神的主權與我們的責任God’s Sovereignty and OurResponsibility

作者：Derek Thomas   譯者/校對者: 楊忠道/誠之

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/gods-sovereignty-and-our-responsibility/

https://www.facebook.com/peddrluo/posts/10156980111034653

神在創造、護理、救贖和審判中是握有主權的，這是基督教信仰，尤其是改革宗神學的核心主張。神是眾人的王、眾人的主。換一種說法：若沒有神的旨意，任何事情都不會發生；事情發生以前，神就定意其發生，而事情就照著神所定意的方式發生。這種說法，似乎在教義上是專屬於改革宗的說法，但是其核心所說的，與尼西亞信經沒有分別：「我信神、全能的父。」說神有至高主權，就是說祂在一切領域中都是全能的。

神在創造中有至高主權：「起初，神創造天地」（創一1）。離開了神，就是空無一物。然後開始有了一些東西：物質、空間、時間、能量，這些都是無到有的——從無中生出有。創造的旨意完全屬於神，施行創造也完全來自於祂。從形而上學來說，並沒有創造的「必要性」；創造是神自由的行動。

神在護理之中握有主權。傳統的有神論強調神是全能、全知、無所不在的。這裏的每個斷言都是神聖主權的不同表達。祂的能力、知識、同在，都確保祂的目標會完成，祂的計劃會完成，祂對萬事萬物的監督（至少對神而言）本質上是「零風險的」。

神的能力是絕對的（potestas absoluta），這意思並不是說神可以做任何事，而是說神的能力確保祂可以做到凡在邏輯上可能的事，只要祂願意去做。例如，「祂不能否定自己」（提後二13；新譯本；和合本作：祂不能背乎自己）。

有些人反對這個觀念：神在事情發生以前就知道所有的事。一些人強調，這樣的觀點剝奪了人類基本的自由。例如，「開放神論」者（Open theists），或主張自由意志的有神論者強調：未來（至少在特定細節上）在某種方式上是「敞開」的，即使神也不知道所有將要發生的事。祂好像是某個宇宙的撲克牌玩家，可以作出預測，但祂無法絕對地知道。開放神論者主張，這就解釋了為什麼神似乎會改變祂的心意（參見創六6~7；撒上十五11）：神正根據未知事件的新資訊調整祂的計畫。另一方面，改革宗神學強調沒有任何事的發生對神來說會是個意外，對我們來說是運氣或偶然，但對神來說卻是祂永恆諭旨的一部份。「籤拋在人的懷中，一切決斷卻在於耶和華」（箴十六33）。在聖經中，神改變祂心意的語言，都是對我們和我們說話方式的一種俯就，並不是對神的心意真實改變的描述。

神在救贖中有至高主權，這個事實解釋了為什麼我們要為我們的救恩感謝神，以及為我們靈魂失喪友人的救恩向祂禱告。如果拯救的能力取決於人的自由意志，真的是靠他們獨力自主的能力來拯救他們自己，為何我們要懇求神「賜生命」、「拯救」或「重生」他們呢？我們不斷感謝神拯救每個人的事實（無論我們承認與否），就意味著相信絕對的自由意志是立場前後不一致的。

神在審判中至高有主權，聖經中很少有經文會比羅馬書九章21節更加有份量地反映出神揀選與棄絕的主權：「陶匠難道沒有權用同一團的泥，又做貴重的、又做卑賤的器皿嗎？」從表面上看，這可能顯得不公平且霸道——好像神在用一朵花的花瓣玩某種復仇性的兒戲一樣：「他愛我、他不愛我；他愛我、他不愛我。」作為回應，有些人強調神有權作任何祂喜悅作的事，而挑祂的毛病不是我們的事——保羅早就提過這點（羅九20）。其他人所持的觀點是：如果神給我們的是我們應得的，我們都要被咒詛，所以揀選是仁慈的（不僅是主權的）行動。兩者都是正確的，但無論如何，我們的救恩彰顯了神的榮耀：「因為萬有都是本於祂，倚靠祂，歸於祂。願榮耀歸給祂，直到永遠。阿們」（羅十一36）。

