The Doctrine of RPW

[rlvaughn]

NO - not talking about the non-exisitant Baptist denomination - rather the local church.

Thanks for clarifying what you mean. More directly, though, I was questioning what the committee of editors at Wikipedia meant by "agreement with the general practice of the Church." Looking back through the history of the edits, I see that information was added by an anonymous editor on 16 September 2013 (the original article goes back to 2005). I remain skeptical and am interested in finding another source that includes that in the definition of "normative principle."

So if First Baptist thinks its okay to have a band - so be it.
and if Second Baptist Right across the street - says no CCM - only traditional hymns - then so be it
(yea - second Bap probably split from First Bap over the picture they wanted painted in the Baptistery.

Certainly this is the way it works in autonomous congregationally-governed churches. All or none of what one church chooses to do may or may not be scriptural, and may or may not be acceptable to another autonomous congregationally-governed church.

 

[rlvaughn]

Not to beat a dead horse (or maybe to beat one), but...

The normative principle of worship is a Christian theological principle that teaches that worship in the Church can include those elements that are not prohibited by Scripture.[1] The normative principle teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church. In short, there must be agreement with the general practice of the Church and no prohibition in Scripture for whatever is done in worship. Normative principle of worship @ Wikipedia

The regulative principle contrasts with the normative principle of worship, which teaches that whatever is not prohibited in scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church. In short, there must be agreement with the general practice of the Church and no prohibition in scripture for whatever is done in worship. The normative principle of worship is the generally accepted approach to worship practiced by Anglicans, Lutherans, Evangelicals, and Methodists.[citation needed] Regulative principle of worship @ Wikipedia

As stated above, I found that the information in the normative principle definition -- The normative principle teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church. In short, there must be agreement with the general practice of the Church and no prohibition in Scripture for whatever is done in worship. -- was added to Wikipedia by an anonymous editor on 16 September 2013. I traced this back as being brought over from the article on the regulative principle of worship, which information was added on 1 August 2005‎ by editor Mkmcconn/Mark. After this I did Google and Duck Duck Go searches for these two phrases:

"so long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church"
"agreement with the general practice of the Church"

Of the first, all the hits I noticed lead back to the Wikipedia article. On the second, I found the phrase "agreement with the general practice of the Church" used once that was not connected to the Wikipedia article. It was used by Edward Burbidge in Liturgies and Offices of the Church for the Use of English Readers, in reference to the practice of communion in the Church of England. It seems to me, lacking further confirmation, that a Wikipedia editor added his own opinion or explanation about the idea of the normative principle of worship, and this has been accepted without question by various writers who have quoted it as a source.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not to beat a dead horse (or maybe to beat one), but...

As stated above, I found that the information in the normative principle definition -- The normative principle teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church. In short, there must be agreement with the general practice of the Church and no prohibition in Scripture for whatever is done in worship. -- was added to Wikipedia by an anonymous editor on 16 September 2013. I traced this back as being brought over from the article on the regulative principle of worship, which information was added on 1 August 2005‎ by editor Mkmcconn/Mark. After this I did Google and Duck Duck Go searches for these two phrases:

"so long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church"
"agreement with the general practice of the Church"

Of the first, all the hits I noticed lead back to the Wikipedia article. On the second, I found the phrase "agreement with the general practice of the Church" used once that was not connected to the Wikipedia article. It was used by Edward Burbidge in Liturgies and Offices of the Church for the Use of English Readers, in reference to the practice of communion in the Church of England. It seems to me, lacking further confirmation, that a Wikipedia editor added his own opinion or explanation about the idea of the normative principle of worship, and this has been accepted without question by various writers who have quoted it as a source.

The RPW seems to fir reformed, while the other Baptist better!

 

[rlvaughn]

And there is also the "Informed Principle of Worship," according to an older version of the Wikipedia article, and some other sources.

A new principle has been recently introduced into this discussion that seeks to strike a balance between the regulative and normative principles. Sometimes referred to as the "informed principle of worship", it teaches that:
What is commanded in Scripture regarding worship, it is required. What is prohibited in Scripture regarding worship, it is forbidden. What is not prohibited in Scripture regarding worship, it is permissible in worship only if properly deduced from proper application of Scripture using the good and necessary consequence.

Steve M. Schlissel seems to be a primary writer on the topic:

The Informed Principle of Worship, based on a covenantal view of things, rejects both extremes and insists upon considering worship in the light of tota scriptura. All parties agree that what is forbidden must be excluded. But for the rest, what? High-churchers say, "Not forbidden, then fine." Regulativists say, "If it is not commanded, it is forbidden." Both propositions fail to meet the test of tota scriptura. We propose the IPW: What is not forbidden might be permitted. It depends.

See also Summary of Steve Schlissel’s Refutation of the Regulative Principle.

I don't agree, but thought this might also be interesting information regarding principles of worship.

 

[Yeshua1]

And there is also the "Informed Principle of Worship," according to an older version of the Wikipedia article, and some other sources.

Steve M. Schlissel seems to be a primary writer on the topic:
See also Summary of Steve Schlissel’s Refutation of the Regulative Principle.

I don't agree, but thought this might also be interesting information regarding principles of worship.

Interesting that the basic questions appears to be does scripture demand RPW, or is it due to being required by the Westminster Confession itself?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

One thing I have always found curious is the numbers of exclusive psalmodists (those who think we should sing only the Psalms) who also oppose the use of musical instruments. It puts them in the odd position of singing songs about singing songs/praising God with instruments, while sternly refusing to do so.

And what of those who have interpreted Paul to mean "songs, hymns, and spiritual songs" are to be spoken, not sung? "Speak to one another..."

