God lost His Truth, His Church? (A civil discussion regarding such issues)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian His liberal treatment of RPW? Interesting. I knew he was getting raked over the coals, but I haven't had a chance to read the discussion of the particulars.

Yeah... Schlissels's treatment of the RPW tends to be a mite Christian Libertarian. Perhaps even... dare I say it... a mite baptistic in its Congegational (or, given that we are talking Schlissel, "synagogical") Independence??

(As Schlissel is a Jewish-Presbyterian Covenantalist, he would undoubtedly rake me over the coals for calling his "liberal" treatment of the RPW as "baptistic"... grin)

Anyway, the "long and short" is that Schlissel thinks that, in principle, the RPW itself is generally a fitting and genuine application of the Second Commandment, but that the general application of the RPW in some of the more-conservative Reformed Churches is not a genuine application of the RPW Rule (or the underlying Scripture) at all.

Be advised that is a VERY fast-and-loose analysis of Schlissel's controversy with the CRC, which probably does some injustice to both sides. I studied the matter in a bit of depth six months ago, but not recently.

I thought it might involve the old "Justification by Faithfulness" controversy which got Shepherd bounced out of WTS. 100 posted on 01/01/2003 10:25 PM PST by the_doc

There's definitely some of that going on, but as I understand, it is not directly related to Schlissel's controversy concerning the RPW.

As far as Schlissel and "Justification by Faithfulness", the whole matter devolves to "Lordship Salvation", in my opinion... of which Schlissel is a passionate advocate.

I honestly don't believe that he is flirting with "works-salvation" at all. I think that his Reformed critics are declaring, "Faith alone saves", and Schlissel is saying that "The Faith which saves, is never Alone". They're talking past eachother (but again, be advised that is a VERY fast-and-loose analysis of the controversy , which probably does some injustice to both sides).

Anyway, here's a short blurb on the subject (the "Covenant of Works", not the RPW) from the "Good Question!" Email section of Messiah's Congregation in New York City, Schlissel's local church:

---

Covenant of Life or Covenant of Works?
Posted on Monday 11 November @ 10:23:58

The question...

I frequently hear God's covenant with Adam referred to as both a covenant of life as well as a covenant of works. One OPC pastor we knew prefered to use covenant of life to covenant of works, since man has always been saved by God's grace. I prefer to use covenant of life since Adam was promised life upon obedience. I've heard some say we need to use both covenant of life and covenant of works - not one in exclusion to the other. Is there liberty in this area?

The answer...

The whole thing is a crock of baloney. How's that for an assessment?!

No, seriously, the dispute is retrogressive, it's backwards. Here's the scoop. Man was created INTO a covenant. Hence, the Children's & Shorter Catechisms are misleading: that covenant was not an agreement and it was not entered into after God had created man. It was no second thing. Adam awoke into a covenant, a relationship. It was full of grace and order and beauty. Theologians have a tendency to napalm the texts.

The covenant has terms, promises, conditions, regulations, helps, warnings, and lots more. Adam by his sin BROKE the covenant. Call it the Covenant of Creation, with him as the Administrator. Henceforth that Covenant would not lead to eternal life. It's broken. It would still have good things in it: marriage, labor, food, sunshine, etc. These are given graciously by God to all. But no one would be properly related to God except by a New Covenant. Call it the Covenant of Redemption. It was prefigured in various ways, fulfilled in all ways by Christ. And here we are. In covenant with God through the New Adam, with terms, promises, conditions, regulations, helps, warnings, and lots more.

There's the Bible in a short lesson.
If we don't keep it simple, it's Aristotle, not Jesus.

---

At the risk of being flippant, I thought that Schlissel's reponse was hilarious.
Anyway, that's (part) of what's going on between Schlissel and the CRC.

[MarMema]

I want to thank God for healing my gall bladder and finding my cat and making sure the painter did a good job and thank you Lord for saving me

This is how my neighbor, a Bible-believer, prays.
So what do you think of people who pray this way? As in, reverse the thanks and make it all requests?

I found an article I really liked in the newspaper, and I don't even recall who wrote it. It used an analogy of a dog being attacked by a pack of wolves, then going home to it's master. And the master saw immediately of course, that the dog needed bandages, etc, and took care of it. The premise being that when we pray we really need only present ourselves to God. Then I found an Orthodox piece about using silence as prayer.

I liked this because I have trouble with what I call the "laundry list" prayer approach. It strikes me as so arrogant and man-oriented.
I tend to prefer, as you probably know already, worship-oriented prayer, adoration-oriented prayer, throw yourself on the floor prostrate (which we do, just like the muslims) prayer.
As always I am interested in any feedback you may have.

[MarMema]

and mutual self esteem

Ugh. You gotta hate those words, from our era. Self-esteem. I am betting the public schools are still rank with this idea.

[MarMema]

With that heinous action, did "God's truth" vanish from the Greek/Russian orthodox Church?

By no means!

