Regulative Principle vs Normative Principle

[MennoSota]

I finally figured out why I have such conflict with Josiah's twisted perspective.
I am reading a book by Paul Alexander and Mark Dever entitled, "The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the Gospel." On page 77 the author describes the Regulative Principle of worship as opposed to the Normative Principle of worship.
Quote:
"Briefly, the Regulative Principle states that everything we do in a corporate worship gathering must be clearly warranted by Scripture. Clear warrant can either take the form of an explicit biblical command, or a good and necessary implication of a biblical text. The Regulative Principle has historically competed with the Normative Principle, crystalized by the Anglican minister, Richard Hooker. Hooker argued, along with Martin Luther before him, that as long as a practice is not biblically forbidden, a church is free to use it to order its corporate life and worship. In short, the Regulative Principle forbids anything not commanded by Scripture, whereas the Normative Principle allows anything not forbidden by Scripture."
Josiah promotes the Normative Principle, while I promote the Regulative Principle. It explains why we disagree.

Which camp do you fall into?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I see a potential issue. When we're considering what is observed vs. what is commanded, that leaves some leeway - commanded vs. good and necessary implication. My opinion is that the Lutheran church, along with tradition (but not more-so), relies on the second as much as the first.

For myself, as a novice in biblical studies D) I observe what I can, and when in doubt - study until I find the essence of the passage. Sometimes it can be as small as the meaning of a few words that can change the context of the whole, and (therefore) what it is that is truly being "observed". As an example, in Acts 2, the Apostles weren't stumbling around chanting gibberish as if in a room full of laughing gas, but were preaching in known languages by the power of the Holy Spirit. But in my Pentecostal days, I had to study that to see it. Once something is 'known' it cannot be 'unknown', but rather we grow in that knowledge by the principles the authors mention. And I don't know that we don't all occasionally fall into the error of using the normative principle to inform our faith. For me, it's only by careful study that I find that out

 

[tango]

I finally figured out why I have such conflict with Josiah's twisted perspective.
I am reading a book by Paul Alexander and Mark Dever entitled, "The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the Gospel." On page 77 the author describes the Regulative Principle of worship as opposed to the Normative Principle of worship.
Quote:
"Briefly, the Regulative Principle states that everything we do in a corporate worship gathering must be clearly warranted by Scripture. Clear warrant can either take the form of an explicit biblical command, or a good and necessary implication of a biblical text. The Regulative Principle has historically competed with the Normative Principle, crystalized by the Anglican minister, Richard Hooker. Hooker argued, along with Martin Luther before him, that as long as a practice is not biblically forbidden, a church is free to use it to order its corporate life and worship. In short, the Regulative Principle forbids anything not commanded by Scripture, whereas the Normative Principle allows anything not forbidden by Scripture."
Josiah promotes the Normative Principle, while I promote the Regulative Principle. It explains why we disagree.

Which camp do you fall into?

Just out of interest, why does the Regulative Principle only apply to acts of corporate worship? If it applies, should it not apply universally? If something is forbidden during acts of corporate worship should it not also be forbidden during acts of individual worship or, indeed, during everyday life?

 

[MennoSota]

Just out of interest, why does the Regulative Principle only apply to acts of corporate worship? If it applies, should it not apply universally? If something is forbidden during acts of corporate worship should it not also be forbidden during acts of individual worship or, indeed, during everyday life?

I think it does apply. The context of the book and chapter has to do with the congregating of the saints. I think it also applies in everyday life.
I might also argue that there is no such thing as individual worship if we apply Hebrews 12:22-29.
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.

 

[MennoSota]

I see a potential issue. When we're considering what is observed vs. what is commanded, that leaves some leeway - commanded vs. good and necessary implication. My opinion is that the Lutheran church, along with tradition (but not more-so), relies on the second as much as the first.

For myself, as a novice in biblical studies D) I observe what I can, and when in doubt - study until I find the essence of the passage. Sometimes it can be as small as the meaning of a few words that can change the context of the whole, and (therefore) what it is that is truly being "observed". As an example, in Acts 2, the Apostles weren't stumbling around chanting gibberish as if in a room full of laughing gas, but were preaching in known languages by the power of the Holy Spirit. But in my Pentecostal days, I had to study that to see it. Once something is 'known' it cannot be 'unknown', but rather we grow in that knowledge by the principles the authors mention. And I don't know that we don't all occasionally fall into the error of using the normative principle to inform our faith. For me, it's only by careful study that I find that out

ID2, I concur. This seems especially true when we hold to God's grace through faith as our basis for salvation. Because of this it is easy to fall into a Normative Principle. "The Bible does not expressely forbid it so...pass me the roach clip..."

