# John Frame, the RPW, and sola Scriptura



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 16, 2008)

Brothers,

I've been reading John Frame's _Worship in Spirit and Truth_. I'm not always comfortable with the degree of latitude he seems willing to grant in relation to some of the elements of worship. For example, though he asserts that he's "not an advocate of the use of drama" and argues that "there are many considerations arguing that the word is usually presented better through the traditional monologue than through drama," he's willing to concede that "Scripture gives us the freedom to use drama" (pp. 93-94). And I'm not sure he's merely referring to the use of dramatic gestures in the act of preaching. 

My question, however, relates to Frame's view of the RPW. He affirms that we should only worship God in the ways that God's word warrants (pp. 38-39). But he also argues that the RPW should be applied to all of life as an application of _sola Scriptura_. For instance, he writes, "God is not pleased with just anything we choose to do in this presence. The Mighty Lord of heaven and earth demands that our worship--indeed, all of life--be governed by his word" (p. 37). Later he writes, "The regulative principle for worship is no different from the principles by which God regulates all of our life" (42). He then argues, "My own formulation does not contradict the confession, but goes beyond it" (43). So Frame affirms the RPW, but he believes it applies both to worship in the narrow sense (i.e., corporate worship) and worship in the broad sense (i.e., all of life). In other words, he seems to argue that the RPW is in essence simply _sola Scriptura_.

Someone has suggested to me that in fact the Puritans intended the RPW as a rule distinct from the principle that governs all of life. The way it was framed was that all-of-life worship is governed by the normative principle whereas corporate worship is governed by the regulative principle. Is this accurate? I've read through the 1689 (to which I subscribe) but I can't seem to find this distinction clearly made. Do the other Reformed confessions make this distinction? If so, what are the main proof texts that they employ to make this distinction? My own confession references the 2nd commandment. What would you consider to be other key texts?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 16, 2008)

Some reviews by Dr. Pipa and someone more favourable below. Frame is simply not honest with himself or the reader about his holding the WCF and the regulative principle; the Pro review below even notes it is not credible. 

Con A book review of "Worship in Spirit and Truth" by John M. Frame

Pro Reformed Worship | Books: Leading in Worship; Worship in Spirit and Truth

The intro to a critical review of the anti RPW writings of Both Frame and R. J. Gore is here:
What is the Regulative Principle of Worship - The PuritanBoard

See The Confessional Presbyterian volume 1 (2005) for the extensive review itself.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 16, 2008)

Chris,

Thanks for the links to the reviews. I was able to access and print the first two. The last critical review, however, I wasn't able to access the entire article. Also, is it available in a printable version?

Thanks,


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 16, 2008)

The Confessional Presbyterian journal has featured some extensive work on the Regulative Principle of Worship; you can pick up vols. 1-3 and the forthcoming 4 for $50 at the link below my signature. Some articles are online here, but only short extracts from the RPW stuff. The RPW material amounts to around 130,000 words. The articles of interest are:2005. Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore. By Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. & David C. Lachman, Ph.D. 115-160.​2006. The Regulative Principle of Worship: Sixty Years in Reformed Literature. Part One (1946–1999). By Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. with Chris Coldwell. 89-164.​2007. The Regulative Principle of Worship: Sixty Years in Reformed Literature. Part Two (2000–2007). By Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. with Chris Coldwell. 155-216.​2008. Reviews & Responses: Recent Reformed Writings on Worship (Frank J. Smith)| Reggie M. Kidd, With One Voice: Discovering Christ’s Song in Our Worship 227 Paxson H. Jeancake, The Art of Worship: Opening Our Eyes to the Beauty of the Gospel 230 John M. Frame, “The Second Commandment: Regulating Worship,” in The Doctrine of the Christian Life: A Theology of Lordship 233 Robert L. Dickie, What the Bible Teaches About Worship 238 Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Public Worship 239 R. C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: A Layman’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Volume 2: Salvation and the Christian Life and A Taste of Heaven: Worship in the Light of Eternity 240 Dominic A. Aquila, “Redemptive History and the Regulative Principle of Worship,” in The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson 244 W. L. Bredenhof, “A Guide to Reformed Worship,” ten articles in The Clarion 247 Cory Griess, “The Regulative Principle: A Confessional Examination,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 248 Mark Dalbey, “Christian Worship,” Online Course Lectures, Covenant Theological Seminary248Blogroll: Andrew J. Webb, Building Old School Presbyterian Churches; Jeffrey J. Meyers, Corrigenda Denuo; Sean Michael Lucas, Sean Michael Lucas; R. Scott Clark, The Heidelblog; Will Shin, Thoughts & Actions. 249 A Conversation on Denominational Renewal, February 26–28, 2008, Bill Boyd, “Worship,” Matt Brown, “Ecclesiology,” Jeremy Jones, “Theological Reflection.” 251| ​The first part of the sixty year survey uncovers the modest beginnings of resurgence in interest in the Puritan principle of worship and as the researcher on the project I found it fascinating uncovering the material for each period. I wrote a note about the first three articles for the website as follows: *Note of Interest: *The editor first proposed to Dr. Smith in July of 2003, that he undertake a review of R. J. Gore’s _Covenantal Worship_ for the planned 2005 inaugural issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian._ In January 2004 the editor suggested expanding the review to cover recent material, and in March of that year Dr. Smith proposed undertaking more of a survey of the literature. As the scope of the survey became clear, it was decided to excise the material on Professor Frame and R. J. Gore to run in the 2005 issue. In 2006 the scope of the survey again dictated splitting the material. The survey of the literature from 1946–1999 ran in the 2006 issue and amounted to 76 pages. The rest of the material covering the years 2000–2007 appears in the 2007 volume, and is nearly as lengthy. The three articles in total amount to well over 130,000 words on the subject of the Regulative Principle of Worship. One prominent author on the subject of worship has called the survey “remarkable” and “amazing.” Whether one agrees with every sentiment expressed by the authors or not, this series of articles is a valuable resource on the subject of the Regulative Principle of Worship. Check the Subscriptions/Store for special offers to pick up all three issues of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ containing this material.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Sep 16, 2008)

Brian Schwertly's _Sola Scriptura _has a critique of it. You can read the book online for free at Welcome - Reformed Online Library or reformedonline.org


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 16, 2008)

Since we are on the topic. I would like to bring this back up. The Normative Principle that Peter Masters wrote about and I posted in the following link. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/normative-regulative-critique-25192/

While I agree with the RPW on worship I don't believe it applies to all areas of life or you have to loosen it up. That is why I think Peter Masters article is good in respect to life as a whole.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 16, 2008)

The RPW was never intended to apply to anything other than worship, as traditionally understood. This is, again, where John Frame's innovative theology gets itself into trouble. His "triperspectivalism" messes with his RPW, and if I am remembering correctly, is one of the reasons that he sees fit to extend the RPW to all of life (via the "existential" perspective).


