• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The regulative Principle of Worship

oliveplants

Senior Veteran
Jan 4, 2006
2,631
151
✟18,579.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I just finished a book about this called "How God wants us to Worship Him" by Joe Morecraft 3rd.

Does anyone here use the regulative principle in your church meetings? How do you feel about that?

If you don't, why not?

(I'm not out to prove anything; I'd never heard of the regulative principle til a few years ago, and never been in a church that used it. Am just trying to learn.)
 
H

HamletsChoice

Guest
oliveplants said:
I just finished a book about this called "How God wants us to Worship Him" by Joe Morecraft 3rd.

Does anyone here use the regulative principle in your church meetings? How do you feel about that?

If you don't, why not?

(I'm not out to prove anything; I'd never heard of the regulative principle til a few years ago, and never been in a church that used it. Am just trying to learn.)

I do, but my pastor is Joe Morecraft III. :)
 
Upvote 0

oliveplants

Senior Veteran
Jan 4, 2006
2,631
151
✟18,579.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
HamletsChoice said:
I do, but my pastor is Joe Morecraft III. :)

Hey, whaddaya know! ^_^ I liked the book.

I don't have a church right now or know of any in my area that adhere to the RPW, but I'm staunchly in favor of it: psalms-only, no instruments etc.

SO I also thought of asking if everyone interprets RPW the same way. I guess not? Mr. Morecraft thinks instruments are included... I could think of a couple things God directed that he didn't mention in his book.

So, other than Hamlet (because I can guess how his church does it), how does RPW play out for you?

McWilliams, thank you. I had seen that article before, but it's been awhile.
 
Upvote 0

Jon_

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,998
91
43
California
✟26,116.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
inchristalone221 said:
I personally see the RPW as somewhat legalistic, but I suppose I would be open to argument.
That depends on one's presuppositions. The Puritan principle is, "We shouldn't do anything the Bible does not tell us to." The contrary position is, "We can do anything the Bible does not tell us not to."

I am persuaded the biblical evidence for the former far outweights the latter.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon
 
Upvote 0

inchristalone221

Californian Theology Student
Dec 8, 2005
458
27
37
Southern California
✟23,245.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
That depends on one's presuppositions. The Puritan principle is, "We shouldn't do anything the Bible does not tell us to." The contrary position is, "We can do anything the Bible does not tell us not to."

But my question is what then becomes of Sunday School classes, Sunday morning worship, meeting in buildings rather than homes, and other such conventions. These things would seem to be excluded by the RPW.
 
Upvote 0

DrWarfield

Active Member
Nov 17, 2005
68
2
55
Australia
✟15,198.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
oliveplants said:
I just finished a book about this called "How God wants us to Worship Him" by Joe Morecraft 3rd.

Does anyone here use the regulative principle in your church meetings? How do you feel about that?

If you don't, why not?

(I'm not out to prove anything; I'd never heard of the regulative principle til a few years ago, and never been in a church that used it. Am just trying to learn.)

I am of the firm opinion that every single one of us has a regulative principle of worship. Some are aware of what there regulating principle is, others are not consciously aware of, but nevertheless hold to one, and then there are others who simply don't want to think in such terms.

The better question ought to be 'What is your regulative principle?' That question ought to then be followed by 'Is your regulative principle Biblical?'

Regards,
DrWarfield
 
Upvote 0

Imblessed

Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage
Aug 8, 2004
2,007
111
53
Ohio
✟25,256.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
You know, I'm of the firm belief that personality is what dominates people's ideas on regulative worship. I have nothing against those who prefer a church that uses it, but I would not feel comfortable with it, because as inchristalone says, it feels a bit too legalistic to me. I don't believe that those who prefer it, or even think it's the most biblical are legalistic, mind you...I just think that the "foot is in the door" when it comes to it. Hope that makes sense. I think there are those who would take it to far. But I don't think that's any reason not to do it----simply because I feel the same way about the other end of the spectrum also....

I do love the music at our church, but I love the sermons more, and if they were to change attitude abruptly, and stop the music, I'd still attend, because the heart of our church is not the music, even though the music is good. (I realize that the regulative principle is much more than just the music, but i'm using it as an example...)
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
oliveplants said:
I just finished a book about this called "How God wants us to Worship Him" by Joe Morecraft 3rd.

Does anyone here use the regulative principle in your church meetings? How do you feel about that?

If you don't, why not?

