The heart of Christian worship is the act of asking for forgiveness of sin because the shed blood of Jesus alone washes it away, and because the spotless righteousness of Christ covers our unrighteousness.  This conviction of sin arises from a reading of God’s law with opportunity given for all those present to confess their sins, before hearing a biblical word of pardon and assurance.  This should tied to the present intercessory work of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of the Father interceding for his people, making a defense for his own before the Father (1 John 1:7-2:2).

For the Reformers, Recovering the Gospel Also Meant Recovery of Proper Worship [1]. 
The Reformers understood that the recovery of the gospel was directly connected to proper Christian worship.  John Calvin, for one, saw his own conversion and subsequent work of reform tied directly to the removal of all forms of Roman idolatry (especially the mass) from Christian worship.  The centrality of the gospel to the life of the church must be made manifest in the pure worship of God.  This meant a Word-centered liturgy in which biblical texts were preached upon, biblical exhortations and commands were made clear, and biblical promises made to the people of God were to be read for their comfort and assurance.  As one writer puts it, “the recovery of the gospel in the Reformation was ultimately a worship war–a war against the idols, a war for the pure worship of God.”[2]  Our worship must reflect our gospel, and our gospel must define our worship.
The Reformers Sought to “Reform” the Church’s Worship
While affirming Sola Scriptura and striving to base all liturgical reform on biblical principles of worship, the Reformers carefully considered the practices of the ancient church and the teaching of the church fathers when revising the liturgies they inherited.  The goal was to reform the church’s ancient liturgies by striping them of all unbiblical additions, not to compose entirely new liturgies from scratch.  “New” and “contemporary” when used in the Reformed tradition in connection to worship, are therefore best understood as “reforming” (i.e., removing all unbiblical accretions, as well as adding those things which are missing), not replacing the ancient liturgies with contemporary fads grounded in popular preferences.
Martin Luther stated that his intention was to not to abolish, but to cleanse the liturgies of “wicked additions” (i.e., Roman inventions) and recover their proper (pious) use.  Calvin too sought to remove Roman additions made to the liturgies of the ancient church, which is why his Genevan liturgy (The Form of Ecclesiastical Prayers) was subtitled “According to the Custom of the Ancient Church.”  Like Luther, he was no innovator, but a “Reformer.”  It was said of Heinrich Bullinger (the Reformed pastor in Zurich and a contemporary of Calvin) that he restored “all things to the first and simplest form of the most ancient, and indeed apostolic tradition.”[3]  It is fair to say that “tradition mattered to the Reformers.  It was the living faith of the dead, not the dead faith of the living.” [4] 
Returning to the ancient ways meant, in part, incorporating the reading of the Ten Commandments (or “law” texts from throughout the Scriptures), using the Lord’s Prayer (either recited or as a model for prayer), reciting the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds, God’s people thereby confessing the orthodox faith while effectively uniting the church of the present to the people of God of the past—the so-called “cloud of witnesses” mentioned in Hebrews 12:1.
Reformed Worship Is Catholic but Not Roman
The Reformers took seriously the charge from the church father Cyprian (c. 210-258), “You can no longer have God for your Father, if you do have not the church for your mother.”[5]  Calvin expanded on Cyprian’s comment, explaining,
Let us learn even from the simple title `mother’ how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her.  For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels (Matthew 22:30).  Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives.  Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah (Isaiah 37:32)  and Joel (2:32) testify.[6] 
For Calvin, one finds the Word of God proclaimed and the sacraments properly administered in the church.  Since word and sacrament are essential to a healthy Christian life, the Christian must seek these things where they can be found.  They cannot be found in false churches (i.e., Rome), nor in our age in entrepreneurial churches which are the institutional facade of their charismatic leader, nor in the various so-called “ministries” which mimic the church’s biblical activities but exist apart from all ties to local churches.  Those who claim to be Christians, but who have no connection to a local church (or who do not see the importance of joining a local church) need to be reminded that the New Testament knows nothing of a professing Christian who is not a member (or seeking to become one) of a faithful congregation where the proper elements of worship can be found.
Read More
Related Posts:

