Tag: Doy Moyer

Posted on

Authority: Are We Worshipping the Bible? By: Doy Moyer

Picture
Sometimes, in discussions of biblical authority, we hear the derogatory charge that those of us who push so hard for authority are guilty of “bibliolatry,” idolizing or worshipping the Bible in particular. Since we put so much stress on the authority of Scripture, are we guilty of promoting Scripture over God Himself? Perhaps the better question is this: what is the relationship of God to Scripture?

Scripture is not simply words in black and white (and red) on a material page. There is nothing authoritative about simple words on a page by themselves. The issue is the source of the message that is written down. If we just coldly isolate the words and demand adherence to them without understanding their true relationship to God, then those who make the charge may have a point. On the other hand, making the charge could also be a subtle way of trying to distance oneself from Scripture. If Scripture really is authoritative because of its relationship to God, then there are restrictions to the way that we may acceptably serve God. If we can remove the restrictions by minimizing authority, then we will feel free to serve God as we please. In this sense, then, this issue may be more about self-will (or self-idolatry) versus God’s will. Who gets to decide how God should be served and worship?

The reason for believing that Scripture is authoritative is because of its relationship to God, not because it is someone’s creed from long ago written on paper. While this article is not about proving inspiration, the point should be understood: if Scripture comes ultimately from God, then it bears His authority. To the extent that Scripture is God’s word, then it is authoritative; if it isn’t His word, then it is no more authoritative than what any of us may come up with and put down on paper. That Scripture is from God is the very point reflected in Paul’s statement about the Hebrew Scriptures:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17).

If it falls into that category of “Scripture,” then it is authoritative because it is God-breathed. This is not the worship of the Bible, but rather the worship and service of the God from whom the Scriptures come. Now the question would be this: can we truly serve and worship God when we ignore or minimize the message that He has given? God is directly tied to His own word, and Scripture recognizes this:

“For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two- edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” (Heb 4:12-13)

Notice in this text how the writer moves from “the word of God” to God Himself. There is really no way to separate the authority of God from the authority of His word. “Then God said” are some of the first powerful words of Scripture (Gen 1), and from this point, “Thus says the Lord” is a continual appeal of the prophets. If the Lord said it, it is authoritative and is not to be ignored. “See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking” (Heb 12:25).

The word of God is not to be restricted only to written form, of course. The word of God has been much more than that which is recorded, and not every word God ever spoke (or everything He ever did) is recorded in our Scriptures (cf. John 21:25). Jesus Himself is the Word became flesh (John 1:1, 14). He is God’s message and communication in the greatest sense. But God’s message has been put down in writing, and that message is to be respected as much as anything the prophets, apostles, or even Jesus orally spoke.

The connection of Jesus to His words is vital: “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day” (John 12:48). If His “sayings” are written down on paper, does that make them any less authoritative and connected to Jesus? The words spoken by Jesus “are spirit and are life,” and He has the “words of eternal life” (John 6:63, 68). Whether these are heard orally or read from a book, they are still His words, His message, and His authority. “Lord, to whom shall we go?”

Indeed, where else shall we go for our authority? Shall we consider our own words more authoritative? Are our writings better than the first century New Testament documents? Where shall we go for the words of eternal life?  Is it worshipping the Bible if we give due respect to these words?

The reality is that if we don’t give Scripture its proper due when it comes to authority (as it is God’s authority), then we aren’t truly worshipping or serving God. To ignore God’s word is to ignore God Himself and give ourselves the authority that only belongs to Him. This isn’t about worshipping the Bible. It is about giving God the proper reverence and respect that only He deserves. We cannot give that respect to Him if we do not pay attention to the message that He inspired to be inscribed with ink on the pages of a material book. The material certainly won’t last, but the word of God will endure forever. If the word of the Lord uses the material for a time, then we are amenable to it and we will be held accountable. The word He spoke will judge us in the last day. Herein is the essence of the need for paying attention to His authority.

via: http://www.mindyourfaith.com/6/post/2013/11/authority-are-we-worshipping-the-bible.html

Posted on

Must Everything Be Specified To Be Authorized? by: Doy Moyer

Picture

In discussions of biblical authority, it is not uncommon for a conversation to zero in the question of specifics. One might argue the need for biblical authority, and another might then reply with questions like this:

Well, where is the authority for a church building?
Where is the authority for song books?
Where is the authority for a song leader?
Where is the authority for multiple cups for the Lord’s Supper?

