# Regulative Principle Distinction



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 16, 2021)

Some elders I have been around the past few years make an interesting distinction of importance, and they claim their view is most in line with the Bible.

They hold to the regulative principle, but emphasize that God's expectations for us to be regulative only go so far as God has commanded.

So, in the Bible, God only punishes or disciplines people for breaking a specific command He gave them, not for doing something He didn't concern Himself with or regulate. The offering of strange fire is an example, as there was a clear command given by God of what to do, and it was broken, therefore there was judgment.

This perspective does make a difference in practice. Any thoughts? Can you think of any biblical examples where God punished people for doing something He had given no previous command about?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 16, 2021)

I'm not sure I understand this idea. What difference does it make in practice? The regulative principle of worship is not to command is to forbid. God does not need to have a commandment against every way His worship is violated. And what about the rules for understanding the ten commandments? How does this view not run afoul of those and treat the second commandment someway different w.r.t. to the RPW from which it derives?
*Q. 99. What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?*
A. For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed:
1. That the law is perfect, and bindeth everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin.422
2. That it is spiritual, and so reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures.423
3. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments.424
*4. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden;425 and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded:426 so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included;427 and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included.428*
5. That what God forbids, is at no time to be done;429 what he commands, is always our duty;430 and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.431
*6. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.432*
7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places to endeavour that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.433
8. That in what is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them;434 and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them.435

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jw (Sep 16, 2021)

Regulative principle, *but*?

Here are two instances where the LORD Himself says that His people did things that He never commanded, followed up with promises of judgment:

Jeremiah 19:
[T]hey have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire _for_ burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake _it_, neither came _it_ into my mind: therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.​
Jeremiah 32:
And they built the high places of Baal, which _are_ in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through _the fire_ unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. And now therefore thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence.​
The point, of course, is that these are things He never commanded; ergo, don't do it. There does not have to be a command or even commentary about something from the LORD in order to necessitate it's "forbiddenness" when it comes to His worship. The very fact it is not broached is necessity enough not to raise it up. Besides these very explicit statements, there is the testimony throughout Scripture demanding that we understand the LORD hates our inventions, our additions, and accretions in worship, order, _etc. _in the elements of His Kingdom.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Sep 16, 2021)

How is this any different than the normative principle?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 16, 2021)

jw said:


> Regulative principle, *but*?





Taylor said:


> How is this any different than the normative principle?


This does sound like a normative principle (we may do in worship that which is not explicitly forbidden); reminds also of Frame's redefining the regulative principle rather than simply rejecting it as it had always been defined in Reformed orthodoxy.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 16, 2021)

God had given no previous command with the strange fire. God had given a command about strange incense but not strange fire. They were to infer that they should use the fire given by God (which was later explicitly commanded in Leviticus 16 for the day of atonement). 

Deut 12 (which is a commentary on the second commandment; follow Moses' logic from no images to no uncommanded worship) says neither to add nor to subtract to the worship God commands.

The handwashing of the Pharisees had no command, but it was condemned.

Matthew 28 shows that the disciples only have authority to teach what God commands and therefore in particular only have authority in worship concerning what God commands; adding to worship or subtracting from worship would be an abuse of their authority.

The regulative principle assumes that we do not know how to worship God. This principle stated in the OP assumes that we do know how to worship the holy and infinite God--a consuming fire, which is pride and idolatry for finite and sinful men to assume (part of God's command is to approach him through Christ). This principle in the OP is actually just the normative principle. "Whatsoever is not forbidden is permitted...." where under "forbidden" categories includes changing worship God had previously given a command about.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 16, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> The regulative principle assumes that we do not know how to worship God.


Outstanding, very helpful.


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 16, 2021)

jw said:


> Regulative principle, *but*?
> 
> Here are two instances where the LORD Himself says that His people did things that He never commanded, followed up with promises of judgment:
> 
> ...


As a tangential side note, in English, we distinguish easily between “which he had not commanded them to do” (not required) and “which he had commanded them not to do” (prohibited) by word order, but in Hebrew no such simple distinction exists. In fact, the Old Testament has no precise equivalent verb to “to prohibit” and elsewhere uses “not to command” in exactly that sense (see Jouon 160k). In Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5 and 32:35 the phrase “which I did not command” (_‘ašer lo‘ tsivvîtî_) has reference to those who offer their children as burnt offerings on the high places, something _specifically_ _prohibited_ in Leviticus 18:21. This does suggest that Leviticus 10 (along with the Jeremiah passages cited above) are not quite the slam dunk proof texts for the RPW they is sometimes treated as being. As some of the other posts have argued, I think you can still get there from other texts, but its important to make sure that our working is valid as well as our conclusions.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 5


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 16, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> This does sound like a normative principle (we may do in worship that which is not explicitly forbidden); reminds also of Frame's redefining the regulative principle rather than simply rejecting it as it had always been defined in Reformed orthodoxy.


I think the elder was a student of Frame if my memory is correct.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 16, 2021)

jw said:


> Regulative principle, *but*?
> 
> Here are two instances where the LORD Himself says that His people did things that He never commanded, followed up with promises of judgment:
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply. I think they would say God did give commands not to worship idols, in the 10. Therefore they are accountable for not making idols. Does that make sense?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 16, 2021)

Taylor said:


> How is this any different than the normative principle?


It's not. Just cleverly repackaged in "RPW" wrapping paper.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jw (Sep 16, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> As a tangential side note, in English, we distinguish easily between “which he had not commanded them to do” (not required) and “which he had commanded them not to do” (prohibited) by word order, but in Hebrew no such simple distinction exists. In fact, the Old Testament has no precise equivalent verb to “to prohibit” and elsewhere uses “not to command” in exactly that sense (see Jouon 160k). In Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5 and 32:35 the phrase “which I did not command” (_‘ašer lo‘ tsivvîtî_) has reference to those who offer their children as burnt offerings on the high places, something _specifically_ _prohibited_ in Leviticus 18:21. This does suggest that Leviticus 10 (along with the Jeremiah passages cited above) are not quite the slam dunk proof texts for the RPW they is sometimes treated as being. As some of the other posts have argued, I think you can still get there from other texts, but its important to make sure that our working is valid as well as our conclusions.


