# Regulative Principle of Worship



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 10, 2010)

I admitted to Chris yesterday that I was well behind in my reading of my Confessional Presbyterian Journals. I'm nearing completion of CPJ 4 and finished the extensive review of current works/articles on the RPW.

I'm a bit shocked at the preponderance of information that suggests how widespread ignorance of the Confessional position on the RPW is among some pretty prominent people in the Reformed movement.

It's not so much that they disagree with the Puritan form of the RPW that shocks me as much as they claim to hold to the original principle and then undermine it by misrepresentation and end up with a view that bears no semblance to the original view.

I would prefer they actually just state the accurate view, take exception to it and why, and then move on to their view. It would make things "cleaner".

That said, I started reflecting today on the two aspects of the RPW. On the one hand, when the Puritans posit the RPW, they do so under the heading of the general equity of the 2nd Commandment that forbids worship in any way that the Lord has not strictly commanded.

I usually see those that depart from the RPW assault it along the lines of undermining what the 2nd Commandment forbids.

What I don't normally see in discussions from those that seek to modify the RPW is to assault the Confessional teaching on Liberty of Conscience. In other words, a key consideration to the RPW is the idea that God has left the conscience of men free from being bound to any man-made doctrine.

Studying sphere sovereignty recently, it clicked in my mind what folks back then used to talk about with respect to the "Divine Right" of Church Government. That is to say that, in its sphere, the Church has commissioned authority, from God, to bind and loose, to preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments.

What it does not have "Divine Right" over is to bind the consciences of men to something the Lord has not commanded. In other words, a Church may discipline a man for not obeying the Word on a certain point and admonishing him to obey the Word and whatever they bind or loose, if according to the Word, a man will be accountable to God for disregarding.

But, if the Church introduces a man-made principle, it has no Divine Authority to seek to bind the conscience of a man to it.

On that principle, then, a man may not be disciplined for worshipping God in a way God has not prescribed and it would be an overstepping of the Church's sphere sovereignty to tell him he must or should worship God in this way in the same way it would be inappropriate for the State to tell the Church who it may or may not admit to table communion.

In one sense, then, if a Church introduces a non-prescribed element then, Confessionally speaking, it has sinned not only in worshipping God in a way He never commanded but also in over-stepping its sphere of sovereignty in reference to the individual worshipper.

Consequently, it seems to me, that one must deal with both aspects and it is not enough to take exception to the idea of positive command but also take exception to clauses in the Confession regarding liberty of conscience.

Just one question for my own clarification. Does liberty of conscience properly "belong" to the general equity of the 2nd Commandment? It seems a bit counterintuitive to me that it fits completely under this Commandment and that you could make an argument that aspects of the 1st and 4th Commandment build a case for liberty of conscience making the RPW more than simply a 2nd Commandment issue.


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 10, 2010)

Since liberty of conscience applies also to everyday life outside of special worship, it would be difficult to place it wholly under the equity of the 2nd commandment; but we could say, I think, that the RPW includes (or perhaps is) an application of liberty of conscience to the 2nd commandment and worship.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 10, 2010)

You'll get some detailed answers here to your well reasoned question.

Related to this, in my mind is the fourth commandment/Lord's Day/sabbath as a substantial part of the regulative principle.

Note how the Westminster Divines wisely put both topics together in Westminster XXI, "Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day." ("Liberty of Conscious" is a totally separate concept, treated in Chapter XX).

As the Christian sabbath regulates our life to prioritized worship one day in seven, so the regulative principle even more broadly regulates how God commands His creatures to worship Him.

Taking exception to the sabbath is a step toward taking exception to the regulative principle generally.

What's difficult to understand, on one level, is how God's people might exempt from their understanding something of such obvious spiritual and practical blessing, in claims that to do so somehow generates "more liberty in Christ."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 10, 2010)

Scott,

I realize that Liberty of Conscience is treated under a separate heading than Religious Worship but the Puritans regularly appealed to Liberty of Conscience as something violated when Churches introduce man-made elements.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 10, 2010)

This is a central feature of works such as Gillespie's _Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_ (I'm currently updating the 1993 Naphtali Press edition, rather significantly). Liberty of Conscience informs the whole first section of the work, against the necessity of the ceremonies being imposed at that time. Frankly, even though the RPW and biblical worship has received relatively huge attention the last couple of decades over the previous century or more in Presbyterian and Reformed circles; it is still the number one problem that needs addressing In my humble opinion.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Scott,
> 
> I realize that Liberty of Conscience is treated under a separate heading than Religious Worship but the Puritans regularly appealed to Liberty of Conscience as something violated when Churches introduce man-made elements.


----------



## MW (Jun 10, 2010)

Rich,

I think you are getting to the essence of the problem. Is the church a human or a divine institution? Does the church act merely as one man reaching out to another, or is the church the fulness of Christ whereby He fulfils His saving purposes in the world? Those who have come to the latter belief will be led to view the subject of worship with the utmost seriousness and care. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> Does liberty of conscience properly "belong" to the general equity of the 2nd Commandment?


 
I'm inclined to think that liberty of conscience is being protected and promoted in every commandment of God. Gen. 2:16, 17, of all the trees except one Adam may freely eat. Earthly wisdom saw this as a restriction of liberty and kicked against it. Heavenly wisdom would have seen that the exception actually served to protect his freedom to eat of all the other trees, including the tree of life. Without law there is no liberty. Why? Because indiscriminate freedom leads to arbitrariness of choice and arbitrariness of choice destroys the power of reason and without reason man is bound as a slave to the world in which he lives.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 10, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Rich,
> 
> I think you are getting to the essence of the problem. Is the church a human or a divine institution? Does the church act merely as one man reaching out to another, or is the church the fulness of Christ whereby He fulfils His saving purposes in the world? Those who have come to the latter belief will be led to view the subject of worship with the utmost seriousness and care.
> 
> ...