None of these items are specified in Scripture, so on what grounds can we say they are authorized by Scripture? Sometimes those questions are legitimately coming from those who really desire the information and haven’t understood. At other times, however, those who bring up questions like this are actually making an argument against the need for biblical authority in all that we do. The implied argument is this:

Since we don’t have authority for church buildings and song books, then your argument for the need for authority either 1) shows that you are wrong, or 2) shows that you are being hypocritical. Since you obviously don’t have authority for everything (like buildings and song books), then your “method of establishing authority” is erroneous.

Though it sounds like a serious strike against authority, those who use this point as an argument misunderstand the basic nature of authority, primarily because they are not being consistent with the way communication works in every facet of life. Here, then, is the the question: must everything we do be specified in order to be authorized?

The answer is “no.” Now the question is, on what basis can we argue that we must have authority on the one hand, but we don’t always need specified statements on the other hand? How can something be authorized if it is not specified?

Once again, the answer to this question goes back to the fundamentals of logic and communication. By doing this, we can avoid making arbitrary rules about authority that fit what we like, and instead we can be grounded in the actual communication process that functions logically everywhere. In other words, this is not just some biblical rule we are making up, but rather it is how communication works in all areas and we are simply recognizing its function in biblical application. The beauty of this is that we already know how it works.

Think about the communication process. We have elsewhere pointed out that we make our wills known to others by telling them what we want, showing them what we want, and implying what we expect them to understand. Are there any other ways to communicate without using these? Now then virtually all telling and showing imply other factors that are not specified. For example, if I told my son to take out the garbage, without any further statements, I am implying that he can choose how to do that. Though I didn’t specify every action involved (walk over to the cabinet, open the cabinet door where the trash is, pull the trash out, tie the garbage bag, pull it out of the can, walk to the outside door, open it with your hand, go to the outside garbage cans, open the lid of the one on the right, drop the bag into the big can … you get the idea!), I implied that as long as he does what I asked, he has some freedom in carrying out the task. I don’t need to specify every single action in order to make my will known, and he has some freedom in carrying out my will. Which door he goes out, which hand he uses to open the door, how long he takes to do it, whether he uses a hand truck, etc. are all part of the choices he makes along the way. Without further orders or specifications, these choices were all “authorized” by the simple order to take out the garbage.

This principle falls under the category of what we typically think of as general authority. Something can be generally authorized by a more specific statement. If I tell my daughter, “Go buy some bread,” there are both specific and general indicators. If that is all I said, then there are several actions that are permissible. She may “go” any number of ways: walk, ride a bike, drive a car, etc. She might even be able to purchase a couple of ways: use cash, swipe a debit card, etc. That would depend on what she had or what I give her. She might buy any number of types of bread: wheat, white, sourdough, rye, etc. On the other hand, the situation may imply that I expect a certain type of bread. We might have just run out of wheat bread for sandwiches, and the circumstances show that I am implying that this is what I want her to buy. Even then, when she goes to the store, since I didn’t specify the brand name, she is free to pick up whatever she wishes … unless, of course, we always only buy one brand and she already knows this.

When we communicate, there are many factors that need consideration. What we bring to the table as communicators, and what the recipient of the communication brings to the table need to be factored into the process. Further, the context under which the communication occurred must be considered. Most of this we unconsciously accept and we don’t typically need it spelled out. We already know how it works.

When Scripture commands that we go teach and preach, the general entails the specific ways in which we can fulfill these commands. Whether we walk, ride, fly, or drive, we are still going. The fact that the Lord did not specify this part leaves us open to any number of ways of going. When we know it is the Lord’s will that Christians meet together on the first day of the week, a variety of places to meet are included in fulfilling this. The general nature of the order allows for the options.

We must also be mindful of another important principle that we learn from the communication process: the more specific something is, the less freedom we have; the more general something is, the more freedom we have.

Again, this is not an arbitrary rule for Bible authority, but it is a principle of the communication process. If I tell my wife to buy me a red pen for grading papers, I surely don’t mean to get me a blue one or a black one. Red is specific enough to rule out the other colors for my purposes. On the other hand, if I just asked for any pen, it is general enough to allow for all colors. The principle is fundamental and logical.

The principle works the same in biblical communication. In the Hebrew Scriptures, we find the principle at work. “Gopher wood” was far more specific than “wood.” “Levites” as a term is more specific than “people,” and the family was Aaron is more specific than “Levites” for priests. The specifics of the tabernacle were clear and didn’t allow for much variety. In the New Testament documents, we find the same principle. There are many ways to sing, but “sing” is specific enough to mean just that, as opposed to a more general “make music” (Eph. 5:19). “Fruit of the vine” is more specific than “drink.” “Bread” is more specific than “food.” The principle is logical and found everywhere.

