's commentary,
end of quote. and profoundly excellent, and
in my book, The Soul Scripture and the Regular Principle of
Worship, I have an appendix where I've simply gone through Calvin's
commentaries and the institutes and so forth, and I have like
20 pages of quotes of Calvin that are in the similar vein,
and they're outstanding. Continuing, know well. Calvin's
objections to papal worship with its ceremonies are based on the
fact that Pope re has disregarded the scriptural prohibition which
forbids worshiping God by man-made devices. Similarly, John Knox
underscores the demand of the biblical measure. This is the
grand principle, the overarching concept that must govern all
of our worship. Does it have the word of God for assurance?
If not, it must be purged from the church. In Knox's first debate
with Papist, he sounded the battle cry of the Scottish Reformation.
Said Knox, quote, it is not enough that men invent a ceremony and
then give it a signification according to his pleasing. But
if anything proceed from faith, it must have the word of God
for assurance. Maybe cast away what we please and retain what
we please. If it be well remembered, Moses in the name of God said
to the people of Israel, all that the Lord thy God commands
thee to do, that do. thou to the Lord thy God, add
nothing to it, diminish nothing from it. By this rule, think
I that the Kirk of Christ will measure God's religion, and not
by that which seems good in their own eyes." John Knox's History
of the Reformation in Scotland, Volume 1, 88 to 89. End of quote. And readers should, this is continuing,
readers should really consult the full account of Knox's debate
to get the gist of his argument as drawn from numerous passages
of scripture. Keep in mind that the Reformers objected to Romish
worship, not simply on account of its superstition, but on the
ground that it lacked explicit warrant from God's word. And here's footnote number four. This is a repeated theme with
Mr. Jordan. It's okay to observe things as
long as it is not done superstitiously. On this basis, he speaks favorably
of crossing oneself. Let me just make a comment. How
does the Bible define superstition? Anything that cannot be proved or is not authorized by the word
of God, whether by explicit command, or by logical inference, or by
approved historical example, is by definition superstitious. And Paul calls it will-worship
in Colossians. Continuing, keep in mind that
reformers objected to Romans' worship, not simply on account
of its superstition, but on the ground that it lacked explicit warning
from God's word. Here's Knox again, quote, And that is principle
idolatry when our own inventions we defend to be righteous in
the sight of God because we think them good, laudable, and pleasant.
We may not think us so free nor so wise that we may do unto God
and unto his honor what we think expedient. No, the contrary is
commanded by God, saying, unto my word shall you add nothing.
Nothing shall you diminish therefrom that you might observe the precepts
of your God, your Lord God. which words are not to be understood
of the Decalogue in the law, moral law only, but also of statutes,
rites, and ceremonies. For equal obedience of all his
laws requireth God. Knox works, 337 to 38, end of
quote. In his remarks, Knox points to
two crucial ramifications of the dispute. First, observe that
the church is limited in the exercise of power with reference
to worship. The church must respond obediently to God's word, which
is the only role by which worship is established. The church does
not possess any legitimate legislative authority to enact new modes
of worship. Second, Knox saw that human innovation
in worship is the very seed of idolatry. It's not simply a question
of whether something is abused. The question is, does it have
scriptural warrant? Did God institute this measure
or man? This is the litmus test. Certainly,
by his appeal to the law, Knox is not infected with an Anabaptist
dispensational hermeneutic. Yet according to Mr. Jordan,
this approach is unreasonable and borders on legalism, because
we are enjoined to produce scriptural warrant for our worship. Geneva
papers number 25 cited above. To John Knox, however, it is
simply an ordinary application of the law of God. Calvin shared
the view of Knox. Note how Calvin maintains that
our worship must have expressed sanction from the word of God.
Quote, 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 the very bones
and marrow, is that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient
sanction, provided they exhibit some kind of zeal for the honor
of God. But since God regards it not only as fruitless, but
also plainly abominates whatever we undertake from zeal to His
worship, if at variance with His command, and 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. 1 Samuel
15.22, Matthew 15.9. Every addition to his word, especially
in this matter, is a lie. Mere will-worship is vanity. See Colossians 2.23.
