# Regulative Principle, is it positive also?



## Leslie (May 16, 2008)

It's my understanding that the regulative principle states that anything not included as a permissible part of worship is therefore forbidden, as in drama. It also seems logical, then, that activities which are commended as appropriate acts of worship, should necessarily be included (at some time, not necessarily every Lord's Day) in the life of the church. Is this correct or am I missing something?


----------



## py3ak (May 16, 2008)

I think you are correct. We are not to add to God's word, nor are we to diminish it. Rather we are to preserve it pure and entire.


----------



## MOSES (May 16, 2008)

If the RPW is "active"...(which I believe it is)...then a strong case could be made for the weekly observance of the sacrament of communion...(which I think it should).


----------



## AV1611 (May 16, 2008)

Leslie said:


> It's my understanding that the regulative principle states that anything not included as a permissible part of worship is therefore forbidden, as in drama. It also seems logical, then, that activities which are commended as appropriate acts of worship, should necessarily be included (at some time, not necessarily every Lord's Day) in the life of the church. Is this correct or am I missing something?



You are correct, although for something to be permissable it must have been commanded; whether by explicit command, example or good and necessary inference.


----------



## ADKing (May 16, 2008)

Yes. All commands have a positive and negative aspect (the duties required as well as the sins forbidden). Here is what the Larger Catechism says about the duties required in the 2nd commandment. 

_Question 108: What are the duties required in the second commandment?

Answer: The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God has instituted in his Word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry._


----------



## Leslie (May 16, 2008)

If aspects of worship commended in the scripture are obligatory at some time in the life of the church, doesn't that include dance--as the psalms commend (at least, perhaps command) praising God with dance?


----------



## Davidius (May 16, 2008)

Hook, line and sinker!

Which psalms are you referring to, though? The only two I can think of off the top of my head are 149 and 150, but you make it sound like there are more, so perhaps I am missing some.


----------



## AV1611 (May 16, 2008)

Leslie said:


> If aspects of worship commended in the scripture are obligatory at some time in the life of the church, doesn't that include dance--as the psalms commend (at least, perhaps command) praising God with dance?



The two psalms that immediately come to mind are *Psalm 149:3*, "Let them praise his name in the dance: let them sing praises unto him with the timbrel and harp" and *Psalm 150:4*, "Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs." 

*I. CONTEXT*
These psalms form a part of the conclusion of the Psalter (Pss. 146-150).

*II. INTRODUCTION*
*IIa. Psalm 149* 
This psalm may have been written for the sake of the Jews that returned from the Babylonish captivity and the Syriac version entitles it, "concerning the new temple''. John Gill argues that it was written by David in the beginning of his reign, when he obtained victories over the Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, and Syrians. Gill therefore agrees with the Jewish commentator Kimchi that it is eschatological and refers to the times of the Messiah. 

*IIb. Psalm 150*
Gill writes (correctly) that, "This psalm is of the same kind and upon the same subject with the two preceding ones; and very probably was written by the same hand, and about the same time...R. Obadiah Gaon observes, this psalm belongs to the times of the Messiah; to the Gospel dispensation, to the latter part of it, especially when Jews and Gentiles shall be converted; and when all will praise the Lord, as they will have reason for it."

*III. EXEGESIS*
*IIIa. Psalm 149* 
First of all there is the matter of interpretation. The phrase "Let them praise his name in the dance" could equally be rendered "with the pipe" which was a musical instrument used in former times in the worship of God. Hence it is not certain that "dance" is the best transalation. But be that as it may, the verse is in an eschatological psalm that is looking forward to the messianic age when all nations would praise YHWH and, I would suggest, it also looks to the eternal state where all saints will render a glorious hallelujah. The term "dance" is then being used as an illustration of joy. The Jews often danced and sang to celebrate great deliverances. The psalm then makes use of this picture to urge saints to be joyful. 

*IIIb. Psalm 150*
Again, the phrase "Praise him with the timbrel and dance" could equally be rendered "Praise him with the timbrel and pipe". Once again let us assume that the rendering we have is correct. The argument is very much the same as before. 

The _sitz im lieben_ of these psalms are to celebrate those times that king David obtained victories over his enemies. The exegesis is then helped by the context. A possible context would have been similar to that described in 1 Samuel 18:6, "And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick."

The wording reflects this context but contains spiritual truths. Note that even when these psalms were sung in the temple the Jews understood that these imperatives did not warrant their dancing in the temple nor their introducing instruments such as timbrels into worship.


