Home » Posts tagged 'Synod of Dort'
Tag Archives: Synod of Dort
The Validity and Potential Value of a Liturgical Calendar (Part Three)
Regulative Principle of Worship
Over a period of time, professing Christians formulated from scripture what was termed, “the regulative principle of worship.” I believe in that. This took awhile in the history of Christianity to develop. I believe it because it is scriptural and, therefore, I want to follow it. The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 expresses it:
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.
One example of the seriousness of regulating worship by scripture is that of Nadab and Abihu, when they offered strange fire to the Lord (Leviticus 10). Offering strange fire meant changing the recipe for the incense for the altar of incense in the holy place. Silence was not permission for them to offer a different recipe.
God prescribed a specific recipe, spelling out percentages of the ingredients. Scripture regulated the recipe. That was an element of Old Testament worship. Since God spelled it out, that’s all you could do. Nadab and Abihu changed it. God killed them for that. This indicates the seriousness of it.
What changes with observing Christ’s birth around December 25th? Next year Sunday is actually December 28. Emphasizing Christ’s birth changes nothing that God prescribed. It’s not like changing the recipe for the altar of incense. I contend it does not violate the regulative principle of worship.
Application of the Regulative Principle
Canon of Dort
Like one Reformation group, the Puritans, another, the Dutch Reformed Church, whom like the Puritans I’m not endorsing, committed to the Regulative Principle of Worship. In 1618-19, that group held their Second Synod of Dort, the Dutch term for the town of Dordrecht. This council explained its decisions in a document, The Canons of Dort. In Article 67 of the Canon, the council says:
The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, with the following day, and whereas in most of the cities and provinces of the Netherlands the day of Circumcision and of Ascension of Christ are also observed, Ministers in every place where this is not yet done shall take steps with the Government to have them conform with the others.
Earlier in Article 63, it writes:
The Lordly Supper shall be administered once every two months, wherever possible, and it will be edifying that it take place at Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas where the circumstances of the Church permit. However, in those places where the Church has not yet been instituted, first of all Elders and Deacons shall be provided.
Helvetic Confession of 1564
Another Reformation group in Switzerland wrote Helvetic Confessions in 1536 and 1564. The second of these writes:
THE FESTIVALS OF CHRIST AND THE SAINTS. Moreover, if in Christian liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly. but we do not approve of feasts instituted for men and for saints. Holy days have to do with the first Table of the Law and belong to God alone.
Finally, holy days which have been instituted for the saints and which we have abolished, have much that is absurd and useless, and are not to be tolerated. In the meantime, we confess that the remembrance of saints, at a suitable time and place, is to be profitably commended to the people in sermons, and the holy examples of the saints set forth to be imitated by all.
Variations of Applications
All of these varied groups, including the Puritans, claimed the Bible as their final authority. They disagreed on the application of the regulative principle. Some said “no” on the organ. Certain ones said only psalms and no hymns. Groups differed on a liturgical calendar. They had their unique reasons for all of these variations, but all believed and practiced the regulative principle of worship.
Puritans sprinkled infants. How many infants do we see baptized in scripture, let alone sprinkled? Sure, Pilgrims and Baptists separated from the Church of England. Many Puritans, however, saw no problem with a state church as seen in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Puritans heavily involved and led the English Civil War. Most Puritans would not use musical instruments and sang only Psalms (total Psalmody).
Word Meanings
“Christmas” derives from “Christ’s Mass.” “Sunday” derives from “Day of the Sun” and Hellenistic astrology. If I called you “gay” in the not too distant past, that was considered a compliment. Not anymore. The word “mass” comes from the Latin missa, which means “to send or dismiss.” You could argue that “Christmas” literally means “Christ sent,” like John 17:18, “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.”
If I say, “Merry Christmas” to you, I’m not saying, “Go have a merry time at Roman Catholic Mass.” No. This is a joyous time, like when the ark returns to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6. This symbolizes God’s presence back in Jerusalem and David celebrates with all his might. Christmas means “Christ’s birth” to most. Be gone the idea that every word must revert to its original etymology. It’s one reason we revise our dictionaries — words change in meaning based on usage. Here’s a definition you might read: “the annual commemoration by Christians of the birth of Jesus Christ on Dec 25.”
Special Occasions
Philadelphia Confession
A liturgical calendar acknowledges special occasions. The Philadelphia Confession of 1742 says:
The reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and hearing the Word of God, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord; as also the administration of baptism, and the Lord’s supper, are all parts of religious worship of God, to be performed in obedience to Him, with understanding, faith, reverence, and godly fear; moreover, solemn humiliation, with fastings, and thanksgiving, upon special occasions, ought to be used in a holy and religious manner.
