People who think and
speak in commandment/obedience terms often exhibit an OT law orientation. They create a distinctive OT climate or mood
by the way they discuss Scripture. Some
Reformed theologians (as below) are of this mentality and prone to create a
rigid legalistic atmosphere by the way they craft their message and by language
they use. Perhaps this inclination comes
from studying the Puritans or Reformers, all of whom (probably) in some way or
other did not pull all the way out of Roman Catholicism which always has been
OT based (ie, adherence to paedobaptism). Concepts carried-over in this way have been
adjusted and woven into many versions of Reformed Theology such as Covenant Theology
[See RESOURCES http://pop.eradman.com] by men trying to describe how the various
teachings relate to each other. Another
less obvious carry-over in thinking produces the kind of perspective exhibited
in the regulative/normative discussion below.
Such thinking creates logical boxes, ways of thinking and
reasoning that are confined by false assumptions - difficult for those inside
to criticize or break out of. Such
arguments vary in degree of subtlety [See Chap 5 & 6 of "But I Say Unto You" By John Reisinger
http://solochristo.com/_SC/SoloChristo.htm]. I have
touched upon the tendency to inject OT thinking into the New1 with respect to the Cultural Mandate,
and that of the Pharisees' with respect to marriage and the Sabbath [Cultural Mandate…Commands; War…Reading and Discussing
Scripture; Keeping the Sabbath http://pop.eradman.com].
"Do not add to
what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the
Lord your God that I give you." (Dt.4:2)
The commands here and several other places in the Bible express
universal principles concerning the alteration of God's word through any means,
including teaching. Teaching necessarily
involves interpreting, explaining, and reasoning, at which point the Word is
often adulterated or even perverted, leading to the misleading and
manipulation/control of people. Jesus
came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets so that every last detail will be
accomplished. Consequently there is a
curse upon anyone who relaxes [diminishing the force
to render not binding] even the least command
and so teaches others (Mt.5:17-19). In Mk.7 the Pharisees and scribes confront
Jesus about the failure of His disciples to wash their hands before
eating. Jesus condemns them for useless
worship in teaching the traditions [rules]
of men as though they were the commands from God. "You leave [cancel, abandon, neglect]
the commandment of God and [instead] hold to
the tradition of men…thus making void the word of God by your tradition" (Mk.7:7-8,
13). Paul calls Titus to sharply rebuke people who
teach and devote themselves to "Jewish myths and
the commandments of people who turn away from the truth" (Tit.1:11, 13-14).
Before His conversion, Saul (Paul) was vigorously persecuting the church
because of the false literalistic instruction he was indoctrinated with. Paul publicly rebukes Peter who is being
influenced by legalists to contradict the liberating teaching of the Gospel by
his restrictive actions (Gal.2:11-14).
Scripture
gives us the absolutes of God which frame all of reality. Altering these has the effect of moving a
neighbor's landmark (Dt.27:17). Taking another’s property is a form of
theft. Just as moving boundary stones
reduces a neighbor's acreage, so where the doctrinal form is tightened by
adding arbitrary regulations as absolutes, freedom is constricted beyond what
God intended.2 This is a form of legalism. The
Scripture describes people who are caught in such restrictive logical boxes as
"weaker brethren." They are
the ones that think (have been taught that) all kinds of things are wrong (even
though they are not) and are not free to enjoy them before God. Under the New Covenant where each believer
has the Spirit of God, the word is “Each one should be convinced in his
own mind”
(Rom.14:5).
The NC is not the place for binding consciences with a bunch of rules
like the Pharisees did with the regulations under the Mosaic Law. We are to give one another latitude in this
regard because knowledge and understanding are cumulative and progressive. We are to be careful to treat one another
with kindness and gentleness to allow each person to grow and pursue God in
good conscience according to his understanding of the Scriptures.5
2. Removing, diminishing, or changing
absolutes is antinomian and promotes presumptuousness and disrespect toward
God.