Asaph therefore highlights just one sacrifice as essential: “Offer to God thanksgiving” (Ps. 50:14). Literally, he says, “make a thank offering.” According to OT law, a thank offering was offered in the context of a believer’s gratitude, when a person was grateful for deliverance from enemies or for healing or for some other answered prayer. A thank offering acknowledged to God that you were indebted to His generosity and kindness. Still today, that is what God seeks: a people who are moved by His great love in Christ, and who want to love Him in return.

What do you get for the person who has everything?

This is the problem whenever world leaders get together. Say the president of the United States has hosted the prime minister of Canada for a few days of high-level talks. When the PM leaves, it would be discourteous not to give the president a thank-you gift. But what’s a suitable present for the most powerful person in the world, someone with no shortage of earthly resources?

We experience a similar problem when thanking God.

We ought to worship God for all He has given us in Christ. But what worthwhile thing could we ever present? The almighty God doesn’t need our prayers, songs, or gifts. So how should we regard our gratitude to the Lord? 

In Psalm 50 Asaph instructs us about the true spirit of thanksgiving. In the psalm’s background is the Israelite practice of bringing a variety of gifts to God at the temple. God wanted these sacrifices, for He told His people to bring fellowship offerings, sin offerings, thank offerings, and guilt offerings.

And for their part, Israel had been scrupulous in worship. God says,

I will not rebuke you for your sacrifices

Or your burnt offerings,

Which are continually before Me. (v. 8)

He takes no issue with the outward form of their worship. 

Read More
Related Posts:

No one has the authority to say it is permissible to willingly violate the Lordship of Christ as expressed in His Word. So ultimately, this issue is about the authority of the Word of God and the authority of Christ Himself. I will not make a biblical case for complementarianism in this article. But I must reiterate that the failure to pass the Law Amendment was a massive failure on the part of the SBC to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The SBC has a biblical authority problem.

At the end of his life, Charles Spurgeon faced a great controversy in the Baptist Union, which he called the “downgrade.” The Baptist Union would even censure him for his outspoken warnings against it in his magazine, The Sword and the Trowel. The Baptist Union would go on to adopt a compromised doctrinal statement on biblical inerrancy by a vote of 2000 to 7.
Evidence of Downgrade
By God’s grace, the Southern Baptist Convention is nowhere close to that type of compromise. However, the evidence of theological downgrade within the Convention is present. How can I utter such a statement when nearly everyone within the SBC affirms biblical inerrancy? The downgrade in the twenty-first century evangelical church is not primarily over inerrancy but on biblical authority—specifically on the issues related to human sexuality. It is at this point that Satan is attacking. At this year’s Convention in Indianapolis, a super-majority of 66% was needed to pass the so-called “Law Amendment,” which delineates that partnering churches should only have qualified men serving in the office of “pastor” or with the title of “pastor.” Specifically, the amendment proposed adding this clause to the SBC Constitution:
Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.
Unfortunately, the amendment did not pass, receiving a solid 61% of the vote but failing to reach the super-majority of 66%, which was needed. The bright side is that there is a broad majority within the SBC, which stands as thoroughly complementarian and affirming biblical authority in the area of men’s and women’s roles. The bad news is that nearly 39% of the Convention voted against the amendment. Arguments were made that there are better ways to convince churches to comply with the SBC’s doctrinal commitments. Or there is just a problem with nomenclature and not theology (I am not sure how you can legitimately argue that a title in a church is not theological). My friend, David Schrock, does a very helpful job of summarizing all the more egalitarian-leaning arguments against the amendment here.
However, these arguments fail to consider what the Bible plainly states about the issue. The question is really about biblical authority and Christ’s Lordship over His church, or in this case, a denomination.
Read More
Related Posts: