To Regulate or To Be Normal

[cubanito]

Answer the poll before looking up the definitions please. I only found out about this doctrine 2 days ago myself.

JR

 

[bradfordl]

Regulate what? And be normal at what? Before addressing what I suspect you are (and I may be wrong), I have to ask is the question couched in an existentialist point of view? One that values "freedom of expression and behavior" over order.

B

 

[inchristalone221]

Normative.

I'm a big Christian liberty fellow.

 

[mlqurgw]

I voted nornative but I am actually somewhere in the middle. I simply can't see consistency in a strict regulative principle.

 

[Imblessed]

I think it mostly depends on each person's personality.

I know I'll get flack for that(those who are regulative), cuz you all will say that we must do things how God says in the Book despite our 'personal' feelings......but I'm sticking to my opinion. No one has yet convinced me that regulative is clearly pointed out in scripture.....


that said, I voted "I understand and don't have a clear opinion" maybe I should have voted "don't care"

 

[Foundthelight]

The regulative principle seems to me to be an attempt to create a new law. David's dance would be forbidden under the regulative principle. Yet, it was given to the glory of God and obviously accepted by God.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

i hold to the regulative principle of worship without apology.

That said, it MUST be acknowledged that what is, and is not entailed in the regulative principle is hardly monolithic among reformed groups.

One could find differences between (for example) the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. One holds to exclusive Psalmody, one does not. Yet both adhere to the regulative principle.

It would perhaps be a better idea to discuss the specifics of the regulative principle, if it could be done so as not to cause a flame war to erupt on this particular forum.

To borrow a concept from C.S. Lewis, when one dissucsses this issue, he or she is presuming a standard. Perhaps the standard is unspoken, but it is a standard none the less.

The issue comes down to the answer to the question:

Has God Told us HOW He is to be worshipped?
​

If God has revealed that to us, then if follows that we are to obey that revelation without question...at least where it is clear and explicit.

If God has not made such revelation, by what authority does one presume their worship of God to be 'legitimate'?

This is an important question.

i believe of course, that God HAS revealed how we are to worship. Still, i'm open for discussion of the particulars of that revelation.

 

[mlqurgw]

i hold to the regulative principle of worship without apology.

That said, it MUST be acknowledged that what is, and is not entailed in the regulative principle is hardly monolithic among reformed groups.

One could find differences between (for example) the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. One holds to exclusive Psalmody, one does not. Yet both adhere to the regulative principle.

It would perhaps be a better idea to discuss the specifics of the regulative principle, if it could be done so as not to cause a flame war to erupt on this particular forum.

To borrow a concept from C.S. Lewis, when one dissucsses this issue, he or she is presuming a standard. Perhaps the standard is unspoken, but it is a standard none the less.

The issue comes down to the answer to the question:

Has God Told us HOW He is to be worshipped?

​

If God has revealed that to us, then if follows that we are to obey that revelation without question...at least where it is clear and explicit.

If God has not made such revelation, by what authority does one presume their worship of God to be 'legitimate'?

This is an important question.

i believe of course, that God HAS revealed how we are to worship. Still, i'm open for discussion of the particulars of that revelation.

I would be willing to discuss it with you, though I am not a Presbyterian. As I said, I find that a strict adherence to the regulative principle not consistent with even what either the Westminster or London Confessions taught. They both leave some wiggle room. Earnest C. Reisinger wrote an essay called " Thoughts on the Regulative Principle" that I thought was very good. I have tried to find a link to it but have been frustrated in my search to this point.

 

[heymikey80]

I agree with regulative principle. It's the arguments what the regulative practice should be that boggle my mind.

As for consistency, human inconsistencies in applying or even knowing how to apply a principle don't make a principle less true, do they? It seems to me God doesn't want certain practices in worship, and institutes the practices He wants in worship. Some Scripture doesn't sound very pleased when we place other things among His teaching and call it worship.

There's definitely room for innovation in the essential parts of worship. Not everything is regulated by Scripture. But I think the parts are instituted by God, and thus regulated.

