The Regulative Principle of the Church 3: Its Historical Meaning (Part 2)

by Sam Waldron | May 2, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

This principle articulated by Calvin and the Reformed against Luther and the Roman Catholics was given sharp focus in the debates between the Puritans and Anglicans in late 16th and 17th Century England.  It was given its classic and definitive statement in Reformed confessions formulated in the 17th century in Britain.  It is stated in identical language at Chapter 21, Paragraph 1 in both the Westminster Confession and at Chapter 22, Paragraph 1 in the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty 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, and 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 imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.

This Puritan statement may best be understood by contrasting it with the statement of the Church of England found in the 39 Articles.  The Twentieth Article of the Church of England’s Thirty Nine Articles states: “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in the controversies of the Faith.  And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written.”¹

G. I. Williamson helpfully and popularly states the Puritan principle exemplified in the Confession:  “What is commanded is right, and what is not commanded is wrong.”² James Bannerman provides this helpful contrast between the Puritan doctrine on this matter (contained in our Confession) and the Anglican doctrine.

In the case of the Church of England, its doctrine in regard to Church power in the worship of God is, that it has a right to decree everything, except what is forbidden in the Word of God.  In the case of our own Church, its doctrine in reference to Church power in the worship of God is, that it has a right to decree nothing, except what expressly or by implication is enjoined by the Word of God.³

G. I. Williamson helpfully illustrates the difference between the Anglican and Puritan understandings of the regulative principle with the following diagram.⁴

The difference between Puritans and Anglicans may be helpfully illustrated by means of two builders intent on building the temple of God.  Mr. Anglican must use the materials of the Word of God, but has no blueprint and may use other materials.  Mr. Puritan must use only materials of the Word of God and has a blueprint.  It takes no special genius to discern that the two completed buildings will differ drastically or to discern which will be more pleasing to God.

¹ James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1960), 1: 339.

² G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, 162.

³ Bannerman, The Church of Christ, 1: 339-40.

⁴ Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, 160.

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.

The Regulative Principle of the Church 2: Its Historical Meaning (Part 1)

by Sam Waldron | Apr 27, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

There are certain theological words and phrases which gain such a clear and defined meaning in the history of theology that to affirm that one holds to them is tantamount to affirming their meaning in that history.  To affirm such words and phrases and not hold to their historical meaning is simply to mislead both ourselves and others as to our real theological convictions.  For instance, to affirm the Trinity, but to hold views which have more in common with historic Modalism than with Trinitarianism (as some contemporary Modalists do) is to deceive ourselves and mislead others.¹ Again, to affirm sola fide, but hold views which are parallel to those of Rome (as do some modern evangelicals and devotees of the new perspective on Paul) is frankly deceptive.² Similarly, to affirm the regulative principle of worship, and yet hold views which are more like the normative principle held by the opponents of the regulative principle is simply misleading.

The backdrop of the debates over the regulative principle among Protestants must, of course, be found in the debates over sola scriptura which came to light at the time of the Reformation.  The conflict between the two viewpoints which at the Reformation became characteristic of Romanism and Protestantism respectively had in the centuries prior to the Reformation been crystallizing in Medieval theology.³ When the Reformation churches affirmed sola scriptura, the question had to be asked whether the Scriptures alone were sufficient to regulate the worship of the church or whether, on the other hand, tradition might have a place in ordering the government and worship of the church.  This question gave rise to two answers on the part of the churches of the Reformation.  Some gave tradition substantially no part in this construction process.  This view became known as the regulative principle.  Others regarded tradition as having a part to play in constructing the worship and government of the church.  This became known as the normative principle.

This principle first emerged, then, in the controversies between the Reformed and Lutheran in Europe.  The “Conservative Reformation” of Luther adopted the policy of preserving the worship of Medieval Catholicism except where it contradicted Scripture.  Calvin, on the other hand, adopted the principle that said that the contents of worship had to have warrant in Scripture in language that seems the same as that in which the Puritans later stated the regulative principle.

The claim is made by some that Calvin’s views were different than those of the Puritans.  Thus, there is some debate about Calvin and his relation to the regulative principle of worship.⁴ While it is true that one can point out differences of application between Calvin and the English Puritans, there is little doubt in my mind that Calvin articulated clearly what became known as the regulative principle of worship.   Quotations from Calvin in support of this may be and have been given at length⁵, but perhaps the clearest and classic quotation is the following from his work entitled, The Necessity of Reforming the Church:

Moreover, the rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunctions of Him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have Him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish His authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly, too, does he, in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke His anger against us.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honour of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to His worship, if at variance with His command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct: “Obedience is better than sacrifice.” “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” (1 Sam. xv. 22; Matth. xv. 9.) Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere “will worship” (ethelothreskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate….⁶

¹ Many believe that this is what T. D. Jakes and other modalists are doing today.  Cf. his “Elephant Room 2” discussion with Mark Driscoll and James Macdonald. http://www.theelephantroom.com/category/featured/.

² In my doctoral dissertation I show that this is what a number of modern evangelicals are doing:  Sam Waldron, Faith, Obedience, and Justification: Current Evangelical Departures from Sola Fide (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press; 2006).

³ Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (Cambridge, England: James Clarke & Co., 1967), 51-120.

⁴ See the argument of R. J. Gore in Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R Publishing, 2002), 53-90.  In my and others’ opinions Gore only succeeds in proving that there are differences of application, but not a difference in principle between Calvin and the Puritans.  Cf. the critical comments about Gore’s book by T. David Gordon in the article entitled, “The World’s Ruined: The Regulative Principle of Worship,” in Modern Reformation (2003 Sept./Oct., Vol. 12; 5).

⁵ Note the multitude quotations brought forward by Brian Schwertley in his appendix on Calvin and the regulative principle in his article, “Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship,” http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/sola_a.htm.

⁶ John Calvin, “The Necessity of Reforming the Church,” Selected Works, 1:128-129.

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.

The Regulative Principle of the Church 1: General Introduction

by Sam Waldron | Apr 25, 2012 | Ecclesiology, Regulative Principle

It is a vast understatement to say that the regulative principle has been the subject of much discussion in recent years.  Many in the Reformed resurgence have adopted (as they should have) the regulative principle as part of the Reformed and Puritan tradition to which they are self-consciously returning.¹ Others in the Reformed tradition have recoiled from it and sought to distance themselves from it.² Still others have (in my opinion) embraced the phrase, but so re-interpreted it that it means something quite different from what it has meant in the tradition.³

My own response to the regulative principle is that it forms an important and even basic feature of both the Reformed tradition and biblical teaching.  As such, it is crucial to the development of any proper doctrine of the church.  That is why in my course on this subject, I devote lectures to it immediately after laying the general foundation of the doctrine of the church.  I do believe, however, that the regulative principle is in need of some clarification especially with regard to its application, but clarification which, I think, is suggested by the tradition itself.

I will strive both to state and clarify the regulative principle by means of the following headings in this blog series.

• Section 1:  Its Historical Meaning
• Section 2:  Its Ecclesiastical Framework
• Section 3:  Its Biblical Support
• Section 4:  Its Necessary Clarification
• Section 5:  Its Specific Application

After providing a positive development of the subject, I will respond to the attacks on and reinterpretations of the regulative principle in our day.

¹ Mark Dever in The Deliberate Church adopts regulative principle.  See particularly chapter 2.

² Mark Driscoll, http://marshill.com/media/religionsaves/regulative-principle; Steve Schlissel, http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?id=89illustrate this tendency;    R. J. Gore in Covenantal Worship: Reconsidering the Puritan Regulative Principle (Phillipsburg, PA: P&R Publishing, 2002).

³ This is my opinion of John Frame’s Worship in Spirit and Truth (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing 1996).

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.