The Regulative Principle - A Baptist Doctrine

Alex, keep in mind that Jews will also call the Synagogue the “Temple”, and the Talmud makes the argument that studying Torah (either Pentateuch or Talmud) is the modern day equivalent of making offerings. It’s how they dealt with the destruction of Herod’s Temple, really. So while the synagogue was NOT a worship/sacrificial center prior to AD 70 for the most part, it arguably is today.

It is also worth noting that “worship” in the Biblical texts is simply a word (Greek or Hebrew) meaning to prostrate oneself, and there are numerous examples of this that are connected neither with sacrifice nor the Temple or Tabernacle. So there is a whole range of ambiguity/meaning in these words where we really ought not simply make broad classifications in the way you have.

But to the point that we ought not use the RPW because the church is not a worship center….well, no. Does not the New Testament detail how people prostrated themselves in response to the preaching of the Word—e.g. Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 14, etc..? We might on the contrary infer that as the church provides a place for fellowship and teaching—really all of the spiritual gifts of 1 Cor. 12 and elsewhere—it will inevitably become a prime location for worship (prostration, self-abasement, etc.) as well.

But really even if we ignore the connection between teaching, preaching fellowship, and the like to worship, I think we’d arrive at at least a prescriptive version of the regulative principle—this is, in a nutshell, what we see in 1 Corinthians 14. Paul is seeing too much tongues—whether they are real or not he doesn’t say—and he notes that it is advantageous that teaching and preaching, or prophecy in those days before the canon was closed, ought to occupy a prominent place. He is in effect saying that if the church applies the proper weight towards the Word, songs of praise, and the like, there will not be as dominant a place for tongues and such.

[Bert Perry]

Alex, keep in mind that Jews will also call the Synagogue the “Temple”, and the Talmud makes the argument that studying Torah (either Pentateuch or Talmud) is the modern day equivalent of making offerings. It’s how they dealt with the destruction of Herod’s Temple, really. So while the synagogue was NOT a worship/sacrificial center prior to AD 70 for the most part, it arguably is today.

It is also worth noting that “worship” in the Biblical texts is simply a word (Greek or Hebrew) meaning to prostrate oneself, and there are numerous examples of this that are connected neither with sacrifice nor the Temple or Tabernacle. So there is a whole range of ambiguity/meaning in these words where we really ought not simply make broad classifications in the way you have.

But to the point that we ought not use the RPW because the church is not a worship center….well, no. Does not the New Testament detail how people prostrated themselves in response to the preaching of the Word—e.g. Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 14, etc..? We might on the contrary infer that as the church provides a place for fellowship and teaching—really all of the spiritual gifts of 1 Cor. 12 and elsewhere—it will inevitably become a prime location for worship (prostration, self-abasement, etc.) as well.

But really even if we ignore the connection between teaching, preaching fellowship, and the like to worship, I think we’d arrive at at least a prescriptive version of the regulative principle—this is, in a nutshell, what we see in 1 Corinthians 14. Paul is seeing too much tongues—whether they are real or not he doesn’t say—and he notes that it is advantageous that teaching and preaching, or prophecy in those days before the canon was closed, ought to occupy a prominent place. He is in effect saying that if the church applies the proper weight towards the Word, songs of praise, and the like, there will not be as dominant a place for tongues and such.

You seem like a nice guy, you also seem regenerated but you are out of your depth in this discussion (my opinion). I believe you are missing several glaring aspects, but I won’t point them out in public. You may PM me if you wish. I’ve said just about all that is necessary from my standpoint.

Maybe interact with what I claimed. Regarding the nature of the synagogues today, take a look here and here. Regarding the definition of worship, take a look here and here. Regarding the interaction between the exercise of 1 Corinthians 12 spiritual gifts and worship, or between preaching and worship, you can take a look at Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14.

