The Regulative Principle of Worship in Theological Perspective
Posted by deangonzales on August 9, 2010
23 Comments
In two previous posts the doctrine known as the “Regulative Principle of Worship” (RPW) was examined from the perspective of historical theology and from the perspective of exegetical theology. In this post, we’ll look at the RPW from the perspective of systematic theology. A number of specific concerns relative to the systematic formulation of the Regulative Principle will be discussed, with a view to the practical implementation of the Principle.
The Biblical Basis of the Regulative Principle
The biblical basis of the RPW has at least four parts. First, it can be demonstrated from specific texts and passages in the Bible.1 Second, the Principle can be demonstrated from the regulation of worship throughout redemptive history. Divine worship has always been regulated by revelation, though not uniformly.2 There is a conspicuous absence of detail both prior to Sinai and subsequently under the New Covenant. Like other periods in redemptive history, worship under the New Covenant is regulated by divine revelation, but not exactly in the same way. Under the Old Covenant the place, people, and particulars of the centralized worship were precisely regulated.3 Under the New Covenant, both Christ and His people are the places, priests, and sacrifices of acceptable worship. Therefore, New Covenant worship isn’t regulated with anything like the detailed precision of the centralized worship of the Old Covenant. The detail of the tabernacle and its worship was necessary, at the very least, because it was intended to be a copy of heavenly things (Hebrews 8:4, 5). The detail of the Temple worship was necessary, at the very least, because it was a prophecy of Christ and His people (temple, priests, sacrifice).4 Notwithstanding these variations, worship has always been regulated in some way by the Word of God throughout redemptive history. It is no different now during the New Covenant era. Third, the Principle rests upon the nature of Scripture. Scripture is the Word of God, expired out of His mouth (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16). It is therefore divinely authoritative, amply sufficient, and sufficiently clear. When Scripture speaks to the issue of worship, it does so with divine authority. It tells us what we need to know about acceptable worship, and it tells us with sufficient clarity. We do not need to add to it or supplement it in any way, and we dare not take away from it. At the same time, Scripture is compatible with both reason and tradition.5 The denial of the Regulative Principle effectively calls into question the authority, sufficiency, and clarity of Scripture.
Fourth, the Principle can be demonstrated from its necessity. The RPW is necessary for at least three reasons. First, it is necessary because of the sobering reality of human sinfulness and spiritual blindness. Even as redeemed people, we need guidance in worship, as in other things, because of the presence of remaining sin. Since the fall, men are idolaters by nature. Worship we will, but left to ourselves, we cannot worship God in the right way. Human traditions and practices constantly threaten to intrude upon the worship of God. When they gain entrance, they invariably tend to supplant what God has appointed for acceptable worship (1 Kings 12:25-33; 2 Kings 16:10-18; Matthew 15:1-9). For these reasons, God has made redemptive provisions for our worship. Since the fall, acceptable worship is the proper response to those provisions. What constitutes a proper response depends upon where we are in redemptive history.6 Second, the RPW is necessary because it is possible to offer unacceptable worship. Some worship is acceptable. Some is not. This inescapable reality forces us to grapple with how we can know the difference. How do we discover what worship is acceptable to God and what is not? We can know this only from divine revelation. God Himself must tell us. Third, the RPW is necessary, because of God’s sovereignty. It is the prerogative of God alone to determine the terms on which sinners may approach Him in worship.7 The denial of the RPW therefore calls into question the supreme divine authority of God.
Defining the Regulative Principle
The RPW can be defined both historically and biblically.8 We should not assume that these definitions are always the same. While historical formulations are a helpful guide, they must never be accorded an authority equal to Scripture. They always remain subject to Scriptural authority and examination. This perspective is essential to the doctrine of sola Scriptura.
Historically, the RPW has been defined in this way: “With regard to worship, whatever is commanded in Scripture is required. Whatever is not commanded is forbidden.”9 According to advocates of this definition, what is commanded includes biblically sanctioned examples and good and necessary consequences as well as explicit commands.10 William Young is very precise in defining the RPW in this way:
The silence of Scripture is as real a prohibition as a positive injunction to abstain…We may contrast this principle with the ambiguously stated principle that God is to be worshiped according to His Word…Whatever has not been commanded is prohibited….that which may be derived by good and necessary consequences from the express statements of Scripture is no less binding than an express command itself. Approved example has equal validity with a direct command, and even where approved example and express command may both be lacking or uncertain, as in the baptism of infants, necessary inference from the doctrine and commandments plainly set forth in Scripture may sufficiently warrant a practice of worship.11
The RPW can also be defined in another way: “With regard to worship, we may do only what is prescribed (instituted, warranted, or authorized) by the Word of God.”12 According to this definition, Scripture alone must regulate worship. The question is, how? The answer depends, in part, on how one defines the terms ‘prescribed,’ ‘instituted,’ ‘warranted,’ and ‘authorized.’ Some define these terms according to the historical definition. For them, these terms are synonymous with command, example, or consequence. Others, however, are cautious about understanding them in this way. Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. observes,
The word “prescribed” has frequently led to the types of narrow assertions listed above, i.e., that we ought not to sing songs other than the Psalms or to use musical instruments in worship. A more helpful formulation of the regulative principle is: “We must have positive biblical support for all that we do in worship.”13
Some would undoubtedly contend that “positive biblical support” for a worship practice is not a sufficient basis for it. We must do in worship only what is commanded, not merely what can be supported from Scripture, or, as Ralph. J. Gore, Jr. puts it, what is consistent with Scripture.14 The distinctions among definitions may be viewed in terms of the difference between ‘may’ and ‘must.’ Many would argue that acceptable worship isn’t a matter of what we may do, but what we must do; not what is allowed, but what is required. The question of worship is not, “Why not?”; the question of worship is, “Why?” In other words, we need a reason to do what we do in worship, not a rationalization for it.
Distinguishing historical from biblical definitions suggests a possible distinction between the Westminster standards and the Bible. Those who see little distinction between them are sometimes charged with tending to place the Confession on a par with Scripture. Those who see a greater distinction are open to the charge of failing to uphold confessional standards.15 It is dangerous and unwise to assume that historical and biblical definitions of the RPW are identical at every point. Ironically, the RPW, which is intended to safeguard sola Scriptura, can also tend to undermine it when it is defined more narrowly than Scripture does. It is possible to add to the Word of God, not only by including things which don’t belong, but also by prohibiting things which may be included. Both are impositions on the Word.
In attempting to define the RPW, several questions call for attention. Is the RPW, as historically defined, a principle derived from Scripture that only applies to some things (i.e. worship at one or more levels)? If so, both the principle itself and its limitation must be demonstrated from Scripture.16 Is the Regulative Principle, as historically defined, a principle distinct from sola Scriptura or is it an application of sola Scriptura? If the former, then the basis for a regulating principle distinct from sola Scriptura must be demonstrated from Scripture. If the latter, then, again, its limitation to worship must be demonstrated from Scripture.17
All who are committed to Scriptural worship agree that Scripture alone is the final rule and guide for acceptable worship. This is the RPW. But how does Scripture regulate worship? If, on the one hand, we respond by saying that we must do in worship only what is commanded in Scripture, we must qualify and explain what we mean, for, as we’ve seen, example and consequence, in addition to explicit command, are also legitimate bases for worship practices. Further, worship elements and ordinances must be distinguished from circumstances in order to properly determine what the command mandate specifically applies to. On the other hand, if we respond by saying that if something isn’t prohibited, we might do it, there are still many questions about what is or is not acceptable in worship.18 Both the Reformed and Lutheran/Anglican approaches are attempts to state in a simple way what is not so simple in real-world applications. There are elements of truth in both positions. People with high views of Scripture are found on both sides of the question.19 As we explore this matter further, caution is in order, for much is at stake here, not the least of which is the glory of God and the spiritual health of the church.
