# When did the term "regulative principle" (referring to worship) arise?



## Jake

Jack K. noted in a recent thread in response to the regulative principle:



> The phrase is quite new, even in Presbyterian circles.



Not wanting to derail a thread, I thought I would ask here: how old is the term? I don't know much about its history.


----------



## Jake

A quick Google Book search of older works sees some Reformed folk using the term in the nineteenth century to some degree, but it seems to be so much a definitive term as it is today. An example is John Girardeau, who uses a "principle" which is "scriptural and regulative" (see https://books.google.com/books?id=9...q=""regulative principle of worship""&f=false). 

Other similar ideas to this include: 
https://books.google.com/books?id=R...q=""regulative principle of worship""&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=x...q=""regulative principle of worship""&f=false


But, I figure someone might have actually looked into this more than some quick Google Book searches.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I've done my fair share of tracing the phrase on and off over the last couple of decades and it influenced the idea to do the 60 year survey of RPW literature with Frank Smith that appeared in several early issues of The Confessional Presbyterian journal. Below is my research as it stood the last time I updated it. 1905 is the earliest date I've found for an American usage (the Brits tend to say things like principle regulative of worship that does not lend toward "coining" a phrase). My theory is Murray's use, who was familiar with both the Southern and Scots Presbyterian literature, probably did more to popularize it than anything previous. Thornwell's use is counter the standard use of the terms but he may have helped fix the use of regulative but in the standard sense.*
Where did the term “regulative principle of worship” originate? Seems to have developed informally into a term from the terminology in Southern Presbyterianism [Harper's use would indicate UPC influence also] and while perhaps not coined by the OPC majority and minority reports on worship song, these documents may have help popularize the phrase referring to the Presbyterian principle of worship.​*Pre Reformation*

*A Confession of Faith of the Waldenses, bearing date A.D. 1120, taken from the Cambridge MSS. 378*Article X: Item, we have always accounted as an unspeakable abomination before God, all those inventions of men, namely, the feasts and the vigils of saints, the water which they call holy. As likewise to abstain from flesh upon certain days, and the like; but especially their masses. The Waldenses: Sketches of The Evangelical Christians of the Valleys of Piedmont (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1853) 378.

Catechism of the Ancient Waldenses for the instruction of their Youth, composed in the 13[SUP]th[/SUP] century.
Min. By what mark knowest thou the false ministers?
Ans. By their fruits; by their blindness; by their evil works; by their perverse doctrines, and by their undue administration of the sacraments.
Min. Whereby knowest thou their blindness?
Ans. When not knowing the truth, which necessarily appertains to salvation, they observe human inventions as ordinances of God. Of whom is verified what Isaiah says, and which is alleged by our Lord Jesus Christ, Matt. 15., “This people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”​*Reformation usage.*

*Necessity of Reforming the Church 1543*“I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word.” “On the Necessity of Reforming the Church” _Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters._ 1.128-129.​*John Knox 1550*All wirschipping, honoring,or service inventit by the braine of man in the religioun of God, without his own express commandment, is Idolatrie. “Vindication of the Doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry” _Works_, ed. David Laing (Edinburgh: Printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1854) 3.34.​*John à Lasco (1499-1560). 1551*‘Nothing ought to be added to public worship concerning which God has given no command_. The Reformation of the Church_, ed. Iain H. Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), 62.

Dirk W. Rodgers, John a Lasco in England (New York: Peter Lang Publications, 1994) 152.
“His argument against the use of vestments essentially arises from two presuppositions. On the one hand, he insists that the essential components of worship are explicitly set forth in scripture. On the other hand, he believes that the priestly garments are a relic of papism and must therefore be expelled from every reformed Church.
“In his 1551 letter to Cranmer, he deals primarily with the first of these concerns. The entire vestment issue, he says, arises from a single question: “whether in the pubic worship which God himself established in his Church with definite ceremonies, anything else can be used concerning which God has not prescribed nothing at all.”​*1560 Scots Confession*And evil works, we affirm not only those that expressedly are done against God's commandment,[9] but those also that, in matters of religion and worshipping of God, have no other assurance but the invention and opinion of man: which God from the beginning has ever rejected, as by the prophet Isaiah,[10] and by our master Christ Jesus, we are taught in these words:_ In vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and precepts of men._[11]
9. 1 John 3:4. 10. Isa. 29:13. 11. Matt. 15:9.; Mark 7:7.​*Genevan Book of Order (1556)*The Genevan Book of Order: The Form of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacraments, etc., Used in the English Congregation at Geneva (1556).
“…so that whatsoever is added to this Word by man’s device, seem it never so good, holy, or beautiful, yet before our God, which is jealous and cannot admit any companion or counselor, it is evil, wicked, and abominable.” _The Reformation of the Church_, ed. Iain H. Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), 62. John Knox, _Works_, ed. David Laing (Edinburgh: Printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1855) 4.160-161.​*Heidelberg Catechism (1563).*
Heidelberg Catechism (1563). Question 96. What does God require in the second commandment?
Answer. That we in nowise make any image of God, nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his word.
​*John Calvin [1563]*_Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and Lamentations_ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), Vol. 1, pp. 413-414.
John Calvin, in his commentary on this passage, writes: “God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, ‘I have not commanded them,’ whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions, than that they are not commanded by God: for when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to His commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship, in which they absurdly exercise themselves, would fall to the ground.... Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying His word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet’s words then are very important when he says that God had _commanded_ no such thing and that it never came to His mind; as though He had said, that men assume too much wisdom, when they devise what He never required, nay, what He never knew.”


Where did the term “regulative principle of worship” originate?

WCF 21:1 The light of nature sheweth 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. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by 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 representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.

