Conefssional, Fundy, & Other: In Answer to MechAg94

[roo_ster]

One thing that puzzles me is the difference the Lutherans draw between confessing and professing.  What's the deal there? 

Neither I nor my pastor knows of any significant distinction, here, or any Lutherans who spend time on splitting that hair.

This is the first I've ever heard of a distinction between confessing 
and professing.  Like you, the words sound synonymous to me.
 
The only distinction I could think of is that "con," meaning "with," 
and "pro" meaning "in favor of," confession is more of a corporate act 
- we speak together, we confess the Creed, etc. - versus profession 
being more individualistic - I profess my faith.  But, again, I know 
of no Lutherans to spend any time on this.

[One of Many]

The problem is one of scriptural authority for the teachings and practices that are done in the name of Christ. Scriptural authority is found in direct commands from Christ or the Apostles, approved examples by Christ and the Apostles and Disciples, and NECESSARY inferences. It is this last category that causes a great many problems. Another problem is the inability of people to recognize the difference between SPECIFIC authority, and GENERIC authority. Some people have the notion that if the scripture does not forbid something, it is permissible to do that thing, while others believe that one can only do what has been directly stated as acceptable by the scripture.

Scripture teaches us that the Christians in the time of the Apostles gathered together in church on every first day of the week to worship. That is approved example, in addition to the command to take the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. The Christians were also commanded to lay by in store on the first day of the week. How then can anyone justify a practice of NOT attending worship services on the first day of every week, and claim to be following the teachings of God?

The scripture tells Christians to study the scripture, to pray, and to sing and make melody in their hearts. How does that become authorization for pianos or organs or even rock band performances? How does the command to sing translate into having a choir that most people listen to, instead of participating in the singing themselves. When did entertainment become the primary purpose of the worship service, instead of obeying God and glorifying God by the obedience?

Christians are each considered to be a priest, and the high priest is Jesus Christ. There is no mention in the new testament of a separate priestly class that people must seek out to intercede for them, or to hear their confessions. Christians are told to confess their sins to one another, to the church, not to a special confessor that will hide their shame and make it easier to continue living in sinful practices. The scripture does not authorize selling indulgences, or buying one's relative out of purgatory. Christians are taught that there is only one spiritual father, and only God is to be called Reverend.

There are many practices, taught by many denominations, that are in clear violation of what is taught in the scripture. Why are those practices accepted by the members of those denominations? The members are ignorant of what the scripture teaches, because they have been taught that the scripture is too difficult for the common person to understand, and they need a specialist to explain to to them. Thus the doctrines of men and the denomination of the church, instead of the unity in obedience to God.

[Perd Hapley]

The scripture tells Christians to study the scripture, to pray, and to sing and make melody in their hearts. How does that become authorization for pianos or organs or even rock band performances? How does the command to sing translate into having a choir that most people listen to, instead of participating in the singing themselves. When did entertainment become the primary purpose of the worship service, instead of obeying God and glorifying God by the obedience?

While I sympathize with some of the concerns expressed in this paragraph, it seems you are making up man-made rules that simply can't be found in scripture.  If the Bible contains a "command to sing," then it would be silly not to expect instrumental accompaniment.  And since I don't recall any law against using musical instruments, your point of view is an argument from silence.  You are also missing at least one scriptural verse that condones musical instruments in worship. 

But as I said, I sympathize.  I have always understood a choir to be a group that leads the singing, not a bunch of people that do your singing for you.

[zahc]

That is approved example, in addition to the command to take the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week.

I remember the bit about the Lord's Supper, but I don't remember anything about how or when it should be done.

[Matthew Carberry]

one,

Obviously your opinion isn't likely to change so I won't attempt it.

Simply put, by insisting on your understanding of Scripture and what is allowable as the only "correct one", you are in fact creating a personal doctrine.

"Some people have the notion that if the scripture does not forbid something, it is permissible to do that thing, while others believe that one can only do what has been directly stated as acceptable by the scripture."

As a Protestant believer, in the absence of clear scriptural prohibition what is allowable, the "allowability" of any action can rationally and spiritually only be determined by that individual through prayer.  It is not then the place of others to dictate or challenge; to do so is to be legalistic and cause them to stumble.  That isn't what the fathers of the church died for.

[MechAg94]

As a Protestant believer, in the absence of clear scriptural prohibition what is allowable, the "allowability" of any action can rationally and spiritually only be determined by that individual through prayer.  It is not then the place of others to dictate or challenge; to do so is to be legalistic and cause them to stumble.  That isn't what the fathers of the church died for.

I have to agree to some extent at least.  If the Bible does not forbid something then for what reason would you add additional prohibitions and under what authority?  That is one small disagreement I have with Baptists.  However, you shouldn't flaunt your freedoms or allow yourself to become a distraction/stumbling block to other believers.  That is the subject of a set sermons I am in the middle of now. 

[Matthew Carberry]

Oh I definitely agree.

My current church is non-denom evangelical.

