The RPW and Church History.

[Jash Comstock]

I have some questions regarding the Regulative Principle and Church History. I'm not trying to debate the scriptural validity of the RPW, I'm just curious about these questions from a Church History perspective.

1. Was RPW worship normative in NT times? Considering Churches like Corinth as an example?

2. If RPW worship was normative in NT times, how did it devolve so quickly into liturgy and the like, as recorded in the Didache and Justin Martyr? Are there any historical examples of Regulative Worship in the Early Church?

3. Why has RPW worship not been normative throughout the majority of Church History? It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of Church history has been very strictly liturgical (prayerbook and liturgical calendar). Obviously the corruption of Rome had a huge part in this, but even after the Reformation the Lutheran and Anglican traditions continued in non-RPW worship. We seem to be the only vein of Reformed folks who uphold the RPW..

Again, I understand that Church History isn't authoritative, and doesn't replace Sola Scriptura as our guide for worship and church practice, but I am curious as to why this doctrine was a minority view throughout most of Church History.

 

[KMK]

I think all Protestants are RPW. The problem is they aren't all confessional. In other words,, all Protestants believe that worship should be regulated by Scripture instead of the whims of one man or one council of men. What sets the Reformed off from other Protestants is the detail of their confessions.

 

[Jash Comstock]

I think all Protestants are RPW. The problem is they aren't all confessional. In other words,, all Protestants believe that worship should be regulated by Scripture instead of the whims of one man or one council of men. What sets the Reformed off from other Protestants is the detail of their confessions.

Isn't that the view of the Normative Principle of Worship vs. the Regulative Principle of Worship? I think the key difference being the RPW states what "whatever is not commanded is forbidden" while the Normative Principle advocates "whatever is not forbidden is allowed"?

 

[reaganmarsh]

I think all Protestants are RPW. The problem is they aren't all confessional.

In the SBC, one is hard-pressed to find anyone who has even heard of the RPW, much less who practices it. I've preached on it several times and am leading our church that direction, but the NPW dies a slow death...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Liturgy is inescapable. It is the form (consistent or not; lots of prescription or little; etc.) of how you are going to conduct worship.

Jesus is the divine liturgist, Heb.8:2. Liturgy IS regulation-of-worship of some kind or another.

Jash, I don't know if my read is correct or not, but it seems like someone is trying to throw a bunch of RC or EO claims your way. The nature of the questions you're posing here sound like those sort of questions that those types like to toss to basically uninformed evangelicals.

So, for example the assertion that the Didache, and elements of description found in a source like Justin Martyr, are "liturgy" in the same sense that RC and EO claims support their typical worship experience. Have you actually read the Didache (and JM), and then compared what you read there with a modern RC missal?

There's as much support in the Didache for a Directory for Public Worship (DPW)-ordered service in the OPC, as there is for anything put out by Rome or Byzantium. I'd go so far as to claim that the Didache and JM more closely describe acts of worship that parallel our simple liturgy, than the smells and bells of High Church ritual.

What I'm saying is that behind the question (as put) is an implicit demand for surrender on the key claim that Didache and JM (to say the least) do, in fact, represent early support for highly developed, ritualistic-liturgical worship, that knows nothing of the "simplicity" of apostolic practice assumed by the RPW.

Here's a standard reference work you should try to procure, if the opportunity presents: The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship, by Hughes Oliphant Old. He has other books on the subject also, http://www.amazon.com/Worship-Revised-Expanded-Edition-according/dp/0664225799 is one, I believe, though not as in-depth as his dissertation.

The Reformation was both a reformation of Doctrine, but just as much a reformation of Liturgy. While the Lutheran and Anglican reformers chose to keep the more developed and ornate liturgical forms having origins going back to a time still within the era of East-West unity, the Reformed chose to strip away even more of the accretions of history, and regarded as illegitimate all innovations--no matter how early attested--that could not be justified by some appeal to the Bible.

But our forefathers were still historically minded; and did not wish to deny who they were or their ecclesiastical parentage. They were not radicals (and there were radicals) who did not care at all for continuity with the past.

So, if one looks at the Didache or JM (or other sources), he is likely to find much that is still pristine in their practice, along with some errors and accretions already present. The presence of precursors to what later reformers identified as whopping errors, doesn't of itself prove either side correct.


If the RPW is true and biblical, then Paul and the other Apostles surely taught some form of it. It's biblical basis is the second commandment; the strict governance of Temple worship, and its concomitant the Synagogue, stand directly behind the order of NT worship. Paul can say to anyone who opposes a particular regulation he has set down, "If anyone is inclined to be contentious [i.e. argumentative with his prescription; our answer is:], we have no such practice [as he proposes], nor do the churches of God." 1Cor.11:16. Paul is regulating worship.

