# Exegetical study on normative principle of worship.



## nathanpunithen (May 14, 2014)

Hello everyone,

I am by the study of Scriptures convinced of the Regulative Principle of Worship. However, I've been thinking of the Normative principle lately and have been looking up online for exegetical articles/books defending the Normative principle of worship. Unfortunately, almost all the articles, sermons, and videos I've found is complains about the application of Reformed principle. I have yet to find an exegete from this camp--hopefully because I was not comprehensive in my search. Can you guys help me giving me some names from the Normative camp; and more importantly the *exegetical arguments* that the supporters of Normative principle use. FYI, Mark Driscoll's treatment on the Normative and Regulative principle is far from exegetical in my mind. So please, besides Driscoll. Thank you in advance for all replies.


----------



## Andres (May 14, 2014)

To be honest, I've never searched for arguments _for _the normative principle of worship. However, if I had to guess, I'd suppose the reason for lack of exegetical arguments in favor of the normative principle is because they don't exist. Everyone that I've ever encountered in modern evangelicalism, practices the NPW, but _not _because they find scriptural evidence for it, but rather becuase it's just what they've always done! Basically, the NPW is the default position of the majority of modern evangelicalism. Most people I know who come into the reformed faith are then taught the RPW and they embrace it because of the scriptural evidences.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 14, 2014)

Go back to the anglo-catholic polemicists?


----------



## Justified (May 14, 2014)

I would agree with what these fellas say, but I'd also like to say welcome since this is your first post. You say you have examined the scriptures and been convinced. If you have been convinced, you should be able to come up with exegetically, at least a little bit, some of your arguments in support of the NPW. If you cannot produce even the slightest exegetical argument (if you have one please share and the good people of this board would love to discuss it with you), you should question the validity of the NPW. I would ask you to prayerfully reconsider your view with the help of a fruitful discussion.

EDIT: changed error where I had RPW where NPW was meant.


----------



## kodos (May 15, 2014)

I have to agree with Andrew, I haven't found any exegetical support for those who hold to the NPW, other than usually somewhat vague assertions of "liberty in Christ", "we worship in Spirit" (usually leaving out the 'and truth' portion of that verse), and a "priesthood of all believers". If someone has a work that is the gold-standard for the NPW I'd love to check it out (I mean that seriously).


----------



## uberkermit (May 15, 2014)

Have a look into Richard Hooker, with respect to the Regulative Principle.


----------



## nathanpunithen (May 15, 2014)

Justified said:


> I would agree with what these fellas say, but I'd also like to say welcome since this is your first post. You say you have examined the scriptures and been convinced. If you have been convinced, you should be able to come up with exegetically, at least a little bit, some of your arguments in support of the NPW. If you cannot produce even the slightest exegetical argument (if you have one please share and the good people of this board would love to discuss it with you), you should question the validity of the NPW. I would ask you to prayerfully reconsider your view with the help of a fruitful discussion.
> 
> EDIT: changed error where I had RPW where NPW was meant.



Thank you for the welcome.  I believe you misread my question. I am *for* RPW not NPW. Since I cannot in my own research find an exegete from the NPW camp, I was thinking if the forum could help direct me to some names.


----------



## Justified (May 15, 2014)

nathanpunithen said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> > I would agree with what these fellas say, but I'd also like to say welcome since this is your first post. You say you have examined the scriptures and been convinced. If you have been convinced, you should be able to come up with exegetically, at least a little bit, some of your arguments in support of the NPW. If you cannot produce even the slightest exegetical argument (if you have one please share and the good people of this board would love to discuss it with you), you should question the validity of the NPW. I would ask you to prayerfully reconsider your view with the help of a fruitful discussion.
> ...



Okay. It was my fault. I misread your post. My eyes deceived me, and I thought I saw you were convinced of the NPW. Sorry, my bad.


----------



## nathanpunithen (May 15, 2014)

uberkermit said:


> Have a look into Richard Hooker, with respect to the Regulative Principle.



Great! I'll look him up. Btw, do you have any particular work that you would like me to look at?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2014)

Hooker was Anglican, and generally opposed to the strict Puritan outlook. I think his magnum opus is _Law of Ecclesiatical Polity,_ and hopefully whatever you can find on the internet has an index or can be searched electronically.

Like this for instance: https://archive.org/details/oflawsofecclesi01hookuoft


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 15, 2014)

I wasn't intending to be cryptic; Hooker is one of the anglocatholics to which George Gillespie responded in his_ Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_ (see the long title where he names them all). If you want to know not just the refutation of the normative principle but the chief proponents, Gillespie is your diving in point for Hooker, Davenant, Field, etc. See the many, many footnote references and the bibliography in the Naphtali Press critical edition of 2013.
###George Gillespie: A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies | Naphtali Press


Contra_Mundum said:


> Hooker was Anglican, and generally opposed to the strict Puritan outlook. I think his magnum opus is _Law of Ecclesiatical Polity,_ and hopefully whatever you can find on the internet has an index or can be searched electronically.
> 
> Like this for instance: https://archive.org/details/oflawsofecclesi01hookuoft





nathanpunithen said:


> uberkermit said:
> 
> 
> > Have a look into Richard Hooker, with respect to the Regulative Principle.
> ...





NaphtaliPress said:


> Go back to the anglo-catholic polemicists?


----------



## nathanpunithen (May 15, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I wasn't intending to be cryptic; Hooker is one of the anglocatholics to which George Gillespie responded in his Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (see the long title where he names them all). If you want to know not just the refutation of the normative principle but the chief proponents, Gillespie is your diving in point for Hooker, Davenant, Field, etc. See the many, many footnote references and the bibliography in the Naphtali Press critical edition of 2013.
> ###George Gillespie: A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies | Naphtali Press





Contra_Mundum said:


> Hooker was Anglican, and generally opposed to the strict Puritan outlook. I think his magnum opus is Law of Ecclesiatical Polity, and hopefully whatever you can find on the internet has an index or can be searched electronically.
> 
> Like this for instance: https://archive.org/details/oflawsofecclesi01hookuoft



Fabulous. Found Hooker's Law of Ecclesiastical Polity extremely helpful.

Chris, thank for recommending Gillespie's book. I think I've got all the big names I needed.


----------

