As a Confessional Lutheran I appreciate your critiques, it is always interesting to look into the debates between our two branches of the Reformation when it comes to worship. I would offer some pushback specifically on your argument that outward aesthetics should be reduced or done away with, because they inherently draw our focus away from the spiritual or invisible things happening in the service. I would say that while the inward or invisible workings of the Spirit are certainly necessary and primary, it is also a good and beneficial practice to design and shape our sanctuaries to be an outward reflection of what is happening in the service itself. I am not talking about images of the Trinity, as that is a separate issue. I am simply referring to decorative designs and architecture similar to what is seen in the Temple of the Old Testament, such as the gold plated walls, the images of cherubim, the carvings and images on the Ark of the Covenant and the Altar, etc.
Agreed, guys like Redeemed Zoomer who is also a Presbyterian have always complained about the ugliness of modern Churches and argued that Beauty is Good, that’s why he started the reconquista to reclaim the beautiful Churches lost to liberals
“we are supposed to be very careful about how the eye is attracted”… then why are the tabernacle and temple so ornate? why did God raise people with the skills to create these artefacts?
It is my understanding that as Lutherans we do not use the term “Normative Principle of Worship.” I’m not exactly sure where that term comes from. I have actually seen statements from some Lutheran Scholastics (and perhaps in our confessions as well) which express a sentiment similar to the Regulative Principle of Worship, doing only what we are shown in Scripture. If I recall correctly, the current edition of “Luther’s Small Catechism” put out by Concordia Publishing House has a page where it lists the elements of Divine Service and accompanying scriptures. But the outworking of this I’ve very different in our churches. I actually left Presbyterianism for Lutheranism primarily because of the Regulative Principle of Worship (I rapidly became convinced of the other aspects of Lutheran Theology as well because I see them as both clearly Biblical and Patristic). It would be incredibly interesting to see a conversation between you and Dr. Jordan Cooper or another Lutheran pastor or theologian about worship and liturgy. Ultimately I did read (or rather listen) to your book, “Worshiptainment” and found myself in agreement during many sections, but also had profound disagreement as well. Still, I’m glad you’re targeting the horrible modern worship which is present in so many churches today and is nearly utterly devoid of the Means of Grace. I agree with your take on worship much more than I agree with that. God bless.
For those who wants the Lutheran perspective on this issue, look up Scholastic Lutherans, they have a video dealing with this titled “A defense of the use of tradition”. I say that keeping the traditions that the Fathers has faithfully passed down to us IS maintaining the ancient expression of the Faith. Whereas the Reformed and their Regulative Principle bogged everything down and rebuild the Church from scratch, usually on the basis of their own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Another thank you for teaching from the pages of your book. So helpful to clarify the differences between mainline denominations. Praying for a revival! May ears be tweaked and your book be purchased & read.
It might be nice to see a discussion between you and Jordan Cooper along these lines; I know you guys are acquainted. In his videos, he says that “normative principle“ kind of like “consubstantiation“ is not really a term that Lutherans use, but a term that other people used to talk about Lutherans. I think the idea of the more “conservative reformation“ ( Lutherans and Anglicans) is not just that we can accept anything that does not violate scripture, but that we can accept long held traditions of the church which have been spiritually, nourishing to people, for the building up of the Saints, provided that these traditions do not violate scripture. It is certainly not “anything goes”, which is no doubt closer to what you mean when you talk about the “pragmatic approach”. I think Spurgeon has some great quotes against spectacle for its own sake/worshiptainment as well.
Thank you Matthew for clarifying the differences, particularly for out that Lutherans use images - I had no idea this was so! I too could not abide with that. I haven’t yet read your book but do intend to.
Hi Pastor Everhard, I read your book Worshiptainment and found it very helpful. In the book, you mainly critiqued these egregious abuses found in megachurches and so forth, which I hope all confessional Protestants can agree is not good. I also appreciated how you emphasized the sacraments in your book. I am in the process of joining the Lutheran church (formerly evangelical/non-denom), and as far as I can tell, Lutherans probably would see themselves as holding to the regulative principle of worship, just coming to different conclusions about how that plays out. Interestingly, the last PCA church I visited had multiple images of Christ, whereas the LCMS church I now attend has no images whatsoever (though I'm sure they would not be against images on principle). To me, this kind of seems like when people say Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, but no Lutheran would ever say they believe in consubstantiation. Similarly, many Lutherans and Anglicans who have thought a lot about this issue probably wouldn't articulate that they subscribe to the normative principle of worship. I think Dr. Jordan B. Cooper and Fr. James (Barely Protestant) have made videos touching on this subject. If I recall correctly, Fr. James (an Anglican) states that the regulative principle of worship is what lead to his conviction that all church services should use incense. Overall, in your book you stand up for what you believe in, which I wholeheartedly appreciate even though I might disagree as to the exact details of how to avoid worshiptainment. At least we can all agree Barbie church is bad lol.
Re: the concern about "not being attracted by the things of this world" in reference to adorned sanctuaries: one thing that struck me in rereading Revelation recently is that shortly after Babylon is cast down with her gold, pearls, and precious stones, you see the New Jerusalem adorned with...gold, pearls, and precious stones. To me this seems clearly meant to portray how "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ." The precious treasures of Babylon exemplify her decadence, but those of Zion display her glory. So while I accept the primacy of the spoken word, I disagree with the statement that our attraction to the gospel or experience of beauty in worship has to be mostly auditory. At least in the new heavens and new earth, all of our senses will experience the glory of God's kingdom without any danger of idolatry. Of course, this side of Christ's return, how you cash this out in a worship service will largely depend on your view of the regulative vs. the normative principle of worship. (I might add as an aside here, the high church Protestants I know usually don't frame the normative principle as "anything goes unless it's forbidden," but rather drawing principles from what worship looks like in heaven as seen in books like Revelation, in addition to the few direct commands we have in the NT.)