Thank you. I am not a fan of "slam dunk" points, either. The Analogy of Scripture is our best guide to full orbed thorough Christianity, doubtless. My post was not intended to be a prooftext gotcha, but a brief response followed with the "testimony throughout Scripture" comment, implying that the Scriptures cannot be broken. Like God's perfections/attributes -which we separate so that we can try to get a grip on their import- the truth is all interconnected, but we poor creatures have to parse things out here and there.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 16, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> God had given no previous command with the strange fire. God had given a command about strange incense but not strange fire. They were to infer that they should use the fire given by God (which was later explicitly commanded in Leviticus 16 for the day of atonement).
> 
> Deut 12 (which is a commentary on the second commandment; follow Moses' logic from no images to no uncommanded worship) says neither to add nor to subtract to the worship God commands.
> 
> ...


These are good points. How else could Deuteronomy 12 be understood from their side? As only referring to adding or subtracting from the commands , as opposed to that which God hasn't spoken of? 

So God hasn't spoken about candles in worship, therefore He's not concerned with them so long as they don't violate other clear principles in the Bible. 

How can that be refuted?


----------



## jw (Sep 16, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Thanks for the reply. I think they would say God did give commands not to worship idols, in the 10. Therefore they are accountable for not making idols. Does that make sense?


Yes, I understand. My follow up in quoting those scriptures was intended to show that looking for bare prohibitions is not the approach to the service of our LORD we are to take. Rather, He approves His worship. Worship is primarily FOR Him (though we benefit therefrom), and always UNTO Him. So He determines what is acceptable. Man would seek to devise all manner of things, but the LORD has shown us what is acceptable to Him.

Micah 6:
​Wherewith shall I come before the Lord,_ and_ bow myself before the high God?​​- shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?​- Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,_ or_​- with ten thousands of rivers of oil?​- shall I give my firstborn _for_ my transgression, the fruit of my body _for_ the sin of my soul?​​He hath shewed thee, O man, what _is_ good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?​

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 16, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm not sure I understand this idea. What difference does it make in practice?


I'm still not sure what the point is, so I'm flagging my question asked earlier. What are the differences in practice? What is this veiled normative view being presented justifying that apparently is thought would be violating the truly stated regulative principle of worship?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 16, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> These are good points. How else could Deuteronomy 12 be understood from their side? As only referring to adding or subtracting from the commands , as opposed to that which God hasn't spoken of?
> 
> So God hasn't spoken about candles in worship, therefore He's not concerned with them so long as they don't violate other clear principles in the Bible.
> 
> How can that be refuted?


You’ve just restated the normative principle.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 16, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm still not sure what the point is, so I'm flagging my question asked earlier. What are the differences in practice? What is this veiled normative view being presented justifying that apparently is thought would be violating the truly stated regulative principle of worship?


For example, lighting candles during a service around Christmas. Or even having a Christmas Eve service, for that matter.

So the idea is that God didn't really give a command in regards to these things, therefore we have freedoms where He hasn't regulated things.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 16, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> For example, lighting candles during a service around Christmas. Or even having a Christmas Eve service, for that matter.
> 
> So the idea is that God didn't really give a command in regards to these things, therefore we have freedoms where He hasn't regulated things.


Well, folks who claim to hold and define the RPW correctly argue for some of those things. In any event, as presented this argument confuses the regulative principle, rules governing circumstances, and ignores other aspects of these questions such as what to do with superstitious customs and those things that are monuments of idolatry in the past and present.


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 16, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> These are good points. How else could Deuteronomy 12 be understood from their side? As only referring to adding or subtracting from the commands , as opposed to that which God hasn't spoken of?
> 
> So God hasn't spoken about candles in worship, therefore He's not concerned with them so long as they don't violate other clear principles in the Bible.
> 
> How can that be refuted?


Aside from the other passages I and others have mentioned, the Jeremiah passage explicitly states that the particular piece of worship was not spoken, neither did it come into God's mind. Although child sacrifice was explicitly condemned, it is further condemned because it is a practice that God did not command, neither even think to command: we should pay attention to the reasons God says he condemns something.

For Deut 12, yes, that is how they might view it. Read the passage though, and it will be plain that the passage is concerned with adding or subtracting from God's worship (e.g., "do not as the heathen do"). If one uses candles in worship, one is adding to what God has commanded in worship, anyway, so the example is self-defeating.

Furthermore, under the regulative principle, there is no such thing as merely permitted worship: either it is commanded and needs to be done ("whatsoever I command you, observe to do it"), or it is not commanded and forbidden ("neither add thereto nor diminish from it"). Under the idea that this elder has proposed, there is a category of worship that is indifferent (worship that "God hasn't spoken of;" worship where there is no command of what they are supposed to do). Worship is restricted by God to that which he commands, and that which he commands must be done; therefore, to add or subtract from worship is to add or subtract from what God commands....unless there is a category of worship that is merely permitted and indifferent (may be done or may not be done), which is contrary to what Deut 12 says.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 16, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> unless there is a category of worship that is merely permitted and indifferent (may be done or may not be done), which is contrary to what Deut 12 says.


“How absurd a tenet is this, which holds that there is some particular worship of God allowed, and not commanded? What new light is this which makes all our divines [i.e. theologians] to have been in the mist, who have acknowledged no worship of God, but that which God has commanded? Whoever heard of commanded and allowed worship?”George Gillespie, _A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_ (Naphtali Press, 2013).

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Amen 2


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 16, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> For example, lighting candles during a service around Christmas.


The question is, why are they doing these things. Is there a power failure? (Leaving aside Christmas worship).

Or is it to make worship "better?"

If the latter, that is precisely the problem.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 16, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So the idea is that God didn't really give a command in regards to these things, therefore we have freedoms where He hasn't regulated things.


That last bit: "We have freedom in worship where God has not regulated it."

There's the problem. What part of worship has God not regulated?

The Regulative Principle of Worship states that all worship must be offered according to the commands of Almighty God. If God has not commanded it, it is sin.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 16, 2021)

*Regulative Principle:*
"What is commanded is required, what has not been commanded is forbidden."

*Normative Principle:*
"What is not expressly forbidden is okie-dokie."

*Roman Catholic:*
"The pope says so. Also tradition, I guess."

*Regulative Worship acc. John Frame*
(See _Normative Principle_, above.)


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 16, 2021)

Are there any examples in the Bible where God condemns/disciplines people for doing something He *did not* forbid or give a command about? 