There are two sides to declension from the truth. One side is liturgical anarchy, sometimes deliberate rejection of any order or regularity to worship, on the pretext that any such thing smacks of authoritarianism. Usually, in a milder form, is simply rejection of set prayers or any unison congregational testimony, a kind of anti-prayerbook mentality, but the church has in fact a fairly standard order of service. The important thing to this type is that everything is tradition, and tradition can change at a whim.

The other side is a ritual straightjacket; and oftentimes the ritual is so central that doing the "right thing" is the most important part of worship. Radical forms of this use ancient, foreign tongues; every aspect of the hours (usually quite long) are scripted to the syllable and note; and the highlight tends to be the stylized, sacramental ritual of the mass.

So, which is further from RPW-styled worship? It's hard to say, because each is a different kind of departure. The anti-liturgists might do less nonsense, and have more of a pure and simple worship, but for the wrong reasons. Or they could be totally off the wall. The ritualists may formally have the proper elements of worship, but be so corrupted in the practice of them, they are unrecognizable.

Personal story. Once I went to a utterly deplorable worship service (for the record, it was near the Watertown you know well), in fairly "respectable" kind of church. I left there, appalled, and wandered into an Anglican service down the road. I'd heard they would at least read the Bible there. And that's where I got spiritual nourishment that Sunday. Because I knew the Bible when I heard it. Both places would probably be classified as Liberal, but the more rigid in practice had more biblical regulation, just in terms of Scripture's presence, and consequent rule.

Where the Bible is a closed book, the content of which is a alien even to people in the church, the RPW will not be a force. If worship is in Latin, and you speak English, German, even Italian; not even a liturgy that includes the Bible will be of use to the hearers. Tradition is the only regulation. For long periods of time, the laity (and often the ignorant clergy) has been without the Bible. So, is it any wonder that "anything goes" then? It's more an act of God's mercy that things got no worse, before some recovery.

And, as Calvin said, it is hard to convince people that their own ideas of spirituality have no merit. So, bringing people back under a strict RPW rule, who have liked doing their own spirituality is not easy.

 

[Jash Comstock]

Rev. Buchanan,

Thank you so much for your insightful post. My questions arise not from either an RC or EO challenge, but from personal grappling. Shortly after my salvation I was discipled in a Reformed Anglican church. It was there the I was introduced to a non-baptist view of Reformed theology and came to study the confessions. Though they were low church (still more high church than Presbyterians), they still used the prayerbook, and the liturgical calendar. Though lately I've obviously moved to a Presbyterian position, a strict view of the RPW (denying prayerbook, eucharistic liturgy, and liturgical calendar) has been something I have to think through more than other things. Some of those Anglicanistic tendencies still remain with me (perhaps because of emotional investment). So these are things I am trying to thoroughly think through. My reference to the Didache and JM weren't references to smells and bells but rather the idea of a set Eucharistic liturgy, baptism liturgy, and set prayers. I must admit I've only skimmed both the Didache, and JM honing in on the Eucharist and baptism sections. I'd like to read them in their entirety soon.

 

[Andres]

I like this quote from Pastor Kevin DeYoung on the RPW:

Usually when talking about corporate worship I don’t even bring up the regulative principle. It is unknown to many and scary to others. So I try to get at the same big idea from a different angle. I’ll say something like this: “What do we know they did in their Christian worship services in the Bible? We know they sang the Bible. We know that preached the Bible. We know they prayed the Bible. We know they read the Bible. We know they saw the Bible in the sacraments. We don’t see dramas or pet blessings or liturgical dance numbers. So why wouldn’t we want to focus on everything we know they did in their services? Why try to improve on the elements we know were pleasing to God and practiced in the early church?” In other words, the regulative principle gives us the freedom to unapologetically to go back to basics. And stay there.

That's an excerpt from the article, The Freedom of the Regulative Principle. This above quote is by no means a scholarly resource, but I tend to agree with DeYoung - when I read the NT what I find the churches doing are Word and Sacraments. The NT church is singing Scripture, praying Scripture, and reading Scripture; no more, no less. And that's essentially what the RPW comes down to.

 

[R Harris]

I really think it depends on what aspect of the RPW you want to talk about.

With regard to musical instruments, the church history record is very clear. To my knowledge, there is no clear indication anywhere in the writings up to 665 AD of any church using a musical instrument in worship. Then, the pope Vitalius decreed that it was ok to use them. Even then, use was in the minority until the 15th century. When the reformation came, the reformers (except for Luther) threw the musical instruments out, and the presbyterian/congregational churches did not start using them until the late 19th century. A lot of people in the OPC and PCA are not even aware of this.

