The Regulative Principle of Worship

THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE OF WORSHIP

THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE OF WORSHIP

A paper presented at the 2001 International Conference of Reformed Churches

by

By G. I. Williamson

G. I. Williamson

In this paper I will attempt to do four things:

1. First, I will try to state clearly what the Regulative
Principle of Worship1 is, and where it came from.
It is my contention that it is an apostolic principle
taught as clearly in the New Testament as in the
Old, and that this preceptand the practice
prescribed by itis norm-ative for the church until
Jesus returns. I will refer to this principle through
the rest of my paper as the RPW.
2. I will then refer to John Calvins teaching and
practice.
3. I will then go on to show how this principle was
faithfully articulated in the Reformed catechisms
and confessions, and applied with integrity in the
worship practice of Presbyterian and Reformed
Churches during the historical period in which our
Reformed Confessions were formulated.
4. Then I will endeavor to show how Presbyterian and
Reformed Churches in recent times have stretched
the RPW to the breaking point.
5. And then, finally, I will state my conclusions and
suggest a few modest reforms that are urgently
needed.
1 - The RPW Stated and Defended
Let me begin by simply stating what I understand
the RPW to be. It is, quite simply, the application of
the fundamental principle of the Reformation (Sola
Scriptura) to the sphere of worship. And it has never
been expressed more succinctly than it is in the
Heidelberg Catechism. The Catechism asks (in Q. 96)
What does God require in the second commandment?
The answer is: That we in no wise make any image of
God, nor worship Him in any other way than He has
commanded.As Zacharius Ursinusan author (if not
1 In this paper I will not discuss the application of this principle to
different kinds of worship, such as private, family, informal, formal,
etc. My focus here is the public worship of the congregations,
under the supervision of duly appointed pastors and elders.

the author) of this catechismexplained it, The end,

or design of this commandment is, that the true
Godbe worshipped under a proper formsuch as is
pleasing to him, and not with such worship as that
which is according to the imagination and device of
man[and] that the worship of God as prescribed be
preserved pure and uncorrupted.2 Or to say the same
thing more briefly To worship God truly, is to worship
him in the manner which he himself has prescribed.3
Direct Scriptural Support for the RPW
It is important to note that the word
commanded is not to be taken to mean only what is
found in Scripture in the form of direct, verbal
commandments. There is no direct, verbal
commandment, for instance, that saysin so many
wordsthat we are to baptize infants. That is why the
Reformed confessions not only used the word
commanded, but also such words as instituted and
prescribed. If a worship practice can be shown to have
apostolic sanction or approval, then that worship
practice has the same normative force as it would have
if it came in the form of a direct commandment. Or, to
say the same thing in a different way, if we find that a
certain practice had apostolic sanction then that is
sufficient proof that the practice is something the Lord
has commanded. In other words, we do not find that
everything commanded by our Lord is recorded in
Scripture in the form of a direct commandment. But by
good and necessary inference drawn from Scripture we
can be certain as to what doesor, conversely, does
nothave divine authorization.
2 The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids MI, 1954, p. 517
3 Ibid. To much the same effect is the Westminster Shorter
Catechism answer #51: The second commandment forbiddeth the
worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his
word. The Westminster Larger Catechism further explains that the
commandment forbids all superstitious devices, corrupting the
worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and
taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under
the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other
pretence whatsoeverand opposing the worship and ordinances which
God hath appointed.

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4

67

The Regulative Principle of Worship

The RPW is clearly taught in the Old Testament

Scriptures. Even those who want to modifyor
entirely eliminatethe RPW are willing to concede as
much.4 Once the central sanctuary was established in
Israel (in the Tabernacle, in the time of Moses, and
later on in the Temple, in the time of Solomon) the
only place at which sacrifices could be offered up to
God, with his approval, was at that location. No
legitimate worship could be offered up to God except
in dependence upon the prescribed priestly mediation
that was effected by way of these sacrifices. For
without the shedding of blood at the place and in
the manner prescribed by God, there could not
thenas there cannot nowbe a remission of sin
(Heb. 9:22). The relationship of the Old Testament
believer to the Tabernacle or Temple, in other words,
was analogous to our own relationship to the heavenly
sanctuary (Heb. 12). Just as in ancient Israel people
worshiped toward5 Gods holy temple, so today there
is still only one center to which we all must look by
faith, namely, the heavenly sanctuary where our great
High Priest, the Lord Jesus, makes intercession for us.6
4 Rev. Steve Schlissel, who rejects the RPW as a mere human
invention, nevertheless writes: The locus classicus, the most
frequent and important textual citation for the Regulative Principle
of Worship is Deuteronomy 12:32. What thing soever I command
you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish
from it. But here again, the regulativists [Rev. Schlissels name for
those who still believe the RPW (GIW)] either ignore or overlook the
setting. By isolating this particular verse from its context, its beauty
is marred, its force is neutralized, and its power compromised.
Deuteronomy 12:32 appears in an epoch-marking context:
we have here a major step in the progress of the religion of the
covenant. Before this, covenant keepers could offer sacrifice
wherever they felt like it. Henceforth sacrifice would be severely
restricted. It would be restricted, as we said up front, in regard to
place, in regard to people, and in regard to particulars.
It is here, then, in Deuteronomy 12 that we do indeed find
introduced what might properly be called the Regulative Principle of
Worship: If it is commanded, youd better do it; if it is not
commanded, it is forbidden (see verse 32). Dont look to the pagans,
either. They do thoroughly whacked-out things that I abominate
(verses 28-31). You just do what I say and only what I say [italics
mine, GIW].
5 OPC Pastor Peter Wallace says the Old Testament saints could
not offer acceptable worship to God in their Synagogues because
worship could only take place at the Temple. This clearly needs
qualification. It is clear that there could be no true worship except
in connection with, and in dependence upon, what was constantly
going on in the temple. But this was possible spiritually whether a
believer was 40 feet, or 40 miles from the Temple per se. (Note
Psalm 5:7; Daniel 6:10 etc.)
6 I would refer the reader, here, to my more extensive review of
the Old Testament evidence for the regulative principle
(http://homepage2.rconn-ect.com/giwopc/).