Since not everything must be specified, does all of this mean that we are free to do whatever we want to?

General authority does not equate to “whatever we want.” If the command is general, we must still obey the command within boundaries. Going back to the store with my daughter, I might be general in asking her to buy bread, but she must still buy bread instead of whatever else she wanted. Even if I said, “Buy whatever food you think we might like for dinner,” she still needs to come home with food. A general order allows for more variety in carrying it out, but variety does not mean fundamentally changing what the general order expresses. If I ask for a writing instrument, then a pen or pencil will work, but if someone hands me a rock to write with, the point will have been missed.

Not everything needs to be specified in order to be authorized. Therefore, when some argue that the authority argument insists that everything must be specified, they are misunderstanding the nature of the argument, if not the process of communication. Authority is grounded in fundamental logic and communication. Such communication includes the way we both specify and generalize our desires. God has communicated with us in the same way. Since we already know how it works, we are simply making the application to the communication that comes from Scripture.

Doy Moyer

Via: http://www.mindyourfaith.com/6/post/2013/11/must-everything-be-specified-to-be-authorized.html

Posted on

Worship, Equivocation, and the “Argument of the Beard”, by Doy Moyer

Picture

In discussions about worship, I am finding at least two fallacies that are being floated (and are related). I want to spell them out in order to be clear about the nature of the problem I want to address.

1. The reductive fallacy sometimes called the “argument of the beard” is a failure to properly distinguish degrees of concepts and terms (“degree” is the key term here).(1) When is a beard a beard? After one day? Two days? Five days? How exactly do we tell? If we cannot tell with any certainty, then there must be no difference. If the distinction isn’t clear, then no distinction is to be made. For example, one might say that since there is a little good and a little evil in everyone, then there is no real difference between someone who is good and someone who is truly evil.

2. The fallacy of equivocation is one of the most common ones and occurs when the same term is used in two or more senses, but without recognizing it. When in the course of an argument a word shifts in meaning, but the argument proceeds as if the original definition is still in use, then this fallacy is committed. For example, one might argue that since evolution means change over time, then evolution (macro) must be true. “Evolution” is equivocated because the meaning shifted.

It is important to understand that making distinctions in terminology is not “verbalism” or “getting hung up on words.” In fact, it is just the opposite; it avoids “being victimized by words.” As Kreeft says, “The reason we make distinctions is because we insist on going beyond unclear words to clear concepts.”(2)

The issue I am raising is that we hear these kind of fallacies made in some discussions about biblical worship. Either the lines are blurred in the terminology or the term is equivocated (worship as sacrifice in general or worship as specified actions when assembled). Here I am not talking so much about technical definitions (as if a strict definition of the Greek terms will settle the issue). I’m talking more about how the term “worship” is actually used in different contexts (“all of life” or a particular, purposed assembly).

We have heard the argument that “all of life is worship,” based on passages like Romans 12:1 (which uses latreia, service). I won’t quibble over the question of whether a sacrifice is a form of worship, and so I would agree that there is a sense in which this point is true. All that we do is to be to God’s glory, reflecting a self-sacrificial mentality that seeks God’s praise. Our lives are to be lived in adoration to God as we proclaim His excellencies (1 Pet 2:9). Worship certainly is not confined to four walls one day of the week (cf. Jas 5:13). How, then, are the above fallacies made? Please note the following statements that express the sentiment of arguments I’ve seen and heard in my experience:

1. Since “all of life” is worship, then there is no real difference between the rest of life and the so-called worship assemblies.

2. Since “all of life” is worship, then worship is not something for a set time and place with any kind of pattern attached to it.

The first example is a form of the “argument of the beard”; the second is equivocation. Is there a difference between “all of life” in the broad sense, and specific actions at a certain time and place that are called worship? Here is where the mistake is made. If all of life is worship, then, it might be reasoned by some, there is really no difference to be made in coming together in an assembly for worship other than just being a part of life. Worship in an assembly, then, is not based on any patterns, so we can do in our assemblies what we would do in any other context. There is no real difference. The distinctions are blurred. There is nothing particularly special about worship in an assembly context. In fact, it’s not really worship as much as it is encouragement for each other.

Concepts of “worship” are distinguished in Scripture, which shows that worship can be a purposeful act aside from “all of life.” Paul went up to Jerusalem “to worship” (Acts 24:11, which uses proskuneo, to bow down, show reverence). Abraham went up the mountain to worship (Gen 22:5). Worship, in this sense, is something that has a starting and stopping point, a time and place. We can go “to worship” (which is active). As such, it is distinguished from normal activities of life—the same activities that are part of our daily self-sacrifice to God. If no distinction is to be made, then why do the Scriptures make one? Wasn’t Paul already worshipping with his life when he went up to Jerusalem to worship?