 

[tango]

ID2, I concur. This seems especially true when we hold to God's grace through faith as our basis for salvation. Because of this it is easy to fall into a Normative Principle. "The Bible does not expressely forbid it so...pass me the roach clip..."

Under the Regulative Principle, on what basis do you use the internet?

 

[atpollard]

Did they play music during the Last Supper?
Would it be wrong to play music during Communion?

We sing the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus probably didn’t sing the Lord’s Prayer. Are we wrong to sing the Lord’s Prayer during corporate worship? Would it still be wrong to sing it when I am alone at home and just feel like singing?

I have heard the Psalms read in Church, but Psalms are, by definition songs ... so should Psalms only be sung? To what music?

While there is probably some merit in thinking about whether one generally prefers regulative or normative worship guidelines, they are artificial categories that are frequently crossed in most real world bodies of believers.

 

[MennoSota]

Under the Regulative Principle, on what basis do you use the internet?

Under the Normative Principle on what basis do you preach abstinence from marrying a badger?

 

[MennoSota]

Did they play music during the Last Supper?
Would it be wrong to play music during Communion?

We sing the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus probably didn’t sing the Lord’s Prayer. Are we wrong to sing the Lord’s Prayer during corporate worship? Would it still be wrong to sing it when I am alone at home and just feel like singing?

I have heard the Psalms read in Church, but Psalms are, by definition songs ... so should Psalms only be sung? To what music?

While there is probably some merit in thinking about whether one generally prefers regulative or normative worship guidelines, they are artificial categories that are frequently crossed in most real world bodies of believers.

Indeed, the principles are general guidelines, which is why they are shared in the context of corporate worship.
Does our pastor preach verse by verse and have the scripture guide the actions of the community or does our pastor preach topically about various subjects with a basic nod to the scripture as a prooftext for the topic being discussed?
Does the church teach it's members to observe scripture and seek to know God's desire through the words of scripture or does the church teach it's members to follow ceremonies it has created for general moral living?
The approach the corporate body takes regarding what God has declared will bring very different results as to corporate life.

 

[tango]

Under the Normative Principle on what basis do you preach abstinence from marrying a badger?

You didn't answer my question. Showing that one side of an argument contains potentially silly consequences doesn't make the other side automatically sensible.

 

[MennoSota]

You didn't answer my question. Showing that one side of an argument contains potentially silly consequences doesn't make the other side automatically sensible.

I expressed my thoughts in atpollard's post. Yours was just silly so I responded in kind. You're welcome.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There's another regulative principle that has a better history and better results:

Follow the example and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles and then you will not go astray in your manner of worship.​

it has a better history because it is apostolic rather than the idea of some people living in Switzerland or the Netherlands or Scotland in the sixteenth century and it gives better results because it does not lend itself to individualistic reinterpretation yielding numerous denominations.

 

[tango]

I expressed my thoughts in atpollard's post. Yours was just silly so I responded in kind. You're welcome.

I don't think my question was silly at all.

If something is prohibited unless explicitly permitted by Scripture, you shouldn't be using the internet unless you can show how it is permitted in Scripture.

If something is permitted unless explicitly prohibited by Scripture then, as you say, one has to appeal to Scripture for text that prohibits marrying a badger (or any other object we can think of). That said the Scriptural notion of marriage is between a man and a woman, not between a man and a framed picture of a breathtaking Himalayan sunrise, so we don't have to look all that hard. Even looking at secular law it currently prohibits marrying animals and inanimate objects so the call to obey the laws of our government would cover it anyway.

As you say we can look for general principles in Scripture but even with that in mind you would need to look for a general principle that permits use of the internet. You'd potentially have similar troubles with driving a car and all sorts of other things that didn't exist at the time Scripture was written.