​*Scotland*

*Act Against Innovations in the Worship of God, General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Act 15, 1707.*“And considering also that such innovations are dangerous to this Church, and manifestly contrary to our known _principle_ (which is, that nothing is to be admitted in the worship of God but what is prescribed in the Holy Scriptures…”​*Pardovan’s Collections, 2.1.1. Nothing to be admitted in the worship of God, but what is prescribed in Scripture. Many Editions, first edition, Edinburgh, 1709.*By the 15[SUP]th[/SUP] act of Assembly 1707, they declare that there are some innovations set up of late by prelatists in their public Assemblies, which are dangerous to this church, and manifestly contrary to the constant practice and known _principle_ thereof, which is, that nothing is to be admitted in the worship of God, but what is prescribed in the Holy Scriptures; therefore they discharge the practice of all such innovations in divine worship within this church; and ministers are required to inform their people of the evil thereof.​*First organ controversy of 1808*R. S. Candlish, The Organ Question (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1866).​*James Begg*James Begg, The Use of Organs and Other Instruments of Music in Christian Worship Indefensible (Glasgow: W. R. M'Phun and Son, 1866), pp. 10-12. ‘The first thing necessary is to fix the principle which _regulates_ New Testament worship.”

James Begg, Anarchy in Worship, Edinburgh 1875.
“It is important to understand clearly the true scriptural principle of worship as laid down by our Reformers, and to distinguish it from other views and from counterfeits.”​*Robert Johnson*A Discourse on Instrumental Music in Public Worship, Rev. Robert Johnson AM Burlington, IA, 1871​*W. Robertson*The Organ Question, W. Robertson, Manchester, 1868.​*James Kerr, The Scriptural Doctrines Violated By Ritualism. "Romanism and Ritualism in Great Britain and Ireland. A Report of the National Protestant Congress, Edinburgh, October 15-18,1894." Edinburgh: R.W. Hunter, 19 George IV. Bridge, 1895*If the Protestant Churches of the land are to be delivered from the pro-Romish influences at work, this _principle_, which rejects all forms and ceremonies which have no Scriptural warrant, must be again fearlessly enforced…. If this Scriptural doctrine _regulating_ _worship_ were universally adopted, then defiance could be hurled at all the ritualists and Romanists in the empire. The citadel of Protestantism would be safe thus far from these foes. Otherwise, there will be those within the citadel in sympathy with the enemy and ready to open the gates. For the sake of ecclesiastical unity, in defence of the Scriptural doctrine of worship and of true liberty, and in loyalty to the King of the Church, let all rites and ceremonies in religion, of human device, be driven into everlasting exile from this land of Emmanuel.
​*John T Chalmers*Ten Reasons Why The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church Adheres To The Exclusive Use Of The Inspired Psalter In The Worship Of God By Rev. John T. Chalmers, D.D. 1900

Candor compels us to admit that there is a tendency towards relaxation in our adherence to the great _principle_ that whatsoever is not commanded in the Word of God is forbidden. Some manifest a disposition to disparage the precise forms enjoined by God, or, while applying the _principle_ in the department of doctrine, they slight it in the department of government and worship.
But so intimate is the connection between the doctrine, government and worship of the Church, that whatsoever affects the integrity and purity of any one of them, will produce a corresponding modification of the others. And the history of the Church has proved that the abandonment of the _principle_ of adherence to the Divine command in one sphere is sure to produce its relinquishment in others. We are aware that indifference to the prescription of Jehovah is regarded by many as a mark of exemption from besotting prejudice, and as evincing a wider liberality of mind and broader Christian charity. But let us not be deceived. If we believe that our doctrinal beliefs, forms of government and mode and matter of worship are agreeable to and founded upon the Word of God, let us stand by them like men and obey them to the letter.

​*Ireland*Francis Petticrew, "The Scriptural Principle Regulative of the Worship of God," in Psalm-Singers' Conference (Belfast: Fountain Printing Works, 1903), p. 73. Petticrew (1832-1909) was Professor of Theology in Magee College, Londonderry, Ireland. The title is the closest the author comes to using the phrase.​*USA*

*James Henley Thornwell*As under the Old Dispensation nothing connected with the worship or discipline of the Church of God was left to the wisdom or discretion of man, but everything was accurately prescribed by the authority of God, so, under the New, no voice is to be heard in the household of faith but the voice of the Son of God. The power of the Church is purely ministerial and declarative. She is only to hold forth the doctrine, enforce the laws, and execute the government which Christ has given her. She is to add nothing of her own to, and to subtract nothing from, what her Lord has established. Discretionary power she does not posses.
Christianity in its living principles and its outward forms is purely a matter of Divine revelation. The great error of the Church in all ages, the fruitful source of her apostasy and crime, has been a presumptuous reliance upon her own understanding. Her own inventions have seduced her from her loyalty to God, and filled her sanctuary with idols and the hearts of her children with vain imaginations. The Bible cuts at the very root of this evil by affording us a perfect and infallible rule of faith and practice. The absolute perfection of the Scriptures as a directory to man was a cardinal principle of the Reformation, and whatever could not be traced to them either directly or by necessary inference was denounced as a human invention — as mere will-worship, which God abhors so deeply that an inspired Apostle has connected it with idolatry or the worshipping of angels. “Argument Against Church-Boards,” _Works_ (Banner of Truth edition, 1974) 4.163-164. Originally published in the _Baltimore Literary and Religious Magazine_ in 1841.

_Regulative principles_ define only ends to be aimed at, or conditions to be observed; constitutive principles determine the concrete forms in which the ends are to be realized. _Works_, 4.252.
The simple question is, What was the bondage of the Jewish dispensation? Did it consist in the subjection of the people to the Divine will? Was that their grievous and intolerable burden, that they were bound in all things to _regulate their worship_ by the Divine Word? Is God’s authority a yoke so heavy that we sigh until we can throw it off? One would think that it was the great advantage of the Jews, that they knew their worship was acceptable because it was prescribed. Boards and Presbyterianism (originally published in 1861), _Works_, 4.254.