Yes, that word, the Greek word means will worship in that passage.
This is the decision. And once the judge has decided,
it is no longer time to debate Calvin Tracts and Treatises,
volume one, 128 to 29. Excellent quote, excellent quote. After establishing the general
rule, that our worship must have expressed
warrant, the reformers sought to apply this principle to specific
matters. Concerning vestments, the Polish reformer, John Alasko
wrote, quote, first by means of the argument by which Christ
and the prophets together with the apostles expelled from the church
human dogmas and inventions as a plague. Matthew 12, Isaiah
29, Colossians 2. I too am convinced that vestments
are a human invention which ought to be removed from the church.
that's John Alasko of the Abolishment Investments, cited from the Reformers
of the Church, a collection of the Reformed Puritan documents
on church issues, edited by Ian Murray, London, Matter of Truth,
1965, end of quote. What a fantastic quote. Let me
just say something here, apart from this article. Ray Sutton,
pastor, Tyler, Texas, becomes converted to Episcopalianism,
and becomes the president of Reformed Episcopal Seminary in
Philadelphia, a seminary I graduated from in 84. And at that time,
it was a fairly good seminary. Yes, it was Episcopal, but it
was basically Presbyterianism with a prayer book. And what
happens to the Episcopal Church? They have vestments now. They
have candles now. They are high church now, the
low church. The Reformed Episcopal Church
was dedicated to being a low, low church, but they liked the
prayer book. Now they're a high church. They're Anglo-Catholics,
and they're infected with the federal vision. This is the fruit
of the Reconstructionists in Tyler, Texas. This is the fruit
of Ray Sutton. This is the fruit of James Jordan
and David Chilton and Peter Lightheart. So be warned. Continuing. At the time, John of Alaska was
living in England, where he pastored a church of European exiles.
There was a dispute over the vestments of the Church of England,
and the real issue was over the underlying principles which would
govern the worship of the church. Calvin describes the fundamental
struggle in his tract, The Necessity of Reforming the Church, 1545.
Quote, in a day against ceremonies themselves, and also in abrogating
a great part of them, we confess that there is some difference
between us and the prophets. They invade against their countrymen
for confining the worship of God to external ceremonies, but
still are ceremonies which God himself had instituted. We complain
that the same honor is paid to frivolities of man's devising.
While they condemned superstition, left untouched a multitude of
ceremonies which God had enjoined, which were useful and appropriate
to the age of tutelage. Our business has been to correct
numerous rites which had either crept in through oversight or
been turned into abuse, and which moreover by no means accorded
with the time. Four, if we would not throw everything
into confusion, we must never lose sight of the distinction
between the old and new dispensations, and of the fact that ceremonies,
the observance of which were useful under the law, are now
not only superfluous, but vicious and absurd. When Christ was absent
and not yet manifested, ceremonies, by shadowing him forth, cherished
the hope of his advent in the breasts of believers. But now
that his glory is present and conspicuous, they only obscure
it. And he's talking about things
like incense, priestly vestments, holy water, and all these kinds
of crazy things in the Roman Catholic Church, which are basically
them trying to imitate and mirror the shadows of the Old Testament.
Continuing, as we, and we see what God himself has done for
those ceremonies, which he had commanded for a time, he has
now abrogated forever. Paul explains the reason. First,
that since the body has been manifested in Christ, the types
have, of course, been withdrawn. And secondly, that God is now
pleased to instruct the church after a different manner. Galatians
4, 5, Colossians 2, 4, 14, and 17. Since then, God has freed
his church from the bondage which he has imposed upon it. Can anything
I ask be more perverse than for men to introduce new bondage
in place of the old? Since God prescribed a certain
economy, how presumptuous to set up one which is contrary
to it. and openly repudiated by him.
But the worst of all is that though God has so often and so
strictly interdicted all modes of worship prescribed by man,
the only worship paid to him consisted of human inventions.
