Regulative Principle Distinction

Status
Not open for further replies.
For example, lighting candles during a service around Christmas. Or even having a Christmas Eve service, for that matter.

So the idea is that God didn't really give a command in regards to these things, therefore we have freedoms where He hasn't regulated things.

Using candles, when God has not commanded their use, is adding to His commands, expressly forbidden in Deut. 12:32. To do anything in worship which God has not commanded is to add to His commands.

"What is not commanded is forbidden" is the definition of the Regulative Principle.

But, does that really follow?

If there are an apple and an orange on a table, and I command you to eat the apple, have I forbidden you from eating the orange just based on the command to eat the apple? That doesn't seem to follow, logically. Nothing has been said about the orange, either way.

Am I missing something?

Well by the fact you have commanded me to eat the apple, and not the orange, it would be a legitimate inference to draw that I was not to eat the orange. Otherwise why specifically command the eating of the apple?
 
One of the most corrosive principles to insinuate itself into the Christian Church is that which subtly suggests the English Bible is not sufficient for formulating doctrine or understanding what God has said to us. When the plain meaning of passages is called into question and the believer told "well, in the original language [which very few Christians actually know] it's not quite so simple, leave this to the experts" the consequences for belief, piety, practice, as we see all around us in the visible church, are ruinous. Did our forefathers of the 17th century not know what they were doing when they translated the texts? I think they did. Did the godly preachers of the past not know of what they spoke when they formulated the RPW and preached against innovation? I think they did.

"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Ecclesiastes 7:29
You mean corrosive documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith?
1.8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39,46).

Notice that I did not question the RPW, to which I firmly hold. Nor did I suggest that it can't be demonstrated from the English text: I think Deuteronomy 12, referenced above in other posts is a good starting point. However, I demonstrated, using examples that can be seen to be true in your English Bible that Leviticus 10 is not as straightforward as some English translations make it appear. If you think my interpretation is inaccurate, can you show me how the passages I cited from Jeremiah (among many others) are not relevant parallels, where we can easily see from the English that "which I did not command" covers something that the Lord had in fact specifically forbidden?
 
From an old post back in 2006; the article referenced is online in full.
"What is not commanded is forbidden" is the definition of the Regulative Principle.

Where is all this doubt about the regulative principle of worship all the sudden coming from? We've been doing this subject on this board for 20 years nearly now. This has been a consistent short definition of the RPW since Reformation times at least, in one form or another.

John à Lasco (1499-1560). in 1551, "Nothing ought to be added to public worship concerning which God has given no command." The Reformation of the Church, ed. Iain H. Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), p. 62.

From an old post back in 2006; the article referenced is online in full.
The phrase "whatever is not commanded is forbidden" is a short definition of the RPW as I detail from this extract from my intro to the Smith/Lachman piece on worship in the 2005 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian journal. http://www.cpjournal.com
From: Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D. and David C. Lachman, Ph.D. "Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore," The Confessional Presbyterian (2005) 116.
The Westminster Assembly determined: "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 representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." (Confession of Faith, 21.1). The Princeton professor, Dr. Samuel Miller, gives a succinct statement of the principle when he writes that since the Scriptures are the "only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference."4 A briefer statement still which sums up the Presbyterian principle of worship, is that in the worship of God, "Not to Command is to Forbid,"5 or "Whatever is not commanded is forbidden."6

As this brief definition can lead to misunderstanding, a necessarily corollary to this principle states that there are some circumstances "concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed." (Confession of Faith, 1.6). Defining these "circumstances," is part and parcel with the discussion of what authority the church has in ordering the worship of God.

4. Presbyterianism the Truly Primitive and Apostolical Constitution of the Church of Christ, "œThe Worship of the Presbyterian Church" (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1835) 64-65.
5. Samuel Rutherford, The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication (London, 1646) 96.
6. John B. Adger, "œA Denial of Divine Right for Organs in Public Worship," Southern Presbyterian Review, 20.1 (January 1869) 85.
The term regulative principle of worship is nearly 120 old know far as I've been able to trace the first stating of it that way from which it could be "coined."
“The Second Commandment lays down the regulative principle of worship: it forbids idolatry.” James Harper, An exposition in the form of question and answer of the Westminster Assembly's Shorter catechism (United Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1905), p. 221. “Lately Professor of Theology in the Theological Seminary, Xenia, Ohio.”

