Contents Sola Scriptura

• Introduction
And the Regulative Principle of Worship
(8KB)
• What Is Sola Scriptura? Brian Schwertley
(15KB)
• Aspects of Sola Scriptura Edited by Stephen Pribble
(18KB)
• The Jewish/Romanist Introduction
Rejection of Sola
Scriptura Sola scriptura is one of the fundamental principles of the Protestant
(18KB) reformation. (One could even argue that the other great principal
• Protestant Inconsistencies doctrines of the Reformation [such as sola gratia, sola fide] are
(70KB) logically dependent upon sola scriptura.) By making the Bible the sole
• Some Contemporary standard and authority for faith and life, Protestants were able to refute
all the Romish doctrines and practices that originated from human
Objections to Sola
tradition. The Calvinistic reformers achieved a greater, more thorough
Scriptura in the Sphere
reformation in the church because they applied sola scriptura more
of Worship Considered consistently, logically and effectively to doctrine, church government
and Refuted and worship than did their Anglican and Lutheran counterparts.
(161KB)
• Summary and The doctrine of sola scriptura, with its teaching regarding the authority,
Conclusion completeness, perfection and sufficiency of Scripture, needs to be
(13KB) taught today with a renewed zeal and urgency. The reasons for this
renewed zeal are not merely because of the current popularity of
• Appendix A: John
Romanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, modernism, neo-orthodoxy, the cults,
Calvin and the the charismatic movement and the church growth movement. The chief
Regulative Principle reason is the current declension among the conservative Reformed and
(60KB) Presbyterian denominations today, particularly in the area of worship.
• Appendix B: The Neo- Not only are many Reformed and Presbyterian churches allowing
Presbyterian Challenge human innovations in worship, but the regulative principle of Scripture,
to Confessional and the correlative doctrine of the sufficiency of the Bible in all matters
of faith including worship, is openly rejected by many pastors and
Presbyterian Orthodoxy:
elders. The regulative principle of worship (which is sola scriptura
A Biblical Analysis of
applied to the worship conducted by the church) is one of the greatest
John Frame’s Worship in achievements of the Calvinistic reformation. In order to shore up the
Spirit and in Truth foundation of Reformed worship we must go back to the doctrine of
(161KB) sola scriptura. We pray that this study will be used for the reformation
of the church.
Home Free
Reformed believers today need to understand the theological
Downloads Books to relationship that exists between sola scriptura and the regulative
Buy principle of worship. The reasons that such an understanding is
necessary are manifold. First, the regulative principle of worship is
directly related to sola scriptura doctrines such as the infallibility,
absolute authority, sufficiency and perfection of Scripture. The
Calvinistic reformers and the Reformed confessions often referred to
sola scriptura passages (e.g., Dt. 4:2, Pr. 30:6) as proof texts for the
regulative principle of worship. When sola scriptura is consistently
applied to worship, the result is Puritan and Reformed worship. Second,
opponents of the regulative principle often argue against it on the basis
of the similarity between sola scriptura proof texts and regulative
principle proof texts. Such argumentation usually follows one or two
lines of thought. Some argue that the proof texts cited in favor of the
regulative principle (e.g., Dt. 12:32) are really only teaching sola
scriptura. In other words, it is exegetically illegitimate to use such
passages for the strict regulation of worship. Others argue that the
similar and even identical nature of the sola scriptura passages and the
regulative principle passages does not prove a strict regulation of
worship but actually proves the opposite. This argument is based on the
following syllogism. Sola scriptura teaches that the Bible regulates all
of life. Yet all of life contains many activities that are not strictly
regulated (in other words, the Bible gives man a great deal of liberty in
things indifferent [adiaphora]). Therefore, it follows that the regulative
principle or sola scriptura as it applies to worship also leaves man a
great deal of liberty in the sphere of worship. In this study we will
examine the relationship between sola scriptura and the regulative
principle in order to prove that sola scriptura, properly understood,
leads directly to the regulative principle. Then we will refute many of
the popular arguments used today against the regulative principle,
including the argument based on the similarity between sola scriptura
and regulative principle proof texts.1

1 Many professing Christians today regard theological matters as of

little or no importance. Some even regard theological debate and the
refutation of false teaching as unloving, arrogant and insulting to
brethren of different theological persuasions. Some believers make
comments such as: “Should we not be building bridges rather than
erecting walls and fortresses?” While there is no question that
theological debate and refutation must be conducted in a spirit of
Christian love and concern for professing Christians of different
theological opinions, the idea that theological precision, debate and
refutation are somehow bad or unworthy of our time is blatantly
unbiblical for a number of reasons. First, every Christian, and
especially every minister, has a moral obligation to defend the truth, to
contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and
to convict those who contradict (Tit. 1:9). In a world full of heresy,
apostasy and wolves in sheep’s clothing, a lack of theological precision
and an unwillingness to defend the truth on the part of ministers is
unpastoral and inexcusable. Second, one of the great lessons of church
history is that God has used heresy and theological controversy to
corporately sanctify his church. Enemies of the truth, heretics and
theological perverts have arisen and assaulted the church from within.
Yet God in his infinite kindness and wisdom has used such occasions to
advance his own cause and kingdom. Many crucial doctrines have been
clarified and purified in the flames of controversy and persecution.
Should we expect our times to be any different? James Begg writes
(1875): “Our own day has furnished abundant illustrations of the
general truth, thus so well stated, although the worst is probably yet to
come. The point of attack from time to time is varied, but the struggle
continues unabated. When Christian men and women have got
somewhat accustomed to defend one true position, the assault is
directed to another, and perhaps from a new quarter. Although we shall
not venture to apportion the relative importance of great principles, it
may safely be affirmed that nothing can be more important than
questions connected with the acceptable worship of God” (Anarchy in
Worship [Edinburgh: Lyon and Gemmell, 1875], 4). Third, the only
method and ground for true biblical ecumenicity is not to ignore truth
or theology but to vigorously study it, adhere to it, advocate it and
defend it. Any type of “Christian” union or cooperation that ignores,
downplays or alters the truth is destructive of the faith. Such a union
arises not from the bedrock of Scripture but from the shifting sand of
backslidden and apostate bureaucrats.

Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing MI, 2000

Home Free Downloads Books to Buy

Sola Scriptura
And the Regulative Principle of Worship

Brian Schwertley

Edited by Stephen Pribble

Introduction
Sola scriptura is one of the fundamental principles of the Protestant reformation. (One could even
argue that the other great principal doctrines of the Reformation [such as sola gratia, sola fide] are
logically dependent upon sola scriptura.) By making the Bible the sole standard and authority for
faith and life, Protestants were able to refute all the Romish doctrines and practices that originated
from human tradition. The Calvinistic reformers achieved a greater, more thorough reformation in the
church because they applied sola scriptura more consistently, logically and effectively to doctrine,
church government and worship than did their Anglican and Lutheran counterparts.

The doctrine of sola scriptura, with its teaching regarding the authority, completeness, perfection and
sufficiency of Scripture, needs to be taught today with a renewed zeal and urgency. The reasons for
this renewed zeal are not merely because of the current popularity of Romanism, Eastern Orthodoxy,
modernism, neo-orthodoxy, the cults, the charismatic movement and the church growth movement.
The chief reason is the current declension among the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian
denominations today, particularly in the area of worship. Not only are many Reformed and
Presbyterian churches allowing human innovations in worship, but the regulative principle of
Scripture, and the correlative doctrine of the sufficiency of the Bible in all matters of faith including
worship, is openly rejected by many pastors and elders. The regulative principle of worship (which is
sola scriptura applied to the worship conducted by the church) is one of the greatest achievements of
the Calvinistic reformation. In order to shore up the foundation of Reformed worship we must go
back to the doctrine of sola scriptura. We pray that this study will be used for the reformation of the
church.

Reformed believers today need to understand the theological relationship that exists between sola
scriptura and the regulative principle of worship. The reasons that such an understanding is necessary
are manifold. First, the regulative principle of worship is directly related to sola scriptura doctrines
such as the infallibility, absolute authority, sufficiency and perfection of Scripture. The Calvinistic
reformers and the Reformed confessions often referred to sola scriptura passages (e.g., Dt. 4:2, Pr.
30:6) as proof texts for the regulative principle of worship. When sola scriptura is consistently

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

applied to worship, the result is Puritan and Reformed worship. Second, opponents of the regulative
principle often argue against it on the basis of the similarity between sola scriptura proof texts and
regulative principle proof texts. Such argumentation usually follows one or two lines of thought.
Some argue that the proof texts cited in favor of the regulative principle (e.g., Dt. 12:32) are really
only teaching sola scriptura. In other words, it is exegetically illegitimate to use such passages for the
strict regulation of worship. Others argue that the similar and even identical nature of the sola
scriptura passages and the regulative principle passages does not prove a strict regulation of worship
but actually proves the opposite. This argument is based on the following syllogism. Sola scriptura
teaches that the Bible regulates all of life. Yet all of life contains many activities that are not strictly
regulated (in other words, the Bible gives man a great deal of liberty in things indifferent
[adiaphora]). Therefore, it follows that the regulative principle or sola scriptura as it applies to
worship also leaves man a great deal of liberty in the sphere of worship. In this study we will examine
the relationship between sola scriptura and the regulative principle in order to prove that sola
scriptura, properly understood, leads directly to the regulative principle. Then we will refute many of
the popular arguments used today against the regulative principle, including the argument based on
the similarity between sola scriptura and regulative principle proof texts.1

1 Many professing Christians today regard theological matters as of little or no importance. Some
even regard theological debate and the refutation of false teaching as unloving, arrogant and insulting
to brethren of different theological persuasions. Some believers make comments such as: “Should we
not be building bridges rather than erecting walls and fortresses?” While there is no question that
theological debate and refutation must be conducted in a spirit of Christian love and concern for
professing Christians of different theological opinions, the idea that theological precision, debate and
refutation are somehow bad or unworthy of our time is blatantly unbiblical for a number of reasons.
First, every Christian, and especially every minister, has a moral obligation to defend the truth, to
contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and to convict those who
contradict (Tit. 1:9). In a world full of heresy, apostasy and wolves in sheep’s clothing, a lack of
theological precision and an unwillingness to defend the truth on the part of ministers is unpastoral
and inexcusable. Second, one of the great lessons of church history is that God has used heresy and
theological controversy to corporately sanctify his church. Enemies of the truth, heretics and
theological perverts have arisen and assaulted the church from within. Yet God in his infinite
kindness and wisdom has used such occasions to advance his own cause and kingdom. Many crucial
doctrines have been clarified and purified in the flames of controversy and persecution. Should we
expect our times to be any different? James Begg writes (1875): “Our own day has furnished
abundant illustrations of the general truth, thus so well stated, although the worst is probably yet to
come. The point of attack from time to time is varied, but the struggle continues unabated. When
Christian men and women have got somewhat accustomed to defend one true position, the assault is
directed to another, and perhaps from a new quarter. Although we shall not venture to apportion the
relative importance of great principles, it may safely be affirmed that nothing can be more important
than questions connected with the acceptable worship of God” (Anarchy in Worship [Edinburgh:
Lyon and Gemmell, 1875], 4). Third, the only method and ground for true biblical ecumenicity is not

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

to ignore truth or theology but to vigorously study it, adhere to it, advocate it and defend it. Any type
of “Christian” union or cooperation that ignores, downplays or alters the truth is destructive of the
faith. Such a union arises not from the bedrock of Scripture but from the shifting sand of backslidden
and apostate bureaucrats.

Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing MI, 2000

Home Free Downloads Books to Buy

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

I. What Is Sola Scriptura?
Before we consider the relationship between sola scriptura and the regulative principle, we need first
to define sola scriptura. After a brief definition of this doctrine is given, we will then turn our
attention to the Protestant confessional statements.

Briefly stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura teaches that the Bible (the 66 books of the Old
and New Testaments) is the divinely inspired word of God and therefore infallible and absolutely
authoritative in all matters of faith and life. Because God’s inscripturated word contains all the extant
supernatural revelation of God, and because all forms of direct revelation have ceased (with the death
of the apostles and the close of the canon), the Bible alone is the church’s sole authority. Because
Scripture is perspicuous (i.e., all the necessary teaching for salvation, faith and life are easily
understood by the common people), there is no need for any additional sources of authority to
infallibly interpret the Bible for the church. The church (whether popes, cardinals, bishops, church
fathers, church councils, synods or congregations) does not have authority over the Bible, but the self
authenticating Scriptures have absolute authority over the church and all men. Because of what the
Bible is (as noted above), the church’s job is purely ministerial and declarative. All men are forbidden
to add or detract from the sacred Scriptures, whether by human traditions, or so-called new
revelations of the Spirit, or by the decrees of councils or synods. The Bible is sufficient and perfect
and does not need any human additions. Further, only that which is taught in Scripture can be used to
bind the consciences of men.

1. The Reformed Confessional Understanding of Sola

Scriptura
The Reformed confessions are in total agreement regarding sola scriptura or the regulative principle
of Scripture.

First Helvetic Confession (1536)

Art. 1. Scripture. The Canonical Scripture, being the Word of God, and delivered by
the Holy Ghost, and published to the world by the prophets and apostles, being of all
others the most perfect and ancient philosophy, doth perfectly contain all piety and
good ordering of life.2

French Confession (1559)

Art. 5. We believe that the word, contained in these books, came from one God; of
whom alone, and not of men, the authority thereof dependeth. And seeing this is the
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
 sum of all truth, containing whatsoever is required for the worship of God and our
salvation, we hold it not lawful for men, no, not for the angels themselves, to add or
detract any thing to or from that word, or to alter any whit at all in the same.3

Belgic Confession (1561)

Article 7. The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to be the Only Rule of Faith

We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that
whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since
the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is
unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in
the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul
saith. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away any thing from the Word of
God, it doth thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and
complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men,
however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures; nor ought we to
consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and
persons, or councils, decrees, or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, for the
truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself.
Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible
rule which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God.
Likewise, If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into
your house.4

Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

I. Of the Holy Scripture Being the True Word of God....

2. And in this Holy Scripture, the universal Church of Christ has all things fully
expounded which belong to a saving faith, and also to the framing of a life acceptable
to God; and in this respect it is expressly commanded of God that nothing be either put
to or taken from the same (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19).

3. We judge, therefore, that from these Scriptures are to be taken true wisdom and
godliness, the reformation and government of churches; as also instruction in all duties
of piety; and, to be short, the confirmation of doctrines, and the confutation of all
errors, with all exhortations; according to that word of the apostle, “All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,” etc. (2 Tim.
3:16-17). Again, “These things write I unto thee,” says the apostle to Timothy, “...that
thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,” etc. (1

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 Tim. 3:14-15).5

II. Of Interpreting the Holy Scriptures; and of Fathers, Councils, and Traditions....

4. ...Therefore, in controversies of religion or matters of faith, we can not admit any

other judge than God Himself, pronouncing by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is
false, what is to be followed, or what [is] to be avoided. So we do not rest but in the
judgment of spiritual men, drawn from the Word of God. Certainly Jeremiah and other
prophets did vehemently condemn the assemblies of priests gathered against the law of
God; and diligently forewarned us that we should not hear the fathers, or tread in their
path who, walking in their own inventions, swerved from the law of God.

5. We do likewise reject human traditions, which, although they be set out with goodly
titles, as though they were divine and apostolic, delivered to the Church by the lively
voice of the apostles, and, as it were, by the hands of apostolical men, by means of
bishops succeeding in their room, yet, being compared with the Scriptures, disagree
with them; and that by their disagreement betray themselves in no wise to be
apostolical. For as the apostles did not disagree among themselves in doctrine, so the
apostles’ scholars did not set forth things contrary to the apostles. Nay, it were
blasphemous to avouch that the apostles, by lively voice, delivered things contrary to
their writings. Paul affirms expressly that he taught the same things in all churches (1
Cor. 4:17). And, again, “We,” says he, “write none other things unto you, than what ye
read or acknowledge” (2 Cor. 1:13). Also, in another place, he witnesses that he and his
disciples—to wit, apostolic men—walked in the same way, and jointly by the same
Spirit did all things (2 Cor. 12:18). The Jews also, in time past, had their traditions of
elders; but these traditions were severely refuted by the Lord, showing that the keeping
of them hinders God’s law, and that God is in vain worshiped of such (Matt. 15:8-9;
Mark 7:6-7).6

The Westminster Standards (1646-1648)

Shorter Catechism
Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?

A. The word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.7

Larger Catechism
Q. 3. What is the word of God?
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
 A. The holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, the only
rule of faith and obedience.

Confession of Faith
1.2. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained
all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these: ... All which are given
by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.

1.6. 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 deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any
time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be
necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and
that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of
the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the
light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word,
which are always to be observed.

2. Clarifications
According to the Reformed confessional statements the Bible is a perfect, complete and sufficient
rule of faith and life. Now that the canon is closed and direct revelation has ceased, the inspired
Scriptures are the only rule of doctrine and practice. Although the Bible is the only rule that God has
given us to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him, there are a number of issues that need to be
clarified before we proceed.

First, the doctrine of sola scriptura is not a denial of natural revelation. The Bible itself teaches that
there are things that man can learn about God and himself from nature (cf. Ps. 19; Rom. 1:20ff.). We
should note, however, that: (1) Natural revelation was never intended to be used independently of
direct revelation. Before the fall God spoke directly to Adam regarding the tree of good and evil. (2)
When mankind fell in Adam, both the earth and the human race were affected by sin. Sin and the
curse have rendered natural revelation unreliable as a source for ethics. (3) Scripture teaches that
although natural revelation is enough to render the human race guilty and without excuse (Rom.
1:18), it is not sufficient to teach man about salvation, Christ and many other crucial doctrines. (4)
Further, any doctrines or ethics that could be determined from natural revelation could not contradict
and would have to be judged by the perspicuous and sufficient Holy Scriptures.

Second, the doctrine of sola scriptura is not a denial of the progressive nature and diverse means of

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

divine revelation before the close of the canon. A fundamental teaching of the regulative principle of
Scripture is that man is not to add or detract from God’s word (Dt. 4:2). Yet prior to the completion of
Scripture this command did not preclude God himself from adding his own thoughts to that which the
people of God already had. It did, however forbid anyone to add or detract from the divine revelation
which they did have, whether by false prophecy, divination, human tradition and the neglect of God’s
ordinances. Further, as Christians we look back to a completed and written revelation. (In times past
men received visions, dreams and verbal communication from God, and not every revelation was
committed to writing.) Note also that God could have preserved divine revelation by a supernatural
preservation apart from committing revelation to written form if he had wanted to. However, in
God’s good pleasure and infinite wisdom he has committed everything that the church and the world
needs to a written revelation. Since natural revelation is insufficient, direct revelation to the church
has ceased, and God has committed his will to us “wholly unto writing,” the Scriptures are our sole
standard for faith and life.

Third, the doctrine of sola scriptura, which says that “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 deduced from Scripture,” is not a denial that there
were many revelations and historical events that did not make it into the canon. The completed
Scripture that God has given to the church is exactly what he wanted us to have. He could have given
his people one hundred volumes containing more case laws, more detailed histories of the patriarchs,
Moses, Israel, Jesus Christ and the acts of the apostolic church. But Jehovah gave us the 66 books
alone, and this completed canon is perfect and in every way sufficient to answer its design. God has
many secret things that belong to himself and his divine perfections which are infinite and could
never fully and adequately be revealed to us even if a million inspired volumes existed. But in his
mercy everything that we do need to know, love and serve him has been given to us in the Scriptures.

2Translated from the Latin by Peter Hall, The Harmony of Protestant Confessions (Edmonton,
Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1992 [1842]), 4.

3 Ibid., 8.

4Joel R. Beeke and Sinclair B. Ferguson, eds., Reformed Confessions Harmonized (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1999), 14, 16.

5 Ibid., 10, 12.

6 Ibid., 14, 16.

7The Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow, Scotland: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1976),
287. Note: all quotations in this book from the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
Shorter Catechisms are taken from this edition.

Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing MI, 2000

Home Free Downloads Books to Buy

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

II. Aspects of Sola Scriptura
1. The Authority of Scripture

The regulative principle of Scripture rests upon the fact that the Bible is unique. The Bible
alone is God’s word. The Westminster Confession says, “The authority of the Holy Scripture,
for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or
Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; and therefore it is to be
received because it is the Word of God” (1.4). Scripture is inspired by God. Therefore, it is
truth and it carries the authority of God himself. It alone among books carries an absolute
authority.

There is only one God—the ontological trinity who is transcendent, who has created all things
and who gives meaning to all factuality. Likewise, presently there is only one direct verbal or
written source of divine revelation. There is only one book which tells us the mind and will of
God. Because the Scripture is breathed out by God himself, it is self authenticating and
absolute. Its authority does not depend on the church, or empirical evidences, or human
philosophy. The church and all men are required to submit to the authority of Scripture without
any quibbling or reservations, for it is the voice of the Almighty himself.

Because Scripture is God’s Word, it is the final, definitive authority in all matters of faith and
life. The Bible is the only absolute, objective standard by which ethics, doctrine, church
government and worship are to be judged. The Westminster Confession says, “The supreme
judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils,
opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in
whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the
Scripture” (1.10). Men who are sinful and fallible can and do receive a delegated authority
from God. However, only God, who is the absolute sovereign and creator of all things, has the
right to bind men to faith and duty.