I have been struggling to find the right words to show my gratitude for this post of yours. Thank you for these very kind words.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

No doubt. CSLewis, being a professor of English Literature, was of course interested in the question of education. There is nothing new under the sun, and one can see the genesis of what is called American education alluded to in some of his works. See for example The Abolition of Man, and the Prologue to the Screwtape letters, Screwtape proposes a toast, written by his wife, Joy. The most frightening book i have ever read was "That Hideous Strength" a science fiction work by Lewis. It extended the arguments of "The abolition of Man", and seems frighteningly real today...an interesting study in how demons are affecting our species today.

Please forgive me for not giving the /sarcasm> tab in my comment. As you may know, i'm not a big fan of self esteem.

[the_doc]

He does sound a lot like a Reformed Baptist.

[Matchett-PI]

Like Steve Brown, Steve Schlissel gets accused (by immature and/or controler-type Christians and non-Christians) of being antinomian.

I love this Steve Schlissel line: "Further, where it (RPW) has prevailed it has frequently bequeathed to the church a cadre of Tartuffes who make certain Pharisees look like rank amateurs."

In line with that, Dr. Steve Brown (also a Presbyterian) has said that many of the sermons he hears (in "Reformed" churches/seminaries) could, with just the change of a few words here and there, be given in any Synagogue in America.

I've been watching this "controversy" about the RWP, myself, because I believe that the more spiritually mature Reformed church leadership will follow the IPW ("Informed Principle of Worship")

In actual fact, any Reformed church that holds "Christmas services", for instance, is following the IPW, rather than the RWP.

Political Correctness (legalism), in politics and religion, is a "fuss-budget" feminine characteristic, in my opinion.

The feminized "church" we see today began with Eve.

The Marxist/Socialist/DemocRAT party is the feminized political party.

A church denomination / organization is "feminized" in direct proportion to the degree it rejects grace in favor of a reversion to the law.

Quote: "Your sin isn't the evidence of "The Fall" (Jesus took care of your sin). The evidence of The Fall is your reversion to the law" ~ Steve Brown - ( http://www.keylife.org )

Below are some links I have in the archives that I keep on my desk top (including: A Blue Banner critique of Steve Schlissel's articles at the end of this):

"All I Really Need to Know About Worship (I Don't Learn from the Regulative Principle) By Steve M. Schlissel

(Part I)
http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Chalcedon/RPW/I.htm

(Part II)
http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Chalcedon/RPW/II.htm

(Part III)
http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Chalcedon/RPW/III.htm

(Part IV)
http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Chalcedon/RPW/IV.htm

(Part V)
http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Chalcedon/RPW/V.htm

(Part VI)
http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Chalcedon/RPW/VI.htm

(Part VII)
http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Chalcedon/RPW/VII.htm

Part VIII
http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Chalcedon/RPW/VIII.htm

Excerpted quote: "It is difficult to find someone willing to discuss this subject dispassionately. The difficulty, however, lies in culture rather than Scripture. And it is just here that the Informed Principle of Worship (IPW) can be very useful, while the RPW is not."

(Part IX)
http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Chalcedon/RPW/IX.htm

(Part X)
http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Chalcedon/RPW/X.htm

Excerpted quote: "... a very great number of Reformed churches since the Reformation - were clearly governed by the covenantal freedom expressed in the Informed Principle of Worship. (9) Perhaps it's time to let the cat out of the bag:

there are no "strict regulativists" in practice. And the 57 varieties of those who claim to be such only prove that it is, at bottom, a subjective principle.

Regulate as We Say, Not as We Do"

*

Excerpt from Part V:

We've sought to show why the Regulative Principle of Worship -- if it is not commanded, it is forbidden -- cannot survive when measured against the Scripture.

RPW chauvinists:

1. "Discover" it where it is not. They isolate words and incidents from their qualifying contexts.
2. Miss it where it is. The Tabernacle/Temple system was indeed strictly regulated, but why? Because it was the gospel, not because it was worship.
3. Miss the humongous implications of the synagogue, a "man-made" worship institution functioning alongside the Temple system.
4. Fail to fairly account for the approbated celebration of "man-instituted" special days in Scripture.
5. Fail to fairly account for approbated "man-made" traditions, some of which modified even explicit divine instructions.
6. Fail to be consistent with their own principle, upon which singing in New Testament-era worship services cannot be justified.
7. Have landed themselves in so many pickles they could open a deli.

Speaking of pickles, not more than one or two sourpusses have responded bitterly to our series so far. Sweet mail received from ministers and elders (TR-variety) in the PCA, the OPC, and other Presbyterian denominations were almost uniformly positive (a pleasant surprise), with many expressing sincere gratitude for the salty series.

The responses certainly have been interesting. It's been about six months since our first critique of the RPW was sent out. We estimate that our arguments have been sent to well over 11,000 ministers, elders, churches, and Reformed families. Yet the only feedback resembling an argument against the position taken in these pages was received independently from two men from the same church. We'll let the minister of that church be the spokesman. A proud-to-be-strict-RPW brother, a good and well-loved man whom I rejoice to call my friend (though we certainly disagree on this issue!)—expressed in a colorfully worded question what we suspect is on the minds of many: If there's no RPW, then "rock `n' roll bands, longhaired hippies, dancing in the aisles, `slain in the Spirit,' incense waving, smoking peyote, singing of my latest poem I wrote two weeks ago, are all OK in worship?"

