The Regulative Principle: The Scriptural Argument, Part 2

freedom_authority.jpgMany argue that we are commanded only to do that which has been commanded. Oh, or those things which are “aids.” Or “expedients.” Just not “additions.” Additions damn but aids help. Some things are left to human wisdom, but other things aren’t. Which is which depends on who’s preaching this week.

Rick Atchley tells of speaking with his grandmother, asking why for three generations the Atchley family had been a part of the a cappella Churches of Christ. She explained, “Well, back when I was a little girl, we had an organ. But then that preacher got a new job, and the new preacher just didn’t much care for the organ”! Of such things history is made.

Whatever you do …

Many passages are cited as requiring authority for any Christian act. Most popular in the current literature is —

(Col 3:17) And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

This is likely the one that most plainly says something else, as explained here.

Do not go beyond what is written.

The proof text that used to be used first is —

(1 Cor 4:6) Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

The true meaning is explained here.

Gopher wood

ark.jpgNow, the oldest argument — going back for generations — is the gopher wood argument.

(Gen 6:14) “Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.”

The NIV says “cypress.” I think reason we all remember this one is just the oddity of saying “gopher wood”!

Anyway, the argument is that Noah would certainly have sinned had he built the ark out of pine! And, indeed, God likely would have let him drown had he been that disobedient! But what if he’d brought in a mahogany rocking chair? Would that violate the command to build the ark with gopher wood? Plainly, no. Adding something in no way violates the command to do something.

The second argument always made with the gopher wood argument is that it would be sin to add fried chicken to the Lord’s Supper, as God commanded bread and “fruit of the vine.” But the First Century church actually did add food to the Lord’s Supper, as did Jesus — who instituted communion as part of a Passover meal — serving a meal in between the bread and wine.

Here are a few posts that better explain what I’m trying to say.

Expressio unius.

A question of silence

Adding fried chicken to the Lord’s Supper

The pattern for the Lord’s Supper

Faith passages

Perhaps the most severely abused passages (which is saying a lot!) are those that argue from a misunderstanding of faith.

(Rom 10:17) Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

(Rom 14:23) But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

The idea is that as faith can only come from the word (as “message” is translated in the KJV), anything that doesn’t come from the word is not of faith and therefore sin.

But “faith” is a narrowly defined term in the New Testament. We greatly abuse the term when we apply to all Biblical doctrine. Rather, faith is faith in the good news.

(Rom 10:8-9) But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The “word of faith” is simply “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead.” The Greek for “word” here is rhema, which is used in Romans only here and in 10:17, quoted above. (Remember that “believe” translates the verb form of “faith” — “believe” and “have faith” are the very same thing.

Romans 14:23 is a reference to “faith” in the sense defined in 10:9 — “Jesus is Lord.” If you do something that is not sin, but thinking it is sin, in your heart you’ve sinned and not made Jesus your Lord. You intended to rebel, making it “not from faith” because it’s contrary to the Lordship of Jesus and the commitment to penitence you made when you were saved.

Obviously enough, as most the New Testament hadn’t been written when Romans was sent to Rome, and most of what had been written was not yet available to the Roman church, he was hardly saying that they could only act in accordance with commands found in the New Testament!

This will make better sense, I hope, as we delve into the Old Testament passages

Old Testament arguments

Repeatedly, those supporting the Regulative Principle insist on building their theories, not on Jesus and Paul, but on Old Testament stories such as Nadab and Abihu and Uzzah. These are responded to here.

cain.jpgLately, though, I’ve also been hearing a lot about Cain and Abel. In a very typical discussion, one preacher argues (I’ve added paragraph breaks),

Some questions about this passage are in order. Why did God have respect unto Abel and unto his offering but not unto Cain and unto his offering? Was God simply being arbitrary? Was there any way the two brothers could have known beforehand what God demanded of them?

Again we must turn to the great book of Hebrews for an explanation. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaks” (Heb. 11:4). The book of Hebrews says “by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” What does the author of Hebrews mean when he says “by faith?”

If you have any trouble with that concept, please remember what Paul told the Romans: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). We must conclude from this simple study: God told Cain and Abel what kind of sacrifice he would accept.