2. The Sufficiency and Perfection of Scripture

An understanding of the sufficiency, perfection or completeness of Scripture (which is a

crucial aspect of the Reformed understanding of sola scriptura) will lead us to a deeper
understanding of the inseparable connection that exists between the regulative principle of
Scripture and the regulative principle of worship. By the perfection of Scripture we mean that
the Bible is fully sufficient unto the end for which it was designed by God. “All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for
every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Robert Shaw writes: “The Scripture is represented as
perfect, fitted to answer every necessary end, Ps. xix. 8, 9; it is sufficient to make ‘the man of
God perfect,’ and able to make private Christians ‘wise unto salvation, through faith which is
in Christ Jesus.’—2 Tim. iii. 15-17. So complete is the Scripture, that its Author has
peremptorily prohibited either to add to, or to diminish ought from it.—Deut. iv. 2; Rev. xxii.
18, 19.”8 A. A. Hodge writes: “as a matter of fact, the Scriptures do teach a perfect system of
doctrine, and all the principles which are necessary for the practical regulation of the lives of
individuals, communities, and churches. The more diligent men have been in the study of the
Bible, and the more assiduous they have been in carrying out its instructions into practice, the
less has it been possible for them to believe that it is incomplete in any element of a perfect
rule of all that which man is to believe concerning God, and of all that duty which God
requires of man.”9

When we discuss the Scripture as the inspired final revelation of God that is sufficient and
complete for salvation, service to God, faith and practice, we do not mean that there are no
truths that can be ascertained outside of Scripture. We noted earlier that certain things about
God and ourselves are learned from natural revelation. Further, one does not need the Bible to
practice elementary logic, simple mathematics and basic surface observations. The
achievements of unbelieving scientists, engineers, artists, architects, medical doctors and
others in the world are proof of this assertion. However, even in these so-called “secular” areas
of life unbelievers must conduct their affairs in accordance with biblical presuppositions in
order to get anything done. In other words, the Bible not only tells us about God, ourselves,
redemption and ethics, it also is the foundation of all meaning. Apart from divine revelation
man cannot really understand or account for anything. Van Til writes: “Thus the Bible, as the
infallibly inspired revelation of God to sinful man, stands before us as that light in terms of
which all the facts of the created universe must be interpreted. All of finite existence, natural
and redemptive, functions in relation to one all-inclusive plan that is in the mind of God.
Whatever insight man is to have into this pattern of the activity of God he must attain by
looking at all his objects of research in the light of Scripture. If true religion is to beam upon
us, our principle must be, that it is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching, and that it is
impossible for any man to obtain even the minutest portion of right and sound doctrine without
being a disciple of Scripture.”10 Further, there are no areas of ethical neutrality in the universe.
Even in areas in which the Bible does not speak directly, such as structural engineering and
rocket science, it does speak indirectly. All of life is to be lived for God’s glory, and even the
most mundane activities are to be conducted according to general principles of God’s word.

By the “perfection and sufficiency” of Scripture the Reformed confessions mean that the Bible
is such a perfect and complete guide to man regarding everything that God requires us to
believe (salvation, doctrine, statutes, etc.) and everything that God requires us to do (ethics,

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

sanctification, worship ordinances, church government, etc.) that it does not need any
supplementation from man. The Reformed confessions emphasize that the Bible is not one rule
among many or simply the best or principal rule. It is the only rule of faith and practice. The
First Helvetic Confession says: “The Canonical Scripture...doth alone perfectly contain all
piety and good ordering of life” (Art. 1).11 The Belgic Confession says: “We believe that those
Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God...the whole manner of worship which God
requires of us is written in them...” (Art. 7).12 The Second Helvetic Confession says: “And in
this Holy Scripture, the universal Church of Christ has all things fully expounded which belong
to a saving faith, and also to the framing of a life acceptable to God...” (1:2). The Westminster
Shorter Catechism says: “The word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and
New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him” (A. to Q. 2).
The Larger Catechism says: “The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word
of God, the only rule of faith and obedience” (A. to Q. 3). The Confession of Faith says: “The
whole counsel 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 deduced from Scripture...” (1.6, emphasis added).

Positively speaking, the Bible is the only rule for faith and obedience. Negatively speaking,
men are expressly forbidden to add their own ideas, doctrine and/or precepts to the Scripture in
any way. The French Confession says: “And seeing this is the sum of all truth, containing
whatsoever is required for the worship of God and our salvation, we hold it not lawful for men,
no, for the angels themselves, to add or detract anything to or from that word, or to alter any
whit at all in the same” (Art. 5).13 The Belgic Confession says: “it is unlawful for any one,
though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay,
though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul saith. For since it is forbidden to add
unto or take away any thing from the Word of God, it doth thereby evidently appear that the
doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. Neither do we consider of equal
value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine
Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession
of times and persons, or councils, decrees, or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God,
for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself.
Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule
which the apostles have taught us...” (Art. 7)14. The Second Helvetic Confession says: “in this
respect it is expressly commanded of God that nothing be either put to or taken away from the
same [the Holy Scriptures] (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19).”15 The Westminster Confession of
Faith says: “...unto which [Scripture] nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new
revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men” (1.6).

The fact that the Bible is sufficient, perfect and complete renders all attempts at supplementing
its teachings regarding faith and ethics with ideas and rules that originate in man’s mind to be
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
unbiblical and foolish. Against spiritualistic enthusiasts, charismatics, diviners and all false
prophets the Westminster Confession of Faith states that no “new revelations of the Spirit” are
to be added to God’s word. Against the papists and all who intrude human traditions into the
precepts, ordinances, worship or government of the church, the Reformed confessions
condemn adding “the traditions of men” to the word of God. The doctrine of the perfection and
sufficiency of Scripture protects believers from the tyranny of human requirements. No one
(whether a bishop, church father, synod or council) is permitted to bind men’s consciences
with any doctrine or requirement. Everything must be based on Scripture, either by direct
command or by good and necessary consequence. Thus the Westminster Confession of Faith
says, “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, in matters of
faith and worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of
conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience...” (20.2). Regarding good works the
Confession says, “Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word, and
not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any
pretence of good intention” (16.1). Concerning worship the Confession says, “But 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” (21.1).

3. The Completeness and Finality of Scripture

When the Reformed confessions assert the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture, and when
the Westminster Confession speaks against “new revelations of the Spirit,” they are teaching
the completeness and finality of Scripture. By Scripture we mean the completed canon (the 66
books of the Old and New Testament), the inscripturated word of God. At this point in
salvation history (after the completion of Christ’s redemptive work, after the person and work
of Christ has been explained by the New Testament prophets and apostles and the government,
worship and doctrine of the new covenant church has been fully set forth by the Holy Spirit in
Scripture) the revelatory process has ceased. Scripture could not have been completed until
after Jesus accomplished his work on earth. Everything in Scripture is related in some manner
to the person and work of Christ. Jesus is described as the climax and finality of God speaking
to man (Heb. 1:1-2).

Our Lord told his disciples that it was to their advantage that he go away, for after his
ascension he would send the Holy Spirit who would guide them into all truth (Jn. 16:7, 13-15).
The Spirit-inspired apostles and New Testament prophets gave us the foundation (the N.T.
canon) upon which the new covenant churches build (Eph. 2:20-21). Paul said that when the
perfect comes (i.e., the completed N.T. revelation), prophecy and other modes of revelation
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-12). It is a fact of history that divine revelation did cease when the
last apostle died. Throughout history those who have claimed to have direct revelations from
God (e.g., Montanists, Zickau prophets, Irvingites, modern charismatics, etc.) have always
been false prophets. Christ and the apostles predicted the rise of false prophets and warned us
not to follow their counterfeit revelations (cf. Mt. 7:15-23; 24:11; 2 Pet. 2:1 ff.; 2 Th. 2:9-11;
etc.).

The fact that revelation has ceased and that Scripture has been designed by God as fully
sufficient to meet all our needs (2 Tim. 3:16-17) means that if we want to know God’s mind
and will, our only source for this knowledge is the Bible. John Murray writes:

Scripture occupies for us an exclusive place and performs an exclusive function as

the only extant mode of revelation. It is granted by those with whom we are
particularly concerned in this address that Scripture does not continue to be
written, that it is a closed canon. Once this is admitted, then we must entertain
what our opponents are not willing to grant, namely, that conception of Scripture
taught and pre-supposed by our Lord and his apostles, and insist that it is this
conception that must be applied to the whole canon of Scripture. Since we no
longer have prophets, since we do not have our Lord with us as he was with the
disciples, and since we do not have new organs of revelation as in apostolic times,
Scripture in its total extent, according to the conception entertained by our Lord
and his apostles, is the only revelation of the mind and will of God available to us.
This is what the finality of Scripture means for us; it is the only extant revelatory
Word of God.16

8 Robert Shaw, Exposition of the Confession of Faith (Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books,
n.d. [1845]), 16.

9 A. A. Hodge, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955), 124.

10Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1955), 124. Van Til quotes John Calvin, Institutes, I.VI.2.

11 Harmony of Protestant Confessions, 4.

12 Reformed Confessions Harmonized, 14.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

13 Harmony of Protestant Confessions, 8.

14 Reformed Confessions Harmonized, 14, 16.

15 Ibid., 10.

16 John Murray, “The Finality and Sufficiency of Scripture” in Collected Writings (Carlisle,
PA: Banner of Truth, 1976), 1:19. Cults (e.g., Swedenborgianism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s
Witness, the Unification Church, etc.) are notorious for setting up a new (false) revelation that
is then used as an absolute and superior standard to judge and reinterpret the Bible.
Infallibility, absolute authority and sufficiency are shifted from the Bible to the latest
revelation. This gives the cult leader or leaders total power over their deluded followers. The
non-cessationist charismatic movement believes in continuing direct revelation from God.
However, tongues, the word of knowledge and prophecy are inconsistently given a secondary
status to the Bible. There are no attempts (by charismatics) to add new revelations to the canon
of Scripture. Some intellectual charismatics have even developed the idea that prophecy now is
different than Old Testament prophecy—that inaccuracies and mistakes are acceptable in new
covenant post-apostolic prophecy. All such teaching is an implicit acceptance of the cessation
position and sola scriptura. When Pentecostal preachers have insisted that their “prophecies”
be written down and treated as the very word of God, they very often have become cult
leaders. Modern charismatics claim to have direct revelation from God, yet in practice they
treat those supposed revelations as what they actually are—the words of man.

Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing MI, 2000

Home Free Downloads Books to Buy

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

III. The Jewish/Romanist Rejection of Sola
Scriptura
The Bible and all the Reformed confessions condemn adding the traditions of men to the word
of God. Unfortunately, the principle of sola scriptura has been violated throughout church
history. Two prime examples of adding traditions to God’s word are rabbinic Judaism and
Roman Catholicism.

Rabbinic Judaism teaches that when Moses received the written law on Mt. Sinai, he also
received a very lengthy unwritten (oral) revelation. This oral revelation was then supposedly
passed down to Joshua, the seventy elders, the prophets and the great rabbinic teachers
generationally, until it was committed to writing in the Talmud. Although there is no question
that God instructed the church before the time of Moses by unwritten words, or that prophecy
continued until the close of the canon, the idea of an unwritten divine tradition continuing after
the close of the canon is clearly unscriptural. Even the Pharisaical idea of an authoritative
unwritten tradition functioning as a co-equal authority to written revelation while the canon
remained open is condemned by Scripture in many ways. First, while the Jews are repeatedly
warned not to add or detract from God’s inscripturated word (Dt. 4:2; Pr. 30:5-6; Josh. 1:7-8),
there are no warnings or even any remarks regarding an unwritten revelational tradition.
Second, commands and warnings regarding obedience, whether found in the law (e.g., Ex.
19:7-8; Dt. 31:9, 12, 46-47) or the prophets (Jer. 36:2, 32), refer either to what was already
written or to what became inscripturated prophecy. There is not a shred of evidence in the Old
Testament for an authoritative tradition. Biblical teaching assumes that there is not an
independent source of oral communication standing alongside of the written revelation. Third,
Jesus repeatedly condemned the Jews for adding human traditions and doctrines to God’s word
(e.g., Mt. 15:1-3). Fourth, the Talmud (which in English translation runs to 34 large volumes)
is full of contradictions, unethical teaching and blasphemous nonsense. It explicitly contradicts
many of the major teachings of the Bible. Modern Judaism is not a religion of the Old
Testament but a religion founded upon human tradition. Like various cults, Judaism has
transferred the infallibility, absolute authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures to a human
collection of writings.

The Roman Catholic Church is very similar to Judaism on the issue of authority. Romanists
teach that the Bible and tradition as interpreted by the Church are the final seat of authority in
religion. The Council of Trent says: “Seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained
in the written books, and the unwritten traditions” (4th sess.; 1546).17 The Second Vatican
Council says:

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 This tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help
of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and
the words which have been handed down.... For as the centuries succeed one
another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fulness of divine truth
until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her (Dei Verbum, 8;
1962-1965).18

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the church “does not derive her certainty about
all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be
accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”19 The Roman
Catholic Church teaches that the hierarchy (i.e., the bishops and the supreme Pontiff), with the
help of the Holy Spirit, picks, authorizes and adds its own authoritative tradition to the written
form of revelation. Romanists do not believe that the church hierarchy is making up doctrine
but simply setting forth the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles that were never
inscripturated. These teachings were given to the bishops as a parallel source of authority.

Romanist teaching regarding the authority of tradition gives the church hierarchy an authority
over the written word of God. Christ emphatically condemned the use of tradition as a source
of authority (cf. Mk. 7:5-13), because whenever tradition is set up alongside of Scripture, it
eventually is placed above Scripture, and is then used to interpret Scripture. Human tradition
was the chief reason that the nation of Israel in the days of Christ and the Roman Catholic
Church in the Middle Ages became apostate. Throughout its history the papal church
multiplied traditions until both the gospel and apostolic worship were buried under a pile of
will worship and false doctrine.

Why is the Romanist doctrine of an unwritten tradition (as a co-equal authority with Scripture
that somehow is kept pure by the church hierarchy and then delivered to the laity throughout
history) unbiblical? There are many reasons why the Roman Catholic doctrine of an
authoritative tradition must be rejected. First, the doctrine of the perfection, completeness and
sufficiency of Scripture renders an authoritative tradition or further revelation from God
unnecessary. Second, God’s inscripturated word forbids adding or detracting from the
completed canon. Third, many of the Romanist traditions that have been added as authoritative
doctrine and practice explicitly contradict the clear teaching of the Bible. Fourth, many Roman
Catholic traditions contradict each other. Fifth, most of the additions of the papal church had
their origins long after the death of the apostles. Sixth, human tradition is dependent upon
sinful, fallible men and thus is obscure, unprovable and indefinite.20 An “authoritative” human
tradition requires faith in sinful man’s fluctuating opinions. Only toward Scripture, which is
perfect, complete, sufficient and perspicuous, can we direct our faith, for it is the very word of
Christ and gives us a full assurance. Seventh, the Bible itself condemns all doctrines and
worship practices that are not derived from the Scriptures. “In vain they worship Me, teaching
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:9; Isa. 29:13). Turretin writes:

Nor can it be replied that the Pharisaical traditions are rejected, not the apostolic.
All doctrines taught by men and not contained in the Scriptures are rejected and
the assumption is gratuitous that there are any apostolic traditions out of the
Scriptures. Believers are called to the law and the testimony (Is. 8:20) and
destruction is denounced against those who do not speak according to it. Nor can
traditions be meant by the testimony because God everywhere rejects them. Either
the law itself (often called “the testimony”) is meant as a testimony of God
exegetically or the writings of the prophets which were added to the law.21

Roman Catholic apologists attempt to justify their doctrine of an authoritative tradition by

appealing to certain passages of Scripture. A brief examination of some of these passages is
needed to reveal their true meaning. As we consider these passages we must keep in mind that
the apostles had a unique authority. The apostles’ oral teaching was authoritative and binding.
Therefore, those men and churches who sat under the teaching of the apostles were obligated
to obey the apostles’ Spirit-inspired instruction as the very word of God, a rule for faith and
life. However, the fact that the apostles could orally teach inspired authoritative truth while
they were still alive (and that the churches were morally obligated to obey their teaching) does
not at all prove that there is an oral authoritative tradition that is somehow preserved among
the Romanist hierarchy throughout history. Scripture alone must define the phrase “apostolic
tradition.” Furthermore, why would the God of infinite wisdom commit some of his revelation
to writing and the rest to oral tradition? While written revelation is easily preserved from
corruption, oral tradition is easily corrupted and lost. Also, when a bishop or pope comes up
with a new teaching from the supposed trough of unwritten apostolic tradition, how are we to
determine whether or not he simply made up that doctrine out of his own imagination? Are we
supposed to simply accept his own word on it? Is this not a blind faith in the words of men?
The Romanist foundation of an authoritative tradition rests upon its doctrine of the special
authority of the church (i.e., the sacerdotal hierarchy). It is a doctrine that in itself is totally
contrary to the Bible. The only way that we can know with absolute certainty what the apostles
taught is to read their inscripturated writings.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2 Paul says: “keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” Is Paul
here agreeing with the papal doctrine regarding a body of unwritten tradition transmitted by a
succession of bishops from generation to generation? No, not at all. Paul is simply instructing
the Corinthian believers to obey the doctrine and exhortations that he had given them when he
was personally present among them. The word (paradosis) translated as “tradition” or
“ordinance” (KJV), when used in reference to the rule of faith in the New Testament, always
refers to the immediate instructions of inspired men. “When used in the modern sense of the
word tradition, it is always in reference to what is human and untrustworthy, Gal. 1, 14. Col. 2,

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

8, and frequently in the gospels of the traditions of the elders.”22

A favorite proof text of Romanist apologists is 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Therefore, brethren,

stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught whether by word or by epistle.” Note
that Paul refers to oral or spoken doctrine as well as written teaching. Doesn’t this passage
perfectly fit the papal doctrine of a two-fold revelation: one written and one oral? No,
absolutely not! Once again Paul is referring to inspired teaching given personally. This passage
does not support the idea of a secret teaching handed down through the centuries by bishops.
“Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to
them via second or third hand reports. On the contrary, he was ordering them to receive as
infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips.”23

In order to show the absurdity of the Romanist position let us consider one more point.
Assume for a moment that the Roman Catholic position is true, that a large deposit of apostolic
doctrine was given to the church orally for its own sanctification. This orally delivered
doctrine is inspired, authoritative and thus all believers are required to obey it without
reservation. If the church was given this great deposit of apostolic teaching, then why not
simply write it all down so that everyone could immediately benefit from its divine wisdom? If
this teaching is authoritative and required, why dish it out in little snippets over a period of
almost two thousand years? Why not simply place it all out in the open for all to immediately
benefit from it? Why did the church wait until A.D. 1079 to learn that God required the
celibacy of the priesthood? Why wait until A.D. 1854 to learn about the immaculate
conception of Mary? It is obvious from both the biblical and historical evidence that the papal
doctrine of an authoritative tradition is merely a clever human attempt at justifying centuries of
man-made doctrines and practices. The Romish doctrine of authoritative tradition is merely a
human invention used to shift authority from the Bible to the church hierarchy. The reason that
the pope and bishops dish out small amounts of the supposed oral apostolic tradition here and
there throughout history is that it gives them incredible power. When some doctrine or practice
is needed to control the laity and increase the hierarchy’s power, a new doctrine or practice is
simply made up or discovered by a church bureaucrat and then imposed on the laity. This gives
the Roman Catholic hierarchy a cult-like power over their flock. The fact that many Roman
Catholic bishops and popes may have been very sincere in their beliefs does not detract from
the fact that their doctrine of authoritative tradition is a doctrine of demons. Beware of false
prophets; their doctrine can devour you (cf. Mt. 7:15).

As a result of such teaching regarding authority, the Roman Catholic Church has more in
common with a pagan cult than apostolic Christianity. Turretin writes:

She [the Roman Catholic Church] is apostate and heretical, having failed from the
faith once delivered to the saints and teaching various deadly heresies and

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 thrusting them forward to be believed under the pain of a curse. Such are the
doctrines concerning justification by works and their merit, human satisfactions
and indulgences, transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Mass, sin and free will,
sufficient grace, the possible observance of the law, the ecumenical pontiff and
primacy of the pope.... she is idolatrous and superstitious, both with respect to the
object which she worships and with respect to the mode in which she worships.
With respect to the object, inasmuch as besides God (who as alone omniscient,
omnipotent and best ought to be the sole object of worship and invocation), she
venerates and adores creatures also which are by nature not gods (Gal. 4:8): as the
blessed virgin, angels, defunct saints, the consecrated host, the sacrament, the
cross, the pope, the relics of Christ and of the saints. With respect of the mode, in
the making, worship and adoration of effigies and images, so solemnly prohibited
by the law of God. And these things appear not from the private opinion of
teachers, but from the public sanctions and constant practice.24

If the papal church is to be cleansed of its damnable heresies and gross, blasphemous
idolatries, it must return to the biblical doctrine of sola scriptura. The root must first be cured
before the diseased and poisonous fruit is replaced.

17“The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent” in Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of
Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983 [1876, 1931]), 2:80.

18Walter M. Abbott, ed., The Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herden and Herden,
1966), 116.

19 Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 31.