Are there any Biblical examples where God seems to approve something that He *did not* forbid or give a command about?

I just want to examine this unbiasedly to make sure I'm embracing the truth the best I can. 

It sounds like they are claiming to be regulative, but at the same time making it a hybrid. But then again maybe it's straight up normative.


----------



## bookslover (Sep 17, 2021)

"What is not commanded is forbidden" is the definition of the Regulative Principle.

But, does that really follow?

If there are an apple and an orange on a table, and I command you to eat the apple, have I forbidden you from eating the orange just based on the command to eat the apple? That doesn't seem to follow, logically. Nothing has been said about the orange, either way.

Am I missing something?


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 17, 2021)

bookslover said:


> "What is not commanded is forbidden" is the definition of the Regulative Principle.
> 
> But, does that really follow?
> 
> ...


One could say you're comparing apples and oranges.

In fact, your example highlights the difference. Laying fruit on a table is not comparable to the worship of God. Worship is not an ordinary activity.

Then there's the issue of authority. If God tells us to do something, ought we really add to it?

Imagine you work at a coffee shop. One day, a customer pops in and asks for a cup of coffee. "Black," he says, "no sugar."

You say to yourself, "Well, he said black, but a little cream and sugar wouldn't hurt. In fact, I think it's an improvement. I know I'd prefer it."

You hand him his coffee and he takes a sip. What will he say? "That's not what I ordered." It won't help that you explain your reasons, that you prefer your coffee with cream and sugar.

To some point, we can consider God the "consumer" of our worship. But there's a very apparent difference between God and a customer at a coffee shop.

God is not asking us. He's commanding us. We might think we're improving on things, but when we exceed God's commands, we are invariably guilty of sin.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 17, 2021)

Also, I think it is better to think of the RPW positively. It is not inaccurate to say that _what is commanded is forbidden_. However, it is more proper to say that _what is commanded is what we are to do_. We are bound by the command and limited by it, for God's pleasure and our own good.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Sep 17, 2021)

bookslover said:


> "What is not commanded is forbidden" is the definition of the Regulative Principle.
> 
> But, does that really follow?
> 
> ...


Yes, the Regulative Principle is about God's worship, not about eating apples and oranges, so that kind of analogy doesn't obtain.

Edit: just noticed @Tom Hart already answered much better above.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Sep 17, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Are there any examples in the Bible where God condemns/disciplines people for doing something He *did not* forbid or give a command about?
> 
> Are there any Biblical examples where God seems to approve something that He *did not* forbid or give a command about?
> 
> ...


Cain springs to mind. I know he was discussed recently, and some demurred at the idea he offered unregulated worship, but I think that's a fairly clear example. Nadab and Abihu too. I assume this person would say Uzzah is not a valid example since God had given a command about how the ark was to be carried.

The point though is that the question as you've stated it (and I know it's not your opinion but you're quoting someone else) is simply the Normative Principle. People who believe that should just be honest and say they hold to the Normative Principle rather than try to pretend that is the Regulative Principle.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 17, 2021)

One of the most corrosive principles to insinuate itself into the Christian Church is that which subtly suggests the English Bible is not sufficient for formulating doctrine or understanding what God has said to us. When the plain meaning of passages is called into question and the believer told "well, in the original language [which very few Christians actually know] it's not quite so simple, leave this to the experts" the consequences for belief, piety, practice, as we see all around us in the visible church, are ruinous. Did our forefathers of the 17th century not know what they were doing when they translated the texts? I think they did. Did the godly preachers of the past not know of what they spoke when they formulated the RPW and preached against innovation? I think they did.

"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Ecclesiastes 7:29

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 17, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> For example, lighting candles during a service around Christmas. Or even having a Christmas Eve service, for that matter.
> 
> So the idea is that God didn't really give a command in regards to these things, therefore we have freedoms where He hasn't regulated things.



Using candles, when God has not commanded their use, is adding to His commands, expressly forbidden in Deut. 12:32. To do _anything _in worship which God has not commanded is to add to His commands.



bookslover said:


> "What is not commanded is forbidden" is the definition of the Regulative Principle.
> 
> But, does that really follow?
> 
> ...



Well by the fact you have commanded me to eat the apple, and not the orange, it would be a legitimate inference to draw that I was not to eat the orange. Otherwise why specifically command the eating of the apple?


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 17, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> One of the most corrosive principles to insinuate itself into the Christian Church is that which subtly suggests the English Bible is not sufficient for formulating doctrine or understanding what God has said to us. When the plain meaning of passages is called into question and the believer told "well, in the original language [which very few Christians actually know] it's not quite so simple, leave this to the experts" the consequences for belief, piety, practice, as we see all around us in the visible church, are ruinous. Did our forefathers of the 17th century not know what they were doing when they translated the texts? I think they did. Did the godly preachers of the past not know of what they spoke when they formulated the RPW and preached against innovation? I think they did.
> 
> "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Ecclesiastes 7:29


You mean corrosive documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith?
1.8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, *in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. *(Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39,46).

Notice that I did not question the RPW, to which I firmly hold. Nor did I suggest that it can't be demonstrated from the English text: I think Deuteronomy 12, referenced above in other posts is a good starting point. However, I demonstrated, using examples that can be seen to be true in your English Bible that Leviticus 10 is not as straightforward as some English translations make it appear. If you think my interpretation is inaccurate, can you show me how the passages I cited from Jeremiah (among many others) are not relevant parallels, where we can easily see from the English that "which I did not command" covers something that the Lord had in fact specifically forbidden?

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2021)

From an old post back in 2006; the article referenced is online in full.


bookslover said:


> "What is not commanded is forbidden" is the definition of the Regulative Principle.



Where is all this doubt about the regulative principle of worship all the sudden coming from? We've been doing this subject on this board for 20 years nearly now. This has been a consistent short definition of the RPW since Reformation times at least, in one form or another. 

John à Lasco (1499-1560). in 1551, *"*Nothing ought to be added to public worship concerning which God has given no command_." The Reformation of the Church_, ed. Iain H. Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), p. 62. 

From an old post back in 2006; the article referenced is online in full.


NaphtaliPress said:


> The phrase "whatever is not commanded is forbidden" is a short definition of the RPW as I detail from this extract from my intro to the Smith/Lachman piece on worship in the 2005 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal. http://www.cpjournal.com
> *From:* Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. and David C. Lachman, Ph.D. "Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore,"_ The Confessional Presbyterian_ (2005) 116.