The Qualification of the Regulative Principle
All who are committed to Scriptural worship agree that we must do in worship whatever is commanded, and that we must not do in worship whatever is prohibited. This much is clear. Difficulty comes, however, with items that fall into neither category, of which there are not a few. What should be done in the case of things that are neither commanded nor prohibited?20
Historically, the resolution of this question has been attempted, with more or less success, by introducing the categories of ‘elements’ and ‘circumstances.’21 The elements of worship have been defined as those items that are warranted by the explicit commands of Scripture, approved examples in Scripture, and good and necessary consequences deduced from Scripture. Circumstances have been defined as the incidentals of worship, things that are “common to human actions and societies.” Circumstances are subject to the general principles of Scripture, the light of nature, and Christian prudence.22 According to the traditional view, the RPW applies to elements, not circumstances.
The distinction between elements and circumstances arises from the recognition that the RPW (as historically defined) cannot be consistently applied to every detail of worship without becoming unworkable. It is impossible to practice unless some qualifications are made. God hasn’t given explicit directions for every detail of worship. Some things are left to human judgment.23 Therefore some attempt must be made to determine to what items the RPW applies.
This approach to the application of the Regulative Principle raises an important question. Scripture applies to absolutely everything, including worship. The Regulative Principle does not.24 Unavoidably, this means that we must apply Scripture in a particular way to worship, and in another way to other things. The question is whether this is a Scriptural idea. Does the Bible teach that it should be applied in one way to some things and in another way to other things?
Things that are neither commanded nor prohibited have sometimes been designated as ‘adiaphora.’25 By definition, the adiaphora are things that are morally indifferent or neutral. In one sense, the term is somewhat misleading since nothing in the Christian life is morally neutral in an absolute sense. No one, not even advocates of the adiaphora concept, consistently considers the adiaphora to be totally disconnected from Scripture.26 Some reject the idea of the adiaphora while others make generous use of it.27 Regardless of how broad or narrow one’s view of the adiaphora might be, the traditional view of the Regulative Principle (“we only do what is commanded”) can produce a tendency to assess some circumstantial matters according to the rule for determining elements, and thus exclude them from worship because there is no explicit command for them.28
As we’ve already seen, the distinction between elements and circumstances is extremely helpful, but it doesn’t answer all questions.29 There has not always been agreement about how to define these categories or what they include. Consequently, there has been a good amount of confusion and disagreement about a number of matters relative to God’s worship such as the propriety of offerings, what should be the posture of the worshipers during worship, the propriety and format of corporate prayer meetings, what should be sung, the use of benedictions, whether instrumental accompaniment should be used and, if so, what kind(s), the use of nurseries, and the frequency of observing the Lord’s Supper,30 to name but a few examples.
In his Christian Ecclesiastics,31 Richard Baxter addresses a number of important questions relative to things that are neither commanded nor prohibited: What additions to the commands of Scripture are lawful or unlawful?32 When is it right or wrong to obey additions to Scripture?33 What evils arise from unlawful additions to Scripture and, on the other side, what evils arise from making Scripture a rule where it is not?34 How do we distinguish examples in Scripture that can be applied to us today from those that cannot?35
We have seen that biblically sanctioned examples provide warrant for acceptable worship under the New Covenant. However, not all biblically sanctioned examples do. Many things were done with God’s approval in the early church that aren’t necessarily binding on Christians today. Examples include the common purse (Acts 2:44, 45), head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:2-16), the holy kiss (1 Corinthians 16:20), making provision for widows when they reach age sixty (1 Timothy 5:9), and elders praying over the sick and anointing them with oil (James 5:14). While most of these don’t have to do with corporate worship, they are concerned with the church as a whole.36
In connection with the qualification of the RPW, consider 1 Timothy 2:8, 9. One interpretation of these verses is that women should not be allowed to lead in prayer in mixed prayer meetings.37 If we strip away the qualifying phrases, Paul wants the men to pray, and the women to adorn (clothe) themselves. If that means that the women shouldn’t pray, then it must mean that the men shouldn’t clothe themselves—certainly an invalid conclusion in view of the analogy of Scripture, not to mention Christian prudence! Of course all should wear clothing. Why, then, shouldn’t all pray? Clearly, Paul isn’t addressing here so much the who as the how of prayer and dress.38 Men should pray with integrity. Women should dress modestly.
Most serious Bible students agree that arguments from silence are inconclusive. Neither doctrine nor practice should be based on arguments from silence alone. Is it not an argument from silence to say that something is prohibited because it isn’t commanded? It would be an argument from silence to insist that something is commanded because it isn’t prohibited. Most would recoil from the latter idea but not the former. Why? One might answer by saying that if we command what God hasn’t commanded, we add to His commands, which is wrong. True enough. But do we not also add to God’s commands by prohibiting what He hasn’t prohibited? Richard Hooker argues for the legitimacy of some actions not explicitly warranted by the Scriptures. He cautions against the use of arguments from the silence of Scripture and challenges the idea that Scripture denies what it does not teach.39
By now it should be clear that determining what is acceptable in worship isn’t always an easy matter. The difficulty forces us to grapple with an important question: Are the explicit commands of Scripture, biblically sanctioned examples, and good and necessary consequences the only legitimate warrant for Christian action, whether in worship or other things?
The Scope of the Regulative Principle
Tied to this question is an equally important concern: the scope of the Regulative Principle. To what and how far should it be applied? To worship only, or beyond? If to worship only, then to the church’s worship only, or to worship at other levels?
At the outset of this discussion, the biblical precedent for special meetings for corporate worship under the New Covenant must be established. In one sense, all of life is worship under the New Covenant.40 This fact, however, eliminates neither the mandate nor the need for special meetings for corporate worship. The Bible makes a distinction between worship as a way of life (Romans 12:1; 1 Corinthians 10:31) and worship as a formal act of devotion to God (John 4:23, 24; 1 Corinthians 14:23-26).41 As we saw earlier, there is plenty of evidence for special worship meetings in the New Testament (Matthew 18:20; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:17, 18, 33, 34; 14:23-26).42
Some advocates of the “all-of-life-is-worship” view tend to downplay the necessity and importance of special meetings for worship. They also tend to flatten the distinction of the Lord’s Day from other days of the week. On the other hand, advocates of the traditional RPW generally have high views of special meetings for corporate worship, and of the Lord’s Day as the divinely appointed day for those meetings. While acknowledging that Scripture does apply to all departments of life, they are adamant in limiting the application of the Regulative Principle to worship. Scripture doesn’t compel us to choose absolutely between these two views. There are elements of truth in both.
Those who hold to the traditional view of the RPW argue that “the Regulative-Principle-applies-to-all-of-life” view destroys it.43 They are correct. It is impossible to apply the Regulative Principle, as traditionally defined, to all of life without destroying Christian liberty.44 As we saw previously,45 there has been considerable disagreement about the scope of the RPW, even among its traditional advocates. Some restrict its application exclusively to the worship of the church. Others expand the scope of its application to the church as a whole; others to include private and family worship in the home; others, who depart from the traditional view, to include all of life. As the scope of the traditional Regulative Principle’s application is broadened, Christian liberty suffers. Diagram A (below) represents this graphically. Each concentric circle represents the scope of the Regulative Principle’s application. As one moves from the center toward the outermost circle of application, there is an increasing loss of Christian liberty.46
Diagram A
Rather than say that the RPW applies to spheres beyond formal worship, it would be more accurate to say that Scripture applies to all these spheres. Scripture regulates all of life, including worship. To the extent that Scripture speaks to any concern, it regulates it; in some instances, more rigidly than others. But does it regulate any one concern or group of concerns by a set of principles different from those by which it regulates others?
