# A Discussion On the Regulative Principle



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 29, 2008)

The thread on the RPW, Covenant Theology, and Musical Instruments has brought forward a problem I see that needs to be addressed in all of our theologies. The hallmark of the Reformed faith has until recently been the RPW. For those unsure exactly how the RPW is defined should look at this definition:

1.) God institutes in the scriptures precisely what he requires for worship in the church and that everything else is prohibited. 

Do you agree? If not, why not? 

If you do agree how does this effect your worship on the Lord's Day? 

Using the RPW where is the biblical warrant for soloists, choirs, and other additions to worship that we have seen in the last 100 years in the Reformed church? If one holds to the RPW, and one has to to be Reformed, we must provide biblical defense for all that we do in God's worship. This is a question for all who call themselves Reformed, not just for Presbyterians. Remember the book on Musical Instruments has been written by a Reformed Baptist.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 29, 2008)

I agree with the RPW. Is this just a continuation of the other thread or an expansion thereof?

Just to be clear:

We are commanded to use the Psalms as authoritative in matters of worship, so unless a particular worship practice of the Psalms has been abrogated in the NT, the practice stands as it is illumined by the Word.

_Semper Reformanda_


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 29, 2008)

While I agree with the RPW in general, I think people often go overboard in its application, including Calvin and the Puritans in some instances. In fact, one could make the argument that the RPW itself does not live up to its own standards...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 29, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I agree with the RPW. Is this just a continuation of the other thread or an expansion thereof?
> 
> Just to be clear:
> 
> ...



An expansion thereof


----------



## TimV (Jul 29, 2008)

> Using the RPW where is the biblical warrant for soloists, choirs, and other additions to worship that we have seen in the last 100 years in the Reformed church? If one holds to the RPW, and one has to to be Reformed, we must provide biblical defense for all that we do in God's worship.



I asked this in another thread on the subject but didn't get an answer.

Musical instruments in the OT were good because they were under law
Musical instruments in the NT are bad because we are under grace
Musical instruments in Heaven will be good because of something.

What is that something?


----------



## Casey (Jul 29, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The hallmark of the Reformed faith has until recently been the RPW.


Uhm . . .  Do you really mean this? Can you quote any reputable Reformed theologians, or confessions, or catechisms that say this? I don't know anyone here who is saying the RPW isn't important, or who is arguing against the RPW _per se_ -- people are just arguing against your application of it. I think you're overstating your case just a bit.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 29, 2008)

CaseyBessette said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > The hallmark of the Reformed faith has until recently been the RPW.
> ...



Well I am not trying to say whether or not the traditional application has been right or wrong _per se_. However one cannot deny the fact that for the vast majority of the history of the Reformed faith that what you are referring to is how all applied the RPW. What I am asking for is Scriptural report using the RPW supporting the changes that have been made in "Reformed" worship in the last 100 years. Not just blanket statements like "Calvin and the Puritans were wrong." How are they wrong exegetically, etc...?


----------



## Casey (Jul 29, 2008)

There are plenty of such things available on the web. You linked on the other thread to the OPC minority report, how about linking to the majority report? You can't say that exegetical arguments don't exist, but you can say is that you disagree with them. And in case you haven't noticed, this topic has been debated so extensively on this forum that we might as well consider it tantamount to the "burnt-out district." The EP advocates have so covered the forum with their arguments that most non-EPers like myself don't want to touch the topic with a ten-foot pole! I'm surprised I've even ventured to post on a thread like this at all!


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Jul 29, 2008)

TimV said:


> Musical instruments in the OT were good because they were under law



What does that mean? Was music played in Judean courthouses? Did Christ's death not only fulfill the Old Testament sacrifices, but music as well?


----------



## TimV (Jul 29, 2008)

It was directed to those who saw that post recently and didn't answer it.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 29, 2008)

Peter H said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > Musical instruments in the OT were good because they were under law
> ...



I think he is making a rhetorical statement based on the non-instrument rationale.


----------



## KMK (Jul 29, 2008)

During the course of these debates has anyone ever brought up the fact that the human voice is itself an instrument? It an amalgamation of aerophone and chordophone. I don't know if this is relevant to the argument or not.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Jul 29, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> 1.) God institutes in the scriptures precisely what he requires for worship in the church and that everything else is prohibited.
> 
> Using the RPW where is the biblical warrant for soloists, choirs, and other additions to worship that we have seen in the last 100 years in the Reformed church?



What was required for worship in the New Testament but communion?
If we eliminate _all_ pertinent Old Testament practices as ceremonial law, what do we have left? 
If everything be prohibited, would that make the service secular, worldly, or humanist?
What is to prevent us from stripping worship down into being only a lecture hall?
Is Amish worship an apt model?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 29, 2008)

CaseyBessette said:


> There are plenty of such things available on the web. You linked on the other thread to the OPC minority report, how about linking to the majority report? You can't say that exegetical arguments don't exist, but you can say is that you disagree with them. And in case you haven't noticed, this topic has been debated so extensively on this forum that we might as well consider it tantamount to the "burnt-out district." The EP advocates have so covered the forum with their arguments that most non-EPers like myself don't want to touch the topic with a ten-foot pole! I'm surprised I've even ventured to post on a thread like this at all!



Amen and Amen!

The two sides cannot come to an agreement as to what constitutes an _element_ and what constitutes a _circumstance_. It is nigh on impossible to prove which category some things (like instruments) belong, because there is not much if any Biblical definition of an element and circumstance. That does not mean that the categories are not important, but that there is bound to be a disagreement.

Broad blanket statements such as the OP do little good. I especially do not appreciate being told that there is a "problem I see that needs to be addressed in all of our theologies" when I have studied, and defended the RPW extensively in an ecclesiastical context for more than a decade. I'll jump out now, though, before 20 or so EP posts are piled on.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jul 29, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of such things available on the web. You linked on the other thread to the OPC minority report, how about linking to the majority report? You can't say that exegetical arguments don't exist, but you can say is that you disagree with them. And in case you haven't noticed, this topic has been debated so extensively on this forum that we might as well consider it tantamount to the "burnt-out district." The EP advocates have so covered the forum with their arguments that most non-EPers like myself don't want to touch the topic with a ten-foot pole! I'm surprised I've even ventured to post on a thread like this at all!
> ...



My thanks button isn't working for some reason, but mega thanks to you guys.
I usually stay away from posting on such threads also- I'm usually so annoyed that I don't think it would be honoring God to post out of anger . I really don't like being told that I am anti RPW because I believe there is nothing unbiblical with singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with musical accompaniment. It is too often assumed that those of us who are not EP are willfully taking this position to fit in with the crowd. Ain't necessarily so.
My "problem" is not my theology, but rather the fact that I am a sinner who does not do the good he wants to do and does the evil he does not want to do.


----------