> The Westminster Assembly determined: "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." (_Confession of Faith,_ 21.1). The Princeton professor, Dr. Samuel Miller, gives a succinct statement of the principle when he writes that since the Scriptures are the "only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference."4 A briefer statement still which sums up the Presbyterian principle of worship, is that in the worship of God, "Not to Command is to Forbid,"5 or "Whatever is not commanded is forbidden."6
> 
> As this brief definition can lead to misunderstanding, a necessarily corollary to this principle states 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." (_Confession of Faith,_ 1.6). Defining these "circumstances," is part and parcel with the discussion of what authority the church has in ordering the worship of God.
> 
> ...


The term regulative principle of worship is nearly 120 old know far as I've been able to trace the first stating of it that way from which it could be "coined." 
“The Second Commandment lays down _the regulative principle of worship_: it forbids idolatry.” James Harper, _An exposition in the form of question and answer of the Westminster Assembly's Shorter catechism_ (United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1905), p. 221. “Lately Professor of Theology in the Theological Seminary, Xenia, Ohio.”

While it took 20th century American usage or phrasing to create a name that would catch on, and increasing informality for it then to become the RPW, the principle is biblical and can be traced certainly as far back as the Waldenses. Here is Harper's statement of it in 1889. “1. To worship God otherwise than he has appointed is 'will-worship,' more or less gross. The law regulative of worship is not that we may use both what is commanded and what is not expressly forbidden, but that we must be limited to the use of what is either expressly or implicitly appointed by God (Deut. xii. 32; Matt. sv. 9, xxviii. 20).” Johann Jakob Herzog, _A Religious Encyclopaedia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology,_ Volume 3 (Funk & Wagnalls, 1889) “Psalms, Use of the, in Worship,” p. 1960.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 17, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> You mean corrosive documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith?
> 1.8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, *in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. *(Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39,46).
> 
> Notice that I did not question the RPW, to which I firmly hold. Nor did I suggest that it can't be demonstrated from the English text: I think Deuteronomy 12, referenced above in other posts is a good starting point. However, I demonstrated, using examples that can be seen to be true in your English Bible that Leviticus 10 is not as straightforward as some English translations make it appear. If you think my interpretation is inaccurate, can you show me how the passages I cited from Jeremiah (among many others) are not relevant parallels, where we can easily see from the English that "which I did not command" covers something that the Lord had in fact specifically forbidden?



From Robert Shaw on WCF 1:8,9,10:

"As the Scriptures were originally written in the languages which, at the time of writing them, were most generally understood, God has hereby intimated his will, that they should be translated into the vernacular language of different nations, *that every one may read and understand them*. This we maintain in opposition to the Church of Rome, which forbids the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar languages, *and declares the indiscriminate reading of them to be highly dangerous*. Though the free use of the Scriptures be prohibited by that Church, they were certainly intended by God for for all ranks and classes of mankind. *All are enjoined to read the Scripture (John 5:39: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."); and the laity are commended not only for searching them, but for trying the doctrines of their public teachers by them (Acts 17:11: "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."). It is, therefore, necessary that the Scriptures should be translated into the language of every nation*; and the use of translation is sanctioned by the apostles, who frequently quoted passages of the Old Testament from the Septuagint."

David Dickson, Section 1, Q. 13 from _Truth's Victory Over Error_:

"Are the original tongues, viz., the Hebrew and the Greek, to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation into which they come? Yes. Are we commanded in the fear of God to read and search the Scriptures? Yes. *Well then, do not the Papists err who maintain that there is no necessity of translating the original tongues, the Hebrew and the Greek, into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,* *but rather a very great hazard and danger of errors and heresies? Yes*...By what reasons are they confuted? 1. Because the Scriptures were given long since to the Jews, in their own vulgar language, that they might be read publicly and privately by all. 2. Because the New Testament was written in the Greek language, which at that time was most generally known to all nations. *3. Because Christ bids all promiscuously search the Scriptures (John 5:39)*...*6. Because all things must be done in the congregation unto edifying (1 Cor. 14:26), but an unknown tongue doth not edify. 7. Because all are commanded to try the spirits (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Cor. 10:15 [1 John 4:1]). 7. Because the Scriptures teach the way of life...9. Because the Scriptures set forth the duties of every man in his place and estate of his life...10. Because they are the ground of faith. 11. Because they are the epistle of God sent to his church...13. Because being embraced and known, they make a man happy (Psa. 119:97-98; Luke 10:42; 16:26; Psa. 1:2; Rev. 1:3)*..."

It can be very easy to turn a true principle into a burden and to rob believers of their peace and trust in what they read. The godly divines of the past clearly understood the requirements of building our faith and doctrine upon Scripture, and testing all we hear by Scripture, as contingent upon the translation of the original languages into the vulgar languages. How else were believers to do these things? We should all, but most especially ministers of the Gospel and those in positions of teaching authority, make sure what we say tends to the building up of the Christian's faith and trust in the Bible and not to casting doubts and questions over it. I did not give the Jeremiah quotes. Deuteronomy 12:32, however, is a crystal clear commandment against adding to, or taking from, the worship of God and thus covers every conceivable thing which could be added to worship.

As to your claims of adhering to the RPW, I do not know the congregation of which you are a member so I cannot know how you are applying the RPW in practice.


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 17, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> From Robert Shaw on WCF 1:8,9,10:
> 
> "As the Scriptures were originally written in the languages which, at the time of writing them, were most generally understood, God has hereby intimated his will, that they should be translated into the vernacular language of different nations, *that every one may read and understand them*. This we maintain in opposition to the Church of Rome, which forbids the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar languages, *and declares the indiscriminate reading of them to be highly dangerous*. Though the free use of the Scriptures be prohibited by that Church, they were certainly intended by God for for all ranks and classes of mankind. *All are enjoined to read the Scripture (John 5:39: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."); and the laity are commended not only for searching them, but for trying the doctrines of their public teachers by them (Acts 17:11: "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."). It is, therefore, necessary that the Scriptures should be translated into the language of every nation*; and the use of translation is sanctioned by the apostles, who frequently quoted passages of the Old Testament from the Septuagint."
> 
> ...