While it took 20th century American usage or phrasing to create a name that would catch on, and increasing informality for it then to become the RPW, the principle is biblical and can be traced certainly as far back as the Waldenses. Here is Harper's statement of it in 1889. “1. To worship God otherwise than he has appointed is 'will-worship,' more or less gross. The law regulative of worship is not that we may use both what is commanded and what is not expressly forbidden, but that we must be limited to the use of what is either expressly or implicitly appointed by God (Deut. xii. 32; Matt. sv. 9, xxviii. 20).” Johann Jakob Herzog, A Religious Encyclopaedia: or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Volume 3 (Funk & Wagnalls, 1889) “Psalms, Use of the, in Worship,” p. 1960.
 
You mean corrosive documents like the Westminster Confession of Faith?
1.8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39,46).

Notice that I did not question the RPW, to which I firmly hold. Nor did I suggest that it can't be demonstrated from the English text: I think Deuteronomy 12, referenced above in other posts is a good starting point. However, I demonstrated, using examples that can be seen to be true in your English Bible that Leviticus 10 is not as straightforward as some English translations make it appear. If you think my interpretation is inaccurate, can you show me how the passages I cited from Jeremiah (among many others) are not relevant parallels, where we can easily see from the English that "which I did not command" covers something that the Lord had in fact specifically forbidden?

From Robert Shaw on WCF 1:8,9,10:

"As the Scriptures were originally written in the languages which, at the time of writing them, were most generally understood, God has hereby intimated his will, that they should be translated into the vernacular language of different nations, that every one may read and understand them. This we maintain in opposition to the Church of Rome, which forbids the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar languages, and declares the indiscriminate reading of them to be highly dangerous. Though the free use of the Scriptures be prohibited by that Church, they were certainly intended by God for for all ranks and classes of mankind. All are enjoined to read the Scripture (John 5:39: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."); and the laity are commended not only for searching them, but for trying the doctrines of their public teachers by them (Acts 17:11: "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."). It is, therefore, necessary that the Scriptures should be translated into the language of every nation; and the use of translation is sanctioned by the apostles, who frequently quoted passages of the Old Testament from the Septuagint."

David Dickson, Section 1, Q. 13 from Truth's Victory Over Error:

"Are the original tongues, viz., the Hebrew and the Greek, to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation into which they come? Yes. Are we commanded in the fear of God to read and search the Scriptures? Yes. Well then, do not the Papists err who maintain that there is no necessity of translating the original tongues, the Hebrew and the Greek, into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, but rather a very great hazard and danger of errors and heresies? Yes...By what reasons are they confuted? 1. Because the Scriptures were given long since to the Jews, in their own vulgar language, that they might be read publicly and privately by all. 2. Because the New Testament was written in the Greek language, which at that time was most generally known to all nations. 3. Because Christ bids all promiscuously search the Scriptures (John 5:39)...6. Because all things must be done in the congregation unto edifying (1 Cor. 14:26), but an unknown tongue doth not edify. 7. Because all are commanded to try the spirits (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Cor. 10:15 [1 John 4:1]). 7. Because the Scriptures teach the way of life...9. Because the Scriptures set forth the duties of every man in his place and estate of his life...10. Because they are the ground of faith. 11. Because they are the epistle of God sent to his church...13. Because being embraced and known, they make a man happy (Psa. 119:97-98; Luke 10:42; 16:26; Psa. 1:2; Rev. 1:3)..."

It can be very easy to turn a true principle into a burden and to rob believers of their peace and trust in what they read. The godly divines of the past clearly understood the requirements of building our faith and doctrine upon Scripture, and testing all we hear by Scripture, as contingent upon the translation of the original languages into the vulgar languages. How else were believers to do these things? We should all, but most especially ministers of the Gospel and those in positions of teaching authority, make sure what we say tends to the building up of the Christian's faith and trust in the Bible and not to casting doubts and questions over it. I did not give the Jeremiah quotes. Deuteronomy 12:32, however, is a crystal clear commandment against adding to, or taking from, the worship of God and thus covers every conceivable thing which could be added to worship.

