# Regulative Principle help



## Edm (Nov 29, 2015)

I am new to these terms so forgive me. I also am asking earnestly and am not being sarcastic. 

I earlier today read a few threads dealing with this and of course went to google to understand. I am of the opinion that services belong to God. As patriotic as I am for example, I don't think veterans should stand and be recognized in the service. I see that that would fit the bill as Regulative Principle. However, what are the criteria? What about using projectors or other visuals? These were not prescribed by God. Reciting creeds? Again, this ( as a Principle ) is new to me. I'm not trying to be silly, just learn from a better resource than Wikipedia. Can someone help me here?


----------



## Ryan J. Ross (Nov 29, 2015)

RPW briefly is positive command, approved example, and deduced by good and necessary consequence. There are elements and circumstances. Circumstances must be ordered by Christian prudence and the light of nature, according to the general rules of the Word.


----------



## Justified (Nov 29, 2015)

The RPW states that we can only institute those elements in worship which God has explicitly laid down in Scripture. There is an important distinction, which is pertinent to some of the questions you asked, between _elements_ and _circumstances_ of worship: elements have to do with that which is directly concerned with the worship of God (Word and prayer), while circumstances are, well, circumstances (e.g., where you worship, when you worship, whether you use pews or not, etc.).

As to projectors, I guess it depends. I'd in almost every instance say no. The emphasis in the service is on the _preached_ word. Visuals only serve to distract the hearer from God coming down and speaking to us through the preacher. The only God appointed visuals are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Let us be content with these pictures, by which God signifies and seals his grace to us in Christ.

As to reciting creeds, prohibited (some would disagree with me). However, if the creed is a particular part of Scripture, then it is permitted. Remember that the model of the worship of God is that God speaks to us with his Word and we respond with his Word.

I hope that was helpful. If you need me to clarify something, or flesh something out more, feel free to ask.


----------



## bobtheman (Nov 29, 2015)

Wow - I am glad this thread was posted. I've never heard of the regulative principle. 

The projector thing seems a bit weird to me. With people having different styles of learning, a preacher using some form of a screen for 'visuals' is an obvious way to complement a message. 

Another example I would give that would contradict your statement ... I've been to multiple church's where the preacher himself was exclusively on the screen (not there in person). 

I'm assuming the regulative principle would also effect the songs used during the services?

A total abjection to honoring veterans in church ? What if you only ask the congregation to stand and say a prayer for all the present veterans and thank God for their services?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2015)

Perhaps this will help a bit:



> The Belgic Confession of Faith links the Reformed churches' belief in the sufficiency of the Word of God to the area of worship when it says, "For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an Apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the Apostle Paul saith" (Art. 7). "The whole manner of worship which God requires" is found in the Scriptures. This means we come to worship on God's terms, not ours; that we do in worship what God wants, not what we want.
> 
> Continuing in a later section, the Belgic Confession says:"... we reject all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever. Therefore we admit only of that which tends to nourish and preserve concord and unity, and to keep all men in obedience to God" (Art. 32). The Word, then, contains all we need in order to know how to worship; therefore, we reject all human-made laws or elements of worship. This is most memorably and succinctly stated in the Heidelberg Catechism, which says: What does God require in the second commandment? That we in no wise make any image of God, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded us in his Word. (Q&A 96) Over the centuries, Reformed churches came to call these ideas the "Regulative Principle of Worship."
> 
> The Regulative Principle of Worship holds that we worship God in the manner He has commanded us in His Word. As the Westminster Confession says, "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture" (21.1). In the Reformed churches, we hold to this principle because we take the Bible seriously. It is God's Word to us for our faith, as well as for our worship and Christian life. Scripture alone is our ultimate rule, and it sufficiently gives us "all things that pertain to life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3). So it alone governs the substance of what we do in worship.



Daniel R. Hyde. _Welcome to a Reformed Church: A Guide for Pilgrims_ (Kindle Locations 1199-1213).


----------



## Edm (Nov 29, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> Wow - I am glad this thread was posted. I've never heard of the regulative principle.
> 
> The projector thing seems a bit weird to me. With people having different styles of learning, a preacher using some form of a screen for 'visuals' is an obvious way to complement a message.
> 
> ...