Alexander, no one has denied that we should translate the Hebrew and Greek into English so that ordinary people may understand them, and be fed and grow in their understanding of doctrine from them. The Bible in English is the Word of God. My point was that that is not the only thing the Confession says. Before it encourages us to translate the Scriptures, it first affirms that theological controversies (such as whether the RPW is the Scriptural position, as we both affirm) cannot ultimately be settled on the authority of English translations. This is why Presbyterians have always insisted on the need for ministers to be trained in Hebrew and Greek, not just the KJV. That is the Confessional position, not just something I dreamed up.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 17, 2021)

I did research John Frame's stance a bit, and honestly I'm not understanding it. He says he affirms the regulative principle and the language sounds good, but obviously there are differences. I think it starts to get too muddy for me.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 17, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Where is all this doubt about the regulative principle of worship all the sudden coming from? We've been doing this subject on this board for 20 years nearly now. This has been a consistent short definition of the RPW since Reformation times at least, in one form or another.


I'm curious because there are confessional reformed people who hold to the regulative principle, who don't see it the same way you do, or how I traditionally understood it. I do look up to the elders who embrace it differently, so I thought I'd look into it more. Maybe I should just go straight to them for their understanding.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 17, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> Alexander, no one has denied that we should translate the Hebrew and Greek into English so that ordinary people may understand them, and be fed and grow in their understanding of doctrine from them. The Bible in English is the Word of God. My point was that that is not the only thing the Confession says. Before it encourages us to translate the Scriptures, it first affirms that theological controversies (such as whether the RPW is the Scriptural position, as we both affirm) cannot ultimately be settled on the authority of English translations. This is why Presbyterians have always insisted on the need for ministers to be trained in Hebrew and Greek, not just the KJV. That is the Confessional position, not just something I dreamed up.



I originally quoted your comment on the Jeremiah verses in my comment but removed it. I was making a general point. Your comment was merely another example of a trend in the church to be constantly questioning the reliability of the English Bible, either explicitly or indirectly. The framers of the Confession indeed made the point to which you refer. Yet the proof texts they attached to the confession were in English, not in the original languages. But no one need take my word for it. The results of what I speak are all around us to see and lament.


----------



## Logan (Sep 17, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> Your comment was merely another example of a trend in the church to be constantly questioning the reliability of the English Bible, either explicitly or indirectly.



I'm pretty confident Dr Duguid isn't guilty of that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2021)

The understanding I have I demonstrated is the Reformed confessional position; it can be shown that it's Calvin's, it's Knox's, it's Laski's, it's the view of the Westminster assemblyman, the Scottish and American Presbyterian churches. It is confusing to you because you are being confused by Frame and those who hold his position. The interaction here with at least what you have presented has made clear that it is a confusion of principles and is in fact the or at last a kin of the normative principle. Frame has been demonstrated multiple times to be misrepresenting the principle. Read the article on Frame linked in my prior post by Smith and Lachman. 


Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I did research John Frame's stance a bit, and honestly I'm not understanding it. He says he affirms the regulative principle and the language sounds good, but obviously there are differences. I think it starts to get too muddy for me.





Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I'm curious because there are confessional reformed people who hold to the regulative principle, who don't see it the same way you do, or how I traditionally understood it. I do look up to the elders who embrace it differently, so I thought I'd look into it more. Maybe I should just go straight to them for their understanding.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 17, 2021)

Moderating: 


alexandermsmith said:


> Your comment was merely another example of a trend in the church


*moderating*: all, be scrupulous to avoid veering toward anything that whiffs of accusation (or worse!), and take special care to show honor to those who hold church office.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 17, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The understanding I have I demonstrated is the Reformed confessional position; it can be shown that it's Calvin's, it's Knox's, it's Laski's, it's the view of the Westminster assemblyman, the Scottish and American Presbyterian churches. It is confusing to you because you are being confused by Frame and those who hold his position. The interaction here with at least what you have presented has made clear that it is a confusion of principles and is in fact the or at last a kin of the normative principle. Frame has been demonstrated multiple times to be misrepresenting the principle. Read the article on Frame linked in my prior post by Smith and Lachman.


Sorry, I haven't read the article. Would you conclude that Frame is normative just boxed as regulative? Like there's no other way to see it? Thanks!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Sorry, I haven't read the article. Would you conclude that Frame is normative just boxed as regulative? Like there's no other way to see it? Thanks!


He's at least charted his own course (I'm not sure classical Normative defenders would argue you can dance a sermon) and tried to pass it off as the regulative principle; for which he was severely taken to task. I think he's discredited as an honest broker on the topic. I edited out some severity at the time from Smith and Lachman; I regret doing so; the punches didn't need pulling given the credence folks continue to give Frame on this subject.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 17, 2021)

Would you agree with this assessment?

"The puritan version is that anything not explicitly commanded by scripture is forbidden in worship. The Calvin view, which frame I think holds, is that anything commanded must be done, anything forbidden must not be done, and anything neither commanded nor forbidden is left to biblical wisdom. For example, dancing in worship. Frame says it would be allowed, but in many cases not wise."


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 17, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> The Calvin view, which frame I think holds, is that anything commanded must be done, anything forbidden must not be done, and anything neither commanded nor forbidden is left to biblical wisdom. For example, dancing in worship. Frame says it would be allowed, but in many cases not wise."


I don't know where that comes from, but Calvin's view is misrepresented. He repeatedly stuck with what Chris has defined and the confessions hold to.

You could almost say he was the first one to write extensively on it, but I'm probably missing someone else.

Just one example from his Commentary on Romans 5:19:

"We may also hence learn, how false are the schemes which they take to pacify God, who of themselves devise what they obtrude on him. For then only we truly worship him when we follow what he has commanded us, and render obedience to his word. Away then with those who confidently lay claim to the righteousness of works, which cannot otherwise exist than when there is a full and complete observance of the law; and it is certain that this is nowhere to be found. We also learn, that they are madly foolish who vaunt before God of works invented by themselves, which he regards as the filthiest things; for obedience is better than sacrifices."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Sep 17, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Would you agree with this assessment?
> 
> "The puritan version is that anything not explicitly commanded by scripture is forbidden in worship. The Calvin view, which frame I think holds, is that anything commanded must be done, anything forbidden must not be done, and anything neither commanded nor forbidden is left to biblical wisdom. For example, dancing in worship. Frame says it would be allowed, but in many cases not wise."


