# Mystical notions of reformed worship



## ModernPuritan? (Sep 1, 2008)

the mythical notions of worship in reformed circles

during the reformation (I think) 2 ideas of worship came about- the Regulitive Principle and the Normative principle (RPW, NPW respectively) another Thing was Sola Scripture (SS)

according to Wikipedia (as far as i can tell the definitions are accurate) NPW=
The Normative Principle of Worship is a Christian theological principle that teaches that worship in the Church can include those elements that are not prohibited by Scripture. The most common traditions utilizing this are Anglican and Lutheran.
RPW=
The regulative principle of worship is a 20th century term used for a teaching shared by Calvinists and Anabaptists .The substance of the doctrine regarding worship is that only those elements that are instituted or appointed by command or example in the Bible are permissible in worship, or in other words, that God institutes in the Scriptures everything he requires for worship in the Church and that everything else is prohibited
SS=
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.
---
so, NPW- as long as God doesnt say no your good
RPW- only what God says
SS- only what God says- Scripture only
---
Problems:
1) the Normitive principle by SS standards is simply proposterous. for these things are not according to NPW forbidden
a) dancing
b) Drama
c) special music/altar calls
d) holy days, etc.
~ I dont see any place in scripture, using SS, that gives authority for any invention, or addition to worship. It would seem that in order to hold to NPW, you must also allow for the church, and traiditon to dictate (to an extent of course) "faith and practice"

2) the folk who claim to hold to RPW are closer, but still seem to be willfully illogical. for by the own definitions of RPW and SS. Everything must be expressely commanded too, or clearly inferred. within the confines of scripture. which means that passages like "Psalms, Hymns, SPiritual songs (P,H,S)" according to SS these three things must be defined within the bounds of scripture, and not tradition. so,
we see commands to sing.(RPW is follwed here)
we see commands to sing "P,H,S"(RPW and SS is lost right about here)
we do not see any example in the Bible using SS of "P,H,S" other than the book of Psalms(that Im aware of)
therefore the only plausible inferrance or interpratiaton (using SS) should be that we are commanded to sing from the book of psalms alone.

with SS, regardless of RPW/NPW, examples of what is meant by P,H,S must be found with in scripture no?

IM thinking out loud with this blog, and I anticipate that my arguments need to be strengthened, or reworded..


please note, im trying to address the theory vs anyones personal interpretation of RPW/NPW/Whatever W thats why i put it in philosiphy.


----------



## PastorSBC (Sep 1, 2008)

I guess I am having a hard time following you on this...is there something you want us to discuss or a question in all of that?


----------



## Tim (Sep 1, 2008)

I think what Jeff may be saying is that since the only example in scripture of 'psalms, hymns and spiritual songs' is in the book of Psalms, then the principles of _sola scriptura_ and regulated worship put together leads to the conclusion that only the 150 Psalms are to be sung. But it seems that hymns and spiritual songs are then left out and do not seem to be adequately described in the Bible, thus making it necessary to go outside of scripture, violating _sola scriptura_.

Do I understand the problem you are introducing, Jeff?


----------



## CharlieJ (Sep 1, 2008)

Sola Scriptura is not philosophically or even theologically related to RPW. SS is the belief that the Bible is the only deposit of special revelation from God. It does *not* mean that it is the only source of information that Christians draw from in decision making.

Church architecture may draw from biblical principles, but the Bible does not teach men how to build. 

Preachers draw a philosophy of preaching from Scripture, but it does not teach a man rhetoric. 

The Biblical authors' use of words is helpful in our lexicography, but it is often necessary to go outside the Bible for help regarding the meaning of words and phrases, since in Scripture they are only used very few times w/o clear context.

The Bible does not always explain the historical customs behind passages that would make them most clear to our understanding.

Therefore, one cannot say that knowledge outside of Scripture or decisions based on knowledge outside of Scripture are eliminated by SS.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 1, 2008)

I'm not sure I understand the denial the RPW is connected to SS; it has customarily been stated to be merely the principle of SS applied to worship. Other things are involved certainly. See 
John L. Girardeau, The Discretionary Power of the Church | Naphtali Press


----------



## CharlieJ (Sep 1, 2008)

I'm objecting to this:

RPW- only what God says
SS- only what God says- Scripture only



SS is the idea that Scripture is the only primary norm, not that we do not allow knowledge outside Scripture. If we were really restricted to "only what God says" that would be absurd. 

I believe RPW is a biblical doctrine. I don't think it can be simply deduced from SS. So, perhaps I was too quick to say that there was no relation, but I do not believe RPW is a necessary consequent.

Also, the OP seemed to think that we must look for biblical examples of what P, H, S in Col. 3:16 means. But even under SS we allow for extra-scriptural help in our lexicography.


----------



## CatechumenPatrick (Sep 1, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> I'm objecting to this:
> 
> SS is the idea that Scripture is the only primary norm, not that we do not allow knowledge outside Scripture. If we were really restricted to "only what God says" that would be absurd.



You might want to further qualify this statement, because we (who hold to SS) do not allow knowledge of God outside of Scripture in certain matters, such as the Trinity, the gospel, and (arguably) how God should be worshiped. As you mentioned, we do make decisions informed by information outside of the Bible, even in matters of worship, but when it comes to how we must and must not worship God, then Scripture only is normative and has the final, binding say. Thus it seems to me that (a Reformed, confessional understanding) of SS is intimately bound with the RPW.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Sep 1, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> I'm objecting to this:
> Also, the OP seemed to think that we must look for biblical examples of what P, H, S in Col. 3:16 means. But even under SS we allow for extra-scriptural help in our lexicography.




but that would clearly be necessary to know what words mean right? (lexicography).

you would define the word Car from outside sources. but, you can still only understand or interpret Car within the confines of the doctument.?


----------

