Wise words from Dr. Frame that strike the proper balance, in my humble opinion…
What lies behind the element/circumstance distinction, I think, is the thought that some such distinction is needed to put teeth into the regulative principle in its broad meaning. What good is it, some may ask, for worship to be divinely mandated, unless God has given us specific lists of what to do in every type of service (“elements”) and has drawn a precise line between what we may determine (“circumstances,” or some of them) and what we may not? But one may ask equally well what good it is for human marriage to be divinely regulated, unless God gives us a complete list of what husbands and wives are to do in the marriage and to what extent they may make their own decisions. But God never rules His people by giving them exhaustive lists of things they must do, and forbidding them to do anything else. Rather, He teaches them in general terms what pleases Him, and then He allows them to work out the specifics through their own godly wisdom, in line with the broader principles of His Word. That is what it means to live according to divine prescription.
The regulative principle itself warns us not to add to the Word of God. We need to remind ourselves that one way we are tempted to add to the Word is to try to make it more precise and specific than it is. That was one error of which Jesus accused the Pharisees. We might wish that God had given us more specific guidance as to what pleases Him in public worship and in the rest of life. But we must be content with what He has actually revealed to us, turning neither to the right nor to the left. (emphasis added)
Based on that definition, I am definitely on board with the RPW!
2 comments:
Arthur,
I would encourage you to seriously consider other godly men as well as Frame on this Subject. Here is a good short work, http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/bogue.htm .
Paul,
I read the article you linked. Did you read the Frame essay and if so did you find anything in error in what he was saying?
Based on the article from Mr. Bogue. So I guess I see a bunch of stuff he doesn’t like (dance and drama) and some questionable linkage to Roman Catholic practices. He doesn’t like Christmas or Easter celebrations, which I get. He doesn’t approve of singing anything but Psalms which I don't get. He doesn’t like altar calls. He applies the story of Nadab and Abihu to New Testament worship in a way that is questionable at best. The account of the sons of Aaron involves very specific commandments regarding worship that Aaron’s sons violated, but there are not the same specific commandments regarding the manner of worship in the New Testament. So while some of the general principles apply, I am concerned about his hypothetical example where a minister is consumed by fire for offering an altar call.
But what he doesn’t seem to take a stand on is what the RPW looks like. Lots of talk about what he doesn’t like, but not much on what he does.
I think we may be interpreting the RPW differently. It might be helpful if you gave me some details on what you see as the proper worship in the church based on your understanding of the RPW.
Post a Comment