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 16, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> Brian Schwertly's _Sola Scriptura _has a critique of it. You can read the book online for free at Welcome - Reformed Online Library or reformedonline.org



Nathan,

The second link you posted makes some pretty nasty accusations about Brian Schwertly. Are you sure that's where you wanted to send me?


----------



## Poimen (Sep 16, 2008)

Archlute said:


> The RPW was never intended to apply to anything other than worship, as traditionally understood. This is, again, where John Frames' innovative theology gets itself into trouble. His "triperspectivalism" messes with his RPW, and if I am remembering correctly, is one of the reasons that he sees fit to extend the RPW to all of life (via the "existential" perspective).



Absolutely. I found this was the case with his teaching (at WSCAL) as well.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 16, 2008)

Thanks for the recommended critiques and input regarding John Frame. But going back to the questions I raised (in light of reading Frame), do the other Reformed confessions (WCF, Savoy, Three Forms of Unity) make this distinction? If so, what are the main proof texts that they employ to make this distinction?


----------



## MW (Sep 16, 2008)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Thanks for the recommended critiques and input regarding John Frame. But going back to the questions I raised (in light of reading Frame), do the other Reformed confessions (WCF, Savoy, Three Forms of Unity) make this distinction? If so, what are the main proof texts that they employ to make this distinction?



WCF 20:2 clearly makes the distinction between morality for all of life and regulation of doctrine and worship.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 16, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the recommended critiques and input regarding John Frame. But going back to the questions I raised (in light of reading Frame), do the other Reformed confessions (WCF, Savoy, Three Forms of Unity) make this distinction? If so, what are the main proof texts that they employ to make this distinction?
> ...



Matthew, can you identify the precise statement in 20.2 that makes this distinction and the proof texts used? Thanks.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 16, 2008)

I also have problems with Frame's application of the RPW and his rationale - I do believe, however, that some drama could be considered within the same sphere as as a sermon illustration. As for the rest, I am a proponent of Prescriptive Psalmody.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 16, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I also have problems with Frame's application of the RPW and his rationale - I do believe, however, that some drama could be considered within the same sphere as as a sermon illustration. As for the rest, I am a proponent of Prescriptive Psalmody.



Thanks, JD. I'm not so concerned about John Frame's book per se. I'm just looking for confessional and Scripture support for two distinct rules of life--one that's only limited to corporate worship and another than applies to all spheres of life. Presently, I'm inclined to see everything under the standard of _sola Scriptura_ and find no reason to distinguish two separate principles either from my confession (1689) or Scripture.


----------



## MW (Sep 16, 2008)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Matthew, can you identify the precise statement in 20.2 that makes this distinction and the proof texts used? Thanks.



"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to His Word; *or beside it*, *if matters of faith or worship*."

I've quoted the FPP edition at face value, but someone might be able to provide a link to another thread which discusses what the original wording should be. The proof texts are Acts 4:19; 5:29; 1 Cor. 7:23; Matt. 23:8-10; 2 Cor. 1:24; Matt. 15:9.

The proof texts for the limiting principle of worship as stated in WCF 21:1 are Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9; Acts 17:25; Matt. 4:9, 10; the second commandment; Col. 2:23; but some of these no doubt refer to worshipping the true God and that without visible representations, and not specifically to the limiting principle of worship.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2008)

Here is one discussion on PB with the relevant data.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wcf-xx-2-if-30347/


armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew, can you identify the precise statement in 20.2 that makes this distinction and the proof texts used? Thanks.
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2008)

Moderator. I'm sure it was inadvertent; if I'm not mistaken that latter link may have served as host also, and now there has evidently been some falling out. PB is not the place to judge WPCUS, CRPC, Mr. Schwertley or any one else involved. And for full disclosure I say this as a very good friend of one of those involved; but this is not the venue for determining the truth of the matter.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Brian Schwertly's _Sola Scriptura _has a critique of it. You can read the book online for free at Welcome - Reformed Online Library or reformedonline.org
> ...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 17, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew, can you identify the precise statement in 20.2 that makes this distinction and the proof texts used? Thanks.
> ...



Matthew, thanks for the citation from the WCF. Perhaps the reason I had trouble locating it is that the 1689, following the Savoy, left this statement out. Those confessions read, *"which are in any thing contrary to his Word or not contained in it."* But there's no mention of "or beside it, if matters of faith and worship." 

The first proof text for the limiting principle is Deuteronomy 12:32: "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." I can see how the Puritans might have inferred a narrower principle for public worship since this command contains the language "don't add nor subtract from it" and occurs just subsequent to a passage dealing with a centralized temple location. The Puritans, however, did not have access to the ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties of Israel's surrounding neighbors which employ this formula to apply to the entire treaty document, not just part (see early 2nd millennium B.C. "Lipit-Ishtar Code," in ANET, 161; Meredith Kline, Treaty of the Great King, p. 43; M. Fishbane, "Varia Deuteronomia," ZAW 84 [1972], pp. 349ff.). It serves as something analogous to a copyright. Don't tamper with this treaty document or the curses invoked in it will fall upon you. I don't think its occurrence in Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18-19 can be limited to what we do in corporate worship. Therefore, the principle drawn from this formula must apply to all of life. 