----------



## Leslie (May 17, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Hook, line and sinker!
> 
> Which psalms are you referring to, though? The only two I can think of off the top of my head are 149 and 150, but you make it sound like there are more, so perhaps I am missing some.



These are the two psalms. 149 tells how we are to praise God in the assembly of the saints. 150 is about in His sanctuary. There are the historical examples of Miriam by the Red Sea and David with the bringing of the ark.

In modern Hebrew culture, dance is important--we did a lot of it in a Messianic Jewish congregation. It is not sensual as it involves moving arms and legs, not swinging pelvises. There is no physical contact between the sexes. 

My theory as to why this is commended is that it bridges the 18-inch gap between head and heart. My unspiritual gift is, like the Hebrews, complaining, having pity parties. Dancing to the psalms of praise is a powerful antidote; it will abolish the most pitiful complaints by substituting a spirit of praise. 

How many times does the scripture have to make a statement before we believe and act?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 17, 2008)

When the Scripture actually says so. Butcher any bulls lately?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 17, 2008)

We recognize that the commands were given in a typological period. Just as we don't engage in holy war (who are the canaanites now exactly) and slaughter bulls and goats so we don't "dance" or play instruments. 

We live in the time of fulfillment. If you want to dance then you have to take all the Mosaic cultic and civil apparatus than comes with it.


----------



## Leslie (May 18, 2008)

The scriptures forbid divorce, the church commands it (in the case of polygamists). The scriptures commend dance, the church forbids it. 

What has happened to sola scriptura? It has transmutated to sola confessiona and from thence to sola reformed cultura (pun on grammar intended). 

Dance is stated in the scriptures to be a legitimate expression of praise to God, as is the use of instruments. Sacrificing bulls was part of the sacrificial system which was done away by the death of the Messiah. Are they not totally different categories?


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 18, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> We recognize that the commands were given in a typological period. Just as we don't engage in holy war (who are the canaanites now exactly) and slaughter bulls and goats so we don't "dance" or play instruments.



Dear Dr Clark, a great point: typology is critical. However, we must notice what in the OT are the types and what are not. So 2 points in response:

[1] Your argument against instruments only works if music and instruments themselves _are types of something_. It's easy to show that sacrifices were types because the NT explicitly tells us. However, what is music (and instruments) typological of? The NT is silent at that point. They aren't types, and so (I think) may continue. One can't simply say that because instruments were a part of temple worship then they should be abolished along with sacrifices. On that account we wouldn't be allowed to meet in a building because OT sacrifices were done in the temple (a building).

[2] The OT gathering (_ekklesia_) of Jews in the temple for worship is a type itself. It points to the gathering (_ekklesia_) now in heaven around Christ, to which all believers _have _come (Heb. 12:22-24). Hence, new covenant temple worship is all day everyday (Rom. 12:1): believers are in the heavenly temple gathering all day everyday. Worship is 24 / 7. The purpose now of New Covenant gatherings for believers is edification (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24-25). This is a subtle point regularly missed.

Every blessing.


----------



## AV1611 (May 18, 2008)

Leslie said:


> These are the two psalms. 149 tells how we are to praise God in the assembly of the saints. 150 is about in His sanctuary. There are the historical examples of Miriam by the Red Sea and David with the bringing of the ark.


_
*Question 1. Did the Israelites dance in public worship? *_*
Answer.* No.

*Question 2.Did the Israelites dance at civil celebration of national deliverance?*
*Answer.* Yes. 

Your exegesis is flawed; though to be fair you haven't actually provided any. You are using examples of the latter to justify the former.


----------



## AV1611 (May 18, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> [1] Your argument against instruments only works if music and instruments themselves _are types of something_. It's easy to show that sacrifices were types because the NT explicitly tells us. However, what is music (and instruments) typological of? The NT is silent at that point. They aren't types, and so (I think) may continue. One can't simply say that because instruments were a part of temple worship then they should be abolished along with sacrifices. On that account we wouldn't be allowed to meet in a building because OT sacrifices were done in the temple (a building).



Marty, the question is not quite as simple as you make out. The point is that instruments were tied to typical worship, as were the priestly vestements etc. We do not need to find an explicit antitype of instruments as Christ was the fulfilment of the whole temple cultus. However I would suggest (tentatively) that as incense symbolised the prayer of the saints so the instruments sumbolised the praise of the saints. The trumpets were blown over the burnt offering which _could_ symbolise the preaching of the gospel.