To this we must say, first, we are not seeking to overthrow the sort of worship found in churches which seek to abide by the RPW. Rather, we are hoping to advance that very sort of worship, but on grounds less vulnerable to informed, Biblical challenge. That is the nail-on-the-head issue: Must we impose a man-made principle, such as the RPW,1 in order to have God-honoring, people-of-God-edifying worship? Our answer is a flat "No. We do not need a manufactured principle. We have many clear Biblical principles which, if applied, lead to the desired results."

Second, one goal of replacing the RPW with what is hopefully a stronger set of principles is to allow dialogue and debate in terms of "good, better, best," as opposed to those recurring, barren ultimatums of "true/false" or "acceptable/abominable." The ultimatum approach has stagnated the progress and propagation of Reformed-style worship.

Further, where it has prevailed it has frequently bequeathed to the church a cadre of Tartuffes who make certain Pharisees look like rank amateurs.2

Third, as we suggested in our last installment, the sort of argumentation which insists that chaos is the alternative to the RPW is precisely the sort which Reformed people can reject with a laugh, or even a humble swagger. For it is an argument of identical construction to that which has ever been waged against the Reformed doctrine of justification, a doctrine regarded by many as residing at the very heart of the true Christian faith.

Faith Works

"If you tell people they are justified -- declared forensically righteous by God -- apart from their own works, sin will know no restraint, chaos will abound!"

Such arguments against the doctrine of justification by grace through faith were refuted more than 400 years ago in the Heidelberg Catechism. Q64: But does not this doctrine make men careless and profane? A64: No, for it is impossible that those who are implanted into Christ by true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness.

We are not seeking to overthrow the sort of worship found in churches which seek to abide by the RPW. Rather, we are hoping to advance that very sort of worship, but on grounds less vulnerable to informed, Biblical challenge.

A free and gracious justification was and is regarded as a reality inseparable from sanctification, expressed through good works as defined by God's law. No symbols on earth exalt the law of God, in its rightful place, like the Reformed symbols. The Westminster Confession's treatment of Good Works (Chapter XVI), is excellent. Section II says, ". . . good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith."

The Second Helvetic, in its time the most widely held Reformed confession, speaking of justification by faith in Chapter XV, says, "Wherefore, in this matter we are not speaking of a fictitious, empty, lazy and dead faith, but of a living, quickening faith. It is and is called a living faith because it apprehends Christ who is life and makes alive, and shows that it is alive by living works. And so James does not contradict anything in this doctrine of ours. For he speaks of an empty, dead faith of which some boasted but who did not have Christ living in them by faith (James 2:14 ff.). James said that works justify, yet without contradicting the apostle (otherwise he would have to be rejected) but showing that Abraham proved his living and justifying faith by works. This all the pious do, but they trust in Christ alone and not in their own works."

Earlier (in Chapter XII), Helvetic II refuted antinomianism in a most concise manner: We condemn everything that heretics old and new have taught against the law.

And these have not been mere paper convictions! Reformed and Presbyterian communities have a well-deserved reputation for living out the Puritan sayings, "Justified by faith alone, but faith which appears alone [that is, without good works] does not justify," and, "Faith proves justification; good works prove faith." We Reformed have been a people who have lived lawfully without seeking justification by merit. It is obvious, therefore, not only from the Bible but from the lives of those who believe it, that the fears of bedlam overtaking a freely justified people were unwarranted.

Such a sort of argument, then ("The bogeyman will get you!")—whether offered to retain works-righteousness or the RPW—is weak. In fact, the very offering of this as the only argument left in the case before us may represent the swan song of the RPW. When its advocates can only say—"Oh yeah? Well, wadda ya gonna do without us?"3—we suspect that the time is short till the Reformed and Presbyterian world recognizes that the RPW may be put to rest, without fear, as a once popular but nevertheless extreme view. The RPW is giving way, even among orthodox Presbyterians, to the far more Biblical and balanced covenantal view of worship. Shedding the RPW does not leave us with nothing! A faithful husband is not such because he is being followed by a shamus, but because he lawfully loves his wife. We have a heavenly Father we seek to lawfully worship, a blessed Savior we seek to serve, and a Holy Spirit who has given us 66 covenantal books to guide us in so doing.

Continental Divide

On the Continental Reformed side of our feedback, we received "So what else is new?" mail. Though some Continental Reformed, through cross-pollination from Puritans, have embraced a version of the RPW, very few have been in the "strict" camp.4 Nevertheless, the Continental Reformed have long been a people who worship in a God-centered, orderly, and covenantal manner without the RPW.5 Rev. Donald Van Dyken, pastor of an Orthodox Christian Reformed Church, wrote to us, "I must say that I never heard of the Regulative Principle of Worship until exposure to my ministerial colleagues here in the OCRC's who were from Presbyterian background."

