Normative vs Regulative Principle

Status
Not open for further replies.

jwithnell

Moderator
Staff member
I was puzzled by a recent quote in the Aquila Report

The study committee acknowledges that within the PCA, there is a diversity of worship practices that span the spectrum between the regulative and normative principles of worship.

I thought the PCA held to the regulative principle of worship, at least for the record. What is a good definition for normative principle and is it confessional?
 
I was puzzled by a recent quote in the Aquila Report

The study committee acknowledges that within the PCA, there is a diversity of worship practices that span the spectrum between the regulative and normative principles of worship.

I thought the PCA held to the regulative principle of worship, at least for t
he record. What is a good definition for normative principle and is it confessional?
Strictly speaking I don't believe that there is a continuum that runs between the Reg. and Norm. principles. These are polar opposites and mutually exclusive, as principles tend to be. However among those who sincerely embrace the Reg. Principle you will notice some differences in the application of the same.
 
Is this basically a difference between Lutheran and Reformed views on the matter? For Lutherans what is not explicitly forbidden in scripture is alright, normative principle, in worship and for Reformed what is not commanded in scripture, regulative principle, is forbidden for the church to use?
 
Lutheran and Anglican James,

39 Articles

"XX. Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority- in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."

Here the 39 Articles assert that the Church has the authority to decree rites and ceremonies....so long as those rites or ceremonies are not contrary to God's written Word.

Contrast that with WCF or BCF worship theology which state - BCF 22
1. The light of Nature shews that there is a God, who hath Lordship, and Soveraigntye over all; is just, good, and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the Heart, and all the Soul, 360and 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 representations, or any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.
 
Lutheran and Anglican James,

39 Articles

"XX. Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority- in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."

Here the 39 Articles assert that the Church has the authority to decree rites and ceremonies....so long as those rites or ceremonies are not contrary to God's written Word.

Contrast that with WCF or BCF worship theology which state - BCF 22
1. The light of Nature shews that there is a God, who hath Lordship, and Soveraigntye over all; is just, good, and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the Heart, and all the Soul, 360and 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 representations, or any other way, not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

Thank you.
 
However among those who sincerely embrace the Reg. Principle you will notice some differences in the application of the same.

Agreed. Even among the reformed churches represented on the PB, you'll find quite a variance in how the RPW is applied.
 
However among those who sincerely embrace the Reg. Principle you will notice some differences in the application of the same.

Agreed. Even among the reformed churches represented on the PB, you'll find quite a variance in how the RPW is applied.

I'm fairly new to the RWP, but in my ignorance, this principle seems to be very cut and dry--if it's in the Scriptures do it; if not, don't. Therefore, I would appreciate a few examples of how the application of the RPW varies.
 
I'm fairly new to the RWP, but in my ignorance, this principle seems to be very cut and dry--if it's in the Scriptures do it; if not, don't. Therefore, I would appreciate a few examples of how the application of the RPW varies.

One of the big examples would be whether or not to sing psalms exclusively and whether or not to use instrumental accompaniment to aid congregational singing.
 
I'm fairly new to the RWP, but in my ignorance, this principle seems to be very cut and dry--if it's in the Scriptures do it; if not, don't. Therefore, I would appreciate a few examples of how the application of the RPW varies.

Part of this variance is in the discussion of what counts as a circumstance of worship and what counts as an element.

I would also add to this my own question of whether there could be practices that are warranted in Scripture but not commanded. That is to say, practices suggested or allowed in Scripture but not required.
 
I'm fairly new to the RWP, but in my ignorance, this principle seems to be very cut and dry--if it's in the Scriptures do it; if not, don't. Therefore, I would appreciate a few examples of how the application of the RPW varies.

One of the big examples would be whether or not to sing psalms exclusively and whether or not to use instrumental accompaniment to aid congregational singing.

Possibly an issue of semantics here but I'm not so sure I would say that this is a difference on how the RPW is applied. Those for EP feel the Scripture is clear that we should practice acapella EP. Those who are not EP feel the Scriptures are clear that man made hymns are stated as acceptable in the Scriptures. So I am not sure that the RPW is the reason for the difference. Both groups have the same definition of the RPW. The disagreement is over interpretation of the Scriptures.
 
I'm fairly new to the RWP, but in my ignorance, this principle seems to be very cut and dry--if it's in the Scriptures do it; if not, don't. Therefore, I would appreciate a few examples of how the application of the RPW varies.

One of the big examples would be whether or not to sing psalms exclusively and whether or not to use instrumental accompaniment to aid congregational singing.

Aha! All of those EP threads are now making sense. I guess that Eph. 5:19 doesn't clear up the debate for everyone...
 
I would also add to this my own question of whether there could be practices that are warranted in Scripture but not commanded. That is to say, practices suggested or allowed in Scripture but not required.

The RPW in truth does not teach us that a command is needed - the chapter and paragraphs on worship are to be read in the larger context of chapter 1 of the confessions;

BCF 1:6. The whole Councel of God concerning all things 9necessary for his own Glory, Mans Salvation, Faith and Life, is either expressely set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new Revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

WCF 1:6 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men....

Thus Philip you are correct, there may be warranted but not commanded, though I would probably say that most or all of those things warranted by inference are required - that which is warranted by command or inference has the force of a commandment, and ought not to be neglected.
 
Well no---I don't know of any advocate of uninspired hymnody who would argue that EPers are worshipping improperly.

