CBTS Logo

The Regulative Principle of the Church 8: Its Biblical Support—Second Argument

by | May 18, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

The second argument for the regulative principle of the church has to do with the inevitable tendency of human tradition.  The introduction of extra-biblical practices into worship inevitably tends to nullify and undermine God’s appointed worship (Matt. 15:3, 8, 9; 2 Kings 16:10-18).

Matthew 15:3 suggests the inevitable tendency of following human traditions:  “And He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?’”  Human traditions when incorporated into the holy church of God inevitably tendency to lead to the transgression of the divine ordinances.

2 Kings 16:10-18 is a penetrating moral tale and striking illustration of what happens to the ordinances when human invention intrudes itself into the ordained worship of God.

Now King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and saw the altar which was at Damascus; and King Ahaz sent to Uriah the priest the pattern of the altar and its model, according to all its workmanship.  So Uriah the priest built an altar; according to all that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus, thus Uriah the priest made it, before the coming of King Ahaz from Damascus.  When the king came from Damascus, the king saw the altar; then the king approached the altar and went up to it, and burned his burnt offering and his meal offering, and poured his drink offering and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings on the altar. The bronze altar, which was before the LORD, he brought from the front of the house, from between his altar and the house of the LORD, and he put it on the north side of his altar. Then King Ahaz commanded Uriah the priest, saying, “Upon the great altar burn the morning burnt offering and the evening meal offering and the king’s burnt offering and his meal offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the land and their meal offering and their drink offerings; and sprinkle on it all the blood of the burnt offering and all the blood of the sacrifice. But the bronze altar shall be for me to inquire by.” So Uriah the priest did according to all that King Ahaz commanded. Then King Ahaz cut off the borders of the stands, and removed the laver from them; he also took down the sea from the bronze oxen which were under it and put it on a pavement of stone. The covered way for the sabbath which they had built in the house, and the outer entry of the king, he removed from the house of the LORD because of the king of Assyria.

The altar of the Lord is not replaced by the new altar.  It is only displaced.  This is the usual subtlety of human error.  We would never dream of getting rid of God’s ordinances.  We will treat them with great respect.  But they will not have the central place in our worship.  That will be occupied by the inventions of our wisdom.

This tendency is illustrated in evangelical churches today where mundane or silly announcements in the middle of worship, the unwise tradition of hand-shaking in the middle of worship, badly organized testimony times, clown shows, mime, liturgical dance, movies, and drama completely replace or severely restrict the clearly ordained parts of worship.  These and other traditions of men, for instance, often leave only 15-20 minutes for preaching.  Similarly deafening worship bands and the predominance of special music can push congregational singing into the corner of corporate worship.

The Regulative Principle of the Church 7: Its Biblical Support—First Argument

by | May 16, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

Four biblical arguments for the Puritan regulative principle of the church and its worship must now be presented.  Here is the first one.  It is the prerogative of God alone to determine the terms on which sinners may approach him in worship.

Bannerman eloquently states this first argument.

The fundamental principle that lies at the basis of the whole argument is this, that in regard to the ordinance of public worship it is the province of God, and not the province of man, to determine both the terms and the manner of such worship… The path of approach to God was shut and barred in consequence of man’s sin:  it was impossible for man himself to renew the intercourse which had been so solemnly closed by the judicial sentence which excluded him from the presence and favour of his God.  Could that path ever again be opened up, and the communion of God with man and of man with God ever again be renewed?  This was a question for God alone to determine.  If it could, on what terms was the renewal of intercourse to take place, and in what manner was fellowship of the creature with his Creator again to be maintained?  This, too, was a question no less than the former for God alone to resolve.1

But not only does God possess this prerogative, the Bible shows that He exercises it.  Contrary to the many unjustifiable assertions of various commentators, God does not just object to Cain in Genesis  4:1-5, but to Cain and his offering.  Similarly, he does not merely accept Abel, but Abel and his offering.  Again in Exodus  20:4-6 God exercises His right to regulate the way in which worship is brought to him by forbidding the making of any image of Himself as a “help” to worship.  Should God decree that He will be worshipped only by those wearing orange shirts and green ties, He would have the right to do so.  What arrogance for man to think that he has any business in determining how God will be worshipped!