For what it's worth I think there are three categories that need to be observed:

1. Scriptural mandates - things we are commanded that we must do. For example we must love our neighbor.
2. Scriptural prohibitions - things we are commanded not to do. For example we must not commit adultery.
3. Scriptural silence - things where, well, Scripture is silent. Here we get to make our own decisions. We may choose to wear a blue shirt with green pants on a Thursday, or we may choose not to. We may choose to eat a roast beef sandwich, or we may choose to abstain.

In both (1) and (2) we need to use a little common sense. There isn't a single verse in Scripture that explicitly forbids watching hardcore porn that we downloaded from the internet but Jesus' words about adultery would cover it.


To follow up from your post #4, let's talk about individual worship in the context of worship I offer to God when I am alone (as opposed to when I am in church or in some other gathering of believers collectively offering worship). Let's say I'm in the woods and overwhelmed by the beauty of God's creation. Is it OK for me to lie down on my back, look up at the sky, and worship God? Or do I have to have a quick flick through my Bible to make sure I'm in an appropriate bodily position before offering my worship?

 

[MennoSota]

I don't think my question was silly at all.

If something is prohibited unless explicitly permitted by Scripture, you shouldn't be using the internet unless you can show how it is permitted in Scripture.

If something is permitted unless explicitly prohibited by Scripture then, as you say, one has to appeal to Scripture for text that prohibits marrying a badger (or any other object we can think of). That said the Scriptural notion of marriage is between a man and a woman, not between a man and a framed picture of a breathtaking Himalayan sunrise, so we don't have to look all that hard. Even looking at secular law it currently prohibits marrying animals and inanimate objects so the call to obey the laws of our government would cover it anyway.

As you say we can look for general principles in Scripture but even with that in mind you would need to look for a general principle that permits use of the internet. You'd potentially have similar troubles with driving a car and all sorts of other things that didn't exist at the time Scripture was written.


For what it's worth I think there are three categories that need to be observed:

1. Scriptural mandates - things we are commanded that we must do. For example we must love our neighbor.
2. Scriptural prohibitions - things we are commanded not to do. For example we must not commit adultery.
3. Scriptural silence - things where, well, Scripture is silent. Here we get to make our own decisions. We may choose to wear a blue shirt with green pants on a Thursday, or we may choose not to. We may choose to eat a roast beef sandwich, or we may choose to abstain.

In both (1) and (2) we need to use a little common sense. There isn't a single verse in Scripture that explicitly forbids watching hardcore porn that we downloaded from the internet but Jesus' words about adultery would cover it.


To follow up from your post #4, let's talk about individual worship in the context of worship I offer to God when I am alone (as opposed to when I am in church or in some other gathering of believers collectively offering worship). Let's say I'm in the woods and overwhelmed by the beauty of God's creation. Is it OK for me to lie down on my back, look up at the sky, and worship God? Or do I have to have a quick flick through my Bible to make sure I'm in an appropriate bodily position before offering my worship?

Do you think the Regulative principle is legalism based upon the law? What you are attempting is to make it the law.
Would you promote doing everything and anything not expressly prohibited by the Bible? Is that the Normative Principle? Extreme grace that abuses the cross.
Do you think that both, taken to extreme are abusive?
What I suggest is that you read the book entitled "The Deliberate Church."
https://epdf.tips/the-deliberate-church-building-your-ministry-on-the-gospel.html

 

[Josiah]

I finally figured out why I have such conflict with Josiah's twisted perspective.
I am reading a book by Paul Alexander and Mark Dever entitled, "The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the Gospel." On page 77 the author describes the Regulative Principle of worship as opposed to the Normative Principle of worship.
Quote:
"Briefly, the Regulative Principle states that everything we do in a corporate worship gathering must be clearly warranted by Scripture. Clear warrant can either take the form of an explicit biblical command, or a good and necessary implication of a biblical text. The Regulative Principle has historically competed with the Normative Principle, crystalized by the Anglican minister, Richard Hooker. Hooker argued, along with Martin Luther before him, that as long as a practice is not biblically forbidden, a church is free to use it to order its corporate life and worship. In short, the Regulative Principle forbids anything not commanded by Scripture, whereas the Normative Principle allows anything not forbidden by Scripture."
Josiah promotes the Normative Principle, while I promote the Regulative Principle. It explains why we disagree.

Which camp do you fall into?

