------------------
Though Mr. Trotter complains that the article he is evaluating is lacking in Scriptural content, he will manage to quote only a single Scripture in the nearly 1200 words of his article. We find this way too often in these so called Bible teachers.
Though Mr. Trotter complains that the article he is evaluating is lacking in Scriptural content, he will manage to quote only a single Scripture in the nearly 1200 words of his article. We find this way too often in these so called Bible teachers.
Mr. Trotter promises more articles where he will apparently explain biblical worship. If today's article is any indication, however, we doubt he will do so since he was unable to explain it here.
1Pe. 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
It seems there must be a more conventional way to say this.)
shouldn’t His Word take priority in how it is structured?
Yet this article from The Christian Post promoting the shift to virtual church lacks any interaction with Scripture (aside from one twisted application of Mark 2:22). (Let's quote the Scripture:
Yet this article from The Christian Post promoting the shift to virtual church lacks any interaction with Scripture (aside from one twisted application of Mark 2:22). (Let's quote the Scripture:
Mk. 2:22 And no-one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.
Mr. Blair, the author of the referenced article, was quoting someone who used [or misused] Jesus' analogy. Mr. Blair did not do this himself.
We think it can be acceptable to apply the analogy in other contexts to illustrate a point. But more importantly, why doesn't Mr. Trotter tell us what the passage actually means?)
The article references youth engagement, potential missional opportunities, and survey results to argue for the importance of virtual reality “church” but never stops to consider God’s own Word on the subject. (We would expect Mr. Trotter to quote and explain Scriptures that illustrate how church should be. He will not do this.)
In that sense, proponents of the virtual church aren’t merely attempting to redesign worship services and congregations according to their own tastes and preferences—they’re attacking the authority of God’s Word in His church. (This is a substantial charge. Does having virtual church violate Scripture? In what way? What is the substantial flaw in having virtual church? We hope Mr. Trotter will explain, from the Bible.)
Sola Scriptura and Christian Worship
The doctrine of sola Scriptura is often taken for granted by Protestants today, but it was a point of incomprehensible tension in the early days of the Reformation. As B. B. Warfield wrote, “The battle of the Reformation was fought out under a banner on which the sole authority of Scripture was inscribed.”[1] (A quote from a theologian.)
The issue of authority was the sticking point of the Reformation, and the Reformers understood that.
It was Scripture as final authority—sola Scriptura—that became the “formative” principle of the Reformation. Once Scripture was recognized as more authoritative than church and tradition, Protestants began to reform all of life accordingly. Naturally, then, Christian practice and worship were part of that. (We would infer that Mr. Trotter thinks present-day church services are the correct way to conduct the gathering of the saints. If that is true, then the Bible must somewhere mention things like a pastor being the chief authority in the local congregation, children's church, a lecture format, Sunday School, announcements, special music, church choir...)
One clear example of this is Luther’s 1520 treatise On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Just three years after posting his famous ninety-five theses, Martin Luther gutted the medieval sacramental system with this short tract by cutting the list of sacraments from seven to two (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Through that pamphlet and his other works, he undermined the unbiblical authority structures that had preceded him.
While Luther’s treatise focused specifically on the sacraments, other Protestants after him continued to reform all other worship practices according to Scripture. (Now we have a discussion of Luther. Also not the Bible.)
John MacArthur writes, “How does the sufficiency of Scripture apply to worship? The Reformers answered that question by applying sola Scriptura to worship in a tenet they called the regulative principle.”[2]He then quotes John Calvin to define the regulative principle:
Commenting on the Puritan understanding, Joel Beeke and Mark Jones explain, “Those who adhere to the regulative principle believe that God is offended by unauthorized, man-made additions to His worship. The royalty of Christ is violated, and His laws are impeached. The Puritans believed that these additions are sinful and irreverent, suggesting that Scripture is not sufficient.”[5] (Sigh. Two more Bible teachers and the Puritans. Still no Bible.)
