# Discussing the RPW (Split from What This is a Reformed Board?)



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 18, 2007)

I think it is well-worth pointing out that* if you do not agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship then you are not Reformed in the proper sense of the word*. You may be a Calvinist - as was Martin Luther and the English Reformers - but the thing that set the Reformed apart from other Protestants was their commitment to the Regulative Principle.



*ADMIN NOTE: This thread was split off from http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/what-reformed-board-24779/ as it transformed an "announcement" into a debate over the RPW.*


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 18, 2007)

Richard: excellent point. We fail to realize what it meant and should mean to be part of a covenant community. Rules, duties, etc etc kick against the self righteousness we all have. That is the reason Biblical Discipline does not work at all any more. IF one is disciplined for "not following the rules," they will just leave and go to another church. The lessons from Scripture point out how serious God is about community. From Israel as a nation, to the NT assembly, it has always been a covenant community. Yet the present times reflects such a growth of individualism, that the rcc has a legitamate gripe about the 30k denominations protties have. Luther would have never dreamed this would happen, and we should lament this fact continuously. I do not kow what the exact reason is other than attributing it to some false "divine Right' "Self elevated" behavior men posess. We dont believe in EP, well we will start another church. We dont believe in the RPW, so we will start another church. We dont believe in wooden pews, so we will start another church. No instruments here, well we will start another church. I cant sleep around? Ill leave and go to another church. You mean you wont immerse my child, ill go to another church. 

The same thing happens here and other boards with rules. Everyone thinks they ave a right to their opinion. Well they do in a sense, but to come in and try to get the whole to change becasue of one, is just arrogant.

Grace has to come from both parties, and it is statements like Daniels above, _if you do not agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship then you are not Reformed in the proper sense of the word_ that inflame many and I would say generate battle lines. WHy? Becasue I seriously believe that some find more merit to be "Reformed" according to their own or another subjective opinion that it is to be biblical. I have seen so many defend the reformed faith as their goal instead of God's word, myself included, that we lose focus and think we are way more important than others. When in fact we are nothing but grasshoppers that merit nothing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 18, 2007)

The whole point of this thread wasn't to cast Christians who deny the RPW into outer darkness. It was to point out that this board is distinctively Reformed and to be graciously acute of that fact. I don't believe it gives me the right to be arbitrary or mean-spirited in how the rules are enforced.


----------



## elnwood (Oct 18, 2007)

Just to clarify, would John Frame not be considered Reformed or in keeping with the Confessions because of his view of the RPW?


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 18, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> if you do not agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship then you are not Reformed in the proper sense of the word[/B].


The way I understand it, if you're credo you're not really reformed, in the proper sense of the word, either. It seems Baptists have to borrow the word in order to consider themselves "reformed." Perhaps "reforming" would be better. Then the board would be composed of those both reformed and reforming.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 18, 2007)

So, Rich, I can disagree with what seems to be the general consensus of what the RPW is and still be deemed as a member in good standing? I hold to the RPW, but its obviously not the same as what some hold to. I believe that the view that I hold to is more in line with the Confessional standards. I am not alone in this, even if I were the only one on this Board who thought so. And my view would not allow an EP that stands because of the RPW, as that would be a misunderstanding and a backwards application of it. And I am fully convinced that this is the Reformed view. 

Rich, I don't think that the RPW is a good place to make the point. It could come back and bite you.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Oct 18, 2007)

*imagines the sign*


WELCOME TO OUR SWIMMING _OOL!!

You'll notice there's no P in it. Please keep it that way.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 18, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Just to clarify, would John Frame not be considered Reformed or in keeping with the Confessions because of his view of the RPW?



Discussing it would probably be ok. But his view is not the confessional or historic understanding of the RPW. He redefines it into something completely different. :2 cents:


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 18, 2007)

Wannabee wrote: _*The way I understand it, if you're credo you're not really reformed, in the proper sense of the word, either. It seems Baptists have to borrow the word in order to consider themselves "reformed." Perhaps "reforming" would be better. Then the board would be composed of those both reformed and reforming.  *_

As a relative newbie to this board (67 posts and counting), I was under the impression that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith was sufficient for participation (???). My "glidepath" has been moving in a more and more decidedly "reformed" direction. But, EP I am not (yet). I appreciate Rich's leniency and patience. However, it never crossed my mind to object to those who uphold traditionally reformed (i.e. "truly" reformed?) understandings of the RPW or anything else. This is a REFORMED board afterall (Duh!). As a Baptist, I try to keep my mouth shut on baptism issues (except for a jest or two) and enjoy what has been a blessed blessed place to learn and contribute. Thanks!