WORSHIP: The Regulative Principle and the Biblical Practice of
Accommodation, 01 by Ernest Reisinger and Matthew
Allen, a book about Baptist worship
If there are
proper forms or rules of public worship,
whatever framework is appropriate obviously applies to all its forms – regular
scheduled meetings at the church building as well as small group meetings in
homes. “…the regulative principle [RP] teaches that God has set forth in Scripture the
only acceptable ways of worshipping Him3 and that it is a sin to attempt to
worship Him in any other way. The opposite
view, the normative
principle [NP], teaches that we may
worship in whatever way we wish as long as it is not forbidden in Scripture…an overly
stringent application of the RP has caused almost as many problems as its
rejection…the RP is not a coat-rack upon which every aspect, circumstance, and
mode of worship must be hung…it is a hedge that acts as a boundary around
broadly prescribed areas of worship.
Outside its boundaries we should not and cannot go. [See Cause &
Effect; Boundary Conditions; Form & Freedom
http://pop.eradman.com] Yet within
its boundaries, there is ample room for variation in worship style and
practice.”
“The RP is a
carefully nuanced doctrine. To fail to
appreciate the nuances is to unduly caricature the doctrine.”
QUALIFICATIONS
“1: The RP applies only to church ordinances, church government, and acts of worship
and not to the remainder of the Christian life…the RP is cabined to worship
only…in every other area of life,
Christians are under the liberty of the NP.
In this sense, the RP is an exception to the doctrine of Christian liberty.”
“2: Under the RP, an explicit command
from Scripture is not required to
legitimize a worship practice…what ‘may be deduced
from Scripture’ has the authority of Scripture itself…as long as an act of
worship may be inferred from
Scripture [as a “necessary logical corollary”]…”
“3: The RP applies to ‘things’ or ‘elements’ of worship but not to ‘circumstances’ of
worship…Circumstances surround worship but do not actually involve
worship…‘adjuncts’ of worship. ”include
the time and place…the shape of a building, or the use of pews…
“4: The RP does not apply to the ‘mode’ of worship…Scripture…does not always detail
how these ‘elements’ are to be carried out…‘Preaching is an element of
worship…but Scripture does not specify how many sermons must be in a service,
whether there should be only one preacher or several, how loud or softly one
should preach, what text a preacher should use on a particular occasion, etc.’”
“…we are free
to draw upon the OT and its delineation of elements of worship not specifically
abolished as part of the ceremonial law…While it is easy to state these
‘elements’ in their broad sense…there is much division over what is encompassed
within each element as an appropriate and allowable act of worship…much of this
division is unnecessary…God gives us much freedom within the parameters of
these broad categories4…however…that freedom is not boundless.”
“Accommodation…is…the
willing restriction of the exercise of legitimate Christian liberties for the
purpose of redeeming people and circumstances which are governed by ignorance
and misunderstanding…[it] flows out of Christian
liberty. It is the willingness to freely
and volitionally restrict the exercise of Christian liberty.”
-------------------
3. “our worship practices should consist
only of what God commands.”
4. “Adiaphora are non-essentials [“things indifferent,”
“externals” – vestments, liturgies, formulas, various ceremonies, rituals,
etc.]
which may be used or not used freely by the church.”
excerpts from Sola Scriptura and The Regulative
Principle of Worship by
Brian Schwertley
Sola scriptura is one of the fundamental
principles of the Protestant reformation.
The other great principal doctrines of the Reformation - sola gratia, sola fide, and solus Christus are logically dependent upon sola scriptura. By making the Bible the sole standard and
authority for faith and life, Protestants refuted the Romish
doctrines and practices that originated from human [even
pagan] tradition. The Calvinistic
reformers achieved a greater, more thorough reformation in the church because
they applied sola scriptura more
consistently, logically, and effectively to doctrine, church government, and
worship than did their Anglican and Lutheran counterparts.