This “understanding” of Calvin is again just the normative principle.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Would you agree with this assessment?
> 
> "The puritan version is that anything not explicitly commanded by scripture is forbidden in worship. The Calvin view, which frame I think holds, is that anything commanded must be done, anything forbidden must not be done, and anything neither commanded nor forbidden is left to biblical wisdom. For example, dancing in worship. Frame says it would be allowed, but in many cases not wise."


No; there's no "Calvin against the 'Puritanists'" in this regard. As Denver noted this is the normative principle. Read the article; it at least begins to address this. Here is another quotation to add to Vic's and it is one of many.



> Now, he [Micah] mentions the “statutes, ordinances, and the ceremonies” because idolatry always promotes itself as virtuous activity. For idolaters imagine that they are worshipping God in everything they do, even when their services are foolish, which the blind and the Devil make others believe God approves. We still witness the same occurring today. For those who worship God in accordance with their fantasy, as in the papacy, dishonor and blaspheme God rather than worship God. Yet the papists are so arrogant as to think that God is obligated to accept what they do. And they justify it on the ruse: “Ah, will not God accept whatever is done on the basis of a good intention?”1 That is how mankind hope to obligate God by their stupid fantasies, while avoiding any adherence whatsoever to his will. Now because this pride also gripped the Jews, Micah responds with equal loftiness: “Yes, of course! You tell me that these statutes, decrees, and ordinances provide wonderful advice and counsel and dictate what you should do. Very well! I will grant you your lofty words, but, nevertheless, God considers all of it an abomination, and, in believing that you are worshipping God by means of your silly fantasies, you are actually confessing that you have been worshipping the Devil.” If we would worship God as we should, then this passage [Micah 6:12–16] forces us to expend the effort to ground ourselves in the pure simplicity that God has set forth in his Word.
> 
> That constitutes a doctrine we cannot ignore. For no matter what pretext we might use, or how noble we find our own cause to be, all that is rejected and condemned by a single word, namely, “obedience.” For with good cause, God prefers it above all else, desiring that we worship him in simplicity and obedience. But when we surpass those limits, we corrupt our cause. And although we might impress others, one may still say: “Yes, what a devout man! What a devout woman! but I tell you, they are both bigots!” For irrespective of what they may mumble, or of how many masses they attend; irrespective of how many relics they worship, or votive candles they may light, or how many times they have been saluted as “good people,” it amounts to nothing but a grievous offense against God. Hence, even if we are admired by others, we will not escape God’s condemnation unless we follow what he has commanded in his Word.
> 
> ...





> 1 “See the Institutes 3.7.7 and 4.13.4. In the latter, Calvin maintains that intentions are important, but God just as often finds them more displeasing than acceptable.” Farley, Sermons on the Book of Micah, 302–304.
> 2 “In the French text, Calvin refers to this festival as ce jour des Rois—“the day of the King.” However, the Supplementa editors explain that since the Reformers had abolished the ecclesiastical calendar along with its festivals and special days, Sundays excepted, Epiphany (or January 6, the very day of this sermon) was no longer observed.” Farley, Sermons on the Book of Micah, ibid.
> 3 Sermons on the Book of Micah, 362–364.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 17, 2021)

From what I have read of Calvin on the subject, he seems pretty clear on his traditional regulative stance. Do you know of any of Calvin's writings that would seem to point to more of John Frame's theology?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> From what I have read of Calvin on the subject, he seems pretty clear on his traditional regulative stance. Do you know of any of Calvin's writings that would seem to point to more of John Frame's theology?


If you are asking me, I don't think so; Calvin is one with the confessional Reformed view of worship with English Puritans, Scottish Presbyterians and the continental Reformed. Frame is Frame. Who said you can dance a sermon before him? Read the article.


----------



## JH (Sep 17, 2021)

The meme that comes to mind for this entire thread


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> The meme that comes to mind for this entire thread


I have no clue; you'll have to explain.


----------



## JH (Sep 17, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I have no clue; you'll have to explain.






The same thing keeps being posted over and over again as RPW, when it's just the Normative Principle

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## CovenantWord (Sep 17, 2021)

> If there are an apple and an orange on a table, and I command you to eat the apple, have I forbidden you from eating the orange just based on the command to eat the apple? That doesn't seem to follow, logically. Nothing has been said about the orange, either way.


The logic of the argument depends upon the authoritative context. Perhaps the best way to illustrate is to extend the metaphor: Barely a step ahead of his bloodthirsty enemies, a man flees into a castle, the drawbridge rising after him barely in time to save him. Frustrated but determined, his enemies invest the castle, clearly preparing for a long siege. After the man's heart rate slows to normal, the lord of the castle welcomes him warmly, assuring him of long-term security. The lord warns him, however, that an agent of the man's enemies has poisoned much of the fruit available for consumption in the castle. The man will be safe if and only if he obeys direction. Later that evening, the man approaches one of the servants of the castle, asking permission to snack. The servant indicates a nearby sideboard displaying a variety of fruit and commands, "Eat this apple." So, the question is, did the servant command the man not to eat the nearby orange, despite not specifically mentioning it? The answer, clearly, is yes, because of the context. RPW posits, with ample biblical justification, that our Creator, Sustainer, and Judge is competent to direct true worship, whereas we, the mortal, the sinful, are not, being invested by the world and under continual attack by a wily enemy.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 17, 2021)

Forget the analogies. The very realities of our finitude and the worship of the infinite entails that we only perform only and all that which is commanded, and nothing else.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 17, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Would you agree with this assessment?
> 
> "The puritan version is that anything not explicitly commanded by scripture is forbidden in worship. The Calvin view, which frame I think holds, is that anything commanded must be done, anything forbidden must not be done, and anything neither commanded nor forbidden is left to biblical wisdom. For example, dancing in worship. Frame says it would be allowed, but in many cases not wise."


Frankly, (and I intend no disrespect) whoever has said this does not know what he is talking about.

A passing familiarity with Calvin will make you quite aware of his theology of worship. He has a lot to say about will-worship.

The "Frame view" above is bizarre. What part of worship is neither commanded nor forbidden? Naturally, this is going to take us in very strange directions. It becomes impossible to argue consistently against dramatic performances or ballet as worship.