(I'm not out to prove anything; I'd never heard of the regulative principle til a few years ago, and never been in a church that used it. Am just trying to learn.)

i don't have the book, however there is a review at:
What Morecraft gives with one hand, he takes away with the other. Once the scriptural basis for the RPW is laid down and objections answered, Morecraft goes on to effectively annul the RPW by his misapplication of it. He has made the commandments of God of no effect by his traditions. Most notable are his approval of instrumental music, uninspired hymns, choirs, and soloists--all of which have no place in the historic Reformed view of worship because they are inconsistent with the RPW.

I am absolutely astounded by Dr. Morecraft's assertion that the Westminster Divines approved of musical instruments in worship. How anyone can honestly examine the writings and practice of the Westminster Divines, along with the history of the covenanted reformation of the 17th century, and still conclude that musical instruments were approved of, is beyond me.

Equally striking are his assertions regarding exclusive Psalmody and the Westminster Divines. I can certainly understand a desire to be in agreement with such learned and godly men as the Westminster Divines, but to say that these men approved of, or may have approved of, uninspired hymns is pure nonsense. Dr. Morecraft's position would be more credible if he plainly stated his disagreements with our Presbyterian and Reformed forebears and dealt with them openly as Steve Schlissel has done.
by an EP against Morecraft's position. which i take to mean that Morecraft is not EP. I'm just a little surprised, Morecraft split off from the PCA to the right, a stance that often includes not just theonomy(which i understand to be a major issue in the split) but EP as well.

i'm interested in the topic, because of the Sunday School class on Worship going on now. i see RPW used to defend both EP and denying it's eternal application, as Morecraft apparently does and what J.Frame does in _Worship in Spirit and Truth_. i just skimmed _Covenantal Worship_ by R.J.Gore this week. he looks to be the leftmost position in the conservative Reformed churches, a position to discard the RPW, but deals with the issue, rather than the liberal ignoring the history altogether.

it's a complex issue that warrants some close study.
 
Upvote 0
H

HamletsChoice

Guest
rmwilliamsll said:
i don't have the book, however there is a review at:

by an EP against Morecraft's position. which i take to mean that Morecraft is not EP. I'm just a little surprised, Morecraft split off from the PCA to the right, a stance that often includes not just theonomy(which i understand to be a major issue in the split) but EP as well

Well actually the split involved much more than just theonomy, it included the differences in the toleration of women in leadership, homosexual "rights," evolution, lack of adherence to the WCF, eschatology issues, etc etc., issues the PCA continually compromises itself over.

The EP critisism above is characteristically consistent with that somewhat fanatically zeal and anger that has often too frequently become their trademark. The RP is adherense to Biblical Principles not historic Puritan or Presbyterian principles. The Bible encourages musical instruments and like Joe says, singing songs that mention and praise Jesus by name are good, which unbelievably adherents to EP strictly forbid even calling it "sinful!"

rmwilliamsll said:
i'm interested in the topic, because of the Sunday School class on Worship going on now. i see RPW used to defend both EP and denying it's eternal application, as Morecraft apparently does and what J.Frame does in _Worship in Spirit and Truth_. i just skimmed _Covenantal Worship_ by R.J.Gore this week. he looks to be the leftmost position in the conservative Reformed churches, a position to discard the RPW, but deals with the issue, rather than the liberal ignoring the history altogether.

it's a complex issue that warrants some close study.

Yes, read Joe's book it's a good start!
 
Upvote 0
H

HamletsChoice

Guest
Imblessed said:
...I just think that the "foot is in the door" when it comes to it. Hope that makes sense...

I do love the music at our church, but I love the sermons more, and if they were to change attitude abruptly, and stop the music, I'd still attend, because the heart of our church is not the music, even though the music is good. (I realize that the regulative principle is much more than just the music, but i'm using it as an example...)

Proponents of the RP make a good point when they say if you don't follow it that "the foot is in the door" to just about allow anything in the church. I mean why not baptise with water and rose pedal's or serve taco's and beer for the Lord's Supper, etc., etc., etc., etc?

I hate the music in most churches today. I feel like I'm at a rock concert watching women gyrating in their pews in the fashion of "pole dancers" half the time. If they abruptly abandoned their music and their gyrations it would be a very very good thing for me!
 
Upvote 0

Imblessed

Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage
Aug 8, 2004
2,007
111
53
Ohio
✟25,256.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
HamletsChoice said:
Proponents of the RP make a good point when they say if you don't follow it that "the foot is in the door" to just about allow anything in the church. I mean why not baptise with water and rose pedal's or serve taco's and beer for the Lord's Supper, etc., etc., etc., etc?