I am a veteran. I am glad that all who served did serve. I just feel that in the service we are there to honor God. Service to country is great, but honoring veterans is honoring people, not God.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 30, 2015)

http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/25-What-is-the-Regulative-Principle-of-Worship
This principle is often misunderstood and attacked (even before the phrase regulative principle of worship gained currency last century). See also, http://www.cpjournal.com/articles-2...frank-j-smith-phd-dd-and-david-c-lachman-phd/


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 30, 2015)

Also,
http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/22-Whence-the-Regulative-Principle-of-Worship-1
http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/23-Whence-the-Regulative-Principle-of-Worship-2


----------



## Cymro (Nov 30, 2015)

The diversity of worship forms and various modern innovations,serves to prove that if the worship of God is left to the uncontrolled imagination of man, then anything goes. God has purposed everything and the adoration of His august, holy and transcendent Being is included. Left to the predilections of even saved sinners, then there would be absolutely no concord, unity or sensible sanctified approach to our God of glory. Surely if the Old Testament worship was divinely directed in every detail, who would would take it upon himself to institute a free for all in the New Testament? The Lord is high and lifted up,and shall creatures of His footstool substitute their preferences and opinions for His command and desire? Song also is directed by the One who is "the sweet psalmist of Israel."


----------



## bobtheman (Nov 30, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Also,
> http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/22-Whence-the-Regulative-Principle-of-Worship-1
> http://www.puritanboard.com/entry.php/23-Whence-the-Regulative-Principle-of-Worship-2



"Dr. Cunningham writes of those who simply find such a principle repugnant:" ... 


I haven't read any clarification as to how far this principle goes. Why isn't some of the visual and auditory aspects considered a form of communication that aids in preaching, not hinders?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 30, 2015)

Justified said:


> As to reciting creeds,



When should creed be recited (or is it even allowed according to you)? If we can't recite creeds during corporate worship I'm guessing it would also be prohibited during family worship? So if the Westminster divines included the Westminster Confession in their standards what was the intended use for it? Only during some type of school setting when not officially worshipping?

Also would it mean we should not recite confessions of any sort during a Baptism service, what about membership or elder ordination? Should only preaching and praying be allowed to be spoken in a worship service outside of the canon?

PS: These are not rhetorical questions, I have been trying to reconcile these things for a while and my understanding so far do not permit me to be dogmatic, I'm trying to understand.


----------



## bobtheman (Nov 30, 2015)

If the projector or television screen is banned because it's not implicitly permitted, is the podium, microphone, and electric guitar banned also?


----------



## kodos (Nov 30, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> When should creed be recited (or is it even allowed according to you)? If we can't recite creeds during corporate worship I'm guessing it would also be prohibited during family worship? So if the Westminster divines included the Westminster Confession in their standards what was the intended use for it? Only during some type of school setting when not officially worshipping?
> 
> Also would it mean we should not recite confessions of any sort during a Baptism service, what about membership or elder ordination? Should only preaching and praying be allowed to be spoken in a worship service outside of the canon?
> 
> PS: These are not rhetorical questions, I have been trying to reconcile these things for a while and my understanding so far do not permit me to be dogmatic, I'm trying to understand.



The elements of Worship are listed in the Westminster Confession of Faith itself. They are the following (WCF 21.5):


> V. The *reading of the scriptures* with godly fear; *the sound preaching*, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence: *singing of psalms with grace in the heart*; as also the *due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ*; are all parts of the *ordinary religious worship* of God: besides *religious oaths and vows*, *solemn fastings*, and *thanksgivings upon special occasions*, which are, in their *several times and seasons*, to be used in a holy and religious manner.



To break this down, you have two categories. The first is part of the ordinary worship of God - that is, to be done ordinarily in worship:
1. Reading of the Scriptures
2. Preaching of the Word
3. Singing of Psalms
4. Administration of the Sacraments

Then there are those things which are not done ordinarily, but have their time and place as called for:
1. Religious Oaths and Vows (taken before God in worship: membership vows, ordination vows, etc.)
2. Fasting
3. Thanksgivings

The Westminster Confession therefore excludes itself from the ordinary worship of God insofar as it is to be recited by the congregation. It can still be used as something edifying by the Minister when preaching to reference, and undoubtedly it has been done so many a time (even in our own church).

But to force the people to recite it can be a thing of conscience for the congregation. I'll give two examples.

1. If a Baptist was part of the congregation (visiting, or perhaps an adherent, but not a member) asking them to recite WCF 28.4 (infant baptism) would be a violation of their conscience. 
2. Many a person has an issue with the Apostle's Creed's wording of "He (Jesus) descended to hell". It so pricked the conscience of a member of a church we used to be a member of that this particular person refused to say it. It bothered them, even after hearing the explanation for that phrase. 

