THE FREEDOM OF THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE

[JM]

Freedom from cultural captivity, from arguments about personal preference, etc.

"Simply put, the regulative principle states that “the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his own revealed will” (WCF 21.1). In other words, corporate worship should be comprised of those elements we can show to be appropriate from the Bible. The regulative principles says, “Let’s worship God as he wants to be worshiped.” At its worst, this principle leads to constant friction and suspicion between believers. Christians beat each other up trying to discern exactly where the offering should go in the service or precisely which kinds of instruments have scriptural warrant. When we expect the New Testament to give a levitical lay out of the one liturgy that pleases God, we are asking the Bible a question it didn’t mean to answer. It is possible for the regulative principle to become a religion unto itself."

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/b...2/14/the-freedom-of-the-regulative-principle/

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I've argued this with my uber-reformed friends many times.

There simply is no book of Leviticus in the NT; however, we see the craziness in churches which do not hold to the RP, so I think that the RP is a good and level-headed way to proceed in worship, but taken to an extreme, many Reformed folks look just as nutty as those who practice NP.

At the end of the day, there is a huge inconsistency with the RP: IT'S NOT SPELLED OUT IN SCRIPTURE. It breaks its own rule.

Having said that, I see the the RP as a good general idea to guid our practice, but I don't see any way that one can be dogmatic about it, just as I see no way that one can be dogmatic about infant baptism. BTW, I'm a Presbyterian

 

[JM]

A split recently happened at the local Presby church and they all left to worship with the Arminian Baptists. The issue was, they were not really Presby in the first place, they lacked conviction of what their former church taught. Infant baptism is IT NOT SPELLED OUT IN SCRIPTURE so why would you Brian, have a problem with the RP? Unless you are not really a Presbyterian attending a confessional church. Both ideas, infant baptism and the RP, are said to be imported from former revealed covenants based on principle and not what is explicitly spelled out in the Bible.

You might not be a Presby.

jm

 

[jimmyjimmy]

There are Presbyterians who hold to the RP, but do so loosely. I'm living proof of that. This is a peripheral issue, and there is not a lot of solid evidence to argue for it, but there is some; therefore, I hold to the RP, but I don't hold to it tightly. I see it as a guiding principle, but I allow for exceptions to it, and I think that this a perfectly reasonable position to have.

The more clear and central a doctrine is, the more dogmatically I defend it. RP and infant baptism are neither spelled out clearly nor central to Christianity, so I allow for differences of opinion between brothers, but I would defend justification by faith alone in Christ alone to the death.

The world is going to hell in a hand basket, and Christians are supposed to be united, so we must leave secondary issues as secondary issues.