----------



## Nse007 (Oct 19, 2007)

JohnV said:


> So, Rich, I can disagree with what seems to be the general consensus of what the RPW is and still be deemed as a member in good standing? I hold to the RPW, but its obviously not the same as what some hold to. I believe that the view that I hold to is more in line with the Confessional standards. I am not alone in this, even if I were the only one on this Board who thought so. And my view would not allow an EP that stands because of the RPW, as that would be a misunderstanding and a backwards application of it. And I am fully convinced that this is the Reformed view.
> 
> Rich, I don't think that the RPW is a good place to make the point. It could come back and bite you.



I think his point Jon is that the historic understanding of the creeds do not mesh with what you believe to be more biblical. Not discrediting your right to differ, but just pointing out that it is in fact different from what the drafters of the WCF intended and practiced historically


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 19, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Just to clarify, would John Frame not be considered Reformed or in keeping with the Confessions because of his view of the RPW?



In my opinion, John Frame is not Reformed with regards to worship; he might claim to be, however, he is an enemy of the Regulative Principle as it is set forth in the Westminster Standards.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 19, 2007)

Nse007 said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> > So, Rich, I can disagree with what seems to be the general consensus of what the RPW is and still be deemed as a member in good standing? I hold to the RPW, but its obviously not the same as what some hold to. I believe that the view that I hold to is more in line with the Confessional standards. I am not alone in this, even if I were the only one on this Board who thought so. And my view would not allow an EP that stands because of the RPW, as that would be a misunderstanding and a backwards application of it. And I am fully convinced that this is the Reformed view.
> ...



I don't think so, Nse. The point was about upholding the standards of this Board, contrary to what some churches are wont to do with their standards. I agree with Rich about that, as I also would concerning the dispute about whether the Reformed hold to the RPW. I don't think this is about differences in the Reformed camp about the RPW. That's what my question was about.

As to the RPW in its historic and confessional context, I am quite able to defend my view, and have done so before the church, before a church that did not agree. But it's not my view, for it was what was formally taught to me by my church, in sermons, in catechism classes, and in Bible study classes: it's what I was taught to believe concerning worship. And in the plainest sense, it's what the Standards teach. But most of all, it's plainly set out in the Bible: teaching what God did not say to teach was punishable by death (Deut. 18); and Jesus plainly ties worship and preaching together in Matt. 15 when He says, "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." If preaching is part of worship, then the RPW applies to preaching: that which is not commanded is forbidden. And if the Word is the central part of worship, then the RPW applies most of all (centrally) to the preaching of that Word. I think I'm pretty firmly rooted in the Reformed heritage in my view of the RPW.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 19, 2007)

For the question of whether the Westminster Standards "teach" Exclusive Psalmody, see this post and this thread. It is essentially what I also say in an appendix to part two of the sixty year RPW survey in the now available 2007 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian journal.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 19, 2007)

Yes, I recall reading that post.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 19, 2007)

Yep; it was more for the uninitiated.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 19, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Just to clarify, would John Frame not be considered Reformed or in keeping with the Confessions because of his view of the RPW?
> ...



Let's be careful tossing around words like "enemy." Frame is an ordained minister in good standing in the PCA. He is one of the few Reformed theologians who is capable of defending the *Reformed* faith from philosophical challenges. Not to mention, he was good friends with your avatar's namesake, as well as speaking at his funeral.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 19, 2007)

JohnV said:


> So, Rich, I can disagree with what seems to be the general consensus of what the RPW is and still be deemed as a member in good standing? I hold to the RPW, but its obviously not the same as what some hold to. I believe that the view that I hold to is more in line with the Confessional standards. I am not alone in this, even if I were the only one on this Board who thought so. And my view would not allow an EP that stands because of the RPW, as that would be a misunderstanding and a backwards application of it. And I am fully convinced that this is the Reformed view.



