Regulative Principle Distinction

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Some elders I have been around the past few years make an interesting distinction of importance, and they claim their view is most in line with the Bible.

They hold to the regulative principle, but emphasize that God's expectations for us to be regulative only go so far as God has commanded.

So, in the Bible, God only punishes or disciplines people for breaking a specific command He gave them, not for doing something He didn't concern Himself with or regulate. The offering of strange fire is an example, as there was a clear command given by God of what to do, and it was broken, therefore there was judgment.

This perspective does make a difference in practice. Any thoughts? Can you think of any biblical examples where God punished people for doing something He had given no previous command about?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm not sure I understand this idea. What difference does it make in practice? The regulative principle of worship is not to command is to forbid. God does not need to have a commandment against every way His worship is violated. And what about the rules for understanding the ten commandments? How does this view not run afoul of those and treat the second commandment someway different w.r.t. to the RPW from which it derives?
Q. 99. What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?
A. For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed:
1. That the law is perfect, and bindeth everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin.422
2. That it is spiritual, and so reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures.423
3. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments.424
4. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden;425 and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded:426 so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included;427 and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included.428
5. That what God forbids, is at no time to be done;429 what he commands, is always our duty;430 and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.431
6. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.432
7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places to endeavour that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.433
8. That in what is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them;434 and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them.435

 

[Joshua]

Regulative principle, but?

Here are two instances where the LORD Himself says that His people did things that He never commanded, followed up with promises of judgment:

Jeremiah 19:

[T]hey have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.​

Jeremiah 32:

And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. And now therefore thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence.​

The point, of course, is that these are things He never commanded; ergo, don't do it. There does not have to be a command or even commentary about something from the LORD in order to necessitate it's "forbiddenness" when it comes to His worship. The very fact it is not broached is necessity enough not to raise it up. Besides these very explicit statements, there is the testimony throughout Scripture demanding that we understand the LORD hates our inventions, our additions, and accretions in worship, order, etc. in the elements of His Kingdom.

 

[Taylor]

How is this any different than the normative principle?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Regulative principle, but?

How is this any different than the normative principle?

This does sound like a normative principle (we may do in worship that which is not explicitly forbidden); reminds also of Frame's redefining the regulative principle rather than simply rejecting it as it had always been defined in Reformed orthodoxy.

 

[Afterthought]

God had given no previous command with the strange fire. God had given a command about strange incense but not strange fire. They were to infer that they should use the fire given by God (which was later explicitly commanded in Leviticus 16 for the day of atonement).

Deut 12 (which is a commentary on the second commandment; follow Moses' logic from no images to no uncommanded worship) says neither to add nor to subtract to the worship God commands.

The handwashing of the Pharisees had no command, but it was condemned.

Matthew 28 shows that the disciples only have authority to teach what God commands and therefore in particular only have authority in worship concerning what God commands; adding to worship or subtracting from worship would be an abuse of their authority.

The regulative principle assumes that we do not know how to worship God. This principle stated in the OP assumes that we do know how to worship the holy and infinite God--a consuming fire, which is pride and idolatry for finite and sinful men to assume (part of God's command is to approach him through Christ). This principle in the OP is actually just the normative principle. "Whatsoever is not forbidden is permitted...." where under "forbidden" categories includes changing worship God had previously given a command about.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The regulative principle assumes that we do not know how to worship God.

Outstanding, very helpful.

 

[iainduguid]

Regulative principle, but?

Here are two instances where the LORD Himself says that His people did things that He never commanded, followed up with promises of judgment:

Jeremiah 19:

[T]hey have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.​

Jeremiah 32:

And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. And now therefore thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence.​

The point, of course, is that these are things He never commanded; ergo, don't do it. There does not have to be a command or even commentary about something from the LORD in order to necessitate it's "forbiddenness" when it comes to His worship. The very fact it is not broached is necessity enough not to raise it up. Besides these very explicit statements, there is the testimony throughout Scripture demanding that we understand the LORD hates our inventions, our additions, and accretions in worship, order, etc. in the elements of His Kingdom.

