# What is permitted but not mandated within the RPW?



## Confessor (Nov 2, 2008)

Is it only circumstances?
Are there degrees of permission within mandates?
Why don't we have to partake in the Lord's Supper every meeting (or do we)?
Are announcements allowed?
Is any talking besides the sermon, singing, and prayer allowed?

etc.


----------



## Confessor (Nov 2, 2008)

bvmp


----------



## Confessor (Nov 3, 2008)

For the record, this is about the RPW itself and not about EP.

I want responses...


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 3, 2008)

packabacka said:


> For the record, this is about the RPW itself and not about EP.
> 
> I want responses...



I suspect nobody has answered because the question is very broad and general.

I suggest looking at the WCF, chapter 21, for a start. Here's a link to it and AA Hodge's commentary:

Reformed Theology Resource Center: Dedicated to the Reformed Faith


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 3, 2008)

Here are the elements of worship:


> V. The* reading of the Scriptures with godly fear*; the *sound preaching*, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; *singing of psalms *with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the *sacraments* instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides *religious oaths, and vows*, *solemn fastings*, and *thanksgivings* *upon special occasion*; which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.


Elements are prescribed. Note even in this section the WCF admits the discretion of the Church to set forth special occasions for certain elements that are not part of ordinary worship.

Think of circumstances as being the parts necessary in order to perform an element. The key thing is that the element needs to be included but there is some discretion as to how that element is introduced.

Obviously the people have to gather so a time and place has to be set. Songs have to be selected if there is going to be singing. Of course, talking has to occur.

The idea here is that it's not meant to be a rigid, formulaic approach but that the elements have to occur in worship and certain activities are going to be selected in a certain order so that the elements can be carried out. There's quite a bit of lattitude as long as it is done reverently and with the intent that the element is in view and something is not introduced as an end to itself. 

In Marine parlance, we speak of the mission of an organization and each part of the organization exists for mission success. Sometimes certain people think of their task as an end to itself. If an activity doesn't support the mission then it is extraneous. It's a self-licking ice cream cone.

Circumstances are arranged, in other words, to facilitate elements of worship. When a circumstance takes on a life of its own and detracts from the focus of worship then it becomes problematic. Elements are not the focus of worship but have been ordained of God because extraneous elements have the effect of distracting from the true Oject of worship, which is God.

I'm not completely satisfied with this explanation but I'm sure others will improve upon/correct my explanation.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 3, 2008)

Just a note about two errors that have occurred in the WCF text over the years in 21.5. The correct reading is "and thanksgivings, upon special occasions, ...." Some older texts change "special" to "several" (thus twice in the sentence), which has been generally correct since 1781. The comma after "thanksgivings" has been omitted up through modern times. As Carruthers in his notes on the text writes:“Its omission makes the words ‘upon special occasions’ refer only to the thanksgivings. It must be remembered that the divines used the word ‘occasion’ in its stricter sense, that of ‘suitable opportunity,’ or as Dillingham translates it, _pro varietate eventuum_. The next clause” [times and seasons] “deals with ‘occasions’ in the looser modern sense.”
​As I note in the linked article: 
This phrase — “times and seasons” — applies to all four of the extraordinary parts of religious worship: vows, oaths, fastings, and thanksgivings.​


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 4, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Just a note about two errors that have occurred in the WCF text over the years in 21.5. The correct reading is "and thanksgivings, upon special occasions, ...." Some older texts change "special" to "several" (thus twice in the sentence), which has been generally correct since 1781. The comma after "thanksgivings" has been omitted up through modern times. As Carruthers in his notes on the text writes:“Its omission makes the words ‘upon special occasions’ refer only to the thanksgivings. It must be remembered that the divines used the word ‘occasion’ in its stricter sense, that of ‘suitable opportunity,’ or as Dillingham translates it, _pro varietate eventuum_. The next clause” [times and seasons] “deals with ‘occasions’ in the looser modern sense.”
> ​As I note in the linked article:
> This phrase — “times and seasons” — applies to all four of the extraordinary parts of religious worship: vows, oaths, fastings, and thanksgivings.​



I'm glad I understood it properly. I thought the comma was placed awkwardly but understood those 4 other elements to be what was referred to as occurring on special occasions.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 5, 2008)

It's interesting I've been reading through Jill Raitt's book on the Colloquy of Montbeliard, and (according to Raitt) Beza believed the singing of Psalms verses Hymnas was a matter of freedom. (I hope to check this from the primary sources in the next few weeks).