The flaw in this argument comes clear when you realize what “faith” is. You see, one of the biggest, most chronic errors in conservative Church of Christ thought is thinking that all doctrine found in scripture is “faith.” It’s not! “Faith” is faith in God (Old Testament) or in Jesus (New Testament).

Let’s consider the passage quoted in context —

(Heb 11:1-4) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

4 By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

“Faith” in this passage is not “adherence to a system of Biblical doctrine.” It’s accepting God’s word as true. Consider also vv. 5 – 6 —

(Heb 11:5-6) By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Notice the logic. The writer says Enoch pleased God. Because there’s no way to please God except by faith, therefore, the writer concludes that Enoch was commended for his faith!

Applying the same logic to Abel, why was Abel’s sacrifice better than Cain’s? Was it because Abel correctly read the silences of the scriptures? No — there were no scriptures. It was because of Abel’s faith in God. His faith resulted in his being “commended as a righteous man.” His offerings were approved because of his faith.

That’s what it says. Nowhere is Cain’s sacrifice condemned for being made without authority. There’s no reason to suppose that his offering broke a command. Even the Law of Moses specifically permitted offerings of the fruit of the land (e.g., Lev. 2; Deut. 26). (As a child, I was taught God insisted on only animal sacrifice, but this is just not the case.)

Now, John argues from a different angle —

(1 John 3:12) Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous.

Why was Abel considered righteous? Well, for the same reason Abraham was —

(Gen 15:6) Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Noah was also declared “righteous” by God (Gen. 7:1). And the Hebrews writer attributes faith to him, as well.

(Heb 11:7) By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

Heb. 11:6 couldn’t be plainer: “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Therefore, those who please God are commended for their faith. Therefore, Noah was approved because of his faith. And, therefore, Abel’s sacrifice was approved because of Abel’s faith.

Of course, many of those mentioned in the “roll call of the faithful” in Hebrews 11 are elsewhere commended for their actions. Men and women of faith typically do the right thing. There is no contradiction — it’s just that, without faith, no one’s righteousness is enough to make them righteous before God.

Finally, as to Cain and Abel, Cain cannot be argued to have impermissibly added an act of worship. If God commanded animal sacrifice and not sacrifice of fruit of the field (which I doubt but might have happened), then Cain sinned by not doing as he was commanded. He didn’t offer animal flesh + vegetables. He didn’t add an act of worship. He broke an affirmative command.

I have never understood the obsession so many of us have with arguing instrumental music or kitchens in the building or whatever from this passage. It just doesn’t remotely suggest that it’s wrong to do even more than has been commanded.

I mean, shouldn’t it be obvious that we are not to bind commands on one another in addition to those given by God — but that God celebrates the gifts of those who offer more than has been requested?

(2 Cor 8:1-5) And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. 2 Out of the most severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. 3 For I testify that they gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability. Entirely on their own, 4 they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints. 5 And they did not do as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then to us in keeping with God’s will.

Exodus 36 is a similar passage, where the children of Israel gave so much to the construction of the tabernacle that Moses had to make them stop. They did more than was asked! And it was cause for celebration.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Regulative Principle, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to The Regulative Principle: The Scriptural Argument, Part 2

  1. Kent says:

    There's just so many rules to remember, Jay. So many rules that we have to follow and interpret just right if we are going to be saved, that is if we are to be saved. Sounds like the Galatians to me. I just wonder why Jesus himself didn't list all of these rules when he was asked, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"

  2. Kent says:

    There's just so many rules to remember, Jay. So many rules that we have to follow and interpret just right if we are going to be saved, that is if we are to be saved according to the conservatives. Sounds like the Galatians to me. I just wonder why Jesus himself didn't list all of these rules when he was asked, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"

  3. josh keele says:

    So, fellowshipping the wrongly baptized and adding instruments to the worship are the only two tunes you know how to play, eh? Being "Good Friday" and all, how about something a bit less selfish?

