# I wish to learn. Teach me a bit about the RPW.



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

I am an Anglican so I am in a creedal Church. Yesterday I kept seeing RPW floating about. For those willing, I would learn more on them how and when they come into play, which reformed bodies use them. How and if they define parameters within say, Presbyterian worship. (I could probably Google a bit, but hey I might just get more confused, I have known myself 36 years so I don't trust myself Would love input! Grace and Peace


----------



## Robin (Feb 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> I am an Anglican so I am in a creedal Church. Yesterday I kept seeing RPW floating about. For those willing, I would learn more on them how and when they come into play, which reformed bodies use them. How and if they define parameters within say, Presbyterian worship. (I could probably Google a bit, but hey I might just get more confused, I have known myself 36 years so I don't trust myself Would love input! Grace and Peace




Max, a great first start to understand Covenant Theology is by reading Michael Horton's book: "God of Promise." Another is to read the Heidelberg Catechism - which summarizes what the Bible teaches about the Reformed categories: guilt - grace - gratitude.

Mike's book is (I think) the clearest summary of what it means to be Reformed, Biblically. The Heidelberg teaches via one Lord's Day a week the progression of the Christian's situation of being 1. being guilty in sin 2. the grace of God that saves him 3. the true gratitude that springs from the redeemed heart. The HC is a summary of the Bible's teachings and has Scripture references.

Try to avoid the denominational issues, at first. Get the Reformed categories clear.

God Bless!

Robin


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 22, 2007)

Here is some introductory material from the first two issues of _The Confessional Presbyterian _journal. I'm having problems uploading as everything always exceeds the forum quota. 
PDFs below. By the journals at the link above.

Introduction to "The Regulative Principle of Worship:Sixty Years in Reformed Literature Part One (1946–1999)"
http://www.cpjournal.com/RPW.pdf

Editor's Introduction, "Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore" CPJ 1 (2005)
http://www.cpjournal.com/RPW2.pdf


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

Robin said:


> Max, a great first start to understand Covenant Theology is by reading Michael Horton's book: "God of Promise." Another is to read the Heidelberg Catechism - which summarizes what the Bible teaches about the Reformed categories: guilt - grace - gratitude.
> 
> Mike's book is (I think) the clearest summary of what it means to be Reformed, Biblically. The Heidelberg teaches via one Lord's Day a week the progression of the Christian's situation of being 1. being guilty in sin 2. the grace of God that saves him 3. the true gratitude that springs from the redeemed heart. The HC is a summary of the Bible's teachings and has Scripture references.
> 
> ...


Thank you, I really like the Heidelberg, you know some Prayer Books contain it going back to when William and Mary set up shop in London Town.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 22, 2007)

The Regulative Principle of Worship is defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21:



> 1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.a *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.b*
> 
> a. Josh 24:14; Psa 18:3; 31:23; 62:8; 119:68; Jer 10:7; Mark 12:33; Acts 17:24; Rom 1:20; 10:12. • *b. Exod 20:4-6; Deut 4:15-20; 12:32; Mat 4:9-10; 15:9; Acts 17:25; Col 2:23.*



The Regulative Principle of Worship by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

The Puritan Principle of Worship by Dr. William Young

Principles of Worship

Regulative Principle of Worship:



> The regulative principle of worship is a 20th century term used for a historical Calvinist teaching on how the second commandment and the Bible orders public worship. The substance of the doctrine regarding worship is that only those elements that are instituted or appointed by command or example in the Bible are permissible in worship, or in other words, that God institutes in the Scriptures everything he requires for worship in the Church and that everything else is prohibited. The term "regulative principle" is less frequently broadened to apply to other areas such as church government (Thornwell, 1841-2), but in this sense it becomes synonymous with the principle of sola scriptura.
> 
> The regulative principle is often contrasted with the normative principle of worship which teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church. In short, there must be agreement with the general practice of the Church and no prohibition in Scripture for whatever is done in worship.
> 
> The normative principle of worship is the generally accepted approach to worship practiced by the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists. The regulative principle of worship is generally practiced by the conservative Reformed churches, Restoration Movement, and in other conservative Protestant denominations, and it finds expression in confessional documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, and the London Baptist Confession of Faith.



