doctrine – Cold Coffee and Flannel

That Word

That Word above all earthly powers
no thanks to them abideth;
the Spirit and the gifts are ours
through him who with us sideth.
Let goods and kindred go,
this mortal life also;
the body they may kill:
God’s truth abideth still;
his kingdom is forever!
Luther, A Mighty Fortress

Martin Luther captured so much with this verse. I think it’s a wonderful exposition of Holy Scripture in regards to the Christian life. In such a tiny span of words, cultures, empires, nations, and political phenomena all fade to a dull, institutional grey.

When Christians get all worked up about who’s in charge of what, and worry about the fate of the institutions and movements they’ve baptized in the name of their (un) Biblical convictions, they certainly can’t sing this verse with any sort of intellectual honesty.

I’m all for “democracy” and making a difference in the world (inasmuch as it’s possible for little ol’ me) and even for aligning with like-minded groups. I’m not all for branding these movements I’m interested in as “Christian” or representative of my church’s political views. Like Luther here, I’m politically agnostic as a Christian. Sorry, folks, yon conspiracy theories about losing the culture war is not a Biblical sticking point. And, more importantly, the nation thing is right out.

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
Eph 2:14 NASB

I read Ephesians 2:14-15 as not simply a homogenization of Jewish and Gentile Christians, but as a strong statement about political alignment. God made one new country, and it’s not affiliated with any other in the history of creation. It’s also not aligned with another culture or political scheme. Christianity is counter-cultural in essence. It is Not of this World, period. Not making a New World out of this World. Not bringing back an Old World into this World.

All that will happen, should Christians succeed in either of the two is…
Another wreck, just like the rest of ’em. You can’t bring back Christendom, and you can’t usher in the Age of Aquarius. Hasn’t happened once in history, and it won’t happen again. Personal opinion and bad Bible-reading are the source of the foolish ideas that Christians are destined to do any such things. I suggest that when such ideas arise, they are primarily functional as distractions from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The church is to make disciples and worship God as he has instructed in Scripture. It is not a new superpower as of zero-AD or 70-AD. The true Church is neither dispensational, nor reconstructional. The world will advance or retreat as God designs, and only the church (read the Luther verse again) will maintain in history, for it is the Word that sustains. Let go this mortal life and seek the Kingdom that is eternal; seek the glory of God and fellowship with the Lord Jesus.

Do politics and moral reform on your own time, but don’t sweat it. If you are martyred, let that not be because you were a jerk, trying to “win the war.” Suffer for boasting in Christ, for being true to the Gospel, not by beating someone over the head with laws and your own fear. John didn’t, nor did Paul, or Peter, three prominent prophets (apostles, unlike us, dear reader) of the Last Days. They wrote for the comfort and assurance, the preservation, of the church through the ages – not so she would triumph and rule what we have now, but that she would endure all that happens in the ages before Christ comes in judgement, and then (only then) join him in his rule in the New Heavens and New Earth.

For those who are banging on about taking over this, that, and the other thing for God, or about how some nation or culture is totally the only Christian thing to support (e.g. USA or that one Middle East Place that once had a bunch of Hebrews and a Temple in), Please Don’t Steal the rest that your fellow Christians have in Christ. Give them Jesus instead of another cultural/political agenda that will only worry and gnaw at their faith. That is what the church and her members are given – faith, hope, and love. Not fear, hatred, and lust.

In Defense of Expositional Hymnody

I want to take a shot at advocating for a new song in modern Christian worship. I’m committed to confessional theology, worship, and life as a Christian. That means my understanding of what we are to do and how we are to do what we do stems from historically accepted traditions in reading scripture, including the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW). The RPW essentially claims that only what God has said we must do is allowable in public worship.

Some of this may appear to be a bit intramural. I don’t think so, but I’m not here to convince more mainstream “evangelical” Christians of my position. I’m aiming for those who do not consider hymns (songs which are not recorded explicitly in the Bible, or are extracted literally from scripture) appropriate for stated worship in the congregation. That said, it should be a conversation for all Christians to consider. What goes into public worship and how it’s conducted is of vital importance to the church in the world. “I believe in the holy catholic church…”

Of primary note, this discussion is intended to argue for form, not substance. Where churches commit to confessions, they do not do the same with hymns, even if those hymns might be clear correlation in meaning with a confessional or inspired scriptural reference. I’m trying to demonstrate here that there is no reasonable way to say that hymns which correctly reflect Christian doctrine are not appropriate for singing in public worship. Where I use scripture, creeds and confessions, prayer and singing in correlation, this not a one-to-one, rather a form correlation. Basically, subscribe to confessions, receive scripture, write and use hymns and forms.