人的責任

神主權的主張並非沒有進一步應當處理的問題。

第一，有傳福音的問題。如果神在一切護理的事上有至高主權，那麼人費勁傳福音與宣教有何意義？無論我們有沒有傳福音，神的旨意都必定會實現。但我們不敢這樣推想。除了神吩咐我們去傳福音的事實——「你們要去使萬民作我的門徒」（太廿八19）——之外，這種推想忽略了神透過人的管道和媒介來實現祂主權計畫的事實，聖經並不鼓勵我們被動和懶惰，保羅吩咐他的腓立比讀者「應當恐懼戰兢地作成自己的救恩。神為了成全自己的美意，就在你們裡面動工，使你們可以立志和行事」（腓二12~13）。

第二，有倫理學的問題。我們對我們的行為和表現要負責，我們在罪中應當責罰，在順服中應當得賞賜。

第三，有關公民力量和權柄，在統治者和政府的決定中間有神的主權問題。神興起人民政府，成為公平、良善、和平的制度，為了刑罰作惡的人，並嘉獎行善的人（羅十三3；彼前二14）。但違反政府本身原則的邪惡權勢和腐敗政權也是真實的，這些也在全能神的主權管轄之下。

第四，在邪惡的起源和持續存在的問題中，神的主權會遇到最尖銳的問題。神沒有阻止邪惡的存在，似乎在祂的全能或祂的仁慈上產生疑問。某些非基督教的宗教試著藉由假定邪惡是想像出來的（基督教科學會）或一種幻覺（印度教）來解決問題。奧古斯丁和許多中世紀思想家相信部分的奧秘可以藉由認定邪惡是良善的缺乏來解答，暗示邪惡是某種本身非實在的東西。邪惡是存有論的問題，改革宗在這個議題上是藉由西敏信條來總結的：

「從亙古到永遠，上帝以祂自己的旨意按著祂最智慧、最聖潔的計劃，自由地且永不改變地，預定一切將要發生的事。雖然上帝如此預定，但是祂絕非罪惡的創始者，也沒有迫使受造者逆反其意志；並且並未剝奪『第二因』的『自由運行』與『或然發生』，反倒得以確立。」（3.1）

神是一切事物的「第一因」，而邪惡是「第二因」的產物。用加爾文的話來說，「首先，必須指出，神的旨意是所有在這個世界中發生的事物的原因：然而神卻不是邪惡的作者」；又補充說，「近因是一回事，而遠因又是另一件事」。換句話說，神自己不能行惡，也不能因為邪惡而被指責，儘管邪惡是祂主權旨意的部份。

神是握有主權的，並且在祂的主權中，祂彰顯出祂顯赫的榮光。沒有神的主權，我們就無法存活，沒有拯救，也沒有盼望。唯獨歸榮耀給神（Soli Deo gloria）！

God’s Sovereignty and Our Responsibility

FROM Derek Thomas

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/gods-sovereignty-and-our-responsibility/

God is sovereign in creation, providence, redemption, and judgment. That is a central assertion of Christian belief and especially in Reformed theology. God is King and Lord of all. To put this another way: nothing happens without God’s willing it to happen, willing it to happen before it happens, and willing it to happen in the way that it happens. Put this way, it seems to say something that is expressly Reformed in doctrine. But at its heart, it is saying nothing different from the assertion of the Nicene Creed: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty.” To say that God is sovereign is to express His almightiness in every area.

God is sovereign in creation. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). Apart from God, there was nothing. And then there was something: matter, space, time, energy. And these came into being ex nihilo—out of nothing. The will to create was entirely God’s. The execution was entirely His. There was no metaphysical “necessity” to create; it was a free action of God.

God is sovereign in providence. Traditional theism insists that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent—all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present. Each assertion is a variant of divine sovereignty. His power, knowledge, and presence ensure that His goals are met, that His designs are fulfilled, and that His superintendence of all events is (to God, at least) essentially “risk free.”

God’s power is not absolute in the sense that God can do anything (potestas absoluta); rather, God’s power ensures that He can do all that is logically possible for Him to will to do. “He cannot deny himself,” for example (2 Tim. 2:13).

Some people object to the idea that God knows all events in advance of their happening. Such a view, some insist, deprives mankind of its essential freedom. Open theists or free-will theists, for example, insist that the future (at least in its specific details) is in some fashion “open.” Even God does not know all that is to come. He may make predictions like some cosmic poker player, but He cannot know absolutely. This explains, open theists suggest, why God appears to change His mind: God is adjusting His plan based on the new information of unforeseeable events (see Gen. 6:6–7; 1 Sam. 15:11). Reformed theology, on the other hand, insists that no event happens that is a surprise to God. To us it is luck or chance, but to God it is part of His decree. “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:33). Language of God changing His mind in Scripture is an accommodation to us and our way of speaking, not a description of a true change in God’s mind.