My only question in the regulative principle is the subjectivity of it. It is nice to say “only what’s prescribed in scripture.” What about slide shows for sermons? What about wearing ties? Having electricity? I’m not attacking the regulative principle, just not fully understanding it. The idea of it appeals to me, but it also comes (from how I’m hearing it) as a potential for legalism and not expressing and enjoying the gifts and freedoms that we have in Christ. I have to wholeheartedly agree with you on the pragmatic principle being a major issue! I’m gonna pick this book up and check it out!
Thank you! This whole turn has baffled me. As he did touch on, there are a few things in God's Word about worship (services). But it's not like we have a detailed outline of a service and how to specifically do each thing. Maybe he explains more in the book. I haven't read it. But each video makes it seem more and more that if you don't hold a service exactly as his church does, it's some kind of sin.
@ it has less to do with elements and circumstances (which are described clearly in scripture) and more to do with limitations. Beyond what is prohibited, scripture itself puts no such limitations on worship. By its own premise the RPW fails. However, I do respect it since it does keep the church pure from the corruptions that we often see in the American church today
Honestly I don't think worshiptainment and RPW vs NPW are the same type of problem at all. Singing the words of a psalm to a secular song can be worshiptainment, but it doesn't break the RPW. Using incense in worship violates the RPW, but it's not worshiptainment.
In 2018, until 2019, I attended a Lutheran Church regularly. I attended their membership class, but when it concluded, I opted to not become a confessional member of the Lutheran Church. There were a few reasons for that, but the one glaring reason was when the Senior Pastor, in regards to water baptism, told the class that he considered (quote) _"Any dribbling of water onto a believer's forehead is a valid and acceptable form of baptism., EVEN IF IT'S HIS OWN SALIVA, APPLIED TO HIS FINGERTIP."_ I took a bit of issue with that, since for one, the C19 breakout was just about underway, so therefore... gross! And two, I've always held the conviction that baptism, as presented in Scripture, implies _immersion._ I haven't yet examined the Presbyterian view on this. Am I wrong?
Presbyterians allow for any form of baptism as well (although your pastor did give an extreme example). I don't think Baptism has to be immersion any more. A key reason is the analogy in 1 Peter 3 where those who survived the flood were the only ones not immersed. The analogy just breaks down if immersion is required.
@@maxxiong Thanks, maxx. The Lutheran pastor did clarify that he would not even "re-baptize" me, because I had been baptized decades ago in a non-denom church, when I first believed. About 3 years ago, I joined an Independent Fundamental Baptist church, which DID require a full immersion baptism in order to join as a member. Now, if I move to another IFB church, they will accept my certificate of baptism from this church, so I won't need to be baptized for the 3rd time in my life. It gets a little overly complicated, for some reason. Anyway, I appreciate your reply, it makes sense. Happy Thanksgiving!
Apologies that this is not actually related to the video. From the UK: Christians in the US, please join those of us here in praying that MPs in Westminster would vote against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill when it is voted on in the House Commons tomorrow (Friday 29th November). This proposed legislation would legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales.
Many people might be unaware but their is a Lutheran tradition which tends to not have crucifixes or other images of Christ in their churches, Ministers do not have vestaments and their worship would look similar to a lot of churches in the PCA and OPC. It is called Laestadianism or Apostolic Lutheranism. I visited a church belonging to Apostolic Lutheran Church of America and was pleased to find that their hymnal contained a selection from the 1650 Scottish Meterical Psalter which was sung in the service. Their are multiple sects of Laestadianism with most of them teaching that they are the only true church but the ALCA is an exception to that.
I support the Regulative Principle, but I think some people erroneously interpret "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" to mean psalms, hymns, and more hymns. Also, some denominations such as the Church of Christ take it too far to mean that playing of musical instruments is disallowed and that all worship music must be acapella.
Psalms hymns and spiritual songs most likely refers to the Book of Psalms. Original Hebrew name of the book was “Book of Praises” which contained “Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual songs”
Pastor Everhard at 2:49 - 3:47: "Now, all that to say that the Reformed and Lutheran are usually distinguished from the Reformed holding to the regulative principle of worship which I just defined, and then the Lutherans holding to something like a looser position that would be if it's not forbidden in scripture, then it is permissable. And this is why if you go to a Calvinistic service guarded by the regulative principle, it's going to look different from a Lutheran service. For one thing, in the Lutheran church you're going to see images of Christ, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity. You're going to see something that in some ways looks more Roman Catholic, and in fact it is. And that would be because, again, those reformers of the Calvinistic side, they wanted to eliminate everything but that which is specifically cited, commanded, demanded, precepted or given by exemplar in the scriptures. Whereas the Lutherans were more willing to retain those things as long as they weren't forbidden by Holy Scripture directly." Response: 1. John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, repr. in 1987), 138a51-55 and 138b3-48): "God has forbidden two things [cf. Exodus 20:4-5]. First, the making of any picture of Him…. The other is, that no image may be worshipped…." "The setting up of images in churches, is a defiling . . . By and by, folk go and kneel down to it. . . . The Papists . . . paint and portray ‘Jesus Christ’ - Who (as we know) is not only man but also God manifested in the flesh. He is God’s eternal Son, in Whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells - yes, even substantially . . . Should we have portraitures and images, whereby only the flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ - that is, to wit, of His Divine Majesty? Yes!" "And therefore, whensoever a crucifix stands moping and mowing in the church - it is all one as if the Devil had defaced the Son of God. You see, then, that the Papists are destitute of all excuse . . . They abuse their puppets and pictures, after that fashion." Heidelblog website: Calvin Against Images Of Christ by R. Scott Clark on April 7, 2014 [heidelblog net /2014/04/calvin-against-images-of-christ/] 2. Quoting the Wikipedia article on Beeldenstorm: "Beeldenstorm (pronounced [ˈbeːldə(n)ˌstɔr(ə)m]) in Dutch and Bildersturm [ˈbɪldɐˌʃtʊʁm] in German (roughly translatable from both languages as 'attack on the images or statues') are terms used for outbreaks of destruction of religious images that occurred in Europe in the 16th century, known in English as the Great Iconoclasm or Iconoclastic Fury and in French as the Furie iconoclaste. During these spates of iconoclasm, Catholic art and many forms of church fittings and decoration were destroyed in unofficial or mob actions by Calvinist Protestant crowds as part of the Protestant Reformation. Most of the destruction was of art in churches and public places." [Wikipedia Org /wiki/Beeldenstorm] This Beeldenstorm article references the following: A. Kleiner, Fred S. (1 January 2010). Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Concise History of Western Art. Cengage Learning. p. 254. ISBN 9781424069224. "In an episode known as the Great Iconoclasm, bands of Calvinists visited Catholic churches in the Netherlands in 1566, shattering stained-glass windows, smashing statues, and destroying paintings and other artworks they perceived as idolatrous." B. Byfield, Ted (2002). A Century of Giants, A.D. 1500 to 1600: In an Age of Spiritual Genius, Western Christendom Shatters. Christian History Project. p. 297. ISBN 9780968987391. "Devoutly Catholic but opposed to Inquisition tactics, they [the Dutch] backed William of Orange [Protestant] in subduing the Calvinist uprising of the Dutch beeldenstorm on behalf of regent Margaret of Parma, and had come willingly to the council at her invitation." C. Marshall, Peter (22 October 2009). The Reformation. Oxford University Press. p. 98. ISBN 9780191578885. "Iconoclastic incidents during the Calvinist 'Second Reformation' in Germany provoked reactive riots by Lutheran mobs, while Protestant image-breaking in the Baltic region deeply antagonized the neighbouring Eastern Orthodox, a group with whom reformers might have hoped to make common cause."