What ground then have our enemies to vociferate that in this matter
we have given religion to the winds. First, we have not laid
even a finger on anything that Christ does not discountenance
as of no value when he declares that it is in vain to worship
God with human traditions. The thing might perhaps have
been more tolerable if the only effect had been that men lost
their pains by an unveiling worship. But since I have observed, God
in many passages forbids any new worship unsanctioned by his
word, since he declares that he is grievously offended with
a presumption which invents such worship and threatens it with
severe punishment. It is clear that the reformation
which we have introduced was demanded by strong necessity.
Tracts in letters one, 151 to 53. End of quote. The citation of Calvin raises
a significant issue in relation to the present discussion. Calvin
points out the pedagogic nature of ceremonial worship. Now Mr.
Jordan would place the church back under pedagogy of ceremonialism. This is one of his arguments
for the ecclesiastical year. It is, says he, an excellent
pedagogy, Geneva Papers number 24. And just by the way, in his
commentary in the Book of Revelation, David Chilton advocates using
incense in the churches, burning incense. Because in heaven we
find incense burned in the vision. But the incense in heaven, as
well as the musical instruments in heaven, one represents praise,
one represents worship. I mean, excuse me, one represents
praise, one represents prayer. Incense represents prayer. So
David Chilton is romanizing in his interpretation. Continuing.
From the Apostle Paul's argument in Galatians, however, we learn
that such a pedagogy is now inconsistent with a mature state of the church,
Galatians 3.23-25. Under the Old Testament economy,
the ceremonies foreshadowed the coming Messiah. They were a temporary, visible
word, all for assigning Christ to come, Westminster Confession
7.5. But now that Christ has come
in substance, the pedagogy has fulfilled its function. It would
be a form of bondage to retreat to a system of ceremonialism,
Galatians 4, 9-10. Of course, this type of ceremonialism
is one of the principal features of Popish worship. Ceremonialism
is one area where the New Testament modifies Old Testament teaching
and practice. In saying this, we have not become dispensationalists
or anabaptists, nor is Calvin guilty of a distorted hermeneutic
when he said essentially the same thing. Further, the New
Testament church is not without a visible word, which serves
as a counterpart to the word preached. We have the sacraments
of baptism and the Lord's Supper. While these things are fewer
in number and administered with more simplicity and less outward
glory, yet in them, it, the gospel, is held forth in more fullness,
evidence, and spiritual efficacy. And by the way, that's a quote
of the Confession. Seven. Six. And yes, Jordan, Peter Lightheart,
Doug Wilson, David Shelton, all explicitly contradict the Westminster
Standards. Continuing, nevertheless the issue is more basic than
the pedagogical nature of this new ceremonialism. As Calvin
notes, it would be bad enough trying to return to a scriptural
pedagogy which had already been fulfilled, but now these new
ceremonialists would place us under a man-made pedagogy. How
presumptuous it is for men to foist upon us a system of human
invention. Such man-made devices of worship are against the commands
of God, who in many passages forbids any new worship unsanctioned
by His Word. Thus, we are brought back to
the regular principle which forbids any means of worship without
the express warrant of the Word of God. As Calvin remarks, there are
scores of verses which form the exegetical basis of the Reform
view of worship. For those truly interested in
reading the Reformers' Defense of the Raider Principle, we recommend
the following sources. On Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming
the Church, Tracts Volume 1. The True Method of Giving Peace
to Christendom and Reforming the Church, Tracts Volume 3.