  4. Nancy says:

    I have the same question as Kent. Surely Jesus himself would have left specific "rules". He was so very clear on what it takes to be a disciple. Faith defies logic. Just the very idea of a virgin birth or a man dying on a cross and then being raised to life is not logical. And, that he would suffer so much for me. It takes a LOT faith to believe these things. It has been my experience that the need to prove a particular position (and the resulting arguments) is due to the prideful human desire to be right and "attain" salvation rather than accept it as the precious gift that it is. Our culture promotes self reliance and an inward focus. We are generally rewarded for our hard work and cleverness. We are conditioned "if you do X, you will get Y." Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and discipleship is counter cultural.

    I appreciate your references to Paul's letter to the Romans. Romans was not studied much in the church of my youth. It was life changing for me to study Romans in its context (not just a verse here and a verse there.) It was the first time I ever understood (or heard for that matter) the gospel despite having been a "faithful member of the church." for many decades. I had all the boxes checked. Perhaps that is the source of the arguments and divisions, that many sadly haven't heard and understood the gospel.

  5. josh keele says:

    On Abel's faith vs Cain's, you can't forget that they both spoke with God literally. So you can't imagine that Cain's lack of faith was that he didn't beleive in God's existence. You might say that he didn't speak with God literally until after the offering, but it that were the case why do we not find him surprised when God meets him after he slew his brother?

    What then was his lack of faith if not atheism? You say "'Faith' in this passage is not 'adherence to a system of Biblical doctrine.' It’s accepting God’s word as true." How much difference, though, is there between those two things? You are trying to distinguish between word and doctrine which are the same thing. All of God's words teach, and doctrine simply means teaching, so all of his word is doctrine. By your own definition of lack of faith, then, Cain had lack of faith in doctrine not in God's existence.

    One could frame it another way, however, that Cain mistrusted God. That he just didn't trust that God had his best welfare at heart. Again though, this would boil down to disbelieving doctrine, since God must have told him that he had his best interests at heart, as we know he has told us so in his word, which assertion of God's benevolence towards us is a doctrine. The notion of trusting God cannot be separated from trusting his word.

    William Tyndale (Protestant Reformer who first translated the New Testament, the Torah and the book of Jonah into English) says in his book Obedience of a Christian Man the following which is relevant to this discussion and the regulative principle, where he is arguing against the Catholics for burning his translation of the Bible:

    "Now there is not other division or heresy in the world save man's wisdom, and when man's foolish wisdom interpreteth scripture. Man's wisdom scattereth, divideth, and maketh sects; while the wisdom of one is that a white coat is best to serve God in, and another saith a black, and another a gray, another a blue; and while one saith that god will hear your prayer in this place, another saith in that place; and while one saith this place is holier, and another that place is holier; and this religion [i.e. sect of monks] is holier than that; and this saint is greater with God than that; and an hundred thousand like things. Man's wisdom is plain idolatry: neither is there any other idolatry than to imagine of God after man's wisdom. God is not man's imagination; but that only which he saith of himself. God is nothing but his law and his promises; that is to say, that which he biddeth thee to do, and that which he biddeth thee beleive and hope. God is but his word, as Christ saith, John 8 'I am that I say unto you;' that is to say, That which I preach am I; my words are spirit and life.

    God is that only which he testifieth of himself; and to imagine any other thing of God than that, is damnable idolatry. Therefore saith the hundred and eighteenth psalm, 'Happy are they which search the testimonies of the Lord;' thais to say, that which God testifieth and witnesseth unto us.

    But how shall I do that, when ye will not let me have his testimonies, or witnesses, in a tongue which I understand? Will ye resit God?……."

    Tyndale is arguing in favor of the regulative principle because he lived in a time and place in which it didn't exist. Nobody gave a rat's behind to follow Scripture, and everyone just made up their own religion, and he saw that this was insanity and chaos and that the only hope was a return to Scripture and that alone. But today, you live in a time where the regulative principle is followed by a great many and you feel as though it were a burden and a shackle and you long to be liberated from it. But beware, lest your liberation from it make you a gray friar. You see the antics of evangelical protestantism and how a watered down gospel is commercialized and every imagination of men is used to draw in a crowd to a dumbed down gospel. Is this any difference than the antics of monkery? Where Tyndale speaks of St. Francis' coat and how that they said if you be buried with it you shall clean escape purgatory, etc. etc. but if not your relatives must redeem you with a mass-penny. This where rejection of the regulative principle leads. The Roman Catholic church didn't pop into existence in a day. It started with a precursor of Jay Guin 1500 years ago. All I'm saying, is be careful, Jay. You are not just going against "church of Christ tradition" as you like to think, but you are also seeking to undo the Protestant Reformation. You might as well put your collar on backwards and put on St. Francis' coat.

