Extent of the RPW

Confessor · #1 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 03:31 PM

I am trying to learn all about the RPW, and I am curious to hear how it aligns with the notion of "Christian liberty" in certain affairs. I remember reading that most people here dislike John Frame's take on the subject, that RPW applies to all forms of life, not just worship at church. I did not, however, hear exactly why or how the RPW "cuts off" there, so I would appreciate some input on the subject.

Fire away.

***VictorBravo*** · #2 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 04:03 PM

Let me give a very short and imprecise answer because of lack of time:

Christian liberty deals with how we act on our own time, among our brothers and sisters, and among other people, giving due consideration to how we treat them.

The RPW deals with corporate worship of believers.

If we mix up these distinctions, things can get very confused.

larryjf · #3 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 04:51 PM

I have a huge amount of respect for Dr. Frame even though, as with all men, i don't agree with him on everything.

The RPW only regulates the elements of worship, not the circumstances. So i guess my first question to someone who thinks RPW extends to all of life would be: Which areas of life are elements and which are circumstances?

dcomin · #4 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 04:54 PM

Here's an excerpt from my book, Worship from Genesis to Revelation (which is now available as a FREE .pdf file on my blog)...

Quote:

The final verses of Exodus 20 record a little-known commandment of God regarding the construction of altars to be used in the service of sacrifice. God specifically prohibited the use of any hewn stones, carved by the tools of men, in the construction of His altars, saying “If you use your tool on it, you have profaned it.” God wanted only natural stones (those that were created by Him) to be used to the exclusion of any stones that had been “creatively altered” by men. The principle involved here is that man’s approach to God in worship is not to be “profaned” by human innovation. The moment that man uses his “tools” to alter the altar, he has created a carved image (see verse 23) and defiled the pure worship of God. The point is clear: Man’s creativity has no place in the worship of God.

It has been suggested that the application of passages such as this to worship practices is, at best, secondary to their importance in teaching that Christ is the only way to God. For example, Gen. 12:1-8 very clearly teaches that the gospel does not change with location. Blood atonement, no matter the culture or time's liking for such a concept, is the only way to God. But are we justified in drawing from this the application that the particular elements of worship are not to be affected by considerations of culture or location? Or, with regard to the example of Noah in Gen. 7:1-3; 8:13-2, the main point is that God provides all that is necessary for man to enter into a relationship with God i.e. for salvation. God provided all the animals necessary for the BLOOD SACRIFICE. But are we justified in concluding that this applies to worship in the sense that God provides all that is necessary by way of commanded ordinances and His people are not to go beyond what He has provided?

Or, with regard to this passage in Exodus 20:22-25, is not the main point that Christ is the altar, as well as the sacrifice. God provided this altar, this only way to Himself, and man can add nothing to the completed work of Christ to “help” with his salvation? It is, to be sure, a beautiful picture of the Incarnation, and of that Incarnation being entirely the work of God for us. But are we justified in drawing the application from this passage that God intends His people to abhor all human ingenuity in their worship practices and to view such inventiveness as defiling or profaning His worship?

In answer to these important questions, we would submit that it is precisely because of the fact that worship practices are designed to point to the sufficient work of Christ that man’s ingenuity, or creativity, or cultural preference, or inventiveness are forbidden, not only under the Old Covenant, but under the New.

All worship is designed to picture the glorious work of Christ for His people. Under the Old Covenant, when Christ was not yet revealed, God prescribed intricate rituals and ceremonies to picture His work to a Church under-age. To tamper with the specifics of God’s prescribed worship practices was to obscure the message they were designed to represent. Man’s additions to God’s appointed services introduced an element of human agency into the all-sufficient provision of God for His people through Christ.

Under the New Covenant, the intricate pictures of Christ in the rituals and ceremonies of worship are no longer necessary. The fulfillment has come. But the significant truth that the Old Covenant worship was designed to represent has not changed one iota: The work of Christ is still the only sufficient means of salvation for God’s people. This is why the worship of the New Covenant Church is simple and spiritual, rather than sensual and intricate, like that of our Old Covenant counterparts. But the principle remains: For man to add his “creative touch” to God’s worship ordinances is to obscure the beautiful truth that they hold before us, that man adds not one bit to His salvation by the work of His own hands. Salvation is all the work of Christ, and therefore worship, which reflects that salvation, is not to be “enhanced” by human invention.

Furthermore, to introduce more intricate practices, designed to appeal to the flesh, under the New Covenant – it has been understood by the wise fathers of our faith until fairly recent years – is to return to the weak and beggarly elements which were necessary for the Church during the time of its tutelage, but which are to be forsaken now for the simple, pure, and spiritual worship of a people who have Christ Himself in their midst. Human invention in worship, then, under the New Covenant, amounts to a practical denial that the Reality has come, and therefore the shadows are to be put away.