Terms:

Stated Service: Divine Services, Public Worship – those congregational events most commonly occurring on the Lord’s Day (Sunday), though infrequently held at the discretion of the elders of the church on other significant days such as Good Friday, Christmas, and Ascension day. Specifically, a stated service is called by the government of the church (elders, pastor, consistory, session) and members are expected to attend
Exclusive Psalmody: Only Canonical Psalms are to be used in Divine Services
Exclusive Inspired Hymnody: Only Canonical Scripture (including Psalms) are to be used in stated service
Expositional Hymnody: Canonical Scripture and faithfully exegeted songs are to be used in stated service
Adiaphora: That which is not directed or prohibited in the Bible. Accidental, circumstantial, or incidental. Related to form rather than substance or essence

In opening, I think this is a very serious assessment from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church:

“It is also unthinkable, in all of our corporate singing in the church, that we would never sing anything that has the explicit name of our Lord Jesus Christ in it. Unconvincing attempts have been made to assert that the Psalms explicitly name or invoke Christ; however, Scripture simply does not do so explicitly until the New Testament. The thrust of redemptive history, particularly as set forth in the Pauline epistles and the book of Hebrews, is that the complete has come, and the provisional has given way, and so we are to proclaim to all the world that Jesus Christ is Lord. Hence, we are to worship with maximal explicitness, all shadows that typified the Old having given way to the bright light of the New, in the unveiled gospel of Jesus Christ. The hymns recorded in the last book of the Bible, Revelation, especially furnish us with a clear pattern of hymnic praise to the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, to whom all glory is due.”
New Horizons 2017 Volume 38, Number 6 “Why We Also Sing Hymns”

Prayer – The argument for exclusive inspired hymnody or exclusive Psalmody is rendered questionable unless the same argument is made for prayer. Congregational and intercessory prayer in the stated service is rarely literal inspired scripture (though it is a beautiful thing when praying a prayer of confession of sin via Psalm, for instance). Prayer should always be exegetical, applicable to the tradition of the church in which it’s prayed, and even in context with the Lord’s Prayer, but it is not limited to inspired scripture in any traditional practice. Additionally, if hymns (Psalms included) are prayers (intercession, confession, Confession, doxology), both singing and prayer should be governed by the same standard. Psalms, All of Scripture, for the inspired view. Reverent, faithful summary, for the expositional hymnody view.

Confessions/creeds – these are officially recognized as man-made documents that are accepted by the orthodox churches as faithful summaries of the essentials of the Christian faith. They are never considered inspired yet are used in worship in many Reformed churches to confess faith. An important example can be found in the United Reformed Churches in North America (URCNA), which prescribes a formally stated catechism service with the purpose of using the creeds and standards as teaching tools, to be confessed and as exposition of the Bible.

When recited in the stated service, creeds and confessions have two values. First is the vertical confession of our beliefs before God as a statement of faith, as doxology, and as petition that “thy will be done.” Second is the horizontal confession and exhortation between members of the congregation that “this is what is true” and “this is what you must believe.” Both values might be true of singing. It is important to emphasize here that the horizontal aspect of worship should be considered incidental (or accidental) to the whole – the people are gathered by God to worship him, and it is secondary that there is benefit between the worshipers. This lower priority does have validity, however small. I think Ephesians 5:19 could speak to this, as Paul exhorts the congregation to “be speaking to one another…” in context with “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord.”

Creeds and confessions need not be limited to expositional documents – there is nothing wrong with reciting literal inspired scripture in either case, however the Reformed have concluded that it is positively acceptable (commended) to recite man-made, or derivative, faithful summaries, of the scriptures.

The sermon – while clear, plain scripture is read and used as the source material for the sermon, the preacher is required (formally as well as functionally) to exposit using common language, idiom, analogy, and literary tools to purely administer the Word of God to the congregation. Is there a church or denomination that exclusively reads only Scripture in a stated service? Has this been a practice in history? The Bible does not restrict nor command how preaching is accomplished except that it is always based on the inspired Word. Response to this expositional work could reasonably reflect it in kind – expositional singing is as legitimate as singing inspired scripture.

Aside: Tunes and musical accompaniment – a wooden interpretation of available texts in Scripture would call for multiple instruments in the stated service. This is generally a consequence or adiaphora based on reaction to historic abuse and personal aesthetic.

Forms – Forms and prayers of the church are used in many cases. Most famously, perhaps would be the Anglican Church, which has codified just about everything, and these things are used in the stated service (see the Book of Common Prayer). Lutherans also do this. The Reformed churches (and many evangelical churches as well to some extent) are no exception, and the pastor is required to recite the appropriate forms for the sacraments, membership, ordination, all of which are part of the liturgy of stated services. These documents are not inspired, and hold a place of lesser importance than the creeds and confessions. If an exegetically obtained prayer or form may be used in liturgy as a faithful representation of inspired scripture, exegetical singing not also be considered of similar value.

It should be noted that Anglican and Lutheran traditions (general evangelicals as well) either do not recognize the RPW or do not agree with the Reformed interpretation of the RPW. They’re not part of this argument as equal examples of the same church culture, however they are still a part of the rich history of the Reformation, and in many ways still maintain some practices in a way that, in my thinking here, do not conflict with the RPW as I see it.