As to your claims of adhering to the RPW, I do not know the congregation of which you are a member so I cannot know how you are applying the RPW in practice.
 
From Robert Shaw on WCF 1:8,9,10:

"As the Scriptures were originally written in the languages which, at the time of writing them, were most generally understood, God has hereby intimated his will, that they should be translated into the vernacular language of different nations, that every one may read and understand them. This we maintain in opposition to the Church of Rome, which forbids the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar languages, and declares the indiscriminate reading of them to be highly dangerous. Though the free use of the Scriptures be prohibited by that Church, they were certainly intended by God for for all ranks and classes of mankind. All are enjoined to read the Scripture (John 5:39: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."); and the laity are commended not only for searching them, but for trying the doctrines of their public teachers by them (Acts 17:11: "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."). It is, therefore, necessary that the Scriptures should be translated into the language of every nation; and the use of translation is sanctioned by the apostles, who frequently quoted passages of the Old Testament from the Septuagint."

David Dickson, Section 1, Q. 13 from Truth's Victory Over Error:

"Are the original tongues, viz., the Hebrew and the Greek, to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation into which they come? Yes. Are we commanded in the fear of God to read and search the Scriptures? Yes. Well then, do not the Papists err who maintain that there is no necessity of translating the original tongues, the Hebrew and the Greek, into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, but rather a very great hazard and danger of errors and heresies? Yes...By what reasons are they confuted? 1. Because the Scriptures were given long since to the Jews, in their own vulgar language, that they might be read publicly and privately by all. 2. Because the New Testament was written in the Greek language, which at that time was most generally known to all nations. 3. Because Christ bids all promiscuously search the Scriptures (John 5:39)...6. Because all things must be done in the congregation unto edifying (1 Cor. 14:26), but an unknown tongue doth not edify. 7. Because all are commanded to try the spirits (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Cor. 10:15 [1 John 4:1]). 7. Because the Scriptures teach the way of life...9. Because the Scriptures set forth the duties of every man in his place and estate of his life...10. Because they are the ground of faith. 11. Because they are the epistle of God sent to his church...13. Because being embraced and known, they make a man happy (Psa. 119:97-98; Luke 10:42; 16:26; Psa. 1:2; Rev. 1:3)..."

It can be very easy to turn a true principle into a burden and to rob believers of their peace and trust in what they read. We should all, but most especially ministers of the Gospel and those in positions of teaching authority, make sure what we say tends to the building up of the Christian's faith and trust in the Bible and not to casting doubts and questions over it. I did not give the Jeremiah quotes. Deuteronomy 12:32, however, is a crystal clear commandment against adding to, or taking from, the worship of God and thus covers every conceivable thing which could be added to worship.

As to your claims of adhering to the RPW, I do not know the congregation of which you are a member so I cannot know how you are applying the RPW in practice.
Alexander, no one has denied that we should translate the Hebrew and Greek into English so that ordinary people may understand them, and be fed and grow in their understanding of doctrine from them. The Bible in English is the Word of God. My point was that that is not the only thing the Confession says. Before it encourages us to translate the Scriptures, it first affirms that theological controversies (such as whether the RPW is the Scriptural position, as we both affirm) cannot ultimately be settled on the authority of English translations. This is why Presbyterians have always insisted on the need for ministers to be trained in Hebrew and Greek, not just the KJV. That is the Confessional position, not just something I dreamed up.
 
I did research John Frame's stance a bit, and honestly I'm not understanding it. He says he affirms the regulative principle and the language sounds good, but obviously there are differences. I think it starts to get too muddy for me.
 
Where is all this doubt about the regulative principle of worship all the sudden coming from? We've been doing this subject on this board for 20 years nearly now. This has been a consistent short definition of the RPW since Reformation times at least, in one form or another.
I'm curious because there are confessional reformed people who hold to the regulative principle, who don't see it the same way you do, or how I traditionally understood it. I do look up to the elders who embrace it differently, so I thought I'd look into it more. Maybe I should just go straight to them for their understanding.
 