As a tangential side note, in English, we distinguish easily between “which he had not commanded them to do” (not required) and “which he had commanded them not to do” (prohibited) by word order, but in Hebrew no such simple distinction exists. In fact, the Old Testament has no precise equivalent verb to “to prohibit” and elsewhere uses “not to command” in exactly that sense (see Jouon 160k). In Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5 and 32:35 the phrase “which I did not command” (‘ašer lo‘ tsivvîtî) has reference to those who offer their children as burnt offerings on the high places, something specifically prohibited in Leviticus 18:21. This does suggest that Leviticus 10 (along with the Jeremiah passages cited above) are not quite the slam dunk proof texts for the RPW they is sometimes treated as being. As some of the other posts have argued, I think you can still get there from other texts, but its important to make sure that our working is valid as well as our conclusions.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

This does sound like a normative principle (we may do in worship that which is not explicitly forbidden); reminds also of Frame's redefining the regulative principle rather than simply rejecting it as it had always been defined in Reformed orthodoxy.

I think the elder was a student of Frame if my memory is correct.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Regulative principle, but?

Here are two instances where the LORD Himself says that His people did things that He never commanded, followed up with promises of judgment:

Jeremiah 19:

[T]hey have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.​

Jeremiah 32:

And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. And now therefore thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence.​

The point, of course, is that these are things He never commanded; ergo, don't do it. There does not have to be a command or even commentary about something from the LORD in order to necessitate it's "forbiddenness" when it comes to His worship. The very fact it is not broached is necessity enough not to raise it up. Besides these very explicit statements, there is the testimony throughout Scripture demanding that we understand the LORD hates our inventions, our additions, and accretions in worship, order, etc. in the elements of His Kingdom.

Thanks for the reply. I think they would say God did give commands not to worship idols, in the 10. Therefore they are accountable for not making idols. Does that make sense?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

How is this any different than the normative principle?

It's not. Just cleverly repackaged in "RPW" wrapping paper.

 

[Joshua]

As a tangential side note, in English, we distinguish easily between “which he had not commanded them to do” (not required) and “which he had commanded them not to do” (prohibited) by word order, but in Hebrew no such simple distinction exists. In fact, the Old Testament has no precise equivalent verb to “to prohibit” and elsewhere uses “not to command” in exactly that sense (see Jouon 160k). In Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5 and 32:35 the phrase “which I did not command” (‘ašer lo‘ tsivvîtî) has reference to those who offer their children as burnt offerings on the high places, something specifically prohibited in Leviticus 18:21. This does suggest that Leviticus 10 (along with the Jeremiah passages cited above) are not quite the slam dunk proof texts for the RPW they is sometimes treated as being. As some of the other posts have argued, I think you can still get there from other texts, but its important to make sure that our working is valid as well as our conclusions.

Thank you. I am not a fan of "slam dunk" points, either. The Analogy of Scripture is our best guide to full orbed thorough Christianity, doubtless. My post was not intended to be a prooftext gotcha, but a brief response followed with the "testimony throughout Scripture" comment, implying that the Scriptures cannot be broken. Like God's perfections/attributes -which we separate so that we can try to get a grip on their import- the truth is all interconnected, but we poor creatures have to parse things out here and there.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

God had given no previous command with the strange fire. God had given a command about strange incense but not strange fire. They were to infer that they should use the fire given by God (which was later explicitly commanded in Leviticus 16 for the day of atonement).

Deut 12 (which is a commentary on the second commandment; follow Moses' logic from no images to no uncommanded worship) says neither to add nor to subtract to the worship God commands.

The handwashing of the Pharisees had no command, but it was condemned.

Matthew 28 shows that the disciples only have authority to teach what God commands and therefore in particular only have authority in worship concerning what God commands; adding to worship or subtracting from worship would be an abuse of their authority.

The regulative principle assumes that we do not know how to worship God. This principle stated in the OP assumes that we do know how to worship the holy and infinite God--a consuming fire, which is pride and idolatry for finite and sinful men to assume (part of God's command is to approach him through Christ). This principle in the OP is actually just the normative principle. "Whatsoever is not forbidden is permitted...." where under "forbidden" categories includes changing worship God had previously given a command about.

These are good points. How else could Deuteronomy 12 be understood from their side? As only referring to adding or subtracting from the commands , as opposed to that which God hasn't spoken of?

So God hasn't spoken about candles in worship, therefore He's not concerned with them so long as they don't violate other clear principles in the Bible.

How can that be refuted?

 

[Joshua]

Thanks for the reply. I think they would say God did give commands not to worship idols, in the 10. Therefore they are accountable for not making idols. Does that make sense?