The doctrine
of sola scriptura,
with its teaching regarding the authority, completeness, perfection, and
sufficiency of Scripture, needs to be taught today with a renewed zeal and urgency. The chief reason is the current declension among the conservative
Reformed and Presbyterian denominations today, particularly in the area of
worship. Not only are many Reformed and
Presbyterian churches allowing human innovations in worship, but the regulative principle of Scripture and
the correlative doctrine of the sufficiency
of the Bible in all matters of faith including
worship, are openly rejected by many pastors and elders. The regulative principle (sola scriptura applied to the worship conducted
by the church) is one of the greatest achievements of the Calvinistic
reformation. Reformed believers today
need to understand the theological
relationship that exists between sola scriptura and the regulative principle
of worship. Sola scriptura, properly understood,
leads directly to the regulative principle.
The
Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura
teaches that the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the
divinely inspired word of God and therefore infallible and absolutely
authoritative in all matters of faith and life.
Because God's inscripturated word contains all
the extant supernatural revelation of God, and because all forms of direct
revelation have ceased (with the death of the apostles and the close of the
canon), the Bible is the church's sole authority. Because Scripture is perspicuous (all the
necessary teaching for salvation, faith and life are easily understood by the
common people), there is no need for any additional sources of authority to
infallibly interpret the Bible for the church.
The church (whether popes, cardinals, bishops, church fathers, church
councils, synods, or congregations) does not have authority over the Bible,
instead, the self-authenticating Scriptures have absolute authority over the
church and all men. Because of what the
Bible is, the church's job is purely ministerial and declarative. All men are forbidden to add or detract from
the sacred Scriptures, whether by human traditions, or so-called new revelations
of the Spirit, or by the decrees of councils or synods. The Bible is sufficient and perfect and does
not need any human additions. Further, only
that which is taught in Scripture can be used to bind the consciences of
men.
A rather
common method of circumventing the regulative principle today is to give
it a definition that is scripturally and rationally indefensible. After defining the regulative principle
falsely in this manner, the opponents of sola scriptura over worship then
proceed to make their false straw-man version of the regulative principle look
totally absurd. The false version of the regulative principle that is used is:
"If it is not commanded, it is forbidden." In other words, there must be an explicit divine imperative for every
worship ordinance in the church.
Fundamentalist Baptists argue in this manner when they say, "Where
are we commanded in the Bible to baptize infants?" Seventh-day Adventists say, "Show us where
God commanded the apostolic church to rest and worship on Sunday instead of
Saturday!" Anti-regulativists
use arguments such as: (a) the worship of the synagogue was never commanded by
God; (b) Christ and the apostles attended and approved of synagogue worship;
therefore, Christ and the apostles rejected the regulative principle.
Once a person
understands the true definition of the regulative principle, he will
immediately recognize that these objections are not based on Scripture, but on
an ignorance of the
regulative principle itself.
Although it is not uncommon to see a regulativist
give a statement such as "if it is not commanded, it is forbidden" as
a brief statement or summary of the principle, the Westminster Confession and
virtually all Reformed authors define the regulative principle in a much
broader fashion. The regulative
principle refers not just to explicit
commands of Scripture, but also to approved
historical examples within the Bible and to good and necessary consequence. A particular worship practice or ordinance is
inferred from many passages of
Scripture.
Infant Baptism and the Regulative Principle of Worship
by Fred Malone [edited
and interacted with]
http://www.gracesermons.com/robbeeee/regulative.html
http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html
and notes from God's Covenants (part 1), MP3 by Fred
Malone http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace/Homepage.html
According to the
Westminster Presbyterian and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (the mother
confession of American and Southern Baptists), the regulative principle teaches that
God-approved Christian worship includes
only elements and practices "instituted by God Himself limited by his
own revealed will and not any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." In other words, speculation, invention,
imagination, and uncommanded practices, etc., cannot
be permitted to change or neglect instituted worship.