Alexander, no one has denied that we should translate the Hebrew and Greek into English so that ordinary people may understand them, and be fed and grow in their understanding of doctrine from them. The Bible in English is the Word of God. My point was that that is not the only thing the Confession says. Before it encourages us to translate the Scriptures, it first affirms that theological controversies (such as whether the RPW is the Scriptural position, as we both affirm) cannot ultimately be settled on the authority of English translations. This is why Presbyterians have always insisted on the need for ministers to be trained in Hebrew and Greek, not just the KJV. That is the Confessional position, not just something I dreamed up.

I originally quoted your comment on the Jeremiah verses in my comment but removed it. I was making a general point. Your comment was merely another example of a trend in the church to be constantly questioning the reliability of the English Bible, either explicitly or indirectly. The framers of the Confession indeed made the point to which you refer. Yet the proof texts they attached to the confession were in English, not in the original languages. But no one need take my word for it. The results of what I speak are all around us to see and lament.
 
The understanding I have I demonstrated is the Reformed confessional position; it can be shown that it's Calvin's, it's Knox's, it's Laski's, it's the view of the Westminster assemblyman, the Scottish and American Presbyterian churches. It is confusing to you because you are being confused by Frame and those who hold his position. The interaction here with at least what you have presented has made clear that it is a confusion of principles and is in fact the or at last a kin of the normative principle. Frame has been demonstrated multiple times to be misrepresenting the principle. Read the article on Frame linked in my prior post by Smith and Lachman.
I did research John Frame's stance a bit, and honestly I'm not understanding it. He says he affirms the regulative principle and the language sounds good, but obviously there are differences. I think it starts to get too muddy for me.

I'm curious because there are confessional reformed people who hold to the regulative principle, who don't see it the same way you do, or how I traditionally understood it. I do look up to the elders who embrace it differently, so I thought I'd look into it more. Maybe I should just go straight to them for their understanding.
 
The understanding I have I demonstrated is the Reformed confessional position; it can be shown that it's Calvin's, it's Knox's, it's Laski's, it's the view of the Westminster assemblyman, the Scottish and American Presbyterian churches. It is confusing to you because you are being confused by Frame and those who hold his position. The interaction here with at least what you have presented has made clear that it is a confusion of principles and is in fact the or at last a kin of the normative principle. Frame has been demonstrated multiple times to be misrepresenting the principle. Read the article on Frame linked in my prior post by Smith and Lachman.
Sorry, I haven't read the article. Would you conclude that Frame is normative just boxed as regulative? Like there's no other way to see it? Thanks!
 
Sorry, I haven't read the article. Would you conclude that Frame is normative just boxed as regulative? Like there's no other way to see it? Thanks!
He's at least charted his own course (I'm not sure classical Normative defenders would argue you can dance a sermon) and tried to pass it off as the regulative principle; for which he was severely taken to task. I think he's discredited as an honest broker on the topic. I edited out some severity at the time from Smith and Lachman; I regret doing so; the punches didn't need pulling given the credence folks continue to give Frame on this subject.
 
Would you agree with this assessment?

"The puritan version is that anything not explicitly commanded by scripture is forbidden in worship. The Calvin view, which frame I think holds, is that anything commanded must be done, anything forbidden must not be done, and anything neither commanded nor forbidden is left to biblical wisdom. For example, dancing in worship. Frame says it would be allowed, but in many cases not wise."
 
The Calvin view, which frame I think holds, is that anything commanded must be done, anything forbidden must not be done, and anything neither commanded nor forbidden is left to biblical wisdom. For example, dancing in worship. Frame says it would be allowed, but in many cases not wise."
I don't know where that comes from, but Calvin's view is misrepresented. He repeatedly stuck with what Chris has defined and the confessions hold to.

You could almost say he was the first one to write extensively on it, but I'm probably missing someone else.

Just one example from his Commentary on Romans 5:19:

"We may also hence learn, how false are the schemes which they take to pacify God, who of themselves devise what they obtrude on him. For then only we truly worship him when we follow what he has commanded us, and render obedience to his word. Away then with those who confidently lay claim to the righteousness of works, which cannot otherwise exist than when there is a full and complete observance of the law; and it is certain that this is nowhere to be found. We also learn, that they are madly foolish who vaunt before God of works invented by themselves, which he regards as the filthiest things; for obedience is better than sacrifices."
 
