The Regulative Principle - A Baptist Doctrine
- 46 views
Thanks Tyler. Not only Baptists but many others need to discover or rediscover the regulative principle taught in Scripture, which is the right response to God’s holy character.
Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:28-29) (AV).
Two couples have recently been visiting our church because they are seeking the reverential worship of God. In the church from which one couple came, the youth pastor had dressed up like a clown and ran through the sanctuary during the first part of the service throwing candy to the children. Not quite a red fire truck baptismal, but it culminated a series of developments which caused them to seek the worship of God elsewhere.
JSB
The RPW is of special importance for Baptists, given that it is closely linked to our origins. A vital argument for believers’ baptism proceeded directly from the logic of the Regulative Principle of Worship; i.e., something like this:
P1) Rules and elements of worship have changed between the covenants (such as the baptism of women whereas women were not circumcised).
P2) Changes not stated/required in Scripture are not acceptible for NT worship.
P3) Infant baptism is neither required nor even mentioned in the Scriptures.
Ergo, infant baptism is not valid for NT worship.
[Andrew K]The RPW is of special importance for Baptists, given that it is closely linked to our origins. A vital argument for believers’ baptism proceeded directly from the logic of the Regulative Principle of Worship; i.e., something like this:
P1) Rules and elements of worship have changed between the covenants (such as the baptism of women whereas women were not circumcised).
P2) Changes not stated/required in Scripture are not acceptible for NT worship.
P3) Infant baptism is neither required nor even mentioned in the Scriptures.
Ergo, infant baptism is not valid for NT worship.
Andrew, using this logic, would it not also be true that choral music is not valid for NT worship? Electronic sound system, digital recordings, childcare? I think that worship can be well regulated by the principles in Scripture without being quite that restrictive. When the temple was destroyed, the people started assembling locally for the reading and teaching of the word (synagogues), but I don’t believe that that change was ever stated or required in Scripture (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). If you choose to follow the formula that you laid out, I certainly wouldn’t fault you for it, but I wouldn’t bind it on the consciences of others.
[apward]Ah yes, but you’re missing the all-important distinction between elements and circumstances. Elements (sermon, prayer, singing, giving, baptism, Lord’s Supper, etc.) are the mandated elements of worship while circumstances are the means by which the elements are presented. (This is a horrible explanation, but I’m giving it my best shot via my overcaffeinated psyche.) So hymn-singing, for example, is a required element. Whether accompanying music, sound systems, overhead projectors, hymnals, etc. are present or no is a circumstance.Andrew K wrote:
The RPW is of special importance for Baptists, given that it is closely linked to our origins. A vital argument for believers’ baptism proceeded directly from the logic of the Regulative Principle of Worship; i.e., something like this:
P1) Rules and elements of worship have changed between the covenants (such as the baptism of women whereas women were not circumcised).
P2) Changes not stated/required in Scripture are not acceptible for NT worship.
P3) Infant baptism is neither required nor even mentioned in the Scriptures.
Ergo, infant baptism is not valid for NT worship.
Andrew, using this logic, would it not also be true that choral music is not valid for NT worship? Electronic sound system, digital recordings, childcare? I think that worship can be well regulated by the principles in Scripture without being quite that restrictive. When the temple was destroyed, the people started assembling locally for the reading and teaching of the word (synagogues), but I don’t believe that that change was ever stated or required in Scripture (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). If you choose to follow the formula that you laid out, I certainly wouldn’t fault you for it, but I wouldn’t bind it on the consciences of others.
Taking your example, you’re right that synagogues are not mentioned in the law. The teaching and instruction of the Scriptures was, however, and the synagogue was a means whereby that might be accomplished. We might say the same for Sunday Schools and small groups. Not mentioned in Scripture, but are a good method for teaching the Scriptures.
The change, from baptism to circumcision, was in the symbolic elements of worship themselves, not in the circumstances. Circumcision has been fulfilled in Christ and there is a change—informed by Scripture. Just as the sacrificial system was abolished. Therefore we dare not go beyond what is written and attempt to modify the element given to the church further than is prescribed.