Some radical Calvinists argued we can't do things not exampled in the Bible. Which is why they prohibited the celebrations of Christmas and Easter, for example (they actually made this is matter of civil law where they could) This prohibition continued well into the 20th Century until Calvinists realized this whole rubric is silly, absurd and not followed among Calvinists. Today, Reformed churches usually DO celebrate Christmas and Easter, sing hymns, etc. while acknowledging this all violates their rule that "you can't do anything if it's not done in the Bible.


Of course, the same Calvinists baptize babies.


I'd love to see MennoSota confirm for us that all the following practices are illustrated by the Bible....


+ Women pastors, youth pastors.

+ Administering Communion by passing around little plastic cups with Welch's Grape Juice in them and a bowl of little cup up pieces of Weber's White Bread 4 times a year

+ Giving Communion to women and kids

+ Baptizing in a tank back behind a curtain in the front of the church

+ Using powerpoint during the sermon

+ Churches having websites

+ Christians posting on the internet

+ Christians baptizing blonde haired, blue-eyed people

+ Gentiles administrating Baptism

+ And for those Calvinists before 1920, celebrating Christmas


Ah, you may argue that the Bible doesn't expressly FORBID these...but you won't. And you can CLAIM all these are IMPLIED to be okay but you won't (in part because you can't and also because then we have the issue of permission by silence which you can't permit).



No. You can I disagree about the long list of Baptism prohibitions, denials and mandates that these radically synergistic Anabaptists invented in the 16th Century because you have NOTHING in Scripture (or anywhere) else to support them; because YOU YOURSELF insist we keep to eliminate everything that is not taught in Scripture and then prove NONE of the prohibitions, denials and limitations the synergistic Anabaptists invented are found in the Bible. If you dogmatically insisted that we are biblically forbidden to love Americans, I'd disagree with you for the identical reason.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Some radical Calvinists argued we can't do things not exampled in the Bible. Which is why they prohibited the celebrations of Christmas and Easter, for example (they actually made this is matter of civil law where they could) This prohibition continued well into the 20th Century until Calvinists realized this whole rubric is silly, absurd and not followed among Calvinists. Today, Reformed churches usually DO celebrate Christmas and Easter, sing hymns, etc. while acknowledging this all violates their rule that "you can't do anything if it's not done in the Bible.


Of course, the same Calvinists baptize babies.


I'd love to see MennoSota confirm for us that all the following practices are illustrated by the Bible....


+ Women pastors, youth pastors.

+ Administering Communion by passing around little plastic cups with Welch's Grape Juice in them and a bowl of little cup up pieces of Weber's White Bread 4 times a year

+ Giving Communion to women and kids

+ Baptizing in a tank back behind a curtain in the front of the church

+ Using powerpoint during the sermon

+ Churches having websites

+ Christians posting on the internet

+ Christians baptizing blonde haired, blue-eyed people

+ Gentiles administrating Baptism

+ And for those Calvinists before 1920, celebrating Christmas


Ah, you may argue that the Bible doesn't expressly FORBID these...but you won't. And you can CLAIM all these are IMPLIED to be okay but you won't (in part because you can't and also because then we have the issue of permission by silence which you can't permit).



No. You can I disagree about the long list of Baptism prohibitions, denials and mandates that these radically synergistic Anabaptists invented in the 16th Century because you have NOTHING in Scripture (or anywhere) else to support them; because YOU YOURSELF insist we keep to eliminate everything that is not taught in Scripture and then prove NONE of the prohibitions, denials and limitations the synergistic Anabaptists invented are found in the Bible. If you dogmatically insisted that we are biblically forbidden to love Americans, I'd disagree with you for the identical reason.




.

From my reading of the book, and this is the only place I have ever encountered the Regulative and Normative Principles, the principles are restricted to corporate worship.
Therefore, the attempt to create extreme legalism and extreme grace as examples are just efforts to diminish both views.
My point is that your Normative Principle explains why you see nothing wrong with baptizing indiscriminately. (Yet, you don't really advocate for indiscriminate baptism. You pick and choose based upon tradition. If tradition wasn't established, you wouldn't advocate for baptizing all living things...even though there is no reason why you couldn't.)
I now understand why we cannot see eye to eye on these issues. You take a very liberal view while I take a very conservative view. You argue for doing something because...silence. I argue against doing something because...silence. We will always be at odds. I will find your views to be that which unwittingly sends people to hell with a smile on their face. You will find my views to restrict someone and thus keep people out of heaven because they were not baptized.
We both will stand before God and be held accountable for what we taught. I will need to explain to God why I forbade baptism until confession and repentance showed regeneration. You will need to explain to God why you baptized people with the idea that water would one day, if not at the moment, regenerate the person regardless of an evidence of confession and repentance. God will be our judge.

