IN SACRIS vs. CIRCA SACRA

We will also encounter the question of CIRCA SACRA versus IN SACRIS. In all matters IN SACRIS the precepts are universally and perpetually binding. But nevertheless, 'there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. 1Co 11:13,14; 14:26,40' --- This is not just a modern feminist innovation. This is from ancient times, a bulwark STANDARD of fundamentalist Reformed Confessional Theology. But in these circumstances, if the reasons are universal and permanent enough to make it universally and perpetually binding, we shall in due time prove that these same precepts were just as applicable even BEFORE they were given as afterwards, and therefore are moral laws of nature. But if the statute is appealing to a circumstance peculiar to the Church qua duly appointed part of the religion {what Islam calls MUZDHAB, whereas DIN is more than just the divine office of worship, it is a SELF-COMPLETE duly prescribed and arbitrated mode of life as part of the duly appointed mode of the RELIGION, more like the Greek word DIAITA rather than the Greek word THRESKEIA} as part of the reason for the applicability of the rule, and it requires distinctions between settings as essential to the correct understanding of the rule, then this distinction must be precise, exact, and homogenous. It cannot be shifted around to suit the culture.


Now I am only speaking analogically concerning IN SACRIS and CIRCA SACRA: The “IN SACRIS” matters are those matters which are duly constituted elements of the DIN / MUZDHAB of Christianity in such a manner that you would expect it to peculiarly characterize it as the duly constituted religion properly and so-called; whereas the “CIRCA SACRA” matters are those matters addressed by the religion, in common with the circumstances of any civil or polite or social society, but really under the final jurisdiction of the laws of nature and reason.

If any matter of the religion can be adjusted to suit the culture, it must be a “CIRCA SACRA” matter, and the reasons inherent to that case must be sufficiently local and temporal enough to allow such a cultural accommodation.

Even if the matters are “CIRCA SACRA”, unless it can be proven from good and necessary consequence of Scripture, that the reasons UNIQUE to that case are sufficiently local and temporal enough to be changed or abrogated for the sake of cultural changes, distinctions between settings {and in the discussion of women silence in the church, distinctions commonly made between social settings are almost always SURE to turn up often} essential and critical to the correct understanding and the correct orthodoxy of the precept {which must be always presumed a priori to be permanent and universal exactly as written} must be exact, precise, universal, and uniform. It cannot be adjusted in order to suit changes in the culture, especially once they have become the subject of apostolic jurisdiction and the apostles appeal to the uniformity of church custom in applying this precept {even if such uniformity was observed independently of that precept}.
If any precept of the Christian religion is only local and culturally applicable, that is proof that it wasn’t originally intended as an IN SACRIS matter --- something which is a duly constituted element of Christianity in such a manner that you would expect it to peculiarly characterize it as the duly constituted religion properly and so-called, without relation to anything external or anything incidental to this subject matter. It is also a proof that it wasn’t intended for even a CIRCA SACRA universal and permanent moral law in itself.

But we need to prove both of these things. We need to prove first of all, that the nature of the reason adduced for the precept is that if it is a universally binding perpetual divine law of the religion, then it must be a CIRCA SACRA moral law of nature. Secondly, we must prove that the inherent nature of the subject matter discussed in the precept {construed independently of local and cultural circumstances} is insufficient to account for the reason why, in the event that it the precept in question hadn’t been revealed by God in His word, failure for this precept to even exist as a standing divinely binding law, let alone be applicable to that case, would lead to a de facto violation of the moral principles on which reason for the precept is based {i.e. the moral principles that are listed as the reason}.

What this means, is, admitting even if the REASON for the precept, namely, that women must be subject to men, were just as applicable to the voluntary assemblies Z*, as to the institutional assemblies E*, this is in itself not a sufficient proof that this principle of subjection would apply in such a manner to Z* sufficient to account for the reason WHY failing to apply this precept in Z* would lead to a de facto violation of that same principle which is admittedly applicable in Z*. And in fact, George Francis Wilkin has shown that the speaker in Z* is subject to the pleasure of his hearers, so the burden of proof is to show that, even if that precept in question hadn’t been revealed by God in His word, failure for this precept to be applied in Z* would still lead to a de facto violation of that same principle which is admittedly de jure applicable in Z*.

And every precept enforced in the Gospel and/or the Epistles of the Apostles that follows from good and necessary inference from its true proper and natural reasons being universally and perpetually binding and applicable, once they have been duly revealed at the duly appointed time, they become to the DIN/MUZDHAB {the duly revealed and formally constituted body of faith, morals, protocol, Divine Office of worship, Church Government & Gospel ministry} of Christianity as matters IN SACRIS {matters appertaining unto the worship of God peculiar to it as duly appointed Divine worship properly and so called} are unto the duly constituted Divine Office of Worship that Christ and His Apostles prescribed for standing stated and formal use in all duly constituted Christian churches. And therefore distinctions in settings or place essential to the correct understanding and orthodoxy of such laws and precepts must be uniform and exact and universally and permanently applicable. So therefore it cannot be changed or adjusted to suit the culture, or else that would impeach the wisdom of God in failing to have suitably adapted the DIN/MUZDHAD of Christianity for all needs, and not only are such changes illicit, but to allow changes like this would also allow changes in the ESSENCE of said precept to suit the culture: the EXISTENCE of that law would precede the ESSENCE. This my friend, is the unscriptural post-modern philosphy of EXISTENTIALISM. NO! We cannot and WILL NOT accept such a philosophy. The Bible teaches quite plainly that it is our ESSENCE, already devised by God even BEFORE the foundation of the world, that therefore precedes our EXISTENCE.

I will tell you more, later.