Rev. Van Dyken provided us with an instructive outline. "My understanding of worship is governed by the Covenantal Principle. That works itself out in several ways, all of them, I believe, covenantal:

1. Covenant is relationship, and the relationship we are concerned with in worship is between the Covenant God (Triune) and His people. Worship, therefore, consists of communion between these two: God and His people.
2. As God initiates covenant, and covenant demands response, so worship basically consists of God speaking and His people responding.
3. Worship as a covenant body means every soul in the church (no ecclesiastical daycare centers for children) gathered as covenantal family units.
4. Worship in the New Covenant grows out of the Old and is characterized by immediacy because of the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. The vicarious character of Old order worship is removed, the congregation of the Lord not being dependent upon human mediators or priests.
5. The New Covenant brings the wonderful liberty of maturity.

"I don't know where people miss the boat on this thing," says Rev. Van Dyken. "The maturity of the church gives her the freedom to work out varying practices so long as they are consistent with the principles in which she was supposed to have been soaked in her OT childhood. New Covenant is covenant maturity. Maturity means work, and perhaps that is why so many want to revert to childhood."

Rev. Van Dyken's thoughts emit the clean fragrance of covenantal air. And his notation concerning maturity is particularly appropriate. But I doubt that our RPW friends are averse to work.

In some ways we might view maintenance of the RPW as more work. An illustration of what I mean by "more work" occurred in the course of ministry here. God provided us an opportunity to witness to an official from a United Nations delegation whose native country is still plunged deep in communist darkness (may God deliver them!). Every contact we had with him, though, was not with him alone: he was accompanied by a "chaperone." Though the cost and inconvenience of assigning the chaperone were great, the commies thought it not only worth it, but necessary. They treat their own officials like infants—nay, like recreants just itching to switch sides.

My RPW friends who are terrified of what might happen to worship without the RPW are a bit like the Communist Party officials afraid of what might happen to their delegates without chaperones. The presupposition is the same in both cases: the people who are supposed to be friends and servants are actually regarded as enemies, turncoats-in-waiting.6 Such a view sees the church void of friends-of-God. That such is our state by nature, we heartily agree. To think that such is our state by grace, however, turns grace into nothing.

For our purposes, the chaperone in the above example represents the unbiblical "principles" of both extreme positions dealing with the regulation of worship. Both Rome and regulativists treat their votaries as people not to be trusted, ready to bolt at the first opportunity, in desperate need of the Watchful Eye.7 Rome is totalitarian in what it imposes while regulativists are totalitarian in what they exclude.8 Both Rome and regulativists treat the people of God like infants, incapable of maturity or sound judgment. Rome tells her minions that they must observe special days (for example; the list of "musts" is long). Those confined to the regulativists' barracks are told that they must not observe special days (the list of "must nots" is nearly as long).

The Informed Principle of Worship, based on a covenantal view of things, rejects both extremes and insists upon considering worship in the light of tota scriptura.

All parties agree that what is forbidden must be excluded.9 But for the rest, what? High-churchers say, "Not forbidden, then fine." Regulativists say, "If it is not commanded, it is forbidden." Both propositions fail to meet the test of tota scriptura. We propose the IPW: What is not forbidden might be permitted. It depends. Biblical worship is in harmony with the whole of Scripture and keeps a focused eye on Christ's covenantal achievements in history and the impact of His completed work on worship in the New Order. We'll consider some particulars of the IPW momentarily. First, let's see why the church is to be addressed as bound by principles which approach her as mature. For in capturing this we can see how our appeal on behalf of Reformed worship is more like this: "You should not worship in a manner which is beneath your calling," than this: "You abominable, idolatrous wretches! God hates you, and your worship too!"

Coming of Age

When children are small, loving parents regulate their behavior down to minutiae. As the children grow the regulations cascade like scales. They fall not to the emergence of antinomian behavior but (one hopes) to the living out of those principles which they learned as children. We forbid our children to go in the gutter when they are toddlers; when they mature, they apply that principle by guarding life. For God's will for us in the sixth commandment is ". . . that I do not harm myself, nor willfully run into any danger."10 The toddler prohibition was an in-order-to matter. A 36 year-old who is afraid to cross the street has a problem.

There is no need to rehearse the New Testament Scripture's praise of maturity, but we will remind you that the Pentecost event recorded in Acts 2 was the covenantal equivalent of the church emerging into a new maturity. In fact, it was then that the church became capable of "reproduction." Pentecost was the adolescent church's first hormonal rush.11 The church wasn't born at Pentecost: it was bar mitzvah'd.

Just as each individual is reckoned to be the same person though passing through several stages en route to maturity, so also the one church grew up in accordance with God's plan. We confess that the church, from Adam forward, is organically one. Our catechism properly teaches that "the Son of God, through His Spirit and Word, out of the entire human race, from the beginning of the world to its end, gathers, protects, and preserves for Himself a community chosen to eternal life and united in true faith."