Also, psalm singing was the norm, with even the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD forbidding the use of uninspired hymns in worship. Psalm singing really did not go out of favor in reformed churches until the early 19th century, and then the real fallout occurred in the 1920s, with many churches sadly relegating psalm singing to nominal use or discarding the psalter altogether.


As for works explaining the theology and reasoning, I would consult Girardeau's 1888 book on musical instruments and the Price book, written a few years ago. On psalm singing, there are many good books, but I would think the Bushell book, The Songs of Zion - the Biblical Basis for Exclusive Psalmody, is one of the best.

 

[Grimmson]

Also, psalm singing was the norm, with even the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD forbidding the use of uninspired hymns in worship.

In my studies of church history I have seen hymns being written by those who were considered to be orthodox based on the standard of their time before and after the Fourth Ecumenical Council. So my question is which canon forbid "the use of uninspired hymns in worship"? I ask because I do not remember any of them off hand that would.

 

[timmopussycat]

The ultimate reason for the otherwise biblically orthodox Anglican and Lutheran rejection of the RPW as practised by the Reformed churches is that these folks do not believe that the Reformed have, to date, demonstrated that the RPW is either direct Scriptural teaching or a good and necessary consequence thereof.

 

[Andres]

So my question is which canon forbid "the use of uninspired hymns in worship"? I ask because I do not remember any of them off hand that would.

Well, you could start with the canons of the Old and New Testaments...

 

[Jeri Tanner]

As to why the church devolved so quickly into liturgy and rpw has not been the norm...the early, first-century church was immediately infiltrated by the Judaizers, and many in the church were drawn to the extra-apostolic performance they promoted. The Judaizers and their descendants are always lurking to try to resurrect what the apostles have said is over—the types and shadows of the Temple culture. Surely Satan is always trying to tempt the church away from the purity and simplicity of apostolic/reformation practice and back into entanglements.

I believe Luther didn't see biblical ecclesiology as well as Calvin did. Luther did great things, but he didn't get rid of some of the trappings that Calvin did. That's why Lutheran and Reformed are two different things. Calvin saw that the thorough reform of the church must mean in its practice, as well. He saw the progression of God's revelation of his will in this area from Old Testament through the New, so he and others of like mind threw out the unbiblical trappings. But the performers are always trying to creep back in, and they always do until they get thrown out again! These are some of the views I've come to as I've read church history, the writings of Luther, Calvin, and others, and above all understood from the Scripture for myself about these things (I believe).

 

[Grimmson]

So my question is which canon forbid "the use of uninspired hymns in worship"? I ask because I do not remember any of them off hand that would.

Well, you could start with the canons of the Old and New Testaments...

Andrew, I do not think you understood what I was asking. It was not a theological or biblical question, but a historical one. The issue was that I did not remember in the canons of the Council of Chalcedon that hymns or exclusive psalmody was an issue. In fact, I just looked at the canons and did not see them present. So I do not think what Randy wrote concerning the Fourth Ecumenical Council was accurate.

 

[Andres]

So my question is which canon forbid "the use of uninspired hymns in worship"? I ask because I do not remember any of them off hand that would.

Well, you could start with the canons of the Old and New Testaments...

Andrew, I do not think you understood what I was asking. It was not a theological or biblical question, but a historical one. The issue was that I did not remember in the canons of the Council of Chalcedon that hymns or exclusive psalmody was an issue. In fact, I just looked at the canons and did not see them present. So I do not think what Randy wrote concerning the Fourth Ecumenical Council was accurate.

I understood you - my comment was a cheesy pun playing on the word "canon". Just messin' with you.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I like this quote from Pastor Kevin DeYoung on the RPW:

Usually when talking about corporate worship I don’t even bring up the regulative principle. It is unknown to many and scary to others. So I try to get at the same big idea from a different angle. I’ll say something like this: “What do we know they did in their Christian worship services in the Bible? We know they sang the Bible. We know that preached the Bible. We know they prayed the Bible. We know they read the Bible. We know they saw the Bible in the sacraments. We don’t see dramas or pet blessings or liturgical dance numbers. So why wouldn’t we want to focus on everything we know they did in their services? Why try to improve on the elements we know were pleasing to God and practiced in the early church?” In other words, the regulative principle gives us the freedom to unapologetically to go back to basics. And stay there.

That's an excerpt from the article, The Freedom of the Regulative Principle. This above quote is by no means a scholarly resource, but I tend to agree with DeYoung - when I read the NT what I find the churches doing are Word and Sacraments. The NT church is singing Scripture, praying Scripture, and reading Scripture; no more, no less. And that's essentially what the RPW comes down to.