Some openly admit that corporate worship involves a different hermeneutic. T. David Gordon writes, “In point of fact, however, the regulative principle does provide a different heremeneutic.”47 Ernest C. Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen assert,
The regulative principle is cabined to worship only. Advocates of its use recognize that, in every other area of life, Christians are under the liberty of the normative principle. In this sense, the regulative principle is an exception to the doctrine of Christian liberty.48
John M. Frame writes, “Many in the Reformed tradition, have insisted that there is a separate regulative principle for worship alone, narrower and more stringent than God’s regulation of the rest of life.”49 Elsewhere, Frame, commenting on the “eloquent semicolon” in 20:2 of the Westminster Confession, expresses the traditional Reformed view in this way:
In most areas of life, we may adopt the principle that “whatever is not forbidden is permitted”; but in faith and worship we must adopt the stricter principle that “whatever is not commanded is forbidden.” In effect, the confession tells us to follow something like RP2 [the Lutheran-Catholic principle] in most of life’s decisions, but to follow RP1 [the Reformed principle] in matters of faith and worship.50
The plainness of these statements by Gordon, Reisinger, Allen, and Frame highlights a key issue in connection with the application of the RPW: Is there one hermeneutic for all of life and a separate hermeneutic for worship, or one and the same hermeneutic for everything? Does Scripture itself identify a distinct and separate hermeneutic for worship? Does Scripture itself teach that the Regulative Principle applies to worship, and the Normative Principle applies to everything else?51
A simple syllogism may help to clarify:
Major Premise: Scripture regulates all of life.
Minor Premise: Corporate worship is a part of life.
Conclusion: Scripture regulates corporate worship.
This syllogism suggests several questions. How does Scripture regulate corporate worship? By a principle different from that by which it regulates all of life? Or by the same principle? Does the Bible itself demand the application of Scripture to worship in a way that is different from the way it is applied to other things? Are there any other areas of life apart from worship that Scripture regulates by special principles? If so, is there a hierarchy of regulating principles in the Bible? Is there a two (or more)-tiered regulation of anything by Scripture?
To summarize, it is somewhat misleading and confusing to say that the RPW applies to all of life.52 As historically defined, it most certainly does not. It is more accurate to say that Scripture applies to all of life. It is the rule for everything, including worship. This is the Regulative Principle.53
Working Toward Resolution
Scripture is clear that acceptable worship must always be regulated by divine revelation. God is to be worshiped according to His Word. Worship should be carried out in accordance with whatever specific directions, examples, and good and necessary consequences are found in Scripture. Where these are lacking, worship should be guided by general Scriptural principles.54 Believing that Scripture alone should guide us in matters pertaining to worship, and that it is sufficient for this purpose, the following ten categories of concern are offered as a general guide for determining what is acceptable in worship.55
(1) Commands
The clear and explicit commands of Scripture must always be followed. Here, however, we see some important differences between commands concerning worship in the New Testament from those in the Old. The sheer number of such commands in the Old Testament far exceeds those that are in the New.56 Detailed directives for the worship of the redeemed community, plentiful in the Old Testament, aren’t found in the New.57 The New Testament doesn’t present a set of explicit commands that are intended exclusively for the church’s worship. Strictly speaking, the classic New Testament texts that are used to demonstrate the usual elements of acceptable worship aren’t limited to, or in every case required for, the church’s worship in their application.58 They have application to other settings as well. This means that great care must be taken in the way these texts are understood and applied with respect to the church’s worship.
For example, in 1 Timothy 4:13 Paul charges to Timothy give attention to reading, exhortation, and teaching until Paul returns to Ephesus.59 This is a command that certainly can be applied to worship, but it isn’t necessarily limited to it or required for it. The same can be said for Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. The saints are commanded to speak to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, but it doesn’t appear that this is limited exclusively to, or in every case required for, public worship. The context of these passages seems to be broader than corporate worship in the church. For another example, observance of the Lord’s Supper is clearly commanded in the New Testament (Matthew 26:26, 27; Mark 14:22, 23; Luke 22:17-19; 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25). The early church, however, didn’t celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a part of a worship service as we think of it, but in conjunction with a fellowship meal. Furthermore, very few observe the Lord’s Supper each and every time they gather for worship. Is this a violation of the Regulative Principle? For another example, preaching is commanded (2 Timothy 4:2). Does this mean that every worship service must have a sermon? It would seem from the context that Paul isn’t thinking exclusively of the church’s formal worship for he charges Timothy to be ready in season and out of season, to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with great patience, and to do the work of an evangelist—all items that seem to be broader than formal worship in their scope. As another example, corporate prayer is commanded (1 Timothy 2:1, 2, 8). All would agree that worship without prayer would be unthinkable! But this command undoubtedly extends to corporate prayer in settings outside of formal public worship.
The point here is not that the basic activities of acceptable worship are up for grabs. Neither is it to argue for carelessness about preaching, prayer, reading and singing in worship, or for arbitrarily including or omitting them. The point is that it sounds simple enough to say that we must do in worship only what is commanded. But when we look for such commands in the New Testament we don’t find them in abundance. Care must be taken in how we understand and apply to worship the texts that refer to these activities. Let each one be convinced in his own mind concerning the proper interpretation and application of these passages to public worship.
(2) Prohibitions
The clear and explicit prohibitions of Scripture must always be obeyed. Foremost among these is the Second Commandment which prohibits all forms of idolatry, including the use of graven images in the worship of God. However, unlike prohibitions in the Old Testament respecting worship, which are legion, there are virtually none in the New.
(3) Biblically Sanctioned Examples
Here we find a considerable amount of material concerning the content of acceptable worship. We are warranted to worship as the early church did, provided that factors peculiar to their place in redemptive history are taken into account.60 The early Christians inherited the format of the synagogue worship which consisted of the reading and exposition of the Word of God, the singing of psalms, and prayer.61 Teaching and the Lord’s Supper were an important part of their gatherings (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34; 14:26). They worshiped on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). We are warranted to do the same, not only from explicit commands, but from their example.
(4) Good and Necessary Consequences
These are also vital for determining what is acceptable worship (Matthew 22:31, 32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Matthew 19:4-6; Acts 17:2, 3; 1 Corinthians 11:8-10).62 However, care must be taken with this principle. An inference may seem to be good and necessary, but in fact it may not be. If a primary worship practice (element or ordinance) is based only on good and necessary consequence, without a command or an example, it might be invalid. For example, the doctrines of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the resurrection can be established and corroborated from many portions of Scripture in addition to good and necessary consequence, but the doctrine of infant sprinkling cannot.
(5) Lord’s Day Observance
This category of concern is a major player in determining what is acceptable worship. Proper observance of the Lord’s Day is rooted in the creation ordinance of the Sabbath, and is part of obedience to the Moral Law of God. The first day of the week is the Lord’s Day. This is the day that God has appointed for His special worship (John 20:19, 26; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10). On this day the people of God gather in His special presence to worship Him (Matthew 18:20). This is a day for “desisting from our own ways, seeking our own pleasure, and speaking our own word” (Isaiah 58:13). It is a day set apart for honoring and delighting in the Lord.