According to one type, which we characterized as a strictly _jure divino_ theory, God has given us a government as truly as He has given us a doctrine. He has left nothing to human discretion but the circumstantials — the things common to human actions and societies. According to the other, he has ordained government in general, but no one government in particular. He has laid down the laws — the *regulative principles* — by which a government must be organized; but He has left it to human wisdom to make the organization, by determining the elements and the mode of their combination. Ibid, 4.260.

Without the Word, without the positive appointments of the King, without a constitution made to our hands and adapted to our spiritual needs, we should have succeeded about as well in framing a Church, even with the help of *regulative principles*, from our spiritual life, as the soul would have succeeded in framing a body for itself. Ibid, 4.262.​*Robert Lewis Dabney*“Dr. Girardeau has defended the old usage of our church with a moral courage, loyalty to truth, clearness of reasoning and wealth of learning which should make every true Presbyterian proud of him, whether he adopts his conclusions or not. The framework of his arguments is this: it begins with that vital truth which no Presbyterian can discard without a square desertion of our principles. The man who contests this first premise had better set out at once for Rome: God is to be worshipped only in the ways appointed in his word. Every act of public cultus not positively enjoined by him is thereby forbidden.”​*John L. Girardeau*Regular, regulation, regulative used several times in “Instrumental Music.”

“In theology, he was a Sub-lapsarian; in morals, a Puritan; and in government a Presbyterian. To him, every word of the Bible was the infallible word of the living God. Every thing that concerned the faith and practice of the Church was determined by this word of God as interpreted in the light of his _regulative principle_: ‘A divine warrant is necessary for every thing in the faith and practice of the Church.’ This rule governed him in all of his thinking and in all of his conduct.” The Life and Work of John L. Girardeau, D.D., LL.D. George A. Blackburn, D.D. (Columbia, The State Company, 1916). 371.
“He believed that _the Church was a divine institution_ and not a human organization. Its constitution and powers, its officers and agencies, were all indicated in the Scriptures. He held tenaciously to the _principle_ “Whatsoever is not commanded is forbidden.” He applied it in the realm of doctrine, discipline and worship. It was the only one which would safely protect the conscience, and insure religious liberty for the members of the Church. He always resisted any proposition, policy, or custom which he thought logically infringed this fundamental tenet. With him it was _regulative_, and all-controlling. He denied that voluntarism which phrased itself, “Whatsoever is not forbidden is permitted.” The Church was a divine organization, with a divine constitution, and all ecclesiastical action must be remorselessly ruled by the proposition that whatsoever is not commanded, either explicitly or implicitly, in Scripture is unlawful and forbidden. The Church has no discretionary power. None in its didactic, in its diacritic, nor in its diatactic spheres. Both its ecclesiology and its practice must be wholly biblical. He had not the least bit of sympathy with voluntarism in any of its forms or applications.” 211.
“He opposed the introduction of instruments of music into the public worship of God’s house. In this he stood with Thornwell, Breckinridge, Dabney, Peck and Adger. He defended this position on the ground that it was violative of the great Protestant _principle_ that whatsoever is not commanded is forbidden. He held that the instruments of music, which were used in the Temple, belonged to its typical and symbolical service, and passed away with all the ceremonial system of Israel. He consistently never had an organ in a church of which he was pastor.” 216.

“It will, no doubt, be said that the attempt to prove the unjustifiable employment of instrumental music in the public worship of the Church is schismatical, since the practice is now well-nigh universal; that it is trivial, inasmuch as it concerns a mere circumstantial in the services of religion; and that it is useless, as the tendency which is resisted is invincible, and is destined to triumph throughout Protestant Christendom. To all this one answer alone is offered, and it is sufficient, namely: that the attempt is grounded in truth. It involves a contest for a mighty and all-comprehending principle, by opposing one of the special forms in which it is now commonly transcended and violated. It is that principle, emphasized in the following remarks as scriptural and regulative, that lends importance to the discussion, and redeems it from the reproach of being narrow and trifling.” John L. Girardeau, _Instrumental Music in the Worship of the Church_ (Richmond, Va..:Whittet and Shepperson, Printers, 1001 Main Street. 1888) 6.​*James Harper*An exposition in the form of question and answer of the Westminster Assembly's Shorter catechism (United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1905) 221. “Lately Professor of Theology in the Theological Seminary, Xenia, Ohio.”
“The Second Commandment lays down _the regulative principle of worship_: it forbids idolatry.”
*Psalms, Use of the, in Worship.*
“1. To worship God otherwise than he has appointed is 'will-worship,' more or less gross. The law regulative of worship is not that we may use both what is commanded and what is not expressly forbidden, but that we must be limited to the use of what is either expressly or implicitly appointed by God (Deut. xii. 32; Matt. sv. 9, xxviii. 20).” Johann Jakob Herzog, A Religious Encyclopaedia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Volume 3(Funk & Wagnalls, 1889) “Psalms, Use of the, in Worship,” 1960.​*R. J. George*R. J. George, The Covenanter Vision (New York: Christian Nation Pub. Co., 1917). Refers to “fundamental principle of the Calvinistic reformation,” the principle of worship “That which is not commanded in the worship of God is forbidden.” 185-187.
Robert Stephenson Simpson
Robert Stephenson, Ideas in corporate worship (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1927). New College Chalmers Lecture. Not particularly moored in the historic Presbyterian understanding, though he supposes no one would disagree that all elements of worship must have scriptural support. Simpson does speak of what he believes is “The regulative ideal of worship,” but by this he refers to the idea of “worship as offering.”​*James Hastings, Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics: Volume 12 (New York: Scribner’s, 1922) 763.*
The phrase is used in an article on Christian worship but not for the Puritan principle.​*John Murray, The Sovereignty of God (Philadelphia : Committee on Christian education, The Orthodox Presbyterian church, 1943. Previously published in The Sovereignty of God, ed. J. T. Hoogstra (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1940), 26. Papers presented at the first American Calvinistic Conference of 1939.*It is significant that it is precisely this line of Old Testament witness that is appealed to by our Lord as the answer to the question, “What commandment is the first of all?” “The first...is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark 12:29). And the necessary consequence for us is, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” (Mark 12:30). “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10). The pivotal character of the oneness of God appears, for example, in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, when it is made the hinge upon which turns and hangs no less important a doctrine than that of justification by faith. “Or is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith” (Rom. 3:29-31). And again in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the foundation that “to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him” (I Cor. 8:6*) is the first principle regulative of worship*.​*1946, OPC. Report of the Committee on Song in Worship, Minutes of the 13[SUP]th[/SUP] General Assembly of the OPC, pp. 101–107 (written by John Murray)*There is a principle clearly expressed in our subordinate Standards which has frequently been called, the _regulative principle of worship_. There is an appropriateness in the word “regulative,” because it is the principle that deals with the question: in what way or ways are we to worship God? What are the elements which constitute the true and acceptable worship of God? How may we know that the way in which we worship God is acceptable to Him?