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 17, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> The meme that comes to mind for this entire thread


A classic.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 17, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> The meme that comes to mind for this entire thread


I'm sorry for your frustration. I'm honestly trying to figure this out as there are godly people on every different stance. I never want to be arrogant or ignorant, so I will unbiasedly look into any view in my pursuit of truth.

"I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,"
Ephesians 4:1‭-‬2

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JH (Sep 17, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I'm sorry for your frustration. I'm honestly trying to figure this out as there are godly people on every different stance. I never want to be arrogant or ignorant, so I will unbiasedly look into any view in my pursuit of truth.
> 
> "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,"
> Ephesians 4:1‭-‬2


Oh brother I have no actual frustration. Sorry if my humour intimated that

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 17, 2021)

More from Calvin.

Commentary Jeremiah 7:31

"Which I commanded them not, and which never came to my mind This reason ought to be carefully noticed, for God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, "I have not commanded them," whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions, than that they are not commanded by God: for when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to his commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship, in which they absurdly exercise themselves, would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying his word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet's words then are very important, when he says, that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind; as though he had said, that men assume too much wisdom, when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew. It is indeed certain, that there was nothing hid from God, even before it was done: but God here assumes the character of man, as though he had said, that what the Jews devised was unknown to him, as his own law was sufficient."

Commentary Jeremiah 32:35

"He at last says, that he had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind We have said elsewhere, that whenever this manner of speaking occurs, God cuts off every handle from objectors, because the superstitious ever have something to allege as a pretense when they are summoned to an account. We know that the Papists, by pretending good intentions, confidently glory against God; and they think that this one pretense is sufficient to defend them against all reproofs; and they think also that the servants of God and the Prophets are too morose and scrupulous when such an excuse does not satisfy them. But God, that he might not tediously contend with the superstitious, assumes this principle, -- that whatever they attempt beyond the Law is spurious, and that, therefore, the inventions of men cannot be defended by any disguise or pretense. Let us then know that true religion is always founded on obedience to God's will; and hence everything devised by men, when there is no command of God, is not only frivolous, but also abominable, according to what was said yesterday respecting the work of the hands; and so here the command of God is set in opposition to all the inventions of men. But as such declarations often occur, I now touch but slightly on this passage.

This doctrine, however, ought to be especially noticed, that is, that there is no need of a long refutation when we undertake to expose fictitious modes of worship, which men devise for themselves according to their own notions, because, after all that they can say, God in one word gives this answer, that whatever he has not commanded in his Law, is vain and mischievous. He then says, that he had not commanded this, and that it had never entered into his mind.

God in the last clause transfers to himself what applies only to men; for it cannot be said with strict propriety of God, that this or that had not come to his mind. But here he rebukes the presumption of men, who dare to introduce this or that, and think that an acceptable worship of God which they themselves have presumptuously devised; for they seek thus to exalt their own wisdom above that of God himself. And we even find at this day that the Papists, when we shew that nothing has proceeded from the mouth of God of all the mass of observances in which they make religion to consist, do always allege that they do not without reason observe what has been commanded by the fathers, as though some things had come into the minds of men which had escaped God himself! We then see that God in this place exposes to ridicule the madness of those, who, relying on their own inventive wits, devise for themselves various kinds of worship; for they seek, as we have said, to be wiser than God himself. We now, then, perceive the force of the expression, when God says that it never came to his mind, because men boast that it had not been contrived without reason, and glory in their own acuteness, as though they were able to appoint a better thing than God himself.

He afterwards says, That they should do this abomination God now goes farther, and calls whatever he had not commanded an abomination. And this clause confirms what I have before said, that there is no need of long arguments when the question is respecting the inventions of men, for *nothing can be approved of in the worship of God but what he has himself commanded*. Whatever therefore has proceeded from the notions of men, is not only frivolous and useless, but it is also an abomination; for God so represents it in this place. It is therefore not enough at this day to repudiate and to treat with disdain the fictitious modes of worship in which the Papists so much glory; but if we would prove that we have a true zeal for religion, we must abominate all these fictitious things; for God has once for all declared them to be abominable."


Many examples have been given. Here is another one that has not been given (though examples are not needed). Consider how David sought to bring up the ark the first time with a worship procession. Uzza dies. They were transporting the ark in the wrong manner, and Uzza presumptuously assumed that necessity would require him touching the ark to keep it from falling. However, there were other irregularities, which can be seen by comparing the first attempt with the second attempt (e.g., Levites and they only are playing the musical instruments in the second attempt). Bringing up the ark with a worship procession was not something that had a command associated with it, aside from the Levites needing to be the ones who carried it with the staves made for it. But many other parts of the event are condemned because, as David said, they did not seek the Lord after due order (which they did do for the second attempt).

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> More from Calvin.
> 
> Commentary Jeremiah 7:31
> 
> ...


That is indeed another excellent passage from Calvin which I don't recall reading before, at least in full. Thanks!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2021)

Part of many presbyterians so called disagreeing with the 'puritan' regulative principle comes down to something Calvin constantly focuses on: superstition and will worship. We want to make worship more special ... to us. Calvin constantly exposes that if one examines these citations from him. He's a meme of the compromised presbyterian pot calling the entertainment focused kettle black.


----------



## bookslover (Sep 18, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> Using candles, when God has not commanded their use, is adding to His commands, expressly forbidden in Deut. 12:32. To do _anything _in worship which God has not commanded is to add to His commands.
> 
> 
> 
> Well by the fact you have commanded me to eat the apple, and not the orange, it would be a legitimate inference to draw that I was not to eat the orange. Otherwise why specifically command the eating of the apple?



Why would "it be a legitimate inference to draw that I was not to eat the orange" if I haven't said anything about the orange either way. All I've said is that you must eat the apple. Why does that command automatically mean that you cannot eat the orange?


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Sep 18, 2021)

bookslover said:


> Why would "it be a legitimate inference to draw that I was not to eat the orange" if I haven't said anything about the orange either way. All I've said is that you must eat the apple. Why does that command automatically mean that you cannot eat the orange?


Your commands about eating are not comparable to God's commands about his worship. There is no analogy. Apples and oranges.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 18, 2021)

bookslover said:


> Why would "it be a legitimate inference to draw that I was not to eat the orange" if I haven't said anything about the orange either way. All I've said is that you must eat the apple. Why does that command automatically mean that you cannot eat the orange?