I have recently come across a series of videos on TH-cam, by Tom Wadsworth, addressing the topic of worship and the assembly of believers as presented in the Bible, and how very different it is today. You might find it very interesting.
I would say there is a thin line between the normative and pragmatic. If you believe you can do what scripture doesn't forbid, that will end up conforming to culture.
4:41 💯 it's blasphemous. We don't even know what Yeshua looked like, but he certainly didn't have long blonde hair and blue eyes, and I believe as a manual worker, he was strong and muscular, not effeminate! So those images are a lie and a distraction
I don't know if it's just because of the book, but while this started criticizing the obvious wrong of the circus atmosphere in some of these "churches", it seems to be going further and further on styles of music and other things. Sure, I agree with not portraying God the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit in images. But stained glass in general isn't wrong. It's beautiful. There's nothing wrong with a beautiful church building, as such. Obviously, if it's all outward trappings and the people are not truly worshiping God of the Bible, of course that is wrong. But there's nothing wrong with beauty. Look how elaborate were the OT tabernacle and later the temple. I would have given anything to see them! I don't know. It just seems like this is becoming more and more that if a church does not hold their services exactly as they do - even in things where there are no specific commands in Scripture - they're in the wrong. As far as I am aware, there is no detailed outline of exactly how our worship services are to be run. It's hard enough to live as a genuine Christian in this increasingly godless world. I don't have the energy to now be arguing or at odds with fellow Christians about things that are not specified in the Bible.
While believing that many Lutherans are genuine Christians and many Lutheran churches are unquestionably Christian churches I believe it is correct to attack the normative principle of worship as a false, a dangerous false, doctrine. While the "pragmatic" principle may in practice be much worse it is no different theologically from the normative principle. While many of the practices of "worshiptainment" are implicitly unbiblical many could argue that they are not explicitly forbidden by scripture. While I find such worshiptainment offensive I can also say that it is both unscriptural and wrong because I believe the regulative principle of worship is clearly and strongly commanded in scripture.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 King James Version 15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: John 3:16 King James Version 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
@@SolaFide-q2b I could just be uninformed, but don’t Lutheran’s largely support the doctrines of grace, but instead look at single predestination rather than double? Isn’t this also Augustine‘s view?
@@interstellarsynthesis5654 There are some overlap with our understanding of these Doctrines, because we all came from the Western Church i.e Augustinianism (Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Calvinist). But the Lutherans have largely rejected Calvinism. Also one can’t really argue that St. Augustine is monolithic in his views, there are some nuances as well that Calvinists would find problematic.
@@SolaFide-q2b that over general assertion would have to be proven. I'm a Calvinist and as biblical as they come. Have you ever read the canons of Dordt? They are repeat with Scripture used soundly.
How the worship service goes isn't exactly described in the Bible. As far as I am concerned it is neither here nor there. As far as Lutherans go, only the ones that make their members proclaim that Luther's Catechism and book of Concord as a whole is the inerrant absolutely true interpretation of scripture...these Lutherans.. LCMS being one....that are in opposition to God's truth.
@kgebhardt1187 Do you not need to swear that Luther's Catechism is the correct interpretation of the Bible? This would make it the internet interpretation of scripture. A Lutheran I interacted with on line called it inerrant and I thought it fit.
@@johnking9161 actually, I think you need to prove it. If you are going to say that the Regulative Principle is Biblical, you have to show where the Bible teaches it. But let me show you where the Bible itself actually violates the Regulative Principle, as it is commonly understood by Calvinists. First , there's David dancing before the Ark of the Covenant-which, by the way had two cherubim on it made of hammer. Dancing before the Ark was never commanded in the Law. Then, there are the tabernacle and Solomon's temple. There were richly decorated with cherubim and palm trees. Pastor Matthew's point about the priority of hearing over seeing ignores a key passage from the First Letter of John: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have *_seen_* with our eyes, which we *_looked_* upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life- 2 the life was made manifest, and *_we have seen it,_* and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us- 3 that which *_we have seen_* and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete."
@@johnking9161 Biggest examples, Jesus preached in the synagogues, something not commanded by God, and there is strong evidence Jesus observed Hanukah, an intertestamental holiday not commanded by God.