Biblical principles of Lord’s Day observance should be reflected in the church’s worship on this day (Genesis 2:2, 3; Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 5:12-15; Isaiah 58:13, 14; Matthew 12:1-13; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-11; 13:10-16). Effort should be made, therefore, to include, in due proportion and in good taste, as many of the “elements” and “ordinances” of worship as are appropriate for the occasion. Normally this will include Scriptural prayer, the reading of Scripture, the singing of Scripture, Scriptural instruction, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. In addition, activities which lack Scriptural warrant should not be allowed to intrude upon the worship of God on this day. Effort should be made to ensure that “circumstantial matters” accord with the general principles of Scripture, Christian prudence, and the light of nature. All the meetings of the church remain subject to Scriptural authority at all times, but esteem for the Lord’s Day should be reflected in what takes place in the worship of God on this day compared to the activities of the gathered church on other days.
(6) Church Authority
The quest for acceptable worship unavoidably necessitates discussion of the nature and limits of church power. The Regulative Principle was historically forged in a context of ecclesiastical abuse. It was intended to exclude Roman Catholic idolatry from worship, and to protect liberty of conscience against the enforcement of Anglican liturgical orders. As the confessions correctly assert, Christians are free from the doctrines and commandments of men that are contrary to the Word, or beside it (not contained in it). Christians possess this freedom outside as well as inside of public worship. They possess this freedom in all departments of life, not only in matters of faith or worship. Doctrines and commandments that are contrary to or beside the Word of God must never be imposed upon their consciences as though they were divine commands. The trampling of the consciences of God’s people by church leadership that sees little difference between its own derivative authority and God’s inherent divine authority is abhorrent to the Head of the church.
At the same time, we must avoid an overreaction in the opposite direction. One cannot escape the fact that the church inevitably must make some determinations about its worship that lie outside of what is explicitly commanded or forbidden. While Christians are free from such “beside-the-Word” determinations, they are also Scripturally bound to obey those who are in authority over them (Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 6:1; Romans 13:1; Hebrews 13:17). These “beside-the-Word” determinations do not, in every case, constitute a violation of Christian conscience or liberty. The elders in a given local setting will make many determinations about the church’s worship which are not explicit in the Bible, such as its general style and flavor (traditional, contemporary, or a mix of both). They will make decisions about the times, number, length, and format of meetings for worship (what will be read, preached, or sung, how much, and in what order, whether a formal liturgy will be used, etc.). Making determinations like these is part of their responsibility as overseers in the house of God (1 Timothy 3:5, 15; Hebrews 13:17). At all times they should aim to make these decisions with sensitivity to the congregation. Their determinations are valid and binding, provided that they are within Scriptural bounds.
Church members, on the one hand, must not blindly submit themselves to worship that is unscriptural. For example, they must not pray to a statue of Jesus or venerate the emblems in the Lord’s Supper simply because church leaders require them to. On the other hand, they must not object to minor, “beside-the-Word” details simply because they’re not explicitly commanded in the Bible. For example, their consciences haven’t been violated and their liberties trampled if the service begins at 10:00 am instead of 11:00 am, or if the church meets more than once on the Lord’s Day.
Church members may find that they prefer the worship in one church over another when the worship in both churches is Scriptural, just as they may prefer to sit under the ministry of one man rather than another when both men are godly, biblical pastors. Church members must, however, choose churches based on principle, not merely preference. As committed, participating church members, they must refrain from a hyper-critical, uncooperative spirit (1 Corinthians 10:10; Philippians 2:14; Hebrews 13:17). Unavoidably, all churches make some determinations about worship that are neither commanded nor forbidden. When Christians commit themselves to membership in a local church and voluntarily submit themselves to these determinations, they are not necessarily surrendering their liberty of conscience.
As church members, believers submit themselves to the government and discipline of a particular church. This usually involves making a church covenant of some kind. In a church covenant vows are taken. Promises are made to do things that the Bible doesn’t explicitly require. For example, the Nazirite vow included the promise to abstain from all grape products and from cutting the hair—things which were normally lawful (Numbers 6:1-5). When we make a vow, we promise to do things that aren’t required of us by the Bible. This is the very nature of a vow. It is voluntary, not mandatory. We voluntarily submit to requirements that are beside the Bible, but which also are based upon the general principles of the Bible. This is what is involved in a marriage—making a covenant, taking vows, promising to do with regard to your spouse what the Bible doesn’t require you to do with regard to anyone else. The Bible doesn’t require you to marry or make a vow, but if you do, you must keep it. You volunteer to be uniquely committed to this person. Of course, not all vows are equally binding. The vows involved in church membership are not as binding as marriage vows. The latter is necessarily a lifetime commitment. The former is not.
Both leaders and people should feel a tension here. This tension is captured and expressed in the Belgic Confession, Article 32:
In the meantime we believe, though it is useful and beneficial that those who are rulers of the church institute and establish certain ordinances among themselves for maintaining the body of the church, yet they ought studiously to take care that they do not depart from those things which Christ, our only Master, hath instituted. And therefore, we reject all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever.63
This portion of the Confession teaches that, on the one hand, the church has power to make decisions about how worship is carried out. On the other hand, the church does not have power to demand what is contrary to the Word of God. Neither does the church have power to demand things that are neither commanded nor forbidden as though those things were the commands of God. Further, such matters must be carried out in a way that is consistent with Scripture.
Church members must submit to the commands of God. They must never submit to what is contrary to the Word of God. They may choose to submit to things that are neither commanded nor prohibited (things that are beside the Word, not contained in the Word). This is precisely where the potential for disagreement exists. Love, trust, and Christian grace must supply the need here. Happy is that church and that people where the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace prevails.
(7) Christian Liberty
Closely tied to the concern of church authority is the matter of Christian liberty. If, as the confessions state, individual Christians are free from the doctrines and commandments of men that are contrary to the Word, or beside it, then so are groups of Christians gathered together in local churches. This means that the principles of Christian liberty may be applied at the corporate level. Christ has given liberty to His church in arranging the details of worship provided that these arrangements don’t violate commands or prohibitions, and that they accord with the general rules of the Word, the light of nature, and Christian prudence. Examples of such include: whether or not to have Sunday Schools, stated meetings for prayer, or nurseries; whether the church will meet for worship in church buildings, homes, or elsewhere; what the order of worship will be; how much singing, prayer, or preaching there will be in a given worship service; whether a liturgy of some kind is used; whether, when, and how offerings will be taken; how ministers will dress; the times, length, and number of meetings for worship; whether elders or others will lead worship, preach, or administer sacraments; how often and in what manner the Lord’s Supper will be administered; what the posture of the worshipers will be during worship, whether sitting, standing, kneeling, hands raised, etc. These and numerous other concerns are all matters of corporate liberty. Congregations may legitimately differ on these and other such items while bringing to the Lord Scriptural worship.
Our sixteenth and seventeenth century forbears were careful about respecting the consciences of God’s people. They were emerging from Rome or resisting the imposition of practices that were ostensibly indifferent. “If they are truly indifferent,” it was asked, “then why do church authorities wish to impose them?” A similar question can be asked, but in the other direction: If they are truly indifferent, why do church authorities wish to forbid them? We are free, at times, to do what is not prohibited in the Word of God, and we are free, at times, to do what is not commanded.
Conservative advocates of the RPW point out that Christian liberty involves the freedom to restrict oneself to what is commanded, not the freedom to do what is not prohibited.64 They approach worship and the Regulative Principle with this perspective of Christian liberty in mind.
Though many would seek to use the doctrine of Christian liberty to broaden the scope of what is permitted in worship, the authors of the confession actually wrote this to restrict what was required in worship. Because Roman Catholicism had added so many doctrines and commandments of men it was necessary to assert that the consciences of men could not be bound by the doctrines and commandments of men. It was necessary to assert that only that which was commanded in Scripture was required in worship and to submit to any other requirements was to betray true liberty of conscience.65
In the same place, the paper goes on to assert: “Applying this principle to our situation would assert that the elders of a church could not require of the people in worship more than God requires or expect less than God requires in His Word.”
