CBTS Logo

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.

The Regulative Principle of the Church 3: Its Historical Meaning (Part 2)

by | May 2, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

This principle articulated by Calvin and the Reformed against Luther and the Roman Catholics was given sharp focus in the debates between the Puritans and Anglicans in late 16th and 17th Century England.  It was given its classic and definitive statement in Reformed confessions formulated in the 17th century in Britain.  It is stated in identical language at Chapter 21, Paragraph 1 in both the Westminster Confession and at Chapter 22, Paragraph 1 in the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might.  But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

This Puritan statement may best be understood by contrasting it with the statement of the Church of England found in the 39 Articles.  The Twentieth Article of the Church of England’s Thirty Nine Articles states: “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in the controversies of the Faith.  And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written.”1

G. I. Williamson helpfully and popularly states the Puritan principle exemplified in the Confession:  “What is commanded is right, and what is not commanded is wrong.”2 James Bannerman provides this helpful contrast between the Puritan doctrine on this matter (contained in our Confession) and the Anglican doctrine.

In the case of the Church of England, its doctrine in regard to Church power in the worship of God is, that it has a right to decree everything, except what is forbidden in the Word of God.  In the case of our own Church, its doctrine in reference to Church power in the worship of God is, that it has a right to decree nothing, except what expressly or by implication is enjoined by the Word of God.3

G. I. Williamson helpfully illustrates the difference between the Anglican and Puritan understandings of the regulative principle with the following diagram.4

The difference between Puritans and Anglicans may be helpfully illustrated by means of two builders intent on building the temple of God.  Mr. Anglican must use the materials of the Word of God, but has no blueprint and may use other materials.  Mr. Puritan must use only materials of the Word of God and has a blueprint.  It takes no special genius to discern that the two completed buildings will differ drastically or to discern which will be more pleasing to God.

1 James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1960), 1: 339.

2 G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, 162.

3 Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 1: 339-40.

4 Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, 160.

The Regulative Principle of the Church 2: Its Historical Meaning (Part 1)

by | Apr 27, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

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.

The Regulative Principle of the Church 1: General Introduction

by | Apr 25, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

It is a vast understatement to say that the regulative principle has been the subject of much discussion in recent years.  Many in the Reformed resurgence have adopted (as they should have) the regulative principle as part of the Reformed and Puritan tradition to which they are self-consciously returning.1 Others in the Reformed tradition have recoiled from it and sought to distance themselves from it.2 Still others have (in my opinion) embraced the phrase, but so re-interpreted it that it means something quite different from what it has meant in the tradition.3

My own response to the regulative principle is that it forms an important and even basic feature of both the Reformed tradition and biblical teaching.  As such, it is crucial to the development of any proper doctrine of the church.  That is why in my course on this subject, I devote lectures to it immediately after laying the general foundation of the doctrine of the church.  I do believe, however, that the regulative principle is in need of some clarification especially with regard to its application, but clarification which, I think, is suggested by the tradition itself.

I will strive both to state and clarify the regulative principle by means of the following headings in this blog series.

  • Section 1:  Its Historical Meaning
  • Section 2:  Its Ecclesiastical Framework
  • Section 3:  Its Biblical Support
  • Section 4:  Its Necessary Clarification
  • Section 5:  Its Specific Application

After providing a positive development of the subject, I will respond to the attacks on and reinterpretations of the regulative principle in our day.

1 Mark Dever in The Deliberate Church adopts regulative principle.  See particularly chapter 2.

2 Mark Driscoll, http://marshill.com/media/religionsaves/regulative-principle; Steve Schlissel, http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=89illustrate this tendency;    R. J. Gore in Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R Publishing, 2002).

3 This is my opinion of John Frame’s Worship in Spirit and Truth (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing 1996).

Pin It on Pinterest