To be quite concrete and historical, there are at least two well-defined answers to this question in Christian churches. One of these is that of the Romish Church, followed in principle by Lutherans and Episcopalians, namely, that it is proper to worship God in ways not forbidden in the Word. In contrast with this there is another answer, namely, that God may be worshipped only in ways instituted, prescribed or commanded in the Word. The contrast is patent—the one says: what is not forbidden is permitted, the other says: what is not prescribed is forbidden.

It is in relation to this question that the regulative principle is to be understood. It will surely be conceded that it has a right to such a denomination. The following examination of our Standards will show that a regulative principle is clearly enunciated and that it is precisely formulated in answer to the questions stated above.​

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> Francis Petticrew, "The Scriptural Principle Regulative of the Worship of God," in Psalm-Singers' Conference (Belfast: Fountain Printing Works, 1903), p. 73. Petticrew (1832-1909) was Professor of Theology in Magee College, Londonderry, Ireland. The title is the closest the author comes to using the phrase.



That is what first came to mind. Even if the term is new, the idea is as old as the Reformed tradition.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

As an FYI the above "Psalm Singers' Conference" papers are available here:

https://archive.org/stream/PsalmSin...2/PsalmSingersConference1902#page/n1/mode/2up


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> As an FYI the above "Psalm Singers' Conference" papers are available here:
> 
> https://archive.org/stream/PsalmSin...2/PsalmSingersConference1902#page/n1/mode/2up



I put it up.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an FYI the above "Psalm Singers' Conference" papers are available here:
> 
> https://archive.org/stream/PsalmSin...2/PsalmSingersConference1902#page/n1/mode/2up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I put it up.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jack K

Wow, Chris has done some extensive research!

As far as being tossed around commonly in traditional Presbyterian circles, I think it's fair to say there's been a significant uptick in the use of the term over the last 30 years or so. I don't think I ever heard it before the 1990s, possibly the late '80s. As has been noted, though, the principle (if not the phrasing) was a Reformation-era ideal that derives from Scripture.

Side story: The first time I remember hearing the phrase was from a visiting presbyter who complained that a reminder about a church supper, given before the benediction, meant that our PCA church didn't properly separate announcements from the worship service. He accused us of denying "the regulative principle of worship." Once he explained what he meant I thought, "Wait, we don't deny that at all. I've learned and agreed with that principle since I was a child. We just don't have a term for it—and we're less fastidious about it than you are." Sadly, whether or not he had a good point, he was a poor representative of the stricter side of Presbyterianism. He had not really come to worship, but had come hoping to find an error to accuse us of. I confess I've had to struggle since then to remember that not all Presbyterians who're passionate about proper worship are equally snobby. One can be both a RPW "hard-liner" and still humble and kind.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Jack K said:


> Wow, Chris has done some extensive research!


It was harder before the internet. 
That abrasive fellow did have a good point however poorly he made it. But again, I keep coming back to this idea of the RPW not being strict for one and stricter for another, or some thing that can be held loosely by some and tighter by others. A loosely held RPW or being less persnickety or fastidious about applying it simply indicates the principle is not held seriously or is simply not understood. In other words, it is one thing for me to say according to the RPW "this and that is true" and for someone to object that they think I'm misapplying it, and quite another for me to aver something and someone to simply respond, "I'm not as strict about this as you are." One goes to a disagreement over application of the principle and the other to the heart of the principle itself, which is whatever is not commanded is forbidden.


----------



## Jack K

NaphtaliPress said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Chris has done some extensive research!
> 
> 
> 
> It was harder before the internet.
> That abrasive fellow did have a good point however poorly he made it. But again, I keep coming back to this idea of the RPW not being strict for one and stricter for another, or some thing that can be held loosely by some and tighter by others. A loosely held RPW or being less persnickety or fastidious about applying it simply indicates the principle is not held seriously or is simply not understood. In other words, it is one thing for me to say according to the RPW "this and that is true" and for someone to object that they think I'm misapplying it, and quite another for me to aver something and someone to simply respond, "I'm not as strict about this as you are." One goes to a disagreement over application of the principle and the other to the heart of the principle itself, which is whatever is not commanded is forbidden.
Click to expand...


Well, some just don't care as much, that's true enough.

Beyond that, I agree we ought to think in terms of differences in how we believe we ought to apply the principle. However, application often does seem to come down to matters that might be termed as "strictness" and "looseness." Some will see no warrant given for instruments in non-Temple worship and so will consider the practice disallowed. Others will see the commands for instruments in the Psalms or elsewhere and figure this ought to apply broadly to all worship—so they consider the practice commanded. I think most people will understand what I mean if I say the first is more "strict" and the second more "loose" in interpretation/application.