God is sovereign in redemption, a fact that explains why we thank God for our salvation and pray to Him for the salvation of our spiritually lost friends. If the power to save lies in man’s free will, if it truly lies in their unaided ability to save themselves, why would we implore God to “quicken,” “save,” or “regenerate” them? The fact that we consistently thank God for the salvation of individuals means (whether we admit it or not) that belief in absolute free will is inconsistent.

God is sovereign in judgment. Few passages of Scripture reflect the sovereignty of God in election and reprobation with greater force than Romans 9:21: “Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” On the face of it, this might appear unfair and arbitrary—as though God were playing some vindictive child’s game with the petals of a flower: “He loves me; He loves me not. He loves me; He loves me not.” In response, some people have insisted that God has the right to do whatever He pleases and it is none of our business to find fault with Him—a point that Paul himself anticipates (Rom. 9:20). Others have taken the view that if God were to grant us what we deserve, we would all be damned. Election is therefore a gracious (and not just a sovereign) act. Both are true. But in any case, our salvation displays God’s glory: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36)

HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY

The assertion of divine sovereignty is not without further questions that should be addressed.

First, there is the question of evangelism. If God is sovereign in all matters of providence, what is the point of exerting human effort in evangelism and missions? God’s will is sure to be fulfilled whether we evangelize or not. But we dare not reason this way. Apart from the fact that God commands us to evange-lize—“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19)—such reasoning ignores the fact that God fulfills His sovereign plan through human means and instrumentality. Nowhere in the Bible are we encouraged to be passive and inert. Paul commands his Philippian readers to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12–13).

Second, there is the question of ethics. We are held responsible for our actions and behavior. We are culpable in transgression and praiseworthy in obedience.

Third, in relation to civic power and authority, there is the question of God’s sovereignty in the determination of rulers and government. God has raised up civil governments to be systems of equity and good and peace, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of them who do well (Rom. 13:3; 1 Peter 2:14). But this is also true of evil powers and corrupt regimes that violate the very principles of government itself; these are also under the sovereign government of Almighty God.

Fourth, in the question of both the origin and continued existence of evil, the sovereignty of God meets its most acute problem. That God does not prevent evil from existing seems to call into question His omnipotence or His benevolence. Some non-Christian religions try to solve this problem by positing that evil is imaginary (Christian Science) or an illusion (Hinduism). Augustine and many medieval thinkers believed part of the mystery could be solved by identifying evil as a privation of the good, suggesting that evil is something without existence in and of itself. Evil is a matter of ontology (being). Reformed thought on this issue is summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain what-soever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the crea-tures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (3:1)

God is the “first cause” of all things, but evil is a product of “second causes.” In the words of John Calvin, “First, it must be observed that the will of God is the cause of all things that happen in the world: and yet God is not the author of evil,” adding, “for the proximate cause is one thing, and the remote cause another.” In other words, God Himself cannot do evil and cannot be blamed for evil even though it is part of His sovereign decree.

God is sovereign, and in His sovereignty He displays His majestic glory. With out it, we would have no being, no salvation, and no hope. Soli Deo gloria.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.

何為規範性原則?WhatIs the Regulative Principle?

作者:  Derek Thomas 譯者: Maria Marta

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-is-regulative-principle/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/MFtqXhBiwjU

敬拜的規範性原則簡單說來就是集體敬拜上帝必須以聖經的具體指示為依據。我們很難從表面理解，為何重視聖經權威的人會感到這樣的原則令人反感。難道人生本身不應按照聖經的原則生活嗎?  這一原則是所有自稱合乎聖經的基督徒心裡所珍視的。提出相反建議，就是向反律法主義和放縱敞開大門。

但事情卻很少會如此簡單。 畢竟，聖經並沒有告訴我，是否可以從聆聽馬勒交響曲（Mahler Symphony）中獲益；是否可以找到集郵的回報；是否可以享受繁殖雪貂這種有益的消遣，盡管善意但被誤導的相信聖經的基督徒，以教條式信心斷言，上述任何或所有例子都違反了上帝的旨意。在任何情況下都要知道上帝的旨意，是每個基督徒生命中重要的職責，而要知道上帝的旨意，則必須願意順服在任何時代和環境下都是上帝權威話語的聖經。 但在上述情況下，聖經權威究竟是什麽意思呢?