The next text for the limiting principle is Matthew 15:9. According to the context, the Pharisees were violating the 5th commandment with their man-made tradition. The vain worship offered by the Pharisees does not appear to be limited to something done in corporate worship. So it would seem the principle Jesus articulates applies to all of life. Any tradition I erect that hinders me from fulfilling any one of the 10 commandments is an offense to God. 

The third proof text used, Acts 17:25, may, it seems, be an allusion to the making of idols. This certainly does have more of a cultic slant. Of course, idol worship had both public and private dimensions. Pagans used idols in temples as well as in homes. They even created small idols to wear as amulets whereever they travelled for "good luck." So whatever prohibitory principle that's inferred from this text must apply beyond the walls of the sanctuary. 

The fourth text, Matthew 4:9, 10, gives us Satan's temptation ("fall down and worship me") and Jesus' retort, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve,'" citing Deuteronomy 6:13. This passage definitely established the principle of the exclusive worship of the one true God and forbids the worship of any other God. I'm not sure, however, the worship or fear (Deut. 6:13) invisioned can be limited to the temple or corporate worship. Once again, we seem to have a principle that applies to all of life. 

The fifth text or precept is the 2nd commandment which forbids the making and use of idols. Certainly this applies to what is done in corporate worship. But as I noted above, it is wellknown that the pagan nations practiced idolatry outside their temples. Indeed, the NT writers describe the sins of the flesh, which may be committed inside or outside corporate worship as "idolatry" (Col. 3:5). So once again, I'm not sure we can limit the principle of the 2nd commandment to what we do in church on Sunday. 

The sixth text, Colossians 2:23, prohibits man-made regulations, sometimes called "will-worship." I do agree that this text, like those above, teaches us we should only worship God in the way he warrants. But I'm not certain that it applies exclusively to corporate worship. It seems to censure legalism in general and would apply to what's done inside and outside the sanctuary. 

So as I presently see it, neither my 1689 Confession nor the common proof texts used for the RPW provides explicit support for a more narrow principle that would apply to corporate worship in distinction from a broader principle (normative?) which would apply to worship as a way of life. But I haven't read all the articles that were recommended to me in the posts above. Perhaps there are other texts used or inferences from texts drawn that establish a separate regulative principle for corporate worship as opposed to all other kinds of worship outside God's house. 

Matthew, sincere thanks for taking the time to look up the reference in the WCF and the proof texts that go with it.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 17, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Moderator. I'm sure it was inadvertent; if I'm not mistaken that latter link may have served as host also, and now there has evidently been some falling out. PB is not the place to judge WPCUS, CRPC, Mr. Schwertley or any one else involved. And for full disclosure I say this as a very good friend of one of those involved; but this is not the venue for determining the truth of the matter.



Chris, thanks for posting this. I'm sure the link was given without any knowledge of the negative information that it now contains. Let me assure you that I didn't read all that was written or even accept the general censure against Mr. Schwertley in keeping with John 7:51 and 1 Timothy 5:19.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2008)

Just to clarify, I'm not blaming anyone, Nathan or yourself. Just heading off any discussion of the matter here on the PB. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Moderator. I'm sure it was inadvertent; if I'm not mistaken that latter link may have served as host also, and now there has evidently been some falling out. PB is not the place to judge WPCUS, CRPC, Mr. Schwertley or any one else involved. And for full disclosure I say this as a very good friend of one of those involved; but this is not the venue for determining the truth of the matter.
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 17, 2008)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> ...



This makes a point I was making about looking at ANE treaties to shed light into Scripture and how very troubling it is to me.

Seriously, the Church lacked a proper interpretation from the internal testimony of the Word of God until someone dug up Hittite ruins? Again, I have a big problem with taking a pagan understanding of Covenant, overlaying that on top of the Scriptures and stating that this is now how we ought to understand the Word.

Relevant to some of your other points. Let me point out Jeremiah 7:21-31: 

[bible]Jeremiah 7:21-31[/bible]

This passage not only deals very specifically with the public worship of God and His prescriptions governing it (...I did not commmand it...) but it also demonstrates that idolatry is, in large measure, whatever God has not commanded. Hence, the applicability of other passages that deal with idolatry are violations of the RPW on the point that God commands a certain kind of worship (as early as Cain and Abel) and those who violate it are idolaters.

Further, the Pharisees were not merely condemned for a violation of the 5th Commandment (though surely this was the case) but the idolatry of their man-made rule was manifest in the fact that God would be a house divided by commanding worship that would undermine a command to honor parents.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 17, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



The Israelites of Moses' day and probably for some time after did not lack a proper understanding of a divine-human covenant. They would have recognized parallels between the structure and elements of the divine-human covenant made with them at Sinai and renewed on the plains of Moab and the suzerain-vassal treaties of the surrounding nations. But, apparently over time, the church lost access to some of this historical-contextual information. Thank God much of the background of the ANE is being recovered in our day. As I said on another post dealing with this very issue, caution must be exercised. And a commitment to the self-attesting, self-authenticating nature of Scripture is vital for the proper use of comparative studies. Nevertheless, it just so happens, whether you're happy about this or not, that the elements found in the ANE treaties of Israel's neighbors often bear striking resemblance to the divine-human covenants found in Scripture. This fact need not rattle one's faith. See my discussion concerning these matters here, posts 23 and 26. You can also read my contrast of Peter Enns's and Jeffrey Niehaus' conclusions regarding the ANE data and the OT here.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 17, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> > Relevant to some of your other points. Let me point out Jeremiah 7:21-31:
> >
> > [bible]Jeremiah 7:21-31[/bible]
> >
> ...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 17, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> > Further, the Pharisees were not merely condemned for a violation of the 5th Commandment (though surely this was the case) but the idolatry of their man-made rule was manifest in the fact that God would be a house divided by commanding worship that would undermine a command to honor parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Your "not merely" is telling. It's precisely my point. It appears to me that God's word is to regulate all of life--worship in the broad sense and worship in the narrow sense. Moreover, man-made tradition has the potential not only to invalidate God's commands respecting corporate worship, but it also can do the same with respect to worship as a way of life.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 17, 2008)

Bob, I say this with all humility, but could it be possible that you are falling into a bit of biblicism here?