Or, I may believe that the preacher is not out of line if he reminds the congregation of the church supper even if he happens to do so before officially closing the service. In saying this I would draw a less distinct line than some might draw between the larger life of the church and the gathered worship service (I acknowledge that non-worship elements may come up during periods of worship), while still believing strongly that we may not just embrace any worship elements that sound good to us. In that case, I might be labelled "loose" even while affirming the principle.

Not to get too bogged down with labels, but they do help us communicate productively. Do you have a better way to describe such differences in a single (hopefully non-pejorative) word or two?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

No; I don't grant the application of looseness. It implies the principle can be held too tightly and not loose enough. With instruments it is not a matter of how tightly we apply the principle but how we interpret scripture in that case. The same goes for psalmody. There's simply no place between the call to worship and the benediction for "house keeping" announcements. You might find an Anglican with that position. I think that comes down to a matter of how seriously we take the demarcation of that time. That's all I have time for; the 2014 issue of the journal is in so I am processing orders.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

For the phrase itself, see results of using the Google ngram search:
http://tinyurl.com/otma4cy


----------



## Jake

Thanks for the information Chris. That's quite helpful!


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Thanks, Chris. I had not done extensive research on this, but just a bit of cursory research. I had not come up with a clear usage before Murray in the mid-40s. I appreciate the specific reference back to 1905, though it's interesting that it doesn't get clearly used again (in that particular form) until Murray. 

Thornwell's usage is to quite another end, as you indicate, arguing, over against Hodge and others, for what one might call a "regulative principle of government." But this has about it a rather different set of concerns and issues. 

I do understand, my dear brother, what you mean when you (and other good brothers like Daniel, and many others on the PB) say that the RPW does not have stricter and looser meanings. But it is certainly differently constructed. And thus I have sympathy with Jack seeking to find some way to communicate this without someone who holds your position simply saying about someone who differs in construction of the RPW--"you don't believe in the RPW."

For example, I would assume that you and I would disagree over what is elemental and what is circumstantial when it comes to the use of musical instruments in worship. I would agree that the content of what we sing (psalms only, as opposed to psalms plus hymns) is elemental. Some in the Zurich tradition, of course, did not believe that any singing at all was commanded in worship and thus was not warranted. Would I say that such Zurichers rejected the RPW? No, they differently constructed it. 

I have no problem with someone who holds your position saying to someone who holds mine, "You wrongly construct the RPW." I do have a problem with someone saying flatly: "You reject the RPW." No, I construct it differently at points. I tend to stay away from this discussion on this board because of the heat often engendered by it, but I am commenting on this because of my respect for you and the other brothers here who hold to a version of the RPW that differs from mine.

I would like for us to find a charitable and ecclesiastically responsible way to discuss our differences without simply concluding that if one does not hold to our version of the RPW (that is, what it entails in its details) then one does not hold to such in any proper sense. I do this as someone who is particularly committed to seeking greater unity among those who are confessionally Reformed and Presbyterian. I think that we can ill afford to remain at a distance from each other. 

The time for a more intentional Reformed ecumenicity has come. I challenge us all, including the PB, to strive more intentionally for such. Let's seek to adopt more charitable ways of discussing our differences, because we have so much in common we must not let what separates us alienate us. I offer this for the thought and edification of all.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Dr. Strange, you mentioned different versions of the RPW. Do you define it as Chris Coldwell defines it above, or does your definition vary from that? I've learned a great deal from PB about the issues surrounding RPW, and understand that different people apply the RPW differently, but one thing I haven't figured out is whether there are differences here in definitions.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Alan, No argument here. The founding principle of The Confessional Presbyterian journal was just this kind of ongoing discussion and interaction. 


Alan D. Strange said:


> I would like for us to find a charitable and ecclesiastically responsible way to discuss our differences without simply concluding that if one does not hold to our version of the RPW (that is, what it entails in its details) then one does not hold to such in any proper sense. I do this as someone who is particularly committed to seeking greater unity among those who are confessionally Reformed and Presbyterian. I think that we can ill afford to remain at a distance from each other.
> 
> The time for a more intentional Reformed ecumenicity has come. I challenge us all, including the PB, to strive more intentionally for such. Let's seek to adopt more charitable ways of discussing our differences, because we have so much in common we must not let what separates us alienate us. I offer this for the thought and edification of all.


----------



## lynnie

Chris, that is an impressive collection of quotes. Thanks for the research!!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Thanks for that response, Chris. I think that _The Confessional Presbyterian Journal _ is a good example of such ecumenical interaction. The PB also affords a good opportunity for such. 

I want to bring a wider body, like that represented here on the PB, into the consideration of such. I would like to see the constituency of this fine Board become more self-consciously ecumenical. As I would all of our churches. 

Permit me to speak as a fool just a bit. I've moderated the OPC GA and been on leading committees for some time, including many years as Vice-President or President of the GCP Board (the PCA and OPC alternate back and forth), publishing Christian Educational materials for both our denominations (and many others who use GCP materials). I've also chaired our Psalter-Hymnal Special Committee, which is now working together with the URC to publish a joint Psalter-Hymnal. I teach, and have taught, men from the OPC, PCA, URCNA, CRC, Can. RC, RCA, RCUS, ARP, RPCNA, EPC, KAPC, EPCEW, and from many other stateside and international denominations. I speak as a fool. None of that means anything (only Christ does), but I have learned a thing or two about this--all of us who are truly confessional, wherever we come from, need to seek to come together as much as we can across denominational lines. 

I believe that the PB is a place for this sort of thing: practical ecumenicity of a sort that not only involves leadership at the level of GA, presbytery or session, but also, and more particularly in the case of the PB, the laity more broadly. I've never said this here so explicitly, though, and feel burdened to do so. We need to make sure that we are both confessing the Reformed faith in all its vigor and, at the same time, with all appropriate charity toward each other (Mark 9:38-41). I point the finger at no one but myself and acknowledge that it is easy in the kinds of discussions that we have here to become finer and finer in the points that we make (not a bad thing in itself) so that it can have the effect of making us more and more narrow and partisan (not something that I think that any of us want). 