Jesus and the Feast of Dedication
I call to your attention the words, “special occasions.” Churches advocated for special occasions. Regarding this, Stephen Doe writes concerning the regulative principle of worship:
God commands us to worship him once weekly in a corporate manner, but allows us to apply biblical principles to worship him at other times. The church under the new covenant does not have less liberty than the church under the old covenant; we are not the underage church, but the church which has been baptized in the Spirit of Christ. If we were to apply the regulative principle without clearly understanding these things, then we would have to condemn the apostolic church for meeting daily, since God had never commanded such meetings. Instead, they understood that what God was commanding was for them to worship him acceptably (cf. John 4:24; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 10:25; 13:15).
This balance is seen in the example of our Savior, who exercised his liberty of conscience, while not violating the regulative principle, when he attended the Feast of Dedication (that is, Hanukkah; cf. John 10:22). That was an extra-biblical feast not commanded by God in Scripture, but begun by the Jews to commemorate the rededication of the temple after the close of the Old Testament. Jesus was free to go up to Jerusalem or not to go up. God commands us to worship, and Jesus was using that occasion to obey the command of God.
The events on a liturgical calendar are not special occasions because a church sets them apart for observation. No, they are special because they are events in the life of Jesus Christ. If a church adds Thanksgiving, Mothers Day, and Fathers Day, those are justifiable. These do not violate a regulative principle.
Keeping Holy
The term holiday has diminished in its meaning. If I say, Happy Holiday, today, I might mean something akin to a Hallmark card greeting. It probably is the opposite of holy, the meaning of “Holy Day” or “holiday.” When we observe it, set apart for special emphasis, then it is holy, like the ground around the burning bush with Moses.
Exodus 20:8 says, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” I could say, “Remember the birth of Christ, to keep it holy.” “Remember the resurrection of Christ, to keep it holy.” If we can keep something holy, then we can sanctify something. We can set something apart to keep it holy, rather than just being a worldly item during the year. Churches can and should do that. This is the value aspect, I’m advocating, for a liturgical calendar.
(More to Come)
Should True Churches Ascribe Perfection to the Apographa of Scripture? pt. 2
Confidence, Absolutism, or Skepticism?
A recent panel of friends decided on three categories of faith in the text of scripture: confidence, absolutism, and skepticism. They chose “confidence” and determined the other two to be false. Further explained, our present text of the Bible has what they consider minimal errors, which yields overall maximum confidence.
Absolutism posits zero errors, relying on a presupposition from a biblical and historical doctrine of preservation. The panel said no one can be, nor should be, absolute or certain with the text of scripture. The Bible may say that the text is certain, but the facts or the science say otherwise. Scripture may say that God preserved every Word, but since He didn’t preserve all of them, those passages must mean something else.
Those just confident in the text, but not certain, foresee a sad future for absolutists. In their experience, they witnessed other absolutists go right off the cliff after the awareness of errors in the text of scripture. They love those people. They are trying to save them. The key is to manage expectations. By encouraging the expectation of only minor errors, but overall stability (what is often called “tenacity”) of the text, they will prevent a doomsday mass exodus of future absolutists. This reads as a kind of theological pragmatism, using human means to manipulate a better outcome. Remaining fruit requires human adaptation.
Skepticism, like absolutism, the panel of friends said also was bad. There is no reason to be skeptical about a Bible with minor errors. Not only do we not know what all the errors are, but we do not know how high a percentage there is. The confidence collective says, “Don’t be skeptical and don’t worry either, it won’t affect the gospel; you can still go to heaven with what’s leftover from original inspiration.”
Faith in Preservation of Scripture Not Arbitrary
The words of God are not arbitrary in their meaning. If scripture teaches that God preserved every one of His words for every generation of believers, then He did. You must believe God. You do not say you believe Him and then put your head in the sand. Let me further explain.
If someone asks, “So what were the words that God preserved?” you give an answer. If you will not (and I mean “will not”) give an answer, then you do not believe what He said He would do. Denying is the opposite of believing. You also don’t answer with something like the following: “I know God preserved every word, but I don’t know which words they are. I just hope that at some time in the future — ten, a hundred, a thousands years from now — I can say I do know what they are.
Furthermore, if you say that you believe what God said about His preservation of His inspired words in the language in which He inspired them, your position must manifest that belief. Standing, as Mark Ward did in his latest video production, and saying, “I do not have a perfect copy of the Greek New Testament” [I typed that verbatim from his latest production (at 48 second mark)], does not arise from faith in what scripture teaches on its own preservation. For the believer, the teaching of scripture forms the standard for his expectation of what God will do. This is his presupposition.
No Percentage of Preservation Less Than 100 Percent
Scripture does not teach the moderate preservation of scripture. It does not teach a high percentage of preservation. The Bible does not reveal nor has historic Christianity believed that God preserved “His Word,” an ambiguous reference to the preservation of something like the message of God’s Word.
When you start reading the New Testament, it refers to Old Testament predictions of Jesus. Based on those presuppositions, you receive Jesus. The Old Testament presents the correct ancestry. Jesus fulfills it. It prophesies a virgin birth. He again fulfills it. And so on. Then in the real world, you receive Jesus Christ. This is a model for faith. This is how Simeon and Anna functioned in Luke 2.
