# Separate and distinct elements or some overlap?



## panta dokimazete (Jun 7, 2007)

Reading John Frame's "A Fresh Look at the Regulative Principle" and came across this paragraph:



> According to the Scottish and Puritan view, then, “elements of worship” are the distinct actions performed in worship, all the actions deemed to have “religious significance.” Each is independent of the others in the sense that each requires its own distinct scriptural warrant.



Do you agree or disagree?

Why?

Here is a little visual to help you ponder:







or






and the size is not to influence - it just came out that way! 

...even though I voted meshed just to get the thread started!


----------



## MW (Jun 7, 2007)

What became of the reading of the Scriptures?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 7, 2007)

oops! missed proclamation! back in a few...

Thar' ya go - I probably should have kept the colors on the mesh view, too - eh - I may fix it later - I think the idea is clear.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 7, 2007)

Moderator Caution. JD, if this is curiosity, fine--but you yourself were concerned about the last outing of this subject toward its end. So, a caution to _all _at the outset: this _will _be a pleasant expression of views and a poll. If you commence discussions, keep in mind board rules on the FAQ.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 7, 2007)

forwarned is forearmed   - would like to keep this non-argumentative - just for curiosity's sake...irenic is the word of the day!

anybody got a "P" term for the sacraments?


----------



## MW (Jun 7, 2007)

How is reading of Scripture "proclamation?" Does this "proclamation" still tie us to the reading of the canonical Scriptures alone? and if so, how does this mesh with any other part of worship? By "element of worship" are we to understand an external action or an inward disposition? If the elements are meshed is that a simpliciter affirmation that those who do the one are competent to do the others; e.g., if all may praise, does that entail all may preach? Given that praise may be spoken and does not entail a melodic intoning of the voice, may singing be dispensed with altogether? Why are sacraments given such a large range of independence from the other elements?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 7, 2007)

Good questions - I think I'll see if there will be additional participation and if the participants have some input.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 7, 2007)

It should be called the Framean principle of Worship, not the Regulative Principle. 

Oh, and yes I agree with the Scottish view not Frames. If we blur the definitions like Frame does, then we end up not knowing what we are talking about. It also allows for unbiblical redefinitions of the elements in order to allow for things which would otherwise be forbidden (i.e. dancing) under the Reformed Regulative Principle.


----------



## turmeric (Jun 7, 2007)

Other
Each element should have Scriptural warrant, or at least not be forbidden - but there is a synergism when all the elements are present. Just my opinion.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 7, 2007)

For consideration:

Acts 15 

21"For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who *preach* him, since he is *read* in the synagogues every Sabbath."


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 7, 2007)

For consideration:

Psalm 120:1
[ Prayer for Deliverance from the Treacherous. ] [ A Song of Ascents. ] In my trouble I cried to the LORD,And He answered me.

Psalm 122:1
[ Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem. ] [ A Song of Ascents, of David. ] I was glad when they said to me,"Let us go to the house of the LORD."

Psalm 123:1
[ Prayer for the LORD'S Help. ] [ A Song of Ascents. ] To You I lift up my eyes,O You who are enthroned in the heavens!

Psalm 129:1
[ Prayer for the Overthrow of Zion's Enemies. ] [ A Song of Ascents. ] "Many times they have persecuted me from my youth up," Let Israel now say,

Psalm 132:1
[ Prayer for the LORD'S Blessing upon the Sanctuary. ] [ A Song of Ascents. ] Remember, O LORD, on David's behalf,All his affliction;


----------



## Herald (Jun 7, 2007)

A question before I offer an opinion.

How does God view our worship? Do the scriptures speak of this? When we gather together on the Lord's Day, does God accept our worship in individual elements or as a sum total of all parts?


----------



## MW (Jun 7, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> For consideration:



What are we being asked to consider here?


----------



## Davidius (Jun 7, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> For consideration:
> 
> Psalm 120:1
> [ Prayer for Deliverance from the Treacherous. ] [ A Song of Ascents. ] In my trouble I cried to the LORD,And He answered me.
> ...



