# The Regulative Principle of Worship in Exegetical Perspective



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Dec 8, 2009)

It's an understatement to say that the Regulative Principle of Worship is a controversial topic. Feelings run deep on the subject. Much of the polemical literature concerned with the Regulative Principle is less than charitable, and often riddled with generous amounts of straw men and personal attacks. In the following blog, Pastor Jim Domm provides an even-handed and cool-heading exegetical analysis of the key texts that are used to defend the Regulative Principle of Worship. 

*The Regulative Principle of Worship in Exegetical Perspective*


----------



## carlgobelman (Dec 8, 2009)

Am reading it now! Thanks for posting this.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 8, 2009)

The blog looks good. I'm really not sure about his broad characterizations, still studying this, but it looks helpful as an overview, even if one does not come to exactly the same conclusions.

It strikes me that one reason there can be such angst over the subject is that it is in some ways, similar to the sabbath. There's not much "middle ground." There are some application differences, but essentially it is a command to cease and set apart (thought, word and deed) and we do not want to do it. We find it inconvenient to try to obey- and the consequences are so visible and so regular.

The regulative principle will inconvenience a lot of modern notions about what man might do and call "worship."

This is an area I'm trying to learn from Scripture, but it strikes me that is why this concept can be so difficult.


----------



## Augusta (Dec 8, 2009)

*Here comes the cold water...*

He carefully and for the most part correctly shows the impact of the various scriptural supports for the RPW. Then at the end he says:
...the absence of a command isn’t necessarily equivalent to a prohibition. It is one thing to say that God cares about how He is wor*shiped; that we must worship Him according to His Word; as He has commanded; as He has prescribed in His Word. It is very different to say that this always has, does, and will mean that nothing must be done in worship unless it has been explicitly commanded; that the absence of a command equals a prohibition.​ So he is really a normative principal of worship guy trying to make himself look like a thoughtful RPW guy. So he must not have agreed with himself about the Nadab and Abihu story when he said:

At the very least, Nadab and Abihu did what was prohibited by virtue of a good and necessary inference from the positive command concerning the fire that was to be used. God said, “Use this fire.” *He does not need then to prohibit all other fires by name. All other fires are prohibited by the negative implication of the positive command.* In this way, Nadab and Abihu did what was prohibited and thus presumed to bring before God that which lacked divine authorization. This passage issues a sober warning to those who would follow in their footsteps.​
If it doesn't necessarily mean a prohibition as he said in the first quote then God does need to list all prohibitions or it's ok to do it?  I bookmarked the page because he nicely sets forth all the scriptural passages even if he then simply ignores them. His final point seems to be it's all in Christ now and all mediated by Christ now so we don't have to worry about it so much, it's the heart of the person that matters. 

He seems to be a little confused about what a "principle" is. It means a "truth" and things that are true are true at all times. If there is any "principle" at all that says that what isn't commanded is not acceptable, then it is true at all times and in all places. It is a truth we understand about God's character and He never changes and in Him there is no shadow or turning. God doesn't just say "it's all good" now that Christ has come. We don't throw out the law but we uphold it.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Dec 8, 2009)

Augusta said:


> He carefully and for the most part correctly shows the impact of the various scriptural supports for the RPW. Then at the end he says:...the absence of a command isn’t necessarily equivalent to a prohibition. It is one thing to say that God cares about how He is wor*shiped; that we must worship Him according to His Word; as He has commanded; as He has prescribed in His Word. It is very different to say that this always has, does, and will mean that nothing must be done in worship unless it has been explicitly commanded; that the absence of a command equals a prohibition.​So he is really a normative principal of worship guy trying to make himself look like a thoughtful RPW guy. So he must not have agreed with himself about the Nadab and Abihu story when he said:At the very least, Nadab and Abihu did what was prohibited by virtue of a good and necessary inference from the positive command concerning the fire that was to be used. God said, “Use this fire.” *He does not need then to prohibit all other fires by name. All other fires are prohibited by the negative implication of the positive command.* In this way, Nadab and Abihu did what was prohibited and thus presumed to bring before God that which lacked divine authorization. This passage issues a sober warning to those who would follow in their footsteps.​If it doesn't necessarily mean a prohibition as he said in the first quote then God does need to list all prohibitions or it's ok to do it?  I bookmarked the page because he nicely sets forth all the scriptural passages even if he then simply ignores them. His final point seems to be it's all in Christ now and all mediated by Christ now so we don't have to worry about it so much, it's the heart of the person that matters.
> 
> He seems to be a little confused about what a "principle" is. It means a "truth" and things that are true are true at all times. If there is any "principle" at all that says that what isn't commanded is not acceptable, then it is true at all times and in all places. It is a truth we understand about God's character and He never changes and in Him there is no shadow or turning. God doesn't just say "it's all good" now that Christ has come. We don't throw out the law but we uphold it.



Traci,

I'm not sure you've correctly assessed his position. Of course, it's possible there could be an inconsistency in his exegesis or argument. Perhaps if you had the time you could post your comment on the RBS Tabletalk site to give him an opportunity to explain himself.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 8, 2009)

A few thoughts, possible questions below.



> Summary and Conclusion
> 
> From this survey, at least four things are clear. First, corporate worship that is acceptable to God always is and always must be regu*lated by divine revelation. We are not at liberty to worship God in any way we please, but only in ways that His Word warrants us to.
> 
> ...


----------

