RPWhat?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RunCALEB

Puritan Board Freshman
Could someone please explain the RPW to me? It seems from what I've seen that its the common held view around here and in the confessions.
 
shorthand for "Regulative Principle of Worship."

Stated simply: We must do all that God requires of us in worship (when/as appropriate), and only that which God requires of us.

Scripture gives us express directions, good-and-necessary-consequence deductions, and approved example, for instructing us in what God is pleased to have from us by way of worship.

Scripture warns against trusting man's deceitful heart to come up with "something God is sure to like." Do not add; do not take away.

If we spend precious time presenting a form of will-worship, we fail to make good use of the limited opportunities provided for the several things God told us delight him.
 
RPW: We are only to worship God in those ways that he has explicitly told us too in scripture.

Normative Principle: We can worship God in any way as long as he has not commanded not too.
 
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for worshipping Him in a way that pleases Him.
 
Caleb,

At the time of the Reformation, the issue of the reform of worship was in the forefront. Because the Romanists had not permitted the laity to receive communion in both kinds (i.e., the bread and the cup), the magisterial reformers sought to restore worship to a biblical footing as an important part of their effort to purge the church of its errors.

The reformers went in two different directions. Luther held that if it was not forbidden (all things being equal), then it was permitted. His approach was to continue the traditions of catholic (with a little "c") Christianity insofar as they were not incompatible with the Bible. Zwingli took a more thorough (radical?) approach to reform, arguing that if it is not commanded, it is not permitted. This quickly led to a destruction of icons, elimination of medieval trappings and superstitions, and attempt to be thoroughly biblical by only practicing what the scriptures positively command. Various historians have commented on the simplicity of the Reformed services of worship in the 16th century. They sang, they prayed, they expounded the Word of God, they celebrated the sacraments, endeavoring as much as possible to stick to the book and to worship God in the way he had directed us to worship him.

As it was eventually developed in Reformed theology, the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) held that only those elements that are instituted or appointed by command or example or which can be deduced by "good and necessary consequence" from Scripture are permissible in worship, and that whatever is not commanded or cannot be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture is prohibited. The Old Testament incident of offering "strange fire" to the Lord (Lev 10) is often cited as support for this view. Regardless of motives, it is never right to worship God in a manner which is contrary to his commands.

Today, the position of Luther is sometimes called the "normative principle of worship" and is practiced by denominations and groups that feel free to use features in worship that were not expressly commanded in the Bible (e.g., sometimes applied to singing non-canonical hymns, use of liturgical dance, skits, religious pictures, symbols, and the like).

The Regulative Principle of Worship may be interpreted a bit differently by various Reformed groups (e.g., Westminster Seminary chapel in Escondido does not have a cross or other "religious" symbol but R.C. Sproul's place has art all over the place), some congregations adhere to exclusive Psalmody, others do not.

However, the nub of the issue is as stated above: do you view the forms and shape of worship as permissive or prescriptive. Did the Lord intend for us to "make it up as we go along" and sanctify whatever we choose to use OR did he intend for us to adhere to the directions that he gave in his word, adding nothing of our own that was not commanded (or that can be deduced by good and necessary consequence).

BTW - broad evangelicalism has NO theory of worship and tends to default to the permissive direction, often in the extreme. Evangelicalism was founded on a minimalist set of beliefs (Bebbington's famous quadrilateral calls them conversionism, crucicentrism, biblicism, and activism). It expressly did NOT attempt to include items of ecclesiology. Evangelical groups differ among themselves due to tradition and preference, but in theory they have a lot more freedom in church matters: Altar calls, all kinds of marketing gimmickry, various denominationally made up rituals, even use of secular music (e.g., Wilowcreek would use Beach Boys music in their services in the beginning to build "bridges" to the congregation/audience). Some of the seeker sensitive churches are happy to include a secular love song played by a rock artist but NOT observe the Lord's Supper! Go figure.
 
Last edited:
DMcFadden said:
Caleb,

At the time of the Reformation, the issue of the reform of worship was in the forefront. Because the Romanists had not permitted the laity to receive communion in both kinds (i.e., the bread and the cup), the magisterial reformers sought to restore worship to a biblical footing as an important part of their effort to purge the church of its errors.

