# Frame and the Regulative Principle



## Pergamum (Aug 15, 2009)

The Regulative Principle: a Broader View


Questions:

-What do you think of the article?

-Is Frame accepted within the PCA and OPC and ARP (i.e. the larger denominations besides the smaller and more strict micro-Presbyteries).

-Can Frame's view fit into the "Reformed Tradition?"

-Has anyone tried to interact/debate with Frame if they think him in error?


----------



## Grillsy (Aug 15, 2009)




----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 15, 2009)

No; his view is not confessionally or historically reformed. It is very clear that he redefines the principle; and at that point he's outside confessional historical reformed thought. Frame's writings/views were thoroughly sifted by Smith and Lachman in their material on the RPW in _The Confessional Presbyterian_. Here's a recent (four years ago) paper by Ryan McGraw.
http://www.gracepresbyterianchurchconway.com/John Frame on Worship.pdf.
Here is Dr. Pipa's original review of In Spirit and Truth.
Worship in Spirit and in Truth
N.B. PB Newbies see this post before jumping the RPW fence in any posts.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/what-reformed-board-24779/


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 15, 2009)

If Frame is not Confessional, has there been an effort to expose him? 

And how is he received in "reformed" circles if he is betraying the confession?

Most reformed bookstores carry him, many seminary classes use his books, and he did teach and I am sure still does teach somewhere that imagines themselves to be "reformed".

If he is so clearly "not reformed", why are so many confused about his confessional fidelity?


----------



## Philip (Aug 15, 2009)

Frame's view as presented there is more or less my own understanding of the regulative principle. It may not be the majority reformed position, but it's certainly within the sphere of historic Reformed thought.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 15, 2009)

The RPW has a clear confessional historic meaning. 
What is the Regulative Principle of Worship - The PuritanBoard
Whence the Regulative Principle of Worship? 1 - The PuritanBoard
Whence the Regulative Principle of Worship? 2 - The PuritanBoard


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 15, 2009)

Just because this is a time of ignorance and not one of a high degree of confessional fidelity, does not mean Frame is confessional on worship. You have CPJ, read Smith and Lachman and the survey of rpw literature.



Pergamum said:


> If Frame is not Confessional, has there been an effort to expose him?
> 
> And how is he received in "reformed" circles if he is betraying the confession?
> 
> ...


----------



## R Harris (Aug 15, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> If Frame is not Confessional, has there been an effort to expose him?
> 
> And how is he received in "reformed" circles if he is betraying the confession?
> 
> ...



The same line of thought applies not only to Frame but to many others - Sproul, Mohler, Horton, the late James Boice, and of course numerous other seminary and high profile men who call themselves "reformed." I don't know of a one of them who would hold to the 1642-1648 WCF with regard to worship, of course specifically referring to non-instrumental EP.

If the above men think that all the great reformed men of the 16th, 17th, and the early/mid 18th centuries were dead wrong on worship, then at least have the integrity to step forward and say so. I want to see the serious (not emotional) discussion and exegesis of these matters.

This is the problem - the term "reformed" has become relativistic. Anyone who holds to the original intents of the WCF, especially regarding worship, is derogatorily referred to as a "TR" (thoroughly reformed). In my humble opinion, Until this problem is corrected, the Church remains handicapped.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 15, 2009)

Pergy,

The problem lies in Frame's interpretation of the RPW. It is clear that he is out of accord with the historical interpretation of the doctrine, regardless of what he or anyone else says.

Now, presbyteries may choose to admit him despite this differences. That is more or less the prerogative of those presbyteries and their denominations, but we should not confuse it with the historical doctrine of the RPW. Basically what he is espouses is an historical novelty. It might be fine with some within the Reformed tradition, but that is not the same thing as the Reformed tradition.

To give an example, my own systematic theology professor at Erskine was R.J. Gore. I like Dr. Gore, but he is plainly out of accord with the WCF with regard to the RPW. But he also realizes this. In fact, he accuses the Puritans (!) of getting it wrong and introduces his own historical novelty, which he calls "Covenantal Worship" (hence, the name of his book on the subject). Frame, btw, wrote the foreword to the book.