While holy scripture prescribes singing, where does it specify psalms, or, more loosely, limit hymnody to inspired passages? I do not believe the cases presented to date are helpful, often arguing from silence (Baptism debate, anyone?). Attempts to make a case for or against a particular stance on singing in public worship are all questionable. The burden of proof for this would lie in the realm of the proponents of one or the other of the exclusive positions. Failure to defend would result in success of expositional hymnody.

Mark 14 – most likely a Psalm, considering the context. Not prescriptive, but anecdotal. If anything, this verse is prescriptive of singing after the Supper in response to the elements.
Ephesians 5 – easily made to support either argument. Not prescriptive of type, but of order. This verse is constraining singing in public worship.
Revelation 14 – not clear enough to prescribe either position. Better exegesis here is the spiritualization (since it’s apocryphal text) and consider this confessional recognition of Glory, consummated new life in the new heavens and earth
Psalm 96 – not clear enough to prescribe either position. I might think of this as supportive of the Revelation text.

Though history has but a few, what about the ancient hymns? Are they opposed to Scripture?

O Emmanuel 1000 ce
Be Thou My Vision 700 ce
Of the Father’s Love Begotten 405 ce
Shepherd of Tender Youth 200 ce

In the case of these four, can it be said they are substantial, or (in confessional terms) faithful summaries of scripture? I think it is appropriate to consider that, in hindsight as always, God may well have permitted some (few) hymns that are not inspired, while allowing many to fade into antiquity that either were not suitable for singing (subjective, creature-focused, or erroneously misrepresenting scripture). Note Hezekiah, indicating in Isaiah 38:20, that there is more than just the personally recorded song we see on the pages of inspired scripture. Though the actual age of a hymn is not of any intrinsic value, the Reformed consistently value theological products that have “withstood the test of time” in translations, creeds, confessions, and theological interpretation (think Augustine, Irenaeus).

Where in the modern church are components of the liturgy absolutely restricted to the inspired word of God?

Exposition of passages? AKA preaching
Public and corporate prayer? Also not, by church order, required to be faithful summary of scripture
Confessions? Include creeds. “Faithful summary of scripture”
Forms for membership, baptism, the Lord’s Supper? Also not, by church order, required to be faithful summary of scripture

Would stated services function if limited to explicit use of only scripture? This is possible, however the Reformed, confessional churches do not maintain this in their church order, and there does not seem to be any indication of such in the past two millennia. The worship of Christians appears to have consistently been a blend of wooden scripture and exegetical elements. It seems to be modeled for us in the New Testament, with Paul interchangeably quoting directly, modifying his quotations beyond the originals, and exposition in the vernacular. In this, he also at least hints at early non-canonical poetic and confessional material. This can be found in Peter as well.

It makes much more sense, in analyzing Paul, to assume we are not limited to inspired scripture in our communication. A valid question is whether his method is acceptable in public worship. It should be obvious that Paul’s epistles are not transcripts of liturgy. Rather than this creating an argument that shuts down the whole scheme I’m trying to present, I think this incidentally supports public worship in general as a construct of adiaphoric order around an essential set of elements.

In other words, we must have: preaching, singing, confession, prayer, sacraments. That’s it. The adiaphoric how-ness (order and appearance) has generally been assumed to be a decision of the church all along (since the termination of the Hebrew Ceremonial Law).

If we claim holy scripture as supportive of polity, creeds and confessions, expository preaching, and contextual presentation of concepts, why are hymns (ONLY) restricted to literal scripture passages? If exclusive psalmody or exclusive inspired hymnody are legitimate biblical constraints, this would be a gross inconsistency in the strictest of Reformed communities.

If anything, exegetical hymnody might be worthy of elevation closer to the status of creeds and confessions – as another form of fence that constrains the system of beliefs in the congregation and as restraint against those things which should not be maintained. Good hymnody in this case is like good confession or theology in general – it produces a standard that is a faithful summary of what scripture gives us in the creedal and hymnodic forms that exist on the inspired page. It should be clarified here, again, that this discussion is over form, not substance, and the intent is not to argue for a one-to-one correlation of hymns and creeds or confessions. The latter are binding for a church or communion of churches, the former are good theology, still functional, but not implemented as constraint/restraint for Christian confession and conscience.

Pragmatically, a defense can certainly be raised in support of exclusive Psalmody or exclusive inspired hymnody. As a defense against the glut of a-scriptural and anti-scriptural “Christian music” today and throughout history, one could certainly limit worship singing to pure Biblical texts. This decision should be considered adiaphora as much as use of instruments, incense, stained glass, pews, and ministerial costume. One must submit to the government of the church in their decision on how things should be conducted, but the government of the church should be transparent in their rationale for decisions. Both parties should understand the importance and meaning of all of their church’s liturgy.