68

When our Lord met with his disciples after his

resurrection he said: All authority has been given to me
in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of
all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
observe all things that I have commanded you;and lo, I
am with you always, even to the end of the age.7 The
words in bold type are of great importance in
understanding the RPW in the Christian Church
because it is clear from these words that there is no
legitimate authority in the Christian Church which is
not found in, or received from, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Even the Apostleswho together with Christ and his
prophets are the Churchs foundation (Eph. 2:20)
had no authority except what they received from him. I
therefore believe Calvin understood these momentous
words of our Lord correctly when he wrote: he sends
away the Apostles with this reservation, that they shall
not bring forward their own inventions, but shall
purely and faithfully deliver, from hand to hand (as we
say), what he has entrusted to them.
Jesus had shown his apostles how man-made
traditions have a way of nullifying the commandments
of God (Mk. 7:1-13). And that the apostles did not
forget this lesson is clearly evident in their writings.
They did not teach any doctrine that they had not
received from their Lord (Cf. Gal. 1, Jude 4). But
neither did they sanction any worship practice that they
did not receive from him. This is clear from what the
Apostle Paul wrote, concerning the sacrament of the
Lords Supper, I received from the Lord he writes,
that which I also delivered to you (1 Cor. 11:23).
Since he was careful to pass on exactly what he had
received from his Lord, it is not surprising that he
spoke authoritativelyagain and againabout what
was, and what was not, to be allowed in the worship
practice of the apostolic churches (1 Cor. 14). Women,
for instance, were not permitted to speak during public
worship (14:34,35). Men likewiseeven those who
had received special revelatory gifts by the laying on of
the hands of the apostleswere subject to strict
regulation (1 Cor. 14:27-32). And since the apostle
boldly asserted that he had taught the whole counsel of
God (Acts 20:27), it is not surprising that he issued an
ominous warning to any who were of a mind to
disregard his authority (1 Cor. 14:37).
Yet in spite of the faithful teaching of the apostles
the tendency to depart from what God commands, in
favor of what man wants, was clearly evident in the

7 Matthew 28:18-20

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4

The Regulative Principle of Worship

apostolic churches. Time and again it is clear that there

was a desire to be in bondage again to the weak and
beggarly elements of the Old Testament ceremonial
worship (Gal. 4:9,10). Some were also quite willing to
submit to the yoke of the com-mandments and
doctrines of men (Col. 2:22) in what the apostle
called self-imposed8 religion (v. 23). The apostles
wanted people to submit to a God-imposed religion!
But such is the nature of menyes, even regenerate
menthat often the self-imposed was (and still is)
much more ap-pealing. No wonder the apostle could
say: I am afraid of you, lest I have labored for you in
vain! (Gal. 4:11).
Indirect Scriptural Support for the RPW
It is also important to note the connection
between the RPW and two9 other major biblical
doctrines handed down to us by our Reforming
Fathers. These are (1) the limits of church power, and
(2) the rights of the individual Christians conscience. As
the Westminster Confession has formulated these, (1)
All synods or councils, since the apostles' times,
whether general or particular, may err; and many have
erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith,
or practice; but to be used as a help in both.10 And
(2) God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it
free from the doctrines and commandments of men,
which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside
it, if matters of faith, or worship.11 When we come to
worship God we have a God-given right (and sacred
duty) to worship him with a clear conscience. But in
order to have a clear conscience, as we worship him,
we need to know for sure that what we are doing has
his approval. But how can we know for sure that what
we are doing in worship has his approval? The answer,
I believe, is that the Lord himself must instruct us as he
speaks to us in the Scriptures. It therefore follows that no
one has a right to impose anything on us as something
we ought to do in worshipwhether it be doctrine or
practiceunless it is authorized by the Lord Jesus
himself, as that authorization is revealed in the
testimony of the apostles. And the fact is that many
8 .
9 This is, of course, quite selective. I believe, for example, that the
doctrine of mans total depravityrightly understoodprecludes
his competence to devise anything to augment or improve upon
what God has commanded in worship.

things have gradually found acceptance in Reformed

Churches that lack clear divine sanction.
In Pauls first letter to the Corinthians he makes an
awesome claim. He claims that he is the architect
(arcitektwn) of Gods final Temple.
According to the grace of God which was given to
me, as a wise master builder I have laid the
foundation, and another builds on it. But let each
one take heed how he builds on it. For no other
foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid,
which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this
foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood,
hay, straw, each one's work will become manifest; for
the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by
fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what
sort it is. If anyone's work which he has built on it
endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is
burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be
saved, yet so as through fire. Do you not know that
you [or ye as in the KJV] are the temple of God
and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? (1 Cor.
3:10-13)
So the Christian Church is the final Temple, and the
plan for the building of that Temple was revealed to
Paul the apostle. For him to say that he had taught the
whole counsel of God is therefore one and the same
with saying that he taught everything that our Lord has
commanded. Therefore, anyone who wants to take part
in building the final Templewith Gods approval
will have to build on this apostolic foundation, following the architects instructions. And nowhere is this
more important than in the matter of worship practice.
When we assemble on the Lords Daywherever
we may be geographically speakingwe are to realize
that we are also seated in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6).
When we worship God in spirit and in truth12 we
come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of
angels13 etc. Women are to be silent during
worshipnot because of some prejudicial whim of the
Apostle, but because true worship takes place in the
presence of the angels (1 Cor. 11:10). I take this to
illuminate the meaning of our Lords words to the
Samaritan woman (John 4). To worship God in Spirit
whatever else it may meancertainly means this:
12 John 4:24