@ The only thing different about the Synagogue and the streets Jesus Preached in was that He preached in a Building. Jesus was fulfilling his office as a prophet which he was commanded to do by the Father. There is no evidence to support your claim that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. How do you deal with Lev 10:1-3, Deut 12:32 and countless other texts that clearly show the Regulative principle?
@@johnking9161 The synagogue was no mere building, it was created by the Jews to worship in so they would not have to go all the way to the temple. The fact that Jesus had no problem preaching and worshipping there is telling. John 10:22 describes Jesus going to the temple during the Feast of Dedication, which is just another name for hanakuh. " How do you deal with Lev 10:1-3, Deut 12:32" These are clearly part of the old testament mosaic law that was fulfilled by Christ. Do you also burn incense and sacrifice animals and pour out wine and oil and all the rest?
There's hardly a difference between a Lutheran Sunday Pagan and a Presbyterian Sunday Pagan! A pagan is a pagan in the same way an atheist is an atheist! Repent Pagans and honor the Seventh-day Sabbath of the Lord thy God‼️
🗨 jimmu 🗨 Aha! You're the second response. I'm getting hopeful. Let's wait for three more to get on then I have five to take on all at once. Sound good? 😁
I've been to many different churches over the years. Lutherans have a wide range of worship environments. Anywhere from an old strip mall all the way up to a neo-gothic style high church with crucifixes and beautiful stain glass windows. Even the more elaborate churches are rather plain-looking compared to Catholic or Orthodox churches. These videos are reminding me a bit of my experiences visiting fundamentalist Baptist churches. It's all about tearing others down and making a big deal over unimportant matters.
@MatthewEverhard one thing I haven't understood about the Regulative Principle is squaring it with WCF 1.6, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." I still need to read your book, but these two ideas ("may be deduced"/Regulative Principle) appear slightly at odds. It seems the Confession is acknowledging we can deduce things that are NOT expressly set down, which would not be as prescriptive as the Regulative Principle seems to be. Given the current season, I'd point to all the examples of the incarnation being celebrated with worship in Scripture (the angels, shepherds, Elizabeth, Mary, etc.) as one example where we could rightly conclude we should celebrate Christ's incarnation, but many Presbyterians seem to go a bit biblicist on this topic and shun Christmas altogether (I know that's not the case for you, just an example). Another example could be incense, candles, or other external forms which are clearly set up in the OT, but then dispensed with in Reformed worship. Despite Calvin's view that our prayers are the incense to God (I recall reading this in Olds' thesis on Reformed worship), does it really abrogate ANY use of these items in worship? Just some musings from a new Presbyterian! :) Looking forward to the book! Blessings!
@@doctor1alex Let me explain. Pragmatism begins with the question of “How a Church can attract More People”. But, rather than opening the Bible for solutions, the solutions are often centered on evangelical tricks and gimmicks. Because pragmatism has the wrong starting point, it will always lead to the wrong direction, and at odd with the Regulative Principle. Why not you try google for “Pragmatism in Worship” instead?
I guess your really attacking the Anglicans on this one, ever heard of Anglo-Catholics? This version of Anglicanism has abandoned everything that the reformers fought for, they Pray to Saints, doesn't believe in Faith alone or Sola Scriptura etc. It be interesting if you could engage with their beliefs sometimes.
Please Remember there are also Reformed Low Anglicans who are basically, to Quote Redeemed Zoomer here, "Presbyterians, but with Bishops", as they still Hold to all Five Solae, do not Pray to Saints, hold to all Five Points of Grace, are as likely to quote the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as they are the 39 Articles, do not have Statues, nor even Stained (only plain) Glass in their Churches, and do not Consider Anglo-Catholics as Christians, but instead view them as Papists and as Non-Christians,, and tend to have a 3 Hour Service comprised of 2 Expository Sermons (both an Hour or more) and an Hour of Liturgy! Meaning, Basically, they are Presbyterian to the point were even a Presbyterian, like myself, is happy in their Churches! Do not tar all Anglicans with the Anglo-Catholic Brush, as Cranmer still has many Adherents in the Low Anglican Movement!
As a Confessional Lutheran I appreciate your critiques, it is always interesting to look into the debates between our two branches of the Reformation when it comes to worship.
I would offer some pushback specifically on your argument that outward aesthetics should be reduced or done away with, because they inherently draw our focus away from the spiritual or invisible things happening in the service. I would say that while the inward or invisible workings of the Spirit are certainly necessary and primary, it is also a good and beneficial practice to design and shape our sanctuaries to be an outward reflection of what is happening in the service itself. I am not talking about images of the Trinity, as that is a separate issue. I am simply referring to decorative designs and architecture similar to what is seen in the Temple of the Old Testament, such as the gold plated walls, the images of cherubim, the carvings and images on the Ark of the Covenant and the Altar, etc.
Agreed, guys like Redeemed Zoomer who is also a Presbyterian have always complained about the ugliness of modern Churches and argued that Beauty is Good, that’s why he started the reconquista to reclaim the beautiful Churches lost to liberals
Spot on!
It’s kinda like there’s some Crypto-Manicheanism in the Reformed, anything that is Material is Evil, and anything that is Spiritual is Good.
“we are supposed to be very careful about how the eye is attracted”… then why are the tabernacle and temple so ornate? why did God raise people with the skills to create these artefacts?
It is my understanding that as Lutherans we do not use the term “Normative Principle of Worship.” I’m not exactly sure where that term comes from. I have actually seen statements from some Lutheran Scholastics (and perhaps in our confessions as well) which express a sentiment similar to the Regulative Principle of Worship, doing only what we are shown in Scripture. If I recall correctly, the current edition of “Luther’s Small Catechism” put out by Concordia Publishing House has a page where it lists the elements of Divine Service and accompanying scriptures. But the outworking of this I’ve very different in our churches.
I actually left Presbyterianism for Lutheranism primarily because of the Regulative Principle of Worship (I rapidly became convinced of the other aspects of Lutheran Theology as well because I see them as both clearly Biblical and Patristic).
