Flags in the church

Point being the Holy is Kiss is prescribed worship by your definition. As is reading 1 Thessalonians to Holy Brethern.

So you guys I would gather don't take up offerings, do you have a box in the back that everyone places their offering in and then the pastor takes it to the bank or holding place. The deacons only serve tables as the prescribed way of worship.

 

Then you have a crucifix at the front of the church!

Cheers,

Jim

 

No, I imagine Ruiz would have his parishoners place their offerings at his feet. (Duly Regulated in Acts 4)

 

I am not sure you understand the regulative principles because the examples you give show you probably have not read on the differences between the two.

A Holy Kiss it is not a prescribed corporate worship element, it is a personal greeting and a way of personally greeting people. I know of no person on any side of this issue who would say this is a corporate worship element

Secondly, offerings are prescribed in worship. Both the Old and New Testaments prescribed offerings being taken up (I Co 16:1).

Deacons are, at times, an instrument of worship not an element of worship.

Thus, none of your examples deals directly with the issue. As well, you have not put forth a positive argument for the normative principles. You only bring up examples that are clearly not relevant to the debate. Yet, the issue is whether the normative or regulative principles are accurate.

Can you support the normative principles by Scripture?

 

We do not, we have a place to preach the Word of God in the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

I love it when people lack any rational argument the engage in ad hominem attacks. Shows true Christian character.

 

You said As for a symbol of peace, the cross of Jesus Christ is the greatest symbol of peace far better than any flag.

I believe that you are prescribing what is and what isn't acceptable as worship. It has nothing to do with scripture, but your opinion and fancy applicable titles.

I don't know your age, but I have been around for a lot of years and never heard such nonsense in describing what is and what is not acceptable.

As a military chaplain in war, I didn't get to choose the hole we worshipped in,,if we got a hole.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim,

You have never heard of the Regulative Principles of Worship? All the subscribers of the London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession, Calvin, Knox, Edwards, Warfield, Spurgeon Machen, the Puritans etc... all subscribed to the Regulative Principles. To call it nonsense seems like an overstatement.

So, I do not know where you have been reading, but to imply it is new or nonsense is nonsense.

 

Paul commanded by the regulative standard to greet each other with a Holy Kiss. Scriptures were posted.

Now Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
The apostles clearly state the purpose of deacons, "whom we may appoint over this business" what business "serve tables" where does it say they "Deacons are, at times, an instrument of worship not an element of worship" t hey are not an element of worship not by the purpose stated by the disciples.
Their purpose to serve tables and keep the pastors able to study.

You said "Secondly, offerings are prescribed in worship" never said offerings weren't prescribed passing the plate is not prescribed, it is a normative, not found in scripture to take up an offering at every service. In fact in the O.T. the person making the offering handed it directly to the priest.

Exodus 29:24And thou shalt put all in the hands of Aaron, and in the hands of his sons; and shalt wave them for a wave offering before the LORD.

25And thou shalt receive them of their hands, and burn them upon the altar for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour before the LORD: it is an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
Passing the plate would be normative "unless something is forbidden for worship, it should be allowed" the offering is regulative the passing of the plate is normative so which does your Chirch practice?:

 

So you hold to a view and criticize my own, even though I supported my view with Scripture and historic precedence, but you offer nothing but your opinion. I do think it is not a major issue but an important issue. Luther was for the normative principle, but he at least would support his view by Scripture. The most concerning to me is that people would criticize the other view, cheer on people who agree with them, but offer nothing in way of Scripture support for their view.

 

The problem with your rationale is that you are confusing elements and instruments of worship. The regulative principles regulates the elements (the offering, singing, etc), not always the instruments (cups for the Lord's Supper, a pulpit, passing a plate, standing, sitting, kneeling). While there is a regulation of principles of these issues, there is not a regulation of the actual instruments. If you think there is I would have to ask for one historic figure on either side of this argument who would make such an argument.