10 Westminster Confession of Faith, XXXI:3.

11 Westminster Confession of Faith, XX,2 (my emphasis).

13 Hebrews 12:22

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4

69

The Regulative Principle of Worship

we, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, are enabled in

mind and heart to ascend to heavenly places. We
worship in Truth because it is no longer mere symbolic
representations of heavenly things with which we have
to doas was the case with the Tabernacle and
Temple worship. No, we now have the reality (Truth).
The contrast, in other words, between the true worship
that was and the true worship that now isthe
contrast between the Old Testament worship and the
New Testament worshipis summed up in these two
terms. Now the reality (Truth)which the old
symbolizedis actually ours in Christ Jesus through
the Spirit. Yet how difficult it was for those early
Jewish Christians (even the very apostles them-selves)
to let go of the shadowy representations. One of the
constant impediments to the well-being of the church
that the apostle Paul had to deal with, repeatedly,
concerned precisely this issue (Gal. 4, Rom. 14, Col. 2,
etc.), And the impediment is with us still. Even today
much of Christen-dom clings to the visible, shadowy
symbolism that character-ized the Tabernacle and
Temple, preferring weak and beggarly elements to
worship in Spirit and in Truth.
2 The RPW as understood & applied by Calvin
It was Calvinmore than any other
Reformerwho cut to the heart of the matter. He not
only saw the issue clearly but also realized its supreme
importance. I know how difficult it is, said Calvin,
to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes
of worship not expressly sanctioned by his Word. The
opposite persuasion which cleaves to thembeing
seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrowis,
that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction,
provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor 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. And in vain do they worship me, teaching
for doctrines the com-mandments of men. (1 Sam.
15:2 Matt. 15:9 [Italics mine).
For Calvin the only remedy for the Roman
churchs pervasive corruption was a return to apostolic
precept and practice.14 He saw the apostolic church as
14 This is clearly seen in his letter to Cardinal Sadolet! I will not
press you so closely as to call you back to that form which the
apostles instituted, (though in it we have the only model of a true
Church, and whosoever deviates from it in the smallest degree is
in error, ) but to indulge you so far, place, I pray, before your eyes,
that ancient form of the Church, such as their writings prove it to

70

the model for the true church in all subsequent

history.15 And for Calvin this was supremely important? If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the
Christian religion has a standing existence among us,
and maintains its truth, it will be found that the
following two not only occupy the principle place, but
comprehend under them all the other parts, and
consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz.,
a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly
worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which
salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of
view, though we may glory in the name of Christians,
our profession is empty and vain (p. 126, my emphasis: GIW). It is commonly said that justification by
faith was the supreme concern of the great Reformers!16
But this was not the case, at least not for Calvin. For
him the glory of God was the supreme concern, and
only after that came the welfare of sinners. Hence the
priority he gave to the mode in which God is to be
worshipeda priority fully maintained in virtually all
of the great Reformed Catechisms and Confessions.17
I fail to see how we can honestly receive the
Scriptures as the only infallible rule of our faith and
practice, if we do not faithfully adopt this same model.
For it is here alonein the writings of the inspired
apostles and the practices of the apostolic churches
disclosed in themthat we learn what Jesus
commanded.
have been in the age of Chrysostom and Basil, among the Greeks,
and of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, among the Latins; after
so doing, contemplate the ruins of that Church, as now surviving
among yourselves. Assuredly, the difference will appear as great as
that which the Prophets describe between the famous Church
which flourished under David and Solomon, and that which under
Zedekiah and Jehoiakim had lapsed into every kind of superstition,
and utterly vitiated the purity of divine worship.
15 On Calvin and apostolic practice, see also Charles Garside, The
Origins of Calvins Theology of Music: 1536-1543, Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society, vol. 69, pt. 4 (Philadelphia,
1979), p. 10 where he comments that, in the Articles of 1537,
Calvin appeals to the practice of the apostolic church. The Articles
make clear that in addition to conformity to the word of God,
Calvin intended to reconstruct as far as was possible the worship as
well as the discipline of the ancient church, and in that church, as
Saint Paul testified, the psalms had been sung. Such singing,
therefore, was fully as integral to Calvins great vision of the whole
life of the ancient church as was that ancient, that is to say,
apostolic, discipline of excommunication. Psalmody was an
apostolic practice, a fact of profound importance for Calvin,
underscored by his reference to the degeneration of contemporary
liturgical music.
16 This can perhaps be said, with more justification, of Luther.
17 See appendix A.

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4

The Regulative Principle of Worship

3. The RPW as it was applied in

Presbyterian and Reformed Churches.
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches, today, need
to regain an understanding of Calvins zeal for the
apostolic-church model. They also need to appreciate
what a profound blessing the RPW has been in their
own past history.18 The impact of this consistent line
of teaching by the Calvinistic Reformers was very
great. That is whyfor a considerable length of
timethe worship which was to be found virtually
everywhere, in Presbyterian and Reformed Churches,
was marked by a chaste simplicity. 19 The word of God,
and especially the preaching of the word of God, was
central. And as long as these churches were blessed
with faithful preaching of the Word, the people did
not feel a need for all kinds of additions. In those days,
a reformed believer could feel at home in most any
Presbyterian or Reformed Church, anywhere in the
world. Even if they visited a foreign country in which
these congregations were located, they found pretty
much the same song book that they had at home
because they sangif not quite exclusively, yet certainly

18 Even Rev. Steve Schlisselwho says the RPW is a mere human

inventionadmits (even rather effusively) that it has been a
tremendous blessing in our past history. One wonders how a mere
human invention could ever have been so signally blessed of the
Lord as Rev. Schlissel admits it to have been.
19 Calvin built his form of worship on the foundation of Zwingli
and Farel, and the services already in use in the Swiss Reformed
Churches. Like his predecessors, he had no sympathy whatever
with the Roman Catholic ceremonialism, which was overloaded
with unscriptural traditions and superstitions. We may add that he
had no taste for the artistic, symbolical, and ornamental features in
worship. He rejected the mass, all the sacraments, except two, the
saints' days, nearly all church festivals, except Sunday, images,
relics, processions, and the whole pomp and circumstance of a
gaudy worship which appeals to the senses and imagination rather
than the intellect and the conscience, and tends to distract the
mind with the outward show instead of concentrating it upon the
contemplation of the saving truth of the gospel.
He substituted in its place that simple and spiritual mode of
worship which is well adapted for intelligent devotion, if it be
animated by the quickening presence and power of the Spirit of
God, but becomes jejune, barren, cold, and chilly if that power is
waiting. He made the sermon the central part of worship, and
substituted instruction and edification in the vernacular for the
reading of the mass in Latin. He magnified the pulpit, as the
throne of the preacher, above the altar of the sacrificing priest. He
opened the inexhaustible fountain of free prayer in public worship,
with its endless possibilities of application to varying circumstances
and wants; he restored to the Church, like Luther, the inestimable
blessing of congregational singing, which is the true popular
liturgy, and more effective than the reading of written forms of
prayer. (History of the Christian Church, by Philip Schaaf, 87, the
Liturgy of Calvin).