Interesting observation.

Am I mixing anything up above though because, as Scott points out, Liberty of Conscience falls under a separate heading than Religious Worship. Puritans, like Durham's exposition of the Ten Comandments, pretty much confined the topic of the RPW to the exposition of the Second Commandment. Is the RPW, strictly speaking, only a violation of the Second Commandment in that it introduces unauthorized worship of the Creator or, as is repeatedly argued in defense of the principle, Liberty of Conscience part and parcel of the principle? 

If Liberty of Conscience is an aspect of the RPW then it seems we cannot fully unpack the RPW simply by an exposition of the 2nd Commandment.


----------



## MW (Jun 10, 2010)

Rich, it is probably just the case that the broadness of God's commandment creates a manifold way of approaching the subject.

I think it would be safe to say that the Puritans regarded the first four commandments as contributing moral nomativity to the topic of worship. I.e., the object of worship in the 1st, the rule in the 2nd, the manner in the 3rd, and the time in the 4th command. Not that they confined their exposition to this structure, but they at least saw the structure as a good starting place. This was in accord with their view of the decalogue summarily comprehending the moral law. Every obligation was at least reducible to one of the commandments. The RPW would logically belong to the 2nd command but I don't think they would restrict it to that locus.

I would regard liberty of conscience as a transcendent principle which is articulated in the preface to the decalogue. Our freedom is established by What and Who God is as well as what He has done for us. It is a freedom to serve and worship Him in the way He commands. WCF 20:2 does not confine liberty to the regulative principle of faith and worship but also finds an important place for it within the spheres of everyday life.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 10, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> I would regard liberty of conscience as a transcendent principle which is articulated in the preface to the decalogue. Our freedom is established by What and Who God is as well as what He has done for us. It is a freedom to serve and worship Him in the way He commands. WCF 20:2 does not confine liberty to the regulative principle of faith and worship but also finds an important place for it within the spheres of everyday life.



So are you saying Liberty has nothing to do with worship as commanded in the first four commandments? If that is what you are saying I agree. The word confine confused me. It must be an English / American thing. We think of confine as restriction instead of attachment. We are such criminals. LOL


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 10, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Rich, it is probably just the case that the broadness of God's commandment creates a manifold way of approaching the subject.
> 
> I think it would be safe to say that the Puritans regarded the first four commandments as contributing moral nomativity to the topic of worship. I.e., the object of worship in the 1st, the rule in the 2nd, the manner in the 3rd, and the time in the 4th command. Not that they confined their exposition to this structure, but they at least saw the structure as a good starting place. This was in accord with their view of the decalogue summarily comprehending the moral law. Every obligation was at least reducible to one of the commandments. The RPW would logically belong to the 2nd command but I don't think they would restrict it to that locus.
> 
> I would regard liberty of conscience as a transcendent principle which is articulated in the preface to the decalogue. Our freedom is established by What and Who God is as well as what He has done for us. It is a freedom to serve and worship Him in the way He commands. WCF 20:2 does not confine liberty to the regulative principle of faith and worship but also finds an important place for it within the spheres of everyday life.


 
Excellent and great point! In other words, Liberty of Conscience deserves its own heading outside of the specific heading of Religious Worship or the Magistrate or other topical headings because it bears, in part, upon them all.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 10, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > I would regard liberty of conscience as a transcendent principle which is articulated in the preface to the decalogue. Our freedom is established by What and Who God is as well as what He has done for us. It is a freedom to serve and worship Him in the way He commands. WCF 20:2 does not confine liberty to the regulative principle of faith and worship but also finds an important place for it within the spheres of everyday life.
> ...



I guess I will need to define liberty and it's boundaries also. We Americans have such problems.


----------



## louis_jp (Jun 10, 2010)

NaphtaliPress said:


> This is a central feature of works such as Gillespie's _Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_ (I'm currently updating the 1993 Naphtali Press edition, rather significantly). Liberty of Conscience informs the whole first section of the work, against the necessity of the ceremonies being imposed at that time. Frankly, even though the RPW and biblical worship has received relatively huge attention the last couple of decades over the previous century or more in Presbyterian and Reformed circles; it is still the number one problem that needs addressing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When will the new edition be ready?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 10, 2010)

Hard to say; I've been working on it hard to get to an organized point to lay it aside for the rest of the year because of other projects. These have been delayed so I've had more time than I thought; but sure going to be a hard rest of 2010. I would like to publish in 2011 or at least by the 400th anniversary of Gillespie's birth which is 2013. That gives me some leeway I guess. 



louis_jp said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > This is a central feature of works such as Gillespie's _Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_ (I'm currently updating the 1993 Naphtali Press edition, rather significantly). Liberty of Conscience informs the whole first section of the work, against the necessity of the ceremonies being imposed at that time. Frankly, even though the RPW and biblical worship has received relatively huge attention the last couple of decades over the previous century or more in Presbyterian and Reformed circles; it is still the number one problem that needs addressing.
> ...


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 11, 2010)

*[emphasis added]*



> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XX
> Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience
> ...



It would seem clear both by the structure of the Confession, and the explicit, and implicit statements and/or propositions of doctrine in it, that liberty of conscience is an over-arching concept, broadly applicable.

It of course does not negate or contradict anything commanded as worship by God, such as what constitutes it, how our lives are regulated by it, etc.

But as paragraph 1 states, it very much frees the New Testament Christian from the ceremonial law given Israel as "a church under age." [Chapter XIX "Of the Law of God"]


----------