Are you trying to juxtapose prayer and song? Which translation is that? I checked Biblegateway and it appears to be NASB. However, not every translation has the headings. All the others I checked (NIV, ESV, NKJV) had only "A Song of Ascents." Were the prayer headings added later? If so, I assume that it would have an affect on your usage of those texts.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 8, 2007)

They were editorial comments - not sure if they were in the originals, but I don't think anyone would disagree that the songs of the Psalms were also prayers?

Did Jesus sing the words to Psalms 22 or 31 on the cross?

Not juxtapose - correlate.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 8, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> What are we being asked to consider here?



In this instance:

Acts 15

21"For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

A correlation between preaching and reading of the Scriptures.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 8, 2007)

turmeric said:


> Other
> Each element should have Scriptural warrant, or at least not be forbidden - but there is a synergism when all the elements are present. Just my opinion.



I do not contest the warrant requirement - I contest the absolute clear distinction segregating the elements, so that a rigid ruleset can be applied - I certainly think they can be regulated to some degree that is Scriptural, just not formally regimented - there is no clear evidence that Scripture teaches this.


----------



## MW (Jun 8, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> In this instance:
> 
> Acts 15
> 
> ...



Perhaps you should consult the Greek. If that is not a possibility you may want to consult Calvin.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 8, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> It should be called the Framean principle of Worship, not the Regulative Principle.



? - I will confess that I am recently familiar with Frame - has he already been considered and dismissed by the PB?



> Oh, and yes I agree with the Scottish view not Frames. If we blur the definitions like Frame does, then we end up not knowing what we are talking about.



you say "blur the definitions" - I say "recognize the correlation" for a fuller understanding - not quench the Spirit.



> It also allows for unbiblical redefinitions of the elements in order to allow for things which would otherwise be forbidden (i.e. dancing) under the Reformed Regulative Principle.



Unbiblical redefinitions of the elements? Why is that a necessary consequence ? 

If the RPW establishes the elements, which it does, then how does examining the relationships and correlations between the elements cause something like dance to enter into the equation?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 8, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Perhaps you should consult the Greek. If that is not a possibility you may want to consult Calvin.



I understand, and thank you for the referral - my point being that there is correlation in the proclamation of the Scripture and preaching in public worship. That there is distinctiveness, yes, but not absolute segregation.

For instance - 

1. A preacher could read the Scriptures in worship, and that alone, and the Gospel would be preached\the church edified. 
2. A preacher could have the Scriptures read in worship, then preach a sermon and the Gospel would be preached\the church edified.

The correlation is Scripture - the difference is exposition.


----------



## Herald (Jun 8, 2007)

*1689 LBC on worship:*



> The reading of the Scriptures, preaching and hearing the Word of God, the teaching and admonishing of one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord; as well as the administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper, _*are all parts of the worship of God*_. These are to be performed in obedience to Him, with understanding, faith, reverence and godly fear. Also to be used in a holy and reverent manner on special occasions are times of solemn humiliation, fastings, and thanksgivings.



The parts _do_ work together since all are required in corporate worship, but they are separate and distinct.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 8, 2007)

Again - agree on the elements - I just don't see Scriptural support for the separate and distinct with no overlap.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 8, 2007)

If you don't mind, take a look at this matrix - I drew the characteristics as what I consider key considerations - 

I will also add what I believe the traditional Scottish/Puritan profile is

please feel free to recommend additional ones or clarify


----------



## Herald (Jun 8, 2007)

JD - what exactly do you mean by "overlap?"


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 8, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> JD - what exactly do you mean by "overlap?"



That the elements have their own segregated distinctiveness, but some overlapping characteristics - take a look at the matrix I started.

In other words - it is permissible (not required) and allowable from the RPW perspective to preach, pray or sing a Psalm.

...or sing a prayer.

...or read the Scriptures as you distribute the sacraments.

...or have reading of Scripture be the sole content of preaching in a certain circumstance.


----------



## Herald (Jun 8, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> That the elements have their own segregated distinctiveness, but some overlapping characteristics - take a look at the matrix I started.
> 
> In other words - it is permissible (not required) and allowable from the RPW perspective to preach, pray or sing a Psalm.
> 
> ...



JD - would you consider these things normative in worship?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 8, 2007)

Lawful, yes - frequent, not necessarily.

Must we? no - it is circumstantial.


