Steve Scott just pointed out to me a fallacy in the regulative principle. The comment was to a post that I wrote back on 10 January. What is the regulative principle? Well, just to remind you, the Westminster Confession of Faith says:
The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is 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 with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped 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.
Another way to phrase it is that if a worship practice is not explicitly allowed in Scripture, then it is forbidden, and may be a suggeston of Satan, himself. But, here is the problem that Steve pointed out. The regulative principle is not actually found in the New Testament itself. Thus, the regulative principle is, itself, a theological construction. And, as a theological construction that is not clearly found in Scripture, then the very regulative principle is, itself, a possible suggestion of Satan. I would actually heartily agree with that line.
The New Testament consistenly hints at the fact that there were some standard worship practices that were taught. Acts 2 speaks of a normal Christian worship as including the apostles teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayer. St. Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians about the necessity of their observing what has been delivered unto them, which St. Paul himself received and had to learn. As has been pointed out by quite a few Greek language scholars from many theological backgrounds, the words that St. Paul uses are the same words used in the rabbinical literature for the correct passing on of learning to disciples. Moreover, Body and Blood, bread and wine allusions are found in more than one place in the epistles.
Thus Scripture itself points to the fact that worship practices were taught verbally, but not necessarily recorded in a guidebook. Given the number of early writings that document a similar worship outline, but with additional details, it seems odd to insist that modern Anabaptist constructions are anywhere near close to the worship that Jesus taught. More than that, St. Paul’s insistence to the Corinthians, that they must keep to a certain worship structure and content, points to the fact that is documented in early writings such as the Didaché, etc. That fact is that we are not free to construct whatever worship we want to construct and then claim that it is a God-blessed worship. Neither is there any indication in either Old or New Testaments that God’s opinion is that almost any worship is acceptable to Him. Rather, the opposite seems to be the case.
So, where is this approved worship style–or worship outline–to be found? Well, as I have pointed out, it is not fully found in Scripture. It is only found in the descriptions outside of Scripture, and more clearly in writings such as the Didaché. And, of course, it is passed down in the Christian verbal tradition–Holy Tradition. But, the regulative principle actually forbids you from receiving any input or information from the very people who were present and writing, teaching, recording, and ordering true New Testament worship. Yet, the regulative principle is not actually written in Scripture. Are you beginning to see a major contradiction in this principle?
So, the regulative principle is not only not Scriptural, it may very well be a tool of Satan, a tool to keep people from true Christian worship.
I heard a preacher who once suggested that if we don’t limit worship to what’s in scripture, we may end up with Mashed Potatoes at the Lord’s Supper. And, of course, the irony being that if we match early Christian practices, there’s nothing wrong with that.
What’s in scripture? Incense, Images, Expensive clothing, wines, breads, blood, robes, liturgy, meat… Family dinners, complex liturgical hymnody (psalms and canticles)
One thing I love about Orthodox and Anglican liturgy is how much we use scripture, recite scripture, read scripture, sing scripture: use scripture as the Church has always used it. 70 – 80% of our service is 100% scriptural.
Personally, I favor frijoles. Most interesting how people forget that the Lord’s Supper was a supper, which is precisely why St. Paul is so upset by people not sharing all the food and getting drunk. [However, the supper part of it began to be eliminated before the Gospels were written, as Corinthians illustrates.] Most people also do not know that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated in the evening until the second century AD. One of the things I enjoy about being Orthodox is that we actually get to learn real Church history and read the real Early Church Fathers.
I like your point on what is found in Scripture. However, the way in which the regulative principle is applied in actuality is found in the Scottish Covenanters, the Geneva Calvinists, and the Puritans. They are minimalists as is the principle. The actual meaning of the principle is that if something is not directly sketched out then it may not be used. So, the early Calvinists did not use hymns, only psalms, because only psalms were clearly sung in Scripture. Though scholars claims that some of the phrasing in some of the verses of the New Testament indicate that the apostle was quoting from a hymn, it does not actually say so. Therefore, the regulative principle forbids hymns. It is a principle that gives a vague sheen of scholarship to an otherwise indefensible principle.
The preacher you heard is obviously following that line of thinking, though I doubt he/she would forbid hymns, etc.