Yes, I understand. My follow up in quoting those scriptures was intended to show that looking for bare prohibitions is not the approach to the service of our LORD we are to take. Rather, He approves His worship. Worship is primarily FOR Him (though we benefit therefrom), and always UNTO Him. So He determines what is acceptable. Man would seek to devise all manner of things, but the LORD has shown us what is acceptable to Him.

Micah 6:

​

Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God?​

​

- shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?​

- Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or​

- with ten thousands of rivers of oil?​

- shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?​

​

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?​

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm not sure I understand this idea. What difference does it make in practice?

I'm still not sure what the point is, so I'm flagging my question asked earlier. What are the differences in practice? What is this veiled normative view being presented justifying that apparently is thought would be violating the truly stated regulative principle of worship?

 

[Eyedoc84]

These are good points. How else could Deuteronomy 12 be understood from their side? As only referring to adding or subtracting from the commands , as opposed to that which God hasn't spoken of?

So God hasn't spoken about candles in worship, therefore He's not concerned with them so long as they don't violate other clear principles in the Bible.

How can that be refuted?

You’ve just restated the normative principle.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I'm still not sure what the point is, so I'm flagging my question asked earlier. What are the differences in practice? What is this veiled normative view being presented justifying that apparently is thought would be violating the truly stated regulative principle of worship?

For example, lighting candles during a service around Christmas. Or even having a Christmas Eve service, for that matter.

So the idea is that God didn't really give a command in regards to these things, therefore we have freedoms where He hasn't regulated things.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

For example, lighting candles during a service around Christmas. Or even having a Christmas Eve service, for that matter.

So the idea is that God didn't really give a command in regards to these things, therefore we have freedoms where He hasn't regulated things.

Well, folks who claim to hold and define the RPW correctly argue for some of those things. In any event, as presented this argument confuses the regulative principle, rules governing circumstances, and ignores other aspects of these questions such as what to do with superstitious customs and those things that are monuments of idolatry in the past and present.

 

[Afterthought]

These are good points. How else could Deuteronomy 12 be understood from their side? As only referring to adding or subtracting from the commands , as opposed to that which God hasn't spoken of?

So God hasn't spoken about candles in worship, therefore He's not concerned with them so long as they don't violate other clear principles in the Bible.

How can that be refuted?

Aside from the other passages I and others have mentioned, the Jeremiah passage explicitly states that the particular piece of worship was not spoken, neither did it come into God's mind. Although child sacrifice was explicitly condemned, it is further condemned because it is a practice that God did not command, neither even think to command: we should pay attention to the reasons God says he condemns something.

For Deut 12, yes, that is how they might view it. Read the passage though, and it will be plain that the passage is concerned with adding or subtracting from God's worship (e.g., "do not as the heathen do"). If one uses candles in worship, one is adding to what God has commanded in worship, anyway, so the example is self-defeating.

Furthermore, under the regulative principle, there is no such thing as merely permitted worship: either it is commanded and needs to be done ("whatsoever I command you, observe to do it"), or it is not commanded and forbidden ("neither add thereto nor diminish from it"). Under the idea that this elder has proposed, there is a category of worship that is indifferent (worship that "God hasn't spoken of;" worship where there is no command of what they are supposed to do). Worship is restricted by God to that which he commands, and that which he commands must be done; therefore, to add or subtract from worship is to add or subtract from what God commands....unless there is a category of worship that is merely permitted and indifferent (may be done or may not be done), which is contrary to what Deut 12 says.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

unless there is a category of worship that is merely permitted and indifferent (may be done or may not be done), which is contrary to what Deut 12 says.

“How absurd a tenet is this, which holds that there is some particular worship of God allowed, and not commanded? What new light is this which makes all our divines [i.e. theologians] to have been in the mist, who have acknowledged no worship of God, but that which God has commanded? Whoever heard of commanded and allowed worship?”George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 2013).

 

[VictorBravo]

For example, lighting candles during a service around Christmas.

The question is, why are they doing these things. Is there a power failure? (Leaving aside Christmas worship).

Or is it to make worship "better?"

If the latter, that is precisely the problem.

 

[Tom Hart]

So the idea is that God didn't really give a command in regards to these things, therefore we have freedoms where He hasn't regulated things.

That last bit: "We have freedom in worship where God has not regulated it."

There's the problem. What part of worship has God not regulated?

The Regulative Principle of Worship states that all worship must be offered according to the commands of Almighty God. If God has not commanded it, it is sin.

 

[Tom Hart]

Regulative Principle:
"What is commanded is required, what has not been commanded is forbidden."

