Thread: Circumstances vs. Elements of Worship as per RPW

A couple of non-RPW friends have inquired about the Biblical support for the Regulative Principle within the Church, and especially on where the idea of Circumstances vs. Elements is supported via Scripture.

This is one of those questions I've really struggled to chew on and figure out, since I believe the RPW to be Biblically sound and supported, from reading confessional statements of doctrine about it vs. NPW confessional statements, but my own coherent Scriptural knowledge on worship isn't up to snuff at this point to address these issues well.

And also, I've heard Gospel Worship by Burroughs is a good resource. What else should I look into for a very basic intro to this sphere of theology. The only other book on worship I've read of any substance is D.G. Hart's Recovering Mother Kirk, which I really like for its history and liturgical Reformed arguments, but that doesn't seem to hit the issue on its head.

The Westminster Confession Chapter 21 enumerates the elements and cites particular verses in support. Everything else is circumstance (not directly regulated by Scripture).

"... and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." (WCF 1:6)

The circumstances common to all human assemblies would be things like appointing a set time of day and location. The Bible does not specify these things, but leaves it to the individual congregations to decide according to the "light of nature".

I guess what I'd say is that I've read the proof texts Chapter 21 and I'm not sure I see the connection to the RPW is in several of the NT quotes. The OT ones are pretty straightforward, and I definitely agree that there is an RPW in the OT, I'm just still tied up on how this one and

ACT 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. MAT 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (see also DEU 15:-19)

Is the Matthew reference (to XXI.1) essentially staying in continuity with the RPW established in the OT - that Christ is implicitly saying that you already know how I want you to worship me, now go and do it?

It seems fundamentally to be a hermeneutic issue that I may still not be grasping. Nonetheless, I am concerned with what seem to be stretchings of the passages in some of the proof texts.

You might read George Gillespie's "English Popish ceremonies" for one of the most definitive works on the subject.

As was said earlier, our confession details the "Elements of Worship" as specified from Scripture. The circumstances are those things which are "common to human actions and societies". In other words, if *any* group is going to meet, there must be a place, time, posture, order, lighting, etc. These, while not dictated by the Word, are to be governed by the "light of Christian prudence, and the general principles of the Word". So, a worship service scheduled at, say, 2:00A would not fit with the light of Christian prudence, since most are generally sleeping at that time, and their attention would be strained. Many other examples might be cited, but the rule is that which is common to any society that must meet must also be ordered for Public Worship as well, seeing that it also is a sociiety which is to meet. These are circumstances.

The substance or elements of the worship itself, however, is not negotiable. These are also detailed by our Confession. The Reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word, Singing of Psalms, Public Prayer, Administration of Sacraments, as ordinary, and then Lawful Oaths and Vows, Ordination, Fasting, Thankisgiving, etc. as not ordinary but still to be used in their appropriate seasons, as directed by the session or other court.

Interesting. Sorry if I'm being dense or not very understanding with this stuff at first - I have no background in any of it, so I'm trying not to swim around fruitlessly.

I appreciate the response, Rev. Ruddell. That does make sense as a straight logical development between circumstances and elements.

John L. Girardeau, The Discretionary Power of The Church:

But, in this sphere of commanded things, what is the extent of her discretionary power? This is a question which is to us, as a church, one of present, practical import. It is one of the points at which we are in especial danger of being caught off our guard—this is a gate through which the Trojan horse is sought to be introduced into our holy city. It is a real, living issue, What power has the church within the sacred, the divinely-scored circle of commanded things—of revealed duties? This being the question, the answer, for us, is most precisely given in our Confession of Faith. After stating the mighty principle of the limitation of power within the things prescribed in Scripture, it proceeds to say: "There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and the government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed." Since then, by her Constitution, the charter which defines her rights, limits her powers and prescribes her duties, the discretion of our church is astricted to "some circumstances concerning the worship of God common to human actions and societies," it is a question of the utmost consequence, What is the nature of these circumstances? Dr. Thornwell puts the case so clearly, and yet so concisely, that we quote a portion of his words in answer to this very question: "Circumstances are those concomitants of an action without which it either cannot be done at all, or cannot be done with decency and decorum. Public worship, for example, requires public assemblies, and in public assemblies people must appear in some costume and assume some posture. . . . Public assemblies, moreover, cannot be held without fixing the time and place of meeting: these are circumstances which the church is at liberty to regulate. . . . We must distinguish between those circumstances which attend actions as actions—that is, without which the actions cannot be—and those circumstances which, though not essential, are added as appendages. These last do not fall within the jurisdiction of the church. She has no right to appoint them. They are circumstances in the sense that they do not belong to the substance of the act. They are not circumstances in the sense that they so surround it that they cannot be separated from it. A liturgy is a circumstance of this kind. . . . In public worship, indeed in all commanded external actions, there are two elements—a fixed and a variable. The fixed element, involving the essence of the thing, is beyond the discretion of the church. The variable, involving only the circumstances of the action, its separable accidents, may be changed, modified or altered, according to the exigencies of the case." Such is the doctrine of one who was a profound and philosophical thinker, a man deeply taught of the Spirit, and a master of the Presbyterian system, the doctrine of Calvin and Owen, of Cunningham and Breckinridge, the doctrine of the Reformed Church of France, of the Puritans of England, and of the Church of Scotland, the doctrine to which, by the grace of God, the practice of the Free Church of Scotland and of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland, in an age of growing laxity, still continues to be conformed.

Originally Posted by Theoretical

I guess what I'd say is that I've read the proof texts Chapter 21 and I'm not sure I see the connection to the RPW is in several of the NT quotes. The OT ones are pretty straightforward, and I definitely agree that there is an RPW in the OT, I'm just still tied up on how this one and

ACT 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. MAT 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (see also DEU 15:-19)

Is the Matthew reference (to XXI.1) essentially staying in continuity with the RPW established in the OT - that Christ is implicitly saying that you already know how I want you to worship me, now go and do it?

It seems fundamentally to be a hermeneutic issue that I may still not be grasping. Nonetheless, I am concerned with what seem to be stretchings of the passages in some of the proof texts.

I think the point of using those references was to illustrate that true religion (and therefore true worship) was declared and revealed by God, and hence it is not negotiable. We don't figure out worship with our own imagination (hence not made by men's hands) or syncretize what God reveals with our own ideas. God speaks and we respond in obedience.

There are many good online sources, such as Girardeau's Discretionary Power of the Church which has been online at the NP site for many years. Also, the 2005, 2006, and forthcoming 2007 issues of The Confessional Presbyterian have a lot of useful comments in surveying the last sixty years of literature on the regulative principle of worship. At the link below is my intro to the Smith and Lachman review of the works of Gore and Frame, which covers definitions briefly.
From: Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. and David C. Lachman, Ph.D. “Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore,”The Confessional Presbyterian (2005) 116–119. Link.

Dear Theoretical, no need for an apology, sir! A straightforward question deserves a straighforward answer! I only pray I'm up to the task...

I know this is a little off topic, but relevant to the way some of the responses have been framed. It is common to speak about circumstances of worship in terms of "human actions and societies," and I may have inadvertently done so myself in the past. As I have been researching "circumstances" within the context of the Puritan debate with ceremonial imposition, it seems that "actions" refer to worship, whilst "societies" pertains to government. So when speaking about circumstances of worship (at least in Puritan thought), it is more appropriate to say, What is required to perform every action attaches circumstantially to the action of worship also; just as, What is required to govern any society attaches circumstantially to the government of the church also. I believe this will help to avoid misunderstanding with regard to the nature of a circumstance.