I am going on here, Chris, far beyond the point of this thread (or likely, any other), but I am burdened in a general way to call for a renewed ecumenical spirit and even for the laity to call for its office-bearers to work for such. It has always been His command (John 17), but I've felt an urgency for it in recent times as never before. Bob Godfrey called for a Reformed Synod of all our bodies some years back. Many scorned it on various grounds. I think that some form of what he called for is more needed than ever, something closer and more unified than NAPARC. Though we may sharply distinguish among each other, it's clear that the world can see little difference between the confessionally Reformed and Presbyterian. Maybe we had better start being more intentional in our dialog here and everywhere else in a right attempt at greater unity. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Jeri:

Yes, I mean that among those of us who believe in the RPW, we don't all apply it in the same way, as I noted in my post with respect to musical instruments in worship. I believe that the RPW is properly defined as "God forbids in worship that which He has not commanded," as that applies to the elements of worship (not to the circumstances of such).

But, as you can see from what I've written, my interest just now is not the narrow point of how we see the RPW applying in any given case, but how we can have this, and other like discussions, in a way that is faithful in all things--both in apprehension of the truth and in charity toward each other--working always to greater unity. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## reaganmarsh

Very helpful quotes, Chris; very helpful insights, Dr. Strange.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Thanks, Pastor Marsh. I was thinking about going a step further and your comment prompts me to do so. 

I have called for ecumenicity ecclesiastically among those who are of same or allied confessions and who share the same church government and sacramentology. So all that I've said heretofore about ecumenicity addressed only Reformed and Presbyterians. 

I realize that the dynamic is quite different with those who have another form of church government and reject paedo-baptism. But I believe that we too must seek ways to work more closely together. I know that it won't mean the same thing as Reformed and Presbyterians getting together, but I do believe that Reformed folk of every stripe (including Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc.) need also to be more intentional and thoughtful about how we can enjoy closer ties and communion. This is a strength of this Board, in my view. 

We must do what we can to foster genuine, yet charitable, dialogue among all the Reformed, even when we differ over relatively larger matters (while still agreeing soterically). Again, ecumenicity is not a luxury but a necessity. We are all bound to maintain (certainly office-bearers are) the purity, peace, and unity of the church. We may not sacrifice the purity for an idolatrous unity, nor may we think that we have purity if we lack proper unity. These are not properties to be pitted off against each other but each to be held and vigorously pursued. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It seems Presbyterians are always steering a treacherous course between the Scylla of separatism and the Charybdis of unity at any cost. 


Alan D. Strange said:


> We must do what we can to foster genuine, yet charitable, dialogue among all the Reformed, even when we differ over relatively larger matters (while still agreeing soterically). Again, ecumenicity is not a luxury but a necessity. We are all bound to maintain (certainly office-bearers are) the purity, peace, and unity of the church. We may not sacrifice the purity for an idolatrous unity, nor may we think that we have purity if we lack proper unity. These are not properties to be pitted off against each other but each to be held and vigorously pursued.


----------



## timmopussycat

NaphtaliPress said:


> It seems Presbyterians are always steering a treacherous course between the Scylla of separatism and the Charybdis of unity at any cost.



While an idolatrous lowest-common-denominator organizational unity among "Christians" of whatever theology is indeed a Charybdis, we may not include the Dominically commanded unity among the Reformed, or even all who take Scripture as infallible, (whether evangelical, Reformed, Lutheran, Congregational or Episcopalian) within the perils to be avoided.


----------



## timmopussycat

Alan D. Strange said:


> Thanks, Pastor Marsh. I was thinking about going a step further and your comment prompts me to do so.
> 
> I have called for ecumenicity ecclesiastically among those who are of same or allied confessions and who share the same church government and sacramentology. So all that I've said heretofore about ecumenicity addressed only Reformed and Presbyterians.
> 
> I realize that the dynamic is quite different with those who have another form of church government and reject paedo-baptism. But I believe that we too must seek ways to work more closely together. I know that it won't mean the same thing as Reformed and Presbyterians getting together, but I do believe that Reformed folk of every stripe (including Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc.) need also to be more intentional and thoughtful about how we can enjoy closer ties and communion. This is a strength of this Board, in my view.
> 
> We must do what we can to foster genuine, yet charitable, dialogue among all the Reformed, even when we differ over relatively larger matters (while still agreeing soterically). Again, ecumenicity is not a luxury but a necessity. We are all bound to maintain (certainly office-bearers are) the purity, peace, and unity of the church. We may not sacrifice the purity for an idolatrous unity, nor may we think that we have purity if we lack proper unity. These are not properties to be pitted off against each other but each to be held and vigorously pursued.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Are you familiar with the controversy between the late Dr. Martyn LLoyd-Jones and Anglican evangelicals over the question of cross-denominational unity?


----------



## lynnie

Dr Strange......what is the difference between what you envision and what the Gospel Coalition tried to do? I always wondered why so many Reformed pastors and professors held in esteem here were never asked to be part of the GC. After the way the GC appear to have dealt badly with the SGM scandals I suppose many men are glad not to have their reputations tied to the CG......but in the beginning, weren't Carson and Keller and the lot trying to do what you describe?


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Lynnie:

What I am calling for is more intentional ecumenicity ecclesiastically. I've been involved in working closely with the PCA and the URC, especially, in an official capacity. We need more of that. There's lots more that we could do cooperatively and lots that we're committed to on paper but do not do well in practice. 

And I am also calling for a greater spirit of such among the laity, so that we welcome (and call for) pulpit swaps and many more instances of cross-fertilization, remaining within the bounds of our churches yet interacting vigorously with each other. 