On the other hand, the normative principle of
worship is practiced by Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, many charismatic
and fundamental Baptists as well as a growing number of Southern Baptists who
have turned from their theological heritage in the regulative practice. It teaches that worship must consist of that which is
commanded by God and may also include
that which is not specifically
prohibited by Scripture. This opens the
door to add many uncommanded activities which often
limit, alter, or replace the practice of those commanded elements, which has
the effect of changing the character of the NT.5
The normative principle invites invention, creativity, and new elements
of worship which are never commanded or mentioned in Scripture. It also permits practices which are
prescribed in Old Testament worship to be used in New Testament Christian
worship by the "good and necessary inference" principle of
what may be deduced from Scripture, even if these practices are not
prescribed for [or are out of character with]
Christian worship. This accounts for the
traditional differences in worship between those from normative versus
regulative backgrounds. It also explains
the normative additions of
pageantry, altars, priesthoods, vestments, prayer books, mariolatry, prayers to saints, and other practices
not instituted by Scripture for Gospel worship.6
The regulative principle has always recognized "that 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" (WCF 1:6). However, these circumstances of worship are
always limited to time, place, order of worship, length of worship, language,
pews, air conditioning, etc. - issues which are common to any human
society. They have never included new uncommanded activities such as those normative additions
mentioned above.
Adding to the confusion,
others who claim to hold to the regulative
principle have redefined the simpler elements of worship to include
creative "applications" of those elements by "good and necessary
inference." Thus they justify new
practices such as drama as a form of preaching and dance as a form of
praise. These are justified by good and necessary inference
even though such practices are never commanded in either Old or New Testament
Christian worship. Such teachers have
returned to the normative principle
of worship by adding what Scripture has not specifically prohibited.
Presbyterians often state
that the authority for infant baptism comes from necessary inference of Old Testament circumcision
of infants, not from positive command, example, or institution in the New
(Warfield, Berkhof, Murray, et al). In fact, they candidly and regularly admit
that there is no command or example of infant baptism in the New Testament or
anywhere else in Scripture.
Baptists often reject
Presbyterian infant baptism by showing that the Paedobaptist ("infant
Baptist") brand of covenant theology erroneously allows necessary inference from
Old Testament circumcision to overrule7 the only positive institution of
baptism in the New Testament, that of disciples alone.8 However, few recognize that this Presbyterian
error of infant baptism is a violation of their own "regulative principle
of worship." On the other hand,
Baptists have held historically to the very same regulative principle of
worship and practice, the baptism of disciples alone, because of it.
Baptism is one of the
sacraments [inappropriate term] which has been
instituted by Christ. Thus it is
regulated by God, limited by His revealed will, and prescribed by Holy
Scripture. This regulation extends to
the subjects of baptism. Who are to be
baptized? How? Why?
To answer these questions we must ask a more basic one: What has been
instituted by Christ [and what is it intended for or
to show]?
Christ's institution of
baptism, in its mode, meaning, and subjects is to be regulated by the Word of God. Yet Baptists and Paedobaptists
agree that the only subjects of baptism which can be conclusively determined by Scripture are professing disciples.8 Infants
are included only by necessary
consequence, a normative addition which is never commanded in the
Bible. Therefore, the practice of
baptizing babies violates the regulative principle.
Amazingly, Paedobaptist apologist, Pierre Marcel, actually states that God only gives us general
instructions concerning the doctrine of baptism and then leaves it up to us
to determine its practical application to infants. This is done, he argues, by "normative
principles" and therefore does not need to be prescribed literally by
Scripture. He compares the practice of
infant baptism to the work of application in preaching. This is a woefully inadequate comparison when
one considers the Westminster Confession's inclusion of sacraments is under the
regulative principle of worship.