In contrast to the Puritans, many evangelicals today believe worship is pleasing to God simply because it intends to be worship. (Does Mr. Trotter understand what worship is? It's not the processes of a Sunday morning service, it is the bowing low before God in humility and thanksgiving, recognizing His greatness and mercy, His power, and His holiness. Worship is a matter apart from what happens on Sunday.)
In that sense, proponents of the virtual church aren’t merely attempting to redesign worship services and congregations according to their own tastes and preferences—they’re attacking the authority of God’s Word in His church. (This is a substantial charge. Does having virtual church violate Scripture? In what way? What is the substantial flaw in having virtual church? We hope Mr. Trotter will explain, from the Bible.)
Sola Scriptura and Christian Worship
The doctrine of sola Scriptura is often taken for granted by Protestants today, but it was a point of incomprehensible tension in the early days of the Reformation. As B. B. Warfield wrote, “The battle of the Reformation was fought out under a banner on which the sole authority of Scripture was inscribed.”[1] (A quote from a theologian.)
The issue of authority was the sticking point of the Reformation, and the Reformers understood that.
It was Scripture as final authority—sola Scriptura—that became the “formative” principle of the Reformation. Once Scripture was recognized as more authoritative than church and tradition, Protestants began to reform all of life accordingly. Naturally, then, Christian practice and worship were part of that. (We would infer that Mr. Trotter thinks present-day church services are the correct way to conduct the gathering of the saints. If that is true, then the Bible must somewhere mention things like a pastor being the chief authority in the local congregation, children's church, a lecture format, Sunday School, announcements, special music, church choir...)
One clear example of this is Luther’s 1520 treatise On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Just three years after posting his famous ninety-five theses, Martin Luther gutted the medieval sacramental system with this short tract by cutting the list of sacraments from seven to two (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Through that pamphlet and his other works, he undermined the unbiblical authority structures that had preceded him.
While Luther’s treatise focused specifically on the sacraments, other Protestants after him continued to reform all other worship practices according to Scripture. (Now we have a discussion of Luther. Also not the Bible.)
John MacArthur writes, “How does the sufficiency of Scripture apply to worship? The Reformers answered that question by applying sola Scriptura to worship in a tenet they called the regulative principle.”[2]He then quotes John Calvin to define the regulative principle:
We may not adopt any device [in our worship] which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunctions of him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have Him approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. . . . God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. [3] (Now we have Dr. MacArthur explaining Calvin. Still no Bible.)Following the Reformers, the Puritans carried the regulative principle into subsequent generations of Protestants. John Owen writes, “The worship of God is not of man's finding out...It is not taught by human wisdom, nor is it attainable by human industry, but by the wisdom and revelation of the Spirit of God...For what doth please God, God himself is the sole judge.”[4] (Another theologian. Still no Bible.)
Commenting on the Puritan understanding, Joel Beeke and Mark Jones explain, “Those who adhere to the regulative principle believe that God is offended by unauthorized, man-made additions to His worship. The royalty of Christ is violated, and His laws are impeached. The Puritans believed that these additions are sinful and irreverent, suggesting that Scripture is not sufficient.”[5] (Sigh. Two more Bible teachers and the Puritans. Still no Bible.)
In contrast to the Puritans, many evangelicals today believe worship is pleasing to God simply because it intends to be worship. (Does Mr. Trotter understand what worship is? It's not the processes of a Sunday morning service, it is the bowing low before God in humility and thanksgiving, recognizing His greatness and mercy, His power, and His holiness. Worship is a matter apart from what happens on Sunday.)
Scripture, however, regularly speaks of worship that God rejects (Amos 5:21–24; Isaiah 1:11–16; Psalm 51:16–17; Matthew 15:9). (Finally, some Scripture references, but no Scripture quotes. We shall do Mr. Trotter's work for him:
Am. 5:21 “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies.Is. 1:11-16 “The multitude of your sacrifices — what are they to me?” says the LORD. “I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. 12 When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations — I cannot bear your evil assemblies. 14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; 16 wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong...