 

[inchristalone221]

As for consistency, human inconsistencies in applying or even knowing how to apply a principle don't make a principle less true, do they?

Well, my problem with RPW isn't just people who apply it inconsistently, it's that the principle itself is logically incoherent. If only things found in scripture are to color our worship, than the RPW is excluded, as it is not found in scripture! It excludes itself, it's self-defeating, it falls to reductio ad absurdum, pick a cliche.

There's definitely room for innovation in the essential parts of worship. Not everything is regulated by Scripture. But I think the parts are instituted by God, and thus regulated.

This I agree in a way. I think that worship is, by definition, response. We worship God as He has revealed Himself through honest expression of our awe at His majesty.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Well, my problem with RPW isn't just people who apply it inconsistently, it's that the principle itself is logically incoherent. If only things found in scripture are to color our worship, than the RPW is excluded, as it is not found in scripture! It excludes itself, it's self-defeating, it falls to reductio ad absurdum, pick a cliche.

Aye, sort of like The Trinity...tread lightly lad.

This I agree in a way. I think that worship is, by definition, response. We worship God as He has revealed Himself through honest expression of our awe at His majesty.

So then, has God also revealed how we are to worship Him? Again, tread lightly.

 

[heymikey80]

Well, my problem with RPW isn't just people who apply it inconsistently, it's that the principle itself is logically incoherent. If only things found in scripture are to color our worship, than the RPW is excluded, as it is not found in scripture! It excludes itself, it's self-defeating, it falls to reductio ad absurdum, pick a cliche.

Whatever thing I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Dt 12:32

You shall not do at all what we are doing here today, every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes Dt 12:8

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mt 15:9

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Dt 4:2
​

Any rule can be reduced to an absurdity. Pick a cliche and you'll find you can apply it to Spiritual indwelling, the Cross of Christ any concept put into words. It's the nature of language -- but it's not the nature of what language is saying. Everything can be debunked, riddled with sarcasm, polemicized, reduced to absurdity. Everything can be deconstructed.

But that doesn't mean its deconstruction is reality. The prisoner can verbally deconstruct his cell all he wants. It doesn't budge one iron bar.

 

[inchristalone221]

Aye, sort of like The Trinity...tread lightly lad.

Well, there's a HUGE difference. The trinity is a mystery, whereas the RPW seems to be a contradiction. Mysteries are simply a part of theology; contradictions are not part of any rational system.

mystery: God is one in essence and three in person
contradiction: God is one in essense, and He is not one in essence

Whatever thing I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Dt 12:32

You shall not do at all what we are doing here today, every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes Dt 12:8

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Dt 4:2

The Israelites were under Ecclesiastical law. They were not allowed the same standing before God that we have. They had to come to God through a system of sacrifices and priests. We need only Christ, who is our sacrifice, prophet, priest, and king.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mt 15:9

That's just not fair and you know it. Jesus was objecting to the elevation of Rabbinic tradition not to the existence of it.

 

[heymikey80]

We need only Christ, who is our sacrifice, prophet, priest, and king.

Um, can you add something to Christ?

I mean, if Jesus can't be added-to what you're talking about is ... a regulative principle in the new priesthood. It would prevent you from adding things to Jesus.

Do you think there is some kind of ecclesiastical regulation in the New Covenant? I mean, Israel was a redeemed group and they were given ecclesiastical regulation. Why doesn't the New Covenant have such a thing? (By way of explanation, 1 Cor 14 prescribes some ecclesiastical operations in church worship.)

 

[inchristalone221]

I mean, if Jesus can't be added-to what you're talking about is ... a regulative principle in the new priesthood. It would prevent you from adding things to Jesus.

That's not what I meant, sorry I'm not very good at expressing it. We no longer need the Old Testament sacrifices and rituals to come before God because we have Christ as our mediator. Those Old Testament passages were written for those under the ecclesiastical law of the Old Covenant.

Do you think there is some kind of ecclesiastical regulation in the New Covenant? I mean, Israel was a redeemed group and they were given ecclesiastical regulation. Why doesn't the New Covenant have such a thing? (By way of explanation, 1 Cor 14 prescribes some ecclesiastical operations in church worship.)