Additional thinking in support of song as more than praise:

Diagram the Psalms. They have multiple elements, including praise, supplication, intercession, confession (both of faith and of sin), exhortation. Essentially, they could be (and regularly are) used in confession of sin, of the law, and praise. They could easily be used in confession of faith as well. Hebrews used them in context with sacraments (and Jesus at the last supper with the disciples). But it’s not just that they may be used as such, and shouldn’t be considered for replacement of the more common elements of the liturgy – they’re equivalent, and in the sense that they’re inspired they are superior. This is true of any inspired scripture which can be used for singing or reciting.

Recognition of superiority of scripture is not sufficient to argue for removal of historic confessions or creeds or forms, it’s just that a view of scripture as absolutely exemplary of what can (or should) be done, the entire concept of singing, prayer, and confession are far deeper and meaningful. one can sing any of the vocal elements of the liturgy. one can also recite any of the vocal elements of the liturgy. The question now becomes a matter of practicality.

Is it helpful to sing a creed or recite a hymn? This depends on careful thinking about structure and flow of public worship. It is now an aesthetic and practical problem, and should be a decision of the consistory (or session) of the local church. While there are guidances in official church orders, they would not be right to restrict vocal elements of worship to unrealistic ideas such as exclusive psalmody or exclusive inspired hymnody except if categorized as “best practice” and “for preservation of the peace, good order, and discipline of the church”.

Links for further reading

Orthodox Presbyterian Committee on Song in Worship- https://opc.org/GA/song.html

R. Scott Clark – https://heidelblog.net/2021/07/the-principles-of-reformed-worship/

R. Scott Clark – https://heidelblog.net/2007/09/more-on-worship-and-the-rpw

Article on EP – https://kingandkirk.com/kings-songs/objections/prayer-psalms-being-as-the-element-of/

T. David Gordon on EP –https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=404

Response to TDG on EP – https://beta.sermonaudio.com/sermons/715141914390/

Discussing the RPW – https://purelypresbyterian.com/2017/01/31/what-is-the-regulative-principle-of-worship/

A debate and commentary on EP – https://ruberad.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/hoagies-stogies-exclusive-psalmody/

Take It Or Leave It

Apologetics practice

Here are some general ideas available in non-Christian systems:

Man is imperfect
Man’s purpose is to become perfect
There is good in man
Man can achieve perfection
Man, or his god, can help man reach perfection

Here are some general ideas presented in the Christian system:

Man is evil, born in sin
Man’s purpose is to attest to God’s perfection and enjoy God
There is no good in man
Man cannot achieve perfection
Only God can bring man to perfection

God is in the business of giving his creation what it wants. In the case of believers, He gives them faith and salvation. In the case of unbelievers, he gives them freedom to hate him and his creation. If you hate God and want nothing to do with him, he not only allows this, but gives you all the tools you might want to realize this in your life.

Look at the Pharaoh in Exodus.

Unfortunately, since God is eternal, not subject to the whims of man or anything he has created (he did create everything), the hater of God can’t possibly “have nothing to do with God” in the ultimate sense. Eternity for the hater consists of suffering, completely, for this hatred.

Evil, you say? I’m not evil. I try to do good to everyone and I don’t hate God, either, I just don’t care about him.

Pause, look around you. See all those other rotten people, especially the Christians, who are all nasty, selfish, hypocritical, and definitely evil? But you’re okay.

Pause, step outside yourself and into someone else. Say, your neighbor, or that guy on the right, next to you on the freeway. See through his eyes. “I’m not evil, but all these other people. They’re nasty. Including that guy on the left, next to me on the freeway.”

Some are better than others. Some are really bad, and some should probably be sainted. But not one is actually good. All men lie, cheat, steal, hate each other, think of murderous things, and enjoy watching it happen to other people. If you doubt this, visit the local theater and take in a flick or two, then check the news headlines. We’re all nasty and evil. And there’s no help this side of the dirt for it. You can’t fix me, I can’t fix me.

Christianity is the only system of faith that recognizes the thoroughly depraved nature of man. More importantly, it is the only system that explains the problem and provides a solution. God made man perfect and good, able to do good. Man, cooperating with evil, decided to “go it alone” and not do what God made him to do. As a result, man hates God and everything God created that is like him (his neighbor).

When a crime is committed (actively or passively hating God and other men), there is a penalty. Some might prefer the term consequence, but that’s not exactly correct. There are consequences for every action, whether good or bad, but a penalty is punishment for an action. God, being absolutely perfect, is intolerant of evil. This intolerance means he is actively going to exact a penalty for any infraction.

God possesses a quality called mercy. He arranged to pay for the infractions of man – out of his own account. This payment isn’t a plan or investment scheme where he donates some amount of payment, it is a total buy-out of the debt.

The weird thing about this is, while God promises to make a believer good, he doesn’t fix everything in one fell swoop. Even the most faithful men still do evil and have an extremely difficult time even loving the God who saved them. He instead removes the debt all at once and promises a happy ending where man is ultimately restored in goodness and even better than he would have been had he not been evil in the first place. In the mean-time, those who are saved, are made alive enough to want to do good, even able to do good, albeit imperfectly. That’s something the unbeliever absolutely cannot have.