Doesn’t this describe all church division in a nutshell? I mean, all protestant, orthodox and RC churches believe nearly the same thing in most areas (but not all). The big division between us is in the adherence to tradition in liturgy and worship styles. It’s seems to be all about different kinds of traditions, at the heart. People talk about getting back to the early church way of worship, but what is that exactly?
At first reading, I was surprised to read that certain forms of worship may not be acceptable to God. But, then, I have been reading the painfully exact instructions God gave to Moses for constructing the tabernacle. Why? Why so exact? So they would take Him seriously? I can come up with no answer to that. So, you may have a point here, Fr. Ernesto.
Today, evangelical churches have nearly dispensed with liturgy of any kind. Yet, something in us seems to need it, it seems built in. There is a problem here….
Oddly enough, I consider that the regular Reformers–as versus the Radical Reformers–were not as interested in arguing about worship at first. The original disagreements had to do with practices and teachings that appeared to contradict the grace of God in our salvation. Remember that the straw that broke the camel’s back was the issue of indulgences and their relation to both justification and sanctification.
However, I have argued elsewhere that in order for the Reformers to argue successfully against the Roman Church, they felt that they had to ditch Holy Tradition as the way in which the Roman Church was defining Holy Tradition at that time (not necessarily today) meant that anything that they approved was automatically Holy Tradition. Thus, there was no way to oppose them and keep Holy Tradition, or so it seemed. Had the Reformers had extensive contact with the Orthodox Church, they might have had a much better way to counter Roman arguments simply by being able to cite the ancient Patriarchates and other theologians, without having to ditch the concept of Holy Tradition.
Now, the Radical Reformers did not simply reject Holy Tradition, they rejected any role for tradition itself. More than that, they claimed, and still claim, to be able to reconstruct a New Testament worship, in spite of history and Early Church writings.
And, yes, I would agree that there is something in us that there is something in us that calls out for certain types of worship. Be aware that the Anabaptist counter-claim was, and is, that this is because the human being is always striving to replace a direct relationship with God with external ceremonial. As you pointed out, since God ordered the Old Testament worship, it seems odd to make the claim that what God ordered and seemed to prefer, both in the Old Testament and in the heavenlies (see Revelation), he despises in the New Testament.
It seems I’m a year late on reading this, but since I see the regulative principle slightly differently I thought I’d mention something here.
Regardless of how the principle of how it has been used by some, it seems that the regulative principle is meant to regulate (i.e. oversee), congregational worship and not explicitly define it. From what I understand, it’s intended purpose is to require people to return to Scripture in order to see the pattern after which we model our worship together. It is not confined to Scripture, but must be in harmony with it. And where Scripture does not speak or is indifferent, we must look first to its motivation, then to its use, and then to its benefits (and if it has no benefits, it has no place in worship. That being said, not all benefits are tangible).
Again, as I have understood this principle, it acknowledges the continuing need for the generations of the church to express themselves in a unique ways, and serves to temper their desire for uniqueness with Scripture so that expression does not lead to apostasy. Of course, this is very much reformation theology, and I don’t know how the orthodox or the catholics would view this, but essentially: As we are sinful, and being/having been sanctified, we are holy. And as we are sanctified, our behaviour changes, our actions, our thoughts and our attitudes. In the same way, the church (in a pragmatic way) is the people of God. The people of God are unrighteous, yet declared righteous, and their actions, thoughts and attitudes ought to follow. Thus the church can be in error at times, just as at times we personally sin. God didn’t make the sin less sinful, He dealt with it completely. In the same way, God does not make error in the church less erroneus, but instead seeks to correct the error.
Also, if you do end up reading this, how does the Roman Church now define Holy Tradition and how does it differ from its previous understanding?
And lastly, I think this fallacy that you’ve found in the regulative principle stems from a misunderstanding of how it is to be applied (as its object is application). It speaks of what we do in worship when we gather together with other people before God. Naturally, all of life is an expression of worship, but to claim that every expression of worship is equal, is to claim that all acts of worship have the same shape, length and value (which I would argue is not the case). The regulative principle is not in itself worship of God, but is motivated by a desire to worship God rightly, and is useful for maintaining worship with it’s proper object, God.
In any case, I hope this is a fair explanation of the regulative principle, and that someone is aided by it.
God bless,
Steven
I have a busy couple of days, but you are on my “to answer” list.