If we stuck to the Scriptures, there would be no issues of conscience. No one at our church has ever accused the session of putting something into the worship order that violated their conscience because everything that we ask the congregation to say is found in the Word of God.


----------



## Logan (Nov 30, 2015)

Just this last week my family was reading in 1 Chronicles and it made mention of the account of Uzza, trying to steady the Ark of the Covenant as it was being transported. What follows was interesting because it shows the Principle in action:



1 Chronicles 15:1 said:


> And David made him houses in the city of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched for it a tent. Then David said, None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the LORD chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him for ever.
> 
> And David called for Zadok and Abiathar the priests, and for the Levites, for Uriel, Asaiah, and Joel, Shemaiah, and Eliel, and Amminadab, and said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it. For because ye did it not at the first, the LORD our God made a breach upon us, for that *we sought him not after the due order.* [ESV: "according to the rule"]
> 
> So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD God of Israel. And the children of the Levites bare the ark of God upon their shoulders with the staves thereon,* as Moses commanded according to the word of the LORD.*



David knew what the breach was. Similarly with Nadab and Abihu. Their sin wasn't that they disobeyed a commandment, their sin was that they offered fire to the Lord _which he had *not* commanded them._ (Leviticus 10:1)

It's not so much about what is forbidden, it's about what is specifically sanctioned by God. We are not to add to his worship. Now when it comes to circumstances, like whether we use chairs or sit on the floors, use hymnals or project words on the wall, use microphones or speak loudly, those are left to good Christian discretion. But replacing preaching with watching projected movies, introducing a play, skit, interpretive dancing, whatever, i.e., making an element of worship, that is not allowed by God himself.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 30, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> If the projector or television screen is banned because it's not implicitly permitted, is the podium, microphone, and electric guitar banned also?



In this question there are mixed issues. 

Projectors, television screens, and microphones might fall under _circumstances_ of worship, not elements of worship.

The difference is that elements of worship are what God commanded. That is fundamental to the regulative principle. It includes Scripture reading, significant exposition of Scripture, prayers, congregational singing, the sacraments, etc.

Circumstances are how you accomplish this. Maybe a microphone is needed. Maybe the pastor is projected on a television screen into another room where people who (for some reason) can't sit in the congregation for the moment, and maybe the projector is used to present the lyrics to a psalm to be sung. These fall into the same category as questions about how high the pulpit should be, whether there is enough lighting in the room, whether the room is air conditioned or heated. Circumstances focus on accomplishing as well as possible the elements.

The bass guitar question falls more into the category of regulative principle in that there is some disagreement about the use of instruments in public worship. Some consider them to be circumstantial (as in teaching or helping with a melody), and others consider them to fall more along the lines of breaching the regulative principle.

But in general, under the regulative principle, the focus is on the basic elements noted above. That means you don't introduce additional things. So, the regulative principle would not allow plays or skits, arias or oratorios, televised movies or dramatizations, and it would not generally allow for "mood music".

My personal preference would not include projectors or television for anything, merely because I think it has potential to distract and fall into dramatizations, etc. For example, a Powerpoint presentation with animated graphics bothers me a lot.

But I'm not here to set the rules. It is enough to understand the basic idea. The regulative principle keeps the focus on Scripture, preaching, prayer, congregational singing, and the sacraments, all as ordered by Scripture. That certainly ought to be enough for worship in decent and good order.

Here is a Baptist presentation of the regulative principle, taken from ARBCA's position paper:

http://www.arbca.com/regulative-principle


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 30, 2015)

kodos said:


> The elements of Worship are listed in the Westminster Confession of Faith itself. They are the following (WCF 21.5):
> V. The reading of the scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence: singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner.
> To break this down, you have two categories. The first is part of the ordinary worship of God - that is, to be done ordinarily in worship:
> 1. Reading of the Scriptures
> ...



Thanks, that makes sense




kodos said:


> The Westminster Confession therefore excludes itself from the ordinary worship of God insofar as it is to be recited by the congregation. It can still be used as something edifying by the Minister when preaching to reference, and undoubtedly it has been done so many a time (even in our own church).



What I meant to say was the Westminster Creed, what is the purpose of a creed if not to be recited, and if it's not to be recited during worship, when is a appropriate time to recite it and to what end?




kodos said:


> But to force the people to recite it can be a thing of conscience for the congregation. I'll give two examples.
> 
> 1. If a Baptist was part of the congregation (visiting, or perhaps an adherent, but not a member) asking them to recite WCF 28.4 (infant baptism) would be a violation of their conscience.
> 2. Many a person has an issue with the Apostle's Creed's wording of "He (Jesus) descended to hell". It so pricked the conscience of a member of a church we used to be a member of that this particular person refused to say it. It bothered them, even after hearing the explanation for that phrase.



I see your point to an extent, but the main purpose of corporate worship is to glorify God and edify the saints, not to evangelize the lost. What about the Lord's Prayer it's in the canon but reciting it could be offensive to an unbeliever. What about reciting scripture speaking against homosexuality? If the creed in question is verbalizing scriptural doctrines I don't think we should refrain to recite them in the name of political correctness.

What about the offence singing Psalms could cause to visitors?


----------



## kodos (Nov 30, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I see your point to an extent, but the main purpose of corporate worship is to glorify God and edify the saints, not to evangelize the lost. What about the Lord's Prayer it's in the canon but reciting it could be offensive to an unbeliever. What about reciting scripture speaking against homosexuality? If the creed in question is verbalizing scriptural doctrines I don't think we should refrain to recite them in the name of political correctness.
> 
> What about the offence singing Psalms could cause to visitors?



I'm not entirely sure where you understood me to be talking about the lost, or that evangelism was the main thrust of what I had mentioned. Please let me know how you came to that conclusion, because that was not my intent.

As for offense, my point was not to eliminate offense. There are enough things that cause offense in the gospel message, that we limit ourselves to those things, and do not allow ourselves to cause offense through those things which are not instituted directly by God.

If a particular member wants to take a lawful oath and vow to uphold the Westminster Confession of Faith, then they can do so in religious worship - the Confession itself allows for that possibility.

But to force people to recite a creed in unison in congregational worship has no place in the Confession of Faith itself, nor do we see such a thing in the Word of God. If you do see that as a practice in God's Word, please let me know. But I do not know of such a thing, and so my understanding of the Regulative Principle of Worship does not allow for it.

I do find however that people are not very careful with issues of conscience. "Liberty for me, but not for you" is the order of the day. True liberty is found in restraining ourselves from instituting anything that is not found in God's Word. First, it honors God to only give Him what He asks for. Second, it honors our neighbor when we respect matters of conscience. And so, if we held to the RPW, we would be cherishing and upholding the Greatest Commandment - Love of God, the next one - Love of Neighbor.



> WCF XX.II. 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, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.


----------



## Edward (Nov 30, 2015)

kodos said:


> To break this down, you have two categories. The first is part of the ordinary worship of God - that is, to be done ordinarily in worship:
> 1. Reading of the Scriptures
> 2. Preaching of the Word
> 3. Singing of Psalms
> ...



Your list omits a key element set out in Chapter 21.

"Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship ... Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the Gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed: but God is to be worshipped everywhere, in spirit and truth; as, in private families daily, and in secret, each one by himself; so, more solemnly *in the public assemblies*"


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 30, 2015)

kodos said:


> I'm not entirely sure where you understood me to be talking about the lost, or that evangelism was the main thrust of what I had mentioned. Please let me know how you came to that conclusion, because that was not my intent.



You didn't and I wasn't trying to say you did sorry if it appeared that way, I just took the logical conclusion from your reference to not causing offence to a believer who had different convictions than ours. My point was only to point out that we shouldn't omit sound doctrine in order to not cause offence. If this apply to a believer with different convictions the same should apply to unbelievers. This would not be a good reason, according me at least, to refrain from doing something.




kodos said:


> As for offense, my point was not to eliminate offense. There are enough things that cause offense in the gospel message, that we limit ourselves to those things, and do not allow ourselves to cause offense through those things which are not instituted directly by God.



I agree and this is where I'm trying to understand what is allowed or not according to what is taught in scriptures, not adding more than is allowed, but also not restricting things that are.




kodos said:


> If a particular member wants to take a lawful oath and vow to uphold the Westminster Confession of Faith, then they can do so in religious worship - the Confession itself allows for that possibility.



