Puritans against laity involvement??

[Phil D.]

In my opinion, the first father to state what we call the "regulative principle of worship" was Clement of Rome, who wrote,

"Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and *not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him.* Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed."

Again, I would tend to read that a bit differently than as a statement of the RPW, normally defined. Clement's subject, as noted in the preceding section of the letter, did concern not performing "sacrifices and service" "thoughtlessly or irregularly," but "at the appointed times and hours" and "where and by whom [God] desires these things to be done." Clement's main thrust is that the laity respect the person and role of their presbyters. Though not completely separate, that seems somewhat distinct from many of the core elements of worship (words, actions) addressed in the RPW.

 

[MW]

On the other hand, at some Presbyterian and Baptist churches, it seems as if the only participation by the laity is to sit and watch, as if viewing a show.

People who are used to ceremonies and responsive actions are trained up in an externalist view of worship. They see substance in the actions. That is why every detail takes on significance. They can take that significance with them into their participation in the ceremony. Those who have not been trained in this way do not need such things. Their heart and mind are engaged and interacting in the worship service without needing to register it in external actions. God sees them. They have an internalist perspective. If you talk to them of ceremonies and responsive actions they will have no desire for it. Such were the Puritans. I will give a judgment of charity and say that the Presbyterian and Baptist churches you have observed are of the same mind with the Puritans.

 

[EvanF]

This is an argument from silence. If it is so beneficial and desirable to have a pulpit, to sit in chairs, why didn't God teach them to us? He expects us to be wise in applying principles and examples to circumstances.

On the contrary, to argue that anything not mentioned in or of necessary consequence from God's word, which furnishes us unto every good work, is in fact a good work is an argument from silence. I do not argue that pulpits and pews have any merit as elements of worship. Perhaps you can argue that responsive prayer is a legitimate species of commanded prayer, but you should not argue that we are free to find new kinds of good work not mentioned in scripture, like Romanists have.

As far as pulpits and pews are concerned, God has revealed in his word multiple examples of ministers speaking to the people from a separated and/or elevated position (Nehemiah 8:4-5; Matthew 13:1-3, Mark 4:1, and Luke 5:1-3; Acts 1:15 - note that Peter stood up to speake to about 120 people who necessarily would either have been seated or he must have stood over them to address them all) as well as for sitting in weekly worship gatherings (Luke 4:16-20 - note also that Jesus stands to read from a scroll, which almost certainly was placed upon a pulpit because of it's size and weight; Acts 20:9-12 - Eutychus sat in a window as Paul taught). It would indeed be questionable for the church to introduce pulpits or pews if God only revealed examples of standing worship in his word, much more so to mandate pulpits and pews as elements of a liturgy.

 

[johnmo]

On the contrary, to argue that anything not mentioned in or of necessary consequence from God's word, which furnishes us unto every good work, is in fact a good work is an argument from silence. I do not argue that pulpits and pews have any merit as elements of worship. Perhaps you can argue that responsive prayer is a legitimate species of commanded prayer, but you should not argue that we are free to find new kinds of good work not mentioned in scripture, like Romanists have.

I'm not arguing that responsive prayer is necessary, if that's what you're saying. To say that God's word has furnished us unto every good work does not mean it gives us the external details. Feeling the need to use Jesus' preaching from a boat as an argument for using a pulpit is the kind of absurdity that this kind of thinking leads to.

 

[johnmo]

People who are used to ceremonies and responsive actions are trained up in an externalist view of worship.

This is a prudential argument for certain choices in worship. I disagree with it, but at least it seeks to apply wisdom rather than acting like there is a liturgical manual in the NT.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

Those who have not been trained in this way do not need such things. Their heart and mind are engaged and interacting in the worship service without needing to register it in external actions.

One might ask: why did God give us bodies in the first place? An Anglican minister once said that Reformed people view their bodies as nothing more than a house to carry their brains around in. C.S. Lewis wrote wonderfully on the inevitability of our bodies and “externals” influencing our hearts and our inclinations. “The body ought to pray as well as the soul. Body and soul are both better for it.”

 

[MW]

One might ask: why did God give us bodies in the first place?

He gave them to serve as instruments of the soul in service to God. Not to lead the soul about in the shadowlands of carnal ordinances.

 

[Plucked Brand]

This is an argument from silence. If it is so beneficial and desirable to have a pulpit, to sit in chairs, why didn't God teach them to us? He expects us to be wise in applying principles and examples to circumstances.

Public prayer and the public reading of Scripture aren't circumstances, but elements of worship, unlike the meeting place and furniture. Has God commanded that public prayers and reading of Scripture be done responsively? Are there examples of this practice in Scripture? If not, what is the warrant for introducing the practice?

 

[pgwolv]

John Murray, who uses both forms in the MS version of his part of the OPC report on worship song, probably did much to start the regular usage going. I trace the history of it from there in a piece on the board somewhere.

Are you referring to this? https://puritanboard.com/threads/claiming-to-be-reformed-and-rejecting-the-rpw.25061/post-307411

EDIT: I see a later post is more thorough: https://puritanboard.com/threads/wh...referring-to-worship-arise.85443/post-1065281

 

[johnmo]

Public prayer and the public reading of Scripture aren't circumstances, but elements of worship, unlike the meeting place and furniture. Has God commanded that public prayers and reading of Scripture be done responsively? Are there examples of this practice in Scripture? If not, what is the warrant for introducing the practice?