overwhelminglyfrom the Psalter.20 They also found

the same simple elements in the worship servicesthe
same sacraments, administered with unadorned simplicityand even the same basic liturgy.21
In this section of my paper I want to illustrate how
important the RPW was originally to both Presbyterian
and Reformed Churches, by referring to the way in
which they applied it. I refer to two particulars,
namely, the rejection of traditional Roman Catholic
feast days and the preeminence of the Psalter.
The RPW and Special Days
Under the authoritative guidance of the apostles,
one thing the apostolic church did not practice was any
annual observance of special days such as Christmas
and Good Friday (or even a specially designated annual
Easter). Had there been any need for an annual
Christmas day, for example, then surely the Lord
himself would have been the first to realize it. And he
could have provided what was needed to make it
authentic. He could, for example, have made known
the date of his own birth. And he could have
commanded the apostles to teach the observance of
such days in the Christian Church, right from the start.
But he did not do so. That the observance of such days
was not part of the whole counsel of God imparted
to the apostles is very clear from the New Testament.
There is no record of any kind of specific recognitionor observanceof any of these days in any of
their writings. And there is evidence that the apostle
Paul opposed the imposition of special days, in addition
20 The Roman Catholic Church had gradually replaced the
Psalter with Latin songs, many of which the people could not
understand. After separating from the Roman Catholic Church, the
reformed churches in Europe produced metrical versions of the
Psalms in the vernacular, which they used as their book of praise in
the public worship of God. Whether in Switzerland, France,
Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, or the British Isles, the people
of the reformed churches loved and sung the psalms in their own
tongue. For example, in 1574 the Synod of the reformed churches
of the lowlands (Holland, Belgium, and parts of Germany) ordered
that all the churches sing only from the Psalm book of Datheen,
which contained just the Psalms. The French Huguenots are known
for their love of the Genevan Psalter produced by Beza and Marot.
They sung the psalms both in public worship and daily life. (The
Content of Songs Used in Public Worship, by Archibald A. Allison, p.
1).
21 It is a fact well known to Church historians that as spiritual life
begins to wane, formalistic and extraordinary observances begin to
increaseHe who serves God in Spirit and with devotion will have
little need for the unusual, and for constant innovations. (The
Church Order Commentary, by Idzerd Van Dellen and Martin
Monsma, Zondervan Pub. Co., 1954 [Third Edition] p. 275.).

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4

71

The Regulative Principle of Worship

to the Lords day, on Gods people. I think Calvin is

correct in saying the days they were beginning to
observe in Galatia (Gal. 4:10ff.) were derived from
Jewish tradition. And, if that is correct, I believe this
Reformer was right when he said this has something
weighty to teach us. This is the case because at least
some of those days derived from Jewish tradition were
days which God had once commanded. Yet the apostle
strenuously opposed the impo-sition of even such days
on the churches (just as he opposed the imposition of
circumcision). How then, argued Calvin, can days that
have never been appointed by God be justly imposed
on the churches?
The answer that many give today is that Reformed
Churches do not impose these days, they simply
observe them freely. But I do not find this
convincing. Paul saysin Romans 14that individual
Christian believers, in apos-tolic churches, were free to
decide for themselves whether or not they would
observe any of these Old Testament feast days.
Who are you to judge another's servant? To his
own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be
made to stand, for God is able to make him
stand. One person esteems one day above
another; another esteems every day alike. Let each
be fully convinced in his own mind. He who
observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he
who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does
not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for
he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to
the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.
(Rom. 14:4-6).
A Christian was in no way obligated to observe
these days, in other words, just as he was in no way
obligated to be circumcised. Each individual was to be
left to act freely, out of his own conscience, with no
pressure put on him one way or the other. It was this
very individual freedom, however, that was jeopardized
whenin the Galatian churchesspecial days were
being institutionalized.22 Then Paul was aroused to
opposition. When the church in some official way sets
the observance of days not commanded by the Lord, it
intrudes upon the sacred sphere of conscience. 23 And it
is my conviction that many Presbyterian and Reformed
Churchesat least in practical effecthave done the
very same thing that was done in the church of
22 The American Heritage Dictionary: a. To make into, treat as,
or give the character of an institution to; b. To make part of a
structured and usually well-established system.
23 Westminster Confession of Faith, XX,2.

72

Galatia. Church members are under considerable pressure to conform by participating in the observance of
such days as Christmas and Good Friday even though it
is admitted that God never instituted such observances.
And, I might add, pastors are often put under even
greater pressure to conform to these humanly ordained
observances.
It is sometimes said, even by people who profess
adherence to the reformed confessions, that the Church
has the right to prescribe such observances.24 But I
cannot reconcile this with the teaching of the New
Testament (or the Reformed Confessions). The apostle
Paul even warns me against taking heed to angels from
heaven if their teaching differs from that of the apostles
(Gal. 1:6-9). He says we are free menfree from the
doctrines and commandments of menand that we
ought to stand fastin the liberty by which Christ has
made [us] free (Gal. 5:1). Therefore, writes the
Apostle, if you died with Christ from the basic principles
of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you
subject yourself to regulationsaccording to the doctrines
and commandments of men? (Col. 2:20,22). People
keep telling me that these days (that is, officially appointed annual special days such as Christmas, Good
Friday and Easter) are quite harmlesseven beneficial.
And I will not dispute the fact that, for many, they
indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed
religion (Col. 2:23). But the important thing is this:
the inspired apostle says these things (invented and
imposed by men) are of no value And the very fact
that many people think they are of great value simply
underlines the danger, as I see it, against which the
apostle warned.
If the apostles gave us the whole counsel of
Godand I take this to encompass matters of both
faith and practicethen I cannot see how the church
today can claim the right to legislate such annual

24 Article 34 of the Church of England (adopted in 1562)

expresses what many Reformed people today seem to believe: Every
particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and
abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church, ordained only by mans
authority, so that all things be done to edifying. The Westminster
Assembly (1643-1648) corrected this deviation from the RPW by
saying: 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 imaginations and devices of men, or the
suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way
not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures (Ch. XXI, 1). And God alone is
Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and
commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word;
or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship (XX, 2).