1 James Bannerman, The Church of Christ,.1: 340-41.

The Regulative Principle of the Church 6: Its Ecclesiastical Framework (Part 3)

by | May 11, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

The Distinctive Regulation of the Church of God as the Place of His Special Presence—1 Tim. 3:15

1 Timothy 3:15 is, of course, a key text for the doctrine of the church, but I had never realized its full implications for the regulative principle till I was doing the preparations for a conference I was asked to do some years ago in South Africa.  You will notice that in this text the special character or unique identity of the church is emphasized by means of three descriptions.  It is “the house of God, the church of the living God, and the pillar and support of the truth.”  Our particular interest is in the first two of these three descriptions.

The church is the house or household of God.  The term, house, used here may refer to the church as God’s family (1 Tim. 3:5, 12) or the church as God’s temple (1 Pet. 2:5).  In either case the special and close relation of the church to God is emphasized.

The house of God is identified in this text as “the church of the living God.”  The term, church, identifies the New Covenant people of God as an organized and governed assembly.  This word in Greek culture was used of the official assembly of the Greek city-state.  This word in the Greek translation of the Old Testament was used to describe the QAHAL of Israel, the official civil and religious assembly of the nation of Israel.  Both of these backgrounds serve to emphasize the formal, official, or organized nature of the assembly to which reference is made.

But this church is described as “the church of the living God.”  “The living God” is the one described in Psalm 115:1-8.  The significance of the use of this description here is to emphasize the idea that this church is dominated by the Word and Presence and Power of God.  It is the church in which He dwells, in which He is active, in which He rules.

Now what is the reason for this tremendous emphasis on the unique identity of the church in this verse?  I believe that the stated concern of this verse provides the answer.  Paul says that He is writing to Timothy “so that [he] may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”  What is Paul’s point?  It is that there is a special conduct demanded by the special character of that church in which Timothy moves as Paul’s apostolic delegate or representative.  The unique identity of the church requires a unique regulation of Timothy’s conduct in it.  Timothy was not ignorant of the laws of God.  He was not even ignorant of the regulations which had governed the Old Testament worship.  From childhood he had known the sacred writings (2 Tim. 3:15).  Why, then, did Paul have to write to Timothy and carefully instruct Him in the conduct becoming in the House of God?  The reason is plainly that with the coming of a new temple, there come new regulations for its ordering and worship.  Hebrews 9:1 asserts that “even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.”  The implication of such a text is that the New Covenant with its true tabernacle also has such regulations as are fitting for the divine worship conducted in the church.

When we understand the unique identity of the church as the new tabernacle and temple of God, it will not seem far-fetched to us to see an application to the church in Exodus 26:30 where Moses was strictly charged,  “you shall erect the tabernacle according to its plan which you have been shown in the mountain.”  The substance of this command is often repeated in the Bible (Exodus 25:9, 40; Heb. 8:5).  Exodus 39 records Moses careful obedience to the detailed divine commands regarding the construction of the Lord’s house.  All was completed “just as the Lord had commanded Moses” (v. 1).  This statement is repeated in vv. 5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31, 32, 42, and 43.

What is the application of these emphases of the Old Testament?  God specially regulates the construction and worship of His house-temple.  Nothing short of the precise and complete obedience to those special regulations which was exemplified in Moses is required.  God never told Moses precisely how to construct Moses’ tent.  God never told Moses precisely how to regulate His family.  Those tasks He left to the discretion of Moses because it was Moses’ tent and Moses’ family.  But it is for that very reason that God exercises such pervasive control over the tabernacle and its worship.  The tabernacle was God’s tent; its ministers His family.  Thus, He rules its worship with a special and detailed set of regulations to which He expects precise obedience.   As God told Moses when He appeared to him at the burning bush, and as God told Joshua when he appeared to him outside the city of Jericho, the place of God’s special presence is holy ground and requires the removal of one’s sandals from one’s feet.  Just so the church is holy ground, and this requires a unique mindset and special regulation of one’s conduct.

Similarly in the New Testament special and even unique regulations are given for God’s New Covenant house.  Some illustrations of this are the following.  Regulations are given for the speaking and keeping silent of prophets, tongue-speakers, and women which only apply to the meetings of the church  and not necessarily to other non-church gatherings (1 Cor. 14:27-40; cf. especially the threefold emphasis on the church as the defined scope of the regulation given about women in vv. 33-35; 1 Tim. 2:1-13).  Regulations are given for matters unique to the local church:  church discipline (Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13); the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17-34); the number, nature, qualifications, appointment, support, and protection of church officers (1 Tim. 3:1-13; 5:17-22; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5-9; and the specific arrangements for the conduct of church prayer meetings (1 Tim. 2:1-13).  The major elements of the worship of the church are designated (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 14; 1 Tim. 2).  This detail of regulation for the church is unparalleled with regard to other divine institutions like the family or the state.  Of course, both the Old and New Testaments contain divine regulations for the family and the state, but the focus of biblical concern is on the regulation of the covenant community.  In the New Covenant this community is in a new way different from the Old Israel fundamentally distinct from both the family and the state.