This statement is true in itself, but impossible to practice. It is not possible for church leadership to require no more or no less than what God requires without imposing on someone’s liberty. There are many “beside-the-word” items respecting worship in which churches have the liberty to differ. It is not wrong for church leaders to make determinations about such items. In fact they must. The Head of the church requires them to (1 Timothy 3:5, 15). Once church leaders make determinations (applications) about how aspects of worship that are neither commanded nor forbidden will be carried out, they unavoidably require either more or less than what God requires in His Word.
To be sure, in a self-indulgent society that venerates radical individualism, it is important to remember that gospel liberty isn’t the freedom to do anything one wants to, but the freedom to do what is best within the bounds of Scriptural authority in accordance with the law of love (Galatians 5:13, 14). Rightly should we regard Christian liberty as an opportunity to limit our liberty for the sake of others. The church may not burden the conscience of the believer by requiring anything in worship not required by Scripture. Neither, however, may the church burden the conscience of the believer by forbidding what is not forbidden by Scripture. The liberty of others can be violated in this direction as well—by restriction and prohibition as well as addition and enlargement. For example, one who advocates the singing of psalms only restricts the liberty of one who advocates the singing of inspired songs. Both are persuaded that they are “singing the Word.” Those who advocate the singing of hymns (considered “uninspired songs” by some) have their liberty restricted by the previous two. The hymn singer is persuaded that if hymns may be quoted in preaching, they may also be sung.
The restriction of liberty works in both directions, by prohibition as well as addition. Once determinations are made respecting things that are neither commanded nor prohibited, unavoidably someone’s liberty is sacrificed in one way or another. The apostle Paul, whose treatment of Christian liberty is second to none of the biblical writers, doesn’t resolve this dilemma by taking sides. This is because neither side is entirely right or wrong about the issue in question, if it is truly a matter of liberty and not a matter of biblical mandate. Perhaps we can hear Paul say, “He who sings inspired songs in addition to the psalms is not to regard with contempt he who sings psalms only, and the one who sings psalms only is not to judge the one who sings inspired songs in addition to the psalms, for God has accepted him. He who sings inspired songs in addition to the psalms sings for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who sings psalms only, for the Lord he sings psalms only, and gives thanks to God” (Romans 14:3, 6). Ultimately, the resolution of this dilemma lies, not in consulting the Bible as if it were a rule book designed to specifically address every situation, but in the willingness of God’s people, with an open Bible, to defer to one another in love for the sake of the peace and unity of the church and the glory of Christ.66
(8) General Rules/Principles of Scripture
This category of concern comes directly from 1:6 of the confessions of faith: “…there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, 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.” Circumstantial matters are items which are neither commanded nor forbidden. These remain under the authority of the Word of God. For example, the general principles of edification and orderliness (1 Corinthians 14:26, 40) extend to circumstantial concerns. Further, the sufficiency of the Scriptures means that the Bible speaks in some way even to things in the worship of God which aren’t explicitly mentioned in the Word (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).
(9) The Light of Nature
Like the previous item, this one comes directly from 1:6 of the confessions. It rests upon 1 Corinthians 11:13, 14 where Paul assumes that “nature” (phusis) has something to say to the matter of head coverings. Some take this to be a reference to natural reason; others to the laws of creation; others to our natural constitution as men and women; others to cultural and social customs that aren’t in conflict with Scripture.67 Perhaps Paul has more than one of these ideas in mind. While each of these possibilities are distinct from one another, they overlap in experience. Instinctive feelings and judgments sometimes result from the laws of creation, natural constitution, or cultural and social customs. At other times they influence or produce cultural and social customs. In any case, “nature” is a principle that exerts a legitimate influence on some circumstances of worship. Of course, “nature,” like all other things, remains subject to the general rules and principles of God’s Word.
(10) Christian Prudence
Like the two previous items, this concern also comes directly from 1:6 of the confessions. Christian prudence is just another expression for sanctified common sense. In a world where sin is operative, though, common sense isn’t always so common, not even among those who have been savingly renewed by the Spirit of God. The general rules and principles of the Word of God must therefore be brought to bear upon matters of so-called common sense.
Note several observations about these ten categories. First, they have been weighted in their order of importance. While legitimate objections might be raised to the weighting at points, they generally rank in importance from the strongest (#1) to the weakest (#10). Second, the classic distinction between so-called elements and circumstances is helpful in identifying the primary activities of acceptable worship. At the very least, it is a good starting place for understanding what comprises acceptable worship. The distinction between elements and circumstances can be profitably employed in conjunction with these ten categories. Categories 1-5 may be applied to primary worship practices (“elements”) while categories 6-10 may be applied to circumstances. The best case can be made for primary worship practices that rest on commands, examples, and good and necessary consequences. A good case might be made for primary worship practices that rest upon examples and consequences without commands. But caution is in order for primary worship practices that rest on consequences only without commands or examples. Third, we do what we do in worship because of what we learn about acceptable worship from Scripture, not because we apply Scripture to worship in a way that is different from the way we apply it to other things. We don’t use a different hermeneutic for worship, but we do follow the teaching of Scripture for worship. These ten categories of concern may be profitably used to help us understand any item of Christian practice, not just worship. Fourth, the application of these ten categories won’t produce uniform worship in all times, places, and cultures. The Bible allows for some variety in worship styles and flavors, all of which are acceptable to God. Fifthly and finally, this approach is not radically different from that used by advocates of the traditional Regulative Principle. All who take Scriptural worship seriously wrestle in similar ways with these ten categories, regardless of their particular view of the Regulative Principle. This approach does differ, however, from the traditional one in that it’s not as restrictive. It isn’t bound to elaborate arguments about what constitutes an element or a circumstance.68 At the same time, it forces us to deal carefully and honestly with Scripture when it comes to worship. It also avoids the “multiple hermeneutic” problem. These ten categories are necessarily involved in the application of sola Scriptura to worship.
Temple or Synagogue?
Shall the temple or the synagogue be a pattern for New Covenant worship? This is an important question. Several considerations favor the synagogue over the temple as a model for the church’s worship. For one thing, the worship of the synagogue clearly influenced the worship of the early church.69 Though the origin of the synagogue is uncertain, early Christian worship was patterned after the service of the synagogue. This has significant implications for the content and form of acceptable worship, one of which is the propriety of rigidly imposing the formula of Deuteronomy 12:32 upon New Covenant worship as is often done.
In addition, two things about the temple worship disqualify it as a pattern for New Covenant worship. First, it was part of a system that was typological and therefore temporary. It was at the center of that which was fading (2 Corinthians 3:7-11). The Mosaic system was a complex of types and metaphors that pointed ahead to New Covenant realities, i.e. temple, priest, and sacrifice (John 2:19-21; Hebrews 94:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Peter 3:5). From this imagery, the New Testament draws theological and moral, not liturgical conclusions for the church.70 Second, it was part of a system that was inherently defective (Hebrews 8:1-10:18).71 R. Kent Hughes observes,
Since Christ is the temple, “sacred spaces” and consecrated grounds are a delusion. Since Christ is high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, the priesthood is superseded and obviated. Likewise, priestly vestments and clerical dress are out of date. Since Christ is the Lamb of God slain once for our sins, there is no justification for the Mass or for sacrificial accoutrements such as an altar or a chasuble. These superseding realities should also serve as a warning to those in the Reformed tradition whose devotion to the “Regulative Principle” inclines them to draw from the cultus of the old covenant.72
These considerations make it difficult to find any compelling reason to use the temple as a paradigm for Christian worship.