20 Charles Hodge writes: “It is of course conceded that Christ and his Apostles said and did
much that is not recorded in the Scriptures; and it is further admitted that if we had any certain
knowledge of such unrecorded instructions, they would be of equal authority with what is
written in the Scriptures. But Protestants maintain that they were not intended to constitute a
part of the permanent rule of faith to the Church. They were designed for the men of that
generation. The showers which fell a thousand years ago, watered the earth and rendered it
fruitful for men then living. They cannot now be gathered up and made available for us. They
did not constitute a reservoir for the supply of future generations. In like manner the
unrecorded teachings of Christ and his Apostles did their work. They were not designed for
our instruction. It is as impossible to learn what they were, as it is to gather up the leaves
which adorned and enriched the earth when Christ walked in the garden of Gethsemane. This
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
impossibility arises out of the limitations of our nature, as well as its corruption consequent on
the fall. Man has not the clearness of perception, the retentiveness of memory, or the power of
presentation, to enable him (without supernatural aid) to give a trustworthy account of a
discourse once heard, a few years or even months after its delivery. And that this should be
done over and over from month to month for thousands of years, is an impossibility. If to this
be added the difficulty in the way of this oral transmission, arising from the blindness of men
to the things of the Spirit, which prevents their understanding what they hear, and from the
disposition to pervert and misrepresent the truth to suit their own prejudices and purposes, it
must be acknowledged that tradition cannot be a reliable source of knowledge of religious
truth. This is universally acknowledged and acted upon, except by Romanists. No one pretends
to determine what Luther and Calvin, Latimer and Cranmer, taught, except from
contemporaneous written records. Much less will any sane man pretend to know what Moses
and the prophets taught except from their own writings” (Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1989], 1:21).

21 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1:139.

22 Charles Hodge, 1 and 2 Corinthians (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1958 [1857], 206.

23John MacArthur, “The Sufficiency of the Written Word” in Don Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura
(Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 177.

24 Frances Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3:123-125.

Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing MI, 2000

Home Free Downloads Books to Buy

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

IV. Protestant Inconsistencies
While, happily, all Protestants affirm sola scriptura, many Protestants teach and practice
things which contradict the doctrine that Scripture is the sole standard for faith and life. An
implicit denial of sola scriptura, whether by teaching or practice, can be found in Lutheran,
Episcopal, evangelical and even Reformed churches. A brief examination of some of these
inconsistencies will aid our understanding of this crucial teaching.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is both affirmed and implicitly denied in the creedal statements
of the Church of England (the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion [1563, American version
1801]) and the Lutherans (the Augsburg Confession [1530] and Formula of Concord [1576,
1584]). Article six of the Thirty Nine Articles contains a good statement regarding the Bible.
“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read
therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed
as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”25

The Lutheran confession also contains a strong affirmation of sola scriptura.

I. We believe, confess, and teach that the only rule and norm, according to which
all dogmas and all doctors ought to be esteemed and judged, is no other whatever
than the prophetic and apostolic writings both of the Old and the New Testament,
as it is written (Psalm cxix. 105): ‘Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light
unto my path.’ And St. Paul saith (Gal. i. 8): ‘Though an angel from heaven preach
any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed....’

In this way a clear distinction is retained between the sacred Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments, and all other writings; and Holy Scripture alone is
acknowledged as the [only] judge, norm, and rule, according to which, as by the
[only] touchstone, all doctrines are to be examined and judged, as to whether they
be godly or ungodly, true or false.26

1. Episcopalianism

Unfortunately, the Lutheran and Episcopal symbols both contradict sola scriptura in their
discussions of ecclesiastical ceremonies, church authority and tradition. The Thirty Nine
Articles give the church an authority that is clearly incompatible with sola scriptura. Article 20
—Of the Authority of the Church reads:

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in
Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing
that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of
Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a
witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against
the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for
necessity of Salvation.27

Article 34—Of the Traditions of the Church states:

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly
like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the
diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained
against God’s Word.

Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly
break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the
Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be
rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like), as he that offendeth against
the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and
woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish,
Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all
things be done to edifying.28

The Thirty Nine Articles give the church a power independent of Scripture. Not only can the
prelates determine or abolish rites or ceremonies as they please solely on their own authority
without scriptural warrant, they also reserve to themselves the power to discipline believers
who “openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church.” Although their creed does
say that the church cannot “ordain any thing contrary to God’s word written,” it nevertheless
give the church hierarchy a power independent of Scripture. Thus while article six affirms sola
scriptura in theory, articles 20 and 34 deny it in practice. The latter articles not only give the
church power to determine or abolish rites or ceremonies as she pleases without any scriptural
warrant whatsoever, they also give the church the authority to discipline believers who “openly
break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church.” Article 20 does say that “it is not lawful
for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written.” This statement,
however (which follows the Lutheran confessions), would offer little comfort to the Puritans
and Covenanters who were disciplined and persecuted for refusing to submit to man-made rites
and ceremonies.
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
The Episcopal position on church authority and human tradition is derived from: (1) a deficient
view of the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture; (2) a false understanding of the role of
human reason in determining church ordinances; (3) a fallacious concept of the crown rights of
the resurrected Christ.

When it comes to the government and worship of the church, Episcopalian theologians and
apologists openly admit that Scripture is not a perfect rule for the church but only a partial
rule. Anglicans (at least in such areas as worship and government) view the Bible as
incomplete, vague and general. The Bible is like a defective map with some large roads noted
yet with the details missing. If the map is to be really useful, the prelates must fill in the
missing pieces. How are the details to be arrived at? The bishops will use their reason to glean
from the traditions of the ancient church and add some lovely traditions of their own. The fact
that God has made it abundantly clear that he despises human inventions in ethics or in
worship is ignored (cf. Gen. 4:3-5; Lev. 10:1-2; Dt. 4:2; 12:32; Num. 15:39-40; 2 Sam. 6:3-7;
1 Chr. 15:13-15; 1 Kgs. 12:32-33; Jer. 7:24, 31; Isa. 29:13; Col. 2:20-23).

There is a great contrast between the Anglican and the Reformed understanding of sola
scriptura and the sufficiency of Scripture. Reformed confessions regard the perfection and
sufficiency of the Bible as extending not only to doctrine but also to worship and church
government. If the worship and government that God has instituted in his word is sufficient,
then obviously it does not need supplementation. Davies writes: “The main principle of the
absolute authority of God’s word in the Scriptures for faith, ethics, and worship was expressed
by all Puritans. To depart from this is the utmost human impertinence and pretentiousness, for
it implies that one knows God’s will better than He does, or that the inherent weakness of
original sin does not blind one’s judgment through egocentricity.”29

The Episcopal concept of church authority and tradition also derives from a wrong use of
human reason. Sixteenth century Anglican apologists, in their attempt to refute the dogmatic
biblicism of the Puritans, gave reason a role independent of Scripture in determining the
worship and government of the church. The Puritans were not against the use of reason.
However, for them reason was always to be submitted to Scripture and reason was to be used
to deduce doctrine and practice from the Bible itself. It was not to be used independently of
Scripture. The Westminster divines refer to explicit teachings from Scripture and those
deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence (1.6). Anglican apologists
(especially Richard Hooker) used reason to give church authorities autonomy from the strict
parameters of the word in order to justify their human traditions. (Most of these traditions were
a continuation of medieval Roman Catholic practices.) Regarding Richard Hooker (the greatest
of Anglican apologists), Cook writes:

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 In the defense of Anglicanism, published in eight books between 1594 and 1600,
Hooker identifies the real issue in the Anglican and Puritan controversy as the
nature of the church. He seeks to repudiate Cartwright’s position that the Scripture
provides a prototype for the government of the church for all time. Endeavoring to
shift the argument away from Scripture, Hooker contends for a principle of natural
reason as having equal validity with that of divine revelation. He embarks on an
essentially non-Reformed approach to truth, teaching that some spiritual laws are
known by reason quite apart from Scripture. Here we have the Catholic mind at
work, drawing its strength from Aquinas, operating quite comfortably within the
English Church from which it has never been banished; creating, in fact, the
characteristic Anglican mentality which has controlled the practice of the Church
of England ever since.... There is nothing of sola scriptura in Hooker’s contention
that to appeal to the New Testament for the polity of the church is to say, in effect,
that ‘God in delivering Scripture to his Church should clearly have abrogated
amongst them the law of nature; which is an infallible knowledge imprinted in the
minds of all the children of men’ [Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. II, Ch. 8, 6]. Reason is
given a validity equal to that of Scripture ‘inasmuch as law doth stand upon
reason, to allege reason serveth as well as to cite Scripture; that whatsoever is
reasonable the same is lawful whatsoever is author of it.’30

Closely related to the Anglicans’ improper use of human reason is their defective
understanding of original sin. Davies writes: “Anglicans found man to be deficient in spiritual
capacity; his other powers were weakened, but not desperately wounded and in need of
redemptive blood transfusions, as the Puritans claimed. Man’s reason was, for the Anglicans,
unimpaired; it had a natural capacity to distinguish between good and evil in a moral order.
Cranmer assumed, for example, that men could choose the good without the help of
sanctifying grace. Jewel affirmed that ‘Natural reason holden within her bonds is not the
enemy, but the daughter of God’s truth.’ Donne held that reason must be employed when the
meaning of Scripture is unclear, but, ‘Though our supreme court...for the last appeal be Faith,
yet Reason is her delegate.’”31 As a consequence of such a defective view regarding the effects
of the fall, Anglicans did not understand the danger of allowing sinful, fallen men the right to
determine rites and ceremonies of the church. The Puritans recognized that the corruption of
the human heart rendered man unable to determine acceptable forms of worshiping a thrice
holy God. Even the regenerated mind cannot be trusted to autonomously determine worship
ordinances, for it is still struggling with the remaining effects of the fall. The only safe thing to
do under such circumstances is to study what God says and follow it. “Trust in the LORD with
all your heart and lean not on your own understanding” (Pr. 3:5). Bushell writes:

The regulative principle may therefore be seen, in a particular sense, as a natural

inference from the doctrine of total depravity. The two are tied together, for

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 example, in Exodus 20:25: ‘And if you make an altar of stone for me, you shall not
build it of cuts stones, for if you wield your tool upon it, you will profane it.’ Any
work of man’s own hands, that he presumes to offer to God in worship, is defiled
by sin and for that reason wholly unacceptable.32

The church fathers and theologians of the medieval era, who added many human traditions to
the worship of God, no doubt thought they were inventing things that would benefit and edify
the church. The result, however, was the Romish whore, the church of the Antichrist. It is for
this reason that the Scriptures repeatedly warn the covenant people not to add or detract from
the laws, statutes and ordinances that Jehovah has prescribed. “When the LORD your God cuts
off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell
in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are
destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these
nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ You shall not worship the LORD your God
in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods;
for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. Whatever I command you,
be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it” (Dt. 12:29-32).

The Anglican concept of church authority and tradition is an implicit rejection of the crown
rights of Jesus Christ. Episcopalian theologians are not obedient to the great commission in
which Jesus commanded the church to teach the nations “to observe all things that I have
commanded you” (Mt. 28:20). Their version of the great commission should read, “teach the
nations to observe all things that I have commanded you and all things that the bishops decide
are unto edification.” When prelates or anyone else places human laws, religious ordinances,
ceremonies or rites alongside of God’s revealed will, then such men are giving themselves an
authority that belongs solely to God. Only God has the authority to declare an act moral or
immoral. Yet men and women have been disciplined and persecuted simply for refusing to
submit to humanly-devised rites and ceremonies. Every use of human tradition in the worship
of Jehovah is implicitly Romanist and tyrannical. Although evangelical congregations and
backslidden Reformed churches may not use the rack, the boot, imprisonment, confiscation or
banishment to punish modern Puritans, they do use many subtle and not-so-subtle forms of
coercion, discipline and disapproval. Regardless of many churches’ disapprobation of biblical
worship, we must never place our faith in the autonomous religious ordinances of finite sinful
men.33 It is wicked and foolish to look to human traditions in worship as if they were a part of
God’s word. Biblical faith must be directed solely to Christ and His word, “for all our
obedience in the worship of God is the obedience of faith. And if the Scripture be the rule of
faith, our faith is not, in any of its concerns, to be extended beyond it, no more than the thing
regulated is to be beyond the rule.”34

Jesus Christ is the only king and sole lawgiver to the church. Whenever men add human laws,

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

ordinances, rites or ceremonies to what Christ has authorized in his word, they deny believers
the liberty they have in Christ. Owen writes:

That abridgement of the liberty of the disciples of Christ, by impositions on them

of things which he hath not appointed, nor made necessary by circumstances
antecedent unto such impositions, are plain usurpations upon the consciences of
the disciples of Christ, destructive of the liberty which he hath purchased for them,
and which, if it be their duty to walk according to gospel rule, is sinful to submit
unto.35

Ironically (today), opponents of sola scriptura as applied to worship (i.e., the regulative
principle of worship) have attempted to turn the tables against modern Puritans by arguing that
the regulativists are the ones who deny believers liberty by not allowing non-regulativists the
opportunity to introduce human innovations into the worship of God. The problem with such
an argument is that liberty as defined by Scripture never means liberty from God’s law or
liberty to devise one’s own worship ordinances or ceremonies apart from God’s word. Biblical
liberty refers to: (1) our freedom from obedience to the law as a means of justification before
God (e.g., Rom. 3:28); (2) our deliverance from the power of sin in us (e.g., Rom. 6:6 ff.); (3)
the abrogation of the ceremonial law and thus our freedom from it; (4) our freedom in areas
that are truly adiaphora, that is, things indifferent (e.g., Rom. 14:20). Christian liberty never
means that we are permitted to add to God’s moral precepts or that we can add to the worship
that God has prescribed. Such a notion assumes that the most important and reverent activity
that Christians engage in (the worship of God) is somehow within the sphere of adiaphora.
That idea is plainly unbiblical and absurd.

True freedom comes from a proper understanding of the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura
and the correlative doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. Of the Puritans Rawlinson writes:

Moreover, they believed with Calvin that if God had shown how he was to be
worshiped by the clear light of His Word, it was sheer presumption, bordering on
blasphemy, for men to add to what God had revealed. In 1605 William Bradshaw
declared that Puritans ‘hold and maintain that the word of God contained in the
writings of the Prophets and Apostles, is of absolute perfection, given by Christ the
Head of the Church, to be unto the same, the sole Canon and rule of all matters of
Religion, and the worship and service of God whatsoever. And that whatsoever
done in the same service and worship cannot be justified by the said word, is
unlawful.’ Such Bible passages as 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Matthew
15:9, 13 and Revelation 22:19 were used to justify this position, whilst from such
passages as Acts 2:41-42; 1 Timothy 2:1ff.; Ephesians 5:19; Romans 10:14-15; 2
Timothy 1:13 and Matthew 18:15-18, it was argued that there were six ordinances

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 of Gospel worship—Prayer, Praise, Preaching, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,
Catechising, and Discipline.36

Because consistently Reformed churches do not allow humans traditions in worship, they
never discipline people for adhering only to the worship prescribed in Scripture. It is only in
churches that add human traditions that believers are ostracized and persecuted, and ministers
are fired for holding to pure gospel worship. How can modern Puritans be accused of denying
anyone’s liberty when all they are guilty of is following the laws and ordinances of Scripture
without human admixture? “[T]he value of providing a biblical warrant for all the ordinances
of Puritan worship was that this gave these ordinances an August authority for those who used
them, as the Puritans did, in the obedience of faith.”37 Those who add human inventions to the
worship of God can never adequately deal with the issue of authority for their human
innovations. There is no divine authority undergirding their practices, and there is no divine
authority behind the coercion that is involved in their implementation and continuance. John
Owen writes:

The principle that the church hath power to institute any thing or ceremony
belonging to the worship of God, either to a matter or manner, beyond the
observance of such circumstances as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ
Himself hath instituted, lies at the bottom of all the horrible superstition and
idolatry, of all the confusion, blood, persecution, and wars, that have for long a
season spread themselves over the face of the Christian world.38

Those who do not consider divine warrant an important issue for the government and worship
of the church should remember that over 18,000 men, women and children who were
dedicated Scottish Presbyterians (Covenanters) were murdered simply for refusing to submit to
the human ordinances of Prelacy.

A consideration of non-authorized man-made worship reveals not only that such worship is by
nature without divine authority and therefore tyrannical but also anthropocentric. What is the
purpose of all the pomp, pageantry and spectacle of Anglican worship? Why the dramatic
cathedrals? Why the stained glass, special holy days, special gestures and special priestly
dress? The reason is not that God has commanded such things and thus takes delight in them.
God is by no means impressed with fancy cathedrals, bells, smells and silly vestments. The
whole purpose of the various man-made adornments (aside from high church sacerdotalism) is
to have some psychological effect upon man. The popish paraphernalia and medieval trappings
retained in Anglican churches were considered aids or helps to devotion. They were intended
to strike awe, reverence and inspiration among the worshipers. The cathedral with its pomp
and ceremony served a similar function to the LSD, reefers and light show that a hippie would
experience during a rock concert. They set the mood and manipulate the heart. At bottom all
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
such human devices invented for human enjoyment and psychological effect reveal a serious
lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to accompany pure gospel worship. The pomp and
pageantry of Anglican worship is an implicit denial that the worship authorized and designed
by Jesus Christ is adequate unto the end for which it was intended. George Gillespie warns that
human ceremonies obscure true religion. He writes:

But among such things as have been the accursed means of the church’s
desolation, which peradventure might seem to some of you to have least harm or
evil in them, are the ceremonies of kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord’s
supper, cross in baptism, bishoping, holidays, etc. which are pressed under the
name of things indifferent; yet if you survey the sundry inconveniences and
grievous consequences of the same, you will think far otherwise. The vain shows
and shadows of these ceremonies have hid and obscured the substance of religion;
the true life of godliness is smothered down and suppressed by the burden of these
human inventions; for their sakes, many, who are both faithful servants to Christ
and loyal subjects to the king, are evil-spoken of, mocked, reproached, menaced,
molested; for their sakes Christian brethren are offended, and the weak are greatly
scandalized; for their sakes the most powerful and painful ministers in the land are
either thrust out, or threatened to be thrust out from their callings; for their sakes
the best qualified and most hopeful expectants are debarred from entering into the
ministry; for their sakes the seminaries of learning are so corrupted that few or no
good plants can come forth from thence; for their sakes many are admitted into the
sacred ministry, who are either popish and Arminianized, who minister to the flock
poison instead of food; or silly ignorants, who can dispense no wholesome food to
the hungry.39

For the opponents of the regulative principle of worship who accuse Puritan worship of being
guilty of a “nominalistic minimalism” or a “color-blind iconclasm” we ask the following
questions: What human improvements can be made to the singing of God’s inspired Psalms?
What (in the words of John Bunyan) ear-gate, mouth-gate and eye gate human additions are
needed to supplement hearing God’s word read and preached and looking and feasting upon
the flesh and blood of the Son of God? What are fancy buildings, silly popish dress,
ceremonies and Romish pomp compared to the ordinances given to us by our most blessed
Lord and Savior? Is placing our faith in the infallible words of Christ not enough? Must we
also place our faith in the words and inventions of men?40

2. Lutheranism

The Lutheran churches have also departed from sola scriptura in their understanding and
regulation of public worship. The Augsburg Confession (A.D. 1530) reads:
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
 And unto the true unity of the Church, it is sufficient to agree concerning the
doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it
necessary that human traditions, rites, or ceremonies instituted by men should be
alike every where, as St. Paul saith: ‘There is one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of all’ (Art. 7, Of the Church).41

Concerning Ecclesiastical rites [made by men], they teach that those rites are to be
observed which may be observed without sin, and are profitable for tranquility and
good order in the Church; such as are set holidays, feasts, and such like. Yet
concerning such things, men are to be admonished that consciences are not to be
burdened as if such service were necessary to salvation. They are also to be
admonished that human traditions, instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and
make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith.
Wherefore vows and traditions concerning foods and days, and such like, instituted
to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the
Gospel (Art. 15, Of Ecclesiastical Rites).42

The Formula of Concord (1576 [1584]), Article 10, Of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies, reads:

(Which are commonly called adiaphora, or things indifferent.) There has also
arisen among the divines of the Augsburg Confession a controversy touching
ecclesiastical ceremonies or rites, which are neither enjoined nor forbidden in the
Word of God, but have been introduced into the Church merely for the sake of
order and seemliness. (Sound doctrine and confession touching this Article.) I. For
the better taking away this controversy we believe, teach, and confess, with
unanimous consent, that ceremonies or ecclesiastical rites (such as in the Word of
God are neither commanded nor forbidden, but have only been instituted for the
sake of order and seemliness) are of themselves neither divine worship, nor even
any part of divine worship. For it is written (Matt. xv. 9): ‘In vain they do worship
me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ II. We believe, teach, and
confess that it is permitted to the Church of God any where on earth, and at
whatever time, agreeably to occasion, to change such ceremonies, in such manner
as is judged most useful to the Church of God and most suited to her edification....
V. We believe, teach, and confess that one Church ought not to condemn another
because it observes more or less of external ceremonies, which the Lord has not
instituted, provided only there be consent between them in doctrine and all the
articles thereof, and in the true use of the sacraments.43

We repudiate and condemn the following false dogmas as repugnant to the Word
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
 of God: I. That human traditions and constitutions in things ecclesiastical are of
themselves to be accounted as divine worship, or at least as a part of divine
worship. II. When ceremonies and constitutions of this kind are by a sort of
coercion obtruded upon the Church as necessary, and that contrary to the Christian
liberty which the Church of Christ has in external matters of this sort.44

The confessional Lutheran position on worship is basically one in which men can add to the
worship of God as they please, as long as the human additions are not considered a part of
worship. The church is permitted to add rites and ceremonies as long as they are not
condemned by the word and are deemed profitable. The human traditions that are added,
however, are “neither divine worship, nor even a part of divine worship.” According to
Lutheran theologians the man-made rites and ceremonies are merely external matters and are
not actually worship; therefore, they can be different in different places; they can be added to
or detracted from at will; and they cannot be imposed upon the laity as compulsory.