Now please do not think that I put all of this forward as my main argument for the regulative principle of the church.  All of this does, however, provide the proper framework in which the scope, force and, application of those arguments are best appreciated.  In my next post we will begin to take up those arguments which form its main biblical support.

The Regulative Principle of the Church 5: Its Ecclesiastical Framework (Part 2)

by | May 9, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

The Special Character of the Church of God as the Place of His Special Presence—Matthew 18:20

Matthew 18:15-20 is one of the first two passages in the New Testament where the term church is used, and it contains the first explicit mention of the local church in the New Testament.  It culminates in the great promise of v. 20.  Very obviously this is a promise of the special presence of Christ.  Please notice three things about this promise.

Its Specified Limitation

The promise of v. 20 comes attached to a very plain condition or limitation,  “For where two or three have gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”  The stated limitation found in these words is the assembling of the local church, the formal or public gathering of the people of God.  Upon what grounds do I assert that these words specify the assembling of the local church?  Let me set three grounds for this assertion before you.

The first is the context assumed in v. 20a.  The passage from verse 17 on deals with the local church.  The “two or three” mentioned in v. 20, then, is simply a graphic way of emphasizing that even the smallest conceivable local church possesses this great promise of Christ.

The second is the verb used in v. 20a.  The words, “have gathered together,” are a translation of the verbal root of from which both in English and in Greek the word, synagogue, is derived.  The Christian church is, in fact, called a synagogue in James 2:2 where the same verbal root is used:  “For if a man comes into your assembly (or synagogue)…”

The third ground upon which I assert that the words of v. 20a designate the formal gathering of the local church is the qualification given in v. 20a.  I am referring to the words, “in my name.”  Matthew 10:41 provides a parallel use of this phrase.  To receive a prophet in the name of a prophet means to receive him in his official character as a prophet, to receive because he is a prophet.  It is, therefore, not any gathering of men, or even any gathering of Christians which forms the specified condition of this promise, but the gathering in Christ’s name.  This phrase has reference to the gathering of Christ’s people in their official character as His church and under His authority.  It designates the gathering in view as one which is officially and formally and intentionally a gathering of Christ’s people under his authority.  One commentator has clearly seen the significance of this phrase when he says that gathering in Christ’s name “is a synonym for the new society.  The ecclesia is a body of men gathered together by a common relation to the name of Christ:  a Christian synagogue.”1

Let me illustrate the significance of this phrase.  A number of years ago I worked in large warehouse with a number of other Christians.  The warehouse was owned and operated by Amway Corporation.  At lunch we would eat together.  We often opened lunch with prayer and spent the whole time discussing biblical issues.  There were more than two or three of us.  That lunch gathering was, however, not a gathering in Christ’s name in the meaning of this text.  It was a gathering of Christians, true enough, but it was a gathering of Christians in the name of Amway Corporation and because of hunger, not in the name of Christ.  We were gathered as Amway employees and not as Christ’s official people.  We could not by any biblical right claim the promise of Matthew 18:20.  The specified limitation of this promise is the assembling of the local church officially in Christ’s name, because they are a church, and in their character as a church.  That, and that alone, is the condition which must be met for the claiming of this promise.

Its Clear Implication

The plain implication of this promise is that the Lord Jesus Christ in His identity as the eternal Son of God is promising the special presence of God to the church.  This is the implication of the promise itself.  Who but God Himself could keep such a promise as this?  Who but God could say, Wherever across the broad globe my disciples should gather till the end of the age, there I will be present.

This is the implication of the allusion to Old Testament types and promises.  We remember passages like Psalm 46:4, 5:  “There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy dwelling places of the Most High.  God is in the midst of her…”  Or we remember Isaiah 12:6:  “Cry aloud and shout for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel.”  Or we think of Jeremiah 14:9:  “Yet thou art in our midst, O Lord, and we are called by Thy name; Do not forsake us!”  Or Hosea 11:9:  “I will not execute My fierce anger; I will not destroy Ephraim again.  For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, And I will not come in wrath.”  Or Zephaniah 3:5:  “The Lord is righteous within her; He will do no injustice.  Every morning He brings His justice to light; He does not fail…”  Or Zechariah 2:10:  “Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst, declares the Lord.”  When Christ gives the promise contained in Matthew 18:20, there is a clear allusion to such Old Testament types and prophecies.