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4

The Regulative Principle of Worship

observances for Gods people when that very power25

was denied even to the apostles themselves. Legitimate
Church power is only ministerial and declarative. The
Church does not have any authority to make new laws
for Gods people. The power to make laws for his
people is reserved to the Lord Jesus alone. The
Church, the bride of Christ, only has authorityas a
faithful brideto see to it that her children are taught
the laws of her espoused husband. And if the apostles
and their companions really did deposit the final
portion of the whole counsel of God for us in their
inspired writings, there is neither need nor
authorization for any such new legislation.
It is frequently said, today, that the RPW was a
Puritan invention, alien to the Continental Reformed
tradition. But one can only wonder why those who
promote this allegation have apparently never bothered
to investigate the historical record.26 The truth is that
the continental Reformers werein the 16th Century
as Puritan as the Puritans themselves. There is a
world of difference between the actual historical
facts,27 and the misrepresentations of the continental
25 By this I mean authority to innovate, invent and impose on
Gods people things that were never commanded by the Lord.
26 Theologian Robert L. Reymond recognized this misrepresentation as follows: J. I. Packer rejected the regulative principle on the
ground that it is a Puritan innovation (The Puritan Approach to
Worship, Diversity in Unity (papers read at the Puritan and
Reformed Studies Conference, December 1963; available London:
The Evangelical magazine, 1964] 4-5.) Whatever else may be said
about this principle, says Dr. Reymond, it must be said that it is
not a Puritan innovation To the same effect is the comment of
Dr. Edmond Clowney in his essay entitled Distinctive Emphases
in Presbyterian Church Polity in the commemorative volume
marking the 50th Anniversary of the founding of the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church entitled Pressing Toward the Mark, p. 102.
The regulative principle is not a distinctive principle of English as
over against continental Reformed leadership. It is clearly stated in
Article Thirty-two of the Belgic Confession (1561).
27 My thanks to Dr. R. Dean Anderson for the translated
material that follows in quotation marks (My emphasis).
The first Synod of the Reformed churches of the Netherlands
to deal with this matter took place in Dordrecht in 1574. There on
the 18th of June, the delegates decided:
Respecting feast days in addition to the Sunday: it has
been decided to rest content only with the Sunday.
Nevertheless the normal material relating to the birth of
Christ shall be handled on the Sunday before Christmas
day together with an admonition to the people not to
observe Christmas day. If Christmas day falls on a Sunday,
the same material shall be preached on that day. It is also
permitted to preach on the resurrection and the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit on Easter Sunday and Pentecost Sunday,
which is left to the freedom of the ministers.

At the provincial Synod of Rotterdam the following year, a

similar decision was made:
As concerns feast days: The government shall be
petitioned that they allow everyone to work 6 days in the
week in accordance with the 4th commandment of our
Lord. And if the government ordains any other (feast days)
besides the Sunday, the delegated ministers will petition
parliament that they inform them in such a way that these
ministers may consider how much and in how far one can
go here, so that on the one hand people don't fall into
superstition as warned by Paul in Gal. 4, and on the other
hand that people will not be led to fight too fiercely against
the aforesaid government because of certain feast days.
The decision of the next National Synod in 1578, held again in
Dordrecht, tells the story of the disappointment of the churches in
this matter.
It was indeed to be desired that the freedom from God to
work 6 days be permitted in the church, and that only the
Sunday be celebrated. Nevertheless since certain other feast
days are maintained by authority of the government;
namely Christmas day and the day thereafter, likewise the
second day of Easter and the second day of Pentecost and in
some places New Year's day and Ascension day; the
ministers shall do their best to teach the congregation to
transform unproductive and harmful idleness into holy and
profitable exercises by sermons especially dealing with the
birth and resurrection of Christ, the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit, and such like articles of the faith. The ministers of
the churches shall do this in those cities where more feast
days (than Sunday) are observed by authority of the
government. In the meantime all the churches shall work,
as far as possible and in the most fitting way, to do away
with the normal observance of all feast days except
Christmas day (since Easter and Pentecost fall on Sunday).
These facts become quite clear from the writings of a noted Dutch
theologian named Gisbert Voetius (1589-1676). He was a delegate
at the famous Synod of Dort, and an authority on matters of
Church polity. In his De Sabbatho et Festistowards the end of
the second appendix of this tracthe discusses the varied nature of
the articles contained in the church order. In this discussion he
distinguishes between [1] articles which are prescriptive commands to
the churches, and [2] those which are partly permissive, or
concessive, or tolerating; partly limiting, so that if a particular practice
has to exist, at least it will be this and nothing more. Of the
latterone of which deals with such days as Good Friday and
Christmashe says:
Such articles are not characteristic or intrinsic or
voluntary impulses proceeding from the heart of the
church; but occasional, extrinsic (just as an eclipse is a
characteristic phenomenon of the moon), imposed from
the outside, burdensome to the churches, in and of
themselves and in an absolute sense unwelcome. Synods
were summoned, compelled, and coerced to receive,
bring in, and admit these articles, as in the manner of a
transaction, in order to prevent worse disagreeable and
bad situations.
In other words, the truth isas Voetius saysthat these
Synods did not willingly furnish or institute [the annual

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4

73

The Regulative Principle of Worship

Reformed position that is so often heard today. The

RPW may not be of concern to some American descendants of the continental Reformed Churches, but it
certainly was of concern to their fathers.
The RPW and Psalmody
I was present at the 1956 General Assembly of our
Church when the content of the first edition of Trinity
Hymnal was finalized. I also co-signed28 a protest
against the action of that Assembly in giving approval
to hymns other than those derived from scripture
itself and approving no more than a limited selection
of metrical versions of the Psalms.29 At this Assembly
I heard a number of eloquent speeches setting forth the
most persuasive sounding argument for the vast
changes that have taken place in the songbooks of most
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. It was the arguobservance of days] because they saw in them a better
way or more edification. But they were instituted
because of the necessity and imposition of them by the
magistrate and the people, when after all attempts at
stopping the observances, and the decree of the Synod of
1574 to lay them aside, at a certain point of time they
were not able to abrogate thema fact they admitted in
1578.
It is also worth noting that in the 19th century, the churches of the
secession (afscheiding 1834) once again voiced the concerns of the
Reformed churches of old. In Amsterdam, 1836 the ruling was
made:
In that the Holy Scripture strongly admonishes us to
stand in the freedom with which Christ has made us
free, unto the observance of divine commandments, so
ought we in the congregation of the Lord's Day, that we
do not compel people to observe the so-called feast days
which the Lord has not commanded in His Word. The
Lords Day has been set apart by the Lord Himself, and
we cannot and may not add to it any feast by human
decree. The six work days are given by God in order to
work; people may indeed on those days gather together
to be edified out of and by Gods Word, provided that
the conscience of men is not bound to the observance of
fixed and annually returning feast days; the conscience
must be left completely free in this matter.
The Scottish Reformers were of the same mind as their continental
brethren, and were providentially enabled to abolish these days
entirelya result that lasted more than two centuries. (See The
Christian Year, in The Dictionary of Scottish Church History &
Theology, published by IVP and T. & T. Clark, Ltd. 1993, pp.
170,171).
28 Professor John Murray and Dr. William Young also signed this
protest.
29 Minutes of the 1956 General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, p. 53.