John, like you and many others on the board (including pastors and elders; Baptist, Presbyterian, and Reformed), I personally agree that the RPW itself does not allow EP, believing that the Bible commands us to sing "hymns" (_beyond_ the Psalter), and that there was no revelatory instruction at all (by command or example) for previous _other_ hymns and spiritual songs to cease when the Psalter was completed.

Even so, I (along with most other non-EPers here, and throughout the various Reformed denominations) nonetheless recognize that EP historically _has been_ a normative application of the RPW within the confessional Reformed churches until relatively recently. As such, our belief about EP (as well as the worship orders of the PCA, OPC, etc.) is an _exception_ to how the RPW was originally and predominantly applied. Even so, it is indeed an exception only to an _application_ of the principle, and not to _the principle itself_, which you or I would defend as readily as any EPer. And it is that confessional principle _as a whole_ (that God alone defines how He is to be worshiped) of which Rich is reminding everyone, since even _that_ has sometimes come under dispute from time to time here.



JohnV said:


> Rich, I don't think that the RPW is a good place to make the point. It could come back and bite you.



In spite of the differences in _application_ that have and will no doubt continue to come up, there really can be no apology for reminding everyone that this is in fact a _Reformed_ board, and that while discussion to understand and sharpen is fine, the _principle as a whole_ will always be defended as the norm here. That is because it has definitely been one of the key distinguishing factors of Reformed theology ever since the Reformation, even over and against the other confessional Protestant churches such as Lutheranism and Anglicanism.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 19, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > elnwood said:
> ...




I believe it can be justified; he has completely redefined the regulative principle to the extent that his position is fundamentally at enmity with the Westminster Standards on the RPW. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Frame's work in other areas (Apologetics, Systematic Theology etc) but when it comes to worship his views have done a lot of damage (which is a shame whenever you consider the good work his done). While he may be a minister in good standing in the PCA, this is probably because the PCA represents such a broad range of opinion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 19, 2007)

JohnV said:


> So, Rich, I can disagree with what seems to be the general consensus of what the RPW is and still be deemed as a member in good standing? I hold to the RPW, but its obviously not the same as what some hold to. I believe that the view that I hold to is more in line with the Confessional standards. I am not alone in this, even if I were the only one on this Board who thought so. And my view would not allow an EP that stands because of the RPW, as that would be a misunderstanding and a backwards application of it. And I am fully convinced that this is the Reformed view.
> 
> Rich, I don't think that the RPW is a good place to make the point. It could come back and bite you.



John,

I'll only be intermittent on the board for a week or two and may miss some things.

I think you need to read the initial post in context and not as developed.

I *do* think that the Worship forum is a good place to make the exact point I was making. We've got some guest on the board that don't hold to the RPW in any recognizable way but, rather, the NPW. There will always be debates about EP but I believe those can be conducted within the pale of the RPW (I know there are some that will disagree).

My problem is with those that come on the board, state they have read and agree to the Confessions, and then interact for the first time on the RPW and start calling conscience-bound Christians Pharisees. It's not up to the board to defend why we don't hold to the NPW and it is rude and uncharitable to throw the "P" word around ignorantly.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 19, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> My problem is with those that come on the board, state they have read and agree to the Confessions, and then interact for the first time on the RPW and start calling conscience-bound Christians Pharisees. It's not up to the board to defend why we don't hold to the NPW and it is rude and uncharitable to throw the "P" word around ignorantly.



Exactly Richard. I took this thread to be a general statement about the rules of the board that people "Agree" to in order to participate. The statement about the RPW was one issue. Well that is how I took it. It could be one coming on here and promoting lets say baptismal regeneration and calling those here, the majority who dont, legalists. Look, I can speak on this becasue I was suspended becasue of my promotion of a justification issue. I am praying through it, but will not post on the subject to cause dissention. 


That being said, when I continuously see statements from Daniel Ritchie that say, _*if you do not agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship then you are not Reformed in the proper sense of the word.*_ or ;_*In my opinion, John Frame is not Reformed with regards to worship; he might claim to be, however, he is an enemy of the Regulative Principle as it is set forth in the Westminster Standards.*_ _*or his position is fundamentally at emnity with the Westminster Standards on the RPW.*_ cause intended pain. Now Daniel clarifies all these statements with thoe famous 3 word,(in my opinion), which is all it is, but still should be censored just as much if not more than one who calls another a legalist. IT does not matter how one feels justified in their own eyes, to demonize others continuously and intentionally is not Christlike. Remember the cycle in the book of judges? They did right in their own eyes.....This board, or any Christian board is an instrument of light. each have their rules and should be enforced. Not with anger or malice, but with grace and truth. And instead of worring about who the "Truely Reformed" are, we should be more concerned with being biblical and Godly. 