  6. josh keele says:

    For clarification on "St." Francis' coat, consider the following. Jay says that God is a God of exceptions who does more than he promises. Now, Tyndale reports of the Gray Friars how they taught that if you were burried in St. Francis' coat you would be saved. And Tyndale refuted them by showing that Scripture promises no such thing. But would Jay allow Tyndale's refutation? Jay says God does more than he promises. So, in Jay's view, although God never promised to save those who put on "St." Francis' coat, nevertheless God might still yet do it since he will do more than he promises. Jay's view of God, therefore, can be used to validate any and every foolish fancy of every sect of Papists. What of those who speak of a skull-cap that if you purchase and are buried with you will be saved? What of the notion that you will be saved for praying the rosary x times a day? and what of the notion that as soon as the money jungles in the box a soul from purgatory flies? Not one of these things are promised by God in Scripture, and so I and Tyndale would say they are pure foolishness. But Jay would say. not so fast, God can do more than he promised. This notion of God doing more than he promised leads to paganism.

  7. Alan says:

    Going beyond what is required inherently means doing something that is not explicitly commanded. Paul also wanted to go beyond what was required. So he offered his service to the Corinthians free of charge, waiving his right to financial support (1 Cor 9). And he calls us all to follow his example, as he followed the example of Christ. That doesn't mean preachers must waive their salaries. Instead, it means we all need to find ways to go beyond the legalistic minimum requirements.

  8. josh keele says:

    Paul giving up his ability to exercise a right (1 Cor 9:5) in order to further the gospel is in no way parallel to demanding a right that you don't have, such as to add instruments to the worship. There is much difference in giving up a real right and demanding to utilize a fake right, and a wise man can see the difference. And yes, in giving up a real right to further the gospel Paul went above the call of duty. But the men of our day will not even give up fake rights for unity sake, so how could we ever look for any to give up an actual right for the Lord's sake?

  9. Mark says:

    Hi, Josh, I've missed you. There is a fundamental flaw in your analysis of Jay's work. He is talking about offering more than is required. All of your examples basically say, "If you do x or y, you will be saved." Nothing that Jay says has anything to do with earning salvation. But I think he would look dashing in one of those big, white hats 🙂
    Mark

  10. josh keele says:

    So let's offer rain dances. I asked this question probably a month ago and Jay dodged it forever and a day. Can we put a rain-dance in the worship, Mark? It has nothing to do with trying to earn salvation, but merely with "offering more than is required," so is it ok? I hope I don't hear crickets this time.

  11. summer says:

    Mary anointed the head and feet of Jesus with expensive oil, which was in no way required by Him. Our response to God's grace should be the same: heartfelt, spontaneous, and sincere. If you are referring to the time slot between opening and closing prayer in a church building as "the worship", then I believe there is a flaw in your reasoning. I have seen many people worship God in many different ways, at many different times and places, and I sincerely believe that he rejoices in and accepts their gifts to Him. I have no reason to believe otherwise, from scriptures or anywhere else. We do not worship God to gain His favor but because He has shown His favor.

  12. Mark says:

    Josh,
    At the risk of sounding judgmental, you are asking a stupid question. What does a rain dance have to do with the price of tea in China. I believe you should have good, theologically sound reasons for what you do in worship. If you would like to develop a good, theologically sound reason to present and then ask your question about rain dances, I'll be happy to take a look at it. Until then, it is just a stupid question, and it doesn't call for a serious response.
    Mark

  13. josh says:

    "Mary anointed the head and feet of Jesus with expensive oil, which was in no way required by Him." (Summer)

    It was also an act of personal service, not something done in the corporate worship.