Actually, I have met quite a few who think it is improper that EPers don't say the name Jesus in their songs, etc. However, that was not my point. My point was that it is more over differing interpretations of Scriptures such as Ephesians 5:19 as Bethel said instead of differences in the RPW.
 
Question for those who hold to a strict interpretation of RPW: How is Jesus' keeping of Hanakkuh (a Jewish holiday not commanded by Scripture-see John) reconciled with RPW?
 
Question for those who hold to a strict interpretation of RPW: How is Jesus' keeping of Hanakkuh (a Jewish holiday not commanded by Scripture-see John) reconciled with RPW?

Where in John does it say that Christ kept Hanakkuh?
 
Simple: Christ didn't keep it.

So why don't the Scriptures record a debate on the subject? Surely if he hadn't, the Pharisees would have disputed with him on it. I realize that the argument is from silence on both sides, but one would think that silence indicates that Jesus was following the ordinary custom rather than taking the extraordinary action of abstention.
 
I don't know why; but obviously we didn't need it recorded. The Scriptural case for the RPW is clear though. It is certainly true that the Anglicans who argued for their popish ceremonies as George Gillespie called them, tried to make this exact case to prove their Normative over the Presbyterians' Regulative principle; that Christ's not condemning that man appointed day, gives the church warrant to make other holy days in addition to the Lord's day.
 
It is certainly true that the Anglicans who argued for their popish ceremonies as George Gillespie called them, tried to make this exact case to prove their Normative over the Presbyterians' Regulative principle; that Christ's not condemning that man appointed day, gives the church warrant to make other holy days in addition to the Lord's day.

I would say that the logic doesn't follow. It merely means that the creation of feasts other than the Lord's day is not covered under the regulative principle and is therefore an area of Christian freedom and divergence of practice. I would hold to a broad interpretation of the RPW, though.
 
I would say that the logic doesn't follow. It merely means that the creation of feasts other than the Lord's day is not covered under the regulative principle and is therefore an area of Christian freedom and divergence of practice. I would hold to a broad interpretation of the RPW, though.

Attendance at a feast, in the absence of any further information, does not constitute a precedent for keeping the feast. Paul's attendance at Athens and viewing their many gods did not constitute him a worshipper.

There is no broad interpretation of the regulative principle. What is not commanded is forbidden. The regulative principle has nothing to do with "permission." It is positive "command" which is enforced by the mere will of the lawgiver. If it is commanded it is obligatory. If it is not commanded it has no place in worship.
 
Thanks guys for a great discussion. Would the use of a phrase "span the spectrum between the regulative and normative principles of worship" in a presbytery document signal that RPW is no longer even expected in the PCA? I have encountered many things over the years, but thought that at least in name (to remain confessional) RPW was expected.
 
There is no broad interpretation of the regulative principle. What is not commanded is forbidden. The regulative principle has nothing to do with "permission." It is positive "command" which is enforced by the mere will of the lawgiver. If it is commanded it is obligatory. If it is not commanded it has no place in worship.

Pastor Wallace has said all that I meant to say on this point, so I will say no more.
 
Pastor Wallace has said all that I meant to say on this point, so I will say no more.

This is what he wrote:

that which is warranted by command or inference has the force of a commandment, and ought not to be neglected.

He may qualify if he meant something different but as it reads it leaves no room for liberty to leave undone or mere permission to do.
 
I would say that the logic doesn't follow. It merely means that the creation of feasts other than the Lord's day is not covered under the regulative principle and is therefore an area of Christian freedom and divergence of practice. I would hold to a broad interpretation of the RPW, though.

Attendance at a feast, in the absence of any further information, does not constitute a precedent for keeping the feast. Paul's attendance at Athens and viewing their many gods did not constitute him a worshipper.

There is no broad interpretation of the regulative principle. What is not commanded is forbidden. The regulative principle has nothing to do with "permission." It is positive "command" which is enforced by the mere will of the lawgiver. If it is commanded it is obligatory. If it is not commanded it has no place in worship.
But doesn't it seem odd that Jesus at no time in the feast condemns the Jews for keeping Hanukkah? It's in John 10:22, where Jesus is walking in Solomon's porch and there is no record of Jesus stating that it comes in conflict with any sense of RPW. Seems rather odd that he is at Solomon's porch at the time of the feast yet He is not on record as condemning it.

As the RPW is to be guided by (and subservient to) the Scriptures, shouldn't even a passage like this, however anomalous it may seem, be considered? If you happen to find somebody who adequately answers this passage in relation to RPW via sermon or writing, and does it without making any assumptions not laid out in the text, I would be very happy to read it.

---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 PM ----------

Thus Philip you are correct, there may be warranted but not commanded, though I would probably say that most or all of those things warranted by inference are required

I leave it at that.
Let me add that what I bring up about Hanukkah I bring up in honest inquiry. No hornet's nest stirring intended; it just seems as if at times the RPW has Scriptural passages that at the very least allow for more leniency in certain ways than is sometimes granted by RPW adherents.
 
But doesn't it seem odd that Jesus at no time in the feast condemns the Jews for keeping Hanukkah?

Let me just point out or restate (and I am not trying to catch you out on anything) that the RPW requires a command rather than an absence of a prohibition. The way your sentence was phrased would seem to be more in line with normative principle thinking.

it just seems as if at times the RPW has Scriptural passages that at the very least allow for more leniency

And do you see how the same thing could be said of this above phrase? The RPW does not look for leniency (i.e., tolerance or allowed freedom of choice) but positive command.

Once again, I am not trying to pick on your writing in an unfair manner, it's just that sometimes our choice of words can give the wrong impression if carefully dissected.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top