You may find Herman Bavinck's section on Christian Realism helpful. It will be found in vol.1, part 3, chapter 7 of his _Reformed Dogmatics_.

I would ask you a question so that you could help me to see where you may be coming from. When I served in the special operations community, apart from the general principles of doing all things with proper motive and attitude (i.e to God's glory, and with virtues of sober-mindedness, perseverance, etc.), in what way should Scripture have been used to regulate, say, fastroping insertion techniques, setting up SATCOM connections, marking a target and calling in a Specter gunship, how to set up my rucksack for various mission requirements, or how to establish an objective rally point (ORP)?

And if you say that we should use Scripture to regulate these things, what happens when the authority of the civil realm (military, in this case) dictates otherwise? Should the Christian follow the instructions of his chain of command, or does it now become a moral issue obliging him to disobey, and to attempt to perform these tasks as he thinks he sees Scripture ruling on them?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 17, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Bob, I say this with all humility, but could it be possible that you are falling into a bit of biblicism here?
> 
> You may find Herman Bavinck's section on Christian Realism helpful. It will be found in vol.1, part 3, chapter 7 of his _Reformed Dogmatics_.
> 
> ...



Adam, thanks for recommending Bavinck. It turns out that I own that volume, so I'll try to set some time aside to read the section you've specified. 

You ask, "Apart from the general principles of doing all things with proper motive and attitude (i.e to God's glory, and with virtues of sober-mindedness, perseverance, etc.), in what way should Scripture have been used to regulate, say, fastroping insertion techniques, setting up SATCOM connections, marking a target and calling in a Specter gunship, how to set up my rucksack for various mission requirements, or how to establish an objective rally point (ORP)?" Well, as you noted, your motives are under the Lordship of Christ expressed in his word (1 Cor. 10:31). Moreover, the Bible provides other principles that should govern your conduct and the quality of your work. For example, you should obey God-ordained authority because God's word demands it, not because it's a matter of indifference (Exo. 20:12; Rom. 13:1). Moreover, whatever your hand finds to do you should do it with all your might (Eccl. 9:10), i.e., make efficient use of your time because your life is short. Just as important, you should stive to be proficient in your work in order to extend your influence (Prov. 22:29). Other principles could be listed that would guide your attitude and the quality of your work. You are obligated to implement these principles to the best of your ability. You're not left to your autonomous imagination. I think you would agree that the Scriptures are sufficient to direct you how to glorify God in your particular calling. Of course, as I indicated above, there's less specificity of instruction regarding the specifics of how to carry out a soldier's task than there are regarding how to carry out a pastor's task. In both cases, however, we must serve God only in the ways his word warrants. 

You then ask,"And if you say that we should use Scripture to regulate these things, what happens when the authority of the civil realm (military, in this case) dictates otherwise? Should the Christian follow the instructions of his chain of command, or does it now become a moral issue obliging him to disobey, and to attempt to perform these tasks as he thinks he sees Scripture ruling on them?" I think the answer to this question depends on what your God-ordained authority is asking you to do. In the case that your authority commands you to violate God's word, I could simply quote the verse of which I'm sure your aware, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). I'm not a pacifist, so I don't believe war or military activity connected with it is _ipso facto_ unethical. However, I readily concede that the evil of war often introduces difficult ethical tensions, and I won't pretend to have all the answers. 

So in sum, it seems to me that the general principle that we must serve God only in the way his word warrants applies to all of life. God's word, however, has less to say about specific military tasks--particularly modern ones--than ordering the life of a church. So God's own word warrants more liberty in one area and less in the other. Hope this is helpful.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 17, 2008)

Bob,

Perhaps the disconnect here has to do with the approach to the question.

The problem with Dr. Frame positing that the RPW applies to all of life isn't that the Reformed view of life allows us to conduct our lives in a willy nilly fashion as if everything we do outside of worship is immaterial as long as we don't sin. Maybe you're hearing me (and others) say that.

One need only peruse the Westminster Larger Catechism on the ten commandments (http://www.puritanboard.com/confessions/wlc.htm#96 and read down) to see how much the ten commandments not only forbid us but also how they would direct us properly as a response of gratitude toward our God who has saved us by His grace. Thw Law of God to the redeemed turns from being that which kills us to that which trains our conscience as we see in it the nature of a Holy God whose character we delight in. 

As I meditate, then, on the 5th Commandment then, I'm not morbidly concerned that I should avoid sins that I might earn privilege with God but I'm directed toward what it positively says about authority in general and how a redeemed man would respect and respond to authority as a way to glorify God.

You see, then, in the Puritans already a very rich notion of man's response to God in all of life as He reflects on the Law of God and how it is his delight all the day long. On this point it is dubious for Frame or anybody else to claim that the Reformed are missing something and have to be reminded that we live our lives Coram Deo.

The real problem emerges on the point of flattening out what the RPW is really about and focusing in on what God has to say to us about public worship. By insisting that everything is under the RPW, Frame effectively makes worship just another part of life and the special nature of the Church being called together to worship God is muted.

It should be noted that man's _primary_ sin is idolatry. Romans 1 provides a forensic analysis of why men devolve into all sorts of other sins and it all bends back on how we view God. Is it any wonder that corporate worship, then, is governed by many instructions by God. God is gracious to accommodate to our weakness to protect us from our idolatrous hearts. This is extra-important in a corporate setting because in my day-to-day striving against sin and considering what the Word teaches me about how I might please God I develop many scruples or activities that may be inappropriate or may be appropriate for me. The problem is that if I bring that into the corporate worship environment along with the other several families in my congregation we have a real risk of binding the consciences of men.

In a real way, the RPW protects men from worshipping God in a way other than He commands. In my private worship I may ignorantly sin in how I worship God but if I then port that over to corporate worship and convince others that it pleases God then I have just bound others to worship God in a way that may be idolatrous. God doesn't leave us guessing and spells this out.

Let's get back to the Pharisees then. They had a "worship is all of life" attitude you might say and this left them free to decide, according to their scruples, that they could neglect the Fifth Commandment in their worship of God. Of course, this scruple was not then left to one person to err but by norming this to others it became a point of idolatry for a group of people because nothing restricted them from porting that into corporate worship.