聖經作出一些具體規定：例如，我們要在主日與上帝的子民一起敬拜；我們應該從事有益工作，並賺取日用的飲食。 此外，聖經亦針對任何可能出現的情況作出一般的原則：「要把身體獻上，作聖潔而蒙　神悅納的活祭；這是你們理所當然的事奉（『理所當然的事奉』或譯『屬靈的敬拜』）。不要模仿這個世代，倒要藉著心意的更新而改變過來，使你們可以察驗出甚麼是　神的旨意，就是察驗出甚麼是美好的、蒙他悅納的和完全的事。」（羅十二1-2; 《聖經新譯本》）    顯然人生必需受聖經管理，無論藉著明確的命令或禁令，抑或藉著一般的原則。因此在某種意義上，有一項規範性的原則為人生而設。因此我們必須在所做的一切事上，以這種或那種形式遵從聖經的教導。

然而，改教家（尤其是約翰加爾文）和西敏斯特神學家（作為十七世紀清教徒的代表）對集體敬拜有不同的看法。在這種情況下，遵從聖經的一般原則是不足夠的;  必須有（並且是）具體指示，管制全體會眾如何敬拜上帝。我們不能隨意忽視或增加對公眾敬拜所作出的明確規定。加爾文的說話是典型的表述: 「上帝不許可一切未經祂說話明確準許的敬拜方式」（《關於教會改革的必要性》）; 另外《1689年倫敦第二浸信會公認信條》也聲明：「敬拜真神惟一蒙悅納的方法乃是由祂自己所設立的，並限於祂自己所啟示的旨意，因此我們不可按照人的想象和設計，或撒但的建議，使用任何有形的代表或聖經所未吩咐的其它任何方法，去敬拜祂。」（廿二1）

聖經何處出現這一教導？在多處出現，比通常想象的要多，包括出埃及記中關於建造帳幕的永久規定，一切建造都要「照著在山上指示你的樣式」進行（出廿五40）;  上帝對該隱獻祭的宣判，暗示他的供物(或他的心)不符合祂的要求 (創四3-8)；第一和第二誡命顯示上帝特別關注敬拜（出廿2-6）; 金牛犢事件教導我們，不能只按照我們自己的價值和喜好來敬拜；拿答和亞比戶獻「凡火」的故事（利十）; 上帝拒絕掃羅的非規定性的敬拜------上帝說「聽命勝於獻祭」（撒上十五22）;  耶穌根據「古人的遺傳」拒絕法利賽人的敬拜（太十五1-14）。所有這些例子表明，要拒絕一切按照有別於聖經具體規定的價值觀和指示獻上的敬拜。

保羅在歌羅西和歌林多對錯誤的公眾敬拜的回應具有特別重要的意義。保羅在歌羅西書一度將公眾敬拜描述為私意崇拜（ethelothreskia）（西二23），此字被譯為「意志崇拜」（欽定版）和「自制宗教」（標準版）。歌羅西人引入某些元素，顯然無法讓人接受（盡管他們聲稱自己的行為來自天使---- 歌羅西書二章18節一種可能的解釋是「敬拜天使」）。也許正是哥林多人對方言和預言的使用（濫用），我們才從中找到最明確的證據，顯示使徒願意「規範」集體敬拜。他不是以一種適用於「一切生命」的方式來管理屬靈恩賜運用的數量和次序:  沒有翻譯就不要用方言(林前十四:27 - 28)，只可以有兩至三個先知說方言，且要輪流著說(29-32節)。至少，保羅對哥林多人的教導強調了集體敬拜應該受到管制，並且其應用方式有別於適用於一切生命的方式。

有何結果呢？敬拜的特別元素得到強調：閱讀聖經（提前四13）; 宣講聖經（提後四2）; 唱聖經（弗五19; 西三16）------詩篇和聖經歌曲，這些歌曲反映了在耶穌誕生 - 生活-死 -復活 - 升天過程中所層現的救贖歷史的發展;   按聖經禱告-----天父的殿是「禱告的殿」（太廿一13）;   領會教會兩個聖禮，洗禮和主餐的聖經義意（太廿八19;  徒二38-39;  林前十一23-26;  西二11-12）。 此外，一些特殊場合的元素，如宣誓、許願、嚴肅的禁食、感恩等也得到承認和強調 (參看西敏信仰告白廿一5）。