Summary and Conclusions
Acceptable worship has always been regulated by divine revelation, though not uniformly. Detailed regulation of worship clusters around the tabernacle and the temple. Though there is a conspicuous absence of detail at other periods of redemptive history, revelation has always been given in sufficient amounts so that at any period fallen men may know how to worship God acceptably. Divine revelation regarding acceptable worship is necessary because man’s fallen nature leaves him prone to idolatry. Since it is possible for him to offer unacceptable worship, fallen man needs an infallible guide for acceptable worship. Scripture alone is authoritative, sufficient, and clear for this purpose. It is the prerogative of the sovereign God to determine the terms on which sinners may approach Him in worship.
The RPW can be defined historically and biblically. We must not assume that these definitions are always the same. According to the historical definition, we must worship God only as He has commanded us. This is not exactly the same thing as saying that we must worship God according to His Word. In either case, however, worship, in order to be acceptable, must always be regulated by Scripture. The Bible is the final rule for worship. The question is, how does Scripture regulate worship? Historically, the Reformed answer is that we do in worship only what is commanded. This view has to be explained and qualified, for not absolutely everything in worship requires an explicit command. The Luther/Anglican answer is that we may do in worship what isn’t explicitly prohibited. This view also has to be explained and qualified, for not absolutely everything that isn’t prohibited is acceptable in worship. The confessions are helpful in resolving this question, but ultimately the Bible must supply the answer. Scripture doesn’t demand that we choose absolutely between these two views.
In the quest for acceptable worship, care must be taken to avoid two radical extremes. One is to mandate what doesn’t belong in worship, thus imposing on worship by addition. The other is to forbid everything that isn’t commanded, thus imposing on worship by prohibition. Both are errors in that they add to the Word of God—one by enlargement, and one by prohibition. As the absence of a prohibition in the Bible doesn’t always equal a command, so the absence of a command in the Bible doesn’t always equal a prohibition.
In an attempt to define what the Regulative Principle applies to, the categories of elements and circumstances have been employed with considerable success. Some confusion remains, however, concerning what specific items fall into each category. Treating elements as circumstances, and circumstances as elements, yields undesirable results. It is fair to ask whether the Bible itself compels us to think in terms of rigid distinctions between elements and circumstances.
To say that the RPW applies to all of life is somewhat misleading and confusing. It is better to say that Scripture regulates and applies to all of life, including corporate worship. It does this by the same hermeneutic, not one or more special hermeneutics. Scripture is applied in the same way to all things, not in one way to some things and in another way to other things.
The RPW, as historically understood, is intended to protect the liberty of Christians. It does this by rejecting the imposition of what isn’t explicitly commanded. At the same time, it inevitably restricts the liberty of Christians by imposing prohibitions. For example, the Directory for Public Worship neither prescribes nor proscribes the use of liturgical forms, congregational responses, or the use of read or written prayers. A stricter application of the RPW would prohibit all of these. In practice, then, once an application is made, it is impossible to entirely avoid restricting someone’s liberty in one way or another. Both the protection and restriction of liberty work in two directions.
At least ten categories of concern are useful for determining what is acceptable worship. They include: commands; prohibitions; examples; consequences; Lord’s Day observance; church authority; Christian liberty; general principles; the light of nature; Christian prudence. Regardless of their view of the Regulative Principle, all who are serious about Scriptural worship utilize these ten categories to understand what is acceptable worship. These categories are accessories to the application of Scripture to worship. They are not a special way of applying Scripture to worship. Further, they may be profitably employed in connection with any item of Christian doctrine or practice, not just worship.
The format of the synagogue worship plays heavily into the format of New Covenant worship. The early Christians did not go to their Bibles to discover what is acceptable in worship. Initially they did not hammer out from their New Testaments a theology of worship. They took up the format of the synagogue worship, which had the sanction and approval of Christ and the apostles. In the synagogue, they sang the Word, read the Word, prayed the Word, and taught the Word. So should we, who live between the two advents of the Word incarnate. Jesus Christ is the Regulative Principle. Acceptable worship is word-centered. We are to sing the Word, read the Word, pray the Word, and preach the Word. We even see the Word in the church ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Romans 6:4; 1 Corinthians 11:26).73 Undoubtedly, there is some amount of flexibility in how this is done. Legitimate variations will be found from church to church. Being word-centered and non-piacular, neither the worship of the synagogue nor the worship of the church requires detailed instructions such as we find in connection with the tabernacle and temple worship.
The Regulative Principle is a corollary of the doctrine of Scripture. It concerns the application of sola Scriptura to worship. Sola Scriptura doesn’t exclude all tradition from worship. Neither does it forbid all use of reason and logic in determining acceptable worship. It doesn’t mean that we must have an explicit command for absolutely everything we do in worship; that the absence of an explicit command is equivalent to a prohibition; that if something isn’t prohibited it’s necessarily permitted. William Cunningham sounds a helpful warning about two great dangers in connection with the application of the RPW. We do well to heed his words:
The one is to stick rigidly and doggedly to a general principle, refusing to admit that any limitations or qualifications ought to be permitted in applying it; and the other is to reject the principle altogether, as if it had no truth or soundness about it, merely because it manifestly cannot be carried out without some exceptions and modifications, and because difficulties may be raised about the some of the details of its application which cannot always be very easily solved. Both of these extremes have been often exhibited in connection with this principle. Both of them are natural, but both are unreasonable, and both indicate a want of sound judgment. The right course is to ascertain, if possible, whether or not the principle be true, and if there seems to be sufficient evidence of its truth, then to seek to make a reasonable and judicious application of it.74
In our next installment, we’ll explore the RPW from the perspective of practical theology.