The one church has been from Eden, but, like a child on its way to adulthood, the church has not had its affairs identically administered at each stage of its development. There was continual, superintended growth of the covenant, leading—according to God's express plan—to "the Christ event" and its consequent fruit which ripened at Pentecost. It was only then that the church could truly "be fruitful and multiply," being freed to carry the meaning of the Tabernacle/Temple system around the world in the very portable form of the gospel. The truth was no longer tied to the apron strings of an earthly center. "Headquarters," Zion, Jerusalem, was now fixed in heaven, equidistant from all earthly locations. The kingdoms of this world had, in principle, become the kingdoms of our Lord.12

When Jesus our Savior had accomplished His incarnation, perfect life, substitutionary death on the cross, burial, resurrection, and ascension, the one church (which had existed from the beginning) could enter upon a new phase of its being. It could grow up and begin to live out, in all the world, the principles it had learned from infancy. From Moses to Pentecost the church, like a child, was "kept at home," more or less confined to one geographical location. Now, with the Spirit of maturity, it could leave home, reproduce, and encompass the earth.13

Looked at this way, the Spirit's outpouring at Pentecost was less the goal of Christ's work than the provided means to empower her and enable her to accomplish the set goal. That goal was clearly articulated by our Lord before His ascension: to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins to all nations, to baptize all nations, and to teach all nations to obey everything He has commanded.

The self-identification of a people bound to one geographical location, united by a common language and common customs, and distinguished by an exclusive access to God—for such a people to achieve and maintain a strong self-identification as a people is a rather simple affair. But to give people from all the disparate nations of the earth, speaking different languages and having different customs—to provide a common identity in Christ to this group required a special operation of the Spirit. That is the unity in the Spirit of which Paul speaks.14 That is how Jews and Gentiles are made one: not by common access to an earthly Temple, but by common reception of the Spirit of Truth, by whom they have access—from anywhere on earth—to the heavenly Temple.

Thus the New administration is characterized by a universalism which forbids the imposition of Jewish—that is, Sinaitic—worship forms upon the Gentiles. Any honest reading of the New Testament Scriptures reveals this to be the administrative issue confronting the church at that time.15 To impose upon the Gentiles now a principle which regulated only the Temple service during a specific developmental phase of the covenant would be as improper, as covenantally anachronistic, as wrongheaded, as requiring Gentile males to be circumcised or to visit Jerusalem thrice annually. Such regulation belonged to another day.

Yet some regulativists seem positively terrified of treating churches as maturing entities. They would keep them bound to the old Jerusalem's precincts via punctilious regulation.

Such an approach is backwards. It reminds me of the suburban sot who lived on a tree-lined acre. Night after night, driving home from his favorite pub in an intoxicated stupor, he would smash into yet another tree. The tippler's solution was to cut down all the trees on his property. A good regulativist answer. There was a better way, however. He should have controlled himself.

This difference of approach is evident if we examine how the Apostle reasons with God's people.16 Though this is an argument from "texture"—or as they'd say today, "look and feel"—it is nonetheless instructive. Simply compare any standard regulativist tome with St. Paul's admonitions to, say, the Corinthians. To the Corinthian mantra—"Everything is permissible for me"—Paul responds thus: "But not everything is beneficial." And again: "But I will not be mastered by anything." And once more: "But not everything is beneficial." And lastly: "But not everything is constructive."17

Paul spoke to his beloved churches as if they were adult entities; he always spoke to them in terms of their calling.18 He knew that the nurturing and development of Christian character would yield the desired results: the living out of a God-glorifying life in all spheres.

When Paul devotes several "chapters" to dealing with worship irregularities, he does so without once suggesting that the Corinthian problem was soluble simply by forbidding whatever was not expressly commanded.19 He could have saved himself a lot of effort! But then, he was constrained by God's actual will.

There are Biblical arguments to govern our behavior and restrain excess which appeal to simple principles, e.g., "Nobody should seek his own good but the good of others." There are also "arguments" which rely on mere authority. When God has spoken on a subject, mere authority is a good form of argument! But when He has not—as is the case with many New Order worship details—one must pursue other avenues of argumentation. Consider church architecture.

"Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount."20 It can be justly said that from Moses to Messiah the architecture of the "House of God" was as strictly regulated as the worship within it. Yet God has not given to the post-Pentecost church a blueprint for its architecture. To see this freedom that we now have—in fitting church form (architecture) to function (the activities occurring within)—is to see the church exercising one of its many prerogatives as a mature entity in Christ. God treats us as grown-ups; regulativists treat us as toddlers. Instead of basing their appeals for improvement on higher sensibilities and principles, as one would reason with an adult, they seek simply to "child-proof" every house with their "must nots." There are locks everywhere because God's covenant people, in their view, are not to be trusted.

*

A CRITIQUE OF STEVE SCHLISSEL'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT WORSHIP...
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/Schlissel.htm

A Critique of Steve Schlissel's 'All I Need to Know About Worship, I don't Learn from the Regulative Principle.'
Introduction Copyright © 2000 The Blue Banner. "Critique" Copyright © 2000 G. I. Williamson. Printed with Permission. From The Blue Banner, v. 9. #1-3.

[George W. Bush]

At the risk of being flippant, I thought that Schlissel's reponse was hilarious.

Given his Calvinistic theology and Jewish background, it's a little hard to imagine how he could parse the text in any other way and make sense of it as a Christian Jew.

Of course, it's not hard to see why you prefer his views. These are the covenantal grounds upon which Presbyterians like to make their stand theologically.