on Shunning the Unlawful Rights of the Ungodly and Preserving
the Purity of Christian Religion, Tracts, Volume 3. Also, note
Calvin's letters to Somerset, 22 October 1548, Letters, Volume
2. To King Edward, January 1551,
Letters, Volume 2. To the Frankfurt Church, Letters
3, 117 to 119. To Richard Cox, as reprinted
in Knox's works, 4, 58 to 60. It is interesting to note that
Calvin expressed a rather negative view of the ceremonialism of
Anglican worship. This ceremonialism is the very
thing the Tyler congregation currently finds so attractive. Concerning Knox, see the account of his first
public debate with a papist, Knox's History, Volume 1, 88
and following. The Vindication of the Doctrine
of the Sacrifice of the Mass's Idolatry, Works, Volume 3. A
Narrative of the Proceedings and Troubles of the English Congregation
at Frankfurt on the Main, 1554-55, Works, Volume 4. And his letters
to Mrs. Anne Lox, Works, 6, 11-15, 83-85. In his letters, Knox is even
more vehement in his denunciation of the Anglican order of worship. And I think I'll stop there. I'm going to make a few comments
here. Calvin, and I believe it's his
tracts and letters, the two pillars of Christianity, he argues, are
the doctrine of salvation. How are we saved by God? And
that, of course, is the Protestant doctrine of justification by
faith alone, by grace alone. And the other central pillar
of Christianity, he says, is how do we worship God? What is
the right way to worship God? How do we approach God in worship?
In salvation, we have to approach God solely through Christ. In
worship, we have to approach God solely through the word of
God. What does it teach that we are
allowed to do? Now, if you deny that, which Jordan does, which
David Chilton does, which Doug Wilson does, which Peter Lightheart
does, which Steve Slischel does, and he, a whole series of articles
against irregular principle and calcined on in the 1990s, which
Rush Dooney had to approve of, and which were approved of by
the editor, Andrew Sandland, who's now, from what I understand,
a heretic, following the federal vision, denying justification
by faith alone. These are critical matters. And
the problem is, is once you deny the regular principle of worship
and say that humans can make up stuff, where does it end? It led to the papal church. It
led to the church of Antichrist, the papal church, where their
worship is an abomination in God's sight. On the evangelical
side, it's led to skits, rock and roll bands, pop psychologists,
and every goofy thing under the sun. things that God hates, and
of course, the church calendar, which God abominates and hates.
This is a very critical matter. The regular principles, for all
intents and purposes, dead in the OPC and the PCA. The churches
that adhere to it strictly are few and far between. Sad to say. The RPCNA is a lot better. Exclusive psalmody and not using
musical instruments, which is the biblical position, has restrained
them But in the RPC&A, Christmas is widespread, which God hates,
which violates the covenant of 1580, the covenant of 1638, the
covenant of 1645, and the covenants after that, the Arkansas renovation
and so forth. They violate their own covenants,
they violate the word of God, they violate the regular principle.
This is critical. is very concerned about worship.
When God commanded Pharaoh to let my people go, what was the
purpose? So they may come out and worship me. We're saved under good works.
One of those works that is good is biblical worship. We're not
saved to have rock and roll bands and puppet shows and pop psychologists
so we can all have a good time. If you want to watch Johnny Carson,
fine, but don't turn the church into Johnny Carson. If you like
Oprah Winfrey, well, that's not fine, but if you like Oprah Winfrey,
but you don't want to turn the church into Oprah Winfrey, which
is what Evangelical's doing. This is a very critical matter,
and this is a fine work by Kevin Reed, very fine. But we'll continue
next week, let us pray. Father, we give you thanks for
your regular principle. We need it because we're sinners.
We need it because we like our own inventions. We need it to
subdue the sinful flesh. Lord, bring a revival of the
regular principle. For without it, there can be
no real reformation. As we know from your Old Testament,
the central problem was false worship. The central problem
was idolatry. The central problem with Romanism
is both idolatry and denial of justification by faith. Those
who have advocated Romanizing worship have also denied justification
by faith alone. We see history repeating itself.
Lord, help us. You get rid of this garbage,
this Romish trash, in Jesus' name, amen.
Christian Reconstructionism's War on Biblical Worship
Pastor Schwertley reads from The Canterbury Tales: An Extended Review and Commentary Based Upon The Geneva Papers by Kevin Reed.
| Sermon ID | 92020201312117 |
| Duration | 50:30 |
| Date | |
| Category | Sunday Service |
| Language | English |
© Copyright
2026 SermonAudio.