But we know that this is a promise of the special presence of God with His people from the identity of the one speaking (John 1:1, 14).  Two things are affirmed in John 1:1 and 14.  First, they affirm that Jesus is God.  Second, they affirm that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament types and shadows.  When we read of the Word tabernacling (literally) among us, we are informed that in Jesus we have the new and greater tabernacle and the new and greater temple by means of which God dwells among His people.

Jesus in Matthew 18:20 promises in His own presence the presence of God with His church.  Now let me enunciate the clear significance of this.  Even though God is everywhere present in the world and in human society, yet this promise must mean that He is present in a special way with His church.  The gathered church is a holy place.  It is the special possession of God with a peculiar relation to God.  Of all the high and solemn and ennobling realities that surround gospel worship, the greatest and, therefore, the controlling reality is that God is present in His holiness and grace.

This brings us to my third point about the promise of Matthew 18:20…

Its Scriptural Consequences

If Christ is specially present in the midst of every gathered local church, the necessary, scriptural consequence of this is that he must be worshipped in the local church so gathered.  Thus, in the promise of His presence, there is the divine institution of New Covenant worship.  This promise contains the divine institution of New Covenant public worship for three reasons.  By means of these three reasons we will also grasp something of the scriptural depth and richness of this promise.

First, where God manifests Himself in a special way to His people, there He must be worshiped.  Genesis 12:7 records,  “And the Lord appeared to Abram and said,  ‘To your descendants I will give this land.’  So he built an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to Him.”  Joshua 5:13-15 records the appearance of the captain of the Lord’s host to Joshua.  In response we read,  “And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, ‘What has my lord to say to his servant?’  And the captain of the Lord’s host said to Joshua, ‘Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.’  And Joshua did so.”  In many passages (Exod. 25:8, 9, 21, 22; 29:42, 43; 30:6, 36; 40:34-38; Lev. 16:2; Num. 17:4) the Tabernacle is described by God as the place “where I meet with you.”  Obviously, however, the tabernacle was for that very reason the place of formal worship.  Part and parcel of the dedication of Solomon’s temple as a place of worship in 1 Kings 8 is the account of how “the cloud filled the house of the Lord” and “the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord” (vv. 10, 11).

The same principle may be illustrated from the New Testament.  You remember when in Luke 5:1-11 the Lord Jesus manifested His glory to Peter in the great catch of fish that Peter’s response was to worship.  Verse 8 records,  “…when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus’ feet, saying, depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!”  You remember the vision of the ascended Lord given to John the Apostle in Rev. 1:10-18:

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.”

Here Jesus is seen in His glory walking in high priestly attire in the midst seven golden lampstands (vv. 12, 13).  These lampstands are the seven local churches who have sent their messengers to the Apostle.  This imagery assures each local church of the presence of the risen Christ in their midst.  The point which must not be missed is, however, that the whole scene of this vision is one derived from the imagery of the Old Testament temple worship.  Jesus is garbed as a high priest; his churches are pictured as lampstands; and so the setting is clearly the setting of worship.

The second reason why this promise contains the divine institution of New Covenant worship is that where God causes His name to be remembered, there is a place of worship (Exod. 20:24-26; Deut. 12:5-8; 16:5, 6; 26:2, 10; 1 Kings 8:16-20, 29; Mal. 1:6-14 with 1 Tim. 2:8).

Exodus 20:24  in every place where I cause My name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you.

Deuteronomy 12:5  But you shall seek the LORD at the place which the LORD your God will choose from all your tribes, to establish His name there for His dwelling, and there you shall come.

The third reason why we know that this promise constitutes the divine institution of New Covenant worship is that the presence of Christ constitutes the church a Temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Pet. 2:5; 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Cor. 14:25).

It is often said that in the New Covenant God no longer has a literal temple, a geographical place where He has put His name and commanded that He should be worshipped.  This is, of course, true in a very important sense, but this must never be thought to mean that there is no special place where God is present , that there is no special place where God has put His name, or that all formal or public worship of God has been abolished.  There is still a spiritual place and a spiritual temple where God has put His name.  Wherever two or three are gathered together in Christ’s name, there is a place of worship, there is a temple of God, there is the spiritual place where God is to be worshipped!