It would be incredibly interesting to see a conversation between you and Dr. Jordan Cooper or another Lutheran pastor or theologian about worship and liturgy.
Ultimately I did read (or rather listen) to your book, “Worshiptainment” and found myself in agreement during many sections, but also had profound disagreement as well. Still, I’m glad you’re targeting the horrible modern worship which is present in so many churches today and is nearly utterly devoid of the Means of Grace. I agree with your take on worship much more than I agree with that.
God bless.
The Formual of Concord is very helpful on this topic.
Read both Article 10 of the Epitome and the Solid Declaration.
God bless
For those who wants the Lutheran perspective on this issue, look up Scholastic Lutherans, they have a video dealing with this titled “A defense of the use of tradition”.
I say that keeping the traditions that the Fathers has faithfully passed down to us IS maintaining the ancient expression of the Faith. Whereas the Reformed and their Regulative Principle bogged everything down and rebuild the Church from scratch, usually on the basis of their own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Yes, you are correct and everyone should check out Scholastic Lutherans! They do amazing work!
Baptism STILL doesn't save ...
@@toolegittoquit_001 lol where did this come from? Blatantly untrue according to Holy Scripture.
@@toolegittoquit_001So, you still deny the truth of 1 Peter 3: 21 and other passages
@@toolegittoquit_001always some tool
Another thank you for teaching from the pages of your book. So helpful to clarify the differences between mainline denominations. Praying for a revival! May ears be tweaked and your book be purchased & read.
It might be nice to see a discussion between you and Jordan Cooper along these lines; I know you guys are acquainted. In his videos, he says that “normative principle“ kind of like “consubstantiation“ is not really a term that Lutherans use, but a term that other people used to talk about Lutherans.
I think the idea of the more “conservative reformation“ ( Lutherans and Anglicans) is not just that we can accept anything that does not violate scripture, but that we can accept long held traditions of the church which have been spiritually, nourishing to people, for the building up of the Saints, provided that these traditions do not violate scripture. It is certainly not “anything goes”, which is no doubt closer to what you mean when you talk about the “pragmatic approach”. I think Spurgeon has some great quotes against spectacle for its own sake/worshiptainment as well.
Thank you Matthew for clarifying the differences, particularly for out that Lutherans use images - I had no idea this was so! I too could not abide with that. I haven’t yet read your book but do intend to.
Hi Pastor Everhard, I read your book Worshiptainment and found it very helpful. In the book, you mainly critiqued these egregious abuses found in megachurches and so forth, which I hope all confessional Protestants can agree is not good. I also appreciated how you emphasized the sacraments in your book. I am in the process of joining the Lutheran church (formerly evangelical/non-denom), and as far as I can tell, Lutherans probably would see themselves as holding to the regulative principle of worship, just coming to different conclusions about how that plays out. Interestingly, the last PCA church I visited had multiple images of Christ, whereas the LCMS church I now attend has no images whatsoever (though I'm sure they would not be against images on principle).
To me, this kind of seems like when people say Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, but no Lutheran would ever say they believe in consubstantiation. Similarly, many Lutherans and Anglicans who have thought a lot about this issue probably wouldn't articulate that they subscribe to the normative principle of worship. I think Dr. Jordan B. Cooper and Fr. James (Barely Protestant) have made videos touching on this subject. If I recall correctly, Fr. James (an Anglican) states that the regulative principle of worship is what lead to his conviction that all church services should use incense.
Overall, in your book you stand up for what you believe in, which I wholeheartedly appreciate even though I might disagree as to the exact details of how to avoid worshiptainment. At least we can all agree Barbie church is bad lol.
LCMS is a different animal than ELCA, in that LCMS believes the Word of God is inerrant.
Did i hear you say “juice” for the Lord’s Supper? Wine is commanded by precept.
0:32
Regulative Principle
2:12
Reformation
2:59
Normative Principle
6:20
The Lust Of The Eyes
7:00
Pragmatic Principle
Re: the concern about "not being attracted by the things of this world" in reference to adorned sanctuaries: one thing that struck me in rereading Revelation recently is that shortly after Babylon is cast down with her gold, pearls, and precious stones, you see the New Jerusalem adorned with...gold, pearls, and precious stones. To me this seems clearly meant to portray how "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ." The precious treasures of Babylon exemplify her decadence, but those of Zion display her glory.
So while I accept the primacy of the spoken word, I disagree with the statement that our attraction to the gospel or experience of beauty in worship has to be mostly auditory. At least in the new heavens and new earth, all of our senses will experience the glory of God's kingdom without any danger of idolatry. Of course, this side of Christ's return, how you cash this out in a worship service will largely depend on your view of the regulative vs. the normative principle of worship. (I might add as an aside here, the high church Protestants I know usually don't frame the normative principle as "anything goes unless it's forbidden," but rather drawing principles from what worship looks like in heaven as seen in books like Revelation, in addition to the few direct commands we have in the NT.)
My only question in the regulative principle is the subjectivity of it. It is nice to say “only what’s prescribed in scripture.” What about slide shows for sermons? What about wearing ties? Having electricity?
I’m not attacking the regulative principle, just not fully understanding it. The idea of it appeals to me, but it also comes (from how I’m hearing it) as a potential for legalism and not expressing and enjoying the gifts and freedoms that we have in Christ.
I have to wholeheartedly agree with you on the pragmatic principle being a major issue!
I’m gonna pick this book up and check it out!
Good questions. I've had to wrestle with these as well. There is no consensus on this. Do we do only Pslam sing? Do we use any instruments? Etc...
Thank you! This whole turn has baffled me. As he did touch on, there are a few things in God's Word about worship (services). But it's not like we have a detailed outline of a service and how to specifically do each thing. Maybe he explains more in the book. I haven't read it. But each video makes it seem more and more that if you don't hold a service exactly as his church does, it's some kind of sin.