The Lutheran understanding of worship was developed early in the Reformation and was
directed primarily against Rome. For Luther and Melanchthon the main problem with papal
rites and ceremonies was that they were compulsory and considered necessary for salvation.
Luther writes:

On this same weak basis, the Romanists have attributed to the sacrament of
ordination a certain fictitious “character,” which is said to be indelibly impressed
upon an ordinand. I would ask whence do such ideas arise, and on whose authority
and for what reason have they become established? Not that we are unwilling for
the Romanists to be free to invent, to say, or to assert, whatever they like; but we
also insist on our own freedom, lest they arrogate to themselves the right of
making articles of the faith out of their own ideas, as they have hitherto presumed
to do. It is sufficient that, for the sake of concord, we should accommodate
ourselves to their ceremonies and idiosyncrasies; but we refuse to be compelled to
accept them as necessary for salvation, which they are not. Let them do away with
the element of compulsion in their arbitrary demands, and we will yield free
obedience to their wishes in order that we may live in peace towards each other.
For it is mean, iniquitous, and servile for a Christian man, with his freedom, to be
subjected to any regulations except the heavenly and divine.45

In his Apology Melanchthon writes: “For Scripture calls traditions doctrines of demons, when
it is taught that religious rites are serviceable to merit the remission of sins and grace (218, 4).
If the adversaries defend these human services as meriting justification, grace and the
remission of sins, they absolutely establish the kingdom of Antichrist (220, 18). Daniel (11,
38) indicates that new human services will be the very form and constitution of Antichrist
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
(221, 19).”46

The major differences between Reformed and Lutheran worship are the result of the different
theological viewpoints of Luther and Calvin. One could add that with regard to church practice
Luther was very conservative. For Luther the major doctrine to which practically every other
teaching must be considered in order to be understood was justification by faith. It was the
chief doctrine by which the church stood or fell. Therefore, when Luther turned to the
reformation of the medieval style worship that he was accustomed to he used a scalpel and not
an axe. Although Luther was a champion of sola scriptura, he never made the connection
between Scripture alone and the need of divine warrant for worship ordinances, as did Calvin.
When Luther looked at worship practice his major concern was, Is this practice motivated by a
belief in justification by works? Does this ritual or practice detract in any way from the perfect,
all-sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ? With these criteria Luther eliminated may abuses (e.g.,
the Roman Catholic Mass, pilgrimages, the saints as mediators, the sacerdotal priesthood, etc.).
Luther also held that any worship practice that contradicted the clear teaching of Scripture
must be avoided. Therefore, the church service should be intelligible to the people. It should be
conducted in their own language. Communion should be served in both kinds—the bread and
the wine. Preaching should be emphasized so the flock will receive instruction and edification
rather than a vain mumbling in Latin. Another important issue with Luther was the matter of
Christian liberty. Human traditions in worship were adiaphora and should not be forced upon
the people. Such coercion smacked of Romanism and merit-mongering.

Luther had a favorable view of church traditions. Human traditions in church should be
respected and considered valuable as long as they do not contradict Scripture. This view of
tradition is observed in Luther’s doctrine of the “orders.” Davies writes:

The implications of this doctrine were that God has so ordered the world that man
must not live as a mere individual isolated from society, but as a being sharing
certain communal relationships. Such communities ordained by God are the
Church and the State. Since they depend for their continuance on the divine
sanction, men ought to respect them. Therefore, except when they definitely
contradict the revealed will of God, they are to be obeyed. Such a doctrine puts a
heavy premium upon tradition and as such it may be regarded as the religious basis
of Luther’s conservatism. It also helps to explain why the bishops have such an
important part to play in deciding what particular liturgical reforms are desirable.
Theoretically Luther left the choice of accepting or rejecting his liturgical reforms
to the Christians of the local churches, but in practice the decision was left to the
discretion of the bishop.47

The Lutheran confessions faithfully reflect Luther’s teaching regarding human ceremonies.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Church traditions (i.e., humanly devised rites and ceremonies not prescribed in Scripture) are
permissible if: (1) they are not Romanizing (that is, no human merit is connected to the
ceremonies), (2) the ceremonies do not violate the teaching of Scripture, (3) they are not over-
multiplied to the point where believers think less highly of real biblical commandments (e.g.,
the Lord’s supper), (4) they are not compulsory (that is, they are not to be conformed under
pressure). In other words, they are not to be considered necessary acts of worship. (A
necessary act of worship is that which is commanded by Scripture [e.g., the sacraments].)

Lutherans teach that the church is permitted to add rites and ceremonies only within the sphere
of adiaphora (Gk. for “things indifferent”). Allbeck writes:

The Formula of Concord first marks out the boundaries of genuine adiaphora.
True adiaphora are never contrary to God’s Word, never unionizing, never
Romanizing, never useless foolish spectacles, never essentially constitute the
worship of God. Concerning their status, it is said that adiaphora may be changed
by the church in the interest of good order, discipline, and edification. But there is
always the necessity of clear doctrinal confession by word and deed. Adiaphora
are matters of freedom. Compulsory adiaphora involve a contradiction of terms.
When they cease to be free they must be resisted.48

The Lutheran understanding of sola scriptura does not permit the church to add its own
doctrines to the teachings of Scripture, nor does it allow the church to add to “essential” or
“commanded” worship (i.e., the sacraments). It does, however, give the church a very large
role in determining rites and ceremonies simply by declaring the human additions to be within
the realm of adiaphora. In theory the Lutheran statements regarding worship are superior to
the Episcopalian teachings. At least the Lutherans do not regard their human additions as an
actual part of worship. They also claim that the human rites and ceremonies are not
compulsory like the worship ordinances commanded in Scripture. In practice, however, the
Lutheran churches are no better than their Episcopal counterparts. Both deny the sufficiency of
Scripture in the realm of worship. Both are guilty of allowing human corruptions to displace
pure gospel worship. They both deny that the worship of God in the new covenant era is fixed
or limited by the canon of Scripture. As a consequence both leave the parameters of acceptable
worship in a state of flux. The boundaries of worship are always changing because they are
determined not by Scripture alone but also by human tradition, and there are an infinite
number of worship options available to man that do not violate the Lutheran principle of
allowing anything not expressly forbidden.

There are a number of reasons why the Lutheran understanding of worship must be rejected as
unscriptural and irrational. First, the idea that external rites or ceremonies are adiaphora is
unbiblical. Every act in the moral and religious sphere is always either good or bad. The only

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

activities that may be considered adiaphora are matters that are truly circumstantial or
incidental to the ceremonies such as setting up chairs, turning on lights, etc. Activities that are
circumstantial do not need to be proven by Scripture. However, they do need to be conducted
according to the general rules of the word. Williamson writes:

One must be careful to distinguish between the circumstances of worship and the
worship itself. For example the Scripture does not prescribe the hour of the day at
which public worship of the congregation is to be held. Neither has the Lord
prescribed the shape, style, or size of the place of worship. In the nature of the
case, such circumstances will vary from country to country, season to season, and
place to place. There is a general rule, however, which requires that congregations
assemble somewhere on the Lord’s Day. The general rule controls the particular
situation according to the circumstances. But when the congregation has
assembled at the agreed place the worship must be then only that which God has
commanded.49

The style of church architecture, lighting, heating, seating arrangements and length of service
are circumstantial to the worship of God. However, sprinkling holy water, making the sign of
the cross, disallowing meat on Fridays, using salt and cream during infant baptism,
confirmation, Christmas and Easter celebration, special ceremonial priestly garments and
kneeling at the Lord’s supper are not circumstantial to worship but additions to the worship
itself.

Man-made innovations in worship are strictly forbidden by Scripture. The Bible teaches that
men are not to add or detract from God’s moral precepts (cf. Dt. 4:2; Josh. 1:7-8; Pr. 30:5-6)
and men are not to add or detract from the worship that God has instituted in His word (cf. Dt.
12:32; Lev. 10:1-2; 2 Sam. 6:3-7; Jer. 7:31; 19:5). The Lutheran idea that man-made rites or
ceremonies are not worship is unbiblical and totally arbitrary. We know that God considers
human rites or ceremonies to be unauthorized, unacceptable and sinful additions to worship.
Jehovah killed Nadab and Abihu for conducting a humanly-devised ceremony (the burning of
strange fire, Lev. 10:1, 2). Although Lutheran theologians do not regard humanly-devised acts
of worship as real worship, God refers to all such human inventions as “will worship” (Col.
2:20-23). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for the humanly-devised rite of religious hand washing
(Mt. 15:1-3). The Jews received this rebuke from our Lord not because there is anything
intrinsically immoral regarding hand washings but because the church does not have the
authority to add her own religious ceremonies to what God has authorized in His word. Some
have argued that Jesus was only condemning bad or unedifying human traditions being added
to what God has commanded. The problem with this argument is that religious hand washings
from a strictly ethical standpoint harm no one. Jesus picked the most innocent, innocuous
religious human tradition possible to make the point crystal clear that no human additions are

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

acceptable to God no matter how small or “innocent.”

Second, the Lutheran assertion that man-made rites and ceremonies are not obligatory or
compulsory is not the actual practice of the Lutherans or anyone else. Why? Because when
human ceremonies are introduced into the public worship of God they are always practiced
under some form of human compulsion. The moment that human traditions are introduced into
the church service people are forced either to depart from that church to avoid the human
additions or to commit sin by participating in unauthorized ceremonies. Whenever a church
adds man-made ceremonies to the worship of God there is always ecclesiastical and social
pressure to submit to the man-made ordinances. Church members are expected and urged to
follow the church calendar, go to the Christmas and Easter service, sing uninspired hymns,
listen to the musical groups, watch the children’s choir, participate in the altar call, etc. Even in
many “Reformed” churches there is pressure or coercion applied to people so that they will
conform to the various corruptions that have accumulated over the years. People have even
been disciplined for refusing to participate in silly and Romish human inventions (e.g.,
uninspired hymns, holy days, children’s church, etc.).50

The Lutheran concept of non-compulsory human traditions may sound good as a theory, but in
practice it corrupts the church and destroys Christian liberty. The Bible teaches that God alone
speaking in His infallible word has an absolute, unqualified authority over men’s consciences.
Thus, the Westminster Confession of Faith asserts: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and
has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary
to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to
obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the
requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of
conscience, and reason also” (20.2). Believers in Christ are free not only from doctrines and
commandments which are contrary to God’s word, such as confession to a priest, the Mass,
celebrating holy days besides the Lord’s day, etc., they also are free from doctrines and
commandments which are additions to the Bible, that is, they may not explicitly contradict
Scripture but are not taught in Scripture; they are derived from human authority. “Any doctrine
or commandment contrary to or besides His will in matters religious the Christian not only
may but must disobey. Liberty of conscience means the liberty of the individual to obey God
rather than man.”51

Although Lutherans insist (as noted above) that their human additions are not compulsory (in
order to avoid the appearance of being Romanistic) they indeed are compulsory. Even the great
Martin Luther was inconsistent. Davies writes:

Similarly, in liturgical matters, it may fairly be claimed that his doctrine of the
Word of God was not logically developed. In extenuation it should be

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 remembered, however, that he was the first of the Reformers and that by the time
of Calvin the situation was more stable and men had more time for reflection on
the issues. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that in Luther’s later years the
Reformer displayed a growing conservatism. He desired more uniformity both in
the use of ecclesiastical vestments and of liturgical forms. What had previously
been optional, became obligatory.52

Are we supposed to believe that a Lutheran minister and his congregation would be left
unmolested by church authorities if they decided to discard the church calendar, extra-biblical
holy days, hymnals, organs, crosses and all other human innovations that lack divine warrant?
Sadly, Lutheran congregants, like their Anglican counterparts, are expected to submit to the
ceremonies and commandments of men with an implicit faith and blind obedience. Remember,
“Whatsoever is not done in faith, nor accompanied with a personal persuasion of the obligation
or lawfulness of it in the sight of God, is pronounced to be sin—Rom. xiv. 23.”53 Hodge
writes: “[I]t is a great sin, involving at the same time sacrilege, and treason to the human race,
for any man or set of men to arrogate the prerogative of God and to attempt to bind the
consciences of their fellow men by any obligation not certainly imposed by God and revealed
in his Word.”54 Furthermore, when men participate in worship ordinances that originate in the
mind of man—that are not based upon Scripture but ecclesiastical authority—they are not
doing religious homage to God (who never appointed such rites or ceremonies) but to man.
They are in principle bowing down to the autonomous authority of sinful men. Worshiping
God without a divine appointment is an implicit acknowledgment of popery and prelacy.
“Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 Jn. 5:21).

Third, the Lutheran position suffers from an irreconcilable internal contradiction. According to
the Lutheran confessions men are permitted to add their own traditions, rites or ceremonies to
the worship of God, only if the additions are edifying and are not regarded as compulsory.
These qualifications raise an important question. If men have the ability to devise a tradition,
rite or ceremony that truly sanctifies believers, should not that ceremony, if it really edified
God’s people, be mandatory? The Anglican articles which state that the church can make up
rites or ceremonies that she regards as edifying and then impose them on the flock with
ecclesiastical discipline if necessary is more logical. If a human tradition, rite or ceremony
sanctifies then it should be mandatory. It is important to note, however, that the apostle Paul
teaches that human commandments and ordinances do not edify or sanctify the church. He
writes: “Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as
though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—’Do not touch, do not
taste, do not handle,’ which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the
commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in
self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the
indulgence of the flesh” (Col 2:20-23). Human rites and ceremonies are the commandments of

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

men. They appear to be wise and edifying; however, the truth is that they do not sanctify at all.
The Holy Spirit does not use human traditions, rites or ceremonies to edify the church. He uses
the word of God. “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17). If we want to
receive edification, then we must only follow God’s laws, statutes and religious ordinances.
Papal, prelatic and/or fundamentalistic legalism does not edify.55

Fourth, the Lutheran assertion that man-made rites or ceremonies are not worship is fictitious
nonsense. When ecclesiastical authorities devise a religious ceremony and then place it into the
public worship service alongside of worship ordinances authorized in Scripture, they are
implicitly teaching that the man-made ceremonies are of the same type and carry an equal
authority to divinely instituted ordinances. When men intermingle human ceremonies with
divine ordinances in the worship service, do they expect the worshipers to distinguish between
the two (human and divine) as the service proceeds? Furthermore, if the man-made religious
ceremonies are not worship, then what are they? What is their purpose? Why are they
conducted during the worship service? Why are they listed in the church bulletin as part of the
public worship of God? Frank Smith writes:

Note carefully that worship is an imposition, since we are required to gather with
God’s people in order to engage in public worship. Therefore, which is the
legalistic position (and the one opposed to Christian liberty)—the one which thinks
it does not need biblical warrant to require this or that action to be performed in
worship, or the one which makes strict appeal to Scripture and wishes not to
impose anything upon God’s precious flock unless it is found in His Word? In
passing, we would note that the Reformed faith is at once the most strict and
narrow, and also the broadest and most universal, because of its unwillingness to
impose upon people anything unless is it biblical.56

The Lutheran idea that their human additions to worship are not really worship shows the
deceitfulness of the human heart. Men are so in love with their non-authorized human
traditions that they will twist the plain meaning of words and resort to illogical and unsound
arguments and exegetical gymnastics to justify their sinful practices. The Lutheran conception
is very similar to the absurd Roman Catholic assertion that worship of the saints and the virgin
Mary is not really worship. It is alleged that when Romanists bow and worship God, it is a
special worship (latria). But when they bow down to and worship the saints and blessed virgin,
it is doulia (or, for Mary, hyperdoulia). We must recognize that all such pharisaical-type
distinctions are nothing more than clever excuses for departing from the worship that God has
prescribed. Against all tyrannical usurpations and encroachments of the church Christ says:
“And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:9;
cf. Isa. 29:13).

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

3. Evangelicalism

Evangelicals are also guilty of restricting the application of the Bible’s authority. When it
comes to worship, evangelicals do not believe that Scripture is sufficient. They would say that
nothing sinful ought to be a part of worship. However, they believe that men have the authority
to make up any form or content of worship that they think is useful. Unfortunately, the
Lutheran or Episcopal understanding of worship has been embraced by the vast majority of
professing Christians. This pragmatic understanding of worship has predictably led to
liturgical chaos in evangelical churches. Whenever churches abandon sola scriptura in the
sphere of worship and adopt pragmatism, the result is a worship service that becomes
increasingly anthropocentric and pagan.

This fact has become increasingly evident in the last thirty years as churches have adopted the
worship paradigm of the church growth experts. These “experts,” who look to business,
psychology and sociology for wisdom rather than the Bible, argue that the best method for
attaining church growth is to make the church user-friendly to unbelievers. This tactic involves
a de-emphasis on the preached word and the sacraments in favor of a service that titillates and
entertains. The emphasis in most modern evangelical worship services is on entertainment.
Such services do not feed the intellect but rather stir the emotions. Modern worship services
have little in common with apostolic worship and much in common with Las Vegas,
Hollywood and Broadway. In many churches people even applaud after a performance, as if
they were at a play or concert.

As a result the modern evangelical worship service does not glorify God but instead glorifies
man. It is basically a show for man, directed to man, with man-pleasing songs and lots of
entertainment: comedian pastors, music soloists, rock groups, “gospel” bands, celebrity guest
speakers, plays, skits, videos, singers, choirs, liturgical dancing and so on. Pragmatic man-
centered worship has even influenced church architecture. The central feature of a Puritan
meeting house was the pulpit on which rested a large Bible. The central feature of the modern
mega-church is the stage. The men who designed Episcopal and Lutheran worship with all its
man-made defects at least attempted to be reverent and majestic. Modern evangelical worship
is usually neither; it is crass, tasteless pablum.

When we approach a thrice-holy God who is infinite in perfections, should not our sole
concern be to learn what He has prescribed and then focus our attention on what pleases him
rather than on what pleases us and makes us feel good? When we consistently adhere to sola
scriptura and thus depend solely upon God’s infallible and sufficient word to determine what
is acceptable worship, we eliminate the possibility of popish, pagan, prelatic, or pragmatic will-
worship from being intruded upon the church. Worship is arguably the most important activity
engaged in by the church. Therefore, when we seek direction regarding worship, should we not
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
place our trust in God and his infallible word rather than the opinions of sinful man? “We have
to do with a God who is very jealous; who will be worshiped as He wills, or not at all. Nor can
we complain. If God be such a Being as we are taught in the Holy Scripture, it must be His
inalienable right to determine and prescribe how He will be served.”57 The idea that sinful men
can add to, improve upon and make more sufficient the worship that God has authorized in his
word is arrogant and foolish. Young writes:

The enlightened understanding is content to learn God’s precepts and the renewed
will to walk in them, but the regenerate heart as such cannot desire to make the
slightest addition to God’s commandments. Whenever true believers have acted
inconsistently in this respect, they have invariably allowed great corruption to be
introduced into God’s sanctuary.58

4. Reformed Declension

Many Reformed churches have also abandoned the Bible’s sole authority over worship. Many
Reformed and Presbyterian denominations still officially hold to sola scriptura in the sphere of
worship. The rule of Scripture over worship is called the regulative principle of worship. This
principle declares that all the parts or elements of worship must have divine warrant, that is,
everything that is a part of worship that holds a religious significance (i.e., things or acts that
are not circumstantial) must be authorized either by a direct command in Scripture (e.g., “Do
this in remembrance of Me,” Lk. 22:19); or by logical inference from Scripture (i.e., there may
not be an explicit command but when several passages are compared they teach or infer a
scriptural practice [e.g., infant baptism]); or by biblical historical example (e.g., the change
from the seventh day to the first day of the week for corporate public worship). Simply put,
every worship practice must be proven from Scripture. This principle (if strictly followed)
eliminates all human innovation, pragmatism and pagan syncretism from worship and thus
leaves the church in the same state as it was in the days of the apostles.

Unfortunately, most Reformed churches today have departed from the regulative principle and
thus allow many practices that have not been prescribed by the Bible (e.g., extra-biblical holy
days such as Christmas and Easter, uninspired hymns, choirs, instrumental music, etc.). Many
Reformed churches are following in the footsteps of Arminian, revivalistic, charismatic, and
the church growth movement style of worship. An excellent example of the current
deterioration is the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The following statistics document
their declension. Twenty-five years ago the PCA had approximately 2% exclusive Psalms
singing churches; 40% “traditional” (e.g., Trinity Hymnal with piano and organ); 50%
“traditional” with a few “Scripture songs” and a variety of musical instrumentation; and only
8% had a “traditional/contemporary” mix. Today, approximately 70% of their churches have a
“traditional/contemporary” mix. Hurst writes: “If [they] don’t have dance and drama, it’s only
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
because there is no one to lead it; women and young people may lead worship as individuals
praying and reading Scripture, applause [is] acceptable for [a] job well done; music may take
the form of [a] performance.”59 Less than 1% of PCA churches today adhere to exclusive
Psalmody (i.e., biblical worship).

