# Regulated circumstances



## Afterthought (Dec 16, 2015)

Thoughts on the category of "regulated circumstances?" It sounds a bit odd to me, but I suppose if a circumstance is strictly defined as that which is necessary for worship actions as they are actions, it is forced to pop out? (I heard this way of putting things in this sermon: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=62708105691 see around the 31 minute mark)

Some explanation. We have elements of worship and we have circumstances. Circumstances are the things necessary to perform worship actions or to assemble for a worship meeting. We have time, place, location, dress, etc. These circumstances are mostly left to the church to decide on the basis of Christian prudence, the light of nature, and the general rules of the word. However, God has regulated some circumstances, and we are not free to change those. God has appointed a day on which we must worship. God used to appoint the place of (temple) worship. God regulates clothing insofar as the headcovering goes.

God also used to regulate time by a variety of holy days. The category of pretended holy days today then would fall under a "regulated circumstance." The reason we may not appoint holy days of our own is because although the holy days are not regulated circumstances any more (they have been abolished), even as the place of worship is no longer regulated, throughout the Scriptures God claims the ability to determine holy days to himself.

As a follow up question to thoughts on the category of "regulated circumstances" to those who agree that mechanical instruments ought not to be used in worship, it might also be said that musical instruments were regulated circumstances, since they were not of the essence of worship (singing of psalms, prayer, sacraments, the word)? If so, then God's abolishing of the OT worship only abolished the regulations for the musical instruments, and so just like the temple was abolished and we are now free to meet anywhere, so mechanical instruments might be used?


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 16, 2015)

Raymond,
I appreciate that you always ask questions that peel back and get to the hearts of matters.

With respect to holy days, I think that the term "holy" changes them from circumstances to elements. A civil magistrate or church may select a particular day for a solemn fast, and the choice of day is circumstantial. As soon as the idea is introduced of a particular day being a holy day of the year dedicated to commerating a particular event in redemptive history, it has been made elemental.

Musical instruments were also elemental in the Old Testament. The music was direct worship of God (e.g., Psalm 150), not merely accompaniment to aid singing.

As for the appointment of location of temple worship, that is more challenging to answer, but I think that the answer would be similar. Investing a place (e.g., Shiloh, Zion) with a worship significance introduces an elemental nature to it. Synagogue worship location was at the same time circumstantial. In our day it should all be circumstantial.

In all of this, remember that worship significance is the difference between elements or parts of worship and circumstances necessarily attending them. That being the case, the same type of thing might be regarded as elemental or circumstantial depending on whether it is invested with a worship significance. Even windows can be made elemental (and idolatrous) if you stain them with images of Christ and the saints and venerate them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 17, 2015)

Thanks, Austin. That is the way I have understood things, i.e., a "regulated circumstance" is nothing other than an element. Concerning musical instruments/temple, that is the way I explained the matter to a friend who brought up a similar objection....only to listen to the above sermon series 2-3 days later, learning that some speak of "regulated circumstances"! I wonder if the terminology simply depends on how one defines element/circumstance; maybe if circumstance is viewed as that which is "common" to "human actions," there is room for speaking of "regulated circumstances"?


----------



## irresistible_grace (Dec 20, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> I wonder if the terminology simply depends on how one defines element/circumstance; maybe if circumstance is viewed as that which is "common" to "human actions," there is room for speaking of "regulated circumstances"?



One thing that this thread illustrates beautifully is the importance of definitions. Having spent a great deal of time studying the Regulative Principal of Worship, I've notice the dependence of terminology upon *how one defines element/circumstance* including the term RPW itself!!!


----------



## brendanchatt (Dec 20, 2015)

Concerning location it is important _today_ that no place be deemed holy; so there remains a rule concerning location. Also, the Lords day is sanctified and no other days are ordinarily sanctified; these have to do with days, or time. Hope that's helpful; maybe such has been stated already.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Dec 20, 2015)

Regulated circumstances come up a lot in discussions of one cup.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 25, 2015)

I am late getting back to this, but perhaps it is helpful to remember that our confession acknowledges circumstances to be "ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed" (WCF 1.6). Thus we freely acknowledge that the Scripture contains implications for the regulation of circumstances.

Added: After reviewing the OP, I see that this was already accounted for.


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 25, 2015)

I'm not too fond of the term because it might suggest there is a category of things in worship that are "recommendations" to be left done or undone, but it appears Dr. Dilday is using it with emphasis on "regulated," i.e., these "regulated circumstances" are things that _must_ be done; the ethic in worship is still commanded and must be done or not commanded and so forbidden.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 26, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> I'm not too fond of the term because it might suggest there is a category of things in worship that are "recommendations" to be left done or undone, but it appears Dr. Dilday is using it with emphasis on "regulated," i.e., these "regulated circumstances" are things that _must_ be done; the ethic in worship is still commanded and must be done or not commanded and so forbidden.



I don't think that's the implication when used, at least as I've seen it. It refers to things which are circumstances properly (such as time or place) and as such would by their nature ordinarily be governed merely by prudence and nature, but which have positive regulation by Scripture and are therefore no longer left to prudence. The classic example is the Lord's Day. Time is circumstantial with respect to public worship and is accordingly governed by prudence and nature. However the day of the week is positively regulated by scripture such that it must be on the Lord's Day. Some have, indeed, seen that as elemental due to its theological significance but others would say is not, properly speaking, an element of worship, but rather part of the circumstantial context in which the elements are administered. It is nevertheless positively regulated, however, and thus a regulated circumstance. As Ryan said above, the common cup in the Lord's Supper (or the use of tables, etc.) have sometimes also been construed in this manner by those who see these things as necessary to the proper administration of the element.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 26, 2015)

au5t1n said:


> I am late getting back to this, but perhaps it is helpful to remember that our confession acknowledges circumstances to be "ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed" (WCF 1.6). Thus we freely acknowledge that the Scripture contains implications for the regulation of circumstances.



The way Dilday handles the word "circumstance" actually comes from the confession itself:



> Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that *there are some circumstances* concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, *which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word,* which are always to be observed.



Dilday would say that there are _some_ circumstances that are regulated in this way, and some that are not. I don't pretend to have a perfect understanding of these things, but Dilday's reading of the confession seems like the most natural way to read it.


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 26, 2015)

TheOldCourse said:


> I don't think that's the implication when used, at least as I've seen it.


Do you have any references? Maybe somewhere in _English Popish Ceremonies_? This is the first time I've seen the phrase used in an acceptable manner. In conversations I've had about worship with others who do not understand the regulative principle, I've seen similar terminology used with the meaning of "recommendations" or "guidelines."


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 27, 2015)

Afterthought said:


> TheOldCourse said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that's the implication when used, at least as I've seen it.
> ...



Not off the top of my head. It's been a little while since I came across it but I'll do a little digging when I have a chance. I don't recall EPC specifically using that terminology but, again, it's been awhile.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 27, 2015)

Spending a little time in EPC today I don't believe he uses that language, but he does often qualify those circumstances that are governed by prudence as those which are not defined according to the Scriptures, perhaps suggesting that there are circumstances which are defined according to the Scriptures. Also I was reading a little bit of Thomas Goodwin, who, in The Government of the Churches of Christ, speaks of "instituted circumstances" such as the Lord's Day that are properly circumstances but are specifically instituted in Scripture and thus unalterable.


----------