The reformers went in two different directions. Luther held that if it was not forbidden (all things being equal), then it was permitted. His approach was to continue the traditions of catholic (with a little "c") Christianity insofar as they were not incompatible with the Bible. Zwingli took a more thorough (radical?) approach to reform, arguing that if it is not commanded, it is not permitted. This quickly led to a destruction of icons, elimination of medieval trappings and superstitions, and attempt to be thoroughly biblical by only practicing what the scriptures positively command. Various historians have commented on the simplicity of the Reformed services of worship in the 16th century. They sang, they prayed, they expounded the Word of God, they celebrated the sacraments, endeavoring as much as possible to stick to the book and to worship God in the way he had directed us to worship him.

As it was eventually developed in Reformed theology, the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) held that only those elements that are instituted or appointed by command or example or which can be deduced by "good and necessary consequence" from Scripture are permissible in worship, and that whatever is not commanded or cannot be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture is prohibited. The Old Testament incident of offering "strange fire" to the Lord (Lev 10) is often cited as support for this view. Regardless of motives, it is never right to worship God in a manner which is contrary to his commands.

Today, the position of Luther is sometimes called the "normative principle of worship" and is practiced by denominations and groups that feel free to use features in worship that were not expressly commanded in the Bible (e.g., sometimes applied to singing non-canonical hymns, use of liturgical dance, skits, religious pictures, symbols, and the like).

The Regulative Principle of Worship may be interpreted a bit differently by various Reformed groups (e.g., Westminster Seminary chapel in Escondido does not have a cross or other "religious" symbol but R.C. Sproul's place has art all over the place), some congregations adhere to exclusive Psalmody, others do not.

However, the nub of the issue is as stated above: do you view the forms and shape of worship as permissive or prescriptive. Did the Lord intend for us to "make it up as we go along" and sanctify whatever we choose to use OR did he intend for us to adhere to the directions that he gave in his word, adding nothing of our own that was not commanded (or that can be deduced by good and necessary consequence).

BTW - broad evangelicalism has NO theory of worship and tends to default to the permissive direction, often in the extreme. Evangelicalism was founded on a minimalist set of beliefs (Bebbington's famous quadrilateral calls them conversionism, crucicentrism, biblicism, and activism). It expressly did NOT attempt to include items of ecclesiology. Evangelical groups differ among themselves due to tradition and preference, but in theory they have a lot more freedom in church matters. Altar calls, all kinds of marketing gimmickry, various denominationally made up rituals, even use of secular music (e.g., Wilowcreek would use Beach Boys music in their services in the beginning to build "bridges" to the congregation/audience). Some of the seeker sensitive churches are happy to include a secular love song played by a rock artist but NOT observe the Lord's Supper! Go figure.
Click to expand...
:agree: Very HELPFUL :up:
 
Wow, very helpful guys! Thanks a lot! I get the practical difference of the RPW and the NPW, but Scripturally, what makes people choose one side over the other?
 
I cannot speak to as great a depth as others but I think NPW can be dangerous as you have no limits, God did not condemn swinging cats by tails as a form of worship so its ok. (Exstreme i know) When asked why we do something in worship do we really want the answer to be "Because God did not say not too." With RPW the answer would be "Secunia Scripture says too."
 
Contra_Mundum said:
If we spend precious time presenting a form of will-worship, we fail to make good use of the limited opportunities provided for the several things God told us delight him.
Click to expand...
Thank you! That is an excellent point.
 
RunCALEB said:
Wow, very helpful guys! Thanks a lot! I get the practical difference of the RPW and the NPW, but Scripturally, what makes people choose one side over the other?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that most people "choose" one side or the other based upon Scripture. Most folks default into a form they grew up with, or that is practiced in a church that they joined for other reasons than doctrinal ones (e.g., parents wanting a strong children's ministry or youth program, the presence of a dynamic speaker, a particular special interest group, proximity to their homes, invited by a friend or co-worker, etc.).

The RPW is a minority practice for a reason no more difficult to understand than that Reformed congregations are a minority within American Christianity. And, even among professedly "Reformed" groups, the lure of the culture is strong. The default "formula" of the megachurch is copied by more than one smaller congregation with a pastor interested in seeing his church "grow."

It has been posted on the PB before, but check out this video and you will have a pretty accurate parody of that megachurch formula: Sunday Morning - YouTube.
 
Yeah I see the problem NPW could theoretically cause. I've watched that modern day video before too! Haha it's sad but true. I suppose this isn't really an issue of contention then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top