I think I’ve presented more than adequate evidence for my positions, and I will do so in public. And you can stop the condescending nonsense about me being “out of my depth”, or generalizing about Baptist preaching being “dictatorial” and the like. The very premiss of this forum is that iron ought to sharpen iron, not be handled with kid gloves as you propose.

[TylerR]

On the bright side, at least you “seem regenerated” … What more can you ask for!?

Well, I don’t get to say, do I?

Anyway, Bert’s response was glaring to me (in its ignorance, Christians can be very ignorant). I was not being condescending at all, it was my recognition which he doesn’t recognize. I’ll leave him to his own thoughts.

In the interest of God’s explicit defining truth of WHY we meet, I offer two defining passages: Heb. 10.25 (encouraging one another), Rom. 1.12 (that we may be mutually encouraged wby each other’s faith, both yours and mine). Its amazing that Paul would also be encouraged, but he was. How was this encouragement accomplished? I say its by taking a stand mostly by participating in the Lord’s Supper. Anyone can attend, sing the songs, and play church. Taking The Lord’s Supper is a different matter, a judgment aspect is inherent if not performed correctly similar to Nadab and Abihu when they made offering which was faulty. Both the elements and the heart need to be right.

Alex, you can’t accuse me of being in beyond my depth, and suggest discussing things in private, without being condescending. Look at the definition from the dictionary. Same thing with the claim that Baptist preaching is dictatorial—in both cases, you’re arguing that people are infantile or brutish, which is by nature condescending. Your claim is, to paraphrase you, glaring in its ignorance.

Moreover, iif you really want to point out that something is ignorant, you need to approach the argument and prove that, not simply say someone’s in beyond their depth. That’s why I pointed out that you are simply wrong about the nature of the synagogue and the church, and hence your argument falls by the GIGO principle; false premises, false conclusions.

Same thing with your claims regarding Hebrews 10:24-5 and Romans 1:12—for those to contradict 1 Corinthians 14:25, you more or less need to assume that encouragement/fellowship and worship are mutually exclusive. Given that the Hebrews were called to Jerusalem three times per year for times of worship and fellowship, your implicit argument would have certainly come as news to them. That might have asked you with the same logic whether eating bread and meat in the same meal were mutually contradictory, and I submit to you that they are not contradictory, but complementary—that is, again, the clear message of spiritual gifts in passages like 1 Corinthians 12.

Back to the central discussion; that the regulative principle is a central part of Baptist identity. Now while we can argue whether we Baptists truly honor this principle today, and I myself would agree with many of these quibbles and concerns—as I myself argued regarding the holy kiss. Even so, we ought to see RP as a central conclusion of Sola Scriptura; if indeed we believe the Bible is our sole rule of faith and practice, the argument ought not be whether we ought to attempt to use the RP, but rather (per my earlier comments) whether that principle ought to be applied primarily positively or negatively—whether it ought to define first what we ought to do, or what we ought not to do. I would argue that our first application ought to be positive—using it negatively sparingly for the simple reason that if we’re doing what we ought to do, we won’t have time for that which we ought to abhor.

The big source of confusion here is that the ecclesiastical use of the word worship has come to mean a lot more than the Hebrew Schachah—really any part of church service rather than the prostration of the believer. We might do well to rename it the regulative principle of church life, or perhaps the regulative principle of church music, or some such thing. But that does not mean we abandon it in its entirety, because that is implicitly to downgrade Sola Scriptura.

Actually, most discussions of the RP I’ve seen or heard are split pretty evenly between things we ought to do and things we ought not.

Secondly, rather than just attempting to point out Don’s objection, I should ask him a question: Who is more likely to end up speaking improperly on God’s behalf? The one who says that the words and actions of the Lord throughout scripture can be distilled to a principle, or the one who, without the slightest hint of biblical warrant tells his congregation that unprescribed activities are perfectly legitimate ways to worship God?

[DavidO]

…the one who, without the slightest hint of biblical warrant tells his congregation that unprescribed activities are perfectly legitimate ways to worship God?

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

What about the one who, contradicting biblical warrant, tells his congregation that prescribed activities are illegitimate ways to worship God?