I am an Old School Presbyterian, which means that I put a premium on working within the institutional church. Even then, I think local churches (as well as prebyteries/classes and broader bodies) could interact considerably more, even in conferences and the like that would involve not only other Presbyterian and Reformed folk but others as mentioned above, not unlike some of those that CG at its best was seeking to bring together (without things being set up in a way that ultimately led to the kind of problems with CG that you cite). 

And, yes, Tim, I am familiar with what you cite and my more ecclesial approach would hopefully address some of that (as much as the Dr. contributed, ecclesiology was not one of his strengths). Perhaps I miss your point, here, but I do think that the Dr. could tend to reduce all to soteriology. I want to be careful not to do that but to maintain a vigorous ecclesiology. 

I think all of this likely starts with a keener awareness of the great need for closer relations among us all and a new openness to one another (more trust and acceptance and less wariness). Again, I need to hear this myself. I find it far to easy to move from being thankful and appreciative for what the Lord has given to the church of which I am a part to adopting a rah-rah mentality. We must work to be more ecumenical within the proper boundaries. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dr. Strange,

Your lectures at Mark Van Der Molen's Church were excellent as you presented the history of the Church. You excelled at showing the positives of even the dispensational camps while not forgetting to acknowledge their differences. It gave me a better appreciation for what the Lord did through the dispensational churches. You revealed that they were jealous for the doctrines of inspiration and authority as opposed to what our Churches were going through in abandoning those positions. 

There seems to be a need for us to remain close with other denominations so that we can keep each other sharp despite our differences. Sometimes the holy huddle can be very dangerous as Owen spoke about sectarians here. John Owen on Secterians | RPCNA Covenanter


----------



## Dearly Bought

Dr. Strange,
This might be a subject worthy of its own thread, but let me give some thoughts in response here. It seems to me that any laudable move towards a healthy Reformed ecumenism needs to start with four things:

Thicker skin.
Cultivation of the ability to speak with conviction but not vitriol. 
Vigorous discussion and debate that seeks to bring brethren closer to the truth of Scripture rather than whitewash over differences.
Thicker skin.

We need to confront the differences that still separate our churches head on and hash them out until the Lord sees fit to bless us all with closer adherence to his truth.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Bryan: 

What you point out, brother, is one side of the equation. What is centrally needed for all the parties, and I appreciate this much more the older I become and the longer I serve in the church, is what Augustine called the chief virtue of the Christian--humility. 

Think of your desiderata in this light: the more humility I exercise, the least needlessly offensive I will be to others and I myself will not be easily offended. I'll be able to discuss doctrinal truth in a way that manifests both a commitment to Christ and a concern for love of the brethren (and not as if contending for abstract propositions). I need, in other words, to humble myself and regard my brother as better than myself and our discussion as a manifestation of my love for God and for him. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## MW

This might throw a spanner in the works, but as a philosophical term applied to the laws of the mind or to scientific method a "regulative principle" means something like what we call a "normative principle," and that which we call a "regulative principle" is properly termed a "constitutive principle." I understand the term is set in concrete now, and so we are likely stuck with it, but it appears to be a misnomer, and may in fact have contributed to the various misunderstandings which have arisen.

The different terminology is well explained by James Henley Thornwell (Collected Writings, 4:252):



> General principles are of two sorts — regulative and constitutive. Regulative principles define only ends to be aimed at, or conditions to be observed; constitutive principles determine the concrete forms in which the ends are to be realized. Regulative, express the spirit, constitutive, the form, of a government. It is a regulative principle, for example, that all governments should seek the good of their subjects; it is a constitutive principle that power should be lodged in the hands of such and such officers, and dispensed by such and such courts. Regulative principles define nothing as to the mode of their own exemplification; constitutive principles determine the elements of an actual polity. When, therefore, it is said that only the general principles of church-government are laid down in the Scripture, and not the details, if the allusion is to constitutive principles, the sentence is perfectly just — it conveys precisely the truth. The essential principles, in that case, mean nothing more nor less than the positive prescriptions of Scripture in relation to the office-bearers and the courts of the Church; the details mean those circumstances, common to human actions and societies, which it is confessedly within the province of the Church to regulate. If the allusion is to regulative principles, which prescribe the end without condescending to the means, which convey nothing definite as to the mode of concrete realization, then the proposition is certainly false; the Scriptures descend to what, in that case, would have to be considered as details.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Alan D. Strange said:


> Bryan:
> 
> What you point out, brother, is one side of the equation. What is centrally needed for all the parties, and I appreciate this much more the older I become and the longer I serve in the church, is what Augustine called the chief virtue of the Christian--humility.
> 
> Think of your desiderata in this light: the more humility I exercise, the least needlessly offensive I will be to others and I myself will not be easily offended. I'll be able to discuss doctrinal truth in a way that manifests both a commitment to Christ and a concern for love of the brethren (and not as if contending for abstract propositions). I need, in other words, to humble myself and regard my brother as better than myself and our discussion as a manifestation of my love for God and for him.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Hi Dr. Strange,
In a stumbling manner, this is what I meant to express in my second point, advocating speech with conviction but without vitriol. I would hold thick skin and humble speech that pursues the good of the brethren to both be essential requirements of Reformed ecumenism.


----------



## Wayne

Matthew:

It sounds like your definition of terms would be more in keeping with that of Thomas E. Peck. (cf. Peck, Notes on Ecclesiology, 2nd ed. 1992, p. 114).


----------



## MW

Wayne said:


> It sounds like your definition of terms would be more in keeping with that of Thomas E. Peck. (cf. Peck, Notes on Ecclesiology, 2nd ed. 1992, p. 114).



