# The Regulative Principle: Scripture, Tradition, and Culture - An Email Debate Between Darryl Hart an



## crhoades (Feb 16, 2006)

http://www.frame-poythress.org//frame_articles/1998HartDebate.htm

This should be fodder for a good 200 posts or so...


----------



## beej6 (Apr 30, 2006)

Well, 1 post anyway, Chris. I just got around to reading this, it's 113 downloaded pages, but the last 40 or so (the questions and answers) go by very quickly.

I like Hart for his grasp of history and his slightly off-kliter presentation of Old School Presbyterianism. I appreciate Frame for his view of the big picture and his concern for the whole church. My bias going into reading this debate was for Hart, and the debate didn't change my mind. 

This may be my own sin, but I tend to appreciate someone's arguments, but if I don't like their conclusions from said arguments... either my logic is off, or I"m very much a "practical" person. For example, if Frame's wider view of the RPW, at the end, allows for (cough) interpretative dance, then his view must be faulty. (Also, see the Confessional Presbyterian Journal issue 1 for more criticism of Frame.)


----------



## gwine (May 3, 2006)

I'll double the number of posts, since I finally finished reading the debate last night. 

Since I only knew of Frame in passing and I had never heard of Hart, I didn't favor one over the other. But I do feel that Hart is a one-issue man whereas Frame is more open to other ideas. And Frame didn't seem to explicitly endorse some modern ideas, but he wasn't ready to give up on them. Although he did draw the line at swords (where's the sword smiley?).

I guess I was turned off by Hart's style, but that reflects my own bias and presuppositions. I'm just not convinced that we should take a moment in history - the Puritan Era - and use it as the norm for our worship. But, I will agree with Hart that _Shine, Jesus, Shine_ is not a song I would choose for worship.

And while I agree in part with Frame that the RPW is about more than worship on Sunday morning and should reflect all of life, I don't know that I could go all the way in practicing it, but that probably reflects my lower level of sanctification. I just wonder, though, whether a worship that is not ok in the church on Sunday morning would be ok at another time.

And, like beej6, I do feel Frame's concern for the Church (the entire body of Christ) is rightly placed. Many of the issues he says the Reformed faith is weak on are valid points. I am not sure, though, how to balance the need to make newcomers feel welcome in what to them might be a strange environment and yet not offend those who see their comfort level threatened.

All in all, I thought Frame was put on the defensive quite a bit, but I'm still casting my vote for him.

Back to more , after I go plant a lilac bush.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 3, 2006)

I have not read the debate, at least not recently; I do recall at the time it took place on the Warfield list when it was an email based list, that some strong RPW advocates were not happy with Dr. Hart's performance. But I don't recall the specific criticisms. I do think though it is an unwarranted caricature of the RPW to cast it as simply wanting to do what the Puritans did. For more background on the RPW see the Smith/Lachman review of Frame and Gore in The Confessional Presbyterian 1 (2005) and the forthcoming CPJ 2 (2006) which has part one of a lengthy survey of 60 years of RPW literature. http://www.cpjournal.com You can pick up both issues on special for $28.50.


----------



## beej6 (May 3, 2006)

And that's the other reason I was biased vs. Frame's view of the RPW - the excellent article in the CPJ 1. 

I will have to study Frame's argument about the RPW extending to all of life - I could say that that's too *narrow* an application, in the sense that the RPW applies to worship of God, whereas it's our Christian walk that should extend to all of life. Should our family worship/devotional look like a Sunday worship service? I don't believe it has to.

Also, re: newcomers & church: It's up to the congregation to welcome people and make them feel at home. I'm against the (regular) use of anything performance-oriented with the express purpose (there's that heart issue again!) of welcoming or attracting newcomers. The reformers talk about a simple service, to avoid man-made distractions. The miracle of a worship service, especially one at which the Lord's Supper is served, is that God deigns to be present with his covenant people. And we even get to eat and drink with Him.


----------



## CDM (May 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> I have not read the debate, at least not recently; I do recall at the time it took place on the Warfield list when it was an email based list, that some strong RPW advocates were not happy with Dr. Hart's performance. But I don't recall the specific criticisms. I do think though it is an unwarranted caricature of the RPW to cast it as simply wanting to do what the Puritans did. For more background on the RPW see the Smith/Lachman review of Frame and Gore in The Confessional Presbyterian 1 (2005) and the forthcoming CPJ 2 (2006) which has part one of a lengthy survey of 60 years of RPW literature. http://www.cpjournal.com You can pick up both issues on special for $28.50.



Thanks again for the reminder. I just now ordered both the 2005 and 2006 issues.

I eagerly await receiving them. Any idea of when I should expect either issue?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 3, 2006)

Chris,
I will make an effort to get your 2005 out before the end of the week, so you may have within a week or sooner depending on the USPS. The 2006 I hope will be here and ready to ship out by the end of June, Lord willing. I depends on me at the moment to get everything together by early next week and off to the book maker. Thanks very much for subscribing.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 3, 2006)

I'm glad you found the Smith/Lachman article to be excellent BJ. I agree with you, though some strong RPW advocates I respect found it a bit "tart." I tend to agree it was on the strong side, but I prefer not to over edit when the criticism is warranted.


----------



## CDM (May 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Chris,
> I will make an effort to get your 2005 out before the end of the week, so you may have within a week or sooner depending on the USPS. The 2006 I hope will be here and ready to ship out by the end of June, Lord willing. I depends on me at the moment to get everything together by early next week and off to the book maker. Thanks very much for subscribing.


----------



## gwine (May 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> I do think though it is an unwarranted caricature of the RPW to cast it as simply wanting to do what the Puritans did. For more background on the RPW see the Smith/Lachman review of Frame and Gore in The Confessional Presbyterian 1 (2005) and the forthcoming CPJ 2 (2006) which has part one of a lengthy survey of 60 years of RPW literature. http://www.cpjournal.com You can pick up both issues on special for $28.50.



I myself wouldn't caricature the RPW as only wanting to do what the Puritans did, but as I read the debate I certainly got the impression that Hart feels strongly that way.



> _Originally posted by beej6_
> And that's the other reason I was biased vs. Frame's view of the RPW - the excellent article in the CPJ 1.
> 
> I will have to study Frame's argument about the RPW extending to all of life - I could say that that's too *narrow* an application, in the sense that the RPW applies to worship of God, whereas it's our Christian walk that should extend to all of life. Should our family worship/devotional look like a Sunday worship service? I don't believe it has to.
> ...



I am going to have to consider getting those reports.

And I agree with you that the idea of trying to make visitors feel welcome through a performance-oriented service turns me off. While I agree with Frame that we do need to extend hospitality to all who come, we can do that before and after the service much more effectively.


----------



## beej6 (May 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> And I agree with you that the idea of trying to make visitors feel welcome through a performance-oriented service turns me off. While I agree with Frame that we do need to extend hospitality to all who come, we can do that before and after the service much more effectively.



Or during the service too - attending to families with young children, making sure a newcomer has a Bible if he needs it...


----------



## gwine (May 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by beej6_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by gwine_
> ...



True, true. Such things are dealing with issues that are important, indeed. And even older people who need assistance getting around or people who could use an audio amplifier.

Such things are a genuine display of Christian love.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 3, 2006)

(side not - Chris I sent you an u2u was wondering if you got it)


----------