----------



## Herald (Jun 8, 2007)

JD - here is my concern. When we blur the lines of the distinctives of worship, I believe we walk a slippery slope. I suppose if a pastor/elders had strong resolve and "meshed" the elements of worship infrequently, but as a general rule maintained a worship model as detailed in the LBC & WCF, it would not be too much of a problem. But in our day and age we are witness to "give an inch and take a yard" in worship. Witness the seeker sensitive and emergent movements.

While I am not directing this next comment directly at you, I wonder if the question, "How far can I go in worship?" is the right question. Perhaps we should ask, "How can I remain biblical in worship?" Having read many of your posts over the last few months I am confident that is your desire. I wonder whether we open a pandoras box when we tinker with the elements of worship.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 8, 2007)

Bill - first - thank you for your gracious response.

On the tinkering - I have 2 motivating principles that drive my view of worship:

The RPW and the Shema - as exegeted by Christ

From what I've seen the RPW, as interpreted by the Scot\Puritan view is mostly about "Thou shalt not" 

I believe the RPW should be subservient to the Shema - 



> Mark 12:29-31 (New American Standard Bible)
> 
> 29Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
> 
> ...


So - worship should *foremost* be about loving God with ALL your capabilities, then focused on an environment of loving your neighbor.

I don't believe it is tinkering, but a duty of Semper Reformanda in worship towards the Shema - not developing a rigid, immutable ruleset that may be _comfortable_ but not _Scriptural._


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 8, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> ? - I will confess that I am recently familiar with Frame - has he already been considered and dismissed by the PB?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Read Frame's book Worship in Spirit and Truth and you will see. He does not believe in the Regulative Principle of Worship. He beleives the same principles which govern all of life also govern worship. If you're not familiar with his book, I suggest you read it first before reading any of his articles which give a "fresh look" at the Regulative Principle. he does in fact say that dance can somehow be incorporated, along with several other culturally determined things, so long as its done for God's glory.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 8, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Lawful, yes - frequent, not necessarily.
> 
> Must we? no - it is circumstantial.



I think we need to be clear on the Reformed definitons here, because Frame is not so clear. 

Element- the prescribed activity in Scripture
Form- the manner in which the element is performed
Circumstance- things necessary to facilitate carrying out the elements in good order. 

Don't confuse form and circumstance. 

The form of "preaching" is not a circumstance. We have Scriptural examples of teaching, preaching, catechizing etc. but not dancing or drama as a form of preaching. 

Circumstances regard things like lighting, bulletins, pews, buildings, mics, etc.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 8, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think we need to be clear on the Reformed definitons here, because Frame is not so clear.



It is important to remember that I only referenced Frame - I am not promoting or rejecting his views. 



> Element- the prescribed activity in Scripture
> Form- the manner in which the element is performed
> Circumstance- things necessary to facilitate carrying out the elements in good order.
> 
> Don't confuse form and circumstance.



This is probably my fault - I know the RPW use of these terms - unfortunately, I used "circumstantial" in the traditional sense - that the circumstance dictated the manner the element was performed.

So - circumstantially (traditional definition), the "element" of prayer may have the "form" of song - in which case the elements are "meshed".



> The form of "preaching" is not a circumstance. We have Scriptural examples of teaching, preaching, catechizing etc.



And frequently in Scripture the "element" of preaching is meshed with the "element" of Scripture reading (or proclamation).



> but not dancing or drama as a form of preaching.



...not sure how we keep getting to these items... 



> Circumstances regard things like lighting, bulletins, pews, buildings, mics, etc.



gotcha


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 8, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> It is important to remember that I only referenced Frame - I am not promoting or rejecting his views.


No but you need to understand the framework from which Frame is making his criticism of the Regulative Principle. 



> This is probably my fault - I know the RPW use of these terms - unfortunately, I used "circumstantial" in the traditional sense - that the circumstance dictated the manner the element was performed.
> 
> So - circumstantially (traditional definition), the "element" of prayer may have the "form" of song - in which case the elements are "meshed".
> 
> And frequently in Scripture the "element" of preaching is meshed with the "element" of Scripture reading (or proclamation).


Yes, you could pray in the form of song. The Reformers and later Scots sang the Lord's Prayer for instance. But it's still the element of prayer. And it would probably be biblical to do that since we have examples in the psalms. That's why this Reformed distinction is helpful. It keeps the elements and forms of those elements clear and Scripturally based. But confuse and blend the definition of circumstance into the mix and then you open pandora's box to post-modernism and cultural relativism. 