I understand this now, your first post clarified the difference between an oath and a creed thanks.




kodos said:


> But to force people to recite a creed in unison in congregational worship has no place in the Confession of Faith itself, nor do we see such a thing in the Word of God. If you do see that as a practice in God's Word, please let me know. But I do not know of such a thing, and so my understanding of the Regulative Principle of Worship does not allow for it.



See this is where I'm trying to understand the different interpretations of the RPW, I can appreciate not wanting to force people to recite things that can violate their conscience, but truth often offend. If truth is offensive than we should not accommodate that offence by refraining from reciting it. If we apply this reasoning for creeds would we not be forced to apply the same principles for psalms singing? If we go to this extent would it not mean the congregants shouldn't recite anything during the worship service including psalms, the Lords Prayer etc?


----------



## kodos (Nov 30, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> See this is where I'm trying to understand the different interpretations of the RPW, I can appreciate not wanting to force people to recite things that can violate their conscience, but truth often offend. If truth is offensive than we should not accommodate that offence by refraining from reciting it. If we apply this reasoning for creeds would we not be forced to apply the same principles for psalms singing? If we go to this extent would it not mean the congregants shouldn't recite anything during the worship service including psalms, the Lords Prayer etc?



I think there are two principles here. The principle that undergirds the Regulative Principle of Worship - is that one has to find where an element of worship has been instituted by our Lord according to the Word of God.

The second is Liberty of Conscience. The two work hand-in-hand. To undermine the RPW is to demolish Liberty of Conscience as a direct result. But we do not start with offense, and work our way to the RPW. We start with the RPW and only by applying it do we uphold true Liberty of Conscience. Offend away! The Word of God is offensive - we are told that it is.

But let's not create issues of conscience through the addition of extra-biblical things in the worship of God.

I hope that helps with any misunderstanding. Once more the principle that we must uphold is that we don't add anything to the worship of God that He hasn't instituted.

So, in order to add creeds to the worship of God, we must find out where they were instituted. We cannot go around that principle no matter how helpful we might find something we wish to add to the worship of God. We should be fearful before doing so, due to the many times God has impressed upon us in the following fashion: "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it."

We should not be wiser than God. That's the root of the principle, and where we start with the RPW. Hope that clears up any confusion I might have introduced into the discussion.


----------



## Logan (Nov 30, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> If we apply this reasoning for creeds would we not be forced to apply the same principles for psalms singing?



The difference is that psalm singing was commanded by God. Reciting creeds is not, arguably.

We're just trying our best to not introduce elements into public worship that God has not himself commanded.


----------



## Toasty (Nov 30, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> If the projector or television screen is banned because it's not implicitly permitted, is the podium, microphone, and electric guitar banned also?



If people cannot hear the preacher without a microphone, then a microphone should be used.

It is possible for the congregation to read the lyrics of the songs being sung without the use of a projector or television screen. The lyrics can be put together in a book.

Some churches think that musical instruments are commanded in worship.


----------



## Toasty (Nov 30, 2015)

If the elders want to discuss things like the budget with the congregation, then that should be done after the worship service.


----------



## MW (Nov 30, 2015)

Logan said:


> The difference is that psalm singing was commanded by God. Reciting creeds is not, arguably.



This is an immense difference, and goes right to the heart of the regulative principle.

On a practical level, reciting a creed introduces a form of uninspired words into the corporate worship and binds the people to that form, in much the same way as uninspired hymns will do. This uninspired "form" will then exercise a "formative" influence on the congregation. To the degree this influence is permitted will be the degree to which human authority and activity takes the place of divine authority and activity.


----------



## Justified (Nov 30, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> > As to reciting creeds,
> ...


I think Rom adequately surveyed my position. My only disagreement would be that I believe other _scriptural_ (i.e., songs from the word of God) are permitted.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 30, 2015)

Logan said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > If we apply this reasoning for creeds would we not be forced to apply the same principles for psalms singing?
> ...



And I appreciate this, it just that I never thought that confessing scriptural truth, even if it's not a direct quote from the canon, would be an abomination in God's eyes. I agree that we should not worship God in ways he has not ordained. I'm still trying to figure out what is the purpose of creeds, to my knowledge the Westminster Divines did not reject all creeds, what is their purposes? What would be a lawful use of creed if any, and if the Westminster Divines did not approve of creeds where did the Westminster creed come from?