Examples:

“Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!” (Psalm 47:1 ESV)

“Praise the Lord! Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise in the assembly of the godly! 2 Let Israel be glad in his Maker; let the children of Zion rejoice in their King! 3 Let them praise his name with dancing, making melody to him with tambourine and lyre!” (Psalm 149:1-3 ESV)

“Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! 4 Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! 5 Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!” (Psalm 150:3-5 ESV)

Clapping? Shouting? Dancing? “Loud clashing cymbals”?

How many of us have been taught (past or present) that such things are completely unacceptable ways in which to worship God?

[Cue someone to step in and explain how, while such things might have been pleasing to God during the time of the Israelites, they are repugnant in the sight of our (immutable) God today…]

David O. wrote:

Actually, most discussions of the RP I’ve seen or heard are split pretty evenly between things we ought to do and things we ought not.

If indeed this is generally correct, I am gladly corrected. Unfortunately, the perception I’ve seen too often is that the negative predominates.

[Larry Nelson]

DavidO wrote:

…the one who, without the slightest hint of biblical warrant tells his congregation that unprescribed activities are perfectly legitimate ways to worship God?

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

What about the one who, contradicting biblical warrant, tells his congregation that prescribed activities are illegitimate ways to worship God?

Examples:

“Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to God with loud songs of joy!” (Psalm 47:1 ESV)

“Praise the Lord! Sing to the Lord a new song, his praise in the assembly of the godly! 2 Let Israel be glad in his Maker; let the children of Zion rejoice in their King! 3 Let them praise his name with dancing, making melody to him with tambourine and lyre!” (Psalm 149:1-3 ESV)

“Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! 4 Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! 5 Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!” (Psalm 150:3-5 ESV)

Clapping? Shouting? Dancing? “Loud clashing cymbals”?

How many of us have been taught (past or present) that such things are completely unacceptable ways in which to worship God?

[Cue someone to step in and explain how, while such things might have been pleasing to God during the time of the Israelites, they are repugnant in the sight of our (immutable) God today…]

It is ironic isn’t it? And the same is true of Don Johnson who was dismissive of RPW by saying it was Pharisaical. Don promotes and represents a perspective on music that is perhaps the quintessential example of a Pharisaical mindset.

Just for reference,Don’s comment regarding Matthew 15:9 could be interpreted either as an affirmation that the RPW is a necessary conclusion of Sola Scriptura, or as a man-made addition to Scripture. I would prefer to let him speak for himself rather than have the rest of us speaking for him.

Put in the terms of Matthew 15:9, it’s worth noting that it was significantly the Pharisees who elevated the traditions of the rabbis to approximately the same level—in many places arguably a higher level—than that of Scripture itself. That was certainly Jesus’ provocation—the Pharisees were challenging him about why He did not do the ritual bathing/washing given in the Midrash/Mishnah/etc. that later became the Talmuds.

I also appreciate Larry’s comment regarding Psalms 149 and 150. A great part of the difficulty of both Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle is to understand how OT passages do, or do not, bind the modern church. Some of us in my church’s choir were joking last Sunday about what a blessing it is when someone comes with a crowbar to help us get our feet un-nailed from the floor. Working on it!

I did intend to dismiss the Regulative Principle. I am not bound by the thoughts of the Puritans, there is NO scriptural mandate for the positions taken by the RPW. It is incredibly bizarre for those who claim to be “gospel-centered” to then attempt to bind the lives of churches by their unfounded propositions.

[Don Johnson]

I did intend to dismiss the Regulative Principle. I am not bound by the thoughts of the Puritans, there is NO scriptural mandate for the positions taken by the RPW. It is incredibly bizarre for those who claim to be “gospel-centered” to then attempt to bind the lives of churches by their unfounded propositions.

I am just dismissing the regulative principle. It is a construct of men, not of God.

[Don Johnson]

I am just dismissing the regulative principle. It is a construct of men, not of God.