Normative Principle:
"What is not expressly forbidden is okie-dokie."

Roman Catholic:
"The pope says so. Also tradition, I guess."

Regulative Worship acc. John Frame
(See Normative Principle, above.)

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Are there any examples in the Bible where God condemns/disciplines people for doing something He did not forbid or give a command about?

Are there any Biblical examples where God seems to approve something that He did not forbid or give a command about?

I just want to examine this unbiasedly to make sure I'm embracing the truth the best I can.

It sounds like they are claiming to be regulative, but at the same time making it a hybrid. But then again maybe it's straight up normative.

 

[bookslover]

"What is not commanded is forbidden" is the definition of the Regulative Principle.

But, does that really follow?

If there are an apple and an orange on a table, and I command you to eat the apple, have I forbidden you from eating the orange just based on the command to eat the apple? That doesn't seem to follow, logically. Nothing has been said about the orange, either way.

Am I missing something?

 

[Tom Hart]

"What is not commanded is forbidden" is the definition of the Regulative Principle.

But, does that really follow?

If there are an apple and an orange on a table, and I command you to eat the apple, have I forbidden you from eating the orange just based on the command to eat the apple? That doesn't seem to follow, logically. Nothing has been said about the orange, either way.

Am I missing something?

One could say you're comparing apples and oranges.

In fact, your example highlights the difference. Laying fruit on a table is not comparable to the worship of God. Worship is not an ordinary activity.

Then there's the issue of authority. If God tells us to do something, ought we really add to it?

Imagine you work at a coffee shop. One day, a customer pops in and asks for a cup of coffee. "Black," he says, "no sugar."

You say to yourself, "Well, he said black, but a little cream and sugar wouldn't hurt. In fact, I think it's an improvement. I know I'd prefer it."

You hand him his coffee and he takes a sip. What will he say? "That's not what I ordered." It won't help that you explain your reasons, that you prefer your coffee with cream and sugar.

To some point, we can consider God the "consumer" of our worship. But there's a very apparent difference between God and a customer at a coffee shop.

God is not asking us. He's commanding us. We might think we're improving on things, but when we exceed God's commands, we are invariably guilty of sin.

 

[Tom Hart]

Also, I think it is better to think of the RPW positively. It is not inaccurate to say that what is commanded is forbidden. However, it is more proper to say that what is commanded is what we are to do. We are bound by the command and limited by it, for God's pleasure and our own good.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

"What is not commanded is forbidden" is the definition of the Regulative Principle.

But, does that really follow?

If there are an apple and an orange on a table, and I command you to eat the apple, have I forbidden you from eating the orange just based on the command to eat the apple? That doesn't seem to follow, logically. Nothing has been said about the orange, either way.

Am I missing something?

Yes, the Regulative Principle is about God's worship, not about eating apples and oranges, so that kind of analogy doesn't obtain.

Edit: just noticed @Tom Hart already answered much better above.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Are there any examples in the Bible where God condemns/disciplines people for doing something He did not forbid or give a command about?

Are there any Biblical examples where God seems to approve something that He did not forbid or give a command about?

I just want to examine this unbiasedly to make sure I'm embracing the truth the best I can.

It sounds like they are claiming to be regulative, but at the same time making it a hybrid. But then again maybe it's straight up normative.

Cain springs to mind. I know he was discussed recently, and some demurred at the idea he offered unregulated worship, but I think that's a fairly clear example. Nadab and Abihu too. I assume this person would say Uzzah is not a valid example since God had given a command about how the ark was to be carried.

The point though is that the question as you've stated it (and I know it's not your opinion but you're quoting someone else) is simply the Normative Principle. People who believe that should just be honest and say they hold to the Normative Principle rather than try to pretend that is the Regulative Principle.

 

[alexandermsmith]

One of the most corrosive principles to insinuate itself into the Christian Church is that which subtly suggests the English Bible is not sufficient for formulating doctrine or understanding what God has said to us. When the plain meaning of passages is called into question and the believer told "well, in the original language [which very few Christians actually know] it's not quite so simple, leave this to the experts" the consequences for belief, piety, practice, as we see all around us in the visible church, are ruinous. Did our forefathers of the 17th century not know what they were doing when they translated the texts? I think they did. Did the godly preachers of the past not know of what they spoke when they formulated the RPW and preached against innovation? I think they did.

"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Ecclesiastes 7:29