List Books on RPW


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> The Regulative Principle of Worship is defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 21:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What should be the view of those of us who are for all practical purposes Calvinist toward the RPW. Chuckle, hard one I just would like an opinion. Pax


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 22, 2007)

Since the majority of Calvinists are in the Presbyerian and Dutch Reformed Churches, I would say that the view given in Andrew's quote on the RPW is the view Calvinists have. 

Note that the quote mentions the "normative" principle and it is practiced by the Anglican Church. Is the Reformed Episcopal Church tied to this principle?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> What should be the view of those of us who are for all practical purposes Calvinist toward the RPW. Chuckle, hard one I just would like an opinion. Pax




The Regulative Principle is grounded in the fact that God alone is Lord of the Conscience. This has implications in our worship. Nothing can be imposed or allowed in worship which cannot be clearly based upon God's Word. To impose something upon the conscience of a believer in worship which the Scriptures do not command, is to commit legalism by imposing a human tradition upon them. It is this liberty of conscience which formed the historical context for the Regulative Principle. Because only God is Lord, only that which He commands in worship can be demanded and enforced by the church. 

There are historical differences between Reformed Continental and Puritan traditions about how that principle worked out in practice, but the fundamental concern was always the same. They were obligated and permitted to worship only the way God commanded.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> The Regulative Principle is grounded in the fact that God alone is Lord of the Conscience. This has implications in our worship. Nothing can be imposed or allowed in worship which cannot be clearly based upon God's Word. To impose something upon the conscience of a believer in worship which the Scriptures do not command, is to commit legalism by imposing a human tradition upon them. It is this liberty of conscience which formed the historical context for the Regulative Principle. Because only God is Lord, only that which He commands in worship can be demanded and enforced by the church.
> 
> There are historical differences between Reformed Continental and Puritan traditions about how that principle worked out in practice, but the fundamental concern was always the same. They were obligated and permitted to worship only the way God commanded.



Thank you, good answer. But in the Church at large it gets more.....complex. Say, for example the Anglican use of the liturgical calendar. We have feast days and celebrations that some Presbyterians.might object to. I might say it follows a Biblical pattern anther might respond, no it is not commanded cut and dried in the Holy Writ. NO CAN OF WORMS HERE! I am asking so that I do not offend. I celebrate Christmas, some here do not. I do not want to step on toes come December and say " God bless, Merry Christmas". Lets just say I am seeking peace with my brethren within the PB, who might differ with me on celebrations feast days and Anglican liturgy.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 22, 2007)

A good contrast to the RPW is found in the Thirty Nine Articles:



> XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.
> 
> It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, *so that nothing be ordained against God's Word*. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break *the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God*, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
> 
> Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.



The Anglican view, much like the Roman Catholic or Lutheran view, is that whatever is not forbidden by the Word of God is permiited as a "ceremony" or "tradition". In fact, it goes so far as to say that a brother may be rebuked for not observing these man-made traditions in his locale.

Thus, ashes, candle lightings, vestments, genuflections, Christian holy days, etc, are all permitted activities in Christian worship. If your bishops says that you are to take ashes (not forbidden in the Word), and you refuse, you are to be rebuked openly for violating the authority of the Church in these matters.

The RPW excludes all these things since they are not explicitly commanded by God in His Word to be performed by His people in His worship. The Presbyterian view provides for and guard true liberty of conscience in this area.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 22, 2007)

Robin said:


> Max, a great first start to understand Covenant Theology is by reading Michael Horton's book: "God of Promise." Another is to read the Heidelberg Catechism - which summarizes what the Bible teaches about the Reformed categories: guilt - grace - gratitude.
> 
> Mike's book is (I think) the clearest summary of what it means to be Reformed, Biblically. The Heidelberg teaches via one Lord's Day a week the progression of the Christian's situation of being 1. being guilty in sin 2. the grace of God that saves him 3. the true gratitude that springs from the redeemed heart. The HC is a summary of the Bible's teachings and has Scripture references.
> 
> ...



I think he asked what the *RPW* was, not what the doctrines of grace are.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> I think he asked what the *RPW* was, not what the doctrines of grace are.