    "If you are referring to the time slot between opening and closing prayer in a church building as 'the worship', then I believe there is a flaw in your reasoning." (Summer)

    Sure the totality of our lives should be worship. However, when I say "the worship" understand an ellipsis, "the corporate worship." And there is no flaw there. The corporate worship is distinct from our individual lives. There is nothing wrong with a husband and wife making out at home and even blessing God in their heart and giving thanks to him while doing it….but they best not do it during the corporate worship.

    "I believe you should have good, theologically sound reasons for what you do in worship." (Mark)

    What's not good or theological about a rain-dance, Mark? God sends the rain, right? Jesus says so. So, why can't we dance a rain-dance to ask him to send the rain? What's so stupid about that? I'd really like an explanation.

  14. Mark says:

    Josh,
    Is there any place in all of Scripture, from Genesis to Maps, that would indicate God ever sent rain in response to a dance or that he ever told anyone to dance in order to generate rain? I'll save you the trouble. The answer is no. Elijah prayed and it rained. God sends the rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. But no rain-dance. I still think it's a stupid question.

    Now, let's try it again from another angle. Is there any place in all of Scripture, from Genesis to Maps, that would indicate God finds instrumental praise acceptable and pleasing to him. Further, is there any text that would demonstrate that God commanded the use of instruments in praise to him? I'll save you the trouble. In both cases, the answer is yes.

    You keep comparing apples to leprechauns, and it just isn't working for you.
    Mark

  15. josh says:

    So let's also bring back incence and animal sacrifices. So long as we don't view them as sin offerings, will killing animals in worship to God be ok? It was under the OT, so why not now?

  16. summer says:

    josh, on March 24th, 2008 at 7:52 pm Said:

    “Mary anointed the head and feet of Jesus with expensive oil, which was in no way required by Him.” (Summer)

    It was also an act of personal service, not something done in the corporate worship. (Josh)

    So, if I want to do a rain dance in my act of personal service to God, it would be ok? Just as long as I'm not doing it in the church building between opening and closing prayer?

  17. Nick Gill says:

    Josh,

    Any time you have a church group over to your house to eat, you are "killing animals in worship to God." The non-atoning sacrifices of animals in the Hebrew Scriptures were FELLOWSHIP OFFERINGS. They killed the animals and had a big ol' Texas barbeque and ate the sacrifices together in the presence of the Lord.

    And what IS your problem with incense anyway? Is it the incense itself or the image of the priest with a censer wandering around the "sanctuary" mumbling?

    For the record, though, the incense offerings of the law of Moses are much more involved with daily tabernacle-Temple worship (which points toward our own daily worship) than they are on Day of Assembly worshiip (the festivals and gatherings which prefigure our own Day of Assembly worship).

  18. Todd Collier says:

    Also remember – every element (act of worship) of the temple was expressly ordained of God: The portions of each animal to be offered, the recipe for the incense, the times of special worship, the qualifications, compensation and retirement age of the ministers. All were specifically commanded and to make sure they were understood the God of order assembled every command and placed them thematically in four books (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteromony).

    So the God of order seeking to make life easier on the followers of His Son gave us at least the same benefit and assembled all of the relevant worship commands and requirements, organized thematically and placed … where????

    Folks we have turned the "worship" hour into the new temple hour. That is about as misguided and wrong headed as it can be. If it were actually all that important we would know a lot more about it from the text. As it is we can't even be sure of what we do see.

    Is Paul's Acts 20:7 "first day of the week" Sunday or Saturday evening? We don't know! Is their getting together to breaking bread communion or breakfast? We don't know. We have ideas and we want them to be true but folks we just don't know.

    And that means that our God of order and not chaos didn't think what we did for one hour a week was all that important.

    On the other hand He seems to say a lot about grace, love, patience, evangelism, etc. How we doing on that stuff?

  19. Jay Guin says:

    Todd,

    This much we know. They met in the evening to break bread. This is plainly a binding example. Those who've slept in Sunday morning and taken communion in the back room at night have had it right all along!! 😉