And lastly, we should also NEVER forget the Reformation war cry: "SEMPER REFORMADA: Reformed and To be Always Reforming According to the Word of God"


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 19, 2007)

> That being said, when I continuously see statements from Daniel Ritchie that say, if you do not agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship then you are not Reformed in the proper sense of the word. or ;In my opinion, John Frame is not Reformed with regards to worship; he might claim to be, however, he is an enemy of the Regulative Principle as it is set forth in the Westminster Standards. or his position is fundamentally at emnity with the Westminster Standards on the RPW. cause intended pain. Now Daniel clarifies all these statements with those famous 3 word,(in my opinion), which is all it is, but still should be censored just as much if not more than one who calls another a legalist. IT does not matter how one feels justified in their own eyes, to demonize others continuously and intentionally is not Christlike. Remember the cycle in the book of judges? They did right in their own eyes.....This board, or any Christian board is an instrument of light. each have their rules and should be enforced. Not with anger or malice, but with grace and truth. And instead of worring about who the "Truly Reformed" are, we should be more concerned with being biblical and Godly



Not so brother, I am not calling anybody a legalist or a Pharisee (which is basically calling into question whether they are a Christian) but just pointing out that those who reject the Westminster Standards view of the RPW (and adopt John Frame's and others) have departed from a Reformed understanding of worship and have adopted a more Episcopalian/Lutheran position. Whether or not this is Biblical is another question and obviously that should be our greatest concern.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 19, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > That being said, when I continuously see statements from Daniel Ritchie that say, if you do not agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship then you are not Reformed in the proper sense of the word. or ;In my opinion, John Frame is not Reformed with regards to worship; he might claim to be, however, he is an enemy of the Regulative Principle as it is set forth in the Westminster Standards. or his position is fundamentally at emnity with the Westminster Standards on the RPW. cause intended pain. Now Daniel clarifies all these statements with those famous 3 word,(in my opinion), which is all it is, but still should be censored just as much if not more than one who calls another a legalist. IT does not matter how one feels justified in their own eyes, to demonize others continuously and intentionally is not Christlike. Remember the cycle in the book of judges? They did right in their own eyes.....This board, or any Christian board is an instrument of light. each have their rules and should be enforced. Not with anger or malice, but with grace and truth. And instead of worring about who the "Truly Reformed" are, we should be more concerned with being biblical and Godly
> 
> 
> 
> Not so brother, I am not calling anybody a legalist or a Pharisee (which is basically calling into question whether they are a Christian) but just pointing out that those who reject the Westminster Standards view of the RPW (and adopt John Frame's and others) have departed from a Reformed understanding of worship and have adopted a more Episcopalian/Lutheran position. Whether or not this is Biblical is another question and obviously that should be our greatest concern.



Then say it this way Daniel. It is laced much more with "Speaking the truth in love" and not fighting inlflamatory words. The slam of ""My position is more reformed than your position!" "Or you have departed from the true reformed understanding is used as a weapon when the reformers would have never spoken as such. I just do not know what the fuss is about. I doubt, though I am not positive, that this statement was ever used during the time of the reformers. Ill give anyone a buck if they can find me a quote prior to the 20th century where one bragged pompously and arrogantly that their position was "More Reformed" than the others. Was the whole idea of the reformation to be more reformed, or truly reformed, or more in accordance with the biblical account? 

The rules on this board are very clear... Again, enforce them with grace and truth. But let's face it, in this age of the internet theologian, words are thrown around that carry little if any weight anymore. Anyone who calls one to accountability is a legalist. Anyone who amplifies free grace is an antinomian.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 19, 2007)

Rich:

Thanks for the clarification. It was the OP that I wondered at, seeing as I'm not up on most of the discussions, especially the ones referenced in the post. 

As I said, I'm in agreement with your concern. I am sensitive to the fact that this sets a higher standard than what some are used to from their own churches. It's good to set the standard, and to uphold it; but we have to be careful because the true authority for that standard and the respect it is due resides in the churches. 