Some conservatives within Reformed denominations have expressed a concern regarding the
rapid trend away from “traditional” worship toward “contemporary” or “celebrative” worship
in their denominations. These men attempt to stem the tide of new-fangled worship with
discussions on how worship must be dignified, majestic and reverent. Their battle cry is
“decently and in order.” While we heartily agree with our brothers regarding the need for
reverence, decency and orderliness in the public worship of God, we disagree regarding the
fundamental problem that is causing such a rapid declension in worship. To cure the disease,
one must do more than attempt to alleviate the symptoms; one must go to the root of the
problem. As long as Reformed denominations reject or redefine the regulative principle of
worship, rendering it virtually useless, all efforts at serious reformation in worship will be
defeated. Without a strict interpretation of the regulative principle, the debate over worship
shifts from an exegetical discussion of what is warranted by Scripture to primarily a debate
over human preferences. The beauty and wisdom of the regulative principle of worship is that
it protects the church from our own sinful hearts. Worship that is fixed and founded deep upon
the bedrock of Scripture is immune from the wind and waves of human opinion, fashion and
fad.

25 Creeds of Christendom, 3:489 (all quotes are from the American revision of 1801).

26 Ibid., 3:93-94, 96.

27 Ibid., 3:500.

28 Ibid., 3:508-509.

29Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England from Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1534-
1690 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996 [1970]), 1:258.

30Paul E. G. Cook, “The Church” in Puritan and Anglican Thinking (Northamptonshire,

England: The Westminster Conference, 1977), 26.

31 Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England, 1:54.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

32 Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody, 120.
William Young writes: “The total corruption and deceitfulness of the human heart disqualifies
man from judging what is to be admitted into the worship of God. It may be that before the
fall, our first parents had written on their hearts the law of worship and by looking within the
depth of their own beings, could read off the commandments of God. Yet even then, they were
not without direct external communication of the will of Him who walked and talked with
them in the garden.

“Since the fall, however, though the human conscience still witnesses in all men that worship
is due to the supreme Being, no information can be gained from the heart of man as to how
God is to be worshiped” (Frank J. Smith and David C. Lachman, eds., Worship in the Presence
of God [Greenville, S.C.: Greenville Seminary Press, 1992], 81).

33 John Knox writes: “It is not enough that man invent ceremony, and then give it a
signification, according to his pleasure.... But if that anything proceed from faith, it must have
the word of God for the assurance; for ye are not ignorant, ‘That faith comes by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God.’ Now, if ye will prove that your ceremonies proceed from faith,
and do please God, ye must prove God in expressed words has commanded them: Or else shall
ye never prove, that they proceed from faith, nor yet that they please God; but that they are sin,
and do displease him, according to the words of the apostle, ‘Whatsoever is not of faith is
sin’” (William Croft Dickenson, ed., John Knox’s History of the Reformation in Scotland
[New York: Philosophical Library, 1950], 1:87).

34 John Owen, “The Word of God the Sole Rule of Worship” in Works (Carlisle, PA: Banner
of Truth, 1967), 13:473.

35John Owen, “A Discourse Concerning Liturgies” in Works (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth,
1965 [1850-53]), 15:55.

36Leslie A. Rawlinson, “Worship in Liturgy and Form” in Anglican and Puritan Thinking
(Cambridge, England: Westminster Conference, 1977), 74.

37 Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England, 1:71.

38 John Owen, quoted in William Cunningham, “The Reformers and the Regulative Principle”
in The Reformation of the Church (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1965), 40-41.

39 George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Church of Scotland (Dallas, TX: Naphtali, 1993 [1637]), xxx.

40 One of the most common misconceptions regarding the regulative principle of worship is
that it was developed haphazardly as an overreaction to the abuses of Romanism. It is even
argued by some that it was only good for that early period of the Reformation when many
people were coming out of the papal church; however, now that Protestantism is settled and
established it is too extreme and is no longer necessary. There are a number of reasons why the
scenario noted above should be regarded as pure fiction. First, the idea that Zwingli, Calvin,
Knox, Farel, Bucer and the early English Puritans were all pragmatists who were willing to
twist Scripture for a good end is ludicrous. These were men who would rather be tortured and
killed than compromise the truth of Scripture. For example, John Calvin spent his whole life
preaching, writing commentaries and refining his Institutes. The regulative principle is clearly
taught in his writings from beginning to end (see Appendix A). It is obvious to any student of
history that he did not adopt his position on worship in a sloppy or haphazard manner. Third,
the Lutherans also came out of Romanism yet rejected the regulative principle. If pragmatism
was involved in adhering to the regulative principle, it was not exhibited by the Reformed
churches or theologians. Humanly speaking, the Reformed churches would have been
physically much safer from the assaults of Rome and her minions if they would have
compromised their understanding of worship and joined the Lutherans. Fourth, the theologians
of the Second Reformation period in both England (e.g., John Owen) and Scotland (e.g.,
George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, James Durham), who studied the issue of worship in
more detail than even Calvin or Knox, came to identical conclusions on the matter of worship.
If anything, the men of the Second Reformation were even more consistent and stricter than
some of the earlier theologians. Fifth, the undergirding principles that produced full-blown
Romanism are still with us and pose a threat to Protestants. Although the physical danger is no
longer with us in many countries, the spiritual danger of Popish doctrine is as great as ever.

41 Creeds of Christendom, 3:12.

42 Ibid., 3:16.

43 Ibid., 3:160-163.

44 Ibid., 3:163-164.

45Martin Luther, “The Pagan Servitude of the Church” in John Dillenber, ed., Martin Luther:
Selections from His Writing Edited with an Introduction (New York: Anchor, 1961), 343-344.

46 Philip Melanchthon as quoted in J. L. Neve, Introduction to the Symbolical Books of the

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Lutheran Church (Columbus, OH: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1926), 260-261.

47Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997
[1948]), 17.

48Willard Dow Allbeck, Studies in the Lutheran Confessions (Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg,
1952), 283.

49G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), 164.

50 Gordon Clark writes: “The twentieth century church in America seems to have fallen into a
curious self-contradiction. The lust for power and control over men and organizations has
produced an almost papal claim to authority on the part of bureaucratic ecclesiastical officials.
When the majority speaks (and the officials manipulate the majority) it is the voice of
God” (What Do Presbyterians Believe? (Philadelphia, Pa: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1965),
191). Sadly, many elders in “Reformed” denominations see their job as one of maintaining the
status quo or current backslidden state of their church’s spiritual condition. Unfortunately this
often means an unquestioning acceptance of all sorts of unbiblical human traditions. If often
also means treating Christians concerned with reformation as kooks, as people who need to be
kept quiet in order to maintain the defections of past generations.

51
James Benjamin Green, Harmony of the Westminster Presbyterian Standards (Collins
World, 1976), 155.

52 Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, 18.

53 Robert Shaw, Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 206.

54 A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, 267.

55 Gordon Clark writes: “Strange to say, evangelicals, fundamentalists, pietists or other devout
people, who would be horrified at the sign of the cross or bowing to images, have invented
religious requirements and taboos of their own. There is a Bible school which insists that the
girls put their hair up in buns, for a looser hair-do would be ‘worldly’” (What Do
Presbyterians Believe? 192-193).

56 Frank Smith, “The Singing of Praise” in Worship in the Presence of God, 223.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

57 Samuel H. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.), 240.

58
William Young, “The Second Commandment” in Frank Smith and David C. Lachman, eds.,
Worship in the Presence of God, 81-82.

59 Peter Hurst, “Lesson 4: Congregational Worship” in Byron Snapp, ed., The Presbyterian
Witness (Hampton, VA: Calvary Reformed Presbyterian Church, fall 1997), XI.4, 13. All
statistics used in this paragraph are taken from Hurst’s article.

Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing MI, 2000

Home Free Downloads Books to Buy

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

V. Some Contemporary Objections to Sola
Scriptura
in the Sphere of Worship Considered and
Refuted
Today, the most vocal critics of sola scriptura applied to the sphere of worship (i.e., the
regulative principle) are men who consider themselves “truly Reformed.”60 These apologists
for declension and the status quo have come up with some interesting arguments that they
think justify a wholesale abandonment of the regulative principle of worship in favor of a
Lutheran/Episcopalian conception of worship. In order to sharpen our understanding of sola
scriptura’s relationship to biblical worship, we will examine and refute such arguments.

1. The “False Understanding of Ethics and Adiaphora”

Argument

The first argument used against the regulative principle of worship is based on a false
understanding of the meaning and relationship of sola scriptura, the regulative principle and
Christian liberty or adiaphora. Schlissel writes:

Some regulativists will attempt to broaden their appeal to the “principle” found in
12:32 by saying that it is found also in Deuteronomy 4:2. But this passage reads.
“Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which
I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which
the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I
command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” If the Regulativist
would bring this passage to bear on the question of worship, he has gone even
further from the path leading to the light. For this passage refers to all the Law of
God, not simply to laws governing worship. Very few regulativists would seriously
argue that God’s intent here is to forbid Israel from doing anything whatsoever in
any area of life that is not specifically commanded in the Law. I suppose those
Amish who eschew buttons for want of finding them mentioned in Scripture might
look somewhat favorable on this interpretation, but they’d be mighty lonely in so
doing. Yet that is precisely the conclusion which cannot be evaded if 4:2 is cited as
supportive of the Regulativist’s reading of 12:32. Deuteronomy 4:2 is a general
rule, requiring a life that conforms to God’s disclosed will in its entirety. The NIV
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
 Study Bible note is to the point: “The revelation of the Lord is sufficient. All of it
must be obeyed and anything that adulterates or contradicts it cannot be tolerated.”
God did not intend that the recipients of this verse (4:2) would literally do nothing
not mentioned therein (e.g., no skateboarding, using electricity, driving
automobiles, or eating lemon ices). Thus, 4:2 as a parallel demonstrates that
12:32 is not to be taken in an absolute sense. If you find a similar phrase used by
the same author in the same book, you need to justify applying a radically different
sense to each. If it is agreed that 4:2, referring to the whole Law, was not to be
taken absolutely when it forbids additions and subtractions, neither is 12:32 to be
taken as an abstract and absolute rule. Both are to be interpreted in terms of the
whole Word of God, a Word that simply does not teach: if it is not commanded, it
is forbidden.61

Schlissel’s statement is perhaps the most popular modern argument against the regulative
principle. He argues that Deuteronomy 4:2 refers to the whole law which regulates all of life.
Since all of life contains many activities that are not strictly regulated, that are left to the free
choice of man (e.g., “Should I wear blue pants or grey pants?”). Therefore, the virtually
identical regulative principle proof text passages such as Deuteronomy 12:32 must also be
interpreted in such a manner that leaves man a great deal of liberty in the sphere of worship.

Schlissel’s argument against the regulative principle is founded upon a complete

misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 4:2 and therefore should be rejected as unscriptural. His
false understanding of this passage and its application to the area of worship is based on a
glaring failure to distinguish between God-given ethics and areas of adiaphora. Schlissel’s
assertion that Deuteronomy 4:2 “was not to be taken absolutely when it forbids additions and
subtractions” is totally false. Deuteronomy 4:2 teaches that men are not permitted to add or
detract from God’s commandments. In other words, God is the sole source of ethics for
personal, family, institutional and civil life. Men do not have ethical autonomy. They do not
have any authority to make up ethical absolutes, nor are they permitted to ignore or detract
from God’s law in any way. R. J. Rushdoony has a clear understanding of the implications of
passages such as Deuteronomy 4:2. He writes:

It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that
society. If law has its source in man’s reason, then reason is the god of that society.
If the source is an oligarchy, or in a court, senate, or ruler, then that source is the
god of that system.... Modern humanism, the religion of the state, locates law in
the state and thus makes the state or the people as they find expression in the state,
the god of the system.... Nothing is more deadly or more derelict than the notion
that the Christian is at liberty with respect to the kind of law he can have.... Neither
positive law nor natural law can reflect more than the sin and apostasy of man:

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 revealed law is the need and privilege of Christian society.62

Men do not have the authority to declare a thought, word or deed evil or sinful apart from
proving such by a biblical commandment or deduction from the Bible.

Does the fact that there are many matters in life that are adiaphora or indifferent63 (e.g.,
skateboarding, planting tomatoes, riding a bike, etc.) mean that Deuteronomy 4:2 was not
meant to be taken strictly? Does it mean that men are permitted to add or detract from God’s
law? No, absolutely not! Likewise in the sphere of commanded or authorized worship men do
not have liberty to add or detract one iota from the worship that God has instituted. However,
men do have a great deal of liberty in areas that are circumstantial or incidental to worship
itself. Schlissel’s arguments fail to recognize the distinction between ethics and adiaphora,
worship ordinances and the circumstances of worship.

If opponents of the regulative principle of worship want to use Deuteronomy 4:2 as a proof
text against the Reformed understanding of a strictly regulated worship, they need to
demonstrate that worship ordinances belong to the sphere of life that is adiaphora. Are the
parts or elements of worship that are delineated in Scripture in the same category as riding a
bike, or wearing blue pants instead of grey pants, or planting beefsteak tomatoes instead of
early girl tomatoes? The answer is: obviously not. Adiaphora refers to matters that are
indifferent to ethics (e.g., Should I boil my eggs or scramble them for breakfast?). That is, they
involve activities that are neither commanded nor forbidden, and therefore the decision
whether or not to commit the act or not commit the act does not involve sin or a violation of
God’s word. As long as men act in accordance with the general rules of Scripture (i.e., Is it
done to God’s glory [1 Cor. 10:31; Rom. 4:7-9]? Does it cause a weak brother to sin [Rom.
14:21]? Can it be done in faith with a clear conscience [Rom. 14:14, 23]? Can I engage in this
activity without coming under its power [1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23; e.g., tobacco addiction]?), men
have liberty to commit or refrain from the act.

Worship ordinances do not involve the liberty to do as one desires and therefore cannot be
placed in the category of adiaphora. Are Christians free to omit or add to the elements of
religious worship as they please? Can a church lawfully eliminate the Lord’s supper and
replace it with a new sacrament? Would the elders of a church be obedient to Christ if they
replaced trinitarian baptism with a man-made ritual? Is it permissible to eliminate the Scripture
reading and replace it with Shakespeare or a rock video? Would it be sinful to eliminate the
preaching of God’s word and replace it with a “Christian” movie or a “Christian” comedy hour
or variety show? The answer to these questions is obvious (no, no, no and no). If one places
worship ordinances in the category of adiaphora, then everything involved in public worship
and even public worship itself is optional. Furthermore, one could have two, zero or 20
sacraments.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Because worship ordinances are required by Scripture, they should never be treated as
adiaphora. Rather, they should receive the same treatment as God’s moral law. Areas of life
that are adiaphora correspond not to worship ordinances but to the circumstances of worship
(e.g., Should we start the service at 10:30 a.m. or 11:00 a.m.? Should the meeting house have
blue carpeting or maroon carpeting? Should we use wooden pews or folding chairs? etc.).
Ironically, Deuteronomy 4:2, when properly understood, is one of the strongest proof texts for
the regulative principle of worship, for the regulative principle logically follows sola scriptura.
Protestant reformer John Knox concurs:

And that is principal idolatry when our own inventions we defend to be righteous
in the sight of God, because we think them good, laudable, and pleasant. We may
not think us so free nor so wise, that we may do unto God, and unto his honor,
what we think expedient. No! The contrary is commanded by God, saying, “Unto
my Word shall ye add nothing; nothing shall ye diminish therefrom, that ye might
observe the precepts of your Lord God” (Deut. 4:2). Which words are not to be
understood of the Decalogue and Law Moral only, but of statutes, rites, and
ceremonies; for equal obedience of all his Laws requireth God.64

2. The “All of Life Is Worship” Argument

An argument that is closely related to the argument from Deuteronomy 4:2 is one which claims
that all of life is worship, and since life contains many activities that are not strictly regulated
by Scripture, therefore worship is not strictly regulated either. Although, as Christians,
everything we do is to be done to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), and thus we are to live to
the Lord (Rom. 14:7-8) and present our bodies as living sacrifices to God (Rom. 12:1), the idea
that all of life is worship and therefore no distinction exists between public worship and
activities like mowing the lawn is absurd. There are several reasons why we must regard “the
all of life is worship” argument as unscriptural.

First, there are several passages from both the Old and New Testaments which teach and/or
assume that public worship is special and set apart from everyday life.

Psalm 22:22, 25. “I will declare Your name to My brethren; in the midst of the assembly I will
praise You.... My praise shall be of You in the great assembly; I will pay My vows before
those who fear Him.”

Psalm 27:4. “One thing I have desired of the LORD, that will I seek: that I may dwell in the
house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in
His temple.” David Dickson writes:
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
 A third ground of confidence, is the conscience of his purpose to study to have
constant communion with God, in the use of the means, and the conscience of his
very earnest desire to have the benefit of all the public ordinances, in the
fellowship of the church. Whence learn, 1. Hearty resolution to subject ourselves
to all God’s ordinances, and to follow the appointed means of communion-keeping
with God, is a sound mark of solid faith; and the conscience of this resolution,
serveth much to confirm our confidence in God, if we can say with the prophet,
this one thing have I desired, &c. 2. In the using of the means and ordinances of
God’s house, the glory of the Lord may be seen, counsel and direction in all things
may be had, with comfort and spiritual delight to our souls; for in the ordinances
David was to behold the beauty of the Lord, with delight, and to enquire in his
holy temple. 3. The desire of communion with God, and love to his ordinances,
where it is sincere, should have the chief place in the heart, above all earthly
desires and delights whatsoever: one thing have I desired. 4. A sincere desire must
not be suffered to go away, but should be pursued resolutely, and recommended to
God daily; this I will still seek after, saith he: and the means of communion with
God in the public fellowship of the church must be constantly continued in, even
all the days of our life.65

In his application of this passage to believers in the new covenant era Calvin writes: “The
Word, sacraments, public prayers, and other helps of the same kind, cannot be neglected,
without a wicked contempt of God, who manifests himself to us in these ordinance, as in a
mirror or image.”66

Psalm 84:1-2. “How lovely is Your tabernacle, O LORD of hosts! My soul longs, yes, even
faints for the courts of the LORD; my heart and my flesh cry out for the living God.” Calvin
writes:

David complains of his being deprived of liberty of access to the Church of God,
there to make a profession of his faith, to improve in godliness, and to engage in
the divine worship.... He knew that God had not in vain appointed the holy
assemblies, and that the godly have need of such helps so long as they are
sojourners in this world.67

Plummer writes: “The appointed worship of the true God has in all ages possessed great
attractions for the regenerate.”68

Psalm 87:2. “The LORD loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.” David
Clarkson writes:
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
 But it may be replied, the Lord had worship, not only in the gates of Zion, in the
temple, but also in the dwellings of Jacob. We cannot suppose that all the posterity
of Jacob would neglect the worship of God in their families; no doubt the faithful
among them resolved with Joshua, “I and my house will serve the Lord.” Since,
therefore, the worship of God was to be found in both, how can this worship be the
reason why one should be preferred before the other? Sure upon no other account
but this, the worship of God in the gates of Zion was public, his worship in the
dwellings of Jacob was private. So that, in fine, the Lord may be said to love the
gates of Zion before all the dwellings of Jacob, because he prefers public worship
before private. He loved all the dwellings of Jacob, wherein he was worshiped
privately; but the gates of Zion he loved more than all the dwellings of Jacob, for
there he was publicly worshiped. Hence we have clear ground for this:
Observation. Public worship is to be preferred before private. So it is by the Lord,
so it should be by his people. So it was under the law, so it must be under the
gospel. Indeed, there is difference between the public worship under the law and
gospel in respect of a circumstance, viz., the place of public worship. Under the
law, the place of public worship was holy, but we have no reason so to account any
place of public worship under the gospel; and this will be manifest, if both we
inquire what were the grounds of that legal holiness in the tabernacle or temple,
and withal observe that none of them can be applied to any place of worship under
the gospel.69

Ecclesiastes 5:1-2. “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to
hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. Be not rash with
thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven,
and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few” (KJV). This passage alone proves that
public worship is unique and special. There is to be a solemn recognition of the special
presence of God in public worship and thus great care must be taken to be sincere, reverent,
composed, deliberate and attentive. Matthew Henry writes:

Address thyself to the worship of God with a solemn pause, and take time to
compose thyself for it, not going about it with precipitation, which is called
hasting with the feet, Prov. xix. 2. Keep thy thought from roving and wandering
from the work; keep thy affections from running out towards wrong objects, for in
the business of God’s house there is work enough for the whole man, and all too
little to be employed.... When we are in the house of God, we are in a special
manner before God and in his presence, there where he has promised to meet his
people, where his eye is upon us and ours ought to be unto him.70

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

John Gill writes:

All which may denote the purity and cleanness of the conversation of the true
worshipers of God; for, as the feet are the instruments of the action of walking,
they may intend the conduct and behaviour of the saints in the house of God,
where they should take care to do all things according to his word, which is a lamp
to the feet, and a light unto the path.71

It is obvious from this and many other passages that public worship is to be treated by God’s
people far differently than attending a sporting even or going to a barbecue. Frank Smith
writes:

One of the privileges of a worship service is that of coming into the special
presence of God and communing with Him. Anything which detracts from this
clearly should not be allowed. If we were to be in the royal presence of the Queen
of England, it would not be proper protocol to interrupt that audience with the
monarch in order to talk with one another. How much more important it is that we
do not interrupt our audience with the King of kings by trivial items which center
on ourselves.72

Leviticus 23:3. “Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a
holy convocation. You shall do no work in it; it is the Sabbath of the LORD in all your
dwellings.” After Israel was settled in the land, this requirement of weekly public worship
could only be put into practice if there were many congregations meeting throughout the land
of Israel. These decentralized congregational worship services would of course not contain the
ceremonial elements of tabernacle or temple worship (such as animal sacrifices). Matthew
Henry writes:

It is a holy convocation; that is, “If it lie within your reach, you shall sanctify it in
a religious assembly: let as many as can come to the door of the tabernacle, and let
others meet elsewhere for prayer, praise, and the reading of the law,” as in the
schools of the prophets, while prophecy continued, and afterwards in the
synagogues. Christ appointed the New Testament Sabbath to be a holy
convocation, by meeting his disciples once and again (and perhaps oftener) on the
first day of the week.... Note, God’s Sabbaths are to be religiously observed in
every private house, by every family apart, as well as by many families together in
holy convocations.73

Acts 15:21. “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every
city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (cf. Ps. 74:8).
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
Hebrews 10:24-25. “And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works,
not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one
another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” Unlike everyday activities
such as skateboarding, gardening and driving a car, public worship is not an area that believers
can treat with indifference, for it is not an optional activity. Those who regard “all of life as
worship” (like those who misinterpret Deuteronomy 4:2) completely misunderstand the
difference between public worship, the commanded elements of that worship and matters
indifferent or common to human actions and societies. Once an activity is commanded and set
apart by God, we cannot treat that activity as optional or adiaphora. Singing praise to God in
public worship is in an entirely different category than planting tomatoes, even though both are
done to God’s glory.