Evil is always (unlike G.I. Joe cartoons) punished only by death. If you don’t die for your evil, somebody will. There was one man, Jesus, who successfully did good and also paid the penalty, despite his innocence in goodness, for every single evil. Since he was the actual Son of God, he did actually die. Since he was innocent, that death couldn’t be permanent. Since he was the incarnate God, he could actually guarantee the saving that he accomplished.

There is plenty more to this, which is why Christians have a library of sixty six books discussing every aspect of this scheme of creation, fall, redemption, and glory.

If you hate this line of reasoning, don’t read Psalm 51. If you really think this might be an idea worth at least considering, read Psalm 51. Take it or leave it.

So Much For Glory-theology

But it is far beyond what we are capable of that we should be called heirs not of some rich and mighty prince, or the emperor of the world, but of God, the almighty Creator of all things. This inheritance of ours, then, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 9:15, is indescribable. And if we could comprehend the excellence of being sons and heirs of God and believe it with a constant faith, we would regard all the power and riches of all the kingdoms of the world as filthy garbage in comparison with our eternal inheritance. We would abhor whatever is high and glorious in the world; indeed, the greater the pomp and glory of the world, the more we would hate it. For what is all the world, with all its power, riches, and glory, in comparison with God, whose sons and heirs we are?
MARTIN LUTHER | Galatians Commentary, ed. Alister McGrath, J. I. Packer (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishing, 1998), 211

Probably a bit annoying for some theonomy folks, and Christian nationalists.

What is your only comfort in life and in death?

Judgement and Mercy

The heart of Luther’s justification theology in Galatians is right here in the center of his commentary as he dissects chapter 3 and verse 19. Too many Christians are oblivious to this concept, not enough churches have maintained such a critical doctrine from the Reformation. It is Augustinian as well, embedded in post-apostolic orthodoxy. But of course, this is simply what Paul has clearly said in holy scripture, many times over.

We do not reject the law, as our opponents say we do. We establish the law and require people to obey it, and we say that the law is good and beneficial, but in its own particular way – that is, first, to bridle civil transgressions, and then to reveal spiritual transgressions. Therefore, the law is also a light that reveals not the grace of God, not righteousness and life, but sin, death, and God’s wrath and judgment. At Mount Sinai the thunder and lightning, the thick, dark cloud, the smoking and flaming mountain did not bring joy to the children of Israel or bring them to life. It made them afraid and astounded; it showed them how unable they were, with all their purity and holiness, to abide God’s majesty speaking to them out of the cloud. In the same way, the law simply reveals sin, engenders wrath, accuses us, and makes us afraid, so that it brings us to the very brink of despair. This is the proper function of the law, and it ought to go no further.
The Gospel, on the other hand, is a light that brings life and comforts and raises up consciences. It shows that God, for Christ’s sake, is merciful to sinners and to those who are most unworthy, if they believe that by his death they are delivered from the curse – that is to say, from sin and everlasting death – and that through his victory, the blessing is freely given to them – that is to say, grace, forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and everlasting life. Thus, making a distinction between the law and the Gospel, we ascribe to each its own proper function. Unless the Gospel is clearly distinguished from the law, true Christian doctrine cannot be kept sound and uncorrupt. But if this distinction is well understood, so is the true manner of justification, and then it is easy to distinguish faith from works, Christ from Moses and all civil matters. Without Christ, everything leads to death to punish the wicked. Therefore, Paul answers the question by saying that the law was added because of transgressions – that is, so that transgressions might increase and be more known and seen.
MARTIN LUTHER | Galatians Commentary, ed. Alister McGrath, J. I. Packer (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishing, 1998), 167-168.

The Law Of Grace

Christian, you have been saved by grace, through faith.

Steve, that guy down the street, the one you hang out with at the pub, is not going to be saved by the law, neither by that which you hold over his head, not that of his government, the magistrate placed over him by God himself. Steve will be saved by God’s sure grace by believing that Jesus died for his sin.

Abe, the librarian from across town, will be saved by hearing the Gospel of forgiveness preached to him, not by your enforcement of God’s holy law.

Your brother, Adam was not saved by believing God’s law.

Ruth, your cousin, is saved by trusting that God will save her.

None of these people, nor anyone else in history or yet to be born, are saved by faith in the law. They are saved by faith in the promise of God – the gospel of Jesus Christ.