Ps. 51:16-17 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
Mt. 15:9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’“
Most of these Scriptures are a condemnation of wayward Israel. In actual fact, we find in all these instances that Israel was engaging in the proper order commanded by God. They were embracing the forms, but their hearts were toward unholy things. They were disobedient and sinful, but still were doing the rituals.
None of this has anything to do with the contemporary church or how it should conduct Sunday services.)
James Montgomery Boice argues that Scripture says more about unacceptable worship than it is does about God-honoring worship.[6] (Sigh. Another Bible teacher.)
And if you have any doubt that God is particular about how He is worshiped, just ask Saul (1 Samuel 15:22), Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:1–7), or Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1–3). (Again we are pressed into service on behalf of Mr. Trotter. Here are the Scriptures:
1Sa. 15:22 But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
2Sa. 6:6 When they came to the threshing-floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The LORD’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.
Le. 10:1 Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. 2 So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.
Mr. Trotter would need to explain how this all comes to bear on the contemporary church. He can't just cite some OT consequences of violating the Law and presume that illustrates our church situation.)
But has God given sufficient instruction for church conduct and worship, or do we need supplemental instruction? (Mr. Trotter will finally turn to the Bible, but out of all the NT passages about worship he can only cite two, and these are not about worship or the worship service.)
Scripture Is Sufficient for Church Conduct
In 2 Timothy 3:16–17—a watershed text for the sufficiency of Scripture—Paul writes, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
While those words carry an application for every believer, it is important to remember that they were originally written to a young pastor. (Timothy was not a pastor.)
Scripture Is Sufficient for Church Conduct
In 2 Timothy 3:16–17—a watershed text for the sufficiency of Scripture—Paul writes, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
While those words carry an application for every believer, it is important to remember that they were originally written to a young pastor. (Timothy was not a pastor.)
Paul speaks specifically about “the man of God.” (Here comes an uninformative tangent...)
John MacArthur explains, “The apostle is addressing the man of God, a technical phrase used only of Timothy in the New Testament. In the Old Testament it is frequently used as a title for one who proclaimed the Word of God. In this context, man of God refers most directly to Timothy and, by extension, to all preachers.”[7] (John MacArthur again. Apparently Mr. Trotter is unable to explain these things himself, so he quotes pastors and theologians instead.
John MacArthur explains, “The apostle is addressing the man of God, a technical phrase used only of Timothy in the New Testament. In the Old Testament it is frequently used as a title for one who proclaimed the Word of God. In this context, man of God refers most directly to Timothy and, by extension, to all preachers.”[7] (John MacArthur again. Apparently Mr. Trotter is unable to explain these things himself, so he quotes pastors and theologians instead.
It's an interesting theory, that Paul was assigning a title to Timothy. But it matters little to Mr. Trotter's case, except for how it might facilitate the his idea that Paul's instruction was centered on how to build a church service. But since Timothy wasn't a pastor, all the other assertions Mr. Trotter makes in connection to this are rendered moot.
If we were to venture a theory ourselves, we would simply assert that Paul was encouraging Timothy as a "man of God" in order that he persist in matters of righteousness [1Ti. 6:11]. Timothy didn't need some sort of special status, he only needed Paul's encouragement.
In fact, we doubt Dr. MacArthur's explanation, because there is no other instance in the NT of something like this happening for such a purpose.
After all, Paul wrote a very similar letter to Titus, whom he calls "my true son." And John calls his readers "children" [1Jn. 2:1]. And he wrote a letter to "the chosen lady" [3Jn. 1]. None of these conferred special status. And we do not speculate that these monikers mean the writers had some special category in mind.)