That said, I try also to respect the fact that some churches have ruled on EP, and that the true authority to do so resides with these. The authority of the Word alone is greater. By the same token, I believe that I need to be respected as well, as I am abiding by the standards that I have been taught, and which are in compliance to the teachings of the church before which I made confession of my faith, and by which I was accepted into the Reformed faith. 

Chris:

I agree with your first paragraph, but not the second. I don't think the facts will bear out your conclusion. It is only the modern consensus among some churches that says so, not the facts. But that's another discussion, I believe. My point is that I can see no other way of upholding the Reformed Confessional standards. I am convinced that adopting your version of the RPW would be departing from that Confession for me, and that it is neither right nor safe to do so. 

I'm not trying to push my view, though I believe it to be right; I'm only defending it as also an acceptable belief within the Reformed standards. In short, I'm not aware of, nor have been shown, any contravention of these standards in holding the view of the RPW that I hold. What you're saying is that I am out of sync with history, but not the standards. All that I am out really of sync with is the view that some hold that allows them to conclude a doctrinal EP not from Scripture but from their rendition of the RPW, a thing which my view of it will not allow; and I am out of sync with those who put up a NPW against the RPW, something that is a redundancy to my view. (My view makes the Second Commandment the basis for a RPW. So the question is not whether NPW or RPW, but whether the PW comports with the Second Commandment.) 

So we differ. That's fine. We can differ, for it is a healthy sign in the church to do so. It means that we're deeply and adamantly concerned about holiness and sanctity in worship. I'm here objecing to the insinuation of a _de facto_ RPW which not everyone on this Board would agree with out of their convictions within the Reformed standards.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 19, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > > That being said, when I continuously see statements from Daniel Ritchie that say, if you do not agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship then you are not Reformed in the proper sense of the word. or ;In my opinion, John Frame is not Reformed with regards to worship; he might claim to be, however, he is an enemy of the Regulative Principle as it is set forth in the Westminster Standards. or his position is fundamentally at emnity with the Westminster Standards on the RPW. cause intended pain. Now Daniel clarifies all these statements with those famous 3 word,(in my opinion), which is all it is, but still should be censored just as much if not more than one who calls another a legalist. IT does not matter how one feels justified in their own eyes, to demonize others continuously and intentionally is not Christlike. Remember the cycle in the book of judges? They did right in their own eyes.....This board, or any Christian board is an instrument of light. each have their rules and should be enforced. Not with anger or malice, but with grace and truth. And instead of worring about who the "Truly Reformed" are, we should be more concerned with being biblical and Godly
> ...




Sorry, but the nature of John Frame's line of argument is that his position is an acceptable application of the Reformed understanding of worship. In reality it is not, Dr. Frame has redefined the regulative principle to the point that he has turned it into the normative principle. Therefore, Dr. Frame is misleading people into thinking that his position is in line with the Westminster Standards. I would have a lot more respect for him if he just came out and said "I do not believe in the regulative principle of worship". While I believe that his position would be wrong, nonetheless, it would be better than trying to pretend that "celebrative worship" is an acceptable application of the RPW.

For a solid critique of John Frame on the Regulative Principle may I recommend Brian Schwertley's series of lectures on Sermon Audio.


----------



## Gloria (Oct 19, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> *imagines the sign*
> 
> 
> WELCOME TO OUR SWIMMING _OOL!!
> ...



Issues. You have 'em.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 19, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...



Daniel, I apologize to you .You must be missing the intent of my posts. I sleep well at night, not knowing who John Frame is or much of Brian Schwertly. I guess I missed the intention of this thread. All I thought Rich was saying is that the board has rules, and the RPW is one of many. And when a dissenter comes in and signs on to these rules, then they should keep quiet if their disagreement with issues is inflamatory to the mods and admins or the board in general. And thos who adhere to every jot and tittle to the rules should treat others with grace. And not use words like enemy, or "I am more reforemd than you".. That's it in a nutshell Daniel. If Brian Schwertly is the barometer of the RPW, and he is more reforemd than John Frame, then perhaos he can merit praise of men, but I doubt the angels are rejoicing over the conversations like this ad nauseum..