Yes, I think if you follow the RPW practice to its logical conclusion, you end up akin to how Churches of Christ worship.
You comment fails to distinguish the elements and circumstances of worship.
@ it has less to do with elements and circumstances (which are described clearly in scripture) and more to do with limitations. Beyond what is prohibited, scripture itself puts no such limitations on worship. By its own premise the RPW fails. However, I do respect it since it does keep the church pure from the corruptions that we often see in the American church today
Honestly I don't think worshiptainment and RPW vs NPW are the same type of problem at all. Singing the words of a psalm to a secular song can be worshiptainment, but it doesn't break the RPW. Using incense in worship violates the RPW, but it's not worshiptainment.
In 2018, until 2019, I attended a Lutheran Church regularly. I attended their membership class, but when it concluded, I opted to not become a confessional member of the Lutheran Church. There were a few reasons for that, but the one glaring reason was when the Senior Pastor, in regards to water baptism, told the class that he considered (quote) _"Any dribbling of water onto a believer's forehead is a valid and acceptable form of baptism., EVEN IF IT'S HIS OWN SALIVA, APPLIED TO HIS FINGERTIP."_ I took a bit of issue with that, since for one, the C19 breakout was just about underway, so therefore... gross! And two, I've always held the conviction that baptism, as presented in Scripture, implies _immersion._ I haven't yet examined the Presbyterian view on this. Am I wrong?
Presbyterians allow for any form of baptism as well (although your pastor did give an extreme example).
I don't think Baptism has to be immersion any more. A key reason is the analogy in 1 Peter 3 where those who survived the flood were the only ones not immersed. The analogy just breaks down if immersion is required.
@@maxxiong Thanks, maxx. The Lutheran pastor did clarify that he would not even "re-baptize" me, because I had been baptized decades ago in a non-denom church, when I first believed. About 3 years ago, I joined an Independent Fundamental Baptist church, which DID require a full immersion baptism in order to join as a member. Now, if I move to another IFB church, they will accept my certificate of baptism from this church, so I won't need to be baptized for the 3rd time in my life. It gets a little overly complicated, for some reason. Anyway, I appreciate your reply, it makes sense. Happy Thanksgiving!
Using juice for holy communion is following the pragmatic principle! The Bible says wine was used.
Kinda low volume for me.
Apologies that this is not actually related to the video.
From the UK:
Christians in the US, please join those of us here in praying that MPs in Westminster would vote against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill when it is voted on in the House Commons tomorrow (Friday 29th November). This proposed legislation would legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales.
Many people might be unaware but their is a Lutheran tradition which tends to not have crucifixes or other images of Christ in their churches, Ministers do not have vestaments and their worship would look similar to a lot of churches in the PCA and OPC.
It is called Laestadianism or Apostolic Lutheranism. I visited a church belonging to Apostolic Lutheran Church of America and was pleased to find that their hymnal contained a selection from the 1650 Scottish Meterical Psalter which was sung in the service.
Their are multiple sects of Laestadianism with most of them teaching that they are the only true church but the ALCA is an exception to that.
I support the Regulative Principle, but I think some people erroneously interpret "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" to mean psalms, hymns, and more hymns. Also, some denominations such as the Church of Christ take it too far to mean that playing of musical instruments is disallowed and that all worship music must be acapella.
Psalms hymns and spiritual songs most likely refers to the Book of Psalms. Original Hebrew name of the book was “Book of Praises” which contained “Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual songs”
Rejecting musical instruments is not taking anything to far it's upholding historic biblical reformed worship.
Explain please.
@@doctor1alex Acapella worship is the historic biblical practice of Reformed churches.
It seems that Luther explicitly rejected the regulative principle when he repudiated the worship reforms of Andreas Rudolph Bodenstein von Karlstadt.
Karlstadt had other issues too…
Pastor Everhard at 2:49 - 3:47: "Now, all that to say that the Reformed and Lutheran are usually distinguished from the Reformed holding to the regulative principle of worship which I just defined, and then the Lutherans holding to something like a looser position that would be if it's not forbidden in scripture, then it is permissable. And this is why if you go to a Calvinistic service guarded by the regulative principle, it's going to look different from a Lutheran service. For one thing, in the Lutheran church you're going to see images of Christ, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity. You're going to see something that in some ways looks more Roman Catholic, and in fact it is. And that would be because, again, those reformers of the Calvinistic side, they wanted to eliminate everything but that which is specifically cited, commanded, demanded, precepted or given by exemplar in the scriptures. Whereas the Lutherans were more willing to retain those things as long as they weren't forbidden by Holy Scripture directly."
Response:
1. John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, repr. in 1987), 138a51-55 and 138b3-48):
"God has forbidden two things [cf. Exodus 20:4-5]. First, the making of any picture of Him…. The other is, that no image may be worshipped…."
"The setting up of images in churches, is a defiling . . . By and by, folk go and kneel down to it. . . . The Papists . . . paint and portray ‘Jesus Christ’ - Who (as we know) is not only man but also God manifested in the flesh. He is God’s eternal Son, in Whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells - yes, even substantially . . . Should we have portraitures and images, whereby only the flesh may be represented? Is it not a wiping away of that which is chiefest in our Lord Jesus Christ - that is, to wit, of His Divine Majesty? Yes!"
"And therefore, whensoever a crucifix stands moping and mowing in the church - it is all one as if the Devil had defaced the Son of God. You see, then, that the Papists are destitute of all excuse . . . They abuse their puppets and pictures, after that fashion."