She's cool, I probably could use a refresher on doctrines of grace.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> A good contrast to the RPW is found in the Thirty Nine Articles:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Careful. you are close to can o' worming. I do not have to receive the ashes(in the Anglican Church), I took them last night. HAI NOT I COULD HAVE GONE TO COMMUNION SUNDAY........no rebukes. In fact it comes into play in a Prayer Service towards the end the Pastor will say those who WISH the imposition of ashes may come forward. An older guy behind Megan and I sat it out. No biggie.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Thank you, good answer. But in the Church at large it gets more.....complex. Say, for example the Anglican use of the liturgical calendar. We have feast days and celebrations that some Presbyterians.might object to. I might say it follows a Biblical pattern anther might respond, no it is not commanded cut and dried in the Holy Writ. NO CAN OF WORMS HERE! I am asking so that I do not offend. I celebrate Christmas, some here do not. I do not want to step on toes come December and say " God bless, Merry Christmas". Lets just say I am seeking peace with my brethren within the PB, who might differ with me on celebrations feast days and Anglican liturgy.



I would argue that it's not the concept of a church calendar itself that is wrong but the fact that it is imposed upon the conscience of believers by the church authorites as _the_ biblical mode of worship which makes it objectionable to Presbyterians and a violation of the RPW. That was certainly the case for the early Puritans. The Regulative Principle addresses the specific elements of worship, but leaves liberty as to how that is organized. The Anglican liturgy doesn't allow for that liberty because of the book of Common Prayer, which not only imposes how worship is to be done, but specific prayers and forms which aren't allowed to be adjusted or deviated from to address the specific needs of congregations. In doing that it adds a required element to worship which the scriptures do not command. So, if a local congregation wishes to follow a church calendar for instruction purposes perhaps,then fine, but they cannot impose that calendar upon the conscience. If a member says "I will not worship that way" then he is perfectly entitled to do so, and immune from discipline, because God doesn't command him to worship that way.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I would argue that it's not the concept of a church calendar itself that is wrong but the fact that it is imposed upon the conscience of believers by the church authorites as _the_ biblical mode of worship which makes it objectionable to Presbyterians and a violation of the RPW. That was certainly the case for the early Puritans. The Regulative Principle addresses the specific elements of worship, but leaves liberty as to how that is organized. The Anglican liturgy doesn't allow for that liberty because of the book of Common Prayer, which not only imposes how worship is to be done, but specific prayers and forms which aren't allowed to be adjusted or deviated from to address the specific needs of congregations. In doing that it adds a required element to worship which the scriptures do not command. So, if a local congregation wishes to follow a church calendar for instruction purposes perhaps,then fine, but they cannot impose that calendar upon the conscience. If a member says "I will not worship that way" then he is perfectly entitled to do so, and immune from discipline, because God doesn't command him to worship that way.


Not being Silly Here.......REAL ? What if I said Merry Christmas? What principles come into play on that. I mean much of Christedom does celebrate this day...no the date is not given in scripture...but we know our Blessed Redeemer was incarnate in the human flesh at a point in historical time. If I were to say, I celebrate the birthday of my Lord and Saviour, how or what principles would you bring to bear?


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 22, 2007)

Well if you said Merry Christmas to me I would say Merry Christmas right back at 'cha! In regards to the RPW, the trappings of Christmas including any special services do not belong in the Church. Besides, we remember and celebrate the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ every Lord's Day.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> Well if you said Merry Christmas to me I would say Merry Christmas right back at 'cha! In regards to the RPW, the trappings of Christmas including any special services do not belong in the Church. Besides, we remember and celebrate the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ every Lord's Day.


Merry Christmas brother.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Not being Silly Here.......REAL ? What if I said Merry Christmas? What principles come into play on that. I mean much of Christedom does celebrate this day...no the date is not given in scripture...but we know our Blessed Redeemer was incarnate in the human flesh at a point in historical time. If I were to say, I celebrate the birthday of my Lord and Saviour, how or what principles would you bring to bear?