74

ment that claims that a new era of redemptive revelation generates a new outpouring of songs of praise.
And so, the argument goes, the most important period
of new redemptive revelationthe apostolic age
demanded an outburst of new songs. I well remember
how cogent this theory sounded when I first heard it.
The only trouble is that when I thought about it more
carefully, and did some historical research, I found that
it simply is not convincing.
Let us suppose, for a moment, that the Old Testament book of Psalms was not adequate as the vehicle
of praise for the New Testament church. Is it not selfevident that, if this really was the case, the first to
realize it would have been our Lord? Our Lord did
realize that there was need for a new sacrament. That is
why he instituted the sacrament of his body and blood
that we call the Lords Supper. Yet on the very occasion
that he did this he led his disciples in the singing of a
psalm out of the Psalter. And, according to all the
evidence that I have seen, the apostle Paul followed his
Lords example. He did not, himself, write new songs.
What he did was to instruct both the Ephesians and the
Colossians to sing the pneumatic psalms, hymns and
songs that they already hadsomething they could
easily do because they had the Psalter in their Septuagint version of the Bible. The apostles were inspired
men. If there had been a deficiency in the book of
Psalms, which they inherited in the old testament
Scriptures, then they would surely have been quick to
realize it.30 And, realizing it, they certainly could have
30 Much present day argumentation for uninspired songs is based
on the presumption that the Psalter is deficient as the song book of
the church of the new covenant. Very different was the view of
Calvin, who wrote: I have been accustomed to call this book I think
not inappropriately, An Anatomy of all the Parts of the SoulIn
short, as calling upon God is one of the principal means of securing our
safety, and as a better and more unerring rule for guiding us in this
exercise cannot be found elsewhere than in The Psalms, it follows, that
in proportion to the proficiency which a man shall have attained in
understanding them, will be his knowledge of the most important part
of celestial doctrine....It is by perusing these inspired compositions, that
men will be most effectually awakened to a sense of their maladies, and,
at the same time, instructed in seeking remedies for their cureThere is
no other book in which there to be found more express and magnificent
commendations, both of the unparalleled liberality of God towards his
Church, and of all his works; there is no other book in which there is
recorded so many deliverances, nor one in which the evidences and
experiences of the fatherly providence and solicitude which God exercises
towards us, are celebrated with such splendour of diction, and yet with
the strictest adherence to truth; in short there is no other book in which
we are more perfectly taught the right manner of praising God, or in
which we are more powerfully stirred up to the performance of this
religious exercise....here there is nothing wantingwhich relates to the
knowledge of eternal salvation. (Calvins Preface to his
Commentaries on the Psalms, pp. xxxviii & xxxix) ...after we have
sought on every side, searching here and there, we shall find no songs
better and more suitable for our purpose than the Psalms of David,

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4

The Regulative Principle of Worship

done something to remedy the deficiency. They could

even have given us a book of inspired New Testament
songs. But they did not do so. So the argument that
new eras of redemptive revelation always bring forth
new songs of praise is simply contrary to historical fact.
In my search of the historical material I have been
unable to find anything of the kind from the time of
the Apostles, or from the century that followed. It can,
of course, be alleged that there were such compositionseven many of thembut that, for some reason,
they were not worthy to be preserved. It can also be
alleged that we have small fragments of such compositions scattered throughout the New Testament. The
fact is, however, that there is no proof of any such
thing. As Dr. R. Dean Anderson put it:
It is quite common these days for New Testament scholars to talk about the hymns
found in the letters of Paul. Of the various
portions of Pauls letters singled out for this
honour, none has engendered more discussion than Phil 2:6-11.
There is no evidence to prove that this passage was ever a song, or was ever sung, let
alone in public worship. Statements to this
effect are always suppositions. There is simply
no way of proving it. What is argued with
respect to the passage, is that it represents
some kind of deliberate poetical arrangement.
There is then the more complex question as to
whether it is a piece of poetry which Paul
authored himself, or which he quoted. Finally,
the supposition is made that this piece of
poetry was a song used in worship.
Theories abound, but assured solutions are
far and few between. Our passage is no exception. Martin notes with respect to Phil 2:611: Of all the attempts at literary analysis
which have been surveyed there is none which
meets with general agreement.31

dictated to him and made for him by the holy Spirit. (Opera, Vol.
VI, pp. 171-172, my emphasis) The Scottish Reformer, John
Knox, echoes the same sentiment: ...there are no songs more meet
than the Psalms of the prophet David, which the holy Ghost has
framed to the same use, and commended to the Church as containing
the effect of the whole Scriptures,that thereby our hearts might be
more lively touched (John Knox works, Vol. 4, pp. 164-166, my
emphasis)
31 Martin, R.P., 1967 Carmen Christi: Philippians Ii.5-11 in
Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship.

The weakness of this whole argument can be

seen in the fact that there are no indications
that any of these passages isolated as hymns in
the New Testament letters were ever used as
songs by the early church. If hymns had existed
in the apostolic period, and especially if the
apostles themselves had quoted from them,
then surely they would have been preserved by
the early church, or at least given a mention!32
I think it is time for a far greater degree if honesty
on the part of New Testament scholars. It is time for
them to admit that mere supposition is not the same as
proof, and that merely saying most scholars agree does
not settle anything.33 If the historic RPW means
anything it means that everything that is part of the
public worship of God requires the clear and certain
sanction of Scripture. It is my conviction that the RPW
is, indeed, the teaching of Scripture. It is also my
conviction that one of the greatif not the
greatestneeds in the church today is an honest return
to this principle.34
4 The RPW as it is being redefined today
As we look at the constituency of the Presbyterian
and Reformed heritage, today, one thing is very clear.
In many of these churches the old Reformed simplicity
of worship has been replaced by all manner of
innovation.35 It can no longer be said that they have
Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. London:
U.P., p 36.
32 The quotations are from Prophetic Singing in the Public Worship
of the Church, by Dr. R. Dean Anderson. It is posted on the
Internet at http://www.spindleworks.com/library.htm. It is this kind
of careful and honest research that is often lacking today.
33 It was Professor J. Gresham Machen who convinced me, long
ago, that I should reject the tyranny of the experts.
34 The Rev. C. Lee Irons, in his recent defense of the use of uninspired hymns, speaks with unusual candor. He admits that seventyfive percent of the hymns in Trinity Hymnal are not worthy to be
used in worship. He also says that any new hymns need to imitate
the Psalms in order to be worthy. With this kind of honest appraisal
of what the past century and a half has produced, the time may
soon come when many people will at last admit that Calvin was
right all along.
35 Dr. Robert L. Reymond makes this telling comment in his
discussion of worship: when one walks into virtually any
Reformed church today in this country on the Lords Day, one can
never know for sure whether he will be asked to worship in a
traditional or contemporary, liturgical or nonliturgical, formal or
revivalistic fashion. He also saysand correctly, in my
opinionthat Anyone who will take the time to study the matter