We must not miss the practical impact of this reality.   If God is present in the church, then what Jacob said may be applied to the church:  Genesis 28:16-17 records:  “Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, ‘Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.’  He was afraid and said, ‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.’”  Assemblies of the church must never be viewed in a common or profane way.  The promised presence of God teaches us the sanctity of the formal gatherings of the church.  The assemblies of the church are holy.  They are set apart from or different than the assemblies or gatherings of every other society whatsoever.  They must, therefore, be viewed differently.  Furthermore, our conduct in them must be regulated differently.  If the ground upon which we stand in the assemblies of the church is holy ground, then we must take off our shoes.

1 EGT, p. 241.

The Regulative Principle of the Church 4: Its Ecclesiastical Framework (Part 1)

by | May 4, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

In speaking of the ecclesiastical framework of the regulative principle I come to one of the matters in the Reformed tradition with regard to the regulative principle which I believe is in need of some clarification.  The clarification which follows will, I think, help defenders of the regulative principle better to defend and apply it.  At the same time, it will expose an affirmation of the regulative principle which is quite controversial.

The common name given to the principle under discussion is “the regulative principle of worship.”  I propose to clarify this principle by calling it the regulative principle of the church.  Implicit in historical discussions of the regulative principle is a distinction between worship and the rest of life.  This distinction is given acute expression in Williamson’s description of the principle cited above:  “What is commanded is right, and what is not commanded is wrong.”  If this is an apt description of the regulative principle, and I think it is, it underscores the idea that God regulates His worship in a way which differs from the way in which He regulates the rest of life.  In the rest of life God gives men the great precepts and general principles of His Word and within the bounds of these directions allows them to order their lives as seems best to them.  He does not give them minute directions as to how they shall build their houses or pursue their secular vocations.  The regulative principle, on the other hand, involves a limitation on human initiative and freedom not characteristic of the rest of life.  It says of a certain slice of life called worship that it is regulated in a more restrictive and defined way than the rest of life.

The Westminster Confession of Faith at chapter 20 and paragraph 2 provides further evidence for a view of the regulative principle which restricts it to something less than all of life.   Notice the part of that paragraph I have placed in bold italics below:

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.1

According to this statement sola scriptura has a different application to matters of faith and worship than it does to the rest of life.  In the rest of life it means that we are free from the commands of men that are contrary to the Word.  In matters of faith and worship it means that we are even free from the commands of men that are beside the Word.  This area of life is different.

I will argue, however, that there is a better and more accurate way to describe the aspect of life governed by the regulative principle than “worship.”  This description of the proper application of the principle is both too vague in certain ways, too broad in some ways, and paradoxically also too restrictive a description of its proper application.  The proper scope or application of the regulative principle may be clarified if we squarely ask the question, What distinction is it that gives rise to the special, more restrictive, and more defined regulation of the aspect of life under discussion?  The answer to this question is suggested by an attribute of the church ascribed to it in the Nicene Creed.  We believe one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.  The church is holy in a way that the rest of life is not.  It has a distinctive relationship to God that even other divine institutions like the family and the state do not have.  It is the special holiness of the church that gives rise to and necessitates the special regulation of the church embodied in what has been called the regulative principle of worship.

I think this distinction is assumed in many traditional treatments of the regulative principle of worship.  It is even suggested, I think, by the confession itself.  As I will expand on below, an important supplement and clarification of the regulative principle is stated in the confession’s discussion of the sufficiency of Scripture in the second half of chapter 1 and paragraph 6.  Here is what both the Westminster and the 1689 say at that point:

…there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

In this statement of clarification with regard to the circumstances of the worship of God, it is to be noted that the government of the church is also and immediately mentioned.  The suggestion is, thus, present that the government of the church is like the worship of God to be governed by the regulative principle except with regard to the matter of its “circumstances.”  It is also clear from the statement of 1:6 that the worship in view here in this qualifying statement with regard to the regulative principle is the corporate worship of the church (at least primarily).  This provides, I believe, some justification for the clarification I am suggesting.

John Frame rejects completely both the restriction of the regulative principle to corporate worship and to the church.  Yet he himself testifies to the historical propriety of this restriction.  He notes:

In the Presbyterian tradition, the regulative principle has been typically discussed in the context of “church power.”  …. For them the issue of the regulative principle was the issue of church power: what may the church require worshipers to do?  And the Puritan-Presbyterian answer was, quite properly, only what Scripture commands.

