I have been in conversation with my pastor about the RPW. He's been very welcoming, knowing that I hold to a strict view of the RPW, and he's said that he's happy to talk about it with me.
He has told me that he "agrees with" the RPW, although it appears to me that his perspective is practically indistinguishable from a normative principle, or at least unrecognizable as the regulative principle. Basically, he has said that we are free to worship in such a way that God is the focus, so, for example, musical instruments should not be too loud and should fit the mood.
My pastor seems to be getting a lot from John Frame. He sent me this link, to Frame's "Fresh Look at the Regulative Principle".
https://frame-poythress.org/a-fresh-look-at-the-regulative-principle-a-broader-view/
At least some of what Frame says seems off. Here are a couple of things.
"The regulative principle for worship is the same as the regulative principle for all of human life."
This seems odd to me. Why does he think that, because all of one's life is worship, that it is regulated the same way? I do not know of anyone else (Reformed, holding to the RPW) who has said this.
He also rejects some specific terms as unscriptural:
"Reformed thinkers have labored over concepts like elements, parts, substance, essence, accident, forms, expressions, and circumstances (further subdivided into circumstances with and without religious significance, and those necessary and unnecessary to the orderly conduct of worship). In my opinion, these concepts are not helpful, and using them to add further restrictions to the broad regulative principle is not scriptural."
That's quite a statement to make. He goes on to say that the foundation of much of this lies in Aristotelian philosophy and is in fact not supported by Scripture.
Frame also says that the WCF doesn't specifically address things such as elements and consequences. However, WCF Chapter I.VI does seem to have something to say about that, and especially also Chapter XXI, even if the exact terms are not used. (He does not refer to other parts of the Standards.)
I recognize that among Reformed Christians there are differences about how to define the RPW. But it seems to me that Frame's view lies outside any historic Reformed understanding. I find it misleading and confusing that he refers to his view as "RPW" when in key areas he appears to clearly depart from it.
I would appreciate others' thoughts on this. What is right or wrong about Frame's view of the RPW? I do not wish to be unfair to John Frame (or to my pastor) and maybe I am merely misunderstanding.
He has told me that he "agrees with" the RPW, although it appears to me that his perspective is practically indistinguishable from a normative principle, or at least unrecognizable as the regulative principle. Basically, he has said that we are free to worship in such a way that God is the focus, so, for example, musical instruments should not be too loud and should fit the mood.
My pastor seems to be getting a lot from John Frame. He sent me this link, to Frame's "Fresh Look at the Regulative Principle".
https://frame-poythress.org/a-fresh-look-at-the-regulative-principle-a-broader-view/
At least some of what Frame says seems off. Here are a couple of things.
"The regulative principle for worship is the same as the regulative principle for all of human life."
This seems odd to me. Why does he think that, because all of one's life is worship, that it is regulated the same way? I do not know of anyone else (Reformed, holding to the RPW) who has said this.
He also rejects some specific terms as unscriptural:
"Reformed thinkers have labored over concepts like elements, parts, substance, essence, accident, forms, expressions, and circumstances (further subdivided into circumstances with and without religious significance, and those necessary and unnecessary to the orderly conduct of worship). In my opinion, these concepts are not helpful, and using them to add further restrictions to the broad regulative principle is not scriptural."
That's quite a statement to make. He goes on to say that the foundation of much of this lies in Aristotelian philosophy and is in fact not supported by Scripture.
Frame also says that the WCF doesn't specifically address things such as elements and consequences. However, WCF Chapter I.VI does seem to have something to say about that, and especially also Chapter XXI, even if the exact terms are not used. (He does not refer to other parts of the Standards.)
I recognize that among Reformed Christians there are differences about how to define the RPW. But it seems to me that Frame's view lies outside any historic Reformed understanding. I find it misleading and confusing that he refers to his view as "RPW" when in key areas he appears to clearly depart from it.
I would appreciate others' thoughts on this. What is right or wrong about Frame's view of the RPW? I do not wish to be unfair to John Frame (or to my pastor) and maybe I am merely misunderstanding.
Last edited: