Sunday, September 21, 2008

Irony Alert!


R. Scott Clark over at the Heidelblog has a new post on exclusive psalmody (i.e. that the only songs we should sing in church are psalms). The title is Reformed Churches are Scripture-Singing Churches and he has it tagged with "regulative principle". It isn't much of a post, just a brief statement and then some sections of the Canons of Dort.

If your congregation is in a confessional Reformed denomination/federation but it isn’t a Scripture-singing congregation, there’s a problem.

What really caught my attention was the "regulative principle" tag. What is the regulative principle?

The Regulative principle of worship in Christian theology teaches that the public worship of God should include those and only those elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible. In other words, it is the belief that God institutes in Scripture whatever he requires for worship in the Church, and everything else should be avoided.

The "regulative principle" is often contrasted with the normative principle of worship, which teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, so long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church. In other words, there must be agreement with the general practice of the Church and no prohibition in Scripture for whatever is done in worship.


The regulative principle of worship is generally practiced by the conservative Reformed churches and in other conservative Protestant denominations, and it finds expression in confessional documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith. The normative principle of worship is the generally accepted approach to worship outside of Reformed circles as practiced by Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, and independent Bible Churches.

I don't have a huge issue with exclusive psalmody, except where it is used (like in many of Clark's posts) as a club to beat down those who aren't in the "Truly Reformed Club". Now where the irony comes in is when you look at the regulative principle, and then look at infant baptism which Clark insists is an absolute essential to be in the "TR" club. You can try to make a case for infant baptism from covenantal theology but there is absolutely no example or command to baptize infants anywhere in the Bible. Where is the regulatory principle?

So apparently we can't sing How Great Thou Art in church because it isn't a psalm, but yet we can baptize infants without example or command. Which issue do you think is more important to God, giving the sign of the New Covenant to the proper recipient or singing just out of the Pslater Hymnal? Dr. Clark is a brilliant thinker and writer, but he has self-defined "Reformed" so narrowly that it borders on the ridiculous. He put out a full response to a question I asked, can someone not hold to infant baptism and be considered Reformed, to which his response was "no" and that discussion garnered over 100 comments and still going. That only makes sense if we use "Reformed" in the narrowest possible sense and define Reformed theology by the confessions, instead of Reformed Theology being the source of the confessions. Men were Reformed in theology before the Reformed confessions were written. This post demonstrates the danger of letting our confessions rule over the church instead of being an aid to the church. Confessions are vital to effective church governance, which Reformed Baptists agree with. But when every issue is viewed by the confessions to get the "TR" stamp of approval, it has gone too far.

Still looking for the command or example to baptize infants so paedobaptism can fit it in with the regulative principle...

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I've looked at some information about Reformed Baptists lately. One article talked about their desire to strictly pattern worship services after the New Testament Church. I add to laugh when it went on to say that most RB churches will allow chairs and a piano, though neither are mentioned in scripture. (Of course, most also have a church building, though that wasn't true of the NT churches, either.)

Then, ds was studying the Puritans (sola scriptura people), and we talked about the fact that they didn't celebrate Christmas, the reason being that such a celebration isn't mentioned in the Bible.

It's kinda funny how everyone picks and chooses which parts of Scripture to take a stand on. I can't help but think that if we were truly focused on doing what Jesus said to do, all the other stuff would work itself out. We could start with loving God, loving our neighbors, caring for the widows and orphans, and taking care of "the least of these." It would change the world....

Anonymous said...

Fabulous point Arthur. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels if you ask me. 'much weightier matters' get rejected for tradition. Interesting how strongly 'tradition' over substance is employed in Reformed churches.

Arthur Sido said...

Debbie, valid points but there are a lot of people who do charitable works that either teach heresy or flat out deny God. We need to hold fast and firmly to the truth. What some of these people are doing however is majoring in the minors. How we worship is vitally important, just ask Nadab and Abihu, but this is taking it a bit too far. I believe that if we get our theology right, good works will naturally flow from that doctrine.

Arthur Sido said...

Hey Joe,

There really is a danger, Dr. Clark being a perfect example, when your primary focus becomes defining who is or is not Reformed. Maintaining your status as "Reformed" shouldn't override our desire to search the Scriptures and hold fast to the faith. Men are not justified by faith in the Heiddelberg Catechism or the Synod of Dort. Not that confessions are unimportant, but they MUST take a backseat to Scripture. I am Reformed because of what the Bible says, not because of what the Westminster Divines said.

Anonymous said...

Arthur, that's why I said it starts with loving God (with all our heart, soul, mind and strength). Obeying this most important command will show in spending time in God's word and spending time with Him in prayer, thereby knowing Him and being conformed to His will. That's the protection from heresy and denying God.
I agree that it's important to have our theology right, but I think it's just as possible to have the right theology and wrong actions as it is to have the right actions and the wrong theology. At it's heart, Christianity is not about studying God. It's about being His child and having a relationship with Him that brings glory to Him.

Anonymous said...

Reformed from what?

There has always been a pure church and faith once delivered to the saints. What are we reforming? That Baptist church that has followed Arian and other heresies? Wisdom is justified of her children. I am not reformed. I am a Christian, I hold to the doctrines of grace, but the true church always has and needs no reform. I say we drop that name.

Bethany W. said...

Arthur,

Please pray for me while I sort through the issues of RPW, EP, paedobaptism, etc...

These past few months/years, I feel like someone just took me out of the kiddie pool of theology and tossed me in the deep end! And, when you have so many people shouting that you are not "truly" reformed if A,B, and C - well, it makes me want to toss the title of reformed altogether and go back to the easy-believing-moderate-SBC church that I came out of... at least they were loving and accepting! In that setting, I never felt like my Christianity was being judged by how reformed I was! These days, I feel like my very Christianity is challenged...

I better stop there.

Troubled,
Bethany

Arthur Sido said...

I was not trying to cause you angst, just to tweak people a little. I used to be really into that stuff. This is reformed, that is not. But most of that is ancillary stuff. A lot of that stuff, the RPW, exclusive hymnody, infant baptism is all static, all stuff people add to the heart of Reformed theology. I think they do so in order to make “reformed” into their own personal club. I am reformed and you are not.

I would say that the essentials of what it means to be Reformed have little to do with denominations or church practice or which confessions you hold. That doesn’t negate the importance of the doctrines that govern church governance, baptism, eschatology, worship, etc. It does say that someone can hold to Reformed theology without clinging to every line of this reformed confession or that. I find a lot that is useful in the Westminster Confession as well as the London Confession of 1689. That doesn’t mean they are authoritative or without any questionable statements. I can see the utility of the Westminster confession while recognizing that infant baptism is not Scriptural.

I will indeed pray for you. Don’t get discouraged and don’t get hung up on stuff and if I am being pugnacious, tell me to pipe down!

Bethany W. said...

Arthur,

I do not consider you pugnacious.
I was not directing my venting towards you! I always enjoy reading your blog, as is evident by my daily comments (and the link from my page). I was just emoting....

Bethany

Arthur Sido said...

Bethany, I totally get what you are saying. Please feel free to vent/emote/rant/ponder as you will!