When did the term "regulative principle" (referring to worship) arise?

[Dearly Bought]

Bryan:

What you point out, brother, is one side of the equation. What is centrally needed for all the parties, and I appreciate this much more the older I become and the longer I serve in the church, is what Augustine called the chief virtue of the Christian--humility.

Think of your desiderata in this light: the more humility I exercise, the least needlessly offensive I will be to others and I myself will not be easily offended. I'll be able to discuss doctrinal truth in a way that manifests both a commitment to Christ and a concern for love of the brethren (and not as if contending for abstract propositions). I need, in other words, to humble myself and regard my brother as better than myself and our discussion as a manifestation of my love for God and for him.

Peace,
Alan

Hi Dr. Strange,
In a stumbling manner, this is what I meant to express in my second point, advocating speech with conviction but without vitriol. I would hold thick skin and humble speech that pursues the good of the brethren to both be essential requirements of Reformed ecumenism.

 

[Wayne]

Matthew:

It sounds like your definition of terms would be more in keeping with that of Thomas E. Peck. (cf. Peck, Notes on Ecclesiology, 2nd ed. 1992, p. 114).

 

[MW]

It sounds like your definition of terms would be more in keeping with that of Thomas E. Peck. (cf. Peck, Notes on Ecclesiology, 2nd ed. 1992, p. 114).

Wayne, Thankyou for the reference. I will have to keep an eye out for that volume. I only have access to the Miscellanies. There Peck reflects on Thornwell's terms as follows:

We only mean to assert, therefore, in the case before us, that the brethren on the other side give such a latitude of meaning to the word "circumstances" in the Confession, as virtually to deny the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule, and to invest the church with a discretionary power, limited only by the prohibitions of the word. The "general principles" by which they contend that the church is to be governed in matters of polity and worship seem to be "regulative" only, principles which define only ends to be aimed at, or conditions to be observed; while the other side contends that the general principles are "constitutive" also, determining the concrete forms in which those ends are to be realized. The Scriptures, for example, not only lay down the regulative principle of the parity of the ministry, but they give us also the constitutive principle, that the jurisdiction of the ministers is to be exercised jointly with elders who are not ministers, in courts called presbyteries.

 

[reaganmarsh]

Thanks, Pastor Marsh. I was thinking about going a step further and your comment prompts me to do so.

I have called for ecumenicity ecclesiastically among those who are of same or allied confessions and who share the same church government and sacramentology. So all that I've said heretofore about ecumenicity addressed only Reformed and Presbyterians.

I realize that the dynamic is quite different with those who have another form of church government and reject paedo-baptism. But I believe that we too must seek ways to work more closely together. I know that it won't mean the same thing as Reformed and Presbyterians getting together, but I do believe that Reformed folk of every stripe (including Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc.) need also to be more intentional and thoughtful about how we can enjoy closer ties and communion. This is a strength of this Board, in my view.

We must do what we can to foster genuine, yet charitable, dialogue among all the Reformed, even when we differ over relatively larger matters (while still agreeing soterically). Again, ecumenicity is not a luxury but a necessity. We are all bound to maintain (certainly office-bearers are) the purity, peace, and unity of the church. We may not sacrifice the purity for an idolatrous unity, nor may we think that we have purity if we lack proper unity. These are not properties to be pitted off against each other but each to be held and vigorously pursued.

Peace,
Alan

Dr. Strange, I wholeheartedly concur. I dearly love my SBC brethren after nearly 17 years ministering among them, but often find more common ground with my PCA/OPC/ARP friends (ie, here on the PB) due to the intentional Reformational confessional position.

We can firmly hold our differing confessions while strongly affirming the many points wherein we thoroughly agree. Iron sharpens iron, and the Kingdom advances.

You stated it much better than I can, so I simply say: Thanks for not kicking us to the curb.

Now: my apologies for derailing the thread. As you were. ;-)

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Matthew:

I remembered a gloss that I had put at the point that you cited (Thornwell's Collected Writings, 4:252): in the margin, I wrote, "Interesting in light of what in the 20th c. comes to be called the regulative principle of worship."

It is for this reason (and Wayne's citation of Peck's usage) that I've somewhat wondered about our usage of it in the 20th century, particularly as it seems so heavily influenced by John Murray. I know what Chris said about Murray's familiarity with the sources, but I have not found Professor Murray to be the most careful student of history, though he is often a good exegete and biblical theologian. Your recalling this for us (thanks, I had just let it slip, though seeing it recalled the gloss!) makes me wonder all the more about Harper's then Murray's use of "regulative."

Peace,
Alan

 

[mvdm]

In line with Dr. Strange's desire that we carefully distinguish between what is elemental and circumstantial, the following 1928 CRC report provides helpful application of those principles to the topic of hymn singing vs. psalm singing. This topic piqued my interest when recently I read a Reformed minister's blog suggesting that the CRC's introduction of hymnody was just some pragmatic concession, with little consideration of the "regulative principle". But it turns out that was poor/selective reading of history. So in these discussions, we should at least go back to the sources and read them in their proper context.

If interested in reading, the meat of the analysis begins at page 15, including a look back at the Synod of Dort's treatment of hymnody:

http://www.calvin.edu/library/database/crcnasynod/1930agendahymns.pdf

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Folks, pursue a new thread in the EP subforum if you want to discuss the material at the link or the merits/demerits of exclusive psalmody.

In line with Dr. Strange's desire that we carefully distinguish between what is elemental and circumstantial, the following 1928 CRC report provides helpful application of those principles to the topic of hymn singing vs. psalm singing. This topic piqued my interest when recently I read a Reformed minister's blog suggesting that the CRC's introduction of hymnody was just some pragmatic concession, with little consideration of the "regulative principle". But it turns out that was poor/selective reading of history. So in these discussions, we should at least go back to the sources and read them in their proper context.

If interested in reading, the meat of the analysis begins at page 15, including a look back at the Synod of Dort's treatment of hymnody:

http://www.calvin.edu/library/database/crcnasynod/1930agendahymns.pdf

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It sounds like your definition of terms would be more in keeping with that of Thomas E. Peck. (cf. Peck, Notes on Ecclesiology, 2nd ed. 1992, p. 114).

Wayne, Thankyou for the reference. I will have to keep an eye out for that volume. principle, that the jurisdiction of the ministers is to be exercised jointly with elders who are not ministers, in courts called presbyteries.

Online version here:
https://archive.org/details/notesonecclesiol00peck

I have a PDF version of the above that I OCR'd for searching and with single page views that is available for download here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6HWxDunFF2GcnNvM0d5dzVJb1U&authuser=0
(Note: For those who are reading this post some time from now and the link above is no longer working, send me a PM with your email address.)

You may appreciate the name of the person from whom's library the book was supplied, too (page 1).

 

[MW]

Thankyou, Patrick.

It is interesting that Peck uses the term "strict-constructionist" to describe the view of Thornwell. As suggested above, the use of the term "regulative" may have led to some misunderstandings. Amongst these one would have to include the term "strict" to describe some adherents to the principle. If Peck's term is anything to go by, "constitutive" would have meant "strict" by definition.