There are certain theological words and phrases which gain such a clear and defined meaning in the history of theology that to affirm that one holds to them is tantamount to affirming their meaning in that history. To affirm such words and phrases and not hold to their historical meaning is simply to mislead both ourselves and others as to our real theological convictions. For instance, to affirm the Trinity, but to hold views which have more in common with historic Modalism than with Trinitarianism (as some contemporary Modalists do) is to deceive ourselves and mislead others.1 Again, to affirm sola fide, but hold views which are parallel to those of Rome (as do some modern evangelicals and devotees of the new perspective on Paul) is frankly deceptive.2 Similarly, to affirm the regulative principle of worship, and yet hold views which are more like the normative principle held by the opponents of the regulative principle is simply misleading.
The backdrop of the debates over the regulative principle among Protestants must, of course, be found in the debates over sola scriptura which came to light at the time of the Reformation. The conflict between the two viewpoints which at the Reformation became characteristic of Romanism and Protestantism respectively had in the centuries prior to the Reformation been crystallizing in Medieval theology.3 When the Reformation churches affirmed sola scriptura, the question had to be asked whether the Scriptures alone were sufficient to regulate the worship of the church or whether, on the other hand, tradition might have a place in ordering the government and worship of the church. This question gave rise to two answers on the part of the churches of the Reformation. Some gave tradition substantially no part in this construction process. This view became known as the regulative principle. Others regarded tradition as having a part to play in constructing the worship and government of the church. This became known as the normative principle.
This principle first emerged, then, in the controversies between the Reformed and Lutheran in Europe. The “Conservative Reformation” of Luther adopted the policy of preserving the worship of Medieval Catholicism except where it contradicted Scripture. Calvin, on the other hand, adopted the principle that said that the contents of worship had to have warrant in Scripture in language that seems the same as that in which the Puritans later stated the regulative principle.
The claim is made by some that Calvin’s views were different than those of the Puritans. Thus, there is some debate about Calvin and his relation to the regulative principle of worship.4 While it is true that one can point out differences of application between Calvin and the English Puritans, there is little doubt in my mind that Calvin articulated clearly what became known as the regulative principle of worship. Quotations from Calvin in support of this may be and have been given at length5, but perhaps the clearest and classic quotation is the following from his work entitled, The Necessity of Reforming the Church:
Moreover, the rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunctions of Him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have Him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish His authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly, too, does he, in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke His anger against us.
I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honour of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct: “Obedience is better than sacrifice.” “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” (1 Sam. xv. 22; Matth. xv. 9.) Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere “will worship” (ethelothreskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate….6
1 Many believe that this is what T. D. Jakes and other modalists are doing today. Cf. his “Elephant Room 2” discussion with Mark Driscoll and James Macdonald. http://www.theelephantroom.com/category/featured/.
2 In my doctoral dissertation I show that this is what a number of modern evangelicals are doing: Sam Waldron, Faith, Obedience, and Justification: Current Evangelical Departures from Sola Fide (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press; 2006).
3 Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (Cambridge, England: James Clarke & Co., 1967), 51-120.
4 See the argument of R. J. Gore in Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R Publishing, 2002), 53-90. In my and others’ opinions Gore only succeeds in proving that there are differences of application, but not a difference in principle between Calvin and the Puritans. Cf. the critical comments about Gore’s book by T. David Gordon in the article entitled, “The World’s Ruined: The Regulative Principle of Worship,” in Modern Reformation (2003 Sept./Oct., Vol. 12; 5).
5 Note the multitude quotations brought forward by Brian Schwertley in his appendix on Calvin and the regulative principle in his article, “Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship,” http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/sola_a.htm.
6 John Calvin, “The Necessity of Reforming the Church,” Selected Works, 1:128-129.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