Heidelblog website: Calvin Against Images Of Christ by R. Scott Clark on April 7, 2014
[heidelblog net /2014/04/calvin-against-images-of-christ/]
2. Quoting the Wikipedia article on Beeldenstorm:
"Beeldenstorm (pronounced [ˈbeːldə(n)ˌstɔr(ə)m]) in Dutch and Bildersturm [ˈbɪldɐˌʃtʊʁm] in German (roughly translatable from both languages as 'attack on the images or statues') are terms used for outbreaks of destruction of religious images that occurred in Europe in the 16th century, known in English as the Great Iconoclasm or Iconoclastic Fury and in French as the Furie iconoclaste. During these spates of iconoclasm, Catholic art and many forms of church fittings and decoration were destroyed in unofficial or mob actions by Calvinist Protestant crowds as part of the Protestant Reformation. Most of the destruction was of art in churches and public places."
[Wikipedia Org /wiki/Beeldenstorm]
This Beeldenstorm article references the following:
A. Kleiner, Fred S. (1 January 2010). Gardner's Art through the Ages: A Concise History of Western Art. Cengage Learning. p. 254. ISBN 9781424069224.
"In an episode known as the Great Iconoclasm, bands of Calvinists visited Catholic churches in the Netherlands in 1566, shattering stained-glass windows, smashing statues, and destroying paintings and other artworks they perceived as idolatrous."
B. Byfield, Ted (2002). A Century of Giants, A.D. 1500 to 1600: In an Age of Spiritual Genius, Western Christendom Shatters. Christian History Project. p. 297. ISBN 9780968987391.
"Devoutly Catholic but opposed to Inquisition tactics, they [the Dutch] backed William of Orange [Protestant] in subduing the Calvinist uprising of the Dutch beeldenstorm on behalf of regent Margaret of Parma, and had come willingly to the council at her invitation."
C. Marshall, Peter (22 October 2009). The Reformation. Oxford University Press. p. 98. ISBN 9780191578885.
"Iconoclastic incidents during the Calvinist 'Second Reformation' in Germany provoked reactive riots by Lutheran mobs, while Protestant image-breaking in the Baltic region deeply antagonized the neighbouring Eastern Orthodox, a group with whom reformers might have hoped to make common cause."
I have recently come across a series of videos on TH-cam, by Tom Wadsworth, addressing the topic of worship and the assembly of believers as presented in the Bible, and how very different it is today. You might find it very interesting.
I would say there is a thin line between the normative and pragmatic. If you believe you can do what scripture doesn't forbid, that will end up conforming to culture.
4:41 💯 it's blasphemous. We don't even know what Yeshua looked like, but he certainly didn't have long blonde hair and blue eyes, and I believe as a manual worker, he was strong and muscular, not effeminate! So those images are a lie and a distraction
I don't know if it's just because of the book, but while this started criticizing the obvious wrong of the circus atmosphere in some of these "churches", it seems to be going further and further on styles of music and other things. Sure, I agree with not portraying God the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit in images. But stained glass in general isn't wrong. It's beautiful. There's nothing wrong with a beautiful church building, as such. Obviously, if it's all outward trappings and the people are not truly worshiping God of the Bible, of course that is wrong. But there's nothing wrong with beauty. Look how elaborate were the OT tabernacle and later the temple. I would have given anything to see them!
I don't know. It just seems like this is becoming more and more that if a church does not hold their services exactly as they do - even in things where there are no specific commands in Scripture - they're in the wrong.
As far as I am aware, there is no detailed outline of exactly how our worship services are to be run. It's hard enough to live as a genuine Christian in this increasingly godless world. I don't have the energy to now be arguing or at odds with fellow Christians about things that are not specified in the Bible.
Position understood but I feel like a critic would simply dismiss both arguments citing the pcusa in general as a source.
Images? Yes, graven images.
Not to push it too far at all but I do detect a whiff of Gnosticism in this strict regulative approach. Just a whiff.
Ahhhh, this is good...Need to find a fellowship that coincides with these biblical virtues..
Good video!!
I cannot wait to see Lutheran response videos to this😂
While believing that many Lutherans are genuine Christians and many Lutheran churches are unquestionably Christian churches I believe it is correct to attack the normative principle of worship as a false, a dangerous false, doctrine. While the "pragmatic" principle may in practice be much worse it is no different theologically from the normative principle. While many of the practices of "worshiptainment" are implicitly unbiblical many could argue that they are not explicitly forbidden by scripture. While I find such worshiptainment offensive I can also say that it is both unscriptural and wrong because I believe the regulative principle of worship is clearly and strongly commanded in scripture.
"normative principle of worship" Is a made up phrase by the reformed, not one used by Lutherans.
@@couriersix7326 That is a fair comment. What term do Lutheran's use to descibe their doctrine of worship to distinguish it from others?
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
King James Version
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
John 3:16
King James Version
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
As a former Calvinist, now Lutheran, this was very informative 👍
God bless!
Why did you reject Calvinism?
@@SolaFide-q2b I could just be uninformed, but don’t Lutheran’s largely support the doctrines of grace, but instead look at single predestination rather than double? Isn’t this also Augustine‘s view?
@@jtlearn1 Because It’s Unbiblical
@@interstellarsynthesis5654 There are some overlap with our understanding of these Doctrines, because we all came from the Western Church i.e Augustinianism (Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Calvinist). But the Lutherans have largely rejected Calvinism.
Also one can’t really argue that St. Augustine is monolithic in his views, there are some nuances as well that Calvinists would find problematic.
@@SolaFide-q2b that over general assertion would have to be proven. I'm a Calvinist and as biblical as they come. Have you ever read the canons of Dordt? They are repeat with Scripture used soundly.
How the worship service goes isn't exactly described in the Bible. As far as I am concerned it is neither here nor there.
As far as Lutherans go, only the ones that make their members proclaim that Luther's Catechism and book of Concord as a whole is the inerrant absolutely true interpretation of scripture...these Lutherans.. LCMS being one....that are in opposition to God's truth.
@kgebhardt1187 Do you not need to swear that Luther's Catechism is the correct interpretation of the Bible? This would make it the internet interpretation of scripture. A Lutheran I interacted with on line called it inerrant and I thought it fit.
I don't think the Regulative Principle is Biblical. It is imposed on the text of the Bible, and it ignores some evidence in the Bible.
Prove it!