I like what Rev. DeYoung says in your quote, but then in the article he says, "Even within a conservative Reformed framework, worship leaders may disagree about musical style, transitions, volume, tempo, and many other factors. Conflict over preferences will remain even with the regulative principle." That view of the RPW is not the historic view, is it? Wouldn't the historic definition of the RPW be that whatever is not prescribed in the New Testament for worship is to be avoided, and thus musical instruments (in which case one wouldn't be so worried about transitions, style, or volume—maybe tempo, per John
Wesley's instructions. )

 

[R Harris]

Also, psalm singing was the norm, with even the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD forbidding the use of uninspired hymns in worship.

In my studies of church history I have seen hymns being written by those who were considered to be orthodox based on the standard of their time before and after the Fourth Ecumenical Council. So my question is which canon forbid "the use of uninspired hymns in worship"? I ask because I do not remember any of them off hand that would.

You really do need to read the Bushell book. He cites the references.

For the Chalcedon council, he cites a work by Philip Schaff that has it. But, in Bushell's narrative, he says that the Council of Chalcedon was simply repeating the edict of the Council of Laodicea in 381. For that council, he does quote the exact canon (I believe Canon 59, but I don't have the book in front of me right now.).

He also cites the Council of Brago (561 AD) that also had a forbidding of uninspired hymnody in Canon 12.

So, you could look those up. Obviously my assumption is that Bushell (who not only has an MDiv from Westminster in Philadelphia but also a PhD in Physics) got the references right; I don't think he would make them up out of thin air. But if you think he did make a mistake, then you should find some way to contact him and notify him of the error. (BTW, the book is now in its fourth edition, with the first edition printed in 1978; if there had been an error in the references, you would think he would have corrected it by now.)

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I don't have the time for the other two but you can see Brago II in Mansi at the link.
Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Tomus 9 / in qua praeter ea quae Phil. Labbeus et Gabr. Cossartius ; et novissime Nicolaus Coleti in lucem edidere, ea omnia insupar suis in locis optime disposita exhibentur, quae Joannes Dominicus

 

[Grimmson]

Also, psalm singing was the norm, with even the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD forbidding the use of uninspired hymns in worship.

In my studies of church history I have seen hymns being written by those who were considered to be orthodox based on the standard of their time before and after the Fourth Ecumenical Council. So my question is which canon forbid "the use of uninspired hymns in worship"? I ask because I do not remember any of them off hand that would.

You really do need to read the Bushell book. He cites the references.

For the Chalcedon council, he cites a work by Philip Schaff that has it. But, in Bushell's narrative, he says that the Council of Chalcedon was simply repeating the edict of the Council of Laodicea in 381. For that council, he does quote the exact canon (I believe Canon 59, but I don't have the book in front of me right now.).

He also cites the Council of Brago (561 AD) that also had a forbidding of uninspired hymnody in Canon 12.

So, you could look those up. Obviously my assumption is that Bushell (who not only has an MDiv from Westminster in Philadelphia but also a PhD in Physics) got the references right; I don't think he would make them up out of thin air. But if you think he did make a mistake, then you should find some way to contact him and notify him of the error. (BTW, the book is now in its fourth edition, with the first edition printed in 1978; if there had been an error in the references, you would think he would have corrected it by now.)