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 22, 2007)

> And those who adhere to every jot and tittle to the rules should treat others with grace. And not use words like enemy, or "I am more reforemd than you".. That's it in a nutshell Daniel. If Brian Schwertly is the barometer of the RPW, and he is more reforemd than John Frame, then perhaos he can merit praise of men, but I doubt the angels are rejoicing over the conversations like this ad nauseum..



You seem to have missed the point of my comments completely. The point is not to say "I am more Reformed than you", but to _accurately define what it is to be Reformed _in any sense. This is necessary in order to conduct discussions on a Reformed discussion board. 

Surely you must accept that some definition of Reformed is legitimate. Would you condemn me for saying that an Arminian is not Reformed? If not, then you have accepted that the term can be defined, and an accurate definition of what it is to be Reformed must contain adherance to the regulative principle.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 22, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Surely you must accept that some definition of Reformed is legitimate. Would you condemn me for saying that an Arminian is not Reformed? If not, then you have accepted that the term can be defined, and an accurate definition of what it is to be Reformed must contain adherance to the regulative principle.




Of course I do Daniel. And I am not condemning you at all. Who decides the correct DNA on what it means to be reformed? Does every acronym of "reformed denominations adhere to the RPW? 

Again, my point was not to debate the RPW. I never heard of it until recently. The problem I have with defining a word,ie (reforemd) is that each person will add their own understanding, and you end up with a list of 50 things. Anyone who adheres to 49 is considered "less reforemd".. I guess I dont think about the question"WHat it means to be reforemd" too much. Too many splinters happen when you begin this quest. Look at the 30 acronyms of denominations now!!! And each believe they are reforemd. Let us strive to be biblical more than wearing the label of Reformed.

Again, If richard could weigh in on the intention of his post, it could settle matters. I ask the following.

1) Was the post intended to be a general comment about joining this board and agreeing to the rules

2) Was the RPW one of many that he mentioned.


In closing Daniel, I will bow out gracefully and allow you to have the last word. If you deem it necessary to debate the RPW with me, and if one denies it, then they are an enemy to the reformed definition, so be it. Make sure you include this on your "Reformed resume'" Becasue you are entering a very subjective territory. Once one begins the quest to define words in order to wear a label, it brings nothing but controversy. But enough from me, Ill end on the Inspired word;

*2:14Remind them of these things, charging them in the sight of the Lord, that they don't argue about words, to no profit, to the subverting of those who hear. *


*Rom 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.*


*1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,*


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 22, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Again, If richard could weigh in on the intention of his post, it could settle matters. I ask the following.
> 
> 1) Was the post intended to be a general comment about joining this board and agreeing to the rules
> 
> 2) Was the RPW one of many that he mentioned.



I won't presume to answer for Rich, other than noting that in clarifying that the Regulative Principle is one of the basic positions of the board that people agreed with upon joining, Rich did so by reminding people that "this is a _Reformed_ board. In other words, yes, it is about the Regulative Principle as one of the things in the board's standards that people agreed to upon joining - but the _reason_ it is one of the board's standards is precisely _because_ it is a Reformed board, and indeed, all the historic Reformed confessional standards (including all those that are legitimate for board membership) espouse it as an essential part their doctrine of worship. In other words, with the question of whether it's about the RPW being part and parcel of historic Reformed theology or simply about the RPW being a stated part of the standards by which we allow participation on the board, the two answers are essentially the same - and it is the latter solely _because_ it is the former.



Amazing Grace said:


> In closing Daniel, I will bow out gracefully and allow you to have the last word. If you deem it necessary to debate the RPW with me, and if one denies it, then they are an enemy to the reformed definition, so be it. Make sure you include this on your "Reformed resume'" Becasue you are entering a very subjective territory. Once one begins the quest to define words in order to wear a label, it brings nothing but controversy.