No one is arguing over whether we should pray or read publicly. Decisions have to be made about the details of how those things are done if we are to do them orderly. One is whether the public reading will be from a pulpit, what that pulpit will look like, etc. Another is whether the prayer will be done by the minister alone, in unison, or with a responsive reading. All these decisions are important and should be guided by applying scriptural principles to our circumstances, but scripture has not given us explicit instructions. Explicit examples for these things are not required.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

It does seem more consistent with Anabaptist than Reformed ways of reading and applying scripture.

Can you expound on this? What are Anabaptist ways of reading and applying scripture versus Reformed?

 

[John Nyberg]

One might ask: why did God give us bodies in the first place? An Anglican minister once said that Reformed people view their bodies as nothing more than a house to carry their brains around in. C.S. Lewis wrote wonderfully on the inevitability of our bodies and “externals” influencing our hearts and our inclinations. “The body ought to pray as well as the soul. Body and soul are both better for it.”

My church does a fairly good job of observing the regulative principle. As a lay-person, this is how I am able to participate, body and soul, every Sunday.

1. I greet my brothers and sisters prior to the service
2. I stand and sing loudly and joyfully
3. I bow my head and say amen in prayer
4. When the elders command the congregation to confess sin, I confess sin
5. I listen to the preaching of the Word as prophecy
6. I consider the body and blood of Christ in Communion
7. I joyfully receive the benediction.

Call me simple, but this is enough. No, it is more than enough! I leave every Sunday with thankfulness for having met with my Lord and Savior.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No one is arguing over whether we should pray or read publicly. Decisions have to be made about the details of how those things are done if we are to do them orderly. One is whether the public reading will be from a pulpit, what that pulpit will look like, etc. Another is whether the prayer will be done by the minister alone, in unison, or with a responsive reading. All these decisions are important and should be guided by applying scriptural principles to our circumstances, but scripture has not given us explicit instructions. Explicit examples for these things are not required.

It's pretty clear that you don't understand the Regulative Principle itself in the way you are articulating your responses to others.

I want to make sure you understand that you joined this Board under the provision that you don't kick against the goads with respect to certain Reformed distinctives, and the RPW is one of them.

It is clear, early in this thread, that you believe you have researched this, but your articulation in this thread evidences a tremendous amount of confusion on how this principle is not only confessionally defined in the WCF and LBCF but has been put into historical practice.

As one example, congregational singing is prescribed by the Word and not used in general. That si to say that not all singing, just because it is singing, is appropriate, and it is not a "circumstance" to "perform" a solo in worship. Now, if you think that's "legalistic" then you don't understand the RPW, and we warned you before you joined the Board in the membership requirements that you were joining a Reformed Board.

Part of the condition for joining, when you clicked Agree, was recognizing the community you are joining in the discussion. There are plenty of communities that can join online that can charge the Reformed with legalism for their convictions that are spelled out in their Confessions. Here, however, if you disagree with the RPW, then you needed to register that disagreement and we probably would not have approved your membership. That you are here, however, affords you the right to ask clarifying questions but it doesn't not permit you the right to asct as a an authority for a principle you clearly do not apprehend at this point.

Returning to the issue, then, prayer is an element of worship but not any kind of prayer. The RPW is not something where one gets to decide that prayer in general, has been authorized prudentially, and it is up to the congregation to determine what it will do. Appeals to how the BCP outlines it is inconsequential as we do not recognize the 39 Articles or the BCP as the proper boundaries for discussion. The Westminster Standards were written by ministers who were well aware of the principles of Angical worship, and they sought to reform theos principles as several points.

 

[johnmo]

Part of the condition for joining, when you clicked Agree, was recognizing the community you are joining in the discussion. There are plenty of communities that can join online that can charge the Reformed with legalism for their convictions that are spelled out in their Confessions. Here, however, if you disagree with the RPW, then you needed to register that disagreement and we probably would not have approved your membership. That you are here, however, affords you the right to ask clarifying questions but it doesn't not permit you the right to asct as a an authority for a principle you clearly do not apprehend at this point.

I've mentioned that I agree with the statement in the WCF, but I think the term "regulative principle" isn't generally helpful. If one must agree that responsive readings are not permissible to stay on this board, then I guess I'm out. However, without naming names, I know of at least one PB "Staff Member" who pastors a church which uses them, so I was not expecting this to be a boundary.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I've mentioned that I agree with the statement in the WCF, but I think the term "regulative principle" isn't generally helpful. If one must agree that responsive readings are not permissible to stay on this board, then I guess I'm out. However, without naming names, I know of at least one PB "Staff Member" who pastors a church which uses them, so I was not expecting this to be a boundary.

Again, your ability to follow even what I wrote leaves me puzzled.

I didn't state that "agreeing with responsive readings is a condition to participation". I stated that you do not understand the principle of Reformed worship that is commonly called the "Regulative Principle" and your inability to articulate it properly evidences this fact.

You'd be better off trying to understand the difference between the use of a pulpit and how that is different than how singing or prayer are conducted. It may be the case that responsive prayers or readings are consistent with the RPW but that is not established by confusing an element of worship with a circumstance and leaving it to the Church to decide or appealing to the BCP.