Would you agree with this assessment?

"The puritan version is that anything not explicitly commanded by scripture is forbidden in worship. The Calvin view, which frame I think holds, is that anything commanded must be done, anything forbidden must not be done, and anything neither commanded nor forbidden is left to biblical wisdom. For example, dancing in worship. Frame says it would be allowed, but in many cases not wise."
This “understanding” of Calvin is again just the normative principle.
 
Would you agree with this assessment?

"The puritan version is that anything not explicitly commanded by scripture is forbidden in worship. The Calvin view, which frame I think holds, is that anything commanded must be done, anything forbidden must not be done, and anything neither commanded nor forbidden is left to biblical wisdom. For example, dancing in worship. Frame says it would be allowed, but in many cases not wise."
No; there's no "Calvin against the 'Puritanists'" in this regard. As Denver noted this is the normative principle. Read the article; it at least begins to address this. Here is another quotation to add to Vic's and it is one of many.

Now, he [Micah] mentions the “statutes, ordinances, and the ceremonies” because idolatry always promotes itself as virtuous activity. For idolaters imagine that they are worshipping God in everything they do, even when their services are foolish, which the blind and the Devil make others believe God approves. We still witness the same occurring today. For those who worship God in accordance with their fantasy, as in the papacy, dishonor and blaspheme God rather than worship God. Yet the papists are so arrogant as to think that God is obligated to accept what they do. And they justify it on the ruse: “Ah, will not God accept whatever is done on the basis of a good intention?”1 That is how mankind hope to obligate God by their stupid fantasies, while avoiding any adherence whatsoever to his will. Now because this pride also gripped the Jews, Micah responds with equal loftiness: “Yes, of course! You tell me that these statutes, decrees, and ordinances provide wonderful advice and counsel and dictate what you should do. Very well! I will grant you your lofty words, but, nevertheless, God considers all of it an abomination, and, in believing that you are worshipping God by means of your silly fantasies, you are actually confessing that you have been worshipping the Devil.” If we would worship God as we should, then this passage [Micah 6:12–16] forces us to expend the effort to ground ourselves in the pure simplicity that God has set forth in his Word.

That constitutes a doctrine we cannot ignore. For no matter what pretext we might use, or how noble we find our own cause to be, all that is rejected and condemned by a single word, namely, “obedience.” For with good cause, God prefers it above all else, desiring that we worship him in simplicity and obedience. But when we surpass those limits, we corrupt our cause. And although we might impress others, one may still say: “Yes, what a devout man! What a devout woman! but I tell you, they are both bigots!” For irrespective of what they may mumble, or of how many masses they attend; irrespective of how many relics they worship, or votive candles they may light, or how many times they have been saluted as “good people,” it amounts to nothing but a grievous offense against God. Hence, even if we are admired by others, we will not escape God’s condemnation unless we follow what he has commanded in his Word.

Now by this example, we are instructed to adhere to the pure simplicity of God’s Word, even though we are prone to disregard it. True, we might not turn against it at first, but soon after God has been gracious enough to teach us, we are easily corrupted. In fact, the majority are immediately carried away, some in order to follow their accustomed idolatry and superstitions—for whatever bizarre and stupid reason I know not, while others cease to care about God and his Word at all, or they care about as much as animals do, while others, driven by their contempt and disgust for God’s Word, vent their rage on both its teaching and those who preach it. When we observe such an ingratitude on the part of mankind, there arises the danger that we may fall into an abyss far more destructive and horrible than the one from which our Lord retracted us, thanks to his infinite goodness. For although one might daily explain what has been done in order to worship God, the majority will continue to pursue their habitual course and old superstitions. For example, how many people still regard Epiphany with high reverence?2 They even celebrate the festival as they have been accustomed to do. I know not where they came up with this festival of “the king.”