[George W. Bush]

I thought I'd return to this historical question that is revived repeatedly by responding to your previous remarks and, incidentally, hijack the thread back to the original topic.

Cleburne: If one believes that Catholic Church was "hopeless" at the time of the Reformation, could one make a case for there being other groups that "carried the torch" through the "darkness" of the Middle Ages? Personally, I don't think so. The well-known "Trail of Blood", for example, has to embrace incredibly heretical (by the standards of Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox!) sects in order to maintain continuity. I see no means by which to establish a claim of a "pure" church, "untainted" by popery.

Jael: So you believe that Rome was the true church? She just went bad over time?

MarMema: In 988 Orthodoxy was brought to Russia by Prince Vladimir, where it flourished. The years of 1350-1550 were the culmination, considered the "golden age of Orthodoxy" in Russia.

Jael: I couldn't consider them [the Church Fathers and their immediate heirs as part of the "true Church"] as such. Doctrinally speaking, or in any way, I don't see Rome as ever being a part of Biblical Christianity.

---

First off, I've looked, as have many others, for any completely unbroken line of Christian descent that is completely outside the Roman church. One can make a case for the Piedmontese churches as a missionary outreach of the Palestinian churches but that hardly seems a complete explanation. I have concluded that this is probably the wrong way to approach it. I think the case can be argued for a sort of unbroken succession but that ultimately, it is not satisfactory for a number of reasons.

Let's try to frame this entire matter a little differently instead and we see another more nuanced view emerges.

In the early years of the Roman church, in fact for centuries, the Roman bishop was not a pope in the modern sense. In fact, the real notion of a pope took about a thousand years to develop and for papal successors to establish their power. Priestly celibacy was not enforced for a thousand years. Mariolatry, in the modern sense, simply did not exist until relatively modern times. The Eucharist, while always a doctrine, did not receive the same emphasis as it does in modern times.

The point I'm making is that the church of Rome was far less apostate in the early centuries than the modern version. It was entirely possible for a good Christian to be, incidentally, a Roman Catholic.

We might keep in mind that the ordinary believer in most churches knew no more of theology or the Bible than most any Protestant child of age 10 knows today. And yet, just as I believe that that child, if they know Christ, will go to heaven if they die today, so I can have no great reason to deny that I could never meet any of those simple peasant Christians of the Middle Ages in heaven, merely because they attended an RC church which was probably the only religious organization they had ever even heard of. Other people may make pronouncement on their fate. Being a Calvinist, I am content to let God sort that out. Personally, I'm hoping He's more merciful on theological purity than many of His most devoted spokesmen throughout history.

We have to keep in mind that the ancient peoples did not have universal literacy or modern communications. For the average believer, it was quite difficult to be informed as to the opinions of the hierarchy and the pope because they couldn't read and there were not enough communications to ensure the message got out to the hinterlands.

The gross materialism of the Roman hierarchy became undeniable even to its loyal adherents in the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries. And yet, corrupt as it was, I have few doubts that within the church of Rome, there were faithful priests and ordinary Christians whose lives were untouched by the scandals of the hierarchy and the friars and the church/state politics. I would be hardpressed to say that I consider it would be impossible to meet some of them in Heaven. Certainly, many ordinary believers and village priests, isolated as they were, were far better Christians than any member of their corrupt medieval hierarchy.

It is always possible that some defects in doctrine are not a bar to salvation. Perhaps OPie would favor us with some discussion on the traditional Protestant views on the "fatal heresies" of the Roman church as opposed to merely their mistaken doctrines. It's an interesting topic to consider and certainly an issue every Protestant has to accommodate.

I think that Protestantism must dismiss itself entirely if it completely repudiates any trace of Roman heritage. After all, Protestants must be "protesting" something and that something is/was the Roman hierarchy's corruption of simple Christian worship and ordinances.

When you look closely, it is a very interesting question. If we throw out everything from the church of Rome, we have to abandon Augustine and his views on sovereignty, the foundation of Calvin's later works. And we'd have to throw out Erasmus who created the Textus Receptus version of Greek text which became the basis of all the great Protestant bibles. (Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest but died with Protestant friends without last rites.) I just wanted to give a few examples of what I'm talking about.

God looks on the heart, I think, and on how He can lead His children to do His will. Theology is secondary because without a loving heart that is lead by God as its sovereign, all that theology will neither save nor damn a single soul.

And so, you will likely say, how then can we determine exactly where Rome went truly sour. I would say that their theology is so unbiblical and their practices so worldly and pleasing to the world, that in the end, we have to judge them by their fruit. And yet, it is true that many ordinary RCs are better Christians than their hierarchies, certainly many of them tower morally over some of their priests.

In the end, a Protestant has to stand as fully and firmly upon the Word of God and only that. We can't claim all of Christian history to support us. We claim only the Word and our best understanding and reading of it. And perhaps, that is what God is after. His Word to remain true but for it to be the opening into our lives, a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths. But that light that shines from the Word is for each of us, as God reveals His will in each believer's life.