Your analogy fails chiefly because the reader lacks adequate context to make any sense of it. For a start, why are you telling us to eat an apple? Is there a reason? Why should we assume that we shouldn't eat the orange? Based on the information given, we can't really assume anything. After all, who are you in this analogy? A boss, a king, or a stranger?

I might suggest that you refine your analogy, since, as it stands, it does nothing to serve anyone's argument.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Sep 18, 2021)

bookslover said:


> Why would "it be a legitimate inference to draw that I was not to eat the orange" if I haven't said anything about the orange either way. All I've said is that you must eat the apple. Why does that command automatically mean that you cannot eat the orange?



Because you have explicitly told me to eat the apple. If you had placed both before me and said "help yourself" then the obvious conclusion to draw is that I may take either or both. But to command me to eat one and not the other, implies I'm not allowed the other. It's not absolute but it is strongly implied. Anyway I don't want to make too much out of this analogy for the reasons given by others but it's worth pointing out that the way you constructed the analogy doesn't necessarily prove what you want it to prove.


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 19, 2021)

alexandermsmith said:


> Using candles, when God has not commanded their use, is adding to His commands, expressly forbidden in Deut. 12:32. To do _anything _in worship which God has not commanded is to add to His commands.


I could not agree more. This point needs to be strongly emphasized in discussions on worship.

When anyone says that the thrice Holy God has left some part of worship unregulated - in other words, given over to the imaginations of men - we simply ought to reply that he has given no such license. On the contrary, in the clearest terms, God opposes any adding to or taking away from his word.


----------



## CovenantWord (Sep 19, 2021)

I write in support of the point made by Tom Hart and alexandersmith above.

One of the important purposes of considering hypothetical ethical scenarios is to help clarify implicit moral propositions. For instance, imagine a firefighter entering a building ablaze, realizing he has time to rescue only one creature, either a baby or the family dog. Should he rescue the baby, he will have revealed his moral priority. His decision can be presented in logical form:
Major premise: Human life is more valuable than animal life.
Minor premise: A human and an animal are in urgent danger.
Conclusion: Save the human life. 

This clarification of the major premise may be applied to the question about consuming the apple or the orange. The man is explicitly permitted to eat the apple. He eats the orange. This choice reveals his moral proposition:
Major premise: Authority permits what it does not forbid. 
Minor premise: The orange is not forbidden.
Conclusion: The orange is permitted.

In the second scenario, the man restricts himself to eating the apple:
Major premise: Authority forbids what it does not permit.
Minor premise: The orange is not permitted.
Conclusion: The orange is forbidden. 

From a strictly logical point of view, neither major premise is superior to the other. Yet, in our antiauthoritarian society, the first premise is generally assumed to be the only moral option; but, to quote Sportin' Life, it ain't necessarily so. Our major premise, our moral policy, must be derived from special revelation alone. 

This, then, is how deductive logic applies to questions of worship and Church governance, according to RPW:
Major: What is not permitted is forbidden.
Minor: Proposed worship activity X is not explicitly permitted.
Conclusion: Activity X is forbidden.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 19, 2021)

I did some further investigating today. Here are a few passages that stand out:

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.
Deuteronomy 4:2

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
Proverbs 30:5‭-‬6

I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him.
Ecclesiastes 3:14

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Revelation 22:18‭-‬19 

But then, reading Matthew 23 in the sermon this morning, this stuck out: 
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
Matthew 23:2‭-‬3 

This could refer to only the law of Moses, but in fairness Jesus does tell them to observe"whatever" they are told.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 19, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> This could refer to only the law of Moses, but in fairness Jesus does tell them to observe"whatever" they are told.


The Scribes and Pharisees were the official preachers of the day and bore that authority in the visible church. So the Lord is guarding against any that might take his condemnation of their hypocrisy and false teaching for doctrines the commandments of men to mean He was condemning their office or the Law. We're in Mathew 23 in the morning service and have reached the Woes against the Scribes and Pharisees. See Poole's explanation and others Here.


----------



## VRH (Sep 19, 2021)

iainduguid said:


> As a tangential side note, in English, we distinguish easily between “which he had not commanded them to do” (not required) and “which he had commanded them not to do” (prohibited) by word order, but in Hebrew no such simple distinction exists. In fact, the Old Testament has no precise equivalent verb to “to prohibit” and elsewhere uses “not to command” in exactly that sense (see Jouon 160k). In Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5 and 32:35 the phrase “which I did not command” (_‘ašer lo‘ tsivvîtî_) has reference to those who offer their children as burnt offerings on the high places, something _specifically_ _prohibited_ in Leviticus 18:21. This does suggest that Leviticus 10 (along with the Jeremiah passages cited above) are not quite the slam dunk proof texts for the RPW they is sometimes treated as being. As some of the other posts have argued, I think you can still get there from other texts, but its important to make sure that our working is valid as well as our conclusions.


Thank you for your insights here. How is our understanding of 'which I did not command' shaped by the clauses immediately following it ('nor spake _it_, neither came _it_ into my mind:')? The translation as given seems to move us in the direction originally suggested by Josh.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Sep 19, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The Scribes and Pharisees were the official preachers of the day and bore that authority in the visible church. So the Lord is guarding against any that might take his condemnation of their hypocrisy and false teaching for doctrines the commandments of men to mean He was condemning their office or the Law. We're in Mathew 23 in the morning service and have reached the Woes against the Scribes and Pharisees. See Poole's explanation and others Here.


That definitely seems like the rational explanation. Why would he say "do whatever they tell you" though, knowing they were extra-biblicists? Thanks!


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 19, 2021)

VRH said:


> Thank you for your insights here. How is our understanding of 'which I did not command' shaped by the clauses immediately following it ('nor spake _it_, neither came _it_ into my mind:')? The translation as given seems to move us in the direction originally suggested by Josh.


Good question. I think it's a rhetorical sequence in which each of the terms builds on the previous: "I did not command you to do this....in fact I didn't even say it [in a different context where you might have thought I wanted you to do it, even though it wasn't an explicit command]....in fact, I didn't even think it [let alone say it].... I think the logical completion of this rhetorical argument remains unexpressed: in fact, I explicitly commanded you NOT to do this...but you did it anyway.

Does that make sense?


----------