There is another layer to this as well, which is a sad testament in our day. It is one thing to have exceptions to the WCF; that is up to the presbyteries as to whether it is serious enough to refuse admittance. It is quite another thing (and this is my major beef) to allow this folks to _teach _contrary to the confession. Sometime this is done from the pulpit, sometimes this is done in the SS class, sometimes this is done in written form. Frame has done the latter, Gore has done the latter, even Jay Adams (his book on the Sabbath) has done the latter as well. Once again, it is one thing to take an exception; it is another to actively teach against the Confession.


----------



## Confessor (Aug 15, 2009)

The Confessional Presbyterian's article on Frame and his view of the RPW is very clear and shows where his views on the RPW depart from confessional orthodoxy.

As quoted in p. 123 of vol. 1 of the CPJ, Frame says,So, both in worship and in the rest of life, we should adopt RP1: "Whatever is not commanded is forbidden." Whenever we are not carrying out (rightly applying) a biblical command, we are committing sin (cf. Rom. 14:23). . . .

Does 1.6 [of the WCF - BM], then, contradict 20.2? I think it does, because the writers of 20.2 did not, evidently, think through the concept of application as I have tried to set it forth above. Paragraph 20.2 tells us that we are free (in everyday life) from commandments of men that run contrary to Scripture, and that in addition we are free (in the areas of faith and worship) from any commandments beside Scripture. But in one sense, we are always free from commandments beside Scripture, not only in 'faith and worship.' Scripture alone is our ultimate rule, in all areas of life. Of course, Scripture itself calls us to be subject to lesser authorities (both, incidientally, in worship and elsewhere); but when these lesser authorities command contrary to the will of God, we may and must disobey them.​
Ultimately, I am convinced that Frame makes a category error. He takes the subjection of our life to Biblical commands (as summed up in _sola Scriptura_) and conflates this with direct (express or deduced) Biblical commands.

For instance, he mentioned following the speed limit. When one follows the speed limit on a road, one is subjecting himself to an authority established by God through His Word, namely the civil magistrate. In following the speed limit, one is obeying something that is not directly commanded in Scripture but is applying a principle that is positively taught by Scripture. Since we always ought to apply principles taught by Scripture, Frame argues that in a sense _all of life_ is under the principle, "Whatever is not commanded is forbidden," since all of life is the practical outworking of some Biblical principle. If someone decides to smoke a cigar, it's because he has derived from Scripture that this is permissible -- he has learned that in Scripture there is a category of activities under the purview of Christian liberty and that occasional cigar-smoking is in that category.

But this is a fatal flaw in Frame's view on worship. He confuses the _primary_ searching of the Scriptures with what we discern through this primary searching. Certainly we ought to search the Scriptures to ensure we are following God's law and applying His Word correctly to our lives, but the fact that we do so is not the regulative principle! The regulative principle is itself found after our initial searching of the Scriptures, based on the second commandment (among other passages).

Here is what I wrote at the bottom of one page of the CPJ to explain myself:Frame tries to argue that since obedience to a magistrate's non-forbidden commands [e.g. the speed limit] can be deduced from Scripture, then we are applying a regulative principle to civil affairs. But this is false. Certainly we first look to Scripture to see our duties to the magistrate/church/etc. But this initial searching of the Scriptures does not make such a principle regulative. Rather, the end product of this initial searching determines how we view the commands of authorities that are beside [i.e. not forbidden by] Scripture in different realms [e.g. the church, the state, the home, etc.], and therefore the conclusion of this searching, which involves the 2nd commandment, is either a regulative or normative principle.​
In other words, Frame fails to understand that Scripture's sovereignty over all aspects of life does not imply that it is _regulative_ over all of human life. That's the primary error of Frame, in my opinion. He also errs in misunderstanding what circumstances are, seeing them as nothing more than practical applications of Scripture principles. This is different from the traditional distinction of elements as _in sacris_ and circumstances as _circa sacra_; the latter are the things necessary to carry out the former with decency.

Lastly, the fact that Frame speaks of R. J. Gore, who outrightly rejects the RPW, is revealing: "But as I read Gore, there is no substantive disagreement between us" (qtd. in 134 of the CPJ, vol. 1).


----------



## py3ak (Aug 15, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> If Frame is not Confessional, has there been an effort to expose him?
> 
> And how is he received in "reformed" circles if he is betraying the confession?
> 
> ...



That last question particularly seems a little confused. The question of what the Westminster Assembly said and what they meant is one issue; what presbyteries today understand or enforce of that is a separate issue. "Confessional" (in a Presbyterian context) refers to conformity to the former, not the latter.