It is even more
astonishing to see how he uses the lack
of biblical instruction concerning the baptism of adults who were born to
Christian parents. He makes these adult
children of believers a special class and then cites the Bible's silence
regarding their baptism to justify the baptism of infants. The Scripture is not silent on the baptism of adults born of Christian parents. They, along with everyone else, including
boys and girls of every age are commanded by the Lord through the Scripture to
repent and believe the gospel. Those who
do, regardless of their backgrounds, should be baptized (Acts 2:41) like the first century believers of NT times.
To make a special
class out of the adult children of believers and then to equate the
Scripture's silence regarding them with its silence on infant baptism is
preposterous. Such thinking can lead anywhere, even back to the seven sacraments
of Roman Catholicism.9 After all, the Scripture is no more
silent on infant baptism than it is on the administration of last rites.
When God instituted circumcision,
He was very specific to identify its subjects.
This is why male infants were circumcised in keeping with the
regulative principle. Now in this
New Testament era, are we to assume that the regulative principle concerning
the subjects of the sacraments "instituted by Christ" (baptism and
the Lord's Supper), limited by God's revealed will, and prescribed by Holy
Scripture, are to be left to our application as if it were an uncommanded circumstance of worship? Obviously not. According to the regulative principle, the
only subjects of baptism "instituted by Christ" and prescribed in
Holy Scripture are disciples.
In
Ex.12 every child ate of the
Passover feast. But when Presbyterians
celebrate the Lord's Supper, the children are excluded because the NT commands
us to examine ourselves and not to take it in an unworthy manor.10 Why are the children (even if baptized as
infants) not permitted to partake until they profess faith in Christ and are
able to examine their own hearts? - Because the principle of interpretation
known as "good and necessary inference" was being misapplied from the OT into the
NT. Since Abraham, our father in the
faith, circumcised his children as infants, it is appropriate by inference for
us as Christians to baptize our infant children. Do the inferences
from the OT overrule principles and commandments of the NT for our practice as
Christians? No, the NT content has
priority in determining how the OT is fulfilled in it.11 The NT makes it clear that the reality of our
burial and resurrection with Christ is through personal faith (Col.2:12). Therefore the Baptist position regarding
believers' baptism and communion is in keeping with NT revelation.5
{The
transfer of the OT principle of whole
family participation in the Passover meal and all male (patriarchal) participation in circumcision into the NT
Lord's Supper and baptism is not an inference
that is logically necessitated at all.
There is continuity between the OT and NT figures and illustrations because
the Bible is a unity and all revelation and covenants are given by the one
unchanging God.12
But it is a violation of the NT interpretive authority to equate
the OT practices with those of the NT due to a failure to understand the
individual or personal accountability13 emphasized in the call of Christ
pictured in these ordinances. A covenant is a promise, oath, bond, or
pledge by God defined by the revelation which establishes it. The defining characteristics of an OT
covenant do not govern the New Covenant because they are both preparatory and
materially different in their content.
With the appearance of Moses and Elijah as a comparison, the Father’s
word to us comes to the apostles, "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, listen to Him"
(Mt.17:2-5).}
The supposed inference which
establishes infant baptism has opened the door to other difficulties within the
Reformed and evangelical Christian world - theonomy, paedocommunion, and applications
of the regulative principle of worship which in fact have transformed it into the old normative
principle.
Why we do what we do in
worship, how the sacraments of the church are to be observed, and what the Word
specifically says about the subjects of baptism are questions that must be
answered from the Bible.
--------------
5. Although the author’s
examination and conclusions of church practices may be correct, I wonder if
reasoning in terms of regulative, normative, or reasonable inference is the
best way to describe Christian worship.
I prefer to discuss such matters in terms of the more universal
principles of form and
freedom and to approach all faith and practice in terms of that which is
in character [tune, line, keeping] with the tenor of NT revelation (in general) and maintains the centrality
of Christ and His redemptive work (in particular) [See NEW COVENANT
THEOLOGY; Determining How Bible Passages May Be Used http://pop.eradman.com] - access to God is through personal faith in Christ; basic
ingredients of worship are humility before God as creator and trust in Christ
as redeemer.
