John Frame and \"mode\" in the Regulative Principle of Worship
http://www.reformed.org/misc/index.html?mainframe=/misc/frame_regulative_principle.html
I read the linked article by John Frame, in which he says the following:
How does the traditional Regulative Principle proponents answer Frame concerning this 3rd category, along with "element" and "circumstance" called "mode"; and what is the response of making song a "mode" of performing the "elements" of "praying, teaching, praising"?
It seems to me, that couple of things must follow from this:
1. If singing is only a "mode" by which we may perform the other elements of worship, then singing becomes unnecessary to corporate worship. It would be acceptable for the elders of a congregation to decide that it is okay to not sing.
2. If singing is only a "mode" for performing the elements of worship, then it is acceptable for a pastor to sing his sermon.
I know that later in his article, Frame argues for the Regulative Principle to apply to all of life as well as to worship; but in this thread, let's keep it to one topic at a time; namely "mode" of worship.
Frame says, "Doubtless covenanters will disagree with this argument. But showing how it is wrong, if it is wrong, will require some level of theological sophistication. Certainly it is not obviously wrong."
What say ye? Is he right? Wrong? Why or why not?
[Edited on 7-17-2006 by Dan....]
http://www.reformed.org/misc/index.html?mainframe=/misc/frame_regulative_principle.html
I read the linked article by John Frame, in which he says the following:
3) The third qualification also raises some issues. For example, some with covenanter views find it important to argue (or at least to maintain) that song is not a mere circumstance, but an element of worship.5 If song is an element, then it falls under RP1, and we must find commands to tell us what words we may sing in worship. But is it possible that song is neither an element nor a circumstance, but a way ("mode") of doing other things? I, at least, think that is likely. Song has no unique and independent functions in biblical worship; rather, it is a way of praying, a way of teaching, a way of praising, and so on. The "elements" are praying, teaching, praising, not song as such. And therefore when we want to know what we may sing, we ask not "what does God command us to sing?" but rather "what does God command us to do in prayer, praise, teaching, etc.?" Doubtless covenanters will disagree with this argument. But showing how it is wrong, if it is wrong, will require some level of theological sophistication. Certainly it is not obviously wrong.
How does the traditional Regulative Principle proponents answer Frame concerning this 3rd category, along with "element" and "circumstance" called "mode"; and what is the response of making song a "mode" of performing the "elements" of "praying, teaching, praising"?
It seems to me, that couple of things must follow from this:
1. If singing is only a "mode" by which we may perform the other elements of worship, then singing becomes unnecessary to corporate worship. It would be acceptable for the elders of a congregation to decide that it is okay to not sing.
2. If singing is only a "mode" for performing the elements of worship, then it is acceptable for a pastor to sing his sermon.
I know that later in his article, Frame argues for the Regulative Principle to apply to all of life as well as to worship; but in this thread, let's keep it to one topic at a time; namely "mode" of worship.
Frame says, "Doubtless covenanters will disagree with this argument. But showing how it is wrong, if it is wrong, will require some level of theological sophistication. Certainly it is not obviously wrong."
What say ye? Is he right? Wrong? Why or why not?
[Edited on 7-17-2006 by Dan....]