In other words, P2) refers to changes in the elements of worship themselves. So a bloodless baptism as opposed to a bloody circumcision. We are not allowed to go back to circumcision, or baptize in a ball-pit, for example. But whether we baptize in a river, a baptistry, pool, or bathtub, is circumstance.
RPW proponents disagree over choral music. I tend to not favor it, due to the performance oriented nature of the same. Nonetheless, opinions on this differ, and I don’t seek to bind my interpretation of the RPW to anyone’s conscience on this minor point.
Matthew 15.9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Ah yes, but you’re missing the all-important distinction between elements and circumstances. Elements (sermon, prayer, singing, giving, baptism, Lord’s Supper, etc.) are the mandated elements of worship while circumstances are the means by which the elements are presented. (This is a horrible explanation, but I’m giving it my best shot via my overcaffeinated psyche.) So hymn-singing, for example, is a required element. Whether accompanying music, sound systems, overhead projectors, hymnals, etc. are present or no is a circumstance.
Taking your example, you’re right that synagogues are not mentioned in the law. The teaching and instruction of the Scriptures was, however, and the synagogue was a means whereby that might be accomplished. We might say the same for Sunday Schools and small groups. Not mentioned in Scripture, but are a good method for teaching the Scriptures.
The change, from baptism to circumcision, was in the symbolic elements of worship themselves, not in the circumstances. Circumcision has been fulfilled in Christ and there is a change—informed by Scripture. Just as the sacrificial system was abolished. Therefore we dare not go beyond what is written and attempt to modify the element given to the church further than is prescribed.
In other words, P2) refers to changes in the elements of worship themselves. So a bloodless baptism as opposed to a bloody circumcision. We are not allowed to go back to circumcision, or baptize in a ball-pit, for example. But whether we baptize in a river, a baptistry, pool, or bathtub, is circumstance.
RPW proponents disagree over choral music. I tend to not favor it, due to the performance oriented nature of the same. Nonetheless, opinions on this differ, and I don’t seek to bind my interpretation of the RPW to anyone’s conscience on this minor point.
Andrew, okay, I agree with your response. I made my criticism of the logic because I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you were presenting it as a means of rejecting something like building a firetruck baptismal for children. Is that an elemental change or a circumstantial change?
I would reject building a firetruck baptistmal for children, but not based on the formula you presented.
[apward]
Ah yes, but you’re missing the all-important distinction between elements and circumstances. Elements (sermon, prayer, singing, giving, baptism, Lord’s Supper, etc.) are the mandated elements of worship while circumstances are the means by which the elements are presented. (This is a horrible explanation, but I’m giving it my best shot via my overcaffeinated psyche.) So hymn-singing, for example, is a required element. Whether accompanying music, sound systems, overhead projectors, hymnals, etc. are present or no is a circumstance.
Taking your example, you’re right that synagogues are not mentioned in the law. The teaching and instruction of the Scriptures was, however, and the synagogue was a means whereby that might be accomplished. We might say the same for Sunday Schools and small groups. Not mentioned in Scripture, but are a good method for teaching the Scriptures.
The change, from baptism to circumcision, was in the symbolic elements of worship themselves, not in the circumstances. Circumcision has been fulfilled in Christ and there is a change—informed by Scripture. Just as the sacrificial system was abolished. Therefore we dare not go beyond what is written and attempt to modify the element given to the church further than is prescribed.
In other words, P2) refers to changes in the elements of worship themselves. So a bloodless baptism as opposed to a bloody circumcision. We are not allowed to go back to circumcision, or baptize in a ball-pit, for example. But whether we baptize in a river, a baptistry, pool, or bathtub, is circumstance.
RPW proponents disagree over choral music. I tend to not favor it, due to the performance oriented nature of the same. Nonetheless, opinions on this differ, and I don’t seek to bind my interpretation of the RPW to anyone’s conscience on this minor point.
Andrew, okay, I agree with your response. I made my criticism of the logic because I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you were presenting it as a means of rejecting something like building a firetruck baptismal for children. Is that an elemental change or a circumstantial change?
I would reject building a firetruck baptistmal for children, but not based on the formula you presented.
I agree that that specific is example would actually be circumstantial—on the surface, at least. However, and this is what I understood the article as affirming, it represents an attempt to modify worship of God with an irreverence that certainly counters the impetus of the RPW. It certainly seems to suggest a flippancy in our approach to God; that worship is ours to modify freely as we choose.
Many like to say they are following the RP, when in fact, they don’t follow it. Acts 2.42, 46 notes the observance of “breaking of bread” which was daily. Did they follow the teaching daily? Yes. Did they pray daily? Yes. Did they break bread daily? Yes.
From what I know of the early church, it seems they observed the Lord’s Supper every time they met. From Acts 2 it also seems that where 2 or 3 (at least) were gathered in His name, they observed this “remembrance” in their individual houses.
By observing, one is witnessing their faith. Individual congregants participated and so witnessed to their faith since “they proclaimed Christ’s death (by their identification of taking these symbolic elements picturing Christ’s sacrifice.) The person shows they are taking Christ’s work internally. This is what was promised- The New Covenant-where God would dwell with and inside us. It is “Christ in us, the hope of glory.” Christ’s blood was the blood of the New Covenant.
The Baptists get the symbolism correctly but only observe the ordinance once a month. What a travesty! The early church observed every time they met to allow everyone to witness their faith.
If singing is the language of the emotions (I believe it is), then, it is mainly an emotional response we are eliciting from those who assemble for meeting since this is the main feature of individual participation (singing). Listening to dictatorial preaching (what Baptist do instead of appeal) is not audience participation either in any meaningful way. So the early church could show individual identity weekly (or daily in some cases) of Christ’s work but Baptists have to wait until the end of the month.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
[alex o.]Alex, the RPW cannot be summed up in “the early church did this so we must do this.” That is a gross oversimplification.Many like to say they are following the RP, when in fact, they don’t follow it. Acts 2.42, 46 notes the observance of “breaking of bread” which was daily. Did they follow the teaching daily? Yes. Did they pray daily? Yes. Did they break bread daily? Yes.
From what I know of the early church, it seems they observed the Lord’s Supper every time they met. From Acts 2 it also seems that where 2 or 3 (at least) were gathered in His name, they observed this “remembrance” in their individual houses.
By observing, one is witnessing their faith. Individual congregants participated and so witnessed to their faith since “they proclaimed Christ’s death (by their identification of taking these symbolic elements picturing Christ’s sacrifice.) The person shows they are taking Christ’s work internally. This is what was promised- The New Covenant-where God would dwell with and inside us. It is “Christ in us, the hope of glory.” Christ’s blood was the blood of the New Covenant.
The Baptists get the symbolism correctly but only observe the ordinance once a month. What a travesty! The early church observed every time they met to allow everyone to witness their faith.
If singing is the language of the emotions (I believe it is), then, it is mainly an emotional response we are eliciting from those who assemble for meeting since this is the main feature of individual participation (singing). Listening to dictatorial preaching (what Baptist do instead of appeal) is not audience participation either in any meaningful way. So the early church could show individual identity weekly (or daily in some cases) of Christ’s work but Baptists have to wait until the end of the month.
Nor would I agree that “singing is the language of the emotions.” Music is the language of the emotions. Singing is the theology of the heart.
It seems to me that this is really just a restatement of what I did grow up hearing, that for Baptists, “The Bible is our final rule of faith and practice.”
However, it seems some go too far with the idea of the Regulative Principle when they want to argue if the Bible does not directly speak against something, then it is permissible.
With this strict view things such as drinking, gambling, slavery, etc. could be justified by saying, “Well, the Bible doesn’t directly speak against it.”
Or, on the other hand, this strict view could also be used to prohibit musical instruments from worship since the New Testament doesn’t directly speak of them. Of course, the Bible doesn’t speak of other things we use in worship, such as electricity, air conditioning, pulpits, sound systems…
We should also consider biblical principles and common sense.
David R. Brumbelow
[David R. Brumbelow]First, David, it’s the Regulative Principle of Worship, not of life. That is, it lays down principles and rules for governing corporate worship, not for the life of the believer. That’s not its role at all. Those holding to the RPW would have plenty of other Biblical principles for guiding daily life.Growing up I don’t recall ever hearing of the Regulative Principle, but then, I did not grow up Calvinist.
It seems to me that this is really just a restatement of what I did grow up hearing, that for Baptists, “The Bible is our final rule of faith and practice.”However, it seems some go too far with the idea of the Regulative Principle when they want to argue if the Bible does not directly speak against something, then it is permissible.
With this strict view things such as drinking, gambling, slavery, etc. could be justified by saying, “Well, the Bible doesn’t directly speak against it.”Or, on the other hand, this strict view could also be used to prohibit musical instruments from worship since the New Testament doesn’t directly speak of them. Of course, the Bible doesn’t speak of other things we use in worship, such as electricity, air conditioning, pulpits, sound systems…
We should also consider biblical principles and common sense.
David R. Brumbelow
In one sense you’re correct, however, in that the RPW is closely linked with Christian liberty. That is, the impetus was thought to free us in our worship from the traditions of men (if this seems odd to you, given how the RPW is generally conceived today as “restrictive,” think of the Puritan context, in which so much of worship was compulsory on threat of punishment). The thought is that to everything that happens in a church service, the believers should be able to give their “Amen.” If someone performs a liturgical dance to the Backstreet Boys music in a church we attend while wearing tight purple leather pants, you and I would likely not wish to give our “Amen.” The RPW frees us from any requirement or judgment that we should do so by denying the validity of that element, thus attempting to free us from the ideas and traditions of men. If someone gets up and reads a passage of Scripture, however, we will both give our approval and worship together. Our progenitors saw this as liberating us from a great deal of the Romish accretions, many of which the state church continued (e.g., church calendar, vestments, etc.)
You’re also correct that the RPW could be seen as disallowing musical instruments. A minority take it that way. Most do not, seeing the use of instruments as “circumstantial,” since it aids and guides congregational singing.
Finally, and I may be wrong here, I believe even General (non-Calvinistic) Baptists would have held to the RPW. I’m relatively certain it’s part of our common Baptist heritage and linked to our identity and development. So while it has more current purchase in Calvinistic and Reformed circles, it’s hardly a solely a Calvinist doctrine.
[Andrew K]alex o. wrote:
Many like to say they are following the RP, when in fact, they don’t follow it. Acts 2.42, 46 notes the observance of “breaking of bread” which was daily. Did they follow the teaching daily? Yes. Did they pray daily? Yes. Did they break bread daily? Yes.
From what I know of the early church, it seems they observed the Lord’s Supper every time they met. From Acts 2 it also seems that where 2 or 3 (at least) were gathered in His name, they observed this “remembrance” in their individual houses.
By observing, one is witnessing their faith. Individual congregants participated and so witnessed to their faith since “they proclaimed Christ’s death (by their identification of taking these symbolic elements picturing Christ’s sacrifice.) The person shows they are taking Christ’s work internally. This is what was promised- The New Covenant-where God would dwell with and inside us. It is “Christ in us, the hope of glory.” Christ’s blood was the blood of the New Covenant.
The Baptists get the symbolism correctly but only observe the ordinance once a month. What a travesty! The early church observed every time they met to allow everyone to witness their faith.
If singing is the language of the emotions (I believe it is), then, it is mainly an emotional response we are eliciting from those who assemble for meeting since this is the main feature of individual participation (singing). Listening to dictatorial preaching (what Baptist do instead of appeal) is not audience participation either in any meaningful way. So the early church could show individual identity weekly (or daily in some cases) of Christ’s work but Baptists have to wait until the end of the month.
Alex, the RPW cannot be summed up in “the early church did this so we must do this.” That is a gross oversimplification.
Nor would I agree that “singing is the language of the emotions.” Music is the language of the emotions. Singing is the theology of the heart.
Why talk about the bible if we can talk derived concepts.
Primarily, meeting together is for mutual encouragement of faith, not for “worship” per se. Of course in some sense everything one does and says should involve worship. Additionally, the main component of meeting together that best functions as *pure* “worship” would be observing the LS.
For my preference, only one song would be sung and then the primary function of discipling by the pastor with reading of the scripture beforehand. The LS should be practiced every week so folks can prepare themselves to witness to their faith. It has a purifying effect and strengthens each other’s faith.
Singing is not the theology of the heart either.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
[alex o.]There is much wrong in what you say. Here’s just a few objections:Andrew K wrote:
alex o. wrote:
Many like to say they are following the RP, when in fact, they don’t follow it. Acts 2.42, 46 notes the observance of “breaking of bread” which was daily. Did they follow the teaching daily? Yes. Did they pray daily? Yes. Did they break bread daily? Yes.
From what I know of the early church, it seems they observed the Lord’s Supper every time they met. From Acts 2 it also seems that where 2 or 3 (at least) were gathered in His name, they observed this “remembrance” in their individual houses.
By observing, one is witnessing their faith. Individual congregants participated and so witnessed to their faith since “they proclaimed Christ’s death (by their identification of taking these symbolic elements picturing Christ’s sacrifice.) The person shows they are taking Christ’s work internally. This is what was promised- The New Covenant-where God would dwell with and inside us. It is “Christ in us, the hope of glory.” Christ’s blood was the blood of the New Covenant.
The Baptists get the symbolism correctly but only observe the ordinance once a month. What a travesty! The early church observed every time they met to allow everyone to witness their faith.
If singing is the language of the emotions (I believe it is), then, it is mainly an emotional response we are eliciting from those who assemble for meeting since this is the main feature of individual participation (singing). Listening to dictatorial preaching (what Baptist do instead of appeal) is not audience participation either in any meaningful way. So the early church could show individual identity weekly (or daily in some cases) of Christ’s work but Baptists have to wait until the end of the month.
Alex, the RPW cannot be summed up in “the early church did this so we must do this.” That is a gross oversimplification.
Nor would I agree that “singing is the language of the emotions.” Music is the language of the emotions. Singing is the theology of the heart.
Why talk about the bible if we can talk derived concepts.
Primarily, meeting together is for mutual encouragement of faith, not for “worship” per se. Of course in some sense everything one does and says should involve worship. Additionally, the main component of meeting together that best functions as *pure* “worship” would be observing the LS.
For my preference, only one song would be sung and then the primary function of discipling by the pastor with reading of the scripture beforehand. The LS should be practiced every week so folks can prepare themselves to witness to their faith. It has a purifying effect and strengthens each other’s faith.
Singing is not the theology of the heart either.
Christ did not mandate the no. of LSs, but said, “As often as you do…” The RPW protects me from your preferences. Simply because the early church did/didn’t do something does not require us to do the same—although if your church “shares all things in common,” I’d be rather impressed, I’ll admit.
…and yes it is. :)
There were a least two daily sacrifices every day in the Temple besides all the many others such as everyone’s first born animal. All those sacrifices were fulfilled in Christ the Book of Hebrews tells me. The commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice was practiced every week in the early church. It seems to me one needs a pretty good excuse if they are not continuing this practice. As I said, The Romanists reinterpreted the ordinance to make it something it isn’t. The Baptists and most Protestants hardly observe it.
Out.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
As far as every believer giving his Amen, that may be a good general rule. But if every believer has to give his Amen to a practice in Worship, then just one believer in the congregation can run things.
David R. Brumbelow
Discussion