If you read Daniel 11 and the predictions there of future occurrences, as a believer you would believe them and then start looking for their occurrence in the real world. Faith follows a trajectory that starts with scripture. Scripture does not say how many books the Bible would have. Various truths in scripture guide the saints to the sixty-six canonical ones.
The Scriptural Expectations of Churches
The church, so the historical belief of true churches, expected a standard sacred text, a perfect one, based on scriptural principles, despite the existence of textual variants. Then they received that text. They believed those principles, the doctrine which proceeded from scripture, during an era of slightly differing printed TR editions. They still believed in one settled text.
In Mark Ward’s orbit, the bases for rejecting a perfect text are the variations either between manuscripts or early printed editions. That is enough for him and others to say that we do not have a perfect copy of the Greek New Testament. They mock those who believe in a single perfect Bible. They only accept multiple differing Greek New Testaments and multiple differing versions. Scripture doesn’t teach this.
As I wrote earlier, the doctrine of preservation is not arbitrary. An actual single Bible in the real world comes with it. When you don’t believe the latter, you don’t believe the former. Not believing the latter is akin to saying you know (so believe in) God and then not as a practice or lifestyle keep His commandments (cf. 1 John 2:3-4). John says this person is a liar.
Mark Ward can mock the fact that I and others believe the perfect text is the one behind the King James Version, but that belief proceeds from all the various truths in scripture about preservation (which we explicate in Thou Shalt Keep Them). We start with scripture. Ward starts, like a modernist, with sensory experience or what one might call empirical evidence. This approach to knowledge brings constant revision. It is why James White will not rule out future changes in the text based on potential new manuscript discoveries.
A New Line of Attack on Scriptural Doctrine of Preservation
A new line of attack from Ward is pitting the King James against an early Dutch translation of the textus receptus. He imagines a Dutch believer offended when an English one calls his Statenvertaling (translated in 1635) “corrupt.” The translators of that Dutch version attempted to produce a translation for the Dutch like the King James Version. English believers applaud that. They haven’t and they wouldn’t call it corrupt.
Ward is correct in pointing out that the two translations come from a slightly different TR edition of the New Testament. That means they cannot both be right. Both could not represent perfect preservation. One is slightly wrong. Ward puts “corrupt” in the mouths or minds of King James Version advocates against the Statevertaling. They wouldn’t call it corrupt anymore than they would any TR edition.
I don’t know of any angry Statevertaling supporters, standing on its differences from the King James Version. No Dutch reaction to the English exists, such as that when Peter Stuyvesant stomped his wooden leg upon New Netherland becoming New York in 1664. Instead, the Dutch followed a Christian belief in the received text and its faith in divine preservation.
Abraham and Bonaventure Elzivir were Dutch. Their printings of the textus receptus (1624, 1633, and 1641) were essentially a reprint of Beza 1565. Their printings were elegant works, a grand possession for a Bible student. They wrote in Latin in their preface: “Therefore you have the text now received by all in which we give nothing altered or corrupt.” That sounds like textual absolutism to me.
Hints at English Supremacy?
Ward suggests a charge of English supremacy in a sort of vein of white supremacy or English Israelism. Advocates of capitalism do not proceed from Scottish supremacy. Majority text supporters do not arise from Eastern Roman supremacy or Byzantine supremacy. Beza and Stephanus were French. Are TR onlyists French supremacists? I don’t follow a French text of scripture. Or maybe better, Huguenot supremacy. This is another red herring by Ward. It’s sad to think this will work with his audience.
I do not see the trajectory of true churches passing through the Netherlands and the Dutch Reformed. I don’t trace it through the Massachusetts Bay Colony either. Each has a heritage with important qualities. Ward tries to use this argument to justify errors in the Greek New Testament, the mantra being, “various editions differ with errors found everywhere.” This is not what the Christians of that very time believed. They did not believe like Ward and his textual confidence collective. These 17th century believers were absolutists.
False Equivalents and Historical Revisionism
Ward calls the differences between the Dutch Bible and the King James Version with their varied TR editions, “text critical choices.” He uses another informal logical fallacy called a “false equivalent.” He takes modern critical text theory and projects it back on the textual basis of the Statevertaling. The translation proceeded from the Synod of Dort as a Dutch imitation of the King James Version. The point wasn’t changing anything.
Labeling the differences in TR editions “text critical choices” is also historical revisionism. Ward revises history to justify modern practice. Modern historians deconstruct the past to challenge the status quo. History does not provide the desired outcome. They change the history and construct new meaning in the present.
I see modern textual critics undermine a true historical account by exaggerating certain historical details or components. Two examples are the so-called backtranslation of Erasmus in Revelation and then a conjectural emendation of Beza. Advocates of modern textual criticism latch on to these stories and construct them into a revision of the historical account.
While men like Ward and others use false equivalents and historical revisionism, it does not change what the Bible, perfectly preserved for believers, says about its own preservation. Everyone will give an account for their faithfulness to what God said. He will make manifest the damage teachers do by creating or causing doubt or uncertainty concerning the text of His Word.
Recent Comments