Thus, if Frame simply adopted the Reformed view on the nature of the Ten Commandments he would have no problem seeing all the ways we allow the Law to norm all of life. It is when he calls it all the RPW that he allows personal scruple to enter the corporated worship environment and in walks idolatry with it.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 17, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Bob,
> 
> Perhaps the disconnect here has to do with the approach to the question.
> 
> ...



Rich, I agree and did not interpret anyone on the PB as suggesting that "the Reformed view of life allows us to conduct our lives in a willy nilly fashion." That would certainly be a caricature of the Puritans. I doubt that Frame would accuse the Puritans of that kind of ethic though his claiming to extend the RPW to all of life may give that impression. 



> The real problem emerges on the point of flattening out what the RPW is really about and focusing in on what God has to say to us about public worship. By insisting that everything is under the RPW, Frame effectively makes worship just another part of life and the special nature of the Church being called together to worship God is muted.



After reading some critiques, I realize this has been the charge against Frame. But he does, in his book, distinguish between corporate worship and worship as a way of life. For example, after demonstrating that there's a biblical sense in which all of life can be viewed as service and worship to God (pp. 29-30), he asserts, "But this fact should not be taken to imply that there is no New Testament mandate for corporate praise and prayer, teaching and sacrament, or meetings in which God draws near to his people in a special way" (p. 30). Moreover, he raises the inevitable question, "Does this interpretation of the regulative principle [that applies it to worship narrowly and broadly defined] imply that we may do anything in a worship service that we may do anywhere else in life?" To which he responds, "Certainly not. For there are differences between what we have called the 'broad' and the 'narrow' sense of worship, even if those differences are not always precisely definable. The worship event is a public event for particular purposes.... We must also make distinctions of this sort that are implicit, though not explicit" (p. 42). So I don't think Frame's problem is that he fails to distinguish between worship in the broad and narrow senses. I do think, however, as I'll comment below, we might legitimately question whether Frame's applications of the Scriptural data regarding corporate worship reflect the precepts and precedents of Scripture. 



> It should be noted that man's _primary_ sin is idolatry. Romans 1 provides a forensic analysis of why men devolve into all sorts of other sins and it all bends back on how we view God. Is it any wonder that corporate worship, then, is governed by many instructions by God. God is gracious to accommodate to our weakness to protect us from our idolatrous hearts. This is extra-important in a corporate setting because in my day-to-day striving against sin and considering what the Word teaches me about how I might please God I develop many scruples or activities that may be inappropriate or may be appropriate for me. The problem is that if I bring that into the corporate worship environment along with the other several families in my congregation we have a real risk of binding the consciences of men.
> 
> In a real way, the RPW protects men from worshipping God in a way other than He commands. In my private worship I may ignorantly sin in how I worship God but if I then port that over to corporate worship and convince others that it pleases God then I have just bound others to worship God in a way that may be idolatrous. God doesn't leave us guessing and spells this out.
> 
> ...



I do believe we should beware of the danger of idolatry in both the broad and narrow spheres of worship. I think one concern of the Puritans in this respect (and one which I think you're trying to underscore above) is that public worship involves the consciences of more than just the individual. So as pastors, we have to be very careful that we don't require God's people to worship in ways not warranted by his word. 

Here, I confess, I'm a little uncomfortable with Frame's _application_. As I noted in the original post, Frame says he is personally not an advocate of the use of drama in worship (p. 93). He seems to argue that common Christian prudence demonstrates the superiority of the monologue (i.e., sermon), that is, a propositional communication of truth. But he apparently doesn't feel his reasons for advocating preaching over drama are very strong. So he concedes that "Scripture gives us the freedom to use drama; we may not dogmatically restrict the proclamation of the word in worship to the traditional monologue form" (p. 94). 

My concern with Frame at this point is not necessarily his theology of the RPW. Personally, I'm still not convinced that there are two separate principles that govern our life. My concern lies more with his application and with what I perceive to be a lack of attention to the commands and contours of the NT with respect to public worship. It seems to me that a good case can be made that the NT data is replete with references to preaching, teaching, and even dialogue. Hence, it is not just the light of nature but the precedent of Scripture that warrants the audible propositional communication of God's word as opposed to drama. I'm not opposed to a pastor making what might be considered dramatical gestures when preaching. At best, though, such "drama" is subservient to the preached word, not a replacement. 

So it doesn't seem necessary to me to reject Frame's _view_ that sees the RPW as applying to all of life (which is perhaps another way of asserting sola Scriptura). One may make a case against Frame's _applications_ on the basis of Scripture itself. I would argue that drama should not replace preaching because (1) there are NT commands to preach and teach the word to God's people but none to communicate the word via drama; (2) the few references to the dramatic messages of prophets in the Bible (e.g., Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Agabus) were associated with special revelation and were complementary to not independent of that revelation. So I'm not an advocate of allowing drama to replace preaching because I don't believe there's Scriptural warrant for such a position. Here, I think Professor Frame may be overemphasizing humility (i.e., not wanting to appear dogmatic) while failing to take into account all the precepts and precedents in the NT that commend audible propositional preaching and teaching as the method by which God would have the special revelation of the Scripture communicated to his people.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 17, 2008)

Dr. Gonzalez, I wonder if the answer to your question is not actually quite simple. 

When the Confession says that God has left our conscience free, it is obviously talking about what can be imposed by authority. Civil or ecclesiastical authority has no authority to bind my conscience in things that are contrary to the word of God. But then there is an additional limitation expressed towards ecclesiastical authority. The Church has no right to bind my conscience without express warrant from the word of God. Some time ago Mr. Winzer explained this very point on a PuritanBoard thread, and it really helped me understand the RPW far better than I ever had before. (Though let me add that I make no claim to be stating Mr. Winzer's views in this post.)