In sorting through such articles it might be helpful to keep in mind that the regulative principle sets limits to ecclesiastical authority: that's why it comes up in 20.2.


----------



## KMK (Aug 15, 2009)

Frame does not claim to be confessional in his views of the RPW.

Frame is very open about his disagreements with the WS. What more do you want from the guy?

If anything, the PB has established that the word 'Reformed' has such a broad range of meanings these days that it is virtually meaning_less_.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 15, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> If Frame is not Confessional, has there been an effort to expose him?
> 
> And how is he received in "reformed" circles if he is betraying the confession?



This one's exceedingly easy to explain, and I would think you'd know the answer. He is received in "reformed" circles because such circles are pretty lax on the confession and their adherence to it. 



> Most reformed bookstores carry him, many seminary classes use his books, and he did teach and I am sure still does teach somewhere that imagines themselves to be "reformed".



Yup. That's correct. It's also utterly irrelevant when it comes to considering his teaching with respect to the confession. 



> If he is so clearly "not reformed", why are so many confused about his confessional fidelity?



Perhaps it's because so many are confused about the confession itself and what it means to adhere to it?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 15, 2009)

Confessor said:


> Here is what I wrote at the bottom of one page of the CPJ ....


You wrote in it!  No soup for you!


----------



## Philip (Aug 15, 2009)

If I remember aright the original intent of the RPW's application, very few of our churches would be considered confessional. I do recall that Christmas was banned in England for this reason during the protectorate.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 15, 2009)

P. F. Pugh said:


> If I remember aright the original intent of the RPW's application, very few of our churches would be considered confessional. I do recall that Christmas was banned in England for this reason during the protectorate.


I'm sure with the majority today Prof. Frame disagrees with some of the Puritan applications of the RPW, but the point in contention was whether he rejects the principle itself, which he does (*moderator hat on: folks let's leave EP and xmas for another time and place*). 
On the history of Christmas in American Presbyterianism (with some British background), see:
The Religious Observance of Christmas and ?Holy Days? in American Presbyterianism | Naphtali Press


----------



## KMK (Aug 15, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > If I remember aright the original intent of the RPW's application, very few of our churches would be considered confessional. I do recall that Christmas was banned in England for this reason during the protectorate.
> ...



Thanks for the link! I was just looking for something like that earlier today.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 16, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Just because this is a time of ignorance and not one of a high degree of confessional fidelity, does not mean Frame is confessional on worship. You have CPJ, read Smith and Lachman and the survey of rpw literature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



YES....I do have CPJ!!!!! Which reminds me to give a HEEEEUUUUUGGEEE THANK YOU to whoever sent that to me! 

Quite a heavy dose of confessional stuff, I take it in small doses to avoid overdose until my tolerance builds up.


So, whoever you are...GOD BLESS you you MR. Anonymous PBer.

-----Added 8/16/2009 at 12:57:56 EST-----



toddpedlar said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If Frame is not Confessional, has there been an effort to expose him?
> ...



Is RTS lax or ignorant in the confessions? That's a pretty heavy charge to lay at the feet of a large, respected institution.

They welcomed Frame it seems with open arms, but asked for Bahnsen's resignation. 

Does RTS (Reformed Theological Seminary) better represent the reformed tradition, or does the PB? 

It seems RTS is more "broad" while a disproportionately large percentage of TRs and members of micro-presbyteries inhabit the PB. 

Who has a better voice for explaining what it means to be "reformed?" - a discussion board or a large, well-respected seminary?


I realize the above is barbed. There is no heat, but I am trying to probe a bit. 

I hear Frame left Westminster Seminary. This could be for his (real or perceived) sub-confessional views, which would answer my above barbed questions. Can anyone shed light on the reasons for Frame's departure from Westminster and can anyone update me on Frame relationship now with RTS? 

If he is so bad, why does RTS harbor such a poor theologian, especially if they demanded Bahnsen to leave? What would other reformed seminaries say about Frame, and would Frame be allowed to teach at the majority of them?

-----Added 8/16/2009 at 01:01:23 EST-----



NaphtaliPress said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > If I remember aright the original intent of the RPW's application, very few of our churches would be considered confessional. I do recall that Christmas was banned in England for this reason during the protectorate.
> ...