> ...not sure how we keep getting to these items...



Because there is more to Frame's point of view than just blurring the distinctions of the elements.


----------



## MW (Jun 8, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> 1. A preacher could read the Scriptures in worship, and that alone, and the Gospel would be preached\the church edified.
> 2. A preacher could have the Scriptures read in worship, then preach a sermon and the Gospel would be preached\the church edified.



This is at variance with what the proper reading of Acts 15:21 teaches. The text intimates there will be preaching to go along with the reading. As Neh. 8:7, 8 records, the preaching was ordained of old for the very reason that the Word read must be expounded in order to be profitable. John Owen says, "what purpose, I ask, would the 'plain reading' serve if ordinary people could in no way understand the sound of the words? Therefore, we can see that it was the solemn renewal of divine instruction concerning the diligent preaching of the Word which is here mentioned." (Biblical Theology, 535.) And when Scripture is made the interpreter of Scripture, rather than man's fanciful imagination, it is clearly seen that preaching and reading have been ordained by God as two distinct elements.

Acts 8:30, 31, "And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."

Romans 10:14, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things."


----------



## MW (Jun 8, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Yes, you could pray in the form of song.



I think you've conceded too much here, Patrick. See if you can detect the equivocation in the words "pray in the form of a song." The prayer in this instance is what is usually denominated internal worship, but the song is an external act; and in common parlance an element of worship only pertains to the external form the worship takes. Again, we hear it said that a person can "sing a prayer." Here the equivocation is more subtle. Singing is an external action and the prayer is something external to the person, but the prayer is not a mode of action, only the direct object of the action -- it is the "composition" which is being sung. There is therefore no genuine mixing of the modes of worship for the simple reason that "prayer" is not being used as an external action but merely as the object of external action.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 9, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I think you've conceded too much here, Patrick. See if you can detect the equivocation in the words "pray in the form of a song." The prayer in this instance is what is usually denominated internal worship, but the song is an external act; and in common parlance an element of worship only pertains to the external form the worship takes. Again, we hear it said that a person can "sing a prayer." Here the equivocation is more subtle. Singing is an external action and the prayer is something external to the person, but the prayer is not a mode of action, only the direct object of the action -- it is the "composition" which is being sung. There is therefore no genuine mixing of the modes of worship for the simple reason that "prayer" is not being used as an external action but merely as the object of external action.



Ok. I didn't think of it that way. I just considered it in light of the psalms. But I will think about it more. Thanks.


----------



## Coram Deo (Jun 9, 2007)

John Frame has been dismissed aleast in my mind.. John Frame, along with Mark Driscoll tore my church apart and many families had to leave.. I have read both of Frame's books on the subject (since they were on our churches book table) and found them unconvincing and frankly unbiblical...

I have no respect for the man....
I have said my peace and "Here I stand, I can do no other"


Michael




jdlongmire said:


> ? - I will confess that I am recently familiar with Frame - has he already been considered and dismissed by the PB?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 9, 2007)

hmm...methinks I inadvertently "poisoned the well" with my reference to Mr. (Dr.?) Frame. ah, well...

I still believe there is no Scriptural warrant for a cut and dried approach to the elements, but I do not think Frame is quite hitting the mark, based on what I have been reading - that is - I think he pushes the boundaries further than "good and necessary consequence" allows.

That being said - I am still convinced that preaching and the reading of Scripture are correlated, particularly with the "modern" church's access to the NT Gospels. It is hard for me to be convinced, for instance, that a preacher proclaiming the book of John could be any more about the work of proclaiming the Gospel than their own human inspired words.

And I am certainly not the least unconvinced that singing and praying do not have many overlapping characteristics. That is - one may fulfill the characteristics of both in one act. Or even 3 elements - if one considers the singing of the prayer-Psalms.

It is also important to understand (and perhaps I should have been more explicit) that I am exploring the non-normative relationships between the elements, that is - the exception to the rules, not trying to break down orderly worship into anarchy.

Psalm 119:45
And I will walk at liberty,For I seek Your precepts.

2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.


----------