Now even though people openly know that all this is pure mockery of God, and that the only reason why the papists observe this festival is in order to get drunk, stuff themselves, and behave in the most intemperate and dissolute way, nevertheless, if you were to ask three hundred, or even a thousand Genevan inhabitants, if it were good to celebrate this festival, they would reply: “Why not? What harm can result from honoring God in this way?” That is the response that many would make, even though they are supposed to be instructed in the Word of God and know that such falsehood is nonsense. This is not how we should act. For if we hope to worship God in the manner that is acceptable to him, we must divest ourselves of all silly superstitions and frivolous inventions, renounce all idolatry in order to worship God in spirit and in truth (as God commands us), and cling to the simplicity that we observe in his Word.3
1 “See the Institutes 3.7.7 and 4.13.4. In the latter, Calvin maintains that intentions are important, but God just as often finds them more displeasing than acceptable.” Farley, Sermons on the Book of Micah, 302–304.
2 “In the French text, Calvin refers to this festival as ce jour des Rois—“the day of the King.” However, the Supplementa editors explain that since the Reformers had abolished the ecclesiastical calendar along with its festivals and special days, Sundays excepted, Epiphany (or January 6, the very day of this sermon) was no longer observed.” Farley, Sermons on the Book of Micah, ibid.
3 Sermons on the Book of Micah, 362–364.
 
From what I have read of Calvin on the subject, he seems pretty clear on his traditional regulative stance. Do you know of any of Calvin's writings that would seem to point to more of John Frame's theology?
 
From what I have read of Calvin on the subject, he seems pretty clear on his traditional regulative stance. Do you know of any of Calvin's writings that would seem to point to more of John Frame's theology?
If you are asking me, I don't think so; Calvin is one with the confessional Reformed view of worship with English Puritans, Scottish Presbyterians and the continental Reformed. Frame is Frame. Who said you can dance a sermon before him? Read the article.
 
The meme that comes to mind for this entire thread

oldman.jpg
 
If there are an apple and an orange on a table, and I command you to eat the apple, have I forbidden you from eating the orange just based on the command to eat the apple? That doesn't seem to follow, logically. Nothing has been said about the orange, either way.
The logic of the argument depends upon the authoritative context. Perhaps the best way to illustrate is to extend the metaphor: Barely a step ahead of his bloodthirsty enemies, a man flees into a castle, the drawbridge rising after him barely in time to save him. Frustrated but determined, his enemies invest the castle, clearly preparing for a long siege. After the man's heart rate slows to normal, the lord of the castle welcomes him warmly, assuring him of long-term security. The lord warns him, however, that an agent of the man's enemies has poisoned much of the fruit available for consumption in the castle. The man will be safe if and only if he obeys direction. Later that evening, the man approaches one of the servants of the castle, asking permission to snack. The servant indicates a nearby sideboard displaying a variety of fruit and commands, "Eat this apple." So, the question is, did the servant command the man not to eat the nearby orange, despite not specifically mentioning it? The answer, clearly, is yes, because of the context. RPW posits, with ample biblical justification, that our Creator, Sustainer, and Judge is competent to direct true worship, whereas we, the mortal, the sinful, are not, being invested by the world and under continual attack by a wily enemy.
 
Forget the analogies. The very realities of our finitude and the worship of the infinite entails that we only perform only and all that which is commanded, and nothing else.
 
Would you agree with this assessment?

"The puritan version is that anything not explicitly commanded by scripture is forbidden in worship. The Calvin view, which frame I think holds, is that anything commanded must be done, anything forbidden must not be done, and anything neither commanded nor forbidden is left to biblical wisdom. For example, dancing in worship. Frame says it would be allowed, but in many cases not wise."
Frankly, (and I intend no disrespect) whoever has said this does not know what he is talking about.

A passing familiarity with Calvin will make you quite aware of his theology of worship. He has a lot to say about will-worship.

The "Frame view" above is bizarre. What part of worship is neither commanded nor forbidden? Naturally, this is going to take us in very strange directions. It becomes impossible to argue consistently against dramatic performances or ballet as worship.
 
The meme that comes to mind for this entire thread

oldman.jpg
I'm sorry for your frustration. I'm honestly trying to figure this out as there are godly people on every different stance. I never want to be arrogant or ignorant, so I will unbiasedly look into any view in my pursuit of truth.

"I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,"
Ephesians 4:1‭-‬2
 
I'm sorry for your frustration. I'm honestly trying to figure this out as there are godly people on every different stance. I never want to be arrogant or ignorant, so I will unbiasedly look into any view in my pursuit of truth.