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4

75

The Regulative Principle of Worship

the same song book. In many of them the singing of

the one hundred and fifty inspired psalms have been
eclipsed by the singing of hundreds of uninspired
hymns. And the theologians of the Presbyterian and
Reformed churcheseven of the more conservative,
orthodox denominationsseem to me to have a very
different concept of the RPW than that of our
Presbyterian and Reformed fathers. Either I do not
understand what many of our present-day theologians
are saying, or they are now engaged in a process of
redefining the RPW. So elastic has the RPW become
in their hands that it bears little resemblance to that of
any of the Calvinistic Reformers, or to the way in
which this principle was understood by Presbyterian
and Reformed churches of prior generations. As Dr. T.
David Gordon put it: In the present situation it
appears that very few of either the friends or the foes of
the regulative principle understand it as it was traditionally understood.36 One says he finds no command in the Bible for having a sermon in the worship
service.37 Another says the historic regulative principle
of worship is nothing but a human invention38 but
thenironicallygoes on to make the following
startling observation.
Some who call themselves believers in the Regulative Principle of Worship, believe a version of
it that is so elastic as to make it truly unrecognizable as the Regulative Principle of Worship
to any honest observerWe would not take
kindly to a man who tries to convince us that a
cow is an animal with two legs, feathers and
gills. Hes describing something other than what
we call a cow, no doubt about it. So also, true
will have to conclude that worship in evangelical churches in this
generation is, speaking generally, approaching bankruptcy. (A
New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 873).
36 Westminster Theological Journal #54 (1992) p. 131.
37 Westminster Theological Journal, #55 (1993) p. 329). In his
recent book entitled Worship in Spirit and Truth Professor John
Frame also expresses approval of liturgical dancing. (The shift here
is clearly one of definition. The Westminster Assembly understood
apostolic example to be one of the ways in which we come to know
what Jesus commanded. Cf. William Cunningham on the binding
character of apostolic example and practice, and on divine right, in
Historical Theology, 1:64-78, and James Bannerman, The Church of
Christ, 2:201-213, 404-408, on Scripture precept, example and
principle).
38 The regulative principle of worship, said to guard the people
of God from the inventions of men, is itself an invention of men.
Rev. Steve Schlissel in All I Really Need to Know About Worship
(Part I), p. 7.

76

regulativists39 are those who at least attempt to

apply a discreet principleif it is not commanded, its forbiddeneven if their attempts include
improvements. The key is that they own it in a
way which leaves the principle recognizable as
the one historically received40
Although I regret the quoted writers own rejection
of the RPW, I have to agree with his observation. What
we are faced with in the Reformed tradition today is
virtually a de facto demolition of the RPW by way of
redefinition.41
Part 5 Some Modest Suggestions
[1] As I see it, therefore, the need of the hour is
precisely what Dr. T. David Gordon has called for. If
there is to be intelligent, ultimately fruitful discussion
of the Reformed understanding of worship, such discussion must have sufficient respect for the Reformed
tradition to engage the significant published expressions of that tradition.42 As Reformed Christians we
still confess the Scriptures to be the only rule of our
faith and practice .43 We also profess that its teaching is
sufficient44 and that we are therefore free from all doc39 This is Rev. Schlissels label for people who still believeand
seek to faithfully put into practicewhat he calls the RPW.
40 Messiahs Mandate, Second Letter, 1999, p. 5.
41 The Westminster Confession defines worship as consisting of
various parts (or elements) such as prayer, preaching, reading of
the Scriptures, singing of psalms, and administration of the
sacraments. Dr. Vern Poythress does not like this formulation, and
therefore redefines worship in such a way as to deny that there are
different parts or elements, insisting, instead, that there are just
different ways of doing the same thing. (For more on this see
Michael Bushels book entitled The Songs of Zion, p. 47 where the
author correctly says: we freely grant that singing, preaching, prayer,
and teaching all have certain aspects in common. Singing, preaching,
and prayer all to varying extents manifest teaching functions. We also
grant that there are different ways or means of applying the Word of
God to given situations. But this observation does not in itself settle the
question of whether or not singing is a distinct or separate element of
worshipWe do not claim that these areindependent elements of
worship, but we do claim that they are separately commanded and that
because they are distinguishable from one another, they are distinct
elements of worship. We therefore claim that a specific scriptural
warrant as to content is demanded for each.
42 Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992) p. 329.
43 Westminster Larger Catechism Q/A 3.
44 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for
his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set
down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4

The Regulative Principle of Worship

trines and commandments of men in the sphere of

worshipnot only those that are contrary to the word
of God, but even those that go beyond it.45 But today,
in the many Presbyterian and Reformed Churches, the
tension between the historic profession (only what
God has commanded) and the present practice (with
many things that God has not commanded) is now
reaching the breaking point.
[2] I believe this tension is the real reason for the
deepening lack of unity that we find today, in the
things that have been written with respect to both
worship theory and worship practice.46
[3] Presbyterian and Reformed Churches are at the
fork of a road and must go one way or the otherand
neither choice appears to be easy or pleasant. If we
continue to accommodate more and more practices
that clearly contradictor, at the very least, stretch to
the breaking pointthe historic construction of the
RPW, then we will either have to go along with those
who want to demolish the RPW by way of redefinition, or join those who have declared their emancipation from it. Since the end result of these will be virtually identical, I treat them as a single option. The
other option, of course, is to begin the very difficult
work of putting away practices that contradict our
confession. This is never easy. It was not easy in
Calvins day, and it will not be easy in our own. But
this option does have one very notable advantage: it is
the right thing to do, and doing the right thing has a
way of yielding rich benefits in the long run.
[4] I therefore wish to urge that we simply make a
more concerted effort to live up to our profession. The
RPW is not something peculiar to only some of us in
the ICRC. It is our common heritage. And there are at
least some encouraging signs that a change for the
better may be coming.
I had occasion to study the RPW while serving as a
pastor in the Reformed Churches of New Zealand.
During that time I was privileged to serve on the committee that revised the Church Order47 in such a way
deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be
added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of
men. Westminster Confession of Faith, I,6.
45 Westminster Confession of Faith, XX:2.
46 Cf. footnotes 35 and 41.
47 At first the Reformed Churches of New Zealand made use of
the Church Order printed in the 1934 edition of the Psalter
Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church, in which a number of