Does Frame reject the RPW? Or does he just challenge some interpretations of the RPW? Does he ever admit as much?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Aug 16, 2009)

Remember, RTS is not a denominational seminary. Appointment as a professor there does not require approval of a Reformed denomination.

Both RTS and the PCA were formed out of a Southern Presbyterian Church (PCUS) which had become very broad and liberal. Most of those men who helped form RTS and later the PCA, were evangelicals who merely wanted the liberty to preach the gospel. I’ve had some of them tell me they then held to things they’re embarrassed by now. Some of those who helped form RTS later helped form GPTS. RTS was never a strict confessional seminary.

The lack of confessional consensus within both the PCA and OPC would prevent either from establishing a denominational seminary today. Without this consensus regarding the confessions, it is difficult to have uniformity in teaching and practice.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 16, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> Remember, RTS is not a denominational seminary. Appointment as a professor there does not require approval of a Reformed denomination. .



THANKS!


*Very good point.* I think you just answered my question. 


What are the denominational seminaries who can then give us the "official" voice of Reformed Christendom?

-----Added 8/16/2009 at 01:25:22 EST-----

I guess 2 other things I have been really learning here is 

(1) the fractured nature of reformed christianity right now in history. One can talk about updating confessions, etc, but there does not seem to be a unity among those calling themselves reformed enough such any update or new confession could ever be written. 

Do you think a new confession will ever be written? 

(2) Most of the confessions were hammered out during times of conflict. Often these times of conflict also had an ecclesiastical component to them. Now, in a society where wars rarely mingle with sectarian Protestant interests, it also seems like the fertile ground for confessions, conflict, if not present. 


Christendom is dead, and with it, the ability to write confessions. Is that an accurate assessment?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 16, 2009)

As already noted above, RJ Gore rejects the RPW for his own principle, and Frame who wrote the intro to Gore's book says he's in substantial agreement with him. It was clearly recognized by defenders of the RPW at the time _Worship in Spirit and Truth_ came out that Frame redefined the principle. I do not recall that Frame has answered critics or made any clarifications since the book came out in 1996, except for the endorsement of Gore's views (Covenantal Worship, 2002), whose deficiencies are clearly shown by Dr. Lachman. 


Pergamum said:


> Does Frame reject the RPW? Or does he just challenge some interpretations of the RPW? Does he ever admit as much?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 16, 2009)

I interacted extensively with John on this matter in _Recovering the Reformed Confession_.

Chris Coldwell is quite right.



Pergamum said:


> The Regulative Principle: a Broader View
> 
> 
> Questions:
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 16, 2009)

R. Scott Clark said:


> I interacted extensively with John on this matter in _Recovering the Reformed Confession_.
> 
> Chris Coldwell is quite right.
> 
> ...



Well, now you've gone and got me curious. I guess I am just gonna have to go and buy that book.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Aug 17, 2009)

I just found a 1998 email debate between Dr. Frame and Darryl Hart. I would suggest that anyone interested in hearing their respective views explained in contrast to the opposing one read through it carefully. 

I've read through about half of it now. I might post some thoughts after reading through the whole thing. I do find it very interesting and informative. Despite the strong statements against Frame's views in this thread and around this board...I would suggest reading his thoughts carefully and interacting with them thoroughly. I'm not convinced either way, but I don't think overblown rhetoric will help anyone. Thorough exegesis on both sides with irenic discussion is what will help those such as myself think through this issue well.

Debate Between Frame and Hart on the RPW


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 17, 2009)

Frame's views can be read all one wants, but whatever one concludes about the correctness of his position, what is not possible is to argue successfully that his views are in line with the RPW. He doesn't have the purview to define the RPW, number one, and number two, he quite clearly contradicts the historical definition thereof. Read him; interact with him.. just don't try to argue for him being consistent with the RPW.


----------



## KMK (Aug 17, 2009)

Joshua said:


> The Puritans and Reformed Divines of old have given "thorough exegesis" out the wazoo of the 2nd Commandment and to all that pertains to worship.



Is that somewhere in the assembly's minutes?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Aug 18, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Frame's views can be read all one wants, but whatever one concludes about the correctness of his position, what is not possible is to argue successfully that his views are in line with the RPW. He doesn't have the purview to define the RPW, number one, and number two, he quite clearly contradicts the historical definition thereof. Read him; interact with him.. just don't try to argue for him being consistent with the RPW.