Wayne, Thankyou for the reference. I will have to keep an eye out for that volume. I only have access to the Miscellanies. There Peck reflects on Thornwell's terms as follows:



> We only mean to assert, therefore, in the case before us, that the brethren on the other side give such a latitude of meaning to the word "circumstances" in the Confession, as virtually to deny the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule, and to invest the church with a discretionary power, limited only by the prohibitions of the word. The "general principles" by which they contend that the church is to be governed in matters of polity and worship seem to be "regulative" only, principles which define only ends to be aimed at, or conditions to be observed; while the other side contends that the general principles are "constitutive" also, determining the concrete forms in which those ends are to be realized. The Scriptures, for example, not only lay down the regulative principle of the parity of the ministry, but they give us also the constitutive principle, that the jurisdiction of the ministers is to be exercised jointly with elders who are not ministers, in courts called presbyteries.


----------



## reaganmarsh

Alan D. Strange said:


> Thanks, Pastor Marsh. I was thinking about going a step further and your comment prompts me to do so.
> 
> I have called for ecumenicity ecclesiastically among those who are of same or allied confessions and who share the same church government and sacramentology. So all that I've said heretofore about ecumenicity addressed only Reformed and Presbyterians.
> 
> I realize that the dynamic is quite different with those who have another form of church government and reject paedo-baptism. But I believe that we too must seek ways to work more closely together. I know that it won't mean the same thing as Reformed and Presbyterians getting together, but I do believe that Reformed folk of every stripe (including Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc.) need also to be more intentional and thoughtful about how we can enjoy closer ties and communion. This is a strength of this Board, in my view.
> 
> We must do what we can to foster genuine, yet charitable, dialogue among all the Reformed, even when we differ over relatively larger matters (while still agreeing soterically). Again, ecumenicity is not a luxury but a necessity. We are all bound to maintain (certainly office-bearers are) the purity, peace, and unity of the church. We may not sacrifice the purity for an idolatrous unity, nor may we think that we have purity if we lack proper unity. These are not properties to be pitted off against each other but each to be held and vigorously pursued.
> 
> Peace,
> Alan



Dr. Strange, I wholeheartedly concur. I dearly love my SBC brethren after nearly 17 years ministering among them, but often find more common ground with my PCA/OPC/ARP friends (ie, here on the PB) due to the intentional Reformational confessional position. 

We can firmly hold our differing confessions while strongly affirming the many points wherein we thoroughly agree. Iron sharpens iron, and the Kingdom advances. 

You stated it much better than I can, so I simply say: Thanks for not kicking us to the curb.

Now: my apologies for derailing the thread. As you were. ;-)


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Matthew: 

I remembered a gloss that I had put at the point that you cited (Thornwell's _Collected Writings_, 4:252): in the margin, I wrote, "Interesting in light of what in the 20th c. comes to be called the regulative principle of worship."

It is for this reason (and Wayne's citation of Peck's usage) that I've somewhat wondered about our usage of it in the 20th century, particularly as it seems so heavily influenced by John Murray. I know what Chris said about Murray's familiarity with the sources, but I have not found Professor Murray to be the most careful student of history, though he is often a good exegete and biblical theologian. Your recalling this for us (thanks, I had just let it slip, though seeing it recalled the gloss!) makes me wonder all the more about Harper's then Murray's use of "regulative."

Peace,
Alan


----------



## mvdm

In line with Dr. Strange's desire that we carefully distinguish between what is elemental and circumstantial, the following 1928 CRC report provides helpful application of those principles to the topic of hymn singing vs. psalm singing. This topic piqued my interest when recently I read a Reformed minister's blog suggesting that the CRC's introduction of hymnody was just some pragmatic concession, with little consideration of the "regulative principle". But it turns out that was poor/selective reading of history. So in these discussions, we should at least go back to the sources and read them in their proper context.

If interested in reading, the meat of the analysis begins at page 15, including a look back at the Synod of Dort's treatment of hymnody: 

http://www.calvin.edu/library/database/crcnasynod/1930agendahymns.pdf


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Folks, pursue a new thread in the EP subforum if you want to discuss the material at the link or the merits/demerits of exclusive psalmody.


mvdm said:


> In line with Dr. Strange's desire that we carefully distinguish between what is elemental and circumstantial, the following 1928 CRC report provides helpful application of those principles to the topic of hymn singing vs. psalm singing. This topic piqued my interest when recently I read a Reformed minister's blog suggesting that the CRC's introduction of hymnody was just some pragmatic concession, with little consideration of the "regulative principle". But it turns out that was poor/selective reading of history. So in these discussions, we should at least go back to the sources and read them in their proper context.
> 
> If interested in reading, the meat of the analysis begins at page 15, including a look back at the Synod of Dort's treatment of hymnody:
> 
> http://www.calvin.edu/library/database/crcnasynod/1930agendahymns.pdf


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

MW said:


> Wayne said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like your definition of terms would be more in keeping with that of Thomas E. Peck. (cf. Peck, Notes on Ecclesiology, 2nd ed. 1992, p. 114).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne, Thankyou for the reference. I will have to keep an eye out for that volume. principle, that the jurisdiction of the ministers is to be exercised jointly with elders who are not ministers, in courts called presbyteries.
Click to expand...


Online version here:
https://archive.org/details/notesonecclesiol00peck

I have a PDF version of the above that I OCR'd for searching and with single page views that is available for download here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6HWxDunFF2GcnNvM0d5dzVJb1U&authuser=0
(Note: For those who are reading this post some time from now and the link above is no longer working, send me a PM with your email address.)

You may appreciate the name of the person from whom's library the book was supplied, too (page 1).


----------



## MW

Thankyou, Patrick.

It is interesting that Peck uses the term "strict-constructionist" to describe the view of Thornwell. As suggested above, the use of the term "regulative" may have led to some misunderstandings. Amongst these one would have to include the term "strict" to describe some adherents to the principle. If Peck's term is anything to go by, "constitutive" would have meant "strict" by definition.


----------