By grace

Not works

Not faithfulness

Not anything you do

Not keeping the law

Not knowing the law

Only in the person and work of Christ

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the boundless riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:4-9, NASB

Explaining The Gospel

This is a quick follow-up to what I wrote yesterday. Instead of looking inward, we are to look outward, to Jesus, for our salvation and for our sanctification. We get credit for our sin, Jesus gets credit for our obedience. Ours is to try hard without ceasing (obedience and repentance) but at the same time always, always, run to Christ for salvation and sanctification. Just watch the video:

Preach the Faith, Not the Works

“Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? “

Therefore, it is not only hearing the law but the zeal with which you try to obey it in your actions that is in vain. Even if people try to do everything being zealous for God, and trying their best to be saved by the law, and exercising themselves day and night in this righteousness – they still are working and spending themselves in vain. Those who are ignorant of the righteousness of God and seek to establish their own (as Paul says in Romans 10:3) are not submitting themselves to the righteousness of God. Again: “Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it” (Romans 9:31). Paul is speaking here in Galatians about the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the early church. The Holy Spirit came down in a clear form on those who believed and by this sign showed that he was present when the apostles preached and that those who believed the message preached by the apostles were accepted as righteous before God. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would not have come down on them.
MARTIN LUTHER | Galatians Commentary, ed. Alister McGrath, J. I. Packer (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishing, 1998), 123

This is the charge against the Judaizers, Rome, and the Federal Vision. It stands against their claims that the Law, even in making baptism itself a law, is a portion of the Gospel.

I heard a theologian say, “God makes believers, and the church makes Christians.” This makes good sense. The law-keeping that Christians maintain is not in the equation for making believers. It is only out of gratitude and desire to be godly that Christians make their feeble attempts to do good works.

The three camps above all attempt to make Christians into believers. They set standards for belief that are contrary to the message of holy scripture. They set the mission of believers to be something other than, more than, the communication of the Gospel to the ends of the earth. This, of course, comes from a failure to distinguish the Gospel from works.

Making disciples is preaching the FAITH, not the WORKS. Ergo, transforming culture, making the kingdom of God, right here on Earth, is nothing more than the Galatian heresy of the Judaizers. Making baptism a law, an act of the believer, whatever its presumed impact, is the same thing. It’s not faith, it’s works.

Anti-Antinomian, Softly

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; correct, rebuke, and exhort, with great patience and instruction.
2 Timothy 4:2

My pastor turned me on to this podcast with this particular episode. While I’m not in the preaching business, I am definitely a consumer and want to be a good listener. I’ve been studying what I guess amounts to homiletics for a while now, including a trip through Dennis Johnson’s book, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures, as well as other stuff. Anyway, this is the show:

https://www.gottesdienst.org/podcast/2023/10/18/tgc-325-you-might-be-an-antinomian-if-

While I’m not Lutheran, I affirm everybody could benefit from a bit more of his theology. I found this relevant passage in his commentary on Galatians.

…the Holy Scriptures all contain one truth, but it is manifested differently by different believers. One, in teaching, is mild and gentle, another more rough and rigorous.. Thus the Spirit of God, poured into various containers, does not quench the vices of nature at once but gradually, during this life, purges the sin that is rooted not only in the Galatians but also in people of all nations. So although the Galatians were enlightened and believed and had received the Holy Spirit by the preaching of faith, this remnant of vice (this foolishness) remained in them, with the original corruption that afterwards easily burst out into a flame of false doctrine.

None of us should so trust in ourselves that we think that when we have received grace, we are thoroughly purged from our old vices. Indeed, many things are purged in us, and the head of the snake-that is, infidelity and ignorance of God-is cut off and bruised; but the slimy body and the remnants of sin still remain in us (see Hebrews 12:1; Romans 7:14, 23; Galatians 5:17). The natural vices that were in us before we received faith still remain in us after we received faith, except that they are now subject to the Spirit. They do not rule us, but there is nevertheless great conflict. Perfection is practiced by Christ alone (see 1 Peter 2:22).
MARTIN LUTHER | Galatians Commentary, ed. Alister McGrath, J. I. Packer (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishing, 1998), 119.

Notes on Worship in the Reformed Church

I believe 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 for eternal life
and united in true faith.
And of this community I am and always will be
a living member. - Heidelberg Catechism 54

Class Reference:
Called to Serve, Essays for Elders and Deacons (Michael Brown, Ed.)

Additional references:
Welcome to a Reformed Church (Daniel Hyde)
Recovering the Reformed Confession (R. Scott Clark)
Reformation Worship (Jonathan Gibson, Mark Earngey)

Preliminary thoughts:

- We are saved by God in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. We are made Christian by the church.

- “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the church for his mother.” Cyprian of Carthage

- They tried to kill us, God saved us, Let's eat. The people of Israel knew they reenacted the phases of institution, fall, redemption and consummation in their God-facilitated ancient worship. It would have been entirely confusing and foreign for New Testament Jewish Christians to suddenly lose that applied exegesis of their entire history. While Christ fulfilled the law and obtained forgiveness and salvation for his people, eliminating the ceremonial and sacrificial particulars of temple worship, the covenantal, reenactment principles of worship remained.