We have a great band and use contemporary worship music, and have no prohibition on dancing or drinking (in moderation of course).  That is knowledge you get up front and the whys and wherefores are explained every so often in sermons (and explicitly in doctrine classes), don't like it, don't join.

However, the pastors generally don't drink or dance in public around town as a large number of church members do come from traditions that eschew both and they don't want to unnecessarily cause affront.

Like Paul, they willingly personally restrict what they feel is allowable behavior for the sake of their flock.  That is a duty we all have, to, out of love and respect, not cause others to stumble simply to assert our personal faith-based "rights".

Takes a mature and confident faith.

[makattak]

I have to agree to some extent at least.  If the Bible does not forbid something then for what reason would you add additional prohibitions and under what authority?  That is one small disagreement I have with CERTAIN Baptists.  However, you shouldn't flaunt your freedoms or allow yourself to become a distraction/stumbling block to other believers.  That is the subject of a set sermons I am in the middle of now. 

Fixed that for you.

Again, you're conflating the Baptists you have experience with with all Baptists. You'll find Baptists have a wide range of beliefs. Many are legalistic. Not all are, though.

[lupinus]

As a Protestant believer, in the absence of clear scriptural prohibition what is allowable, the "allowability" of any action can rationally and spiritually only be determined by that individual through prayer.  It is not then the place of others to dictate or challenge; to do so is to be legalistic and cause them to stumble.  That isn't what the fathers of the church died for.

Very much agreed.

While it is OK to say that alcohol can lead to drunkenness so I will not consume alcohol so as not to overstep and offend God is fine, saying God therefor says no alcohol is not.  While promoting worship on Sunday to glorify Christ as that is the day he rose from the grave is fine and well, trying to state it must be done on Sunday is not.

It is often a fine line between tradition or devotion, and adding onto scripture.  That fine line can often be as simple as saying something is good, versus something is needed.

[One of Many]

While I sympathize with some of the concerns expressed in this paragraph, it seems you are making up man-made rules that simply can't be found in scripture.  If the Bible contains a "command to sing," then it would be silly not to expect instrumental accompaniment.  And since I don't recall any law against using musical instruments, your point of view is an argument from silence.  You are also missing at least one scriptural verse that condones musical instruments in worship. 

But as I said, I sympathize.  I have always understood a choir to be a group that leads the singing, not a bunch of people that do your singing for you.

It seems that you are trying to play both sides of the authority issue. You claim to be IGNORANT of the command to sing, then you say it would be SILLY (to God or to man - who decides if it is silly?) not to accompany singing with musical instruments, THEN you claim to be aware of a scriptural verse authorizing musical instruments. The ONLY authorization of musical instruments in worship was under the Law of Moses - the New Testament (the covenant of Christ which made the old Law of Moses obsolete) never authorized instruments other than the voice and the HEART. That is not a matter of being silly to man, it is a matter of obedience to God.

[One of Many]

Most of you seem to lack understanding of the difference between generic and specific authority.

If I tell my son to go to the grocery store and pick up some food for supper, that command is generic in that I did not specify which grocery store, but specific in that it excludes any other type of store. That command is generic in that food was specified, but specific that other items are excluded. Generic authority is inclusive, while specific authority is exclusive. My son could go to any grocery store he chose, and buy any type of food he liked, and be in compliance with that command, as long as he got the food back home in time for supper to be prepared. If he decided to go to a liquor store and buy beer and pretzels, and didn't return in time for supper, he would be violating the command on several aspects: going to an unauthorized store; buying unauthorized beverage; getting back late for supper.

How hard is it to understand such a basic principle?

When both command and approved example indicate the first day of the week, why do people decide that only means one Sunday a year? Approved example shows that the pattern was every Sunday. When the scripture says to sing and make melody in your heart, why do people think that includes various musical instruments. Sing is specific in that it excludes instruments, and generic in that it doesn't specify what the style is. Another part of the command tells us Spiritual Songs, Hymns, and Psalms. These are types of music, not how they are presented. It does not inform us to whether the singing is done by chanting, in four part harmony, with sheet music or song books, all together or in rounds, etc. It does tell us to sing and make melody in our hearts, not to make melody with musical instruments. That command is to all Christians that gather in worship, not just a select few that have more pleasing voices.

[lee n. field]

A confessional denomination/church/synod/whatever adheres to a written digest of basic doctrine.  The digest ("confession") does not supersede scripture, but is in accord with it and faithful to it

It says "this is how we understand scripture and the world".  If someone claims Christianity but chokes on the ancient ecumenical creeds, he needs to be questioned very closely.

From long residence in the "Three Forms of Unity" world, here's one I favor: Heildelberg Catechism.  Short, and the first question hits you between the eyes like a sledge hammer.

Question 1.

What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer.

That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

The Lutheran confessions can be found in the book of concord.

Reformed are a bit more scattered.  The above mentioned "Three Forms of Unity" and the Westminster Standards. 

The scripture tells Christians to study the scripture, to pray, and to sing and make melody in their hearts. How does that become authorization for pianos or organs or even rock band performances? How does the command to sing translate into having a choir that most people listen to, instead of participating in the singing themselves. When did entertainment become the primary purpose of the worship service, instead of obeying God and glorifying God by the obedience?