In that case, the distinction is really rather clear. There was not express Scriptural warrant for Caesar Augustus to tax the whole world; but the civil authority doesn't need express Scriptural warrant, they need to not contradict Scripture. On the other hand, when it comes to our manner of approaching God, since He Himself, and His will regarding worship are unknowable apart from His own revelation, we do need express warrant for anything we do in worshipping Him. If we do not, our conduct implies either that we think we have access to information about God apart from His own self-disclosure, or that we have the authority to tell God what He ought to like -which seems to me like a clear violation of not only the second but also the first commandment.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 17, 2008)

Well said Ruben.

That was my point in drawing out what happens when we allow each of our free consciences to determine what is permissible in worship. Remember that the WCF is written against a backdrop where all sort of non-prescribed elements were not only introduced into worship but enforced upon the worshipers as well. 

You won't see me arguing against the idea that God's Word regulates our worship in private but that's not precisely what the RPW is meant to govern. It seems sort of naive to imply that, by noting that God prescribes our worship in a public setting by insisting that we worship Him only in the ways commanded that He leaves us utterly free to be idolatrous in private worship. The principle, in focusing on public worship, doesn't overthrow the 1st and 2nd Commandments concerning private worship but, rather, the principle is meant to draw a more distinct line under the public worship of God.

There's a certain level of patience that can be Pastorally corrected as the free consciences of men are trained to have more sanctified consciences so that private worship is improved upon but when you're dealing with the public worship of the entire congregation I believe God has purposefully protected us all from invention and binding our consciences in such a fundamental manner that might lead astray into idolatry because it has the "sanction" of the public worship of God by our undershepherds.

This, I believe, is the real distinction and I'm not certain where Frame can argue there is a defect on thinking in Reformed writing on this, Bob. It sort of goes without saying that we cannot be idolatrous in our personal walk but by re-stating that as an "all of life is worship", whether Frame realizes it or not this has the pedagogical effect of flattening out the distinction between corporate and private worship.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 17, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Dr. Gonzalez, I wonder if the answer to your question is not actually quite simple.



I wasn't trying to oversimplify the whole debate. Years of debate within the Reformed community obviously demonstrate that the answer to the question (or at least all the issues flowing from the question) is not that simple. 



> When the Confession says that God has left our conscience free, it is obviously talking about what can be imposed by authority. Civil or ecclesiastical authority has no authority to bind my conscience in things that are contrary to the word of God.



Agreed.



> But then there is an additional limitation expressed towards ecclesiastical authority. The Church has no right to bind my conscience without express warrant from the word of God. Some time ago Mr. Winzer explained this very point on a PuritanBoard thread, and it really helped me understand the RPW far better than I ever had before. (Though let me add that I make no claim to be stating Mr. Winzer's views in this post.)
> 
> In that case, the distinction is really rather clear. There was not express Scriptural warrant for Caesar Augustus to tax the whole world; but the civil authority doesn't need express Scriptural warrant, they need to not contradict Scripture. On the other hand, when it comes to our manner of approaching God, since He Himself, and His will regarding worship are unknowable apart from His own revelation, we do need express warrant for anything we do in worshipping Him. If we do not, our conduct implies either that we think we have access to information about God apart from His own self-disclosure, or that we have the authority to tell God what He ought to like -which seems to me like a clear violation of not only the second but also the first commandment.



The light of nature and biblical principle indicates that government officials, like the laborer, are worthy of their hire (Deut. 25:4; Mark 12:16-17; Rom. 13:7; 1 Tim. 5:18). So the Scriptures do provide warrant for Caesar Augustus' tax _in general_. Of course, he has to make a circumstantial application of the general principle. And in this case, he did not need explicit warrant to impose a tax on the whole Roman empire on that particular occasion. Neither do ecclesiastical authorities need explicit warrant to impose on their congregations _necessary circumstantial applications_ of general principles in Scripture. For example, the Scriptures command God's people to gather for worship on the Lord's Day. They do not specify the exact location, time, duration, or number of meetings. The ecclesiastical authorities have to apply the general principles of God's word in concrete ways that do not contradict or invalidate God's word. This legitimate freedom is positively warranted by Scripture (see WCF I, 6). Just as parents are authorized (within the bounds of Scripture) to set house rules, so pastors may set "house rules," i.e., _circumstantial applications of general principle_, for which there is no explicit warrant. 

Of course, the Scriptures make clear that the only way to approach God is throught the gospel of Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Man may not devise another method. The exactness of regulations regarding the building of the temple, the role of the priests, and the offering of sacrifice point to the need to be very exact and precise in our proclamation of the gospel. If anyone alters the gospel, he is under God's curse (Gal. 1:8-9). Moreover, the Scriptures identify the activities that should be part of our public worship, viz, preaching, teaching, praise, prayer, the sacraments, giving, etc. We're not at liberty to disregard these activities. 

The Reformed community needs to realize that the simple assertion of the RPW as articulated in the Puritan confessions does not settle all disputes. In my opinion, most of those disputes, at least within the Reformed community, center on matters of the circumstantial application of God's word. One Reformed brother thinks singing anything other than the psalms is a form of idolatry. Another condemns the use of instruments as a human innovation. I recently had someone write me a long letter of concern that I had introduced human tradition into worship because I preached on our duty to honor our mother on "Mother's Day." On and on I could go. 

My point is not to suggest that we reject the principle that affirms we may only worship God in the ways he warrants. But I do question whether the Scripture provides clear support for positing two distinct principles for governing life. I realize some Reformed and Puritan pastors and theologians have and continue to argue affirmatively. But I haven't been convinced by the exegesis. Moreover, it seems to me that despite whether one takes a more traditional view or a more "novel" Framian view, he must still in the end make his case _from the Bible_ not from the practices of our forefathers. Does the Scripture warrant the replacement of a sermon with a dramatic skit. Frame thinks it may. On the basis of NT precedent, I don't agree. But it's not because I've adopted a different operating principle than Frame. _Sola Scriptura_ is the bottom line. That doesn't exclude the need for wisdom and discernment (e.g., choosing contemporary hymns that have solid lyrics and tunes that are edifying to God's people).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 17, 2008)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Gonzalez, I wonder if the answer to your question is not actually quite simple.
> ...