----------



## Logan (Nov 30, 2015)

I appreciate where you are coming from. Perhaps it's helpful to ask whether a confession has use outside worship. For the WCF itself, its introduction indicates that it was for reasons other than public worship that it was created. Confessions are also absent from the Directory for Public Worship.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 30, 2015)

VictorBravo said:


> would not allow plays or skits



Even a critic of the RPW like John Frame admitted that skits are almost always a bad idea. You have to be borderline professional if they are going to be anything other than a huge distraction. And then, few people can budget a professional drama team.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 30, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> What I meant to say was the Westminster Creed, *what is the purpose of a creed if not to be recited*, and if it's not to be recited during worship, when is a appropriate time to recite it and to what end?



The purpose of a creed is to provide the boundaries of the doctrine taught in a church. The officers of the church take a vow to uphold a creed, and are not to advocate anything that contradicts it.

Secondarily, creeds can be excellent teaching tools for sound doctrine. But their primary purpose is to provide a clear statement of the doctrine of the church (that is to say, their official understanding of the Scriptures on key points).


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 30, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Also,
> ...



Reduced to the most elemental constituent parts, there are two approaches to worship: what is not commanded is condemned (regulative principle) vs. what is not prohibited is permitted (normative principle).

Zwingli represents the first view (the RPW) and Luther the second. Since this is a REFORMED theological forum, it seems a little unusual to challenge the RPW. While free discussion of topics often enhances understanding, there are real limits as to what may be advocated in these threads.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 1, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> The purpose of a creed is to provide the boundaries of the doctrine taught in a church.



Would this not be the purpose of our confession of faith (WCF) instead which is much more detailed than the Westminster creed. To my knowledge, creeds are designed to be recited, that is why they are short and concise. Plus they include (I believe ..... ) before the doctrine to be confessed which seem to be designed to be recited.


----------



## Logan (Dec 1, 2015)

Maybe I'm being dense, but could you clarify what you mean by "Westminster Creed" as distinct from "Westminster Confession"? You indicate it is short, could you post a link to it?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 1, 2015)

This is the Westminister Creed, although I don't know if can be considered to be part of the Westminster Standard, it does confess the truth taught in our Standards almost word for word. It might be something that was created later on. And I guess it comes back to my question, did the Westminster Divines approve of creeds?




> Westminster Creed
> 
> I believe man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever;
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 1, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > What I meant to say was the Westminster Creed, *what is the purpose of a creed if not to be recited*, and if it's not to be recited during worship, when is a appropriate time to recite it and to what end?
> ...



I think that the teaching about (and any related memorization of and subsequent reciting of) catechisms, confessions, creeds would be done in a teaching time apart from the times of public worship- such as on Wednesday nights, SS, in the homes, etc. The purpose would be to teach families and individuals the tenets of the faith in a concise form; sort of like a concise systematic theology one can keep in the memory, to keep one between the rails, doctrinally (I'm sure you already know what they're for!)  But those good things are not the word of God, so they wouldn't be recited by the congregation in public worship, where we should be able to 'relax' and know in good conscience that what we're being asked to sing or pray or confess is the unadulterated, without error, word of God.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 1, 2015)

The 'Westminster Creed' appears to be a fairly recent compilation out of the shorter catechism. I have not been able to determine who produced it or why. But as far as the Westminster Assembly, they opposed the recitation of creeds in public worship.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 1, 2015)

I was as confused as Logan on this. "Westminster Creed?" There is very little reference to it anywhere, and it certainly is not part of the Westminster Standards. 

But then I found it in the CREC 2011 Constitution on page 24, under Article X. Reformed Evangelical Confessions CREEDAL STATEMENTS
(THE REFORMED EVANGELICAL CONFESSION).

http://crechurches.org/documents/governance/CREC_Constitution_2011.pdf

It is described as "A modern selection from the 17th century Shorter Catechism." I cannot find who did the selecting.

For those who don't know, CREC is not considered by us to be a reformed denomination--many of the CREC churches are involved in the so-called "federal vision" movement.


----------



## Logan (Dec 1, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> This is the Westminister Creed, although I don't know if can be considered to be part of the Westminster Standard, it does confess the truth taught in our Standards almost word for word. It might be something that was created later on. And I guess it comes back to my question, did the Westminster Divines approve of creeds?



Thanks for posting, I'm completely unfamiliar with this, and the best I can find to its history are places that say it is "A modern selection from the 17th century Shorter Catechism". It was definitely not created by the Westminster Divines, I'd like to find out more about this though.