I understand your point, and I'm not trying to argue one way or the other really on anything here. Although I do think his distinction early in the debate between the normative and historical RPW is helpful. But that aside, of course Frame does not fall in line with the traditional Puritan formulation of the RPW. He clearly admits this in the debate.

My point is simply that you have younger guys like me who have a great deal of respect for Dr. Frame [and Darryl Hart as well], and I think it wise rather than just saying, "He doesn't fall in line with the Puritan understanding of the RPW," to thoroughly interact with his views so that we can work through the issues carefully.



> _Joshua_Respectfully, why reinvent the wheel? The Puritans and Reformed Divines of old have given "thorough exegesis" out the wazoo of the 2nd Commandment and to all that pertains to worship. Further, the Puritan Board is not the place to rail against the historic understanding of the RPW. It's established law here.



A few points:
1) I'm not railing against the Puritan understanding of the RPW. I'm just trying to understand the issues--from both sides. I think that surely--notwithstanding the Confessional requirements of the board--there should be room to grow and learn about the issues involved on both sides here. I'm not pushing a contra-Puritan RPW agenda here. I just want to understand better.
2) Point taken in that I should read some more of the Reformed Divines on the topic. However, as I'm a busy guy, it's easier for me to follow a debate than to read a voluminous amount of material on the topic. I hope to do that at some point, but right now I can't.
3) While I subscribe to the Confession, I believe that is a different thing than subscribing to everything the Puritans wrote about worship. So simply pointing to them rather than providing interaction with current views--like that of Frame--may be inadequate. 
4) While I would be the first to say that we probably suffer from a lack of reading the greats of the past rather than reading too much of it...it would probably be wise--if one wants the Reformed faith to grow, to continue to explain their ideas in the parlance of today. Calvin didn't just say, "Read Augustine and figure out how you guys screwed it all up." He wrote the Institutes, and expanded greatly on the teaching of the Church. 

So to sum up what I'm saying: I love the Puritans. I'm not denigrating the reading of their material. I'm not waging a war against their views on the RPW. I'm not advocating that we start from scratch. I'm not saying that Frame upholds the historic RPW. I'm just saying that I want to understand the issue. And rather than *only* pointing guys like me back to the Puritan writings on the issue, and *only* acting like Frame is a few fries short of a happy meal, interact with his views. Show us why the historic RPW continues to make sense with the newer views of Frame on the topic. And don't write us off as anti-confessional lovers of all things new and exciting. I--and many like me--just want to understand and grow.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 18, 2009)

Joel,

The Frame/Hart debate is not very satisfactory. For one thing Darryl didn't take it very seriously. He thought email was a fad! Who knew he'd have his own blog one day (Old Life Theological Society)?

Second, the plain fact is that there are three sides in this argument. Two of the sides on this triangle (not a tri-perspectival triangle, however) believe the RPW and one side simply does not. 

There are strict confessionalists who think WCF 21 has to be read in the light of the Directory for Public Worship and who see the trajectory of Reformed worship since the 18th century as a decline from orthodoxy and orthopraxy. 

There are conservatives (of which Darryl is one) who affirm the RPW in theory but are more conservative of the revisions in practice since the 18th century (e.g., hymns and instruments). Darryl would be happy to sing only Scripture (and he would certainly like to sing more psalms) and he might be willing to do without instruments but I think he accepts them as circumstances. Have you read _With Reverence and Awe_? John and Darryl did a very good job in that volume. The contrast between it and John's book on worship is quite stark.

Then there are the radicals such as Gore and Frame who radically revise the RPW so as to make it stand on its head. John simply doesn't agree with the Reformed churches (in Europe or the British Isles) so he revises the RPW via triperspectivalism in a radically subjective manner. He drives the RPW like a volkswagen going off road. He makes it do things (govern all of life in the same way as it was originally intended to govern worship). The result is that there is very little that can't be justified in John's version of the RPW.