"I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,"
Ephesians 4:1‭-‬2
Oh brother I have no actual frustration. Sorry if my humour intimated that
 
More from Calvin.

Commentary Jeremiah 7:31

"Which I commanded them not, and which never came to my mind This reason ought to be carefully noticed, for God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, "I have not commanded them," whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions, than that they are not commanded by God: for when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to his commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship, in which they absurdly exercise themselves, would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying his word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet's words then are very important, when he says, that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind; as though he had said, that men assume too much wisdom, when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew. It is indeed certain, that there was nothing hid from God, even before it was done: but God here assumes the character of man, as though he had said, that what the Jews devised was unknown to him, as his own law was sufficient."

Commentary Jeremiah 32:35

"He at last says, that he had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind We have said elsewhere, that whenever this manner of speaking occurs, God cuts off every handle from objectors, because the superstitious ever have something to allege as a pretense when they are summoned to an account. We know that the Papists, by pretending good intentions, confidently glory against God; and they think that this one pretense is sufficient to defend them against all reproofs; and they think also that the servants of God and the Prophets are too morose and scrupulous when such an excuse does not satisfy them. But God, that he might not tediously contend with the superstitious, assumes this principle, -- that whatever they attempt beyond the Law is spurious, and that, therefore, the inventions of men cannot be defended by any disguise or pretense. Let us then know that true religion is always founded on obedience to God's will; and hence everything devised by men, when there is no command of God, is not only frivolous, but also abominable, according to what was said yesterday respecting the work of the hands; and so here the command of God is set in opposition to all the inventions of men. But as such declarations often occur, I now touch but slightly on this passage.

This doctrine, however, ought to be especially noticed, that is, that there is no need of a long refutation when we undertake to expose fictitious modes of worship, which men devise for themselves according to their own notions, because, after all that they can say, God in one word gives this answer, that whatever he has not commanded in his Law, is vain and mischievous. He then says, that he had not commanded this, and that it had never entered into his mind.

God in the last clause transfers to himself what applies only to men; for it cannot be said with strict propriety of God, that this or that had not come to his mind. But here he rebukes the presumption of men, who dare to introduce this or that, and think that an acceptable worship of God which they themselves have presumptuously devised; for they seek thus to exalt their own wisdom above that of God himself. And we even find at this day that the Papists, when we shew that nothing has proceeded from the mouth of God of all the mass of observances in which they make religion to consist, do always allege that they do not without reason observe what has been commanded by the fathers, as though some things had come into the minds of men which had escaped God himself! We then see that God in this place exposes to ridicule the madness of those, who, relying on their own inventive wits, devise for themselves various kinds of worship; for they seek, as we have said, to be wiser than God himself. We now, then, perceive the force of the expression, when God says that it never came to his mind, because men boast that it had not been contrived without reason, and glory in their own acuteness, as though they were able to appoint a better thing than God himself.

He afterwards says, That they should do this abomination God now goes farther, and calls whatever he had not commanded an abomination. And this clause confirms what I have before said, that there is no need of long arguments when the question is respecting the inventions of men, for nothing can be approved of in the worship of God but what he has himself commanded. Whatever therefore has proceeded from the notions of men, is not only frivolous and useless, but it is also an abomination; for God so represents it in this place. It is therefore not enough at this day to repudiate and to treat with disdain the fictitious modes of worship in which the Papists so much glory; but if we would prove that we have a true zeal for religion, we must abominate all these fictitious things; for God has once for all declared them to be abominable."


Many examples have been given. Here is another one that has not been given (though examples are not needed). Consider how David sought to bring up the ark the first time with a worship procession. Uzza dies. They were transporting the ark in the wrong manner, and Uzza presumptuously assumed that necessity would require him touching the ark to keep it from falling. However, there were other irregularities, which can be seen by comparing the first attempt with the second attempt (e.g., Levites and they only are playing the musical instruments in the second attempt). Bringing up the ark with a worship procession was not something that had a command associated with it, aside from the Levites needing to be the ones who carried it with the staves made for it. But many other parts of the event are condemned because, as David said, they did not seek the Lord after due order (which they did do for the second attempt).
 