Jim Domm, Pastor
Englewood Baptist Church
- See Part II: The Regulative Principle of Worship in Exegetical Perspective where 47 passages of Scripture are expounded. [↩]
- Again, see Part II. [↩]
- It doesn’t appear that Israel’s decentralized worship was as precisely regulated. [↩]
- See R. Kent Hughes, “Free Church Worship: The Challenge of Freedom,” Worship by the Book, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), p. 140. [↩]
- Terry L. Johnson, The Case For Traditional Protestantism: The Solas of the Reformation (Edinburgh, Scotland: Banner of Truth Trust, 2004) pp. 30-37. [↩]
- See D.A. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” Worship by the Book, pp. 34-38. [↩]
- Samuel E. Waldron, The Regulative Principle of the Church (Quezon City, Philippines: Wisdom Publications, 1995), pp. 14, 15; James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, vol. 1, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1960), pp. 340, 341. [↩]
- Dr. D. G. Hart and Professor John Frame, The Regulative Principle of Worship: Scripture, Tradition, and Culture, 1998, http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/ a998HartDebate.htm, pp. 4, 5. [↩]
- Frank J. Smith, “What Is Worship?” in Worship in the Presence of God, ed. Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman (Greenville, SC: Greenville Seminary Press, 1992), pp. 16, 17. [↩]
- See Part I: The Regulative Principle in Historical Perspective. See also Brian Schwertley, A Brief Critique of Steven M. Schlissel’s Articles Against the Regulative Principle of Worship, 1999, http: // www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/schlissel.htm, p. 3: “The regulative principle refers not just to explicit commands of Scripture, but also to approved historical examples within the Bible and to good and necessary consequence.” [Emphasis is the author’s.] [↩]
- William Young, “The Second Commandment: The Principle That God Is To Be Worshiped Only In Ways Prescribed In Holy Scripture And That The Holy Scripture Prescribed The Whole Content Of Worship, Taught By Scripture Itself” in Worship in the Presence of God, ed. Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman (Greenville, SC: Greenville Seminary Press, 1992), pp. 76, 77. [↩]
- See Part II. [↩]
- Richard L. Pratt, Jr., “The Regulative Principle,” available online at http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/TH.Pratt.Reg.Princ.pdf. The paper is not dated but the file is dated 9/6/1999. [↩]
- Ralph J. Gore, Jr., Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2002) p. 140: “…whatever is consistent with the Scriptures is acceptable in worship.” [↩]
- Whether one’s definition is truly confessional, or whether one has broken his ordination vows to uphold a confession, is something of a red herring when it comes to settling on a Scriptural definition of the Regulative Principle. Ultimately all questions must be resolved by Scripture. [↩]
- Whether this is possible is another question altogether. See the expositions of Scripture in Part II. [↩]
- We should attempt to answer these questions, not only from the exegesis of individual texts, but from biblical and systematic theology as well. [↩]
- Observe the dichotomy here in terms of polar opposites. No one consistently does in worship only what is commanded. Neither does anyone consistently do in worship everything that isn’t prohibited. Both of these extreme positions must be qualified in their practical application. Multiple choice exams usually offer a “none-of-the-above” option when the choices given aren’t entirely satisfactory. In the Reformed versus the Lutheran/Anglican debate about the Regulative Principle, we could wish for a “none-of-the-above” option. [↩]
- See Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” in Worship by the Book, pp. 54, 55. [↩]
- The confessions refer to these items as things that are “beside” the Word (Westminster Confession of Faith 20:2) or “not contained” in it (Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 21:2). According to the confessions, the consciences of believers are free from such things. Granting this, does the inclusion of these items in a given worship setting constitute a violation of conscience in every case? Most would answer in the negative, but the task of sorting out what would or would not be a violation of conscience with reference to these items is challenging. [↩]
- See Part I. It is fair to ask whether these are biblical categories to begin with. Does the Bible itself compel us to distinguish elements from circumstances? [↩]
- See the Westminster and the Second London Baptist Confessions of Faith 1:6. [↩]
- See John Owen as quoted by Ernest C. Reisinger in Shepherding God’s Flock (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988) p. 156: “…it is utterly in vain and useless to demand express institution of all the circumstances belonging unto the government, order, and worship of the church.” Reisinger likely got this quotation from A.W. Pink, who cites it in his commentary on Hebrews (1974 reprint, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bake Book House, 1954) pp. 1234, 1235. Neither Reisinger nor Pink reference the quotation. I have been unable to locate it in Owen’s writings. [↩]
- This is just another way of saying that some things in worship require a command, example, or consequence, while other things in worship do not. [↩]
- A transliteration of the Greek term meaning “things indifferent,” “things not important” [↩]
- See Brian Schwertley in “Some Contemporary Objections to Sola Scriptura in the Sphere of Worship Considered and Refuted,” Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship, 2000, http: //www. reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/sola.htm, pp. 29, 30, note 63; Gore, Covenantal Worship, pp. 87, 88. [↩]
- See Gore, Covenantal Worship, pp. x, 114. [↩]
- The most common example of this is the use of musical instrumentation in worship. Other examples would include Sunday Schools, nurseries, and sermons preached in connection with Christmas, Easter, Mother’s Day, and Father’s Day. Gore claims that Gillespie does the opposite (not excluding, but including a circumstance as an element) when he treats the synagogue, which Gore considers to be a circumstantial institution, as a divine one out of a “constricted” view of the adiaphora. See Covenantal Worship, p. 104. [↩]
- See Part I; William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (Edinburgh, Scotland; Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967; 2000) p. 32. [↩]
- If the Lord’s Supper is an “element” of worship, on what basis should it ever be omitted, as in the case of an afternoon or evening service on the same Lord’s Day it was observed in the morning service? If prayer, singing, the reading of Scripture, or preaching wouldn’t be omitted in such cases, why omit the Lord’s Supper? On what biblical basis can any so-called “element” of worship ever be omitted from a worship service? [↩]
- See Questions CXXXI-CXXXVI in The Practical Works of Richard Baxter (reprint, Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1990) vol. 1, pp. 706-712. Baxter was ordained in the Church of England, but registered himself as a Non-conformist. [↩]
- For Baxter, not all additions to the commands of Scripture are unlawful. [↩]
- For Baxter, it is not always wrong to obey additions to Scripture. [↩]
- For Baxter, some additions to Scripture are wrong. At the same time, for Baxter, Scripture must not be made a rule where it is not. [↩]
- For Baxter, not every Scripturally approved example is valid and binding for all believers throughout the New Covenant era. [↩]
- It would be interesting to explore the implications of these and other passages for the application of the Regulative Principle, not only to the church’s worship, but to the church’s overall life and ministry. [↩]
- On a very literal reading of the text, should women even pray silently in mixed prayer meetings? Should women even be present at such meetings? [↩]
- It may be that Paul is indeed addressing the ‘who’ of prayer and dress, in terms of the liabilities peculiar to the sexes in a fallen world where remaining sin exerts its influence. With reference to prayer, men need to guard against relinquishing their leadership obligations by letting the women do all the praying. With reference to dress, women, as the fairer sex, need to guard against vanity and immodesty. It’s possible that some may legitimately argue against women leading in prayer meetings when men are present using other texts and on other grounds. The point here is simply that 1 Timothy 2:8, 9 is a questionable text to make the case from. Does the positive command for the men to pray prohibit the women from praying? [↩]
- Richard Hooker, Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie, 1593 (online resource, n.d., http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/hookbib.htm) pp. 310-313. See also his final paragraph on pp. 335, 336. Hooker was an Anglican priest. [↩]
- Frame roots this in the fulfillment of the Old Testament ordinances in Christ. See Worship in Spirit and Truth (Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1996) pp. 29, 30. Carson roots it in “the sacralization of all space and all time and all food.”See Worship By the Book, pp. 38-41. [↩]
- For a helpful discussion of this distinction, see Gore, Covenantal Worship pp. 111-119. [↩]
- See the exposition of these and other relevant passages in Part II. See also Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996) pp. 226-280. [↩]
- See Frank J. Smith with Chris Coldwell, The Confessional Presbyterian (Rowlett, TX: Reformation Presbyterian Press, 2006) vol. 2, p. 108. [↩]
- I will say more about this in Part IV: The Regulative Principle of Worship in Practical Perspective. [↩]
- See Part I. [↩]
- One wonders whether those who apply the Principle more broadly do so with the same rigidity and consistency as those who restrict its application to the worship of the church; or with the same rigidity and consistency with which they themselves apply it to the worship of the church. [↩]
- T. David Gordon, “Some Answers About the Regulative Principle,” Westminster Theological Journal 55:2 (1993): 327. [↩]
- Ernest C. Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen, Worship: The Regulative Principle and the Biblical Practice of Accommodation (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2001) p. 30. [↩]