There is in the Protestant tradition a flavor of individualism that cannot be matched by the far more corporate identity of members of the Roman church. And Calvinists are the great individualists of Protestantism, if not of all time. Well, I'll stop before I digress entirely though it is a wonderful political and historical topic.

The politically relevant theological and historical upshot of all this discussion:

• You'll notice that my "nuanced historical approach" allows me to include any of the Church Fathers or any early Christian authority without any problems but without being bound to any hierarchical obedience. No need to cede all that territory to the Orthodox or Roman churches.
• Also, I can, as a Calvinist, make as large a claim as I wish upon Augustine's teachings on the sovereignty of God but still ignore his other teachings which supported Rome. And I can latch onto countless others who held positions within the Roman church (like Erasmus writing the Textus Receptus) with no problems at all.
• I can also avoid any necessity of consigning millions of ordinary RC believers in history to hell. I can leave that to God and hope for the best. My harsh views on the Roman hierarchy (and their likely eternal destination) remains, of course, unaltered. They are, as they have always been, without excuse.

Dang, I'm getting to be one slippery Protestant. But, as OPie might tell you, the problem is that this argument starts to place us on a slippery slope theologically. And so, the strength of this more "flexible" view is also its greatest weakness. And I'm annoyed to find myself more "ecumenical" than I once was. But then, I also have a certain admiration for the aggressiveness of my local RC bishop so you have fair warning; theologically he's dead wrong but he at least scares all the right people.

</immolation exercise>

[Onelifetogive]

I am jumping in kind of late, but here goes:

These discussions assume the basic premise that God's Church must exist within (and only within) some earthly bureaucracy. Christ never headed an "earthly kingdom," although that is what the Jews wanted. They wanted someone to be "King" and liberate them from the power of the Romans. Catholics have always claimed that Christ's Church must exist in some earthly bureaucracy, and they are the only one with a 2000 year history.

Christ's kingdon is "not of this world." Christ's Church, all true believers, has existed from NT times.

Church was used in two ways in the NT. Usually as a local body of believers (i.e. The Church of Ephesus, the Church that meets in your home, etc.) but it occasionally meant all believers.

Examples:

...because I persecuted the church of God. - Paul persecuted believers.

And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, - Christ is head of all believers. If it were some earthly organization, the head would be someone like the pope. Not Christ.

[the_doc]

"I prefer to use covenant of life since Adam was promised life upon obedience. I've heard some say we need to use both covenant of life and covenant of works - not one in exclusion to the other. Is there liberty in this area?"--quoted by OP

I agree with Schlissel and you. This entire message to Schlissel is a crock.

It actually showcases some of the more serious objections which Baptists have against covenant theology. (So, Schlissel is closer to the historic Baptists than most people would realize. That's generally good for all of us, I think.)

The statement "Adam was promised life upon obedience" is, alas, completely typical of the lengths which mainstream covenant theologians too often go to in their attempts to make the command "Thou shalt not eat that fruit" sound like a covenant of works. They even talk about covenantal terms and a probationary period, etc., etc.

But it sounds to me like they are trying to outdo the dispies--i.e., by forcing their own presuppositional ideas of systematic- and Biblical-theological order upon the Word of God.

[George W. Bush]

It actually showcases some of the more serious objections which Baptists have against covenant theology. (So, Schlissel is closer to the historic Baptists than most people would realize. That's generally good for all of us, I think.)

Actually, I thought Schlissel more covenantal than historic Baptists except for the (relatively modern) Reform Baptists.

Perhaps, if time permits, you'd like to expand on how you see the differences between Schlissel's views and those of Reform Baptists and Southern Baptists and traditional covenantal churches like Presbyterians. I'm sure it would be a lively topic.

[RnMomof7]

So what do you think of people who pray this way?

It just shows that have no clue how sinful they are or the value of Gods grace and their salvation..Between you and me..no one that has experienced the grace of God would EVER place it as an after thought

[RnMomof7]

Thanks to our resident researcher..

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

But it sounds to me like they are trying to outdo the dispies--i.e., by forcing their own presuppositional ideas of systematic- and Biblical-theological order upon the Word of God.

I thought the same thing, on reading the reader's inquiry to Schlissel. Much like something we might see from the Dispies over on the other side of the table, his terminology and thought-framework just seemed so... inventive.

[the_doc]

so...inventive.

Well said (grin).

[Cleburne]

Good post GWB, very insightful.

The parish priest of the Middle Ages tended to have a poor education- he could perhaps understand a little Latin and perhaps read and write somewhat in it. He made sure that the Creed was taught faithfully. He preached regularly, and would take a sabatical when he could to study. He was probably not celibate; some sources imply that practically none of the clergy were celibate, though that is likely an exageration.

Within the monastistic orders there were men and women who were very much devoted to Christ, and carried their message to others, either through preaching or written form. Some spoke vigourusly against the corruption and abuses, though they were largely unheeded.

Overall, I think the picture painted by many Protestants is far too hasty in its summations. I know I have been forced to rethink the Church's past: the whole medieval period confronts one sharply, and must be reckoned with. I had possessed the typical Protestant idea of an age of utter darkness, with nasty friars filling their coffers, pilfering lords abusing their serfs, and the pope sitting atop it all grinning. But when I began to examine the writings and records from the time, I have found much good admist the gloom.