Last edited:
More from Calvin.

Commentary Jeremiah 7:31

"Which I commanded them not, and which never came to my mind This reason ought to be carefully noticed, for God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, "I have not commanded them," whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions, than that they are not commanded by God: for when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to his commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship, in which they absurdly exercise themselves, would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying his word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet's words then are very important, when he says, that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind; as though he had said, that men assume too much wisdom, when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew. It is indeed certain, that there was nothing hid from God, even before it was done: but God here assumes the character of man, as though he had said, that what the Jews devised was unknown to him, as his own law was sufficient."

Commentary Jeremiah 32:35

"He at last says, that he had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind We have said elsewhere, that whenever this manner of speaking occurs, God cuts off every handle from objectors, because the superstitious ever have something to allege as a pretense when they are summoned to an account. We know that the Papists, by pretending good intentions, confidently glory against God; and they think that this one pretense is sufficient to defend them against all reproofs; and they think also that the servants of God and the Prophets are too morose and scrupulous when such an excuse does not satisfy them. But God, that he might not tediously contend with the superstitious, assumes this principle, -- that whatever they attempt beyond the Law is spurious, and that, therefore, the inventions of men cannot be defended by any disguise or pretense. Let us then know that true religion is always founded on obedience to God's will; and hence everything devised by men, when there is no command of God, is not only frivolous, but also abominable, according to what was said yesterday respecting the work of the hands; and so here the command of God is set in opposition to all the inventions of men. But as such declarations often occur, I now touch but slightly on this passage.

This doctrine, however, ought to be especially noticed, that is, that there is no need of a long refutation when we undertake to expose fictitious modes of worship, which men devise for themselves according to their own notions, because, after all that they can say, God in one word gives this answer, that whatever he has not commanded in his Law, is vain and mischievous. He then says, that he had not commanded this, and that it had never entered into his mind.

God in the last clause transfers to himself what applies only to men; for it cannot be said with strict propriety of God, that this or that had not come to his mind. But here he rebukes the presumption of men, who dare to introduce this or that, and think that an acceptable worship of God which they themselves have presumptuously devised; for they seek thus to exalt their own wisdom above that of God himself. And we even find at this day that the Papists, when we shew that nothing has proceeded from the mouth of God of all the mass of observances in which they make religion to consist, do always allege that they do not without reason observe what has been commanded by the fathers, as though some things had come into the minds of men which had escaped God himself! We then see that God in this place exposes to ridicule the madness of those, who, relying on their own inventive wits, devise for themselves various kinds of worship; for they seek, as we have said, to be wiser than God himself. We now, then, perceive the force of the expression, when God says that it never came to his mind, because men boast that it had not been contrived without reason, and glory in their own acuteness, as though they were able to appoint a better thing than God himself.

He afterwards says, That they should do this abomination God now goes farther, and calls whatever he had not commanded an abomination. And this clause confirms what I have before said, that there is no need of long arguments when the question is respecting the inventions of men, for nothing can be approved of in the worship of God but what he has himself commanded. Whatever therefore has proceeded from the notions of men, is not only frivolous and useless, but it is also an abomination; for God so represents it in this place. It is therefore not enough at this day to repudiate and to treat with disdain the fictitious modes of worship in which the Papists so much glory; but if we would prove that we have a true zeal for religion, we must abominate all these fictitious things; for God has once for all declared them to be abominable."


Many examples have been given. Here is another one that has not been given (though examples are not needed). Consider how David sought to bring up the ark the first time. Uzza dies. They were transporting the ark in the wrong manner, and Uzza presumptuously assumed that necessity would require him touching the ark to keep it from falling. However, there were other irregularities, which can be seen by comparing the first attempt with the second attempt (e.g., Levites and they only are playing the musical instruments in the second attempt). Bringing up the ark was not something that had a command associated with it, aside from the Levites needing to be the ones who carried it with the staves made for it. But many other parts of the event are condemned because, as David said, they did not seek the Lord after due order (which they did do for the second attempt).
That is indeed another excellent passage from Calvin which I don't recall reading before, at least in full. Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top