Once more, not that my treatment (in _RRC_) is definitive by any means but it will outline the issues for you. I hope you'll look into this. It's vitally important for the future of the Reformed churches. Either the WCF and HC are correct about how God should be worshiped or they are not. We cannot mouth affirmation of the confessions and deny them in substance, not and retain any credibility or even theological and doxological integrity.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 18, 2009)

*Hoeksema agrees with Darryl*



R. Scott Clark said:


> Joel,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The position you attribute to Darryl Hart seems to have been the position held by Rev. Herman Hoeksema. In the Feb. 15, 1962 issue of the Standard Bearer,
Rev. Hoeksema attempts to show how many passages of Scripture can be set to verse and would be appropriate to be sung in the Church. Back issues of the Standard Bearer are now on line, and can be found at: 
The Standard Bearer 
Rev. G. Vanden Berg, then a Protestant Reformed cleric, later a pastor of the independent Orthodox Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, disagreed with the propriety of Hymn singing in the Protestant Reformed Churches. He defends the historic Dutch Reformed understanding of the regulative principal in issue after issue of Volume 38 of the Standard Bearer.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 18, 2009)

*Reminder. EP has its own moderated forum. Do not discuss it here.*


yeutter said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Joel,
> ...


----------



## Covenant Joel (Aug 19, 2009)

Joshua said:


> Understood, but no one wants to keep belaboring the point of the RPW when there are those who've gone before us who have answered John Frame before he even existed. Further, my only point is that the Puritan Board is not a place where "exegesis" of Frame's position is going to be welcomed, because that's advocacy of something that is blatantly anti-Confessional. It's not intended to make everyone angry, but to keep the board tightly knit.
> I understand busy-ness, and it happens to the best of us. If you can get a copy, I'd suggest Jeremiah Burroughs' _Gospel Worship_. Burroughs is a very practical writer (In my humble opinion) and does a great job of expositing the historical reformed position on the right manner in which we are to draw nigh to God. "Stuffy," say some. But I don't think so.



I understand your point. While the Puritans may have great literature on the subject, I think that's a different thing than answering "John Frame before he even existed." As I mentioned before, I think it would be unwise to just say, "Frame's wrong, go read the guys of the past and you'll get it." It's possible that we might read the guys of the past, read Frame, and still need some things cleared up. I'm not talking about advocacy of Frame. I'm talking about dealing seriously with what he brings up.

I'll try to get a copy of Burrough's book. It may take me a bit to read it as I've been busy, but I'd love to read it.



> But their views (the Puritans) is the _original intent_ of said Confession, not John Frame's view. That's the crux of the matter.



Hmm, that's something I'll have to think through a bit. Obviously, authorial intent is important, but I'm not sure how far to take that regarding the theology of the Westminster Divines...do we go with only what they wrote down, or what they held to which led to what they wrote down? Haven't really thought through that one, add it to the list.



> And improved on much of Augustine's deficiencies, I might add. I'm not so sure that we can improve too much on the genius of the Puritans. I'm ready to defer to them in most things. That being noted, there are current things that deal with Frame's view (and several have been mentioned in this thread). I'd encourage you also to pick up the Confessional Presbyterian Journal (see Chris Coldwell - aka - Naphtali Press) for various articles dealing with worship and the historic confessional understanding of the RPW.



Perhaps...but I think it's a difficult tension to deal with. That is, relying heavily on the teachers of the past, and yet being willing to test what they said against Scripture. Obviously Calvin did that, and I suspect he would expect us to do the same. Notwithstanding the genius of his work (along with the Puritans and other greats).



> The historic understanding of the RPW "continues to make sense" because it was right in the first place, and truth doesn't change with time. By the way, I'm not writing you off as anti-Confessional, and that was never the intent nor thrust of my comments. I hope you know that. My apologies for not being clearer.



No worries...I understand your position. I guess I'm just saying, sure this is a Confessional board. And I consider myself confessional. But at the same time, I want to understand...and part of that understanding is questioning and thinking critically.



> *R. Scott Clark*
> 
> Joel,
> 
> The Frame/Hart debate is not very satisfactory. For one thing Darryl didn't take it very seriously. He thought email was a fad! Who knew he'd have his own blog one day (Old Life Theological Society)?



I did get that impression after reading through most of the debate.



> Second, the plain fact is that there are three sides in this argument. Two of the sides on this triangle (not a tri-perspectival triangle, however) believe the RPW and one side simply does not.
> 
> There are strict confessionalists who think WCF 21 has to be read in the light of the Directory for Public Worship and who see the trajectory of Reformed worship since the 18th century as a decline from orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
> 
> There are conservatives (of which Darryl is one) who affirm the RPW in theory but are more conservative of the revisions in practice since the 18th century (e.g., hymns and instruments). Darryl would be happy to sing only Scripture (and he would certainly like to sing more psalms) and he might be willing to do without instruments but I think he accepts them as circumstances. Have you read With Reverence and Awe? John and Darryl did a very good job in that volume. The contrast between it and John's book on worship is quite stark.