I'd say Merry Christmas to you as well  But if you said "we are having a stated worship service for Christmas" then I would have to refuse. It is a human tradition which can't be bound upon our conscience. If people wish to celebrate it on their own then fine. But don't force others to celebrate that tradition in the Church when the Scriptures don't command it.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Careful. you are close to can o' worming. I do not have to receive the ashes(in the Anglican Church), I took them last night. HAI NOT I COULD HAVE GONE TO COMMUNION SUNDAY........no rebukes. In fact it comes into play in a Prayer Service towards the end the Pastor will say those who WISH the imposition of ashes may come forward. An older guy behind Megan and I sat it out. No biggie.



I hear what you are saying, but that is only because your church is not being true to its own tradition, i.e.:



> *Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly*, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.



Ashes, in your tradition, are not "repugnant to the Word of God", therefore by exercising your "private judgment" you have opened yourself up to rebuke.


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Merry Christmas brother.



I'd say, merry December 25th. And a happy February 23 to you as well. Every day is the day the Lord hath made. We should rejoice and be glad in them all.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 22, 2007)

But certainly preaching Reconstructionism or Federal Vision is a hundred times more a breaking of the RPW. If calling people to worship on Christmas Day seems to be binding the conscience, then certainly preaching the tenets of Reconstructionism or Federal Vision from the pulpit would be much more binding. But have you ever read of or heard of a mandate to preach Reconstructionism or Federal Vision? I haven't. These are only the personal views of some people. There is no command from Christ to preach them; nor is it the decision of any one denomination that these are the Word of God's requirements. 

If Presbyterianism holds to the RPW, then why is the RPW not being invoked against minsters preaching Reconstructionism or Federal Vision? And if it is not being invoked for these reasons, can we believe the Presbyterians' sincerity for the holiness of worship if they invoke the RPW to prevent worship on Christmas Day? If they don't call upon the RPW to keep ministers from preaching whatever they will, without a mandate, why should we believe them if they say they will not worship on Christmas Day because of the sanctity of worship? It seems a bit one-sided to me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 22, 2007)

JohnV said:


> But certainly preaching Reconstructionism or Federal Vision is a hundred times more a breaking of the RPW. If calling people to worship on Christmas Day seems to be binding the conscience, then certainly preaching the tenets of Reconstructionism or Federal Vision from the pulpit would be much more binding. But have you ever read of or heard of a mandate to preach Reconstructionism or Federal Vision? I haven't. These are only the personal views of some people. There is no command from Christ to preach them; nor is it the decision of any one denomination that these are the Word of God's requirements.
> 
> If Presbyterianism holds to the RPW, then why is the RPW not being invoked against minsters preaching Reconstructionism or Federal Vision? And if it is not being invoked for these reasons, can we believe the Presbyterians' sincerity for the holiness of worship if they invoke the RPW to prevent worship on Christmas Day? If they don't call upon the RPW to keep ministers from preaching whatever they will, without a mandate, why should we believe them if they say they will not worship on Christmas Day because of the sanctity of worship? It seems a bit one-sided to me.



 We have some pretty big logs to remove from our eyes.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

JohnV said:


> But certainly preaching Reconstructionism or Federal Vision is a hundred times more a breaking of the RPW. If calling people to worship on Christmas Day seems to be binding the conscience, then certainly preaching the tenets of Reconstructionism or Federal Vision from the pulpit would be much more binding. But have you ever read of or heard of a mandate to preach Reconstructionism or Federal Vision? I haven't. These are only the personal views of some people. There is no command from Christ to preach them; nor is it the decision of any one denomination that these are the Word of God's requirements.
> 
> If Presbyterianism holds to the RPW, then why is the RPW not being invoked against minsters preaching Reconstructionism or Federal Vision? And if it is not being invoked for these reasons, can we believe the Presbyterians' sincerity for the holiness of worship if they invoke the RPW to prevent worship on Christmas Day? If they don't call upon the RPW to keep ministers from preaching whatever they will, without a mandate, why should we believe them if they say they will not worship on Christmas Day because of the sanctity of worship? It seems a bit one-sided to me.


WOW! Good one John. I would love to see a Biblical Response to that!