The case of the flag is that it is neither an element of worship nor an instrument of worship.

A Holy Kiss is not a corporate worship function, it is an individual mandate.

It seems you do not understand what is meant by Regulative Principles. I would encourage you to read Sam Waldron's book "The Regulative Principles of the Church."

 

Some see foot washing as a regulative standard just as baptism and the Lord's supper. I see it as normative something they choose to do not commanded for the church.

Does you church have a Christian flag? We pledge to it to the God for which it stands.

 

We do not display a Christian flag, I am not sure if there is one in storage somewhere, but if there is I do not know.

Let me note something, the Regulative Principles in general everyone agrees with, normative principles add to the regulative principles. Thus, I would argue against foot washing basically the same way a normative Baptist Theologian who rejects it as an ordinance would. There is no distinction. Yet, because we exclude an element from the regulative principle does not show we are not regulative, rather that we merely exclude it. In the case of foot washing, greeting with a holy kiss, and other elements like these, they are not an issue with the regulative principles, but an exegetical issue that both the normative and regulative principle holders often have agreement.

 

Yes.
No.
No.

 

The Feast of the Dedication of Jerusalem, not mentioned in the Old Testament, was part of first century Jewish worship, and was something observed by Jesus (John 10:22). The Regulative Principles of Worship might well have defined this observance as being “according to the imaginations and devices of men.” Yet Jesus had no problem with it.

For the Puritans, and also for the Baptists who authored the 1689 London Baptist Confession, it was a statement that they would not be bound by extrabiblical observances imposed by the state church. Today if a church member doesn’t approve of a particular activity, he or she is free to not participate. Or to find another church.

“There is a great difference between instituting some exercise of piety, which believers may use with a free conscience, or may abstain from if they think the observance not to be useful, and enacting a law which brings the conscience into bondage.” - John Calvin

Regarding national flags, or for example a special program honoring veterans, I refer to Romans 13:7 - “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

 

Yes, the Feast of the Dedication/Lights were not required observances. In fact, they were more nationalistic in nature. However, even in the religious aspect of the observance, they followed the regulative principles of worship. Again, the elements remained the same and regulated though they used an occassion to worship God. The occassion itself has not been seen as a violation of the Regulative Principles, the elements is what is regulated.

Secondly, you stated that Baptists did not want to be regulated by the state church. That is true that they didn't want state church imposition, but that is not the London Baptist Confession is saying in Chapter 22 paragraph 1:

This was more than a statement against the state church, but a statement on how all of worship should be done. The focus was that God should not be worshipped by institutions of man. Westminster's statement is the same. The statement itself is simple, that nothing except what is prescribed should be observed.

Finally, you appeal to the idea that people can leave a church. This begs the question as II Timothy 4 states that there will be prophets who rise up to tickle people's ears and Jesus himself would sometimes get large crowds but then they would leave him (John 6). The charge in II Timothy 4 to Timothy to not give into doing things like others but to remain faithful to preaching and teaching of God's Word. The job for Pastors is to do things right and not what the masses may want or desire. It is also not to do things in accordance to God's commands.

Great quote about Calvin, but that does not mean that he separated heart and practice. Everyone knows Calvin believed strongly in the regulative principles, not as bondage to the mind, but he believed it was what liberated the mind and soul.

As for your quote of Peter, there is no honor due to America or the flag in a worship service of God. God never commanded it, therefore there is none due. Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, thus we obey her laws and pay our taxes. Render to God what is God's, that means we come to worship Him in the way He prescribed. I honor the state through my obedience, taxes, and my military service. I honor God through worshipping Him in the way He directed. Just like Nadab and Abihu were condemned for offering strange fire, something God didn't command, we should worship God in only how he prescribed.

 

Been home yet?

 

I hope that was a typo, Ruiz, and that you didn't really mean that a pastor's job is not to do things in accordance to God's commands. Surely pastors, and all Christians, should do things in accordance with God's commands.