In this way, after the necessary elements are identified, man's
creativity in keeping with the tenor of the NT and centrality of
Christ is recognized. In other words, within
the basic forms governed by NT revelation there is freedom of conscience [individual soul
liberty] with respect to all matters of faith and practice as to what is
acceptable to God. In light of realities
uncloaked in the NT, one need not infer
any norms from OT shadows and figures to be taken as absolutes,
or even from NT practices to be taken as prescriptive. Doing so results in a kind of reverse
“reading back” from the OT into the NT that always clutters up and ruins
freedoms with restrictions that transform the practice into a burden and
obscure its real meaning and purpose - like what the Pharisees did to the
Sabbath. [See Cause & Effect…; RPCD, Appendix I http://pop.eradman.com]
Rigidly holding to the regulative principle can be
destructive to the truth, beauty, and simplicity of the Gospel in a manner
similar to the literalistic hermeneutic held by Dispensationalists. Because of its literalistic inclination,
consistent application of the regulative principle creates difficulties in
areas other than baptism. For example,
instrumental music is not commanded in the NT.
What provisions are made for the exercise of Spiritual gifts in your
worship service in accordance with 1 Cor.14?
Does one have to be ordained as pastor to serve communion or have the
gift of teaching to teach in the church?
What about foot washing? During
the Passover meal at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus “rose from
supper,” washed and wiped the disciples feet, and explained it as their duty to
follow His example in washing one another’s feet (Jn.13:4-5, 12-17).
6. Others add drama,
dance, puppets, clowns, movies, magicians, comedians, weight lifting,
high-pressured "altar calls," entertainment, and whatever else they
can think of.
7. Baptists and
Presbyterians subscribe to the same principle of progressive revelation - The NT is the final, clearest authoritative
revelation of God to man and must be the interpreter of OT types, prophecies
and covenants. OT figures and teachings
cannot contradict NT fulfillment and revelation. The NT determines the meaning of the OT
language. Though we [reformed Baptists] believe the same
principle, we do not apply it in the same way or with the same
consistency. The 1689
8. Believer or
credo-baptism is confessional baptism.
9. demonstrates a
defective theological framework and shows a forcing of the Scriptures to fit a
system
10. There are some who both
baptize their infants and give the Lord's Supper to the smallest of children.
11. The principle of the analogy
of Scripture in which the clear interprets the unclear makes the NT the final
authority in all matters of faith and practice - the Lord's Supper and baptism
included. The analogy of Scripture rests
upon progressive revelation in that God has disclosed more and more
details of His purpose and plan through time.
He accomplished this in stages as He revealed himself in each
distinctive period by way of covenants
in which He outlined His relationship with men.
12. This does not lead to
the methodological presumption that Christians are obligated to obey OT
commandments unless the NT indicates otherwise.
The primacy of the NT likewise denies Theonomy's
imposition of OT case law and penalties upon modern society, and Dispensationalism's literal future fulfillment of OT
prophecies or rebuilding of the temple, restored sacrifices, a Jewish
millennium, etc. There is no inference
which is logically necessary to bring OT pageantry, dietary laws, priesthood,
Sabbath day restrictions, or other forms of OT portrayals of reality into the
NT. By the same hermeneutical
principle, interpretation of prophecy from a Jewish OT perspective cannot
be held in opposition to the NT's explanation of its fulfillment.
13. "Behold, the days are coming (v.27)…In those days they shall
no longer say: [there will be a change] 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth
are set on edge.' But everyone shall die
for his own sin. Each man who eats sour
grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge." [the change involves personal culpability] (Jer.31:29-30; see Ez.18) This was a proverb
used by the Babylonian exiles to blame previous generations for the disaster of
the Exile of