I'm not sure I'm quite getting the distinction you are making between the "strict confessionalists" and Hart's position (unless the distinction you are making is between adherence and non-adherence to exclusive psalmody).

I have read most of _With Reverence and Awe?_. I began to read it in seminary as extra reading, but required reading and life squeezed it out unfortunately. I have it around somewhere, so hopefully I can get back to it and finish it. Based on what I did read, I found it helpful at several levels, but found the chapter on music less than convincing. I talked with John Muether briefly about that chapter while at RTS-O, and I think I understood his point a little more clearly then. I just haven't had time recently to think carefully through the issues and do more reading.



> Then there are the radicals such as Gore and Frame who radically revise the RPW so as to make it stand on its head. John simply doesn't agree with the Reformed churches (in Europe or the British Isles) so he revises the RPW via triperspectivalism in a radically subjective manner. He drives the RPW like a volkswagen going off road. He makes it do things (govern all of life in the same way as it was originally intended to govern worship). The result is that there is very little that can't be justified in John's version of the RPW.



I understand that their views do not align with the historic use of the RPW. Still, I found some aspects of Frame's arguments compelling, and it is those that I want to understand from the traditional-RPW side better.



> Once more, not that my treatment (in RRC) is definitive by any means but it will outline the issues for you. I hope you'll look into this. It's vitally important for the future of the Reformed churches. Either the WCF and HC are correct about how God should be worshiped or they are not. We cannot mouth affirmation of the confessions and deny them in substance, not and retain any credibility or even theological and doxological integrity.



I hope to get a copy of your book as well. Reading continues to stack up, but I will try to read this and some of the other resources mentioned sooner rather than later. Thanks for your post.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 19, 2009)

Thomas, 

I deal a little with the claim that there is a "historic Dutch" view of the RPW in RRC. The short answer is that, in principle, there is no great difference between the Dutch (e.g. the Synod of Dort) and the British. The long answer is in the book.

-----Added 8/19/2009 at 01:00:44 EST-----

Joel, 

One issue to think through very carefully is that of Christian freedom. When a session calls a stated service on the Sabbath, members of the congregation are expected to attend to the means of grace. If they're able (in town, not infirm etc) they're under obligation.

Thus, whatever is done in the service must, according to WCF 21 and according to the Word, have explicit or implicit divine warrant. Whatever is done cannot bind the conscience of the Christian without the authority of the Word. That's why our principle, going back to Reformed theology before Calvin, has always been that stated in HC 96 and WCF 21. We only do that which is required by God's Word. Full stop. 

When Reformed ministers and elders plan divine services they must ask themselves: do I have authority from God's Word to require God's Word to sing/say p or q? 

If we could just get to grips with the principle: we do only that in worship required by God's Word (relative to elements, i.e. Word [incl. sacraments] and prayer) we would be free of a lot of controversy.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Aug 19, 2009)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Joel,
> 
> One issue to think through very carefully is that of Christian freedom. When a session calls a stated service on the Sabbath, members of the congregation are expected to attend to the means of grace. If they're able (in town, not infirm etc) they're under obligation.
> 
> ...



That is a helpful perspective. I have not thought of it in quite that way before. And I agree with that. While I haven't spent enough time thinking it through, I think there are two big things that I struggle with at this point:

1) While I understand the intent behind the distinction between elements, circumstances, and forms, I'm not sure I see the biblical support for that 100%. It makes sense, but I struggle to see it worked out quite like that.
2) Granted the distinctions between the above, sometimes it seems to me that folks are too rigid about which is which. They may be exegetically valid distinctions, but given that their application is not spelled out in plain speech, I get frustrated sometimes when people act like a difference in one's view on the application is a test of orthodoxy. 

But like I said, I'm working through those things, trying to get a better understanding. Hopefully the before-mentioned books will help me to sort through it all.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Aug 19, 2009)

> I hear Frame left Westminster Seminary. This could be for his (real or perceived) sub-confessional views, which would answer my above barbed questions. Can anyone shed light on the reasons for Frame's departure from Westminster and can anyone update me on Frame relationship now with RTS?



An Interview with John Frame By Marco Gonzalez


----------

