Discussing the RPW (Split from What This is a Reformed Board?)

[Daniel Ritchie]

I think it is well-worth pointing out that if you do not agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship then you are not Reformed in the proper sense of the word. You may be a Calvinist - as was Martin Luther and the English Reformers - but the thing that set the Reformed apart from other Protestants was their commitment to the Regulative Principle.



ADMIN NOTE: This thread was split off from What?! This is a Reformed Board?! as it transformed an "announcement" into a debate over the RPW.

[Amazing Grace]

Richard: excellent point. We fail to realize what it meant and should mean to be part of a covenant community. Rules, duties, etc etc kick against the self righteousness we all have. That is the reason Biblical Discipline does not work at all any more. IF one is disciplined for "not following the rules," they will just leave and go to another church. The lessons from Scripture point out how serious God is about community. From Israel as a nation, to the NT assembly, it has always been a covenant community. Yet the present times reflects such a growth of individualism, that the rcc has a legitamate gripe about the 30k denominations protties have. Luther would have never dreamed this would happen, and we should lament this fact continuously. I do not kow what the exact reason is other than attributing it to some false "divine Right' "Self elevated" behavior men posess. We dont believe in EP, well we will start another church. We dont believe in the RPW, so we will start another church. We dont believe in wooden pews, so we will start another church. No instruments here, well we will start another church. I cant sleep around? Ill leave and go to another church. You mean you wont immerse my child, ill go to another church.

The same thing happens here and other boards with rules. Everyone thinks they ave a right to their opinion. Well they do in a sense, but to come in and try to get the whole to change becasue of one, is just arrogant.

Grace has to come from both parties, and it is statements like Daniels above, if you do not agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship then you are not Reformed in the proper sense of the word that inflame many and I would say generate battle lines. WHy? Becasue I seriously believe that some find more merit to be "Reformed" according to their own or another subjective opinion that it is to be biblical. I have seen so many defend the reformed faith as their goal instead of God's word, myself included, that we lose focus and think we are way more important than others. When in fact we are nothing but grasshoppers that merit nothing.

[Semper Fidelis]

The whole point of this thread wasn't to cast Christians who deny the RPW into outer darkness. It was to point out that this board is distinctively Reformed and to be graciously acute of that fact. I don't believe it gives me the right to be arbitrary or mean-spirited in how the rules are enforced.

[elnwood]

Just to clarify, would John Frame not be considered Reformed or in keeping with the Confessions because of his view of the RPW?

[Wannabee]

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

if you do not agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship then you are not Reformed in the proper sense of the word[/b].

The way I understand it, if you're credo you're not really reformed, in the proper sense of the word, either. It seems Baptists have to borrow the word in order to consider themselves "reformed." Perhaps "reforming" would be better. Then the board would be composed of those both reformed and reforming.

[JohnV]

So, Rich, I can disagree with what seems to be the general consensus of what the RPW is and still be deemed as a member in good standing? I hold to the RPW, but its obviously not the same as what some hold to. I believe that the view that I hold to is more in line with the Confessional standards. I am not alone in this, even if I were the only one on this Board who thought so. And my view would not allow an EP that stands because of the RPW, as that would be a misunderstanding and a backwards application of it. And I am fully convinced that this is the Reformed view.

Rich, I don't think that the RPW is a good place to make the point. It could come back and bite you.

[BlackCalvinist]

*imagines the sign*


WELCOME TO OUR SWIMMING _OOL!!

You'll notice there's no P in it. Please keep it that way.

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally Posted by elnwood

Just to clarify, would John Frame not be considered Reformed or in keeping with the Confessions because of his view of the RPW?

Discussing it would probably be ok. But his view is not the confessional or historic understanding of the RPW. He redefines it into something completely different. :2 cents:

[DMcFadden]

Wannabee wrote: The way I understand it, if you're credo you're not really reformed, in the proper sense of the word, either. It seems Baptists have to borrow the word in order to consider themselves "reformed." Perhaps "reforming" would be better. Then the board would be composed of those both reformed and reforming.