Net grep "regulative principle of worship".  These questions have been asked for a long time. 

We have a great band and use contemporary worship music, and have no prohibition on dancing or drinking (in moderation of course).

I've said elsewhere that the only thing that seems to restrain evangelical worship is good taste and good sense, and the memory of what was.  Good taste and good sense can't be trusted these days, and memory goes hazy.  Is it OK to say the American Pledge of Allegiance during worship?  (They do at my church, but wow, talk about a mixed message.)  Ditch the sermon for a skit? There are questions of conscience to consider -- is it right to bind someone to something that God does not command?

[Perd Hapley]

You claim to be IGNORANT of the command to sing,

No I did not.  Come to think of it, though, I'm not sure there is one. 

then you say it would be SILLY (to God or to man - who decides if it is silly?) not to accompany singing with musical instruments,

Never said that, either.  I said it would be silly not to expect some musical accompaniment to be used, at some point, especially as God's Word already condoned it.  I didn't say that unaccompanied singing was silly.

THEN you claim to be aware of a scriptural verse authorizing musical instruments. The ONLY authorization of musical instruments in worship was under the Law of Moses - the New Testament (the covenant of Christ which made the old Law of Moses obsolete) never authorized instruments other than the voice and the HEART.

And where does scripture teach that instrumental music is unacceptable under the new covenant?  What is it about the new covenant that favors a cappella, or makes instruments suddenly unacceptable? 

You may interpret scripture that way, if you like, it just seems rather ironic that you started with a lecture on the evils of human traditions.

[Jamisjockey]

My religion can beat up your religion?
Either you believe in and follow the Bible or not.  Everything else is semantics.

[Perd Hapley]

Ain't it grand?   

[lupinus]

never authorized instruments other than the voice and the HEART. That is not a matter of being silly to man, it is a matter of obedience to God.

Did it say not to add instruments?  Did it command against them?  To say that God doesn't want instruments in church because he does not specifically say so is adding to scripture.  No where in scripture does it say to not do so.  No where in scripture does it tell us exactly how to conduct a worship service.  If it did, it would be another thing to add to it.

I've said elsewhere that the only thing that seems to restrain evangelical worship is good taste and good sense, and the memory of what was.  Good taste and good sense can't be trusted these days, and memory goes hazy.  Is it OK to say the American Pledge of Allegiance during worship?  (They do at my church, but wow, talk about a mixed message.)  Ditch the sermon for a skit? There are questions of conscience to consider -- is it right to bind someone to something that God does not command?

Good points.  In just about every instance I have seen a church use a "contemporary" worship, the message almost immediately seems to go down as well.

[Perd Hapley]

A lot of the "traditional" hymns of the nineteenth and twentieth century are hinky, too.  Choose carefully.

[Jamisjockey]

A lot of the "traditional" hymns of the nineteenth and twentieth century are hinky, too.  Choose carefully.

Just had my first glass of rum....I thought that read kinky at first....

[lee n. field]

A lot of the "traditional" hymns of the nineteenth and twentieth century are hinky, too.  Choose carefully.

Oh gosh yes.  Sappy camp meeting revivalist songs, a lot of them.  Here's one from that time range I do like a lot, though (with the Vaughan Williams tune).

I have seen a church use a "contemporary" worship, the message almost immediately seems to go down as well.

My point, by the way, with the bit you quoted from me, is that there is, as far as I can tell, in American low church evangelicalism, no theology of worship.  Nothing that restrains, like I said, other than good taste, good sense and a vague memory of how things went when you were a kid.  Nobody knows why things are done.  Things degenerate into a show, into entertainment.

Get me going and I'll generate an good rant.  Could you guess?

[RaspberrySurprise]

You guys are complimicated, you make ma brain hurt.

[zahc]

as far as I can tell, in American low church evangelicalism, no theology of worship.  Nothing that restrains, like I said, other than good taste, good sense and a vague memory of how things went when you were a kid.  Nobody knows why things are done.  Things degenerate into a show, into entertainment.

I don't quite see how the last sentence follows from the earlier bits. Aren't good taste and good sense enough, as long as things are done "in a fitting and orderly way" (1 Cor. 14:40)?

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

You guys are complimicated, you make ma brain hurt.

Would you like to hear about Federal Vision too? 

[lupinus]

as far as I can tell, in American low church evangelicalism, no theology of worship.  Nothing that restrains, like I said, other than good taste, good sense and a vague memory of how things went when you were a kid.  Nobody knows why things are done.  Things degenerate into a show, into entertainment.

Agreed.  Unfortunately most church leadership in a lot of the church bodies think it's what gets butts in the pews.

[RaspberrySurprise]

Would you like to hear about Federal Vision too? 

Why am I afraid to ask?

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Why am I afraid to ask?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision
In the circles of people who don't have to look up the definition on Wikipedia, it seems polarizing. People who are against it really seem to enjoy mentioning how much they are against it. 
FWIW: the ex-pastor of the 'weird church' was involved in thinking up Federal Vision.