What interests me is this: where does the Bible actually say that there will *only *be either elements or circumstances when it comes new covenant gatherings?


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 5, 2008)

> where does the Bible actually say that there will only be either elements or circumstances when it comes new covenant gatherings?



What else could there be? In any sort of situation or gathering, something is either _essential _to what you are doing or _accidental_. It is either an element or a circumstance.

Or am I missing your question?


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 5, 2008)

Oh, or are you asking if, _when we gather together for covenant gatherings_ all things must be elements of worship? As in, when we gather, why can't we have worship, and also simple fellowship and talk? Things like that?

If so -- I think that's an unrelated issue. Of course, when we gather we have fellowship, we talk, and do many other things; the question, however, concerns worship. When we gather for worship, we worship. We might socialize, etc, before and after; but if our stated purpose is to worship, then why would we mix the heavenly worship with other things. If our purpose is worship, then let's do that.

The question doesn't concern our _gathering_, it concerns our worship.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 5, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> It's interesting I've been reading through Jill Raitt's book on the Colloquy of Montbeliard, and (according to Raitt) Beza believed the singing of Psalms verses Hymnas was a matter of freedom. (I hope to check this from the primary sources in the next few weeks).
> 
> What interests me is this: where does the Bible actually say that there will *only *be either elements or circumstances when it comes new covenant gatherings?



I assume you're actually not asking something to the effect of: "Where does the Bible actually say that there is a Trinity..." in this question. The notion of an element is derived by GNC that God commands worship be regulated by His positive commands. Like Calvin, I don't wrangle over words but the concepts are important.


----------



## MW (Nov 5, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> What interests me is this: where does the Bible actually say that there will *only *be either elements or circumstances when it comes new covenant gatherings?



It is not necessary to provide explicit biblical support for the distinction, seeing as it is something basic to human life. "Elements" and "circumstances" are part and parcel of every action as an action. To run, something is essential; if I am simply walking at a brisk pace it is no longer running but walking. In that action there are other things which are necessary for the performing of the action and are common to every action, e.g., I have to walk at some time or some place; these are called circumstances.

Coming to the action of worship, we begin with the reformed conception that these are limited by God's own revealed will. God's name is truly honoured when the worshipper has bowed to His supremacy in all things. From this starting point we are to examine the Scripture to see what God has commanded to be offered in worship to Him. We find various actions are prescribed; these are the parts of worship. But there must be a time and a place besides other things for performing these actions; these are the circumstances.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 6, 2008)

Dear Matthew, thanks for your response because I've never been able to get a clear answer to this question.



armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > What interests me is this: where does the Bible actually say that there will *only *be either elements or circumstances when it comes new covenant gatherings?
> ...



Well, I hope I'll be forgiven for being nervous about your statement, "It is not necessary to provide explicit biblical support for the distinction". It's one thing to make certain distinctions in life, but it's altogether another thing to take a distinction like this and make it critical to something so central in Scripture (namely the Christian gathering). How does one know that this distinction applies to the Christian gathering? Hence, to your next statement:



armourbearer said:


> Coming to the action of worship, we begin with the reformed conception that these are limited by God's own revealed will.



Amen and hear, hear!!



armourbearer said:


> From this starting point we are to examine the Scripture to see what God has commanded to be offered in worship to Him. We find various actions are prescribed; these are the parts of worship.



This is the heart of my question. You're assuming that *only* "various actions" are prescribed. How do we know this? It seems to me that the NT prescribes both actions and principles. A variety of actions can fulfill a principle and thus there is _no set number_ of actions ultimately.

A second but subsidiary issue is how you use the word "worship". Rom. 12:1-2 tell us that "worship" is all of life. So why doesn't the RPW apply to all of life? But then this would mean that there were only a set number of actions for all of life, which would be impossible. Why then is it restricted to just the Christian gathering? And if it is where does the Bible say it is?