On another note, I would like to raise a point regarding "Protestant individualism": while it has its many good points (and it was largely lacking in "popular" Catholicity prior to the Reformation), it can also be an inhibitant. I am afraid that, by laying such an emphasis on individuals, Protestant thought has removed emphasis from the Church as a corporate, united Body. And yet the Church and its oneness is of key emphasis in Scripture- and some of this is, I think, lost in Protestantism, when it need not be. At least that has been my (albeit rather limited) experience and perception.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

The key to this comment is what is meant by the word protestant. It is derived from the word Protest. a protest is not a total repudiation of a body of belief.
So you are correct that such a stand lets us pick what truth is revealed in the church fathers, while repudiating what is not truth.

Second area, there is a standard needed for the Protestant to determine truth and discern it among the church fathers. it is for this reason that without Sola Scriptura there is only relativism and infinite progression of interpretation (as per some elements of Roman apologetics, interpreting...contrary to Roman teaching...what pronouncement of what Pope was ex cathedra, and what was not).

Third area: i have my reservations, seen in my earliest posts on this thread, about the presumption of the discussion quesions...seems we needed to prove or disprove rather than presume. This is a prelude to make the next point.

Fourth point: We must, when the one accepts that the bible is the word of God, and therefore authoritative, put aside what observations we make that appear to contradict that revealed word. On earlier posts we have a gaurantee that there will be a remnant according to the election of grace defined and proven based on both OT citations, and NT applications by the apostle Paul. There is indeed a pure church, we name it the invisible church. It is pure in the sense that it's redemption and translation are sure, in a like manner as the election of the individual is sure, but not neccessarily yet.

Final Point: As previously posted, is is not that God has ever stopped speaking and working (through word and sacriment), it is that man is of a disposition to supress that knowlege. The natural revelation passages in Romans 1 don't just apply to unregenerate man, we all are presently under the depravity of our nature by sin, and act in the same manner (to a lesser degree, as the Spirit infuses empowering grace to the believer).

i hope this clears some issues W, if not, please forgive the verboos statement for naught. i do agree that we did drift too far off topic for the thread, and i fear, lost some people, for my part in this matter i offer apologies, and ask forgiveness.

[RnMomof7]

Thaks for that reminder...Yes the covenant of redemption was between the Father and the Son..it is so easy to "forget" that

[George W. Bush]

I had possessed the typical Protestant idea of an age of utter darkness, with nasty friars filling their coffers, pilfering lords abusing their serfs, and the pope sitting atop it all grinning. But when I began to examine the writings and records from the time, I have found much good admist the gloom.

But it's so painful to give up such a Savonarolesque view. Alas, the world is not quite so flat as all that. It only occasionally gets close to this. Still, this view of medieval Rome has warmed many a non-Roman heart for generations.

Of course, this picture of the Reformation period was actually pretty accurate. But there are many centuries in the early church which bore no such resemblance. Being a Baptist by temperament, I blame the church-state of Rome more than anything.

On another note, I would like to raise a point regarding "Protestant individualism": while it has its many good points (and it was largely lacking in "popular" Catholicity prior to the Reformation), it can also be an inhibitant.

Very true. Again, the strength of this belief system and the sort of determination it induced in the Puritans and Founding Fathers led to some strong action. A great strength of Protestantism. And yet, the same thing is divisive and leads to denominational breaks and personality cults and heretical (non-orthodox) churches. Well, we Protestants, if we are Protestants, can't go the church-state route like ancient Rome did. We have to rely on simple preaching to convict hearts to come to God, not merely to pass laws.

Protestants are stuck with individual freedom, it seems. And the American branch of the Roman church is in the same boat. I do agree strongly with your remark about the changes in Catholic practice over the centuries. I would say that the average devout RC is, today, far better versed in scripture than any RCs in history. Rome may still claim the primacy of papal authority in doctrine and practice but they are doing all they can to reclaim scriptural authority as well. I've wondered if we'll ever see the day when rank-and-file Catholics describe themselves first and foremost as Bible-believers, a shift away from looking to church tradition which underpins so many of the arguments by RC devout in previous generations. What I notice is knowledgable lay RCs are starting to more aggressively defend their theology from scripture as a complete and authoritative source, without needing to quote Augustine or Thomas or some pope. This is interesting to see. I think this is probably more true in America than elsewhere but even the American branch of the RC church is more "Protestant" in some ways than RCs have been since the very early centuries of the Roman church.

It sheds a little different light on the whole matter, doesn't it?

Naturally, I have absolutely no objection to RCs reading their Bibles. It's always commendable. Whatever their other errors, I won't fault Rome for encouraging their modern flock to read and know the Bible. After all, wern't we Prot-types all screaming sola scriptura during the Reformation? Seems too late to wiggle out of it now.

I think we're going to see a continued separation between Roman and non-Roman churches but that people on both sides probably better understand the thinking of the "opposition" in looking at the history of the churches and how theology has developed in different camps.