So in context, this verse teaches that as a pastor, Timothy need look no further than Scripture for instruction on conduct within the church. Scripture is sufficient to equip him “for every good work” in the context of church leadership. In fact, Paul’s first letter to Timothy was written explicitly as instructions for church conduct (1 Timothy 3:15). (Again we quote, but with the previous verse included:
1Ti. 3:14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Church conduct: Yes. But it's not because Timothy was pastor, but rather because Paul planned to come later [1Ti. 4:13] and take over the ministry of correcting this church. Paul sent Timothy ahead to start the work, and Paul would finish it up.)
As we will see in future posts, many passages in the New Testament give instruction for church leadership, gatherings, and practices. Yet, it is clear that proponents of the meta-church have not stopped to ask if their new strategies are biblical. (Maybe Mr. Trotter will explain at some point what is wrong with "meta churches.")
Carl Trueman notes, “One can tell a lot about how a particular church understands scriptural sufficiency by looking at her form of government, the content and emphases of corporate worship, and the way in which the elders pastor the congregation.”[8] (Yet another Bible teacher.
It almost seems Mr. Trotter is writing a college research paper rather than providing a teaching. Research papers require authoritative documentation, with extensive use of footnotes and sources. However, we believe doin this is an affectation, which he uses in order to lend a scholarly air to his article.
We would say that an average reader does not need this continual source-quoting to be taught the Bible Why not just teach the Bible? It is the Bible that Mr. trotter does not seem to want to quote.)
If a church forms these features based for purely pragmatic purposes—such as survey results, “reaching the next generation,” or cultural trends—they have submitted the Word of God to the wisdom of men. (This is quite an accusation. We would rather think that the internet is simply a tool, a tool Mr. Trotter himself is ironically using to publish this very article. Perhaps he might explain how his utilization of the technology is right and proper, but online church is "the wisdom of men."
If a church forms these features based for purely pragmatic purposes—such as survey results, “reaching the next generation,” or cultural trends—they have submitted the Word of God to the wisdom of men. (This is quite an accusation. We would rather think that the internet is simply a tool, a tool Mr. Trotter himself is ironically using to publish this very article. Perhaps he might explain how his utilization of the technology is right and proper, but online church is "the wisdom of men."
And he would need to do the same regarding church amplification systems, carpeted sanctuaries, and electric lights.)
They have chosen to build their house on sand rather than the immovable foundation of Scripture. (Mr. Trotter appears to be referring to Mt. 7:24. However, this is not about Scripture, but rather Jesus' words.
The Bible nowhere says that Scripture is the foundation. The foundation is the apostles, prophets, and Jesus[1Co. 3:11,Ep. 2:20]. However, 2Ti. 2:19 does refer to a solid foundation, which seems to refer to the apostles' teaching [2Ti. 2:15].)
What the Church Needs
Redesigning our churches according to our own fancies, without regard for God’s Word, (Mr. Trotter has yet to explain how this is happening.)
is to functionally abandon the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. (Mr. Trotter has yet to explain how this is happening.)
Equally heinous, it flouts God’s own instructions for how He must be worshiped. (Mr. Trotter has yet to explain how this is happening.)
John MacArthur warns, “The reformation the church desperately needs isn’t the product of some new strategy or emphasis. Believers don’t need someone to blaze a new methodological trail or cast an exciting new vision for the church to match the perspectives of the twenty-first century.”[9] (MacArthur again. We've just about reached our limits of tolerance for this stuff.)
Instead, “A new understanding of sola Scriptura—the sufficiency of Scripture—ought to spur us to keep reforming our churches, to regulate our worship according to biblical guidelines, and to desire passionately to be those who worship God in spirit and truth.”[10]
We must either conclude that God has given sufficient instruction for church conduct and worship, or that God’s Word has failed in its stated purpose (1 Timothy 3:15; 2 Timothy 3:17). (Hyperbole.)
And because God’s Word cannot fail, it should be our desire to bring every aspect of our church conduct under the authority of Scripture.
To that end, we will spend the next few weeks examining several aspects of church conduct mentioned in Scripture and contrasting them with the ideas presented by proponents of the meta-church. (We wait with bated breath.)
