I am reading the debate between John Frame and Darryl Hart, also a facebook group is discussing it.
One guy said:
Frame redefines the Regulative Principle to mean what is pragmatic and pleasing to us, which is actually the exact opposite of what the Regulative Principle is about. It becomes about what I want to do.
The theological foundation for this shift is a flawed ecclesiology on his part -- how he defines the worship of the church.
In Old School Presbyterian thought, worship in church is an extension of worship in the Temple. Frame redefines it to an extension of worship in the synagogue. Since synagogue is man-made, and exists for pragmatic reasons, it's ok to not be as precise in church, because church is Christian synagogue, and not Temple. Frame claims that all of Temple worship's regulations regarded the sacrificial aspect, and that was all taken care of on the cross. Temple worship was regulated, but synagogue worship was not, and according to Frame, neither is the church's worship.
So, in Frame's estimation, Cross = Temple, Church = Synagogue, and so the Regulative Principle was all taken care of by Jesus on the Cross and we don't really have to worry about it in our church worship.
The problem is, while synagogue is not established in Scripture, the Church is. And while John 2 does say Jesus' body is the Temple, other places in the NT (like I Corinthians & I Peter) say that the Church is also the Temple. If for no other reason, the Church is Christ's Body.
So, in the Bible, Jesus = Temple, and Church = Temple.
So Frame's foundational view of the church is flawed, and that causes his flawed view of the Regulative Principle. God's word does regulate the church's worship, because the church's worship is just as much a part of the Temple worship that God's word regulates as Christ's sacrifice is.
I am not strong on the area, just want to hear your opinions.
Thanks.
One guy said:
Frame redefines the Regulative Principle to mean what is pragmatic and pleasing to us, which is actually the exact opposite of what the Regulative Principle is about. It becomes about what I want to do.
The theological foundation for this shift is a flawed ecclesiology on his part -- how he defines the worship of the church.
In Old School Presbyterian thought, worship in church is an extension of worship in the Temple. Frame redefines it to an extension of worship in the synagogue. Since synagogue is man-made, and exists for pragmatic reasons, it's ok to not be as precise in church, because church is Christian synagogue, and not Temple. Frame claims that all of Temple worship's regulations regarded the sacrificial aspect, and that was all taken care of on the cross. Temple worship was regulated, but synagogue worship was not, and according to Frame, neither is the church's worship.
So, in Frame's estimation, Cross = Temple, Church = Synagogue, and so the Regulative Principle was all taken care of by Jesus on the Cross and we don't really have to worry about it in our church worship.
The problem is, while synagogue is not established in Scripture, the Church is. And while John 2 does say Jesus' body is the Temple, other places in the NT (like I Corinthians & I Peter) say that the Church is also the Temple. If for no other reason, the Church is Christ's Body.
So, in the Bible, Jesus = Temple, and Church = Temple.
So Frame's foundational view of the church is flawed, and that causes his flawed view of the Regulative Principle. God's word does regulate the church's worship, because the church's worship is just as much a part of the Temple worship that God's word regulates as Christ's sacrifice is.
I am not strong on the area, just want to hear your opinions.
Thanks.