Matthew Henry writes of Exodus 20:24-26: “This rule being prescribed before the establishment of the ceremonial law, which appointed altars much more costly, intimates that, after the period of that law, plainness should be accepted as the best ornament of the external services of religion, and that gospel-worship should not be performed with external pomp and gaiety. The beauty of holiness needs no paint, nor do those do any service to the spouse of Christ that dress her in the attire of a harlot, as the church of Rome does.”

Another point requires our notice. One common objection to the biblical Regulative Principle of Worship argues that the Scriptures teach that “all of life is worship.” According to this view there is no real distinction between the formal public gathering of the saints to worship God and the private individual activities of work and recreation, since the Bible states: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).

This argument, however, fails to recognize the fact that God makes a clear distinction between the private exercise of creativity and the importing of such creativity into His prescribed worship. Exodus 20:25 does not forbid stonecutting as a profession or as a recreational activity, but it clearly forbids the stone-cutter from using his talents to “embellish” the pure worship of God. Nor would it be proper to assume that the stone-cutter’s lawful activities outside of worship were to be conducted without a conscious pursuit of God’s glory. God makes a distinction between formal
worship and informal devotion. In all of life, man is free to use his creativity for the advancement of God’s glory. In the ordinances of worship, however, the exercise of “creative license” profanes God’s altar.

Jimmy the Greek · #5 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 05:08 PM

Related excerpt from my Blog on RPW (in the context of discussing contemporary worship style):

The “devil is in the details,” so to speak. There are unending discussions and disagreements regarding the application of the regulative principle among Presbyterian and Reformed scholars and churchmen – and it seems obvious to most there will never be complete unanimity among them on specifics. For example, at one end of the spectrum there are some who are very puritanical and take this principle to exclude the use of musical instruments altogether and exclude singing anything but the words of the Psalms themselves, etc. At the other end, there are some like Reformed theologian John Frame who has argued for fairly liberal reformulations of the regulative principle allowing even for both contemporary music and drama in worship. And you will naturally find mediating variations in between.

In spite of disagreements regarding detailed application, the general principle that our worship should be defined by God via Sola Scriptura is certainly advisable — and surely involves some limits on the devices and imaginations of men regarding innovations in worship.

In my estimation, those who adhere to the “regulative principle of worship” are honorable in their desire to hold fast to the commandments of God and to avoid falling into sinful practices. However, the New Testament does seem to offer a freedom to believers in the way we relate to God, albeit within boundaries. The NT makes it clear we are to worship “in spirit and in truth,” (Jn. 4:24). It is clear our worship should show due reverence (Heb. 12:28-29) and be done in an orderly fashion (1 Cor. 14:26-33). Yet, these principles certainly allow some variation in specific application. It is up to us to seek God’s revealed will in the Scriptures as we consider those potential variations.

I find myself in general agreement with the regulative principle of worship. There is certainly a warrant for carefully examining everything in the light of Scripture; and when it comes to worship, I certainly would want it to be as God wants it to be. I should be very careful about innovations in worship and seriously question my own judgment and motives in such matters.

I remain unhappy with much of what I see in contemporary worship trends, in style and underlying theology, and will likely deal more with this in the future. For now, I will conclude with a quote from W. Robert Godfrey, in which he comments on Entertainment, Evangelism, and Worship as follows:

“The call for entertainment in worship in our time is often cast in a particularly seductive form. Entertainment is often sold in the name of evangelism. We are told that we must make worship interesting and exciting for the unconverted so that they will come to church and be converted. At first glance that argument is very appealing. We all want to see many brought to faith in Christ. Who wants to be against evangelism? But we must remember: entertainment is not evangelism, and evangelism is not worship. People are evangelized, not by a juggler, but by the presentation of the Gospel. And while evangelism may occur in worship as the Gospel is faithfully proclaimed, the purpose and focus of worship is that those who believe in Christ should gather and meet with God.

“In 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 the apostle Paul comments on the presence of an unbeliever in a worship service. He does not call for the church to entertain the unbeliever or make him feel comfortable. Rather, in the clear and understandable articulation of the truth, the unbeliever should be convinced that he is a sinner. “So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, ‘God is really among you!’” Faithful worship, where the primary purpose is the meeting of God with his people through his Word, may well have the secondary result that unbelievers will come to faith. But worship must not be constructed for the unbeliever. Rather, it is for God and the church.

“The whole service in the church, then, must not be shaped for either entertainment or evangelism. Instead, it must serve to unite the people of God for their meeting with God.” (from Pleasing God in our Worship)

I will simply end with a final exortation from Scripture:

Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire. (Heb. 12:28-29)

***NaphtaliPress*** · #6 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 05:17 PM

What is the Regulative Principle of Worship - The PuritanBoard

Whence the Regulative Principle of Worship? 1 - The PuritanBoard

Whence the Regulative Principle of Worship? 2 - The PuritanBoard

VirginiaHuguenot · #7 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 05:44 PM

http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/when...science-30131/
RPW & Music In The Wider Culture
Praise Song Sung on American Idol Tonight

Confessor · #8 (**permalink**) 09-10-2008, 12:55 AM

Thank you all for your help, and especially the links.