This position on church power, however, led some theologians to distinguish sharply between worship services that are “formal” or “official” (i.e. , sanctioned by the ruling body of the church), and other meetings at which worship takes place, such as family devotions, hymn sings at homes, etc., which are not officially sanctioned. Some have said that the regulative principle properly applied only to the formal or official services, not to other forms of worship.

But that distinction is clearly unscriptural….

On the Puritan view, the regulative principle pertains primarily to worship that is officially sanctioned by the church….

I therefore reject the limitation of the regulative principle to official worship services.  In my view, the regulative principle in Scripture is not about church power and officially sanctioned worship services.2

As a matter of fact the Anglican views against which the Puritans launched the regulative principle argued that church government as much as church worship was subject to supplementation by the traditions of men.  This reality gives a context to the debate over the regulative principle which forces us also in the direction of including the government of the church under the regulative principle.  Cf. the classic articulation of Anglican church government by Richard Hooker.3

It is true that chapter 22 and paragraph 6 might seem to imply that the regulative principle has application to other worship beside the corporate worship of the church.

Neither prayer nor any other part of religious worship, is now under the gospel, tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed; but God is to be worshipped everywhere in spirit and in truth; as in private families daily, and in secret each one by himself; so more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly nor wilfully to be neglected or forsaken, when God by his word or providence calleth thereunto.

Several things should warn us against a too facile assumption that this paragraph applies the regulative principle equally to family and secret worship.  First, the fact that several paragraphs intervene between this paragraph and the statement of the regulative principle found in paragraph one of this chapter must be taken into account.  Second, the additional fact that the intervening paragraphs seem to speak clearly of public worship as they reflect on the application of the principle must be seriously considered.  Third, the focus of the qualifying statement of 1:6 on the worship of the church ought to caution us about too quickly concluding that the Puritans intended the regulative principle of worship to be applied equally to domestic and personal worship.  Finally, even supposing that this might be the case, I believe that this might be viewed as a remaining obscurity in their statement which may be removed by clarification without affecting the substance of their views.

It seems to me that one of the major intellectual stumbling-blocks which hinders men from embracing the regulative principle is that it involves the idea that the church and its worship is ordered and regulated in a way different from the rest of life.  In the rest of life God gives men the great precepts and general principles of His Word and within the bounds of these directions allows them to order their lives as seems best to them.  He does not give them the same kind of detailed directions as to how they shall build their houses or pursue their secular vocations, as we assert that He does with regard to the church.

The regulative principle, on the other hand, involves a limitation on human initiative and freedom not characteristic of the rest of life.  It clearly assumes that there is a distinction between the way the church and its worship is to be ordered and the way the rest of human society and conduct is to be ordered.  Thus, the regulative principle is liable to strike men as oppressive, peculiar, and, therefore, suspiciously out of accord with God’s dealings with mankind in the rest of life.  The distinction between the church and the rest of life which I am suggesting means that sola scriptura has a different application to the church, than it does to the rest of life.[4]

This peculiarity of the regulative principle makes it absolutely necessary to commence our study of its biblical foundations by opening up its ecclesiastical framework.  In other words, we must begin by clearly stating and showing that there is a reality unique to the church and its worship which demands that it be specially ordered in the way that regulative principle assumes.  That reality unique to the church is that the church is the place of God’s special presence and is, therefore, the house or temple of God and as such is holy in a way that the rest of life is not.  Once we understand the peculiar closeness of the church to God, the special holiness of the church as compared to the rest of human society, we will not be surprised by the fact that it is specially regulated by God.  Rather, it will seem eminently appropriate that the church as God’s own house should be regulated by the immediate directives of God.  It will seem most suitable that the church as God’s holy temple should be subject to a special and detailed regulation by His Word.

1 I regret to say that the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith changed this admirable, clear, and helpful statement to read as follows:  “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his word, or not contained in it.”  This revision loses the crucial distinction implied in the Westminster between how God is the Lord of the conscience in all of life where the commands of legitimate human authorities have an important and necessary role to play and matters of faith and worship where they do not.

2 Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth, 43-44.

3 Who Runs the Church? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004).  This is clear from Peter Toon’s defense of Anglican church government in this book (19-41), and I underscore it in my critique of Toon (112-130).  Toon’s defense of Anglican episcopacy is in the tradition of Richard Hooker’s definitive presentation of Anglican church government in his Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie.

4 This seems a problem or objection to some, but I will deal with it in my excursus on the contemporary objections to the regulative principle.

Pin It on Pinterest