As a relative newbie to this board (67 posts and counting), I was under the impression that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith was sufficient for participation (???). My "glidepath" has been moving in a more and more decidedly "reformed" direction. But, EP I am not (yet). I appreciate Rich's leniency and patience. However, it never crossed my mind to object to those who uphold traditionally reformed (i.e. "truly" reformed?) understandings of the RPW or anything else. This is a REFORMED board afterall (Duh!). As a Baptist, I try to keep my mouth shut on baptism issues (except for a jest or two) and enjoy what has been a blessed blessed place to learn and contribute. Thanks!

[Nse007]

Originally Posted by JohnV

So, Rich, I can disagree with what seems to be the general consensus of what the RPW is and still be deemed as a member in good standing? I hold to the RPW, but its obviously not the same as what some hold to. I believe that the view that I hold to is more in line with the Confessional standards. I am not alone in this, even if I were the only one on this Board who thought so. And my view would not allow an EP that stands because of the RPW, as that would be a misunderstanding and a backwards application of it. And I am fully convinced that this is the Reformed view.

Rich, I don't think that the RPW is a good place to make the point. It could come back and bite you.

I think his point Jon is that the historic understanding of the creeds do not mesh with what you believe to be more biblical. Not discrediting your right to differ, but just pointing out that it is in fact different from what the drafters of the WCF intended and practiced historically

[Daniel Ritchie]

Originally Posted by elnwood

Just to clarify, would John Frame not be considered Reformed or in keeping with the Confessions because of his view of the RPW?

In my opinion, John Frame is not Reformed with regards to worship; he might claim to be, however, he is an enemy of the Regulative Principle as it is set forth in the Westminster Standards.

[JohnV]

Originally Posted by Nse007

I think his point Jon is that the historic understanding of the creeds do not mesh with what you believe to be more biblical. Not discrediting your right to differ, but just pointing out that it is in fact different from what the drafters of the WCF intended and practiced historically

I don't think so, Nse. The point was about upholding the standards of this Board, contrary to what some churches are wont to do with their standards. I agree with Rich about that, as I also would concerning the dispute about whether the Reformed hold to the RPW. I don't think this is about differences in the Reformed camp about the RPW. That's what my question was about.

As to the RPW in its historic and confessional context, I am quite able to defend my view, and have done so before the church, before a church that did not agree. But it's not my view, for it was what was formally taught to me by my church, in sermons, in catechism classes, and in Bible study classes: it's what I was taught to believe concerning worship. And in the plainest sense, it's what the Standards teach. But most of all, it's plainly set out in the Bible: teaching what God did not say to teach was punishable by death (Deut. 18); and Jesus plainly ties worship and preaching together in Matt. 15 when He says, "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." If preaching is part of worship, then the RPW applies to preaching: that which is not commanded is forbidden. And if the Word is the central part of worship, then the RPW applies most of all (centrally) to the preaching of that Word. I think I'm pretty firmly rooted in the Reformed heritage in my view of the RPW.

[NaphtaliPress]

For the question of whether the Westminster Standards "teach" Exclusive Psalmody, see this post and this thread. It is essentially what I also say in an appendix to part two of the sixty year RPW survey in the now available 2007 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian journal.

[JohnV]

Yes, I recall reading that post.

[NaphtaliPress]

Yep; it was more for the uninitiated.

[Ivanhoe]

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

In my opinion, John Frame is not Reformed with regards to worship; he might claim to be, however, he is an enemy of the Regulative Principle as it is set forth in the Westminster Standards.

Let's be careful tossing around words like "enemy." Frame is an ordained minister in good standing in the PCA. He is one of the few Reformed theologians who is capable of defending the *Reformed* faith from philosophical challenges. Not to mention, he was good friends with your avatar's namesake, as well as speaking at his funeral.