- Frame, Fresh Look, p. 4. [↩]
- John M. Frame, “Some Questions about the Regulative Principle,” Westminster Theological Journal 54:2 (1992): 357. As we’ve already seen in Part I, the Normative Principle/Regulative Principle distinction is found in the Westminster Confession 20:2, but not in 21:2 of the Savoy Declaration and the Second London Baptist Confession. [↩]
- The distinction isn’t so clear cut, for the Regulative Principle, as traditionally understood, certainly applies to some things outside of worship, while the Normative Principle, it must be admitted, applies to some things inside of worship. [↩]
- This confusion is seen, for example, in the following statements: “Nor is it sufficient to say that because all of life is to be regulated by Scripture, this proves the invalidity of the regulative principle as expounded by the Westminster Confession and subsequent tradition. The point is not…whether the regulative principle applies to the whole of life. It does! But it does so in a different way…the regulative principle applies differently [to public worship than it does to family worship]. All worship…is regulated by God’s Word, but the application is different in different contexts, whether formal or informal, public or private.” These quotes are taken from Derek W. H. Thomas and Terry L. Johnson in “The Regulative Principle: Responding to Recent Criticism” in Give Praise to God, ed. by Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W. H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2003) pp. 87, 88. The emphases in these quotes are the authors’. These statements imply at least three hermeneutics: one for public worship, another for family worship, and yet another for the rest of life. Note also that “Scripture” and “the Regulative Principle” are used interchangeably in these statements, as if they are one and the same thing. They are not. This is confusing language. Further, the reason why the sacraments are to be administered by the church and not at home is not because the Regulative Principle (or Scripture) applies to public settings in a way that is different from the way it applies to private settings. It is because Scripture teaches that the sacraments are church ordinances, not family ordinances. [↩]
- Paul David Tripp, in Age of Opportunity: A Biblical Guide to Parenting Teens (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 128-137, outlines the application of Scripture to “clear-boundary issues” and “wisdom issues” for guidance in life. These categories bear remarkable resemblance to “elements” and “circumstances” respectively. Mr. Tripp is applying these categories, which are part and parcel of the traditional view of the Regulative Principle, to all of life. One might say that he is applying the Regulative Principle to all of life, though I believe it is more accurate to say that he is simply applying Scripture to all of life. Similarly, Jerram Barrs argues for the application of the Regulative Principle to evangelism. What he means is that evangelism should be shaped by the teaching of Scripture and the example that Scripture sets before us. See his Learning Evangelism from Jesus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009) p. 17. [↩]
- See Hughes Oliphant Old, Worship Reformed According to Scripture (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002) pp. 3, 4. [↩]
- It is assumed here that the Old Testament Scriptures remain normative for New Covenant worship, provided that they are interpreted and applied in light of the New Testament (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). Remember that the early Christians possessed only the Old Testament Scriptures. It wasn’t until about the 2nd century that they possessed any New Testament canon. [↩]
- This factor is important to take into account. If one is looking for explicit New Testament commands for worship, then, not finding what one expects, one is liable to exclude legitimate items from worship simply because the New Testament is silent about them. [↩]
- This isn’t all that surprising in view of the typical nature of the Tabernacle/Temple worship which finds fulfillment in Christ and His people. [↩]
- See Frame, Fresh Look, pp. 11, 12: “Even granting the legitimacy of the concept “element,” the claim that God provides a list of elements specific to each particular form of worship will not withstand exegetical scrutiny…There is, therefore, no form of worship for which Scripture yields a list of elements as required by the narrow reading of the regulative principle.” [↩]
- The exegesis of this text suggests several questions. Was Timothy to give attention to these things only until the apostle arrived, or thereafter? What weight, if any, should be attached to the articles before the nouns? Would Timothy understand the articles as a reference to public, and not private reading, exhortation, and teaching? Does “the reading” refer to the reading of Old Testament Scripture only, since this is all that was available to Timothy? Similar questions may be asked concerning “the exhortation” and “the teaching.” If “the reading” is an element of worship in the traditional sense, then so must “the exhortation” be. Are those, then, who don’t exhort in every meeting for public worship failing to do what God has commanded for worship? Lenski understands the burden of the text in yet another way. He maintains that Paul charges Timothy to oversee the reading of lections in the churches. According to Lenski, the burden of the charge is not that lections be read, but what lections are to be read. See R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1964) pp. 642-644. [↩]
- One of the more prominent factors is the absence of a completed canon. An apostolate and extraordinary spiritual gifts were present to fill this void. The early church would resort to these for guidance. In post-apostolic times, Scripture alone is the final rule. [↩]
- See Part I. [↩]
- See Brian Schwertley, Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship, p. 32, note 97. [↩]
- Three Forms of Unity, 3rd ed. (Grandville, MI: Protestant Reformed Churches in America, 2002) pp. 42, 43. [↩]
- See T. David Gordon’s critique of Ralph J. Gore, Jr. as quoted by Frank J. Smith in The Confessional Presbyterian, (Rowlett, TX: Reformation Presbyterian Press, 2005) vol. 1, pp. 144, 145: “Gore believes that Christian liberty is the liberty to do what is not prohibited. Calvin and the Reformed creeds perceive it as liberty from doing what is not commanded.” Emphases are Gordon’s. [↩]
- ARBCA Position Paper Concerning the Regulative Principle of Worship (online resource, 2001, http://www.rbcnc.com/Regulative%20Principle.htm) p. 4. [↩]
- I will say more about this in Part IV. [↩]
- See Charles Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians (1857; reprint, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983) p. 213; Curtis Vaughan and Thomas D. Lea, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983) p. 115. [↩]
- Take, for example, Girardeau’s argument for a distinction in circumstances. Noting that Chapter 1, Paragraph 6 in the Westminster Confession states that some (not all) circumstances are common to human actions and societies, he concludes that there are circumstances regarding the peculiar acts specific to Christian worship, and that these must be expressly commanded by God in Scripture. Thus, for him, the Regulative Principle applies not only to the elements of worship, but also to the circumstances attending the elements of worship. In this way, he argues against the use of musical instruments in the public worship of God. (See Part I.) Girardeau’s conclusion, however, is impossible to apply consistently. This becomes evident when it’s applied to other worship activities. For example, prayer is not common to human societies in their gatherings. Thus any circumstance attending prayer must be explicitly prescribed in Scripture in order to be valid. Since there are a number of biblical references to lifting up the eyes to God in prayer, we might conclude, therefore, that bowing the head and closing the eyes is not prescribed and is therefore forbidden. The same type of reasoning could be applied to preaching, the reading of Scripture, the sacraments, and offerings (that is, if one includes offerings as a part of worship). Since none of the elements of Christian worship are common to human actions and societies, every circumstance attending every element must be clearly mandated by Scripture in order to be valid. Obviously, this is impossible to carry out. Cory Griess observes, “Therefore, when he [Girardeau] charges anyone who has [musical] accompaniment in worship with ‘adding to the counsel of God which is set down in his word,’ then he must face seriously his own charge with respect to the other elements of worship.” See Cory Griess, “The Regulative Principle: A Confessional Examination,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 41 (2008): 79-82. [↩]
- See Part II: The Development of the Regulative Principle in History, pp. 30, 31; Schwertley, A Brief Critique, p. 6: “Not only can one deduce weekly synagogue worship from the Bible, but also the basic worship elements of Scripture reading and exposition (cf. Neh. 8:7-8; Lev. 10:8-11; Dt. 17:8-13; 24:8; 31:9-13; 33:8; 2 Chr. 15:3; 17:7-9; 19:8-10; 30:22; 35:3; Ezra 7:1-11; Ezek. 44:15, 23-24; Hos. 4:6; Mal. 2:1, 5-8; Mt. 4:23; 9:35; 13:54; Mk. 1:21, 39; 6:2; Lk. 4:15-22, 44; 13:10; Ac. 15:21; etc.) and prayer (2 Chr. 6:34-39; Neh. 8:6; Is. 56:7) can be deduced. Virtually all regulativists recognize that the Christian church was the natural outgrowth of the synagogue, in which the covenant people conducted weekly non-ceremonial public worship.” [↩]
- R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2008) p. 244. [↩]
- Ibid., p. 244. [↩]
- R. Kent Hughes, “Free Church Worship: The Challenge of Freedom,” Worship by the Book, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), p. 140. [↩]
- See J. Ligon Duncan, “Foundations For Biblically Directed Worship,” Give Praise to God, p. 65: “An apt motto for those who embrace the regulative principle then might be, ‘Read the Bible, preach the Bible, pray the Bible, sing the Bible, and see the Bible.’” [↩]
- Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, pp. 32, 33. [↩]