認識這一點非常重要，即規範性原則應用在公眾敬拜，教會就避免出現不正當和愚蠢的行為-----例如，我們不任意宣傳，在下周的主日崇拜，小醜將以默劇的形式演繹聖經課程。然而，此原則並非讓教會訴諸「千篇一律」，或禮拜儀式的同一性。在堅持原則的前提下，仍存在著巨大的變化空間------在聖經沒有具體處理的事当中（adiaphora，即聖經沒有絕對命令與絕對禁止的事)。因此，規範性原則本身不可被引用來決定采用現代歌曲抑或采用傳統歌曲；閱讀聖經三節抑或三章；作長時間禱告抑或幾次短暫禱告；主的晚餐用單個杯抑或用盛有真葡萄酒或葡萄汁的杯。對上述這些問題，必須采用「凡事都要規規矩矩地按著次序行」的原則（林前十四40）。然而，假如有人提議舞蹈或戲劇在公眾敬拜中有其正當合理性的一面，那麽必須提出此問題-------聖經對它的解釋在哪裏？（提議傳道人在講台上走動或采用「戲劇性」的聲音是在上述意義上的「戲劇」，就是對辯論的輕視。舞蹈和戲劇都可能是「好主意」(口語表達) 的事實是有爭議的，而且是無關緊要的；這兩者都毫無聖經的證據，更別提命令了。用詩篇的詩歌或大衛在約櫃前跳舞的例子（當然是赤裸的）來辯論是多余的，除非我們願意放棄所有公認的聖經解釋規則。這是一個有參考價值的事實，殿裏不存在「編舞家」或「制片人/導演」辦公室。舞蹈和戲劇都是基督徒的合理追求這一事實，也是不切正題的。 

有時在這些討論中被人遺忘的是良心的重要作用。倘若沒有規範性原則，我們只能任由「敬拜領袖」和跋扈牧師擺布，他們指責不順從的崇拜者不討上帝喜悅，除非崇拜者按照某種模式和方式參與。對惡霸受害者來說，人類寫過最甜蜜的句子是: 「惟獨上帝是良心的主，使良心自由；出於 人 的道理與吩咐 ， 任何事情若違背聖經、在信仰或敬拜的事上若越過聖經，良心都 不能順從。所以，如果任何人丟棄良心去相信人的道理 、聽從人 的吩咐，就是出賣良心的真自由；如果要求人接受強制的信仰 、 要人絕對盲從，就是毀滅良心的自由，也是毀滅理性。」（西敏信仰告白廿2）。遵守上帝的明確規定乃真自由; 其他一切都是束縛和法律主義。

本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌。

What Is the Regulative Principle?

FROM Derek Thomas

Put simply, the regulative principle of worship states that the corporate worship of God is to be founded upon specific directions of Scripture. On the surface, it is difficult to see why anyone who values the authority of Scripture would find such a principle objectionable. Is not the whole of life itself to be lived according to the rule of Scripture? This is a principle dear to the hearts of all who call themselves biblical Christians. To suggest otherwise is to open the door to antinomianism and license.

But things are rarely so simple. After all, the Bible does not tell me whether I may or may not listen with profit to a Mahler symphony, find stamp-collecting rewarding, or enjoy ferretbreeding as a useful occupation even though there are well-meaning but misguided Bible-believing Christians who assert with dogmatic confidence that any or all of these violate God’s will. Knowing God’s will in any circumstance is an important function of every Christian’s life, and fundamental to knowing it is a willingness to submit to Scripture as God’s authoritative Word for all ages and circumstances. But what exactly does biblical authority mean in such circumstances?

Well, Scripture lays down certain specific requirements: for example, we are to worship with God’s people on the Lord’s Day, and we should engage in useful work and earn our daily bread. In addition, covering every possible circumstance, Scripture lays down a general principle: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:1–2). Clearly, all of life is to be regulated by Scripture, whether by express commandment or prohibition or by general principle. There is therefore, in one sense, a regulative principle for all of life. In everything we do, and in some form or another, we are to be obedient to Scripture.

However, the Reformers (John Calvin especially) and the Westminster Divines (as representative of seventeenth-century puritanism) viewed the matter of corporate worship differently. In this instance, a general principle of obedience to Scripture is insufficient; there must be (and is) a specific prescription governing how God is to be worshiped corporately. In the public worship of God, specific requirements are made, and we are not free either to ignore them or to add to them. Typical by way of formulation are the words of Calvin: “God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his Word” (“The Necessity of Reforming the Church”); and the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689: “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 imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures” (22.1).