To that end, we will spend the next few weeks examining several aspects of church conduct mentioned in Scripture and contrasting them with the ideas presented by proponents of the meta-church. (We wait with bated breath.)
*****************
*Update* Mr. Trotter added a couple more articles on this topic. We have provided the pertinent excerpt from article #3 here:
Even though Scripture clearly teaches that man is made up of soul and body, proponents of the meta-church and virtual congregations ignore that fact. They do not despise the body as the Gnostics did, but they treat the body as at best unnecessary. This is an unbiblical view of mankind.
For example, The Christian Post promotes “a church that solely exists in the metaverse, which Facebook describes as ‘a set of virtual spaces where you can create and explore with other people who aren’t in the same physical space as you.’” The author adds, “Some technology experts say [online engagement] will continue to displace physical churches that refuse to adapt to the digital revolution.”
But as we have seen, to abandon a physical church is to abandon the physical component of humanity. So, whatever a digital assembly is, it is not a gathering of human beings. It may be an assembly of human voices, images, and avatars, but no humans—body and soul—are actually present. And we intuitively know this.
Any homebound believer can tell you there is a substantive difference between a phone call and a personal visit from their church members. Any married couple will tell you a video chat is different than a face-to-face conversation. Even the apostle Paul valued face-to-face meeting over other means of communication (Romans 1:9–12; 1 Thessalonians 3:10; cf. 3 John 1:13–14).
Each of those examples bears witness to the biblical truth that God has made us body and soul together. To say we can be truly present without a body is like saying we can be truly present without a soul. But everyone who has attended a funeral understands that a body separated from a soul is not a fully present human being.
Serving Christ with Body and Soul
Throughout the centuries, Christians have defended the fact that we must worship God with our entire being—body and soul.
During the Reformation, the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) taught that our only hope in life and death is “That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death—to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ” (emphasis added).
More recently, Francis Schaeffer wrote,
Platonism says the body is bad or is to be despised. The only thing that matters is the soul. But the Bible says that God made the whole man, the whole man is to know salvation, and the whole man is to know the lordship of Jesus Christ in the whole of life. The great teaching of the resurrection of the body is not just abstract doctrine; it stands as a pledge and reminder of a very important and a very hopeful fact. It says that God made the whole man. God made man spirit and body, and He is interested in both.[8]Behind each of these statements, of course, is God’s own Word. He commands Christians to both “present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice” (Romans 12:1) and to “worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Corporate worship cannot overlook either reality.
Sadly, the meta-church encourages believers to “gather” in a false and incomplete way that ignores what human beings are. We live body and soul, we die body and soul, and we will be resurrected body and soul. To downplay this truth is to ignore the very purpose for which we were created: to glorify God body and soul (1 Corinthians 10:31).
------------------
This excerpt is not particularly enlightening. Mr. Trotter is arguing for in-person church on the basis of the nature of man as being both a physical and spiritual being, but this not a compelling argument. We are indeed spiritual and physical, but how does that come to bear on our need to physically gather together? Mr. Trotter doesn't explain. He has established our spiritual and physical nature, and the obligation to worship with the whole man, but he has not made the crucial connection to the corporate gathering.
Now clearly the saints did gather together (Ac. 6:2, Ac. 12:12, Ac. 14:27, Ac. 15:4, Ro. 15:32, 1Co. 11:18, 1Co. 14:26, Ep. 2:22, etc.), but we find only one imperative statement regarding gathering together:
He. 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another — and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
The translation is a bit deceptive here. It suggests a formal meeting not implied in the Greek word. Indeed, there weren't church buildings in those days. Christians met in the Jewish temple, and they also met in peoples' houses, often for eating and fellowship (Ac. 2:46, Ro. 16:5, 1Co. 16:19). There were no formal church services in an elaborate building with a presiding pastor and an order of service. This was about being together, not about conducting a church service.
So the writer of Hebrews wasn't telling his readers to attend church. Rather, he was wanting the people of God to continue to connect together in fellowship, prayer, and the apostle's teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment