A Discussion on the Regulative Principle of Worship
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 січ 2021
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
Patreon: / justandsinner
On this video, I discuss the Reformed Regulative Principle of Worship, and why I view it as less than Biblically faithful. I contrast it with the Lutheran approach to worship. - Розваги
Hi Jordan. I just found your channel. I'm a Reformed Presbyterian and have found your channel helpful. I am not in the hard RPW camp. I even wrote my masters thesis on the use of the Christian Calendar in the Reformed tradition. I think be truly reformed, is to dive deeper into it's catholicity. Anyway, keep up the good work.
A very informative discussion - thank you! As an Anglican I have always been somewhat dubious about the regulative principle in Presbyterianism. For Anglicans the Book of Common Prayer tradition was historically supposed to be authoritative, both liturgically and theologically, but in practice this has fallen by the wayside in many places. In my view it is one of the reasons for the present distress and incoherence in the Anglican world.
I am fairly well read in the Anglican divines pre-1850 and I've never seen either the normative or regulative principle mentioned by name, although certainly aspects of the regulative principle are critiqued, notably by Hooker as others have mentioned. The Articles of Religion explicitly teach that the church has the authority to decree rites and ceremonies and that these need not be "utterly like" in every nation or in every age, so long as "nothing be ordained against God's Word." This language is echoed in the introduction to the Book of Common Prayer, with an emphasis that the liturgy, particularly the Divine Service, should be well ordered to avoid zeal without knowledge and grounded in sound doctrine to the end of edification. Likewise, the BCP notes that the "Christ's Gospel is not a Ceremonial Law", hence there is a level of freedom in the "Spirit" regarding rites and ceremonies.
Thus, as far as, what is done in worship Anglicans in one sense have a lot of leeway. However, unlike the Lutheran and Reformed our liturgy as found in the BCP 1662 is a confessional document for us and thus in another sense we have very little leeway, as we are bound to the BCP. And even when updated versions of the BCP are adopted for use in various places and at various times, those updates cannot (should not) change the substance and breadth of the doctrine communicated by the particular rite or ceremony, even if these updated versions don't carry the confessional weight of the BCP 1662.
This is so good. Thank you for addressing the nuance of a Biblically sound Liturgical approach to worship. It's not a free for all, worship practises must abide by the word of God.
Just finished the video; great job! Yes, the "Normative vs. Regulative Principle" mindset is over simplistic. I would recommend Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (such an exciting title!), specifically Book IV.
I was about to say the same thing... This whole line of argument is basically the same as books 3 and 4 of Hooker's Laws :)
@@Slarty947 Oh yeah, I should throw Book III in there as well.
I was literally just reading about this last night and was looking for a good explanation. Thanks again for your content!
This is great and very confirmatory for me. Been working through a lot of these issues from a strict scottish pov. the earlier reformed, from what I’ve seen, are pretty much lock step with what youve described in this video. Very helpful. Thank you.
Fun discussion, Dr. Cooper! Thanks for this.
Even phrases like the ‘regulative principle’ and things like ‘elements’ and ‘circumstances’ weren’t common until the 19th century, I believe. I think Southern Presbyterians especially employed that verbiage. (I don’t mind the notions of elements and circumstances, but the third category of ‘forms’ is also helpful and gives a good balance.)
You are right to imply that some Reformed Presbyterians are more strict on the RPW than others. For example, many in my denomination (the PCA) would align more with principles of the Magisterial Reformers on worship. Scholars have differentiated Calvin from the Puritans on worship. (Though there were some high worship Puritans in the 17th century.)
Also, the Second Helvetic Confession XXIV gives a different take than WCF on freedoms in worship.
I do agree that conservative Presbyterians and conservative Lutherans have more in common than they realize on worship. The questions regarding worship today are different than they were 400 years ago, and I think liturgically minded Presbys, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. need to team up more when it comes to worship.
Yes , however we still hold to real presence and baptismal efficiency and regenration, like the Church always had (orthodox and Catholic). You can't find middle ground. Every time a Union has been entered (or forced upon) the Lutheran part vanishes and you stop being a Lutheran Church.
@@Dilley_G45 The Reformed tradition is not uniform on sacramental efficacy and Christ’s presence in the Supper. I suspect some parts of the Reformed tradition and confessional Lutherans might be able to mind much common ground in looking to the patristic period.
But…this may require both sides tossing aside commitments to the rhetoric traditions of our theological forebears.
Pastor I have no clue if you remember me but I am destiney from watseka. Just wishing you good luck and hope that your doing well. And the church is doing good. It has been some time since I have went thanks to covid but I am going tomorrow cant wait to see everybody again. We have a new pastor Alex but anyways. Tell everyone me and my brother said hi 👋.
Regarding the Christian freedom, I think Jordan missed the point of the Reformed’s regulative worship (RRW) and Romans 14. As soon as Lutheran or any denominational churches declare a special day like “All Saints Day”, the church made that day official for the congregation. You can argue that it’s optional for the congregation, but because the church leadership made that day special, as members of that church, you can’t help celebrating it because your whole church is. Of course, no church will put members in dungeons for not celebrating, but that guilt and pressure is present violating Christian freedom.
However, in the RRW, there are no special days (or extremely limited days) that the church sanctioned. In that way, you actually have the freedom to celebrate “All Saints Day” at home with the family or not celebrate at all. Which one is the true Christian freedom?
To give an actual instance, against the RRW, my Presbyterian church celebrates the whole Passion week instead of the Lord’s Supper on Easter Sunday. Because my Presbyterian pastor came from Anglican tradition, he “encourages” attending every evening worship service for the whole week. He says it’s “optional”, but now elders and others will start calling and texting you with smiles to attend. That’s one of the points of RRW. Do not be bogged down by man introduced traditions in the worship, but focus on the commanded. That’s the true Christian freedom.
Very good explanation! God bless you, pastor Cooper. Greetings from Brazil.
A learn a lot, about the regulative principle. Godbles pastor cooper.
The Regulative Principle is a fundamental principle of public law applied to public worship: a public official can lawfully do only what the law enables him to do. It governs only those acts which the Jews lawfully did only at the Sanctuary and which they are forbidden to do elsewhere: sacrifice, libation and incense. The correct statement of the Principle is that any of these acts is unlawfully done unless authorized by divine enabling law which identifies what is to be done and who is to do it. The Regulative Principle also applies to acts materially similar to privileged acts: namely those things that signify the separation of the body and blood of Christ in sacrificial death; and those things in the NT dispensation which are the realities of which privileged acts in the OT are types and shadows.
A person authorized to do these privileged acts has complete discretion to decide when, where and how they are to be done - the Normative Principle applies - save to the extent that the law (procedural law) prescribes otherwise.
This is the statement of the RPW common to the Jews, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Reformed. Whether they apply it correctly is another matter.
Great topic! I have been looking forward to it for a while now. I highly recommend Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (in modernized English), published by Devenant Press, Books II and III, especially. He refutes many aspects of the Regulative Principle.
A friend was telling me one time how the church he was attending decided to watch the Super Bowl for their Sunday worship service. Not kidding.
Love this explanation. Thanks a bunch for the clarification.
Lutherans and many Anglicans followed Luther's position that came to be known as the Normative Principle: A position to prohibit only that which is prohibited in Scripture. Apart from Lutherans and Anglicans, Reformed Churches, such as the Continental Reformed, Presbyterian (Began as non-conformist), and Congregationalist
(Began as non-conformist), followed the Regulative Principle of worship, favored by many Zwinglians, Calvinists, and others: All hymns that were not direct quotations from the Bible fell into this category. Such hymns were banned, along with any form of instrumental musical accompaniment, and organs were ripped out of churches; instead of hymns, Biblical psalms were chanted. Since the 19th century, however, some of the Reformed churches, Presbyterian, and Congregationalists, have modified their understanding of the Regulative Principle and they now make use of musical instruments, believing that Calvin and his early followers went beyond the Biblical requirements and that such things are circumstances of worship requiring Biblically rooted wisdom, rather than an explicit command. Additionally, until the end of the Eighteenth century--and in some cases beyond--the only music to be heard in British and American Baptist (Began as non-conformist) churches was congregational singing.
Thanks, have been thinking about this topic recently...
Nice 😂 thanks so much man! Excited to listen to it.
Great show, I'm also reminded of FC SD VI 20, which resembles your Gerhard quote, "So, too, this doctrine of the Law is needful for believers, in order that they may not hit upon a
holiness and devotion of their own, and under the pretext of the Spirit of God set up a self-chosen
worship, without God’s Word and command, as it is written Deut. 12, 8. 28. 32: Ye shall not do ... every
man whatsoever is right in his own eyes, etc., but observe and hear all these words which I command
thee. Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish therefrom." could that be a sort of Lutheran version of rp?
What I find interesting about the regulative principle in reformed churches is that the reform churches don't really practice the regulative principle. When have you ever seen a reform church clap their hands to God in worship or raise their hands to God in worship?
Every Sunday
On Colossians 2:16-19 you must finish the text, there is still verse 20-23. He is talking about not letting people judge you for *NOT* taking part in these things. - "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)-in accordance with the commandments and teachings of man? These are matters which do have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." This is in reference to the religious festivals, drinks, new moon, and Sabbath. They are the self-made religion he speaks of.
Also, I think you miss the essence of John Frame’s argument against the RPW. It’s not simply that ‘worship is all of life’ (Frame in many places distinguishes corporate worship from other discipleship settings). Rather, it’s that we should ‘apply Scripture’ to corporate worship with the same hermeneutic as we do in other areas of Christian discipleship.
I kind of agree and kind of disagree with his argument. But I think that is the core of his thesis about RPW.
"But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 God is [e]spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24, NASB).
This principle applies to the Reformed tradition correct?
Yup.
I can't fast even if I wanted to do so. Fasting when one has hypoglycemia (I think that's what it is called) causes me terrible problems. I can pass out when I do not have something enough to eat in a certain time period. I used to try to fast, but my mind as well as body would go faint when I tried that. Finally, I realised that fasting is not for me, however much it means to someone with a normal metabolism.
One point of the regulative principle is that we not trample upon the liberty of conscience of others in the corporate worship of god . People can have their own personal traditions but not bring that into the public worship .
Hi, as a Christian academic can you comment on Ecclesiastes 12:11-12? Read in isolation it seems to suggest that we shouldn't read and study (or at least be wary of reading and studying too much). There are certainly other parts in the Bible that teach that we should seek to learn and study more such as Proverbs 18:15, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:9 certainly supporting the importance of instruction. These verses in Ecclesiastes have perplexed me for a long time and was hoping you could shed some light on them. Thanks!
Ecclesiastes 12:11-12 specifically distinguishes godly and worldly wisdom there (the words of the wise and those in addition to them), and as with the whole thrust of the book, should not be taken as a blanket condemnation of worldly study, only a recognition of that, like all the wordly pursuits of the creature, are ultimately totally vain before God in the fullness of time.
Interesting. Had never heard of it. Regarding the expensiveness of Gerhard's texts, I would think that J&S Publishing could remedy that. Ahem. But maybe its a question of copyright of certain english translations?
the building or the lack thereof is a matter of circumstance, not part of the regulative principle
I didn't know you went to Geneva College!!
Freedom in worship or freedom from Jewish perversion of the law in Colossians 2?
Coming from a Baptist/non-denominational background, the regulative principle just seems like an argument from silence. And I do think the point about Christian freedom is important, because if RP cannot be applied to most of the Biblical text, then I don't see why there is any reason to apply it to worship specifically.
Edit: this came to my mind again recently. I think there is a place for RP, but not for worship specifically. Rather I think the RP is better applied to spiritual things specifically. So for example praying to saints would be questionable, but celebrating Christmas would not. Then there is a different concern with the secularization of worship (eg. overdoing the music).
Where does this idea that Normative is Reformed? Every Reformed Baptist Church I know of preaches Regulatory. Sam Waldron wrote a book on it and it's what every Reformed Church that I know of teaches. Normative though is what an Independent Fundamental Baptist believes, they might not know the name, but they will argue hard for the positions. I grew up IFB, in my 20s I went to a Bible Church, and since I was about 35 I had been introduced to a Reformed Baptist position. Of those 3 only the Reformed Baptist hold to the Regulative. We even have previous Lutherans in our church who come to our church because it's the closest thing they have to an old school Lutheran church.
Article 15 of the Augsburg Confession seems to elude to the Normative Principle.
So basically... divina leitourgia adiaphora non est? 😂
Here we see synagogues in the OT
Psalms 74:8
They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.
The RPCNA is not the church most strictly holding to the regulative principle of worship because most reject headcovering in worship.
The Free Presybterian Church of Scotland is probably the denomination most strictly holding to RPW.
The passages you use from the NT have nothing to do with corporate worship
Going after the Calvinuts! Good job!
Ironically, I think one of the best arguments for "low church" worship is the maxim that every high churcher is familiar with: lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of praying [is] the law of believing; our worship and beliefs should reflect each other). Sure, it's hard to make the case that every individual vestment, every line of a missal, every item of church architecture, etc. are unambiguously sinful, but we can see that all of these taken together reflect the beliefs that they developed in concert with.
A priest does not ceremoniously don his vestments and enter the gates (partially or totally obscuring the laity from seeing beyond until the Reformation in the West and even today in the East) of the "sanctuary" to minister at an altar for no particular reason. This directly reflects the belief that the priest is a sacrificing priest in the mold of the Aaronic, marked out as starkly as a Levite, to perform his work on behalf of and separate to the congregation. A stone altar is so shaped as to reflect not the type of a thanksgiving meal, but of a bloody sacrifice, and it is much easier to imagine slaughtering a goat on one than to share a meal. The general structure of the Roman mass reflects this dynamic, even if the explicit prayers to that effect are expunged. Even setting aside the general question of idolatry, to have a giant altarpiece (or iconostasis) depicting Jesus and the saints clearly directs attention to this image as the main focus of worship, and for such a reason were they installed in the first place.