Actually it is not at all subjective, because it is defined by the Reformed confessions, and by history. They serve as the very definition of Reformed theology since what they are at heart are the stated _beliefs_ or _confessions_ of all the Reformed churches - and what else other than _the Reformed churches themselves_ could possibly better define what "Reformed" theology means? Even though many of us initially _discover_ Reformed theology in a subjective, doctrine-by-doctrine way by means of personal studies on one issue after another, Reformed theology has existed as a specific system of thought within the visible Protestant churches ever since the Reformation, and is completely independent of which parts we happened to discover first or even believe to be most important. Indeed, the Reformed confessions and catechisms are every bit as clear about a specific Reformed doctrine of worship as they are about a specific doctrine of salvation, including the "five points," and even _Sola Fide_. There are some issues on which the Reformed confessions are largely silent (e.g. millennial views), and others on which they somewhat differ from one another (e.g., the marks of the visible Church, in the Three Forms of Unity versus the Westminster Standards), thus allowing for legitimate differences _within_ Reformed theology. But worship is not one of those things, by any of the confessional standards, and never has been. Indeed, any other doctrine of worship is truly just as foreign to Reformed theology (again, as objectively defined by the _standards_ of _the Reformed churches themselves_) as is, say, Arminianism.

And since being biblical is always the chief concern in setting forth doctrine, of course it is not at all an issue of being "more Reformed" as an end in itself - rather, we defend and hold specifically to the Reformed confessions _because_ we believe their authors are the ones most faithfully interpreting the Scriptures. And when people see the Scriptures in a _different_ light than those confessions do, they should attempt to inquire and explain why they see that different understanding to be more biblical than the Reformed understanding; but it is not helpful to anyone to all the while claim that different understanding to somehow be "Reformed," as that can only serve to take away any meaning from the term altogether. And that would make discussing theology and doctrine much more confusing and difficult, just as much as if we did away with terms like "Trinitarian," "Lutheran," "Anglican" and even "Protestant" altogether - and again, while the goal of doing all theology is to be biblical, terms like that, because of their historic objectivity, give us a reference point for knowing what people believe and what they mean by the things they say, so that _every detail of an entire system_ does not need to be reiterated every time one particular issue is brought up.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 22, 2007)

Well, the RPW was not specifically part of it at the beginning when I joined. It was assumed, I suppose. But that it is part of the Confessional standard is the part that was assumed. At least I assumed it. Chris is right that it is part and parcel of the Reformed confessional grounding. If not by specific name (the RPW) then as an application of the Second Commandment. 

Though I remain fully convinced of the principle of Reformed regulation for worship, I am rethinking what that actually is. It is obvious that some mean something else by it than what I believe. The question that I ask concerns what it is that is regulated, and subsequently deriving a clearer definition of what some adherents mean by the RPW. 

I think that those who question the RPW's place in Reformed dogmatics should rethink their objections. In some instances their objections are right, but they're expressing these objections against the wrong thing. Their problem is not the RPW so much as it is something else. 

On the other hand, the way the RPW is held by some is nothing more than an invitation to objections. It is utter nonsense to obtain a doctrine through a side door. 

What I am trying to express in this thread is that there are some, like myself, who hold dearly and firmly to the RPW, (or, if you prefer, to the proper adminstration of the second commandment), but may also be deemed as being of those who do not respect it because we do not agree with the way some apply it. 

What I see in some of the objections (not all, not most, but some) is a desire to uphold the spirit of the RPW, but object because they think that the RPW is what some make it out to be. Thus the RPW is put up against the RPW. And since their understanding is more an application of the Second Commandment than a stated principle of regulation with a name, they turn against that name on the basis of the Second Commandment. The RPW is put up against the RPW. Is it no wonder that some question it?

I see both extremes as being wrong. It's not that I am here defending a middle ground, for I think I stand opposite both extremes, not between them. Right is always an extreme apart from wrong, never a compromise of opposing wrongs. Standing doctrine not on the Word but on the RPW breaks the RPW as much as denying any regulation; I see them as doing the same thing. 

I have answered my "I do" to the Board's requirements. I stand by that. I have not changed. I do hold to the RPW, as an application of the Second Commandment. I have reservations about what some mean about "what is not commanded is forbidden", when they clearly mean that what is not commanded is not forbidden; that what they wish to forbid is forbidden, and what they wish to allow is not forbidden even if it is not commanded. They clearly abrogate God's commands so that their own commands may be followed. There is no question that this follows in the spirit of the Pharisees, and not in the spirit of Christ. For me, throwing out the RPW is done either way, whether it is a la John Frame or a la Brian Schwertley.