A third and perhaps under girding issue, is how the Bible guides us _in genere_. The biblical concept of "wisdom" would suggest that whilst there are some explicit actions commanded in Scripture, the Bible gives us *principles *which over time we learn wisdom to apply. If this were not the case we'd be basically automata and the concept of wisdom would be meaningless. I don't see why this notion of wisdom isn't the case for the Christian gathering (I'm calling it that so as not to be ambiguous, not because of distaste for worship terminology).

Warm regards Matthew.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 6, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I assume you're actually not asking something to the effect of: "Where does the Bible actually say that there is a Trinity..." in this question. The notion of an element is derived by GNC that God commands worship be regulated by His positive commands. Like Calvin, I don't wrangle over words but the concepts are important.



Your assumption is correct: Where does the Bible teach the concept that there are only a _set number_ of activities in the Christian gathering?

(Just like we should ask, "where does the Bible teach the Trinity?", i.e. the concept)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 6, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I assume you're actually not asking something to the effect of: "Where does the Bible actually say that there is a Trinity..." in this question. The notion of an element is derived by GNC that God commands worship be regulated by His positive commands. Like Calvin, I don't wrangle over words but the concepts are important.
> ...



Are you denying the RPW in general or do you have a Scriptural warrant to propose additional elements of worship, which God has commanded?


----------



## MW (Nov 6, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Well, I hope I'll be forgiven for being nervous about your statement, "It is not necessary to provide explicit biblical support for the distinction". It's one thing to make certain distinctions in life, but it's altogether another thing to take a distinction like this and make it critical to something so central in Scripture (namely the Christian gathering). How does one know that this distinction applies to the Christian gathering?



We know that human action is required in the gathering. The Scriptures assume ordinary modes of being and doing without explicitly teaching a "philosophy of life." Worship is a human action. All human action is made up of essence and circumstance. I don't think it is a complex matter.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 8, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Are you denying the RPW in general or do you have a Scriptural warrant to propose additional elements of worship, which God has commanded?



No I'm not denying the RPW in general: God tells us how we are to worship him. How can that be denied? However, the issue is what does the Bible actually say in this regard. I'm wanting to question a development in the reformed tradition (that wasn't there in the early years) whereby there must be a set number of elements in the Christian gathering (again I've not used the word worship to save all sorts of misunderstanding). I can't find the Bible teaching it; if anyone can show me I'd be glad to believe it. But as yet, no one has pointed me to any Scriptures, only outside of Scripture.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 8, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I hope I'll be forgiven for being nervous about your statement, "It is not necessary to provide explicit biblical support for the distinction". It's one thing to make certain distinctions in life, but it's altogether another thing to take a distinction like this and make it critical to something so central in Scripture (namely the Christian gathering). How does one know that this distinction applies to the Christian gathering?
> ...



What about the rest of what I posted? It deals with your reply.

Why hasn't anyone pointed me to Scripture?


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 8, 2008)

Marty --

First, before I ask you a question, let me explain where I'm coming from. I belong to a Presbyterian church, which, of course, confesses the WCF. _On account of this_, standing within this tradition, I feel a burden that the churches which hold to that confession actually live up to it, i.e. follow the intent of the drafters, until a formal, stated exception is made and the document revised.

That being said, I do think that the RPW _can_ allow for more than many puritans did. For instance, I believe it was perfectly in accord with the commands and principles set forth in scripture for the Reformed churches to recite the apostle's creed together as they did, or to sing/read the 10 commandments, to have a responsive/corporate confession of sin, etc, though, as stated before, being under and in the tradition of the WCF, I would not have such a thing to be in our churches. Is this the type of thing to which you are referring? i.e., the scriptures command us to gather in unity (principle), and the discretion of the minister leads him to express that unity by unanimously stating that creed which unites us? (and other such things)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 9, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Are you denying the RPW in general or do you have a Scriptural warrant to propose additional elements of worship, which God has commanded?
> ...



Let me make sure I understand you: you agree with the RPW that God tells us how we are to worship Him but then you wonder how it is that somebody has actually defined what God has said on the subject? I think it's really quite plain where God commands us to read the Word, preach the Word, to sing, to pray, to give thanksgiving, to make oaths, to baptize, to fast, and to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Do you actually need me to find those verses for you?

What are you asking me to do? Am I supposed to find verses that command more than these in worship?