I hate the music in most churches today. I feel like I'm at a rock concert watching women gyrating in their pews in the fashion of "pole dancers" half the time. If they abruptly abandoned their music and their gyrations it would be a very very good thing for me!
well, as I mentioned, the problem goes both ways....everything in moderation.......and luckily, no "gyrating women" at our church. The music is lively, but the people don't go jumping all over in the isles....

but again, that is where I think personality comes into play, when it comes to preferences of service styles.... You find it too worldly, I find it inspiring.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
HamletsChoice said:
Well actually the split involved much more than just theonomy, it included the differences in the toleration of women in leadership, homosexual "rights," evolution, lack of adherence to the WCF, eschatology issues, etc etc., issues the PCA continually compromises itself over.

The EP critisism above is characteristically consistent with that somewhat fanatically zeal and anger that has often too frequently become their trademark. The RP is adherense to Biblical Principles not historic Puritan or Presbyterian principles. The Bible encourages musical instruments and like Joe says, singing songs that mention and praise Jesus by name are good, which unbelievably adherents to EP strictly forbid even calling it "sinful!"



Yes, read Joe's book it's a good start!

thanks for the information on the split, i've only seen pieces of it. the book is in the shopping cart at amazon. thanks for the recommendation.
 
Upvote 0

Cajun Huguenot

Cajun's for Christ
Aug 18, 2004
3,055
293
65
Cajun Country
Visit site
✟4,779.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
HamletsChoice said:
Well actually the split involved much more than just theonomy, it included the differences in the toleration of women in leadership, homosexual "rights," evolution, lack of adherence to the WCF, eschatology issues, etc etc., issues the PCA continually compromises itself over.

This is an interesting list of offenses charged against the PCA. I have differences with the PCA as well on several matters, but lets not throw stones that are falsehoods.

Since you said that the PCA compromised on homosexual Issues (a charged that surprised me) I think it is only fair to place the PCA statement on that subject here and let others decide if there has been a compromise:

Here is the official PCA position on Homosexuality:

HOMOSEXUALITY​

Overture No. 11 ... be answered in the affirmative:
Whereas, God has plainly spoken of homosexuality in his Word, denouncing both the, act and the desire as sin, condemning this perversion as unnatural, a degrading, passion, an indecent act, an error, an abomination and hence worthy of death (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-32); and
Whereas, we recognize, that God's righteous judgment is upon those who approve of such detestable acts, as well as those who practice them; and
Moreover, whereas God has clearly stated that the condoning of homosexuals along with murderers, immoral men, kidnappers, liars, perjurers and all other unrighteousness is contrary to sound teaching (1 Timothy 1:11, 2 Peter 3:14-18);
Therefore, be it resolved that the General Assembly encourage Christians to recognize their responsibility to petition the powers that be that such men and women who practice, approve, or condone any of these activities not be invested with the authority to teach in schools or be in a position where they can influence our nation, which professes “In God we trust.”

8. Resolution #7 be answered in the affirmative: Adopted as amended
. . . . .That the Fifth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America affirm the Biblical position for our denomination which states that:
1. The act of homosexuality is a sin according to God's Word;
2. Churches should actively seek to lead the homosexual person confession and repentance that he might find justification and sanctification in Jesus Christ, according to I Corinthians 6:11; and
3. In light of the Biblical view of its sinfulness, a practicing homosexual continuing in this sin would not be a fit candidate for ordination membership in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Adopted

You can read another PCA resolution here:

Even though I am a deacon in the PCA, I have some differences with the PCA as well, I also have differences with Pastor Morecraft and probably every other conservative Reformed pastor over at tleast one or another issue.

I think one of the great failings of the Reformed churches is we are so ready to divide and be schismatics. We take theology very seriously (this is very good:thumbsup: ) but we fail terribly at the command of Christ to be one as the son and father or one, to love one another and be longsuffering with one another.:cry:

Our strength (concern for doctrinal issues and purity) has led us to our greatist failing. We are, to often, a contentious, proud (its my way or the hiway), unforgiving and schismatic people.

Those are not attractive things, and when others see that in us they certainly don't say want "I to be one of them," and all the sound theology in the world won't change that. We are good at lots of theology but we are very unsound in keeping the Scriptual teaching on being one, loving one another and being longsuffering with one another. On these things we arefailures and we need to fall on our faces before God and repent.

Deo Vindice,
Kenith
 
Upvote 0
H

HamletsChoice

Guest
Cajun Huguenot said:
This is an interesting list of offenses charged against the PCA. I have differences with the PCA as well on several matters, but lets not throw stones that are falsehoods....
Deo Vindice,
Kenith

Ok, fair enough.