The question is, do we, in our assemblies, have specified actions God wants us to do together that may be called worship? Can we not call singing praises to God worship (Eph 5:19-20)? Or giving thanks and praise in prayer together? Even an unbeliever, if convicted in an assembly, might “fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you” (1 Cor 14:25). Yes, worship can take place in a special way, distinguished from the idea that “all of life is worship.” No, the exact Greek term for “worship” need not be used to recognize this is what it is (“praise,” for example, would make the same point).

Some of the talk about worship seems to be a reaction to what many have, through the years, called “the five acts of worship” in assemblies. I’ve never been a fan of that terminology, and I feel no need to try to put all of this in a neat little box just for rhetorical purposes. Some of what we do in assemblies is meant for edification of each other (preaching, teaching), and so one might question whether or not such is “worship” in a strict sense. The question is, what do we see Christians doing together in the context of a purposefully assembled congregation? 1 Corinthians 14 is sufficient to show that they did worship God together in song and prayer. They did teach and edify. They did partake of the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor 11:18ff). These were purposeful, specific actions they performed in assemblies as a congregation meeting for that purpose, and abuses were chastised. Not everything was acceptable to God in those assemblies.

What’s the reason of all this? Even if one wants to argue that “all of life is worship” based on the need to be living sacrifices, such does not negate the need to assemble with saints on the first day of the week for purposeful actions of worship and edification together, as authorized by God and according to His grace. We cannot excuse ourselves from being part of a group on the basis that “all of life is worship,” nor can we use our purposed assembly times to just do whatever we wish based on a failure to distinguish concepts of worship. God is always in charge of His worship, and we are still responsible for following His will when we come together in those purposed assemblies.

Make your life a life of worship, but also make the assemblies with the saints a special time of worship and edification. Never neglect one for the other, but strive to keep your life and worship in harmony. If our lives really are worshipful, then our assemblies together will truly be special as we raise our voices as one in praise and seek to teach and edify each other for deeper growth in knowledge and spirituality.

1. Geisler, Norman, and Ronald M. Books. Come, Let us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990.

2. Kreeft, Peter. Socratic Logic. 3rd ed. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine, 2008.

Doy Moyer
Posted on

Going “to Worship”, by Doy Moyer

The phrase is biblical. The basic idea of worship is to do reverence or bow down and pay homage to another. From this general concept, some have argued that worship is just everything we do as Christians rather than particular “acts of worship” (a phrase that has been disparaged). Instead, it is supposed to be our lifestyles as worship (“lifestyle” is one of those loaded terms). While it is vital that we sacrifice ourselves for the Lord (Rom 12:1-2), and we recognize that all of life is to be lived in reverence to God (and in that sense worship), the concept of worship in Scripture is used in an even more specific sense as intended actions. Paul speaks of going up to Jerusalem “to worship” (24:11). Worship is said to have an “object” (Acts 17:23; 2 Thess 2:4), who is supposed to be God only. Worship can be in ignorance if not directed specifically to the right One (Acts 17:23), and it can be “in vain” if merely on the lips but not in the heart (Matt 15:8-9). But if worship is just life in general, then wasn’t Paul already worshipping went he went up to Jerusalem “to worship”? Why would he want to go to Jerusalem “to worship” if it was just his lifestyle as worship? Unless there was some intended action he had in mind, this would make no sense.

It is true that any worship of God is to be an extension of who we are (i.e., not out of character for us), but it is still something we do with specific actions in addition to how we generally live. This is not about worship being confined to a church building. It is about intended and specified actions as worship, whether individually or together.

The Hebrew writer said, “let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name” (Heb 13:15). Singing praise to God is worship as it renders special homage to God, whether done individually or with others (Jas 5:13; Eph 5:19-20; Col 3:16). Surely this also may be said about our prayers of praise (e.g., Acts 4:24ff). The praise Psalms should be sufficient to see that. If we speak of going “to worship,” do we not have in mind these very actions?

So, yes we can go “to worship” God as our divine object (an object with whom we share a fellowship), rendering praise to Him in a special way through songs and prayers. Our lives are to be consistent with this, but living our “lives as worship” does not entail foregoing the specific actions. Rather, those actions, especially when we are together, are only enhanced when done by those whose very lives are given as living sacrifices.

Doy Moyer

 

Via: http://www.mindyourfaith.com/6/post/2013/10/going-to-worship.html

%d bloggers like this: