The Regulative Principle - A Baptist Doctrine

…and also introduces just as many questions as answers.

In my view, the RPW is one of the more misunderstood doctrines in Reformed circles, whether among Presbyterians or Baptists, especially by those who read the sections on worship in either the WCF (Ch. 21) or the 1689 BCF (Ch. 22) without keeping in mind the first section of either confession on the Scriptures (Ch. 1 in both), not to mention other portions of each confession that might further inform them. Those in the Family Integrated Church Movement have been a particularly striking example of this problem, which is why in my response to them on the issue of age segregated instruction in the churches I stayed away from speaking directly of the RPW and simply tried to understand from Scripture as a whole what we may or may not deem to be a Biblical practice. I offer part one of that series here for your consideration: Is Age Segregated Sunday School Biblical? - Part 1: How to Determine Whether or Not a Practice is Biblical

It has been my experience that making explicit reference to the RPW in dealing with such matters automatically leads to an argument about what the RPW actually is, how it should properly be understood, etc, and very little constructive conversation takes place. It is a doctrine that is simply too debated and too misunderstood to bring up as a helpful way of determining what we should be doing. For example, when I have tried to discuss my view of the RPW with others in Reformed circles, I have often discovered that differing definitions and understanding of confessional language ensues, or I end up encountering unhelpful distinctions like the regulative principle versus the normative principle (which tend to oversimplify the issue in most discussions), etc. Yet many of the same men who quickly wish to parse words over the issue have had no problem with what I wrote in the article above, which, ironically, lays out in a basic way my own view of a better way of understanding the RPW.

Anyway, I just thought I would weigh in briefly with some food for thought.

[Don Johnson]

It is interesting that the wikipedia article on normative worship uses announcements as an example of what the difference is between the two views.

When I brought up announcements earlier in this thread, I had no idea that Wikipedia cited them as an example of a difference between Regulative and Normative. Here’s the excerpt:

“An example of the difference between these two principles of worship (normative and regulative) can be illustrated by the example of announcing notices in church (i.e. news, upcoming events, and other information). The normative principle holds that since such activity is not prohibited in the New Testament, and since announcing notices may well be beneficial for the congregation and their involvement in the activities of the church, then this practice should be permitted. On the other hand, the regulative principle would ban such activity from taking place in the church service, because no example of announcing notices at the church gathering can be found in the New Testament.”

So then, if someone claims to adhere to the RPW, but makes announcements, then in at least that regard they are being Normative in practice.

[Greg Long]

I fully admit that I have not done any heavy reading on the RPW. But that’s partly because discussions like this make me skeptical of its actual value, since there are so many disagreements as to its meaning and application.

I agree, as my comment above indicate.

[Pastork]

Greg Long wrote:

I fully admit that I have not done any heavy reading on the RPW. But that’s partly because discussions like this make me skeptical of its actual value, since there are so many disagreements as to its meaning and application.

I agree, as my comment above indicate.

In my opinion, the greatest problem with the RPW is hermeneutical. The Reformed reading of the Scriptures misuses the OT with respect to the NT and thus arrives at faulty conclusions. And widely varied and subjective positions among its adherents. The OT did prescribe all forms of worship, the NT does not. We have the Spirit and the Word instead. This hermeneutical failure shows up in many different ways, but I will not digress….

[Don Johnson]

In my opinion, the greatest problem with the RPW is hermeneutical. The Reformed reading of the Scriptures misuses the OT with respect to the NT and thus arrives at faulty conclusions. And widely varied and subjective positions among its adherents. The OT did prescribe all forms of worship, the NT does not. We have the Spirit and the Word instead. This hermeneutical failure shows up in many different ways, but I will not digress….

But this objection itself depends upon how one defines the RPW in the first place. For example, many wrongly define the RPW as asserting that we may not worship in any way that is not explicitly commanded in Scripture. Yet this is an incorrect interpretation of Scripture anyway. Thus the principle stated in this fashion is self-defeating, since it is not itself explicitly asserted in Scripture. If, however, one has an understanding of the RPW which simply asserts that we must worship in a Biblical manner — along the lines as I have described in the article linked in my post above — then there is no problem at all.

Where you said:

It has been my experience that making explicit reference to the RPW in dealing with such matters automatically leads to an argument about what the RPW actually is, how it should properly be understood, etc, and very little constructive conversation takes place.

The problem is that there is not unanimity of definition among proponents, thus showing a hermeneutical problem. If the Scriptures clearly addressed the subject, there would be very little debate. No one would be insisting on their particular definition of Scriptural mandates, all (or most) would have a consensus view of the issue, with Scriptural authority behind them. But since the hermeneutics are wobbly the definition is wobbly. And the debate rages on.

Finally the Regulative Principle, as such is generally considered a Reformed/Puritan position and formed by a particular emphasis on on the OT. I submit it as evidence that the hermeneutical principles on which it is based are faulty.

The particular hermeneutical problem you raised, Don, stating that “The Reformed reading of the Scriptures misuses the OT with respect to the NT and thus arrives at faulty conclusions,” does not apply to the approach to the issue that I have suggested in my article, one which is well within the Reformed tradition on the subject. To be sure, the difference between my position and the one I objected to myself is a hermeneutical one, but my point is that not every view concerning the RPW falls prey to the specific hermeneutical problem you have charged. The different views within Reformed circles exist precisely because not all Reformed theologians follow the same hermeneutical approach on this matter.

[Don Johnson]

​In my opinion, the greatest problem with the RPW is hermeneutical. The Reformed reading of the Scriptures misuses the OT with respect to the NT and thus arrives at faulty conclusions. And widely varied and subjective positions among its adherents. The OT did prescribe all forms of worship, the NT does not. We have the Spirit and the Word instead. This hermeneutical failure shows up in many different ways, but I will not digress….

I appreciate your wisdom on this, Don. That nails it!

Mark

[Pastork]

The particular hermeneutical problem you raised, Don, stating that “The Reformed reading of the Scriptures misuses the OT with respect to the NT and thus arrives at faulty conclusions,” does not apply to the approach to the issue that I have suggested in my article, one which is well within the Reformed tradition on the subject. To be sure, the difference between my position and the one I objected to myself is a hermeneutical one, but my point is that not every view concerning the RPW falls prey to the specific hermeneutical problem you have charged. The different views within Reformed circles exist precisely because not all Reformed theologians follow the same hermeneutical approach on this matter.

well, having now read your article, how would you say your approach differs from the Normative approach?

Well, Don, as I’m sure you know, usually the NPW is described as teaching that whatever is not prohibited is permitted, whereas the RPW is usually described as teaching that only those things that are commanded are allowed. The latter definition is actually debated by many in the Reformed community, such as myself. My statement of the doctrine acknowledges that is more nuanced, since it requires that we follow Biblical precedents and principles as well. In other words, the oft stated difference between the NPW and RPW sets up a false choice that many on both sides of the debate tend to reject in the way they actually often go about doing things, despite whatever arguments they make. At any rate, I would argue, as my my citation of the 1689 Confession in my article would indicate, that the Reformed view rightly understood is actually this more nuanced position. The issue is not as simple as looking for whether or not we have commands or prohibitions for certain things — as important as this is — because the Bible functions authoritatively for us in a much more nuanced way than that, and I would argue that this is reflected in the WCF and 1689 BCF.

The Wiki article says this in its last paragraph:

Historically, the definition of the normative principle concerned replicating scriptural patterns, i.e. norms. Dr. Peter Masters of the Metropolitan Tabernacle wrote an article on this subject [1] and explained that the historic distinction is different to the one above. Historically, regulative meant simply obeying direct instructions, whereas normative meant not just the requirements of the regulative principle, but also replicating patterns established by the scriptures. One example of this concerns congregationalist polity in respect of church government: - proponents of this polity point to the biblical norm of churches being individually autonomous.

Which sounds a lot like what you are saying.

[Don Johnson]

The Wiki article says this in its last paragraph:

Historically, the definition of the normative principle concerned replicating scriptural patterns, i.e. norms. Dr. Peter Masters of the Metropolitan Tabernacle wrote an article on this subject [1] and explained that the historic distinction is different to the one above. Historically, regulative meant simply obeying direct instructions, whereas normative meant not just the requirements of the regulative principle, but also replicating patterns established by the scriptures. One example of this concerns congregationalist polity in respect of church government: - proponents of this polity point to the biblical norm of churches being individually autonomous.

Which sounds a lot like what you are saying.

In the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England a very different view is taken. Here it is said (in effect) that the Church has power to formulate any rites and ceremonies as long as they are not incompatible with, or contradictory to, the run of scriptural teaching. This is a very ‘loose’ principle which allows the Church to stray down different liturgical bypaths, and concoct all kinds of services of which there is no sign in the Scripture. The regulative principle is much stronger than this. It insists that there must be a specific authorisation in the Word for every part of our worship. It keeps us firmly on the rock of Scripture.

Should the regulative principle be upheld by us today? Certainly it should be, but unfortunately even the regulative principle does not go far enough. The problem is that it is limited to matters of worship. We need a ‘principle’ that governs not only worship, but everything the churches do, including how they govern themselves, how they evangelise and work, and so on. And even further, we need a principle that tells us how to distinguish between the temporary or cultural parts of the Bible, and the ongoing, binding parts.
(emphasis mine)

Essentially, what’s listed in the first paragraph is the classic Normative Principle: that is, that the church authorities have the right to establish liturgical and worship practices and rites (such as calendars [e.g., Lent] , rites, vestments, etc.) that become binding upon the consciences of believers.
The Puritan Regulative Principle, in contradistinction, claims that churches do not have this right.
Masters is using the term “normative” in a very different sense. In fact, the phrase “normative principle” doesn’t even occur in this article. It’s not even the same context, since Masters not only approves of the RPW but says that we need an expanded RPW that covers all of church life, not just worship. I think Wikipedia is quite confused to cite it here.

Well said, Andrew. It is important to remember the historical background of the debate that is behind the development of the views and terminology.