Second, Christ the king and head of the church has appointed public officers with special
public functions that require a special public use. “Therefore He says: ‘When He ascended on
high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.... And He Himself gave some to be
apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of
the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:8, 11, 12).
The Bible has certain requirements for preaching, reading the Scriptures and administrating the
sacraments in public worship. These worship elements are only to be conducted by an ordained
teacher or preacher and must not be treated as indifferent activities of everyday life. If there is
no distinction between all of life and public worship, then why are public ordinances restricted
to ordained officers in the church? If all of life is worship, then such rules and distinctions
would be unnecessary.

Third, when the apostle Paul discusses the conduct of believers during public worship, he sets
forth regulations that presuppose a sharp distinction between public worship and all of life. For
example, women may speak at a barbecue and may teach their children during home school,
yet they are strictly forbidden to speak or teach during the public worship service (cf. 1 Cor.
14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12-14). Regarding the Lord’s supper, Paul tells believers that they must
conduct themselves in a proper manner when coming to the Lord’s table. They are to examine
themselves and are to make sure that they have a special regard for their brethren (1 Cor 11:17-
34). The regulations regarding this sacrament obviously do not apply to the local picnic or
volleyball game. There is also a special decorum for public worship that is commanded by
Paul. Men are not to wear head coverings in church while women are (1 Cor. 11:2-16).
However, men may wear baseball caps at the ball park. If all of life is worship (as some
assert), and thus worship is not to be strictly regulated by Scripture, then the apostle Paul’s
inspired instructions regarding public worship would be superfluous.

Fourth, the term for church (ekklesia) often denotes a society of professing Christians who

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

constitute a local church that meets together for public worship in a particular location (Ac.
5:11; 11:26; 1 Cor. 11:18; 16:19; Rom. 16:23; Gal. 1:2; 1 Th. 2:14; Col. 4:15; Phm. 2; Rev.
1:11; 20, etc.). Hodge writes:

God has commanded ecclesiastical communities with constitutions, laws and

officers, badges, ordinances and discipline, for the great purpose of giving
visibility to his kingdom, of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of
gathering in all its elect subjects.74

The New Testament church met together for public worship on the Lord’s day (Ac. 2:1; 20:7;
1 Cor. 14:23, 26, 34, 35; 16:1, 2). Lord’s day public worship was commanded by God (Lev.
23:3; Heb. 10:24-45). It is a period of time that is set apart from everyday life. Public worship
consists of certain elements that are authorized by Scripture such as: reading the Scriptures
(Dt. 31:9-13; Neh. 8:7-8; 13:1; 1 Th. 5:27; Col. 4:16; 1 Tim. 4:13); prayer (Ac. 4:31; 1 Cor.
11:13-15); preaching from the Bible (Ac. 17:13; 20:8; 1 Cor. 14:28; 1 Tim. 4:13: 2 Tim. 4:2);
the administration of the sacraments (Mt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:18-34) and the singing of Psalms (1
Chr. 16:9; Ps. 95:1-2; 105:2; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). It clearly would be
inappropriate to treat public worship conducted by the church in the same manner as areas of
life that are indifferent or adiaphora.

Fifth, the Bible teaches that there is a special presence of God in public worship. In a special
sense Christ is speaking to his covenant people through the preached word. The people as a
covenant body respond to God’s word with prayer and praise. The confession of sins to God
includes both individual and corporate sins. When the one body partakes of the Lord’s supper
(the bread and wine), there is a special blessing that is received from our Lord. Yet an
unworthy partaking of the supper (e.g. when the corporate assembled body is disregarded, etc.)
involves covenant sanctions and even death (1 Cor. 11:27-34). Cases of serious public sin and
excommunication are to be announced during public worship where Christ is present in his
court (Mt. 18:20), where the excommunicate is delivered to Satan by Christ’s power (1 Cor.
5:4). Not only does the congregation receive a special blessing from the public means of grace
and God’s unique presence, but God is more glorified when he is praised by the corporate
body of Christ. Clarkson writes:

The Lord has engaged to be with every particular saint, but when the particular are
joined in public worship, there are all the engagements united together. The Lord
engages himself to let forth as it were, a stream of his comfortable, quickening
presence to every particular person that fears him, but when many of these
particulars join together to worship God, then these several streams are united and
meet in one. So that the presence of God, which, enjoyed in private, is but a
stream, in public becomes a river, a river that makes glad the city of God. The

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 Lord has a dish for every particular soul that truly serves him; but when many
particulars meet together, there is a variety, a confluence, a multitude of dishes.
The presence of the Lord in public worship makes it a spiritual feast, and so it is
expressed, Isa. xxv. 6. There is, you see, more of God’s presence in public
worship, ergo public worship is to be preferred before private.75

One should not be surprised that God is present in public worship in a special manner, for
nothing on earth more resembles the throne room of God in heaven than public worship.
Heaven is described in Scripture as a place of continued public worship where an innumerable
host of angels and saints behold the face of God and the Lamb (Rev. 1:9-12). “The
innumerable company of angels, and the church of the first born, make up one general
assembly in the heavenly Jerusalem, Heb. xii. 22, 23. They make one glorious congregation,
and so jointly together sing the praises of him that sits on the throne, and the praises of the
Lamb, and continue in this public worship to eternity.”76

To argue that all of life is worship and thus public worship is not strictly regulated by God’s
word is akin to comparing the Lord’s supper to that which is common or profane.

The public assembly is a covenantal gathering, a time and place for God to meet
directly with His people. He lays down the law, and they are to bless Him in
return.... Worship is special and it is dialogical in nature. It is also prescribed. The
fact of being in God’s presence means that not only are general principles to be
observed, but the very elements of service have been written out beforehand.77

3. “The Regulative Principle of Worship Only Applies to the

Temple” Argument

Another popular argument against the regulative principle of worship is based on the idea that
the regulative principle only applied to tabernacle and temple worship. This idea is based on
the context of the classic regulative principle text, Deuteronomy 12:32, and the notion that God
was very strict with the tabernacle/temple worship solely because the temple service typified
the person and work of Jesus Christ. If one accepts this argument then one can conclude that:
(1) The decentralized worship in Israel that occurred in the synagogue was not strictly
regulated. In other words, the Israelites could do whatever they desired in worship as long as it
did not violate the express teaching of Scripture (this is essentially the Episcopal-Lutheran
conception of acceptable worship). (2) The regulative principle was abrogated with the death
of Christ when his perfect sacrifice rendered the temple cultus unnecessary. (3) Therefore, the
new covenant church has nothing to do with the regulative principle and has liberty to devise
rites, ceremonies and holy days as it desires, as long as the human inventions do not violate or

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

contradict God’s word.

The idea that the regulative principle only applied to the service of the central sanctuary must
be rejected for a number of reasons. First, the notion that since Deuteronomy 12:32 is given in
a section that deals primarily with the tabernacle, and thus only apples to the tabernacle is
simply assumed without exegetical proof. Are we told anywhere in chapter 12 or anywhere in
the whole Old or New Testament that the principle of no addition or subtraction is limited to
the tabernacle or temple? No, we are not. But can we not infer from the context that this ultra-
strict principle applied only to the tabernacle/temple? No. In fact the context proves the exact
opposite. While it is true that chapter 12 contains a lengthy discussion of the central sanctuary
(in particular the need to offer sacrifices and offerings at the central sanctuary) the context of
Deuteronomy 12:32 also speaks to the matters of the repression of idolatry and syncretism
with pagan worship that can occur not only at the tabernacle but throughout the whole land of
Israel. Note the immediate context of the passage:

“When the LORD your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to
dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself
that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you,
and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve
their gods? I also will do likewise.’ You shall not worship the LORD your God in
that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to
their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.
Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take
away from it” (Dt. 12:29-32).

The passage applies not just to behavior at the tabernacle but to worship practices throughout
the whole land of Israel. If Deuteronomy 12:32 only applied to the central sanctuary, why
would it be used as a foundational verse to suppress pagan idolatry throughout the land? Pagan
Canaanite worship was decentralized with house idols, local pagan sacred sites, local high
places and sacred groves. Are we supposed to believe that Deuteronomy 12:32 is only
concerned with syncretism within the tabernacle proper? Is verse 31 only concerned with
suppressing child sacrifice within the tabernacle? Of course not! The context of Deuteronomy
12:32 proves that it cannot be restricted to the tabernacle/temple.

Second, Deuteronomy 12:32 cannot be interpreted in isolation from the virtually identical sola
scriptura passages that apply not only to the tabernacle/temple but to all of life. The sola
scriptura passages teach that the church does not have autonomy or legislative authority with
respect to doctrine, ethics or worship ordinances. Note the follow passages. Deuteronomy 4:2.
“You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the
commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” Proverbs 30:5-6. “Every word

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

of God is pure.... Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

We have already noted in our discussion of Deuteronomy 4:2 that it is sinful for men to make
up their own ethical rules. Church members would be justly angry and outraged if their pastor
or session issued a decree that eating meat on Fridays, or wearing blue jeans, or riding a bike
was now sinful and merited church censure. Deuteronomy 4:2 also forbids church authorities
from detracting or adding to the worship prescribed in Scripture. The only way that
Deuteronomy 4:2 can be circumvented by opponents of the regulative principle is to argue that
the worship of God is not a prescribed matter of law but rather belongs to the sphere of things
indifferent (adiaphora). The idea that the worship of Jehovah (the most sacred and important
duty of the church) is adiaphora is impossible for two reasons. First, adiaphora refers only to
indifferent matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden, that are not directly regulated by
Scripture. Worship, however, is commanded by God. Second, areas of adiaphora are optional.
Worship is not optional. Deuteronomy 12:32, which is virtually identical to 4:2, is given in the
context of worship to emphasize: (1) Scripture’s sole authority over worship, (2) the covenant
people’s lack of legislative authority to determine or make up their own worship and (3) the
necessity of sticking strictly to what God’s word says to avoid human additions which because
of man’s inherent depravity lead to syncretism and sin. The regulative principle is simply sola
scriptura applied to the sphere of worship. Those who apply Deuteronomy 12:32 solely to the
temple do so only because they do not understand Deuteronomy 4:2 and the full implication of
sola scriptura.

Third, the idea that the regulative principle only applied to the temple ignores the fact that
tabernacle/temple worship contained ceremonial and non-ceremonial ordinances. The
sacrificing of animals, the burning of incense and the priestly and Levitical use of instruments
during the sacrifice were ceremonial. But the reading of Scripture, prayer and the singing of
praise were not ceremonial. This assertion is proved from the fact that Scripture reading (1 Th.
5:27; Col. 4:16; 1 Tim. 4:13), prayer (Mt. 6:9; 1 Th. 5:17; Ac. 4:31; 1 Cor. 11:13-15; Phil. 4:6;
Jas. 1:5) and the singing of praise (Mt. 26:30; Ac. 16:25; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16;
Heb. 13:15; Jas. 5:13) are all integral aspects of Christian worship after the dissolution of the
temple and the abrogation of ceremonial ordinances. Therefore, it is overly simplistic and
exegetically unsound to argue that the regulative principle was annulled with the ceremonial
order. If the regulative principle applied to the temple worship, then it also regulated the non-
ceremonial worship that occurred there.

Those who use the argument that the regulative principle applied solely to the temple and thus
was abrogated with the ceremonial law are guilty of making a total antithesis between temple
worship and synagogue/Christian public worship. One cannot deny that the temple cultus
typified Christ and His work. However, one must not overlook the fact that the temple was
also a place of worship (Jn. 4:21) and prayer (Mt. 21:13). A number of the crucial elements of

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Christian public worship were first practiced in the temple. Bushell writes:

To the Old Testament Jew, the Temple ritual was the very epitome of worship, and
all exercises of piety were in one way or another related back to that source.
Liturgical practices in the synagogue in many instances corresponded directly to
those of the Temple. Prayer, for example, was offered in the synagogue at the time
of the Temple offerings. Outside, the Temple prayer was always offered facing the
Temple or Jerusalem. The synagogues were considered sanctuaries in miniature,
even to the point that the furniture in the synagogue (such as the Ark and the seven-
branched candelabra) was patterned after that of the Temple. Considering,
therefore, the importance of the Temple even for worship outside of Jerusalem, it
would seem reasonable to postulate a greater degree of continuity between
Christian worship practice and certain aspects of the Temple liturgy than most
authorities are willing to admit. The paucity of references in the literature to the
influence of the Temple liturgy on Christian worship is an unbalanced situation
that needs very much to be corrected. It is our opinion that the Temple rather than
the synagogue is the ultimate source of a number of the most important aspects of
Christian worship. That many of these aspects may have been mediated by the
synagogue is beside the point, at least in so far as our concern with the subject
goes.78

While the attempts to limit the regulative principle to the temple are clever, they have
absolutely no foundation in Scripture. The worship of the temple itself proves that the
regulative principle cannot be restricted to ceremonial ordinances.

Fourth, there are a number of passages that apply the regulative principle outside the sphere of
tabernacle/temple worship. If there is even one passage of Scripture that applies the regulative
principle outside of tabernacle temple worship, then the assertion that the regulative principle
applied only to the temple falls to the ground. We will examine three passages.

1. In Matthew 15:1-3 Jesus condemned the Pharisees for adding ritualistic washing that
occurred in the home and not in the temple to the law. “Then the scribes and Pharisees who
were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, ‘Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of
the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’ He answered and said to
them, ‘Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?’” This
passage poses a serious problem for those who teach that the regulative principle applied only
to the temple, and thus man-made traditions are permissible as long as they do not violate the
express teaching of Scripture. Where is the washing of hands condemned in God’s word? If
human additions are permissible in the religious sphere, what could be any more innocent,
pragmatic or practical than a simple hand washing? Yet our Lord not only refused to submit to

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

this man-made religious rite but also strongly rebuked the Pharisees for adding a human rule to
God’s word. “Washing of the hands is a thing proper enough; one could wish it were oftener
practiced; but to exalt it into a religious rite is a folly and a sin.”79 The disciples of Christ were
well trained, for they knew that any human tradition, no matter how good and innocent, must
not be complied with when it is given a religious significance and status by man without divine
warrant. “Note, illegal impositions will be laid to the charge of those who support and maintain
them [human traditions in worship], and keep them up, as well as those who first invented and
enjoined them.”80 “Antiquity and Fathers without Scripture is the old charter of superstitious
formalists.... Hence learn: That God in wisdom brings men’s ceremonies to a dispute and so to
be refuted and condemned....”81

Jesus is a champion of the regulative principle. He rejects the most innocuous of religious
traditions and also shows us how human traditions and laws drive out and thus set aside what
God has condemned. Rutherford writes:

And when the Pharisees saw some of the disciples eat bread with unwashed hands,
they found fault. The challenge was for an external omission of an outward
observance which may be seen with the eyes. Ergo, these traditions are not
condemned by Christ because they were contrary to God’s word, or impious, but
in this, that they were contrary because not commanded. For in the external
religious act of washing hands, there was no impiety of a wicked opinion objected
to Christ’s disciples, about the piety of these traditions, nor about any inward
opinion. Nor is there any question between the Pharisees and the Lord’s disciples,
whether the traditions of the elders should be esteemed the marrow and sum of all
religions, as Vasquez saith; but only anent external conformity with walking in the
traditions of the elders, or not walking, as is most clear in the text. It is true, Christ
objected they accounted more of the traditions of men, nor of God’s
commandments, as papists and formalists do; but that was not the state of the
question between the disciples of Christ and the Pharisees. 2. Christ rejecteth these
traditions, by an argument taken from the want of lawful Author, while he calls
them precepts of men, opposed to the commandments of God.82

People who oppose the regulative principle often attempt to circumvent the obvious import of
these passages by appealing to the context. They argue that the example set forth by Christ in
verses 4 and 5 (of the person who follows a human tradition in order not to provide for his
parents in old age) informs us that Christ only had negative traditions in mind, that is,
traditions which nullified, set apart or contradicted God’s word. The problem with this
interpretation is that it completely ignores verse 2 or the original confrontation that elicited
Jesus’ response in verses 3 to 9. Jesus gives an example of why adding human requirements to
God’s word is wrong. Human requirements eventually displace God’s word. (Anyone with a
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
knowledge of Judaism or the history of the Christian church knows that our Lord’s teaching is
true.) The fact that Christ gives such an example does not detract at all from verse 2 where the
most innocent and apparently harmless of human traditions (hand washing) is regarded as
totally inappropriate. How does washing one’s hands contradict, violate or set apart God’s
word? Jesus condemns the Pharisees for assuming (contrary to Scripture) that religious leaders
have legislative authority in the church. When church leaders give themselves authority to
invent out of their own imaginations doctrines or commandments, the eventual result is
declension and even apostasy. Note also that in verse 9 Jesus unequivocally condemns all
human doctrines and commandments in religion. “And in vain they worship Me, teaching as
doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:9; cf. Isa. 29:13).

Further, the parallel passage in Mark 7 settles the matter once and for all, because in the
Markian account Jesus explicitly identifies the traditions that he condemns as including
religious washings.83 “He answered and said to them, ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you
hypocrites, as it is written: “This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from
Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” For
laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers
and cups, and many other such things you do.’ He said to them, ‘All too well you reject the
commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition’” (vs. 6-9). “It is just as easy to
destroy the authority of God’s Word by addition as by subtraction, by burying it under human
inventions as by denying its truth. The whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, must be our
rule of faith—nothing added and nothing taken away.”84 Our Lord does not just condemn
negative, bad or contradictory human traditions but all of them without exception. Spurgeon
writes:

Religion based on human authority is worthless; we must worship the true God in
the way of his own appointing, or we do not worship him at all. Doctrines and
ordinances are only to be accepted when the divine Word supports them, and they
are to be accepted for that reason only. The most punctilious form of devotion is
vain worship, if it is regulated by man’s ordinance apart from the Lord’s own
command.85

After briefly examining Christ’s teaching in context one can only conclude that the argument
that our Lord is only condemning certain bad religious traditions rather than any and all human
traditions is eisegesis of the worst sort.

Attempts at circumventing passages such as Matthew 15:2-9 which prove the regulative
principle are not new but are (in general matters) restatements of old popish and prelatical
arguments long ago rejected by the Reformed churches. Note the words of Zacharias Ursinus
(written in the 1570s and first published in the 1580s):
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
 There are some who object to what we have here said, and affirm in support of
will-worship, that those passages which we have cited as condemning it, speak
only in reference to the ceremonies instituted by Moses, and of the unlawful
commandments of men, such as constitute no part of the worship of God; and not
of those precepts which have been sanctioned by the church and bishops, and
which command nothing contrary to the Word of God. But that this argument is
false, may be proven by certain declarations connected with those passages of
Scripture to which we have referred, which likewise reject those human laws,
which, upon their own authority, prescribe anything in reference to divine worship
which God has not commanded, although the thing itself is neither sinful nor
forbidden by God. So Christ rejects the tradition which the Jews had in regard to
washing their hands, because they associated with it the idea of divine worship,
although it was not sinful in itself, saying, ‘Not that which goeth into the mouth
defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.’ ‘Woe
unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye make clean the outside of the
cup and platter, but within ye are full of extortion and excess.’ (Matthew 15:11;
23, 25). The same thing may be said of celibacy and of the distinction of meats and
days, of which he calls ‘doctrines of devils,’ although in themselves they are
lawful to the godly, as he in other places teaches. Wherefore, those things are also
which are in themselves indifferent, that is neither commanded nor prohibited by
God, if they are prescribed and done as the worship of God, or if it is supposed that
God is honored by our performing them, and dishonored by neglecting them, it is
plainly manifest that the Scriptures in these and similar places condemn them.86

2. Another passage of Scripture which disproves the “temple only” theory is Colossians 2:20-
23, “Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though
living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—’Do not touch, do not taste, do
not handle,’ which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the
commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in
self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the
indulgence of the flesh.” The apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
several years after the regulative principle was supposedly abolished, rigorously enforced the
regulative principle.

