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

[elnwood]

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]

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]

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.