- The Reformed are Catholic. They're just not Roman

- The Bible is a covenant charter. If this is true, the church has a grave burden to carefully consider how she conducts her worship

Worship is centered on, and founded in holy scripture. There is no sense in worship unless it is directed and guided by the Word. To ensure worship is
conducted according to the principles taught in God's Word, an ongoing examination and conversation of the liturgy is essential work for the elders of the church. The congregation is to be educated in the principles of worship, the meaning of and reasons for both the elements and circumstances of the liturgy.

The elders should have a consensus on the construction of the liturgy and remain vigilant in their study of the theology from which worship is derived. They must consult with churches in federation and compare liturgy with them. Pulpit-sharing and visitation are helpful.

There is a challenge to the maintenance of the liturgy when visiting pastors lead worship, and elders have the duty to ensure the liturgy is understood by those who are not already conversant with the particular church's program.

The Reformed believe that two services on the Lord's day is proper for worship. This is a product of historical practice reaching as far as synagogue gathering in antiquity. There is some precedent in the Hebrew morning and evening Sacrifices. It is practical, conducive to the standard of the Lord's Day being set apart for worship, and to minimize personal worldly engagement.

As worship is to be entirely based on holy scripture, singing, the congregation's response, is most rightly reflected in the Psalms. Psalmody is the rich, thoroughly Biblical, and comprehensive system of verse that most accurately meets the principle of Word-oriented worship. Arguments for hymns are not invalid, and there is a grand historic precedent for singing non-inspired works insofar as they are biblical and suited in reverence and reason for worship. While exclusive psalmody is ideal for confessional worship, it is not so vital that hymnody, or canonical hymnody (singing scriptural verse along with the explicit Psalms) cannot be included.

The benefit of Psalms having priority in singing as worship is that they are catechetical and in keeping with the tradition set deep in scripture. When the congregation sings directly from the Word, they are protected from the shifts in theology over all time - the poetic license, mysticism and subjective views of man are restrained. God has always directed how his people converse with him, even in these last days when the temple is on Zion, the curtain is removed, we recognize that God has given his final say on what is the right conduct of worship.

Liturgical structure, founded in scripture, is essential for Christian worship. It restrains innovation, and promotes the objective nature of the relationship between God and his people. As God relates to his people by way of covenant, we perceive in the Word a distinct and robust system of covenant renewal as the consistent standard for his call and our response. This begins in Genesis and does not terminate in Revelation. The Canon is thoroughly liturgical in the motif of covenant renewal. It includes the authoritative states of God's specific calling of his people, his crushing with the law, blessing with the gospel, and his sending out. Within this scheme, the people respond with form and substance that is intentional and God-given.

"Like preaching and the sacraments, prayer and praise - especially public worship - occupy a covenantal context." - Michael Horton

The liturgy is catechetical, a chief emphasis in Reformed piety and practice. Christians' primary source of doctrine and discipleship is the Lord's Day worship. This means that an interactive, learning-based liturgy is fitting for not only the communication of God to his people in renewal, the means of grace, but in sanctification by encouraging theological maturity. The well-accepted standard among all orthodox Christians is strong knowledge of scripture for growth. A solid, Biblical liturgy that emphasizes the objective, clear teaching of the Word is the ideal for Christian worship.

The distinction in Reformed worship, as typically differs from modern evangelical liturgies, is the dialogue that occurs between God and his people. The minister executes his duty by expressing God's authority in all aspects of worship. This includes calling the people, directing and leading their responses in singing, corporate prayer and intercessory prayer, faithful delivery of the law and gospel, the Word and the sacraments, and continuing with the authoritative finality of commission of the people and cessation of the liturgy. As our theology is derived from scripture, our interaction with God is just so, and the minister facilitates this in his leadership by working from scripture, and only scripture, as the people of God have done throughout the Bible.

There are elements and circumstances in worship. Elements are those things which are explicitly commanded in scripture for employment in worship. They are the non-negotiable parts that belong in liturgy. In some cases, the order of worship, the functional liturgy, has reason to be flexible. This would be an example of circumstance, wherein certain events can be changed for emphasis, practicality, or cultural impacts. Circumstance includes details of how elements are conducted, including types of singing, dress, posture and musical styles. The offering can fit into different phases of worship, as can the intercessory prayer (or Prayer of the Church). Typically the order of worship is straightforward in a sense that comports with scriptural examples, and these circumstances are applied as seen fit by the elders of the church.

Elements:

The formal call to worship is explicit in scripture. God always calls his people out of their daily, worldly routine to special recognition of and participation in his kingdom. This is seen in the ascent to mountain-top temple worship, Sinai, the Jerusalem temple, and ultimately Zion. The people do not spontaneously gather for worship, subjectively sensing the right time or need for communion with their God. The king speaks and the people listen.

"With idolatry, the object of worship is passive and the worshipers are active, but speech announces the presence of the other. When the king speaks, the kingdom falls silent." - Michael Horton

The reading of the law is critical to the liturgy. It is how God has initiated and renewed his covenants in scripture. The believer must be reminded of his sin and misery, and that contrition, confession and repentance are the regular marks of Christian life and piety. A life of repentance brings believers closer to their God. In addition, the next phase of worship requires context. There is no gospel without reason for the gospel.