Paul says that any addition to what God has commanded or authorized is self-imposed religion,
or as the King James Version says, “will-worship.” The Greek word used by Paul
(ethelothreskeia) signifies worship that originates from man’s own will. “This is worship not
enjoined by God, but springing out of man’s own ingenuity—unauthorized devotion.... The
worship referred to is unsolicited and unaccepted. It is superstition....”87

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 The gist is that these ordinances are forms of worship or religious service chosen
by man according to the will of man, not means chosen by God. This is the essence
of corrupt worship, when men seek to establish their own forms of religious
service. We might call it free-will worship, since the advocates of man-made
worship are claiming that men possess the right (or freedom) to institute acceptable
means to worship God.88

Paul says that adding to God’s Word is a show of false humility. Can man improve upon the
worship and service that God has instituted? It is the height of arrogance and stupidity to think
that sinful man can improve upon God’s ordinances. “It is provoking God, because it reflects
much upon His honor, as if He were not wise enough to appoint the manner of His own
worship. He hates all strange fire to be offered in His temple. Lev. x 11. A ceremony may in
time lead to a crucifix. Those who contend for the cross in baptism, why not have the oil, salt
and cream as well?”89 As Paul says, man-made rules and regulations are “of no value” to the
believer (Col. 2:23).

Opponents of the regulative principle attempt to circumvent the teaching of Colossians in a

similar fashion to the Matthew 15:2ff. passage. They argue that Paul is not condemning all
human traditions but is merely concerned with suppressing certain types of asceticism. In other
words, it is wrong to make rules that forbid the eating of meats and other foods, but it is
entirely acceptable to invent worship practices, holy days and rites.

There are a number of reasons why Paul’s condemnation of human requirements cannot be
limited to certain ascetic eating practices. First, the broad context of the passage indicates that
Paul emphatically rejects all human traditions in the religious sphere and not merely ascetic
dietary laws. The likely problem at the Colossian church was the influence of an early form of
ascetic Gnosticism. Paul does condemn Gnostic legalism in chapter 2. However, in his
condemnation of this particular philosophy and the false ethical system that flows from it Paul
condemns all forms of non-Christian philosophy and all worship and ethics that are founded
upon human philosophy and the tradition of men. In this epistle Paul first points the Colossians
to Jesus Christ. The Colossian believers need to be reminded that Christ is pre-eminent (1:18);
that in Christ, who is the head of all, they are complete (2:10); that some have not been holding
fast the Head (2:19); that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (2:3).
Christ alone is the king and head of the church. He alone is our sanctification. Through Christ
alone and his law-word come right doctrine, meaning and ethics. Thus Paul writes: “Beware
lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men,
according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). Calvin
writes:

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 According to the tradition of men. He points out more precisely what kind of
philosophy he reproves, and at the same time convicts it of vanity on a twofold
account—because it is not according to Christ, but according to the inclinations of
men; and because it consists in the elements of the world. Observe, however, that
he places Christ in opposition to the elements of the world, equally as to the
tradition of men, by which he intimates, that whatever is hatched in man’s brain is
not in accordance with Christ, who has been appointed us by the Father as our sole
Teacher; that he might retain us in the simplicity of his gospel. Now, that is
corrupted by even a small portion of the leaven of human traditions. He intimates
also, that all doctrines are foreign to Christ that make the worship of God, which
we know to be spiritual, according to Christ’s rule, to consist in the elements of the
world, and also such as fetter the minds of men by such trifles and frivolities,
while Christ calls us directly to himself.90

Paul’s condemnation of philosophy that is according to the tradition of men is universal. One
cannot argue that Paul in this passage condemns only ascetic Gnosticism yet does not also
condemn the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Schliermacher, Marx and Dewey. For Paul there is
no such thing as philosophical or ethical neutrality. A doctrine or practice is either according to
Christ or it is not. And if it is not, then it comes from man’s autonomous devising and is
(according to Paul) a tradition of men. Therefore, when Paul condemns human regulations in
2:20-23, he uses the same universal language. In verse 20 Paul asks those in error at Colossae
the question (to paraphrase): “Why do you act like unsaved people who are still living in
accordance with a pagan worldview and thus subject yourself to human regulations?” Then in
verse 21 Paul gives specific examples. Are the man-made regulations mentioned in verse 21
the only human traditions that Paul forbids? No. Given the universal condemnation of human
philosophy and tradition that both precedes and follows verse 21, the human requirements of
verse 21 must be viewed as a few examples taken from the universal category of human
philosophy and traditions. There is no way that Paul’s statement in verse 22, “according to the
commandments and doctrines of men,” can be restricted to the regulations of ascetic
Gnosticism anymore than the condemnation of human philosophy in verse 8 can be restricted
to one Greek sect. Further, the statement in verse 22, “according to the commandments and
doctrines of men,” mirrors the condemnation of Jewish traditions in doctrines and ethics found
in Isaiah 19:13 and Matthew 15:2-9. The Bible condemns human additions and requirements,
whether these man-made traditions in doctrines, ethics or worship are Jewish, Greek, Persian,
Roman, German, English or American.

Second, the interpretation that says that Paul forbids the addition of some human philosophies
and traditions into the doctrines, ethics and worship of the church, yet permits other human
traditions, violates standard orthodox Protestant methods of interpretation. A study of both the
Old and New Testaments proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God forbids additions or

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

subtractions to the doctrine, ethics and worship set forth in divine revelation (Dt. 4:2; 12:32;
Prov. 30:6; Gen 4:3-5; Lev. 10:1-2; 2 Sam. 6:3-7; 1 Chr. 15:13-15; Jer. 7:24, 31, 19:5; Isa.
29:13; Num. 15:39-40; Mt. 15:2-9; Jn. 4:24; Rev. 2:18, 19; etc.). This assertion is simply the
Reformed confessional understanding of sola scriptura which has been discussed in earlier
portions of this study. The attempt to make Paul a good Episcopalian, Lutheran or Romanist on
the issue of human tradition involves a willful ignorance of the overall teaching of Scripture.
The human heart is so incredibly deceitful that through self-deception and the subtleties of
human reason it develops loopholes for human autonomy where none exist. Therefore, our
only hope for maintaining purity in doctrine, ethics and worship is to strictly adhere to and
obey God’s commands without departing to the right or to the left.

3. Another passage which disproves the “temple only” theory is John 4:21-24: “Jesus said to
her, ‘Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in
Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we
worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true
worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship
Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.’” When Jesus
discussed worship with the Samaritan woman and contrasted old covenant worship with new
covenant worship, he taught that worship in both dispensations was to be conducted upon the
same principles. Note the phrase, “the hour is coming and now is” (v. 23). Although the death
of Christ eliminated all the typical and ceremonial aspects of old covenant worship, the need to
worship God “in spirit and truth” was not a new principle, for it was already in effect when
Jesus spoke these words. According to Jesus, God is to be worshiped in spirit and truth, not
because the temple represents Christ and the gospel, but because of God’s nature and
character. Bushell writes:

The Spirit that is the source of eternal life must also be the source of true worship.
If we assume that the Spirit works only in and through His word, it is a fair
inference from this principle that all true worship must be founded upon the Holy
Scriptures.... Acceptable worship must be consonant with the character of God as it
is revealed to us in the Scriptures, and must be in conformity with that sufficient
rule at every point. Only that worship that proceeds ultimately from the Spirit
through His word is pleasing to God.91

This passage of Scripture by itself refutes that idea that the regulative principle applied only to
the temple, for when Jesus begins this discussion, it is clear that he was speaking of the temple
worship in Jerusalem (v. 21). Therefore, when he says that the same worship principle of
“spirit and truth” that is now operative in the old covenant era will also be operative in the new
covenant era, he is connecting the strict worship principle that regulated the temple to the new
covenant church. If believers of both old and new covenant eras want to worship God properly,

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

they must do so only in accordance with his nature and character. And the only way to
approach God in a manner that pleases him is to approach him on his own terms in accordance
with his own rules. This means that worship must be prescribed by Scripture and not by sinful
men. God who is truth itself must be worshiped according to truth and not man’s imagination.
The Westminster Larger Catechism says: “The sins forbidden in the second commandment
are: all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving any religious
worship not instituted by God Himself...” (Larger Catechism answer 109). The idea that the
regulative principle only applied to the tabernacle/temple worship has no biblical support,
contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture and therefore must be rejected.

4. The “Circumstances of Worship” Argument

A common method of avoiding the full implication of sola scriptura in the sphere of worship
is to confuse and blur the distinction between worship ordinances and the circumstances of
worship. The statement of the Westminster Confession regarding circumstances of worship
(1.6) is often used as a justification to introduce human traditions and innovations into the
public worship of God. An opponent to the regulative principle writes:

We are here simply insisting that the Westminster Confession’s admission

concerning “circumstances” of worship “that there are some circumstances
concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human
actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian
prudence according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be
observed“—is, in truth, a far more comprehensive statement of God’s will for New
Order worship than is recognized in some quarters.92

It is common for opponents of the regulative principle (and for men who claim adherence to
the regulative principle yet who refuse to apply to apply it to certain areas of worship because
of a love of human traditions) to add human innovations and traditions to the worship of God
and then arbitrarily declare the additions to be circumstances of worship. This tactic, which
leads to the corruption of worship, is simply a more sophisticated, up to date version of the
Lutheran notion that their additions all belong to the sphere of adiaphora. This method of
circumventing the regulative principle is not a direct frontal attack upon sola scriptura over
worship but rather is clever side-stepping or back-door evasion of the regulative principle. In
denominations that adhere to Reformed confessions (thus officially adhering to the regulative
principle) yet have backslid and departed from biblical worship, apologists for declension and
the status quo have developed some clever unbiblical arguments. Some popular examples of
such argumentation are as follows.

1. Some argue that singing is not a separate element of worship but is merely a circumstance of
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
worship. Bahnsen writes, “Is singing a separate ‘element’ of worship or a ‘circumstance’ of
worship? If the latter, it does not require biblical warrant according to the regulative principle.
I have argued that singing is simply a means to (one circumstance through which to) pray,
praise, exhort, or teach—rather than an element of worship itself.”93 What Bahnsen is saying
is that the general command to praise God is an element of worship, but how this command to
praise is carried out is a mere circumstance of worship. Thus, a person could praise God
through singing, or silent meditation, or speaking, or even through drama or dance, for the
circumstances of worship are not strictly regulated by God’s word.

2. Many argue that musical accompaniment to the singing of praise in public worship is a
circumstance of worship. Theologian John Frame gives a typical example of this argument. He
writes:

Churches in the Covenanter tradition, such as the Reformed Presbyterian Church

of North America, often justify the use of pitch pipes as ‘circumstance,’ while
rejecting the use of organs and pianos as unauthorized ‘elements.’ The logic of this
distinction escapes me. If it is legitimate to use a pitch pipe to give the
congregation the first note of a song, why shouldn’t we also give the congregation
help with the second note, the third, and the rhythm?94

Others point out that the use of musical instruments in worship is “common to human actions
and societies.” Therefore (they argue) it must be a circumstance of worship.

3. Many pastors and sessions in Reformed or Presbyterian denominations who have special
Christmas and Easter services yet who understand that such services have no warrant in God’s
word argue that choosing a text for a sermon is a circumstance of worship. Therefore, it is
entirely permissible (as a circumstance of worship) for the pastor to preach on the incarnation
on or near December 25. Thus, one can find many a Presbyterian church following a Romanist
or Anglican church calendar with the excuse that doing so is only a circumstance of worship.95

In order to refute arguments intended to circumvent Scripture’s sole authority in authorizing

worship elements, it is necessary to briefly consider the difference between the circumstances
of worship and worship ordinances. The first difference is that worship ordinances are
prescribed or determined from Scripture. Every part or element of worship must be based on
either an explicit command from the Bible (e.g., “Do this in remembrance of Me” [Lk. 22:19]);
or an approved historical example from Scripture (e.g., the change from the seventh day to the
first day of the week for corporate worship);96 or by logical inference from the Bible (i.e.,
there may not be an explicit command but when several passages are compared they teach or
infer a scriptural practice).97 Because the elements of worship must be proved from Scripture,

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

they are finite in number; and, because the canon of Scripture is closed, the elements are fixed
and unchanging. The circumstances of worship are not determinable from the Bible. Although
public worship is required on the Lord’s day (the Christian sabbath), the time to meet is not
prescribed. Other circumstances of worship are: the type of building to meet in; the type of
seating; the location of the meeting house; the particular psalm selections; the choice of what
text to preach on; the choice of Scripture reading, etc. The circumstances of worship are
determined by Christian prudence (i.e., sanctified common sense) according to the general
rules of Scripture (e.g.: What time to meet would be the most convenient and edifying for the
congregation? What Psalm selections are most appropriate for the sermon text? What type of
building design will help the congregation focus on the preached word? etc.). Some
circumstances are determined by the pastor (e.g., the sermon text); others by the session (e.g.,
the time to meet) and others by heads of households and individuals (e.g., Should I wear a
blue, black grey or brown suit to church? etc.). Unlike worship elements, the circumstances of
worship are virtually infinite in number and frequently change. Remember, if something in
public worship is determinable by Scripture, then it cannot be a circumstance of worship.
Furthermore, note that only God has the authority to take something that is a circumstance of
worship and make it a worship ordinance. For example, there is nothing intrinsically special
regarding any particular day of the week. Yet God has the authority to set aside a particular
day and make it religiously significant. There is nothing religiously significant or special
regarding any particular piece of land on the earth. Yet, in the old covenant era, God made
Jerusalem and the temple a special religious place. Therefore, when men add their own holy
day, or make up a holy place or object, or bring musical instruments or non-inspired hymns
into the worship of Jehovah, they are usurping God’s authority.

Once one understands that worship ordinances are commanded or prescribed by Scripture then
he will not be misguided by those who attempt to blur the distinction between the elements or
parts of worship and the circumstances of worship. For example (as noted above), many
pastors today argue that the use of musical instruments in public worship is a circumstance of
worship. To someone who is not familiar with the Bible this argument sounds plausible. After
all, are not musical instruments used in all cultures and nations? Are they not also commonly
used in religious ceremonies? The problem with this argument is that the use of musical
instruments was commanded by God and only priests and Levites were authorized to play
them in association with the temple cultus (Num. 10:18, 10; 1 Chr. 15:14-24, 23:5, 28:11-13,
19; 2 Chr. 5:11-14, 29:26; Ezra 3:10; Neh. 12:27, etc.). If musical instruments were only a
circumstance of worship, and if any Israelite could play musical instruments in worship, then
such commands would be totally unnecessary and out of place. Something incidental to
worship by nature is incidental or discretionary in all circumstances.

Second, anything in worship which holds a religious or moral significance is an element or

part of worship and therefore must have divine warrant. The circumstances of worship are

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

“common to human actions and societies.” Note the following illustrations for clarification. If
a church in first-century Palestine had a bucket of water inside the door that believers used to
rinse the dust off their feet before they sat down, then this rinsing of the feet would not be
religiously significant. But if the elders of that church instructed church members to dip their
hand in the water and make the sign of the cross or take some water and toss it in the air while
saying a certain prayer, then they would be guilty of adding a human tradition to the worship
of God. Many pastors have a glass of water on or near the pulpit to drink during the sermon.
There is nothing religiously significant regarding a glass of water. However, if the pastor
blesses the glass of water and then dips a baby rattle in it and starts sprinkling church members
while mumbling in Latin, then he has added a human tradition to worship. Today there are
many human additions to worship that clearly have crossed the line and are regarded as
holding a special, sacred or religious significance (e.g., the sign of the cross, holy water,
priestly garments, prayer candles, kneeling at communion, the altar call, religious drama,
liturgical dance, the “Christian” calendar, saints’ days, holy days [apart from the Sabbath],
etc.).

Third, worship ordinances are practices that are required by Scripture and therefore are not
voluntary or optional. That is, they are biblically necessary. Church members do not have the
option of eliminating the sermon, the Scripture reading or the sacraments, etc. (in fact,
evangelicals often consider sects that omit such things as cults). Circumstances are not
required or biblically necessary. Worship services are not dependent upon buildings, seating
and pulpits. The circumstances of worship are matters that can be changed, eliminated or
added without any consequence to public worship. No Christian would argue that the Lord’s
supper was optional. Yet would anyone be taken seriously who argued that a music soloist, or
a drama skit, or a puppet show, or a rock band, or an altar call, or an incense procession, or a
whirling dervish were necessary aspects of worship? When churches take non-required and
unnecessary human traditions and add them to the worship of God, they detract from what God
has prescribed; mix that which is profane with that which is truly religiously significant; and
offend God who has not appointed such things.

The attempt to broaden the definition of the circumstances of worship, or to blur the distinction
between worship elements and circumstances, or to merge distinct elements into broad
categories, is unscriptural and anti-Confessional.98 One must never treat the elements of
worship as abstractions that can be molded to fit one’s own preconceptions of what is
permissible in worship. The proper biblical interpretive procedure lets the Bible tell us what
the distinct elements of worship are and lets Scripture delineate the rules for each element.
Although it is true that the elements of singing praise, preaching or teaching and prayer can
have certain aspects in common (e.g., many psalms contains prayer, prayer can contain praise
and sermons can contain praise and supplication, etc.), the idea that these distinct elements can
be collapsed into one category (e.g., teaching) or that the specific rules given by Scripture for

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

one element can be applied to the other parts of worship completely breaks down when one
examines the specific rules and context that the Bible gives to each separate ordinance. Note
the follow examples.

1. One element is preaching from the Bible (Mt. 26:13; Mk 16:15; Ac. 9:20; 17:10; 20:8; 1
Cor. 14:28; 2 Tim. 4:2). Preaching involves reasoning from the Scriptures (cf. Ac. 17:2-3;
18:4, 19; 24:25) and explaining or expounding God’s word (cf. Mk. 4:34; Lk. 24:27; Ac. 2:14-
40; 17:3; 18:36; 28:23). New covenant teachers did not speak by divine interpretation but
interpreted divinely inspired Scripture. In the same manner the Old Testament Levitical
teachers explained and interpreted the inscripturated law to the covenant people (cf. Neh. 8:7-
8; Lev. 10:8-11; Dt. 17:8-13; 24:8; 31:9-13; 33:8; 2 Chr. 15:3; 17:7-9; 19:8-10; 30:22; 35:3;
Ezr. 7:1-11; Ezek. 44:15, 23-24; Hos. 4:6; Mal. 2:1, 5-8). There are specific biblical rules that
apply to preaching that distinguish it from other elements such as praise and prayer. While
both men and women can pray (Ac. 1:13-14, 1 Cor. 11:5) and sing praise (Eph. 5:19; Col.
3:16; Jas. 1:5) only men (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14) who are called by God and set apart
to the gospel ministry can preach (Mt. 28:18-20; Ac. 9:15; 13:1-5; Rom. 10:14-15; Eph. 4:11-
12; 2 Tim. 4:2, etc.). Therefore, the idea that singing praise is not an element of worship but
only one way to teach or a circumstance of teaching is clearly unscriptural. If singing praise
was simply one given method of teaching, then women would be forbidden to sing praise in
church, for they are forbidden to teach in the public assemblies. Furthermore, if singing were a
circumstance of worship, then it would be optional and could be excluded from public worship
altogether.

2. Another part of worship is the singing of Psalms (1 Chr. 16:9; Ps. 95:1-2; 105:2; 1 Cor.
14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Unlike preaching, where the minister uses his own uninspired
words to exposit Scripture, singing praise involves only the use of Spirit-inspired songs. In the
Bible prophetic inspiration was a requirement for writing worship songs for the church (cf. Ex.
15:20-21; Jdg. 5; Isa. 5:1; 26:1ff; 2 Sam 23:1, 2; 1 Chr. 25:5; 2 Chr. 29:30; 35:15; Mt. 22:43-
44; Mk. 12:36; Ac. 1:16-17; 2:29-31; 4:24-25). The writing of worship songs in the Old
Testament was so intimately connected with prophetic inspiration that 2 Kings 23:2 and 2
Chronicles 34:30 use the term “Levite” and “prophet” interchangeably.

3. Reading the Bible is also a part of public worship (Mk. 4:16-20; Ac. 1:13; 13:15; 16:13; 1
Cor. 11:20; 1 Tim. 4:13; Rev. 1:13). Obviously, Scripture reading requires reading from the
Bible alone. Reading from the Apocrypha or Shakespeare or uninspired Christian poetry or
theology books cannot be substituted for this element. Scripture reading, like preaching but
unlike singing praise, is restricted to ministers of the gospel (Ex. 24:7; Josh 8:34-35; Dt. 31:9-
13; Neh. 8:7-8; 13:1; 1 Th. 5:27; Col. 4:16; 1 Tim. 4:3).