@@johnking9161 actually, I think you need to prove it. If you are going to say that the Regulative Principle is Biblical, you have to show where the Bible teaches it.
But let me show you where the Bible itself actually violates the Regulative Principle, as it is commonly understood by Calvinists. First , there's David dancing before the Ark of the Covenant-which, by the way had two cherubim on it made of hammer. Dancing before the Ark was never commanded in the Law. Then, there are the tabernacle and Solomon's temple. There were richly decorated with cherubim and palm trees.
Pastor Matthew's point about the priority of hearing over seeing ignores a key passage from the First Letter of John:
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have *_seen_* with our eyes, which we *_looked_* upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life- 2 the life was made manifest, and *_we have seen it,_* and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us- 3 that which *_we have seen_* and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete."
@@johnking9161 Biggest examples, Jesus preached in the synagogues, something not commanded by God, and there is strong evidence Jesus observed Hanukah, an intertestamental holiday not commanded by God.
@ The only thing different about the Synagogue and the streets Jesus Preached in was that He preached in a Building. Jesus was fulfilling his office as a prophet which he was commanded to do by the Father.
There is no evidence to support your claim that Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. How do you deal with Lev 10:1-3, Deut 12:32 and countless other texts that clearly show the Regulative principle?
@@johnking9161 The synagogue was no mere building, it was created by the Jews to worship in so they would not have to go all the way to the temple. The fact that Jesus had no problem preaching and worshipping there is telling. John 10:22 describes Jesus going to the temple during the Feast of Dedication, which is just another name for hanakuh. " How do you deal with Lev 10:1-3, Deut 12:32" These are clearly part of the old testament mosaic law that was fulfilled by Christ. Do you also burn incense and sacrifice animals and pour out wine and oil and all the rest?
There's hardly a difference between a Lutheran Sunday Pagan and a Presbyterian Sunday Pagan!
A pagan is a pagan in the same way an atheist is an atheist!
Repent Pagans and honor the Seventh-day Sabbath of the Lord thy God‼️
Are you an SDA?
So you joined up with the accuser of the brethren.
🗨 jimmu 🗨 Aha! You're the second response. I'm getting hopeful. Let's wait for three more to get on then I have five to take on all at once. Sound good? 😁
🗨 innovation 🗨 Are you PCA? The PCA that changed the ORIGINAL WCF(25) to its watered-down version of today? Talk to me friend!
@@rayhchc6451 No, I am not PCA. I agree with original WCF on the Pope being that Antichrist.
You’re stuck in sectarianism, ie corporate religion. You’ve got to get out of that pharisaical trap.
I've been to many different churches over the years. Lutherans have a wide range of worship environments. Anywhere from an old strip mall all the way up to a neo-gothic style high church with crucifixes and beautiful stain glass windows. Even the more elaborate churches are rather plain-looking compared to Catholic or Orthodox churches. These videos are reminding me a bit of my experiences visiting fundamentalist Baptist churches. It's all about tearing others down and making a big deal over unimportant matters.
He is better than Reformed Baptists though!
@MatthewEverhard one thing I haven't understood about the Regulative Principle is squaring it with WCF 1.6, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." I still need to read your book, but these two ideas ("may be deduced"/Regulative Principle) appear slightly at odds. It seems the Confession is acknowledging we can deduce things that are NOT expressly set down, which would not be as prescriptive as the Regulative Principle seems to be.
Given the current season, I'd point to all the examples of the incarnation being celebrated with worship in Scripture (the angels, shepherds, Elizabeth, Mary, etc.) as one example where we could rightly conclude we should celebrate Christ's incarnation, but many Presbyterians seem to go a bit biblicist on this topic and shun Christmas altogether (I know that's not the case for you, just an example). Another example could be incense, candles, or other external forms which are clearly set up in the OT, but then dispensed with in Reformed worship. Despite Calvin's view that our prayers are the incense to God (I recall reading this in Olds' thesis on Reformed worship), does it really abrogate ANY use of these items in worship? Just some musings from a new Presbyterian! :)
Looking forward to the book! Blessings!
Pragmatism in worship is the golden calf of Reformation.
Pragmatism in worship in the Reformation? What are you talking about?
@@doctor1alex Let me explain. Pragmatism begins with the question of “How a Church can attract More People”. But, rather than opening the Bible for solutions, the solutions are often centered on evangelical tricks and gimmicks. Because pragmatism has the wrong starting point, it will always lead to the wrong direction, and at odd with the Regulative Principle.
Why not you try google for “Pragmatism in Worship” instead?
I guess your really attacking the Anglicans on this one, ever heard of Anglo-Catholics? This version of Anglicanism has abandoned everything that the reformers fought for, they Pray to Saints, doesn't believe in Faith alone or Sola Scriptura etc. It be interesting if you could engage with their beliefs sometimes.
I find Lutheranism too adjacent to Catholicism for my comfort
@@toolegittoquit_001I find Calvinism, with its iconoclasm, too adjacent to Islam.
Please Remember there are also Reformed Low Anglicans who are basically, to Quote Redeemed Zoomer here, "Presbyterians, but with Bishops", as they still Hold to all Five Solae, do not Pray to Saints, hold to all Five Points of Grace, are as likely to quote the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as they are the 39 Articles, do not have Statues, nor even Stained (only plain) Glass in their Churches, and do not Consider Anglo-Catholics as Christians, but instead view them as Papists and as Non-Christians,, and tend to have a 3 Hour Service comprised of 2 Expository Sermons (both an Hour or more) and an Hour of Liturgy!
Meaning, Basically, they are Presbyterian to the point were even a Presbyterian, like myself, is happy in their Churches!
Do not tar all Anglicans with the Anglo-Catholic Brush, as Cranmer still has many Adherents in the Low Anglican Movement!
@@jimmu2008 Good grief. Have you read the Quran?
@@jimmu2008 my Calvinist theology professor actually did say that Calvinism is the branch of Christianity most similar to Islam.