Confession of sins, and absolution, or declaration of pardon for those sins is integral for the comfort of the believer. Assurance is not in simply hating sin, but in confession and in hearing that they have been forgiven. The Reformed churches do not expect to find assurance in a simple often subjective statement of belief or that one is "saved" or "born again." There is a rich, objective aggregation of objective evidence that comprises Christian assurance and comfort. As we sin perpetually, always by our nature inclined to hate God and man, we must be reminded as much of our shame and misery, but also that God has promised a solution, which includes forgiveness.

Included in this confession is the confession of belief. Christians do not simply acknowledge sin and ask for forgiveness, but recognize the reasons why they must and may. Confessing the ecumenical, or historic faith of the church is a ideal means of closing the argument of sin and forgiveness, therefore worship includes corporate recitation of relevant creedal, catechetical, or confessional statements in expectation of the declaration of pardon.

The declaration of pardon is not a formality or good-to-have element of worship. It is probably the most significant statement God makes to his people. The terror of hearing "I will judge you" is mitigated by the sheer comfort of "I have forgiven you." It is a great loss in mainstream evangelicalism that this entire process of confession and absolution have been generally eradicated. Usually it is ignorance at fault, though the theme of "that's Roman Catholic" is a deeper, common assault on what is clearly a scriptural element of worship.

Included in absolution is the unequivocal proclamation of the gospel and the believer's place in Christ. Forgiveness is pointless without the particulars of the eternal relationship of God with his chosen people. If one is not in Christ, righteous by a court decree based on Christ's righteousness, then forgiveness is no less than a return to Adam in the garden, without sin but ready to sin, and guaranteed to sin, for Adam's nature is still in us. Without the imputation of righteousness, we are unchanged.

The center of worship are the Word and sacrament. Preaching is commanded and vital; so much so that even the most liberal and mainstream churches still practice some form of it. God's people are people of the Word, not of mystic oneness or transcendental subjectivity. The scriptures are the element that proves this, as faith and assurance are derived from the hearing of the Word. The pastor, for God, proclaims the Word of God for the sanctification, exhortation and comfort of the flock. As the Reformed declare the center of holy scripture to be Jesus Christ, this is how Christ is communicated to Christians - by hearing.

"The semirealized eschatological event occurs each Lord's Day. It is through this event that the church receives anew each week the gift of Christ and his benefits, through which the Spirit creates and sustains the faith by which the church exists. To the extent that this heavenly banquet is corrupted or diminished, the community gathered in Christ's name withers and eventually dies. Even if it continues to exist as a historical organization, it is no longer apostolic, and its candlestick is removed." - Michael Horton

In concert with the scriptures, the Lord's Supper is both ratification of all that has gone before, and seal of the gospel message that has been received by the congregation. It is the gospel to be perceived by the senses, touch, smell, sight and taste. The Supper is a reminder of our entire removal from the existence of the dead and senseless to new life in Christ, as revived image-bearers in communion with the Father. It seals the truth of scripture to us in physical, sacramental means. What benefit is the hearing without the consummation of its implications? When the Reformed speak of this sacrament, it is not out of pure symbolic, feeling-based subjectivity, but out of the consistent, objective message of sacramental meals found in scripture. It is mystical, because God has not seen fit to convey how it works, but he has told us that it works, and why. This means by which grace is conveyed to the believer is through participation in Christ's body and blood. It was true for ancient Israel in word and sacraments, and remains so for God's people in the last days.

"Through the sacraments, with the Word, the Spirit relocates us from whatever niche demographic we inhabit in this present age and makes us citizens of the age to come." - Michael Horton

This article is comprised of notes from the 06 September leadership class at my church. Quotations from Michael Horton have been added to expand on the study material from Called to Serve, Essays for Elders and Deacons by Michael Brown (Ed.), chapter 11, "What Our Service Should Look Like" by Horton.

Additional passages from The Christian Faith, Michael Horton:

"Regardless of the personal holiness of its members, the church (understood in terms not only of its local but also of its broader assemblies) is holy simply because it is the field of divine activity in which the wheat is growing up into the likeness of its firstfruits, even though weeds are sown among the wheat. In this conception, the church admits people into her fellowship not because they are inherently holy, but because the Lord has consecrated this space as the place of his holy action."

"Even if only one parent is a believer, the children are holy (1Co 7:14). This is due not to any inner transformation or infused grace, but simply to God's promise. In covenantal thinking, the tree is holy even if some of it branches will finally fail to yield fruit and be broken off to make room for others (Ro 11:16-24). "The tree is holy neither because it is collectively identical to Christ, nor because it is the sum total of the regenerate, but because of the eschatological connection of the covenant people to their living root (Ro 16, 18-20)."