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

JohnV said:


> If Presbyterianism holds to the RPW, then why is the RPW not being invoked against minsters preaching Reconstructionism or Federal Vision? And if it is not being invoked for these reasons, can we believe the Presbyterians' sincerity for the holiness of worship if they invoke the RPW to prevent worship on Christmas Day? If they don't call upon the RPW to keep ministers from preaching whatever they will, without a mandate, why should we believe them if they say they will not worship on Christmas Day because of the sanctity of worship? It seems a bit one-sided to me.



I think you will find that the micro-denominations which are strict on the RPW are also strict about what is preached from the pulpit. Most of them have probably been well instructed from Free Church professor James Bannerman's Church of Christ that both issues fall under the regulation and limitation of church power -- one with reference to doctrine, the other with reference to worship.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I think you will find that the micro-denominations which are strict on the RPW are also strict about what is preached from the pulpit. Most of them have probably been well instructed from Free Church professor James Bannerman's Church of Christ that both issues fall under the regulation and limitation of church power -- one with reference to doctrine, the other with reference to worship.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I think you will find that the micro-denominations which are strict on the RPW are also strict about what is preached from the pulpit. Most of them have probably been well instructed from Free Church professor James Bannerman's Church of Christ that both issues fall under the regulation and limitation of church power -- one with reference to doctrine, the other with reference to worship.


Help a silly Anglican. Amplify this. This cat don't get it (ya went over my head)!


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> WOW! Good one John. I would love to see a Biblical Response to that!



Its his same old, same old beating the reconstructionist horse. It gets old after a while. We've moved on.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Help a silly Anglican. Amplify this. This cat don't get it (ya went over my head)!


A good but somewhat longish answer can be found in John L Girardeau's sermon on the discretionary power of the church (the church can't invent new doctrine, new government or new worship not found in Scripture).


----------



## MW (Feb 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> Help a silly Anglican. Amplify this. This cat don't get it (ya went over my head)!



Max, I second Chris Coldwell's suggested reading. Girardeau teaches the fundamental basis of the Presbyterian constitution.

To put it in basic terms, Christ alone is the Head of the church; more particularly, He is the Head over all things for the church. Ministers of Christ are sent forth with the commission to teach His disciples to observe all things whatsoever He has commanded. Only insofar as they adhere to their commission may the ministers of Christ seek for His presence and blessing upon their labour. See Matt. 28:18-20.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

Are these things that al Continental Reformed belivers accept, without regard to whether they call themselves "presbyterian"?


----------



## JohnV (Feb 22, 2007)

Yes, I think so, Max. I would also agree with Matt's and Chris' assertion about micro denominations, to a point. I only picked on a very few items for simplicity's sake, but there are a host of them. In basis, as long as they both maintain the covenant of their confessions, they are quite identical on the regulative principle of worship. Both would much more guard the preaching of the Word, as that is first and foremost for both. The differences that you will find will have more to do with things accumulated by their individual or regional or cultural differences, not by the doctrines themselves. 

I don't mean to say that there is something wrong with Presbyterianism or Continental Reformed in and of themselves, as defined by their covenants. What I am saying is that we had better be careful about what it is we raise to the forefront, and what it is we neglect in doing so. Reconstructionism itself has some commendable things to say, on its own. I have respect for those who hold it honestly and with integrity. I have no respect for those who don't know what they're talking about, and who too easily violate the first principles of the covenant to propagate their views as more than what they really are. They have more than these tenets in mind, you may be sure. I would think that both the Presbyterian churches and the Continental Reformed would have very little room for those who elevate their own views above what reason allows. Its just that in our moment in history, even in the micro denominations, you see very little said about the RPW when it comes to the things where it applies the most, and likely too much in the areas where discretion ought to weigh more heavily.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> I hear what you are saying, but that is only because your church is not being true to its own tradition, i.e.:
> 
> 
> 
> Ashes, in your tradition, are not "repugnant to the Word of God", therefore by exercising your "private judgment" you have opened yourself up to rebuke.


I asked about the RPW not for your petty rebukes. You are not going to get me worked up or into this. Heal thyself. Pax.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 22, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> I asked about the RPW not for your petty rebukes. You are not going to get me worked up or into this. Heal thyself. Pax.



You misunderstand. The "rebuke" I was referring to was the one mentioned in the Thirty Nine Articles.



> Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, *ought to be rebuked openly*, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.