Let's let one of the PCA speak for its own:

The Rev. Dr. Ben Wilkinson, one of the original ministers of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), has issued a statement regarding the current state of that church. It is an indictment of all parties in the denomination, but especially focuses its fire on the Presbyterian Pastoral Leadership Network (PPLN). How relevant are his words to the British church scene....Dr. Ben, as he is affectionately known, has long been identified with the Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship (PEF), one of the organizations that called for the formation of what is now the PCA. He succeeded Bill Hill as executive director of PEF in 1973, and served in that capacity for 22 years. He has long had a heart for the inner city, and he spearheaded the formation of the Synod of the City, a quasi-ecclesiastical, multi-ethnic,
trans-denominational ministry in Greater Atlanta. He is organising pastor for Rock of Ages Presbyterian Church, Atlanta. From fifteen ministry places associated with Rock of Ages, he and his co-workers distribute bread and the Word to an estimated 3000 to 4000 weekly.
Dr. Wilkinson's statement in its entirety follows:

"I have been working through a copy of the PPLN material. My reaction is that it could have been written by someone from the PC(USA), the Reformed Church of America, from the Southern Baptist Convention, or of a more fundamentalist position. It is many words that say little about truth, or to explain or give direction to our desperate culture and religious world that has no truth or direction. That, in my humble opinion, is eternally dangerous. People can interpret the words in any way they desire. Like play dough; it's a lot of words, but no backbone or strengthening structure. Let the readers make their own structure. I am deeply disappointed to see that the denominational officialdom and many dear brothers through the years surrendering their minds and wills to this all-inclusive mess of pottage.

The PCA fathers were clear and precise in their intentions in 1973. Strict subscription was not a major discussion in the formative meetings. It was probably clear in Morton Smith's mind and some of his students, but not in most of us. I did not understand the meaning of the words 'strict subscription' until the detailed discussions after the PCA was born. As a preaching evangelist, I grew after the formation of the PCA to a stricter subscription to the doctrines of Holy Scripture that are expressed in the Westminster Standards. Most of us came to the PCA because of an evangelistic concern, and to a bold affirmation of the inerrancy, infallibility and authority of Holy Scripture in all areas of faith and life. Today men are affirming those doctrines loudly and then ignoring their applications and implications in their decisions and ministry. Soon it will be a battle to reinterpret what they mean. Then careful doctrine became important. Many of us had not worked through the meaning and application of the Reformational doctrines as the writers of the Confession had given us. Because of the change (from the PCUSA to PCA) and the discussions immediately afterward, many, myself included, got back to studying the doctrinal issues. It brought back strength and courage to some weak evangelical thinking and preaching. It is a bother to me that the PPLN brothers have not captured this and made it their own since they are positioning themselves as tomorrow's leaders. Many of us had hoped that we in the PCA would become a Church of Compassionate, Holy people; courageous Proclaimers of Truth on every area of life that the Word of God speaks. As a whole we have not. We have captured the 'User Friendly approach' in our worship, teaching, discipline, writing, community outreach, and church policies. The old neo-orthodox methodology of Biblical interpretation appeals to us. One result, leaders offer a 'take your choice from the bag of views' of Biblical creation because we in our culture have already been infected to academic compromise by public education's prophets of evolution. We were unwilling to accept simply what God says in His Word though many scientists did and have found their scientific affirmations in its light. light.

Brothers, where I serve in Inner City Atlanta, this sort of watered down approach does not change lives. It doesn't even get ministers to think seriously about bringing the gospel into such hell-holes. And the truth is, it is not impacting to godly change secular culture where most PCA people feel safe enough to serve.
Abortion continues to grow, drunkardness and drugs are the relaxation of choice, pre-marital pregnancies are not only in the hell-holes of the City, violence is not just Islamic Terrorist, 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM murder reports are not just from inner city police reports, but suburban daily accounts. Divorces have not gone down in our churches but up - some misapplied the user friendly philosophy, I fear. We cannot and will not see changed lives, vibrant Covenant families and holy living, with such benign presentments in suburbia. Don't come down here and disappoint and confuse the struggling poor, the long downtrodden, the hurting, the addicted, the violent, the sensual searchers in inner city. We don't need that problem also. Don't cry 'Hope' if you have an uncertain sound of truth to tell. Keep that - better yet - chuck that. We need some certain, strong truth declared and lived.

Here in Inner City where I serve they won't buy that User Friendly Jive, and there in Suburbia they won't move to that unholy discordant tune. All over, our nation has been and is running wildly askew. I too believe God withdrew His holy protection from us on 9/11 and let the ungodly have their way for a time. Only a message of hope, born in a Sovereign God's irresistible arresting grace with unwavering doctrinal underpinnings is adequate to challenge those under Satan's decided influence. For the fathers of the PCA of the last 40 years and today, for this sinner saved by grace, Ben Wilkinson, uncompromised reformational Biblical Truth is the major issue. It pains me that it appears my beloved brothers with high responsibility have not picked up that truth and surrendered everything to it. Brothers, you will never be loved by everybody, but you will be loved by God and His chosen people! Come, dear Brothers, and humbly make them your own. He and His Reformational Truth are worth living for, worth proclaiming, and if necessary worth dying for.