*Calvin:* "There is a distinction, however, to be observed here, that we may not indiscriminately consider as applicable to ourselves, every thing which was formerly enjoined upon the Jews. I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law."

*Dickson on Psalm 150: 3-5*
Here are other six exhortations, teaching the manner of praising God under the shadow of typical music, appointed in the ceremonial law. Whence learn,

*1.* Albeit the typical ceremonies of musical instruments in God's public worship, belonging to the pedagogy of the church, in her minority before Christ, be now abolished with the rest of the ceremonies; yet the moral duties shadowed forth by them, are still to be studied, because this duty of praising God, and praising him with all our mind, strength, and soul, is moral, whereunto we are perpetually obliged.

*2.* The variety of musical instruments, some of them made use of in the camp, as trumpets; some of them sounding by lighter touching of them, as stringed instruments; some of them by beating on them more sharply, as tabrets, drums, and cymbals; some of them sounding by touching and blowing also, as organs: all of them giving some certain sound, some more quiet, and some making more noise: some of them having a harmony by themselves; some of them making a concert with other instruments, or with the motions of the body in dancing; some of them serving for one use, some of them serving for another, and all of them serving to set forth God's glory, and to shadow forth the duty of worshippers, and the privileges of the saints; - the plurality and variety, I say, of these instruments, were fit to represent divers conditions of the spiritual man, and of the greatness of his joy to be found in God, and to teach what stirring up should be of the affections and powers of our soul, and one of another, unto God's worship; what harmony should be among the worshippers of God, what melody each should make in himself, singing to God with grace in his heart, and to show the excellence of God's praise, which no means nor instrument, nor any expression of the body joined thereunto, could sufficiently set forth: and thus much is figured forth in these exhortations to praise God with trumpet, psaltery, harp, timbrel, stringed instruments, and organs, loud and high sounding cymbals. 

*Dickson on Psalm 4*
From the inscription of this Psalm, which is the first wherein mention is made of the chief musicians, or musical instruments: learn 1. The praise of God and the joy of his Spirit, allowed on his people, surpass all expression which the voice of words can make; for this was signified by the plurality, and diversity of musical instruments (some of them sounding by being beaten, some of them by being blown,) superadded to the voice of singing in the prædagogy of Moses. 2. Albeit the ceremonial, figurative, and religious use of musical instruments be gone, with the rest of the Levitical shadows, (the natural use of them still remaining yet the vocal singing of Psalms in the church is not taken away, as the practice and doctrine of Christ and his apostles make evident; and so the voice of a musician in the public worship still is useful. 3. The Psalms are to be made use of with discretion, as the matter of the Psalm, and edification of the worshippers may require. And in the public, it is the called minister of the congregation's place, to order this part of the worship with the rest; for this, the direction of the Psalms to the chief musician giveth ground.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 18, 2008)

Dear AV,

Thanks for your reply.



AV1611 said:


> Marty, the question is not quite as simple as you make out. The point is that instruments were tied to typical worship,



Yes, that is the an assumption, but I can't find it proved from the OT. Where does it explicitly say that the use of instruments is tied to the cultus. There may be examples of it, but that doesn't prove they were _always_ tied to the cultus.



AV1611 said:


> We do not need to find an explicit antitype of instruments as Christ was the fulfilment of the whole temple cultus.



Ok, so why do you meet in a buliding? The building that the OT Jews met in was tied to the cultus. Hence, we shouldn't meet in one now because it's not explicitly commanded. That's the logic.



AV1611 said:


> However I would suggest (tentatively) that as incense symbolised the prayer of the saints so the instruments sumbolised the praise of the saints.



You need to prove that from Scripture, and I think you're not going to find explicit support there whatsoever.


Moreover the other problem you have (which I keep mentioning but never gets addressed) is that the the OT temple gathering is now in heaven around Christ (Heb. 12:22-24), in which we participate with all our life (Rom. 12:1). Our entire lives are "worship". The purpose now for gathering is explicitly mentioned as "edification" (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24-25).

One last problem, where does the Bible say that there will be a set number of elements in the church gathering? Moreover, where does Scripture itself draw the distinction between "elements" and "circumstances". These are ideas (as far as I can see) that are brought _to_ Scripture, not read _out of_ Scripture.

God bless you.


----------