[Me Died Blue]

Originally Posted by JohnV

So, Rich, I can disagree with what seems to be the general consensus of what the RPW is and still be deemed as a member in good standing? I hold to the RPW, but its obviously not the same as what some hold to. I believe that the view that I hold to is more in line with the Confessional standards. I am not alone in this, even if I were the only one on this Board who thought so. And my view would not allow an EP that stands because of the RPW, as that would be a misunderstanding and a backwards application of it. And I am fully convinced that this is the Reformed view.

John, like you and many others on the board (including pastors and elders; Baptist, Presbyterian, and Reformed), I personally agree that the RPW itself does not allow EP, believing that the Bible commands us to sing "hymns" (beyond the Psalter), and that there was no revelatory instruction at all (by command or example) for previous other hymns and spiritual songs to cease when the Psalter was completed.

Even so, I (along with most other non-EPers here, and throughout the various Reformed denominations) nonetheless recognize that EP historically has been a normative application of the RPW within the confessional Reformed churches until relatively recently. As such, our belief about EP (as well as the worship orders of the PCA, OPC, etc.) is an exception to how the RPW was originally and predominantly applied. Even so, it is indeed an exception only to an application of the principle, and not to the principle itself, which you or I would defend as readily as any EPer. And it is that confessional principle as a whole (that God alone defines how He is to be worshiped) of which Rich is reminding everyone, since even that has sometimes come under dispute from time to time here.

Originally Posted by JohnV

Rich, I don't think that the RPW is a good place to make the point. It could come back and bite you.

In spite of the differences in application that have and will no doubt continue to come up, there really can be no apology for reminding everyone that this is in fact a Reformed board, and that while discussion to understand and sharpen is fine, the principle as a whole will always be defended as the norm here. That is because it has definitely been one of the key distinguishing factors of Reformed theology ever since the Reformation, even over and against the other confessional Protestant churches such as Lutheranism and Anglicanism.

[Daniel Ritchie]

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Let's be careful tossing around words like "enemy." Frame is an ordained minister in good standing in the PCA. He is one of the few Reformed theologians who is capable of defending the *Reformed* faith from philosophical challenges. Not to mention, he was good friends with your avatar's namesake, as well as speaking at his funeral.

I believe it can be justified; he has completely redefined the regulative principle to the extent that his position is fundamentally at enmity with the Westminster Standards on the RPW. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Frame's work in other areas (Apologetics, Systematic Theology etc) but when it comes to worship his views have done a lot of damage (which is a shame whenever you consider the good work his done). While he may be a minister in good standing in the PCA, this is probably because the PCA represents such a broad range of opinion.

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally Posted by JohnV

So, Rich, I can disagree with what seems to be the general consensus of what the RPW is and still be deemed as a member in good standing? I hold to the RPW, but its obviously not the same as what some hold to. I believe that the view that I hold to is more in line with the Confessional standards. I am not alone in this, even if I were the only one on this Board who thought so. And my view would not allow an EP that stands because of the RPW, as that would be a misunderstanding and a backwards application of it. And I am fully convinced that this is the Reformed view.

Rich, I don't think that the RPW is a good place to make the point. It could come back and bite you.

John,

I'll only be intermittent on the board for a week or two and may miss some things.

I think you need to read the initial post in context and not as developed.

I *do* think that the Worship forum is a good place to make the exact point I was making. We've got some guest on the board that don't hold to the RPW in any recognizable way but, rather, the NPW. There will always be debates about EP but I believe those can be conducted within the pale of the RPW (I know there are some that will disagree).

My problem is with those that come on the board, state they have read and agree to the Confessions, and then interact for the first time on the RPW and start calling conscience-bound Christians Pharisees. It's not up to the board to defend why we don't hold to the NPW and it is rude and uncharitable to throw the "P" word around ignorantly.