Dr. Bob Gonzales
Puritan Board Junior
Brothers,
I've been reading John Frame's Worship in Spirit and Truth. I'm not always comfortable with the degree of latitude he seems willing to grant in relation to some of the elements of worship. For example, though he asserts that he's "not an advocate of the use of drama" and argues that "there are many considerations arguing that the word is usually presented better through the traditional monologue than through drama," he's willing to concede that "Scripture gives us the freedom to use drama" (pp. 93-94). And I'm not sure he's merely referring to the use of dramatic gestures in the act of preaching.
My question, however, relates to Frame's view of the RPW. He affirms that we should only worship God in the ways that God's word warrants (pp. 38-39). But he also argues that the RPW should be applied to all of life as an application of sola Scriptura. For instance, he writes, "God is not pleased with just anything we choose to do in this presence. The Mighty Lord of heaven and earth demands that our worship--indeed, all of life--be governed by his word" (p. 37). Later he writes, "The regulative principle for worship is no different from the principles by which God regulates all of our life" (42). He then argues, "My own formulation does not contradict the confession, but goes beyond it" (43). So Frame affirms the RPW, but he believes it applies both to worship in the narrow sense (i.e., corporate worship) and worship in the broad sense (i.e., all of life). In other words, he seems to argue that the RPW is in essence simply sola Scriptura.
Someone has suggested to me that in fact the Puritans intended the RPW as a rule distinct from the principle that governs all of life. The way it was framed was that all-of-life worship is governed by the normative principle whereas corporate worship is governed by the regulative principle. Is this accurate? I've read through the 1689 (to which I subscribe) but I can't seem to find this distinction clearly made. Do the other Reformed confessions make this distinction? If so, what are the main proof texts that they employ to make this distinction? My own confession references the 2nd commandment. What would you consider to be other key texts?
I've been reading John Frame's Worship in Spirit and Truth. I'm not always comfortable with the degree of latitude he seems willing to grant in relation to some of the elements of worship. For example, though he asserts that he's "not an advocate of the use of drama" and argues that "there are many considerations arguing that the word is usually presented better through the traditional monologue than through drama," he's willing to concede that "Scripture gives us the freedom to use drama" (pp. 93-94). And I'm not sure he's merely referring to the use of dramatic gestures in the act of preaching.
My question, however, relates to Frame's view of the RPW. He affirms that we should only worship God in the ways that God's word warrants (pp. 38-39). But he also argues that the RPW should be applied to all of life as an application of sola Scriptura. For instance, he writes, "God is not pleased with just anything we choose to do in this presence. The Mighty Lord of heaven and earth demands that our worship--indeed, all of life--be governed by his word" (p. 37). Later he writes, "The regulative principle for worship is no different from the principles by which God regulates all of our life" (42). He then argues, "My own formulation does not contradict the confession, but goes beyond it" (43). So Frame affirms the RPW, but he believes it applies both to worship in the narrow sense (i.e., corporate worship) and worship in the broad sense (i.e., all of life). In other words, he seems to argue that the RPW is in essence simply sola Scriptura.
Someone has suggested to me that in fact the Puritans intended the RPW as a rule distinct from the principle that governs all of life. The way it was framed was that all-of-life worship is governed by the normative principle whereas corporate worship is governed by the regulative principle. Is this accurate? I've read through the 1689 (to which I subscribe) but I can't seem to find this distinction clearly made. Do the other Reformed confessions make this distinction? If so, what are the main proof texts that they employ to make this distinction? My own confession references the 2nd commandment. What would you consider to be other key texts?