----------



## elnwood (Oct 22, 2007)

FYI, Darryl Hart and John Frame debate the Regulative Principle with regard to confessional subscription in an e-mail exchange.
The Regulative Principle


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 22, 2007)

JohnV said:


> I have answered my "I do" to the Board's requirements. I stand by that. I have not changed. I do hold to the RPW, as an application of the Second Commandment. I have reservations about what some mean about "what is not commanded is forbidden", when they clearly mean that what is not commanded is not forbidden; that what they wish to forbid is forbidden, and what they wish to allow is not forbidden even if it is not commanded. They clearly abrogate God's commands so that their own commands may be followed. There is no question that this follows in the spirit of the Pharisees, and not in the spirit of Christ. For me, throwing out the RPW is done either way, whether it is a la John Frame or a la Brian Schwertley.



John, this is part of what I have failed to present clearly to Daniel and now Chris. I again never heard of the RPW until recently. The denomination I worship at is far from upholding any narrow interpretation of the second commandment. Yet it has the word "Reforemd" in its title. The crux of my contention is 3 fold in regards to Rich's opening post.

1) Rules are clearly posted. When you say, "I agree" this means one is bound by the rules and cannot try to change them after joining. And argue aginst them with malice and anger.

2) The RPW, of which again I never heard that acronym until recently, is one of those rules. But even within those who adhere to this thought I have seen disagreements on the specifics. So who determines who is right? And what bothers me at times is the goal appears to be labeled as "Truly Reformed" instead of Biblically accurate. Perhaps there is some gray area in these discussions, but grace and truth MUST shine forth as the motivating cause, not wearing a badge of "Truly Reformed".

3) Do all denominations who claim to be reformed adhere to the RPW? I do not know this answer and that is why I asked. Mine obviously does not. So I would not enter a debate on it becasue I have little if any knowledge if what it actually means, and will study it. And If it is deemed that I am an "Enemy" of the RPW of "Historic Refomred" teachings, I will still sleep very well at night. Not becasue of a trite attitude, but becasue I am not knowledgable on the subject and expect grace shown by Christ and this board.

The jot and tittle approach inevitably leads to subjectionism, or doctrinal salvation. A heresy that makes me shudder. Because where does one draw the line? I have seen it within the confines of "calvinism" (Another label) more than any where.

Infra vs Supra
Efficient for all vs narrow particular redemption
RPW vs RPW
Baptism
Padeo communion

Instruments vs no instruments
psalms only vs no psalms only. Then which psalms or what edition

I hope you get my point, there are many more. Again, this board, by the grace of God is to be a shining light to those here and those who lurk in the background and read it. Both teams, those who Lord it over people with their puffed up knowledge vs those who come in and start a raucuss over an issue they agreed with when joining. Both are guilty. You see we all want to be Elijah and John the Baptist. We love to say words like ENEMY, VIPER, HEATHEN, ARMINIAN. "THose People".....We want to bring fire down from heaven and demonize brothers and sisters because their DNA does not match up to our code of 100 tittles. And Chris and Daniel may deny it, but we cannot read their hearts when I constantly see threads on what it means to be reformed and who is more reformed. Hopefully they mean more biblical and just dont say it. Just count the times the phrase "That is not reforemd" is used, spoken to one who also wears the label!!!! 

I guess one can earn a doctorate as a Divine Internet Optometrist, who can spot a spec or sawdust in their brothers eyes, making them an enemy, when they have 3/4 inch plywood infront of their face where they cannot even see the ray of the sun.

I can say this becasue I have gone against my pledge of the rules on a justification iussue and was suspended for it. Richard, for the most part, was gracious. And now I am allowed to post again. But will not post on that subject until I am convinced. And all is fine. 

If one disagrees with the RPW, or anything that is part of the rules. Talk it out with grace and truth. Instead of talking about John Frame's view, or Schwertly's view and who is more historically reformed..etc etc. Draw a line in the sand, talk as brothers, provide scriptural arguements and pray the Holy Spirit does His promised work. 

I mean cmon, the Apostles, who walked with our Lord for 3 years, were at the feet of the master, were constantly being rebuked by Christ. And yet we somehow were there and know better. Even after eveything Christ spoke, they still thought He would restore israel as a nation. Those miscreant dispensationalists those apostles..


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 22, 2007)

elnwood said:


> FYI, Darryl Hart and John Frame debate the Regulative Principle with regard to confessional subscription in an e-mail exchange.
> The Regulative Principle



While I agree with Hart's style of worship, Frame's closing statement is worth memorizing.


----------