 

[rlvaughn]

And what of those who have interpreted Paul to mean "songs, hymns, and spiritual songs" are to be spoken, not sung? "Speak to one another..."

Don't recall having yet run across any of this crew.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Don't recall having yet run across any of this crew.

That's probably a good thing. I have no reference handy. I think the one I once came across was about someone in the 1600s or 1700s.

 

[rlvaughn]

That's probably a good thing. I have no reference handy. I think the one I once came across was about someone in the 1600s or 1700s.

Thanks. Yes, that is true. I was trying to think of whether I had run across this in the present, but failed to think about the past. Singing was quite controversial in English Baptist churches in the 1600s or 1700s. In the 1690s Isaac Marlow, Benjamin Keach, and others had quite a row over it. This called forth Keach's trying to reset the landmark in The Breach Repaired in God's Worship: Or Singing of Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, Proved to Be an Holy Ordinance of Jesus Christ; With an Answer to All Objections. Isaac Marlow was opposed to singing in church capacity. I don't specifically recall his interpretation of Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3. If I remember correctly, he often called this "promiscuous singing" -- in that the assemblies usually included unbelievers as well as believers, and that they could not scripturally unite their voices together in spiritual song.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Thanks. Yes, that is true. I was trying to think of whether I had run across this in the present, but failed to think about the past. Singing was quite controversial in English Baptist churches in the 1600s or 1700s. In the 1690s Isaac Marlow, Benjamin Keach, and others had quite a row over it. This called forth Keach's trying to reset the landmark in The Breach Repaired in God's Worship: Or Singing of Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, Proved to Be an Holy Ordinance of Jesus Christ; With an Answer to All Objections. Isaac Marlow was opposed to singing in church capacity. I don't specifically recall his interpretation of Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3. If I remember correctly, he often called this "promiscuous singing" -- in that the assemblies usually included unbelievers as well as believers, and that they could not scripturally unite their voices together in spiritual song.

It seems the exegetical prowess that led to its justification argued that the "singing and making melody" and "singing with grace" clearly occur "in your heart(s)," thus excluding outward expression beyond "speaking" and "teaching and admonishing." QED

 

[Preachin' Appalachian]

I totally agree with all of that. But must square those accounts with Jesus telling the Samaritan Woman that soon it won't matter what mountain you worship on, that we will worship in Spirit and Truth.

In spirit and truth implies not in error and not in the flesh. Thus fleshly worship, like praying toward Jerusalem, sacrifice, incense, instruments,etc. I really don't the the consistency in saying instruments are ok, but the Baptist tradition was wrong in that is was to get rid of catholic traditions like incense, candles, robes, etc. I don't see how one can just accept certain things only because they grew up with it, yet denie the other fleshly traditions added to the church from the passed, saying they have no new testament command.

 

[rlvaughn]

Preachin' Appalachian, I see that this is your first post. Welcome to the Baptist Board! I hope you find it a blessing to you.

 

[robycop3]

In spirit and truth implies not in error and not in the flesh. Thus fleshly worship, like praying toward Jerusalem, sacrifice, incense, instruments,etc. I really don't the the consistency in saying instruments are ok, but the Baptist tradition was wrong in that is was to get rid of catholic traditions like incense, candles, robes, etc. I don't see how one can just accept certain things only because they grew up with it, yet denie the other fleshly traditions added to the church from the passed, saying they have no new testament command.

WELCOME! I, too, live in the Appalachians, in Southern Ohio. (Lived in West Virginny for awhile!)

There are Baptists & non-Baptists both here. I hope you both learn & teach here. Fellowshipping is Christians sharing their particular nuggets of wisdom with other Christians, while sharing theirs, edifying all.

My church is IFB, not believing nor following any man-made doctrines of faith/worship, such as the RCC stuff, "chasismatic" stuff, the modalism myth, the KJVO myth, & the preterism myth, among other false, man-made stuff.

 

[Rob_BW]

In spirit and truth implies not in error and not in the flesh. Thus fleshly worship, like praying toward Jerusalem, sacrifice, incense, instruments,etc. I really don't the the consistency in saying instruments are ok, but the Baptist tradition was wrong in that is was to get rid of catholic traditions like incense, candles, robes, etc. I don't see how one can just accept certain things only because they grew up with it, yet denie the other fleshly traditions added to the church from the passed, saying they have no new testament command.

Vocal cords are flesh.

 

[thomas15]

Which came first, the confessions or the practices?

 

[Yeshua1]

Have you ever heard of the The regulative principle of worship. Until today, I never have. So, as I say:

OPEN FOR DISCUSSION!

I hold that whatever God did not specifically prohibited in Bible is allowable!

 

[rlvaughn]

I hold that whatever God did not specifically prohibited in Bible is allowable!

Would you say that God had specifically prohibited sprinkling as an applicable rite for baptism?

 

[Yeshua1]

Would you say that God had specifically prohibited sprinkling as an applicable rite for baptism?

He used the term that reflected Immersion!

 

[Bassoonery]

I hold that whatever God did not specifically prohibited in Bible is allowable!

Otherwise known as the Normative Principle...

 

[rlvaughn]

He used the term that reflected Immersion!

Of course he did.

However you said what is not specifically prohibited is allowable. Sprinkling is not specifically prohibited. If you say sprinkling is not permitted because God specified immersion, then you are moving over to the Regulative Principle. You don't get there by using the Normative Principle. Sprinkling is not specifically prohibited. (But, yes, I do believe it is prohibited by our Lord's command to immerse. That's RPW, not NPW.)