It is your bishops that ought to be doing the rebuking if they still follow the Thirty Nine Articles. When you would "willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church," the Article calls for a "rebuke".

But perhaps they have another interpretation of Article XXXIV.


----------



## etexas (Feb 22, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> You misunderstand. The "rebuke" I was referring to was the one mentioned in the Thirty Nine Articles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The 39 Articles are not in a traditional, classical sense a confession such as Westminster. We Hold to the Creed and Councils hence a creedal Church. To,some degree the 39 Articles can be slighly subjective, not to the individual Church but to a General Council. 
I think what would not be flexible as much as we are part of Christ's Holy catholic church, would be in regard to the 7 sacraments. The traditions handed down from the Holy Apostles to the Church Fathers and ceremonies of the same when applied to the sacraments would certainly be an immovable landmark if you will. Ashes are not Sacraments.


----------



## etexas (Feb 23, 2007)

How, "open"is RPW, does interpretation of faith and practice and more-over worship, lead to conflicts in bodies that hold them? They just do not seem very clear cut. You know its like some difficult scriptures. We know that Scriture is God-Breathed and is perfect, man is fallible. Question is in case of conflict in the church how is arbitration made?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 23, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> How, "open"is RPW, does interpretation of faith and practice and more-over worship, lead to conflicts in bodies that hold them? They just do not seem very clear cut. You know its like some difficult scriptures. We know that Scriture is God-Breathed and is perfect, man is fallible. Question is in case of conflict in the church how is arbitration made?



Begin with prayer, review our understanding of the RPW, identify where the true disagreement lies, and then hopefully discuss it until resolution can be made. The elements of worship do not change, so there should be no disagreement there. But there may be differences as to the order they are executed. Just look at the liturgies of Calvin, Bucer, Knox, and the Puritans. They all have differences, but look remarkably similar. And they probably would all be legitimate under the RPW.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 23, 2007)

I follow Jesus said:


> The 39 Articles are not in a traditional, classical sense a confession such as Westminster. We Hold to the Creed and Councils hence a creedal Church. To,some degree the 39 Articles can be slighly subjective, not to the individual Church but to a General Council.
> I think what would not be flexible as much *as we are part of Christ's Holy catholic church, would be in regard to the 7 sacraments*. The traditions handed down from the Holy Apostles to the Church Fathers and ceremonies of the same when applied to the sacraments would certainly be an immovable landmark if you will. Ashes are not Sacraments.



Not all portions of Christ's holy catholic church recognize there are seven sacraments.

Rather than ashes, suppose you broke tradition and decided marriage was not a sacrament, or certain ceremonies associated with marriage were not necessary, since they are not in the Word of God? Would your church recognize liberty of conscience in this area?

That is the essence of the RPW. The church has no right to bind the conscience of the people wrt matters of worship which are not explicitly commanded in Scripture.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 23, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> That is the essence of the RPW. The church has no right to bind the conscience of the people wrt matters of worship which are not explicitly commanded in Scripture.



I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but while the protected conscience of the believer is part of the benefit of the RPW, it is not its essence. The essence of the RPW is the purity of God's worship, worshipping him in spirit in truth and honoring him in the way he has commanded. Our conscience is important but God's glory is much more so.


----------



## etexas (Feb 23, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but while the protected conscience of the believer is part of the benefit of the RPW, it is not its essence. The essence of the RPW is the purity of God's worship, worshipping him in spirit in truth and honoring him in the way he has commanded. Our conscience is important but God's glory is much more so.


Yes David. Thank you. Good..no great points. I glorify God, and worship him in spirit and truth. When I became an Anglican, Father Banek told how we in the Church are to sift right and wrong in my system...there in an order 1)Scripture. 2)Faith 3)Reason 4Tradition. Tradition does come into play for me my brethren....but DEAD LAST! It is always, always, always subject to the blessed God-Breathed Holy-Writ. Amen.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 23, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but while the protected conscience of the believer is part of the benefit of the RPW, it is not its essence. The essence of the RPW is the purity of God's worship, worshipping him in spirit in truth and honoring him in the way he has commanded. Our conscience is important but God's glory is much more so.



Worship is what we do. Essence in that we are free to worship God only as He has commanded.


----------