Where does the Bible teach this? In more places than is commonly imagined, including the constant stipulation of the book of Exodus with respect to the building of the tabernacle that everything be done “after the pattern … shown you” (Ex. 25:40); the judgment pronounced upon Cain’s offering, suggestive as it is that his offering (or his heart) was deficient according to God’s requirement (Gen. 4:3–8); the first and second commandments showing God’s particular care with regard to worship (Ex. 20:2–6); the incident of the golden calf, teaching as it does that worship cannot be offered merely in accord with our own values and tastes; the story of Nadab and Abihu and the offering of “strange fire” (Lev. 10); God’s rejection of Saul’s non-prescribed worship — God said, “to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Sam. 15:22); and Jesus’ rejection of Pharisaical worship according to the “tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:1–14). All of these indicate a rejection of worship offered according to values and directions other than those specified in Scripture.

Of particular significance are Paul’s responses to errant public worship at Colossae and Corinth. At one point, Paul characterizes the public worship in Colossae as ethelothreskia (Col. 2:23), variously translated as “will worship” (KJV) or “self-made religion” (ESV). The Colossians had introduced elements that were clearly unacceptable (even if they were claiming an angelic source for their actions — one possible interpretation of Col. 2:18, the “worship of angels”). Perhaps it is in the Corinthian use (abuse) of tongues and prophecy that we find the clearest indication of the apostle’s willingness to “regulate” corporate worship. He regulates both the number and order of the use of spiritual gifts in a way that does not apply to “all of life”: no tongue is to be employed without an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:27–28) and only two or three prophets may speak, in turn (vv. 29–32). At the very least, Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians underlines that corporate worship is to be regulated and in a manner that applies differently from that which is to be true for all of life.

The result? Particular elements of worship are highlighted: reading the Bible (1 Tim. 4:13); preaching the Bible (2 Tim. 4:2); singing the Bible (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) — the Psalms as well as Scripture songs that reflect the development of redemptive history in the birth-life-death-resurrection- ascension of Jesus; praying the Bible — the Father’s house is “a house of prayer” (Matt. 21:13); and seeing the Bible in the two sacraments of the church, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38–39; 1 Cor. 11:23–26; Col. 2:11–12). In addition, occasional elements such as oaths, vows, solemn fasts and thanksgivings have also been recognized and highlighted (see Westminster Confession of Faith 21:5).

It is important to realize that the regulative principle as applied to public worship frees the church from acts of impropriety and idiocy — we are not free, for example, to advertise that performing clowns will mime the Bible lesson at next week’s Sunday service. Yet it does not commit the church to a “cookie-cutter,” liturgical sameness. Within an adherence to the principle there is enormous room for variation—in matters that Scripture has not specifically addressed (adiaphora). Thus, the regulative principle as such may not be invoked to determine whether contemporary or traditional songs are employed, whether three verses or three chapters of Scripture are read, whether one long prayer or several short prayers are made, or whether a single cup or individual cups with real wine or grape juice are utilized at the Lord’s Supper. To all of these issues, the principle “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40) must be applied. However, if someone suggests dancing or drama is a valid aspect of public worship, the question must be asked — where is the biblical justification for it? (To suggest that a preacher moving about in the pulpit or employing “dramatic” voices is “drama” in the sense above is to trivialize the debate.) The fact that both may be (to employ the colloquialism) “neat” is debatable and beside the point; there’s no shred of biblical evidence, let alone mandate, for either. So it is superfluous to argue from the poetry of the Psalms or the example of David dancing before the ark (naked, to be sure) unless we are willing to abandon all the received rules of biblical interpretation. It is a salutary fact that no office of “choreographer” or “producer/director” existed in the temple. The fact that both dance and drama are valid Christian pursuits is also beside the point.

What is sometimes forgotten in these discussions is the important role of conscience. Without the regulative principle, we are at the mercy of “worship leaders” and bullying pastors who charge noncompliant worshipers with displeasing God unless they participate according to a certain pattern and manner. To the victims of such bullies, the sweetest sentences ever penned by men are, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also” (WCF 20:2). To obey when it is a matter of God’s express prescription is true liberty; anything else is bondage and legalism.

This post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.