 

[Josiah]

My point is that your Normative Principle explains why you see nothing wrong with baptizing indiscriminately.

1. No. I reject the list of prohibitions, denials and limitations that the radical synergistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century that you perfectly parrot and echo because the Bible says NO SUCH THING (as you unintentionally admit). YOU insist we should chuck what doesn't have clear biblical mandate... and yet you prove this list of prohibitions, denials and limitations you echo has no biblical mandate.


2. I reject your premise because you do and because both Calvinists and Baptists do. You are promoting a principle you reject and don't follow. You prove it by posting on the internet. If we came to your church on a Sunday morning, I expect 90% plus of what we'd witness would have no such command in the Bible and not be once illustrated in the Bible. Odd that you promote a rubric you so consistently and obviously repudiate and don't follow.




.

 

[Josiah]

I don't think my question was silly at all.

If something is prohibited unless explicitly permitted by Scripture, you shouldn't be using the internet unless you can show how it is permitted in Scripture.

If something is permitted unless explicitly prohibited by Scripture then, as you say, one has to appeal to Scripture for text that prohibits marrying a badger (or any other object we can think of). That said the Scriptural notion of marriage is between a man and a woman, not between a man and a framed picture of a breathtaking Himalayan sunrise, so we don't have to look all that hard. Even looking at secular law it currently prohibits marrying animals and inanimate objects so the call to obey the laws of our government would cover it anyway.

As you say we can look for general principles in Scripture but even with that in mind you would need to look for a general principle that permits use of the internet. You'd potentially have similar troubles with driving a car and all sorts of other things that didn't exist at the time Scripture was written.

Obviously....

For what it's worth I think there are three categories that need to be observed:

1. Scriptural mandates - things we are commanded that we must do. For example we must love our neighbor.
2. Scriptural prohibitions - things we are commanded not to do. For example we must not commit adultery.
3. Scriptural silence - things where, well, Scripture is silent. Here we get to make our own decisions. We may choose to wear a blue shirt with green pants on a Thursday, or we may choose not to. We may choose to eat a roast beef sandwich, or we may choose to abstain.

Some forget that one of the distinctive marks of Calvinism for the first 300 years or so was Calvinist held it was forbidden to celebrate Christmas. When they controlled secular governments, they actually outlawed it (to the dismay of Anglicans, Lutherans, Cahtolics, Orthodox, Methodist, etc.). Why was it forbidden to celebrate Christmas? Because there is no COMMAND to celebrate it and while clearly angels and shepherds did, there was no example of Christians doing this. Thus, it was forbidden. Some Calvinists had no musical instruments in churches for the same reason, some would not sing hymns but only chant Psalms. Here we find yet another - still another - pure invention of a few radical, extreme, later-day Calvinists that took over Calvinism - until wiser minds and more believing hearts realized the absurdity of it. Today, it would be hard to find a Reformed church that forbids celebrating Christmas....




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Truly ...

There's another regulative principle that has a better history and better results:

Follow the example and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles and then you will not go astray in your manner of worship.​

it has a better history because it is apostolic rather than the idea of some people living in Switzerland or the Netherlands or Scotland in the sixteenth century and it gives better results because it does not lend itself to individualistic reinterpretation yielding numerous denominations.

 

[atpollard]

Under the Regulative Principle, on what basis do you use the internet?

You didn't answer my question. Showing that one side of an argument contains potentially silly consequences doesn't make the other side automatically sensible.

Your question is an absurd one. Do you seriously believe that MenoSota uses the internet as an integral part of corporate worship? If not, then your curiosity about internet use is not generally applicable to the topic.

However, to answer your question concerning the use of the internet in one’s personal life, I call your attention to 1 Cor 10:23 and what follows.