Randy, just because the guy has a PhD in Physics does not mean he has read a text or the references properly. I have a B.S. in Physics and have been engaged surface physics research, does that mean I am qualified to write on historical issues. No, the issue of course is the understanding of history outside of personal theological or traditional bents. This is necessary to any historical work. Now I do study various issues from the Patristic period, some of which in the original language as qualified by my time at Westminster Seminary of California. And someday if the school allows me to take my last 3 units of Systematics via distance at the Seminary I will have a degree in Historical Theology. So in short, having in MDiv or PhD in Physics does not mean that much to me compared to having a M.S. or PhD in history. So I would be interested then in what Schaff would have to say. But I will probably not be going to look right now or order the book because I have my own private projects that I need to work on and summers provide me the only time to work on them, plus am in the process of moving to Yuma. Now let me tell you a few things I do know off the top of my head. I have not seen anywhere the hymns of Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373) being condemned. And I know the Syraic speaking churches integrated his hymns into their liturgy prior to 381. I also know that Ambrose of Milan wrote hymns, couple of which have survived to this day. I also know that Arian hymns and the hymns of other heretics were an issue prior and after 381. I am also aware of Romanos’ hymns (d. circa 555-6) not being condemned or the Theotokos hymns that are used today in the Orthodox tradition that were written by later authors being condemned. These are the reasons why I have my doubts. Now I did look at the canons of Laodicea, primarily because I was tired of boxing my books. Canon 59 does says:
“No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments.”
This may have been a response to the heretical hymns that were floating around. And I would like to have known the liturgical response thereafter based on the present Syrian hymns that had already been integrated and later with the integration of hymns into orthodox liturgies within the medieval period.
Now the following is the response to the canon from Henry R. Percival, M.A., D.D., published in 1886 by Philip Schaff:
“Several heretics, for instance Bardesanes, Paul of Samosata, and Apollinaris--had composed psalms, i.e., Church hymns. The Synod of Laodicea forbade the use of any composed by private individuals, namely all unauthorized Church hymns. Lüft remarks that by this it was not intended to forbid the use of all but the Bible psalms and hymns, for it is known that even after this Synod many hymns composed by individual Christians, for instance, Prudentius, Clement, Ambrose, came into use in the Church. Only those not sanctioned were to be banished.”
Another piece of historical information was the banning of congregational singing as found in canon 15:
“No others shall sing in the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo and sing from a book.”
This canon of course would put us all in trouble. I thought that canon 17 was interesting:
“The Psalms are not to be joined together in the congregations, but a lesson shall intervene after every psalm.”
Now in regards to my response of the Council of Braga, I just skimmed in latin the Synodus Bracarensis prima (http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_057t.htm)and the Synodus Bracarensis secunda and I did not see anything regarding hymns. I did read Concilium Turorense II" in Acta Conciliorum tom. 3 and in canon 23 (p. 365) and saw early Christian hymns being defended. You can see for yourself with the following link, the link will take you to the beginning of the canons of the Second Council of Tours (567):
Acta Conciliorum Et Epistolae Decretales, Ac Constitutiones Summorum ... - Jean Hardouin, Philippe Labbé, Gabriel Cossart - Google Books
Back to work for me and Randy thank you for your response.

 

[Grimmson]

I don't have the time for the other two but you can see Brago II in Mansi at the link.
Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Tomus 9 / in qua praeter ea quae Phil. Labbeus et Gabr. Cossartius ; et novissime Nicolaus Coleti in lucem edidere, ea omnia insupar suis in locis optime disposita exhibentur, quae Joannes Dominicus

Thanks

 

[JonathanBradley]

I haven't read it, but, a close friend of mine recommends a book entitled "Old Light On New Worship" by John Price. Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, a Theological, Historical and Psychological Study: John Price: 9781881095019: Amazon.com: Books
He said it's a great resource on worship and is really transforming his views on the RPW and everything.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The book by John Price is very helpful on the use of musical instruments- however, he doesn't promote the singing of Psalms (as I recall).

Church history is always helpful, but it's not how to ultimately understand God's will as revealed in his word. It really doesn't matter whether uninspired songs were in use in the 2nd or 3rd century- what we need to know is what did Christ and his apostles teach and do regarding the singing of the church, and is there any way to know this from the Scripture? I believe there is- he has spoken on this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The book is not a primer on worship. Price does not give the background on the general Regulative Principle of Worship, but presumes it for his case against the use of musical instruments in public worship.

I haven't read it, but, a close friend of mine recommends a book entitled "Old Light On New Worship" by John Price. Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, a Theological, Historical and Psychological Study: John Price: 9781881095019: Amazon.com: Books
He said it's a great resource on worship and is really transforming his views on the RPW and everything.

 

[R Harris]

Mr. Jolley,

You completely misunderstood my intent of listing Bushell's credentials. My intent of citing both his MDiv and PhD was not to demonstrate that he is "smarter" than anyone else, but rather that obtaining those degrees would have necessitated his doing extensive research and publishing papers with numerous references. Thus, with that extensive background, I am sure that he is well aware of getting sources and citations accurate. If he did not, that could have meant big trouble for him.
Certainly having the letters "PhD" behind one's name only means so much; if your presuppositions are suspect, the use of correct methodology will not always lead to correct or accurate results.

That is why I said in my post for you to look up his references, because that is what you requested in your original post. If the references are not correct or taken out of context, which is certainly possible, then Mr. Bushell should be corrected for that. Otherwise, take them for what they are.

However, what Jeri Tanner said above is what ultimately matters. As he and countless other reformers have said in the past, church writings are always secondary to the Scriptures; as the WCF states, Scripture itself is its own best interpreter, and is always the final authority.

That is why EP really stands or falls based upon what Scripture teaches about the RPW; reject the RPW, and EP arguments can be dismissed pretty quickly.