The first corinthians passage fits in just as well with the NPW. We do all the things commanded in scripture but aren't afraid to add new, God-glorifying hymns to our hymnals or meet in a building or have Sunday School. Those things would seem to be forbidden by the RPW.

 

[heymikey80]

The first corinthians passage fits in just as well with the NPW. We do all the things commanded in scripture but aren't afraid to add new, God-glorifying hymns to our hymnals or meet in a building or have Sunday School. Those things would seem to be forbidden by the RPW.

Well, those things are forbidden by practitioners of the RPW. They're following a particular meaning to the RPW. The principle itself has to be combined with other principles of your theology to get to that conclusion.

It is a very tough issue, and one I've had to come to grips with among other Confessional Presbyterians.

And no, I don't agree with Calvin's view of the RPW nor of simplicity in worship in particular as he saw it. I *do* agree with Calvin that anything that interferes with the clarity of the Gospel indeed should be removed -- even as good and otherwise right as the performance may be.

I do want to frame the Regulative Principle on its early days, though, because it doesn't seem to get that much attention the variations with which it can be held.

For instance, on the idea of singing new hyms and songs, Calvin apparently was known to allow hymns that were not from the psalter. Just as creeds were recited in Geneva, Calvin used familiar hymns. At the same time Calvin hired a composer to arrange the psalms for antiphonal siinging in Geneva. Calvin intentionally and strongly defended him when his compositions were met with opposition by many of those in Geneva.

I think a case can be made that the regulative Reformers overemphasized simplicity of worship. It's well-known Zwingli actually suspended all singing in worship for some time in his church. That would also be offensive to the Regulative Principle, as the periodic practice of what's commanded is part of it as well.

Calvin advocated antiphonal singing owing to the removal of ceremony. However, the Psalms themselves command the use of instruments; they also command the singing of new songs. So again, the argument seems less historical, less real the more you dive into regulative practitioners. Calvin thought these were "aspects of infancy" that should be removed in the Church of Christ. That's a much harder argument to prove from Scripture, I think.

But that doesn't mean the regulative principle is wrong. Misapplied, probably. Still, even this misapplication had a great effect on the early Reformation. It got the religious clutter out of the way of the Gospel. Whatever its mistakes in thinking, it reached more people with the Gospel.

I think further, the idea that the OT Psalter was meant by Paul when he commanded singing "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" to a Gentile group is ... somewhat stretching history.

But when it comes down to it, I think God decides how He shall be worshipped rightly. I think we get into some trouble when we try to redefine what constitutes worship.

 

[inchristalone221]

I *do* agree with Calvin that anything that interferes with the clarity of the Gospel indeed should be removed

Major agreement here.

 

[cubanito]

Aye, sort of like The Trinity...tread lightly lad.



So then, has God also revealed how we are to worship Him? Again, tread lightly.

The Calvinist Dark Lord, Libertarian, is a regulative.

I guess u keep a big Church/State wall up, huh?

JR

 

[bradfordl]

Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Lev 10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Lev 10:3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.

Sounds regulative. I've seen extremes of both sides that are problematic. My preference tends to be traditional, so I usually fall on the regulative side.

I think music can become too much of an issue because of the egos involved, and so don't mind when its de-emphasized to minimize the temptation. Never seen the musicians at the back of the sanctuary during worship. I often wonder if it would be such an attracive "ministry" if they were.

 

[cubanito]

Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Lev 10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Lev 10:3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.

Sounds regulative. I've seen extremes of both sides that are problematic. My preference tends to be traditional, so I usually fall on the regulative side.

I think music can become too much of an issue because of the egos involved, and so don't mind when its de-emphasized to minimize the temptation. Never seen the musicians at the back of the sanctuary during worship. I often wonder if it would be such an attracive "ministry" if they were.

The OT had a long list of rules regarding worship, do you suggest we follow them? Or do you prefer to pick and choose which? That is the essential problem for RPW advocates. They want to have some things regulated, but others, like the love feast of the early Church, thrown out. How about people in the congregation prophesiying one at a time?

JR