I ask because you say you believe God commands our worship and I would assume by this that you're speaking of the Word of God and not some sort of continuing prophetic gift. I'm not aware of any other things that God has commanded us to perform in Worship. Are you aware of any additional things that God has commanded us to perform because you're the one seeking to addend to the list provided?


----------



## MW (Nov 9, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> What about the rest of what I posted? It deals with your reply.



No it doesn't; your reply complicates matters and misses the obvious. Running is not walking and yet both require time and place. Preaching is not praying, but both must be done somehere and sometime. The NT commands preaching and praying, but does not appoint where and when these are to be done. Necessarily then, time and place are circumstances which attach to the actions God has commanded. To require Scripture for circumstrances of worship is to change them from circumstances to elements.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 10, 2008)

Dear Matthew and Rich,

I believe you're not quite grasping my point. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough!! You both seem to understand only the Bible as a rulebook that contains commands. I don't deny that the Bible contains commands. However, the Bible also contains _principles_, that can be applied using a variety of activities (elements). Let me concretise this.

In 1 Cor. 14:26 Paul tells the Corinthians that whatever they do in the gathering must be for "edification" (which of course happens through the word of God). Hence, amongst the early reformers that was seen as a critical _principle_ for the Christian gathering. Now many activities can produce edification through the word in a agthering: singing, preaching, saying a creed, having a drama, etc. etc.

If this is the case then we can't say that the Bible teaches only a set number of activities for the Christian gathering. If we are to have a set number of activities in the gathering then the Bible would have to say there is only a set number of activities for the gathering, which I can't find it saying. Hence, why has it become so critical to the RPW that there is only a set number of activities.

I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult but rather seriously trying to understand what appears to be assumed, but I can't find any biblical justification for.

Blessings brothers.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 10, 2008)

Dear Paul, thanks for your response.



Prufrock said:


> First, before I ask you a question, let me explain where I'm coming from. I belong to a Presbyterian church, which, of course, confesses the WCF. _On account of this_, standing within this tradition, I feel a burden that the churches which hold to that confession actually live up to it, i.e. follow the intent of the drafters, until a formal, stated exception is made and the document revised.



Excellent, and good on your brother! There's no use having a confession for a denomination unless it can be followed.



Prufrock said:


> That being said, I do think that the RPW _can_ allow for more than many puritans did. For instance, I believe it was perfectly in accord with the commands and principles set forth in scripture for the Reformed churches to recite the apostle's creed together as they did, or to sing/read the 10 commandments, to have a responsive/corporate confession of sin, etc, though, as stated before, being under and in the tradition of the WCF, I would not have such a thing to be in our churches. Is this the type of thing to which you are referring? i.e., the scriptures command us to gather in unity (principle), and the discretion of the minister leads him to express that unity by unanimously stating that creed which unites us? (and other such things)



I think we're in basic agreement here. My problem is that the notion of "element" for some people does not allow for the concept of principle, only command. Following this, one couldn't say the creed because there is no express command in Scripture to do so. I'm happy to do this because I think it fulfills the _principle _of edification through the word (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24-25).

Blessings brother Paul.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 10, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Matthew and Rich,
> 
> I believe you're not quite grasping my point. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough!! You both seem to understand only the Bible as a rulebook that contains commands. I don't deny that the Bible contains commands. However, the Bible also contains _principles_, that can be applied using a variety of activities (elements). Let me concretise this.
> 
> ...



It might help if you announced that you actually don't believe in the RPW then. We can have another discussion about whether the RPW as historically defined is Biblical but it seems to have a discussion we shouldn't be equivocating on terms. The RPW is not merely the idea that God has prescribed certain principles of Worship that form a broad receptacle that we can introduce any element that fits within that principle.

I suppose it's convenient to paint the opponent to your re-definition with some sort of wooden literalism as if the RPW is just looking at the Scriptures as a "rule book". When you care to have an honest discussion on this subject do return with some more mature characterizations.

This thread has apparently exhausted itself on those that actually desire to discuss the RPW proper. If you would like to take up the subject of some other principle of worship then you may begin a new thread. You will be bound by Confessional definitions and, if you cast your principle as the RPW the thread will go nowhere.


----------