as to stop short of imposing the celebration of special

days, other than the Lords Day, on Gods people.48 It
has also come to my notice that the Canadian
Reformed Churches have made a similar modification,
leaving their churches free to decide for themselves in
what manner, and at what time, they commemorate
the birth, death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord
Jesus, as well as His outpouring of the Holy Spirit.49
Something similarthough not quite so clearly formulatedis found in the revised Church Order of the
newly organized United Reformed Churches of North
America. What had been once been required (in the
Christian Reformed Church), is now simply permitted
(in the URCNA). These Churches may choose to commemorate these great redemptive events on the traditional daysbut it is no longer said that they must.50
I want to express my appreciation for such improvements. Before the recent secession of several
congregations from the Christian Reformed Church I
felt constrained, because of the need, to pastoreven
in retirementa small group of people in Northwest
Iowa as an organized Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
Some of the people who became part of this congregation had belonged to the Christian Reformed
Church but could no longer continue with a clear
conscience. One of the things these people came to
appreciate in our small congregation was a complete
freedom from the imposition of things not instituted
by our Lordthings such as Good Friday and Christmas. And so, when the secession churches in our area
emerged, this liberty was a matter of concern to us even
though we saw it as our Scriptural duty to seek unity
with these seceders. I am happy to say that we were
warmly received, and received with the assurance that
we would remain free from any obligation to observe
special days were mandated. The revised Church Order says
Corporate worship services on other days than the Lords Day are
left to the freedom of the churches.
48 Article 53. This revision also stopped short of requiring the use
of praise compositions other than the Psalms.
49 Article 52. I cannot see that this article would prevent a
consistory from simply allowing the regular course of catechetical
preaching to be the sole manner in which each of these redemptive
events is emphasized. Perhaps I should add that the OPC has never
mandated any observance of such.
50 The URCNA has also refrained from making the singing of
uninspired hymns mandatory. In its revised Church Order it says:
The 150 Psalms shall have the principal place in the singing of the
churches. Hymns which faithfully and fully reflect the teaching of
the Scripture as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity may be
sung, provided they are approved by the consistory. (My mphasis).

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4

77

The Regulative Principle of Worship

these humanly invented days, even though it was made

clear that they would continue to provide worship
services on those days for those who wanted to continue to have them.
It is sometimes alleged that adherents to the historic RPW are primarily interested in keeping other
people from doing what they want to do, when they
want to do it, such as remembering the birth of Jesus
on the 25th of December. I would like to sayas one
who remains convinced that the RPW is the teaching
of the Biblethat I have no desire to keep anyone
from remembering the birth of Jesus on the 25th of
December, if they wish to do so. All I askas a Christian and as a minister of the gospelis that those who
want the freedom to do this allow me the freedom not
to do it. I do not believe that any individual has a right
to impose his (or her) free preference on me with
respect to things not commanded by the Lord. And I
do not believe that any church has the right to do it
either.51 Indeed, it is right here that the Apostle Paul
himself drew the line of demarca-tion.52 Those of us
who can find no warrant in the Word of God for any
recurrent observance of days other than the Lords day
must not impose our conviction on those indi-viduals
who want to observe these days. But the reverse is also
true and, in my experience, those who want to observe
these daysprecisely because their view is the popular
oneare far more often the ones who have been only
too willing to impose their view on those of us who do
not.53
51 I am aware of the fact that the Second Helvetic Confession is
more concessive here than any of the other Reformed Confessions.
But it is important to take note of all that it says: if the Churches
do religiously celebrate the memory of the Lords nativity, circumcision,
passion, resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven, and the
sending of the Holy Spirit upon His disciples, according to Christian
liberty, we do very well approve of it (XXIV,3). Much depends,
here, on whether or not the words I have put in bold type receive
their due. And another article (XVIII,14) of the same Confession
sheds important light: no man can forbid by any right that we
may return to the old appointment of God, and rather receive that
than the custom devised by men
. As I read this it means that
Iand others of my conviction, even though we constitute a
minority have every right to adhere to the apostolic custom of
not observing any specifically designated annually recurring days at
all, but only the weekly Lords Day. If the words in bold type are
taken seriously the Second Helvetic Confession is in harmony with
the other Re-formed Confessions.
52 Romans 14:5,6a,13.
53 It is much the same when it comes to the singing of Gods
praise in worship. Although the Orthodox Presbyterian Church
chose (mistakenly, in my view) to approve several hundred
uninspired hymns for inclusion in Trinity Hymnalwhile, at the
same time, failing to provide at least one version of each psalm in

78

[5] I am not a prophet, but I see the day coming

when the simplicity of worship as practiced by our
reforming fathers will again become very attractive.
Many Christians have already become weary of all the
changes, gimmicks, and inventions that other sincere
well-meaning people have brought in to improve the
churchs worship. I believe the point will soon be
reached where the historic worship of the
Reformedworship in Spirit and Truthwill again be
recognized as the newest novelty even as well as the
greatest possible blessing.54 I hope we will be there to
extend a warm welcome when this time comes.
May it please the Lord to speed that day by sending a new Reformation!

This was was one of five Papers

presented at the FIFTH International Conference of Reformed
Churches which was held at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia
on June 20-27, 2001. We intend to
reproduce other papers from this
Conference in later issues of
Ordained Servant.

the biblical Psalterit has never sought to impose the singing of

these on those who cannot in good conscience do so. There is still a
considerable measure of respect, in other words, for the historic
concerns that I have tried to articulate in this paper.
54 For decades now evangelical churches have been conducting
their services for the sake of unbelievers. Both the revivalistic service of a previous generation and the seeker service of today are
shaped by the same concernappeal to the unchurched. Not
surprisingly, in neither case does much that might be called worship
by Christians occur. As a result, many evangelicals who have been
sitting for years in such worship services are finding their souls
drying up, and they have begun to long for something elseThe
real cure to the problems in contemporary worship will be found in
the simple, spiritual, substantial, and serious worship of the
Reformed faith and liturgy. A New Systematic Theology of the
Christian Faith, by Dr. Robert L. Reymond. p. 873.

Ordained ServantVol. 10, No. 4