"[T]he clown troupe often performed 'dramatic skits' during the morning worship service on the Lord’s Day."

This part of the article is excellent:

But authority does not exist in a vacuum; someone or something will inevitably take the lead in a church where Scripture is no longer viewed as sufficient. When the regulative principle is cast aside, authority will likely arise in one of three forms:

• Naïve tradition….
• Religious experience….
• Unprincipled pragmatism.

I’d add to that list of substitute authorities: capitulation to cultural trends (usually without even knowing it)

The first and second London Baptist confessions?

For someone who professes to believe in sola scriptura there was precious little scriptura in that article.

Larry, I was simply pointing out the irony. Please note that I said “article” not “confession” when I said there was precious little Scripture found in the article. The man is making a statement about what should be guiding worship and he cites as his authority two man-made documents and John Gill. Hmmm… sola scriptura?

As to “the RPW is not a negative, is it?”, well, yes, it is, in my opinion. But I’m not interested in going back and forth on it.

Michael Horton does not subscribe to either the First or Second London Confessions. Both of these are Baptist. Horton is not. However, Horton is an influential voice among those who identify with historic reformation theology. He has written a number of books, and is always worth reading, even if you do not agree with everything he says. He was raised Southern Baptist, but developed along more Presbyterian lines, even though he is not currently in a Presbyterian church. (Unless he has recently changed.) His wife is from Greenville, SC, and is, unless I am mistaken, a graduate of BJU. He seems to be vary familiar with fundamentalism.

From reading the author’s blog role, I believe the answer to his view of Clown Ministries is that he supports them, now and then.

It would help his arguments to at least cite a few passages and why or how they apply. I do understand the theology behind them but not every reader does. Hence, he ends up using rationalism as his basis but worse, his authority, ironically, ends up being other men’s formulation of Scripture.

But to the regulative principle, my view is that it has a glaring flaw. It is too restrictive based on the assumption that the Scriptures intended to present to us all that may or may not be present in a corporate gathering of a local body of believers for spiritual exercise, i.e., worship.

The rightness of regulative worship is that it can affirm, as all principles of worship should, what must be present but certainly not to the exclusion of anything else. What we have in the Bible are descriptions in places and prescriptions in others. The fact that descriptions are present ought to inform us that there is room for lateral movement.

Still, I sympathize with his point though I find Neo-Puritanism distasteful. Unfortunately he uses the extreme to make a case for his regulative view.

Michael Horton does not subscribe to either the First or Second London Confessions.

FYI, the article was by a Baptist who does subscribe to the LBC. Horton was referenced only in a quote from something else.

Michael Horton does not subscribe to either the First or Second London Confessions.

But I’m certain he subscribes to the Westminster from which large portions of both the above were lifted.

Don! You can’t bait us like that and just walk away. What does the RPW deprive us of?

[DavidO]

Don! You can’t bait us like that and just walk away. What does the RPW deprive us of?

Clowns! (And hopefully muscle teams, karate teams, shaved-head-painted-blue senior pastors, and other carnie side-show delights…)

I am fairly certain that Horton does subscribe to the Westminster Confession. He teaches theology at Westminster West, Escondido, CA, which is a Presbyterian school. However, his affiliation is with another reformed denomination, which probably subscribes to a different reformed confession.

The article was written by a baptist who undoubtedly subscribes to the Second London Confession, which he quotes, along with the First London Baptist Confession. The brief summary of the article, in which the quotation from Horton is cited has evidently created a bit of confusion.

I concur that in citing these two historic baptist confessions, the author supports his views with the Scriptures upon which these confessions are based. I can scarce conceive of any Bible believer defending from Scripture the use of clowns in the pulpit.

[DavidO]

Don! You can’t bait us like that and just walk away. What does the RPW deprive us of?

I can’t? Why not?

What does the Regulative Principle deprive us of? I’m not sure that my objection is that it deprives us of something. As I understand it, it is a position that has no Scriptural authority behind it. That’s all. Those who subscribe to it often do so as if it is the Law. It is hardly that. But, as I said, I’m not interested in debating the RPW at this time.

the author’s blog role

Isn’t this redundant? His blog role is author.

I do understand the theology behind them but not every reader does.

How do you know this? Do you know all his readers?

But even if that were true, it is quite common in writing to make assumptions and not argue for every single thing they say. So it’s not a real problem.

[Larry]

the author’s blog role

Isn’t this redundant? His blog role is author.

I do understand the theology behind them but not every reader does.

How do you know this? Do you know all his readers?

But even if that were true, it is quite common in writing to make assumptions and not argue for every single thing they say. So it’s not a real problem.