I won't belabor the point. I don't mean to say that nothing was changed to reflect Reformational beliefs, which would simply be untrue, but between that and the modern revision of the Roman mass (explicitly after the Gottesdienst, supposedly), the uninitiated would be hard-pressed to distinguish the two. Most look at a priest/pastor walking around in black with a collar and the first word out of their mouth is "Father." Nobody is accused for wearing a black shirt, but why dress so as to look like a Roman priest if you really believe there is an appreciable difference between his office and yours? Why dress up the church and the service in the same way?
The main appeals seem to be beauty, which is obviously subjective, and historicity, which is basically true. But if those are the main considerations for a worship, why not a high medieval pontifical mass? Groping for historical continuity that doesn't and shouldn't exist has proven perilous many times in the past, and the true beauty of worship is not found in gilded candlesticks. Ultimately they all seem to distract and detract from the simplicity of the Word and Sacraments plainly delivered, the real center of worship.
Agree. Even reading Justin Martyrs accounts of worship has no mention of all the additions that arose during medieval times.
@That Lutheran Guy Again, it is not that wearing a white collar is bad because of it its providence or because it is inherently sinful to wear white on black. It is simply that as far as clothing goes, that one in particular says "padre". If you actually believe the Roman priesthood to be unbiblical in several critical respects, why would you make a point of wearing the uniform of one? You wouldn't walk around wearing a yarmulke and then correct people greeting you with a "shalom" that you're a Christian who has numerous problems with post-second temple Judaism.
"Father" is not a serious medieval tradition preserved in Lutheranism; it is a Roman affectation. "Father" was, as I recall, mostly a monastic title in the middle ages, and shortly before the Reformation was granted to parish priests in some places (I think mainly Spain) as a privilege. It never had currency in Germany, where to this day even Roman Catholics do not call their parish priest father, nor in England, where no vicar was called father until the Oxford movement essentially destroyed the theological orientation of the Church of England. Again, I'm rusty on the details and can't easily find a reference, but I recall that Roman priests started to be called "Father" in English around the 19th century. In any case, why should this explicitly Roman title be appropriated by supposedly evangelical pastors? There is nothing particularly biblical about calling a pastor father, even if Matt 23:9 is a stretch as a prooftext, and I don't see any good or use in it.
I would further point out that the Lutheran church, though much better off in America, is in the same boat as the Church of England. "Neo-Lutheranism", "High Church Lutheranism", etc. came into fashion in the same era as the Oxford movement did, and had the same effect on ritual. I don't believe any Protestant before the 19th century ever wore a chasuble, for example, and the ridiculous hand gestures the priest performs, superstitious at best, were discarded before being rediscovered in the name of historicity. True, there was a fair amount of ceremony retained in the Lutheran churches (more out of inertia and an abundance of caution at first, as e.g. Luther's attitude toward things like saints' days was hardly positive), but there was still a real and conscious disconnect from the mass. The reversal of this should be cause for concern.
I would agree that Reformed churches worship in line with their theology. The question is if Lutheran ones do. What does "so close to the mass as possible without obviously compromising our distinctives" say as an outflow of theology? Is it a rich, and firmly biblical form of worship, or an insecure one in tension?
@@stallard9256 Your desire for purity in worship and practice is admirable, but you do seem hung up on the collar signalling "Father". If it does, it is only secondary. It immediately signals "clergy", which is in fact correct, and of some value. Further, just because a practice is tainted by popery does not mean it is inadmissable. If there are good positive reasons within one's own tradition to practice something, it is not wrong to do so. Gowns are not unheard of in Reformed churches (however a change in practice should be justified and explained ahead of time to demonstrate this is not a superstition), and there are some who wear collars (Peter Leithart etc.).
@@LeoRegum I actually don't think the collar is irredeemably tainted in itself, and while there are certainly contexts where any white collar is going to make everyone think you're a Roman priest, there are others where unless you're also wearing an all black pseudo-cassock (or a real one), the assumption is that you're a Protestant pastor of some color. Maybe by some accident of history the cassock will lose its association with the Roman sacerdotal priesthood in the future, but until then I will balk at a pastor wearing one. It's not the clothing itself but consciously choosing to adopt the dress of a Roman priest (and the desire ultimately is to dress like one).
What's clearer to me than ever is that ritualism is not merely tradition for tradition's sake. It is the wholesale adoption of the idealized, anachronistic and anti-evangelical Tridentine aesthetic of the medieval. The late medieval high mass was the zenith of decadent pageantry and the nadir of godly worship. To hold Biel in one hand and a 15th century missal in another is to grasp no spirit of the Gospel. The outlook is closer to Confucius frankly than any Reformer.
@@stallard9256 Rejecting something because it is associated with Roman Catholicism is petty and only brings further division to our already divided church.
The "normative principle" may just be a Reformed invention.