I believe it is that simple. It goes to what the RPW is an is not. You want to come to a Reformed board and re-define what the RPW is by using Frame as an example of another principle of worship and then complicate the discussion because the actual term is being equivocated. If we're going to discuss the RPW then we need to agree on our definitions and not be lectured that we're being simplistic because we don't share a view that allows us to simply re-define terms. Years of debate on a subject does not mean that certain things are not clear but sometimes simply reveals that some people want to take over certain terms without informing others that they're really after another idea.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 17, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Well said Ruben.
> 
> That was my point in drawing out what happens when we allow each of our free consciences to determine what is permissible in worship. Remember that the WCF is written against a backdrop where all sort of non-prescribed elements were not only introduced into worship but enforced upon the worshipers as well.



Good point, Rich. I think the _Sitz em Leben_ of the RPW is important for understanding why it was formulated. The Church of England wanted to impose upon all local congregations a certain uniformity that forced individual pastors and congregations to worship God in ways that, in the estimation of those pastors and congregations, had no warrant in Scripture. Of course, this is a two-edged sword. Just as it's possible to "add" to God's word, so it's possible to "subtract" from God's word. The pastoral leadership and congregation of my local church believes God's word warrants the use of non-inspired hymns and musical accompaniment in corporate worship. So we would not be happy if our Reformed community "enforced upon the worshipers" of our church what we deemed unwarranted strictures (exclusive psalmnody a capella) and uniformity (i.e., do it our way or you're not truly Reformed). Thankfully, most of our churches are content with agreement on the general principle of the RPW while allowing differences in its application. I have often told our congregation that the application of the RPW among various churches in various places and various cultures should produce fraternal twins, not siamese twins. 



> You won't see me arguing against the idea that God's Word regulates our worship in private but that's not precisely what the RPW is meant to govern. It seems sort of naive to imply that, by noting that God prescribes our worship in a public setting by insisting that we worship Him only in the ways commanded that He leaves us utterly free to be idolatrous in private worship. The principle, in focusing on public worship, doesn't overthrow the 1st and 2nd Commandments concerning private worship but, rather, the principle is meant to draw a more distinct line under the public worship of God.



I hope I didn't say anything that implied one is utterly free to be idolatrous in private worship. I know no one one this PB condones that. Nor do I believe Frame would condone that. What is more, I do think the Bible gives some specific instruction regarding corporate worship which it doesn't give regarding, say, housecleaning. So there we may say there is "a more distinct line" drawn with respect to the public worship of God. 



> There's a certain level of patience that can be Pastorally corrected as the free consciences of men are trained to have more sanctified consciences so that private worship is improved upon but when you're dealing with the public worship of the entire congregation I believe God has purposefully protected us all from invention and binding our consciences in such a fundamental manner that might lead astray into idolatry because it has the "sanction" of the public worship of God by our undershepherds.



I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you offer some specific illustrations or examples of what you're alluding to?



> This, I believe, is the real distinction and I'm not certain where Frame can argue there is a defect on thinking in Reformed writing on this, Bob. It sort of goes without saying that we cannot be idolatrous in our personal walk but by re-stating that as an "all of life is worship", whether Frame realizes it or not this has the pedagogical effect of flattening out the distinction between corporate and private worship.



As I pointed out above in the citation from his book, Frame does make a distinction between public and private worship. I won't deny, however, that Frame disagrees with some of the Puritans and modern Reformed writers that the line between public and private worship is not always bold and sharp. He writes, "Therefore, it is not wrong to describe the Christian meeting as, in one sense, a worship service. To say this, however, is not to say that there is a sharp distinction between what we do in the meeting and what we do outside of it. Our holiness, our priesthood, our incense-prayers, and our obedient hearing of the Holy Book are not restricted to the church meetings. The difference between worship in the broader sense and worship in the narrower sense is a difference in degree" (p. 34). 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that his view has "the pedagogical effect of flattening out the distinction between corporate and private worship." He clearly maintains the distinction. He just appears hesitant to place public worship in some kind of "wholly other" class as private worship. 

Rich, you've been very patient with me, and you may feel like I'm not getting it. Actually, I confess that I'm not as alarmed as others by Frame's theology of worship though I do disagree with some of his applications. Nevertheless, I want to assure you that in practice most on the PB list would find our worship services quite traditional and simple. By starting this post, I don't intend to encourage the kind of "almost anything goes approach" to worship found in some broad evangelical church. And I really do appreciate the zeal for God's glory and word evidenced by all the contributors of this discussion.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 17, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



Rich, I wasn't aware that anything I've said contradicts the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, which I acknowledged that I subscribe to in order to join the PB. I assumed that since John Frame was a member and teacher of the PCA his views were judged compatible with the WCF. But many on this list apparently believe Frame's approach to the RPW is incompatible with the WCF. If you don't believe we should continue this conversation, I'm content to end it here. Thanks again for your patience.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 17, 2008)

Bob,

I don't mind the discussion but there is a certain level of frustration when people shift the ground of conversation. Much of my frustration is not leveled at you, per se, but at a general movement that doesn't want to acknowledge when they've actually re-defined terms.

Whether you can read it in what you wrote or not the problem leaps out at me when Frame says that there's a distinction between public and private worship but it's not as bold as what the Reformed Church believes it is. Well, what is it then? It's that sort of mushy language that leaves the whole thing open to a variety of interpretations and, in effect, flattens out the discussion.

Whether or not you agree that it flattens it out, it is apparent that Frame does not agree with the RPW as historically defined so, whatever else he may be getting at, he can't call it the RPW. He needs to acknowledge that he doesn't hold to the RPW instead of using completely different descriptions and then calling it the RPW.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 17, 2008)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Well said Ruben.
> ...


The Church of England doesn't account for the fact that Calvin and other Reformed were consistent on this issue. One cannot merely assert that the RPW subtracts from a principle of worship simply because there is suspicion that it was defined in extremis.



> > There's a certain level of patience that can be Pastorally corrected as the free consciences of men are trained to have more sanctified consciences so that private worship is improved upon but when you're dealing with the public worship of the entire congregation I believe God has purposefully protected us all from invention and binding our consciences in such a fundamental manner that might lead astray into idolatry because it has the "sanction" of the public worship of God by our undershepherds.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Can you offer some specific illustrations or examples of what you're alluding to?