To answer your question, the answer is no, the Westminster Divines did not approve of creeds in public worship, though they may have approved of creeds in general. Notice they reference say, the Apostle's Creed, but then see the conspicuous absence of creeds as part of the worship service from both the chapter in the Confession and from the Directory for Publick Worship.


----------



## timfost (Dec 1, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > The purpose of a creed is to provide the boundaries of the doctrine taught in a church.
> ...



My church weekly recites from the Heidelberg Catechism (responsive reading). We also song both Psalms _and_ hymns. My church believes these things are both helpful and permitted.

I'm not trying to contradict those who would disagree with these practices, but only to demonstrate that there is great diversity in how the mandates of the RPW are derived from scripture and interpreted. 

I think the key word is _principle_. We should be careful not to dogmatically employ a "one-size-fits-all" mentality, though a discussion is always helpful.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 1, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The 'Westminster Creed' appears to be a fairly recent compilation out of the shorter catechism. I have not been able to determine who produced it or why. But as far as the Westminster Assembly, they opposed the recitation of creeds in public worship.



Would they approve it for family worship?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 1, 2015)

Thanks for the replies it does clarify things


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 1, 2015)

The assembly did not produce any directory for family worship and offhand I don't know if they addressed that specifically, but my guess would be that they would not as far as a part of worship. The directory for family worship produced by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647 and often published in the full set of Scottish 'Westminster' Standards, nowhere mentions using the creed in worship. Cf. http://files.puritanboard.com/confessions/directoryforfamilyworship.htm


Fogetaboutit said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > The 'Westminster Creed' appears to be a fairly recent compilation out of the shorter catechism. I have not been able to determine who produced it or why. But as far as the Westminster Assembly, they opposed the recitation of creeds in public worship.
> ...


----------



## Logan (Dec 1, 2015)

On the other hand, family worship is far less "regulated" than public worship, and things like catechizing or family prayer take place there that wouldn't in public. That being said, it would seem strange to me to have my family recite a "creed" regularly together, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 1, 2015)

Logan said:


> On the other hand, family worship is far less "regulated" than public worship, and things like catechizing or family prayer take place there that wouldn't in public. That being said, it would seem strange to me to have my family recite a "creed" regularly together, but maybe that's just me.



This is why I was asking, I usually don't have time to catechize my children and do family worship on 2 separate occasion each day since they are young and go to bed early and I work all day, therefore sometimes I incorporate creeds to be recited, or questions from the catechisms and thought it was helpful for memorization and learning doctrines.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 1, 2015)

Logan said:


> That being said, it would seem strange to me to have my family recite a "creed" regularly together



Maybe it's because I was raised as a Roman Catholic that this doesn't seem as strange to me.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 1, 2015)

bobtheman said:


> Why isn't some of the visual and auditory aspects considered a form of communication that aids in preaching, not hinders?



Richard, in case you couldn't already tell, there is wide variation even among more conservative Reformed folk (and the PuritanBoard tends to be strongly conservative) as to how to apply the principle. I personally see no reason why printed words on a paper page would be allowable while projected words would not. To me, that thinking reflects a fear of new technologies stealing the limelight from the simple ministry of the Word. This may be a valid concern that's similar to the concern behind the regulative principle, but it's not exactly the same thing.

Personally, I have no problem either with a preacher using some other visuals in addition to printed words to help in his communication—perhaps a map or other info-imparting illustration. I do realize there's a long history of the church misusing visuals, and this might cause us to exercise great care. But I am one of those who don't see it as adding a non-commanded element to worship. I don't see it as a "element" at all.

The distinction between "elements" of worship (_what_ we should be doing—singing, preaching, praying, etc.) and "circumstances" of worship (_how_ we go about it) is vital to the discussion. The do-only-what's-commanded rule applies just to the elements. Yet it can be difficult to draw the line between elements and circumstances. Add to that the fact that it's hard to say sometimes how direct a scriptural command must be to count as a command, and you get a wide range of practice even among believers who aim to follow the principle. Add to that our sinful proclivity to find excuses to do whatever we want, or to tell others they must do it exactly the way we think is wisest, and you get the current situation.


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2015)

timfost said:


> My church believes these things are both helpful and permitted.



The idea of "permitted" worship seems to me to be operating on some principle beside that which is "regulative." If it is merely permitted, it might be left undone; and if it can be left undone, it is obviously not demanded as a matter of regulation. Those who operate under the idea that certain practices are "permitted" are effectively functioning under an "advisory" principle.


----------