In reading these PPLN papers with other papers and the statements they are making, I can't see clearly where they are going. But I do know where the end of their path will go. Understand, I don't think most of them want to go liberal. But that is where this path will take them and us if we go with them. They are afraid of the Theonomists and their loss of the 'Prime Mission of evangelism.' They are afraid of the Strict Subscriptionists, with legitimate exceptions, and their non-compassionate exclusiveness. They see little life and conversions in these. They see debates and argumentation and little love in these. Certainly this emphasis is not the way of our Lord and His Word. But I am equally afraid of those who are all inclusive. Not all Church people are among the elect of our loving compassionate Lord. We left such an all-inclusive group in 1973, but the trap is so subtle and so attractive and easy to embrace in Neo-orthodoxy's interpretative method and its soft appeal. Then liberalism seems for a period on the surface so intellectually stimulating and caring. Romanism courts those moving in that direction to become a part of the mammoth world-wide Church with a billion plus. With PPLN dreaming millions for the PCA, Rome will not be such a large leap and we can be in one 'Great Body' claiming billions plus. Small is not sacred, but large at any cost is losing.

I want to see multitudes in his new abundant eternal life - those whom He has chosen and irresistibly called to Himself through faith in our Lord Jesus. I want to see as many as God will bring to Himself in the PCA - but not as ministers, officers and members who are so 'user friendly' conscious that they are afraid to boldly confront with compassion any persons at any time and any place with His caring truth, and boldly challenge the damned who lead our culture down a broad and wide way to misery and Hell. For these reasons I fear the user friendly positions carefully constructed into the PPLN documents I have been reading.

We serve the Lord in a dangerous day; In my lifetime I have seen the true vibrant church world wide take on a new mark for this age. It is the mark of uncompromising truth and vitality - "Martyrs" (martus). We of the PCA must prepare to turn our backs on the mark of 'user friendly' and receive the mark of willing martyrs, as God decrees. That should not sound strange or melodramatic. It was our Lord Jesus, in His last words on leaving his church for whom he had died to make new full mediatorial responsibilities in Heaven at the Father's right hand. He said to them, "you shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you; and you shall be martyrs, witnesses unto blood, unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and unto the ends of the earth." Note, dear brothers of the PPLN and all across the PCA, he said "MARTYRS"! That must be a true mark of his church in our time . . . for the PCA . . . and the church to the ends of the earth . . . not 'User Friendly."

Source: http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?179
 
Upvote 0

Cajun Huguenot

Cajun's for Christ
Aug 18, 2004
3,055
293
65
Cajun Country
Visit site
✟4,779.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Hello HamletsChoice,

Thanks for posting the paper from Dr. Ben Wilkinson. It certainly makes one sad to read such things. Still, I’ve never heard of Dr. Wilkinson (nuntil now) or the PPLN, so I cannot address what he says of their material in particular. Yet, I have been in the PCA long enough to see some broad trends.

I think his letter shows something that I have long ago figured out, the PCA was founded by Presbyterians who were more broadly Evangelical than they are Reformed. I have found that to be true and do lament that fact. There is nothing new about that information in his letter. Still, Dr. Wilkinson's letter was written long after Pastor Morecraft and Co. took their balls and bats and went home.
The PCA had strong broad evangelical wing when he came into the PCA and when left it; I don’t think a lot had changed between when Rev. Morecraft came in to the PCA or when he left it.

I happen to be closer to the Reconstructionist wing of the PCA. I strive to think and act in a consistently Reformed way, and have had some interesting conversations with leaders (elders) in the PCA who were not Reformed at all. I do find that to be a concern, but that is hardly a compromise on the issue of homosexuality.

I had problems with several of your accusations and they too can be addressed in time, but I want specifics about the PCA’s supposed compromise on homosexual issues. I see that claim to be blatantly false and would like to see you put up the evidence or retract the accusation.

I am not asking for a lot. You need to supply evidence to support that accusation (and some others) or you need to retract them. We all can be a little loose with the facts when we are trying to make a point. We can all throw out a little hyperbole now and then. If that is what happened here, then fine. Please retract it and we can go on.

Your Conservative Reformed Brother in the PCA,
Kenith
 
Upvote 0