There's a general Scriptural principle that God bears patiently with those that are ignorant and going astray and that He considers our frame. Pastors, likewise, are patient and enduring with their flock.

Consequently, an Elder might run across a man with a weak conscience who is over-scrupulous in certain manners or may even need to be instructed away from certain behavior that is clearly idolatrous. Because a man in private worship with his scruples and ignorant idolatry affects only his own personal worship the consequences are not nearly as dire.

In contrast, when an entire congregation is bound by the personal scruples of a member of a congregation then the entire congregation is led into idolatry. Pastors who want to depart from those things that are clearly prescribed in the Word ought to consider this prior to being overwise and thinking that the RPW is too confining. Were they to remember the safeguard it provides they might be more circumspect about allowing things into worship. The mere fact that Frame has to think about drama, for instance, reveals that he's not trying to tread carefully but is willing to consider an argument for the introduction of an element that has no direct Scriptural warrant whatsoever. Is that worth introducing into a congregation where the entire flock now has to worship in this manner in a way God has not commanded?



> > This, I believe, is the real distinction and I'm not certain where Frame can argue there is a defect on thinking in Reformed writing on this, Bob. It sort of goes without saying that we cannot be idolatrous in our personal walk but by re-stating that as an "all of life is worship", whether Frame realizes it or not this has the pedagogical effect of flattening out the distinction between corporate and private worship.
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out above in the citation from his book, Frame does make a distinction between public and private worship. I won't deny, however, that Frame disagrees with some of the Puritans and modern Reformed writers that the line between public and private worship is not always bold and sharp. He writes, "Therefore, it is not wrong to describe the Christian meeting as, in one sense, a worship service. To say this, however, is not to say that there is a sharp distinction between what we do in the meeting and what we do outside of it. Our holiness, our priesthood, our incense-prayers, and our obedient hearing of the Holy Book are not restricted to the church meetings. The difference between worship in the broader sense and worship in the narrower sense is a difference in degree" (p. 34).


That's sort of the "obvious" thing I'm talking about. There's nothing new about the idea that our personal worship is not ungoverned so why does he have to write this as if nobody recognizes this. Again, what does he believe the Reformed teach in contradiction to this notion: that we may do whatever we want as persons or that we need not be holy?

Sorry if I sniped at you earlier but, as much as I like Frame personally, I think his basic approach to Systematics is novel and it infects many areas of his theology.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 17, 2008)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I wasn't trying to oversimplify the whole debate. Years of debate within the Reformed community obviously demonstrate that the answer to the question (or at least all the issues flowing from the question) is not that simple.
> 
> The light of nature and biblical principle indicates that government officials, like the laborer, are worthy of their hire (Deut. 25:4; Mark 12:16-17; Rom. 13:7; 1 Tim. 5:18). So the Scriptures do provide warrant for Caesar Augustus' tax _in general_. Of course, he has to make a circumstantial application of the general principle. And in this case, he did not need explicit warrant to impose a tax on the whole Roman empire on that particular occasion. Neither do ecclesiastical authorities need explicit warrant to impose on their congregations _necessary circumstantial applications_ of general principles in Scripture. For example, the Scriptures command God's people to gather for worship on the Lord's Day. They do not specify the exact location, time, duration, or number of meetings. The ecclesiastical authorities have to apply the general principles of God's word in concrete ways that do not contradict or invalidate God's word. This legitimate freedom is positively warranted by Scripture (see WCF I, 6). Just as parents are authorized (within the bounds of Scripture) to set house rules, so pastors may set "house rules," i.e., _circumstantial applications of general principle_, for which there is no explicit warrant.
> 
> ...



Dr. Gonzalez, perhaps I am the one over simplifying on this matter, but it seems to me that the distinction between elements and circumstances adequately addresses your points above, and is well covered in the confessional language. Matters of circumstance are not questions of conscience, but of convenience; so in fixing a time and a place for stated worship, the church has not bound a conscience, but merely indicated what was determined to be convenient.

The fact that there are disagreements among adherents to the RPW as to what Scripture warrants is quite a separate issue from the discussion whether we need express warrant for how to worship God or not.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 17, 2008)

*Gillespie on Elements and Circumstances*

Uploading and attaching a PDF with this post. It contains an extract from George Gillespie's sermon before the House of Commons at the monthly fast, March 27, 1644. Gillespie was one of the youngest commissioners to the Westminster Assembly and probably the sole reason he obtained a seat as a Commissioner from the Church of Scotland was on the basis of his book, _A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_. The extract concerns the distinction of circumstances and elements (or sacred parts) in worship.

The extract is from a work currently underway for Naphtali Press which will have the nine sermons of the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly preached before one or both of the English Houses of Parliament. The Scots Commissioners were Alexander Henderson, Robert Baillie, George Gillespie, and Samuel Rutherford. These were first published in the old Naphtali Press Anthology of Presbyterian & Reformed Literature in 1988. The text has been redone and improved (significantly; 1988 I was a newbie to editing and publishing).


----------



## py3ak (Sep 17, 2008)

[Off Topic]
Chris, will that contain all the same material as the old anthology?
[/Off Topic]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 18, 2008)

It will contain only the Scottish Sermons; there was quite a bit more in the old Anthologies but those sermons made up a good portion of the first four issues of 1988 which made up volume 1. 1988 is a long time and a many number of computers and OS ago; and while a good portion of the texts failed to make the journey, the Scots Sermons did; but they were in need of a significant amount of reworking; learned me a thing or two in 20 years. And while most will not be interested or even notice, I wanted to do a book in a classic layout (something about Fibonacci numbers).


py3ak said:


> [Off Topic]
> Chris, will that contain all the same material as the old anthology?
> [/Off Topic]


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 18, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> (something about Fibonacci numbers).



Now you have my attention!


----------



## py3ak (Sep 18, 2008)

Thanks for the information. That sounds like quite a valuable volume to have.


----------

