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.