4. Another element of worship is prayer to God (Dt. 22:5; Mt. 6:9; 1 Cor. 11:13-15; 1 Th. 5:17;

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Phil. 4:6; Heb. 13:18; Jas. 1:5). Unlike the elements of singing praise and reading the
Scriptures, the Bible authorizes the use of our own words in prayer, as long as we follow the
pattern or model given to us by Christ (cf. Mt. 6:9). God promises his people that the Holy
Spirit will assist them when they form their prayers (cf. Zech. 12:10; Rom. 8:26-27).

A brief consideration of the elements of worship noted above proves that the rules that apply to
one element (e.g., prayer) cannot be applied to another element (e.g., singing praise or reading
the Bible) without violating Scripture. Our consideration has also proved that collapsing
various elements into broad categories violates God’s word. The only reason people artificially
construct such broad categories is to avoid the specific rules that God has instituted for each
particular element of worship. Feminists do so to accommodate women reading the Scriptures
and preaching in church. Others do so to allow a drama group to substitute for the sermon.
There are also many who do so in order to substitute the uninspired songs of men for the
inspired Psalms of God.

5. The “Jesus Accepted and Participated in Human

Traditions” Argument

A popular argument against the regulative principle is that Jesus himself did not believe in it,
for he accepted and even participated in man-made religious traditions. It is argued that Jesus
celebrated the Passover according to the non-authorized Rabbinical tradition; that is, the
Jewish Seder with all its human additions. Regarding the Jewish Seder (Hebrew for “order”)
there is no question but that the Pharisees added their own rituals to the meal. Wilson writes:

The meal included various symbolic elements, each consumed at specified points
throughout the evening. These included roasted lamb, bitter herbs, unleavened
bread, [haroset] (pastry mixture of nuts, fruit, and wine), and a raw vegetable
dipped into a tart liquid. At various intervals four cups of wine, a symbol of joy,
were consumed. The wine was probably mixed with water and heated (cf. Pesahim
vii.13). Ritual hand-washings, prayers, and portions of the Hallel (Pss. 113-119)
also punctuated the observance.99

What is the textual evidence that is offered as proof that Jesus participated in the various
Rabbinical additions? The only “evidence” that is offered is the fact that Jesus drank wine. It is
assumed that since Christ and the apostles had wine with their meal, that they must also have
participated in a Seder with its additional rituals. Note: Not one of the Jewish additions—the
rituals of the Seder—is mentioned in any of the various accounts of the Last Supper. When the
virtually universal practice of the Jews in Jesus’ day was to drink wine with their meals, is the
Jewish Seder theory a necessary inference from the text or pure speculation? Is it theologically

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

and pastorally responsible to develop a theology of worship on pure speculation and
guesswork?

But what about the use of wine? Some argue that since the use of wine is not commanded in
the original institution of the Passover it therefore is a human innovation in a religious ritual. Is
the use of wine a violation of the regulative principle? No, for the Passover was a meal, and
the drinking of a beverage is an ordinary, necessary circumstance of eating (especially if one is
eating roasted lamb, unyeasted bread and bitter herbs). During the feast of unleavened bread
the Israelites were commanded to eat unleavened bread for seven days (Ex. 12:15ff.) Yet
nothing is mentioned whatsoever of any beverages to be drunk. Obviously God was not
requiring the Jews to die of thirst in the hot Egyptian climate. The fact that Christ and the
disciples drank wine with (or after) their meal was not significant at all until Jesus made it a
gospel ordinance in the Lord’s supper. An argument from an historical account must be based
on the written account itself, not on assumptions about what happened.

Not only is the “Jewish Seder” theory totally speculative, but it also violates standard
Protestant methods of interpretation (i.e., the analogy of Scripture). Whenever an interpreter
encounters a difficult or unclear passage, he must use the clearer portions of Scripture to
interpret the less clear. Does it make sense to interpret Jesus’ actions at the Last Supper in a
manner that contradicts the clear teaching of both the Old and New Testaments? Are the sola
scriptura or regulative principle passages unclear or difficult to understand? Should one
choose an interpretation that makes Jesus look incompetent and hypocritical? Jesus frequently
condemned the Pharisees for adding human traditions to God’s word, including religious hand
washings (Mt. 15:2ff.). Would our Lord participate in the Jewish Seder which included ritual
hand washings100 after he condemned the Pharisees in the strongest of terms for the exact
same behavior?

Note also the foundation of the “Seder theory” is not the inspired Scriptures but the Jewish
Mishnah. The Mishnah is a compilation of rabbinical oral traditions that date from around 200
B.C. until about A.D. 200. The Mishnah was compiled primarily by Rabbi Judah (“Ha Nasi”
or the “Prince”) along with other Jewish scholars around A.D. 189. Because most of what was
written down at that time came by way of oral tradition, no one is sure how much the Mishnah
accurately reflects Jewish traditions. Edersheim writes: “It has already been hinted more than
once that the law laid down in the Mishnah frequently represents the theories and speculations
of the Jewish doctors of the second century A.D., and not the actual practice of any given
period. Several of their regulations deal accordingly with obsolete customs, and have little
regard to the actual circumstances of the time.”101 While it is understandable that a Christian
scholar would examine the Mishnah in an attempt to shed light upon the social milieu of first
century Palestine, it is incredible that pastors and scholars of “Reformed” persuasion would
look to such an untrustworthy and blasphemous document102 to undermine sola scriptura.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Another popular argument it that Jesus celebrated Chanukah because he was present at its
celebration according to John 10:22-23. “Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and
it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch.” Does this passage of
Scripture prove or even imply that Jesus accepted and participated in human traditions in
worship? No. There are many reasons why such a view must be rejected. First, one cannot
ascertain from the text if Jesus even celebrated the Feast of Dedication. The passage does not
say that Christ went to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of dedication, but merely that he was in
Jerusalem at that time. Many excellent commentators (e.g., Hengstenburg, Meyer, Weiss and
others) argue that Jesus had been staying in Jerusalem since the feast of tabernacles. Second,
there is nothing significant regarding our Lord’s presence in Jerusalem at the time of this feast,
for it was not a feast that occurred only in Jerusalem. Chanukah was celebrated throughout the
whole nation. John is not making a statement regarding Jesus’ attitude toward Chanukah, but is
merely giving an historical setting to the addresses that follow. Third, even if Christ went to
Jerusalem to be there during the feast, the chapter as a whole indicates that he went there to
teach. Gillespie writes:

[W]e must remember, that the circumstances only of time and place are noted by
the evangelist, for evidence to the story, and not for any mystery. Christ had come
up to the feast of tabernacles (John 7), and tarried still all that while, because then
there was a great confluence of people in Jerusalem. Whereupon he took occasion
to spread the net of the gospel for catching of many souls. And whilst John says,
‘It was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication,’ he gives a reason only of the
confluence of many people at Jerusalem, and shows how it came to pass that
Christ had occasions to preach to such a multitude; and whilst he adds, ‘and it was
winter,’ he gives reason of Christ’s walking in Solomon’s porch, whither the Jews
resort was. It was not thought beseeming to walk in the temple itself, but in the
porch men used to convene either for talking or walking, because in the summer
the porch shadowed them from the heat. Others think, that whilst he says, it was
winter, imports that therefore Christ was the more frequently in the temple,
knowing that his time was short which he had then for his preaching; for in the
entry of the next spring he was to suffer.103

There is not one shred of evidence that our Lord participated in any man-made rituals. (Note:
Paul preached at the Areopagus [Ac. 17:22ff.], not because he had a favorable attitude toward
Greek philosophy, but because it provided an excellent evangelistic opportunity.)

Fourth, Jesus’ presence does not prove that he celebrated the Feast of Dedication, for the
celebration of Chanukah did not involve any holy convocations. Further, it was not a religious
sabbath in which people were required to cease from their labors.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Fifth, most commentators who speculate regarding the apostle’s mention of the feast argue that
here Jesus dedicates himself to death (cf. Pink, Lightfoot, Stachen, etc.). In other words, the
mention of the feast points to Christ, not human tradition.

Sixth (as noted above), one should never choose an interpretation that violates the analogy of
Scripture. It is exegetically irresponsible to read into a text what is not there (eisegesis) and
then use that speculative interpretation to overthrow the many clear passages of Scripture
which unequivocally condemn human traditions in the religious sphere. Such a procedure is
nothing more than self-deception, excuse making and a grasping after straw.

Another argument (that Jesus countenanced human traditions in worship) is based on the idea
that our Lord gave his blessing to two Jewish ceremonies that were likely added after the close
of the Old Testament canon. These rituals were associated with the feast of Tabernacles. It is
argued that Jesus’ strategically placed statements (that played off these ceremonies) prove that
he did not condemn such human traditions. A brief examination of these passages will prove
that such a conclusion is unwarranted.

This first passage is John 7:37-39. “On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and
cried out, saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as
the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke
concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not
yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” F. F. Bruce give an explanation of the festival
as it would have been celebrated in Jesus’ day.

The festival lasted eight days, and on the eighth day was ‘a holy convocation...a
solemn assembly’ (Lev. 23:36; cf. Num. 29:35ff.; Neh. 8:18). When the people
thanked God at the celebration of Tabernacles for all the fruits of the past year—
vine and olive as well as barley and wheat—they did not forget his gift of rain,
apart from which none of those crops would have grown. An association of this
festival with adequate rainfall is implied in Zech. 14:16f., and although the
ceremony of water-pouring, well attested in connexion with Tabernacles for the
two centuries preceding AD 70, is not mentioned in the OT (with the doubtful
exception of 1 Sam. 7:6), it was probably of very considerable antiquity. This
ceremony, which was intended to acknowledge God’s goodness in sending rain
and to ensure a plentiful supply for the following season, was enacted at dawn on
the first seven days of the festival. A procession led by a priest went down to the
pool of Siloam, where a golden pitcher was filled with water, and returned to the
temple as the morning sacrifice was being offered. The water was then poured into
a funnel at the west side of the altar, and the temple choir began to sing the Great

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 Hallel (Pss. 113-118).104

Jesus made his statement on the eighth day when no water was poured by the priests. Many
commentators believe our Lord purposely timed his statement to dramatize and emphasize the
need for true spiritual life-giving water.

The second passage is John 8:12. “Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, ‘I am the light of
the world, He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.’” Some
commentators believe that Jesus’ statement regarding “the light of the world” was a purposeful
comparison of himself to the large brilliant golden lamps that were placed in the Court of
Women and were lit at the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles.

There are a number of reasons why the idea that these passages prove that Jesus accepted and
approved of human traditions in worship must be rejected. First, neither of the passages in
question say that our Lord approved of man-made traditions. The idea that Christ approved of
human additions is simply assumed with no textual evidence. Is it not wise to follow what the
Bible says instead of rejecting what it says in favor of what it does not say? Second, a theory,
hypothesis or speculative interpretation should never be used to overturn the clear teaching of
Scripture. The whole idea that Jesus was setting forth his approbation of human traditions is an
argument from silence. It is not founded upon the text but on the uninspired Mishnah which
was composed by unbelieving Jews in A.D. 189. (Commentators are not in agreement
regarding these passages. In fact, most commentators do not believe that our Lord was
comparing himself to certain rituals but rather was comparing himself to events in the book of
Exodus (the water from the rock [Ex. 17:6; Nu. 20:7-11] and the pillar of fire [Ex. 13:21-
22]).105 Perhaps we should heed Hengstenberg’s comment. He writes: “It is needless to spend
time in forming hypotheses, externally accounting for the saying of our Lord, by the rising of
the sun, the kindling of the lamps in the temple, etc. If anything significant of this kind had
taken place, the Apostle would not have left us to guess about it.”106 Third, even if Jesus did
make his statements to coincide with certain Jewish rituals, it does not mean that he approved
of man-made additions. If a pastor (who happens to be anti-Christmas) passes out gospel tracts
at the shopping mall in December, or preaches in the mall and refers to Christ’s work of
redemption as a gift from God, it does not mean that he approves of Christmas. One should be
careful not to read something into a passage that is not there. Fourth, a more logical and
scriptural inference from these passages is not that he was approving of their additions but
rather that he was teaching that the law and the prophets did not point to silly rituals but to
himself.107 Contrary to modern popular opinion, Jesus was neither a Pharisee or a papist.

But what about the argument that says, “If Jesus was a strict regulativist, would he not have
physically attacked the priests and Levites of the temple who were adding to God’s word as he
had earlier done with the money changers?” The argument that Christ would have attacked the
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
priests and Levites if he believed in the regulative principle is based on an ignorance of
Scripture. Jesus did not come to earth as a civil judge (cf. Luke 12:13-14; John 8:1-11). His
opinion of Pharisaical additions to God’s law was well known through his teaching (e.g., Mt
5:17-6:8; 15:2-9; 23:1-36; etc.). If Jesus became angry and resorted to whips every time he
encountered sin, he would have had little time to preach the gospel, which was his primary
didactic mission. Further, the priests and Levites were not common merchants or money
changers; they held positions of authority. If our Lord had attacked them, he would have: (1)
been committing an act of revolution; (2) precipitated a riot at the temple; (3) prematurely
endangered his own life and the lives of his disciples; and (4) possibly even been arrested by
the Roman authorities. Jesus dealt with apostate priests and Levites in A.D. 70; however, while
on earth he respected lawful governing authorities (cf. Mt. 23:2-3; Ac. 23:1-5). The opponents
of the regulative principle are once again grasping after straw.

6. The “Feast of Purim” Argument

Perhaps the most popular argument in support of human traditions in worship is based on the
Feast of Purim. It is argued that the Jews without any command or special revelation from God
made up their own holy day; therefore, the church can make up its own holy days such as
Christmas and Easter.

There are a number of problems with this argument. First, this argument assumes without
evidence that Purim was a special holy day like Christmas. The biblical text makes it
abundantly clear that Purim was not a special religious holy day but rather was a time of
thanksgiving. The events of Purim are: “Joy and gladness, a feast and good day...and of
sending portions to one another, and gifts to the poor” (Est. 8:17; 9:22 kjv). “There is no
mention of any religious observance connected with the day.”108 There were no special
worship services, there were no ceremonies, there were no Levitical or priestly activities. Also,
Purim—unlike Christmas and Easter—was not an admixture of pagan and popish monuments
and paraphernalia with the religion of Jehovah. Purim should not be compared to popish holy
days, such as Christmas, but to special days of rejoicing such as Thanksgiving day. The
Westminster divines (who were champions of the regulative principle) used Purim as a proof
text (Est. 9:22) authorizing occasional days of thanksgiving (cf. Confession of Faith 21.5,
proof text a).

Second, Purim did not come about because the people or church officials got together and
decided to make up a holy day. It came about because of a unique historical event in Israel’s
salvation history. The festival was decreed by the civil magistrate (the prime minister,
Mordecai, and the queen, Esther). Religious leaders had nothing to do with it. After the civil
decree, it was agreed to unanimously by the people. Thomas M’Crie writes:

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 Did Mordecai, in proposing it, act from the private notion of his own mind; and, in
confirming it, did he proceed entirely upon the consent of the people? Or was he
guided in both by divine and extraordinary counsel, imparted to him immediately,
or by some prophetic person living at that time? That the vision and the prophecy
were still enjoyed by the Jews dwelling in Persia, cannot be denied by those who
believe the canonical authority of this book, and what is contained in that of Ezra.
We have already seen reasons for thinking Mordecai acted under the influence of
the faith of Moses’ parents, from the time that he proposed his cousin Esther as a
candidate to succeed Vashti the queen. There can be no doubt that he was raised up
in an extraordinary manner as a saviour to Israel; and in the course of this Lecture
we have seen grounds for believing that, in addition to his other honours, he was
employed as the penman of this portion of inspired scripture. From all these
considerations, it is reasonable to conclude that the feast of Purim was not
instituted without divine counsel and approbation. Add to this, that the decree of
Esther confirming it, it is expressly said, in the close of this chapter, to have been
engrossed in this book, by whomsoever it was written.109

Note, the occasion and authorization of Purim are inscripturated in the word of God and
approved by the Holy Spirit. Thus, Purim itself satisfied the requirement of the regulative
principle as biblically defined.

Third, the notion that Purim proves that men are permitted to make up holy days whenever
they desire cannot be true, for if it were, Scripture would contain a blatant contradiction. Not
only would it contradict the passages which teach that we are not permitted to add to what God
has authorized (e.g. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5; etc.); it also would contradict the book of
Kings where God condemned King Jeroboam for setting up a feast day “in the month which he
had devised in his own heart” (1 Kgs. 12:33). Not even kings have authority to make up their
own holy days. M’Crie writes:

To seek a warrant for days of religious commemoration under the gospel from the
Jewish festivals, is not only to overlook the distinction between the old and new
dispensations, but to forget that the Jews were never allowed to institute such
memorial for themselves, but simply to keep those which infinite Wisdom had
expressly and by name set apart and sanctified. The prohibitory sanction is equally
strict under both Testaments: ‘What thing soever I command you, observe to do it:
thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.’

There are times when God calls, on the one hand, to religious fasting, or, on the
other, to thanksgiving and religious joy; and it is our duty to comply with these
calls, and to set apart time for the respective exercises. But this is quite a different

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 thing from recurrent or anniversary holidays. In the former case the day is chosen
for the duty, in the latter the duty is performed for the day; in the former case there
is no holiness on the day but what arises from the service which is performed on it,
and when the same day afterwards recurs, it is as common as any other day; in the
latter case the day is set apart on all following times, and may not be employed for
common or secular purposes. Stated and recurring festivals countenance the false
principle, that some days have a peculiar sanctity, either inherent or impressed by
the works which occurred on them; they proceed on an undue assumption of
human authority; interfere with the free use of that time which the Creator hath
granted to man; detract from the honour due to the day of sacred rest which he hath
appointed; lead to impositions over conscience; have been the fruitful source of
superstition and idolatry; and have been productive of the worst effects upon
morals, in every age, and among every people, barbarous and civilized, pagan and
Christian, popish and protestant, among whom they have been observed. On these
grounds they were rejected from the beginning, among other corruptions of
antichrist, by the Reformed Church of Scotland, which allowed no stated religious
days but the Christian Sabbath. 110

7. The “Misrepresentation of the Regulative Principle”

Argument

A rather common method of circumventing the regulative principle today is to give it a false
definition that is scripturally and rationally indefensible. After defining the regulative principle
in this manner, the opponents of sola scriptura over worship then proceed to make their false
straw-man version of the regulative principle look totally absurd. The false version of the
regulative principle that is used is: “If it is not commanded, it is forbidden.” In other words,
there must be an explicit divine imperative for every worship ordinance in the church.
Fundamentalist Baptists argue in this manner when they say, “Where are we commanded in
the Bible to baptize infants?” Seventh-day Adventists follow this tactic when they say, “Show
us where God commanded the apostolic church to rest and worship on Sunday instead of
Saturday!” Anti-regulativists use arguments such as: (a) the worship of the synagogue was
never commanded by God; (b) Christ and the apostles attended and approved of synagogue
worship; therefore, Christ and the apostles rejected the regulative principle.111

Once a person understands the true definition of the regulative principle, he will immediately
recognize that the objections to Reformed worship offered by Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists
and anti-regulativists are not based on Scripture, but on an ignorance of the regulative principle
itself. Although it is not uncommon to see a regulativist give a statement such as “if it is not
commanded, it is forbidden” as a brief statement or summary of the principle, the Westminster

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Confession and virtually all Reformed authors define the regulative principle in a much
broader fashion. The regulative principle refers not just to explicit commands of Scripture, but
also to approved historical examples within the Bible and to good and necessary consequence,
i.e., a particular worship practice or ordinance is inferred from many passages of Scripture.

The Confession and various Reformed authors will prove that the genuine, historic and
confessional understanding of the regulative principle is broad and easily defended by
Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1.6) says:

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 deduced from Scripture: unto which
nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or
traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the
Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are
revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the
worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and
societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence,
according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

For the Westminster divines, sola scriptura is the natural starting point for the regulative
principle as a spring is to a stream. There can be no question whatsoever but that the phrase
“good and necessary consequence” applies to the worship and government of the church. To
argue otherwise would render the section on the “circumstances concerning the worship of
God and government of the church” totally out of place.

John Owen, in his essay, “The Word of God the Sole Rule of Worship,” deals with an
opponent of Puritanism, Samuel Parker. Owen says that Parker considers the “foundation of all
Puritanism” to be this principle: “That nothing ought to be established in the worship of God
but what is authorized by some precept or example in the Word of God, which is the complete
and adequate rule of worship.”112 This accurate definition was formulated by Parker by
reading the available Puritan literature of his day (the seventeenth century).

Robert Shaw writes:

In maintaining the perfection of the Scriptures, we do not insist that every article
of religion is contained in Scriptures in so many words; but we hold that
conclusions fairly deduced from the declarations of the Word of God are as truly
parts of divine revelation as if they were expressly taught in the Sacred Volume.
That good and necessary consequences deduced from Scripture are to be received

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 as part of the rule of our faith and practice, is evident from the example of our
Saviour in proving the doctrine of the resurrection against the Sadducees,—Matt.
xxii. 31,32; and from the example of Paul, who proved that Jesus of Nazareth is
the Christ, by reasoning with the Jews out of the Old Testament Scriptures.—Acts
xvii. 2, 3. “All Scripture” is declared to be “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness;” but all these ends cannot be obtained,
unless by the deduction of consequences. Legitimate consequences, indeed, only
bring out the full meaning of the words of Scripture; and as we are endued with the
faculty of reason, and commanded to search the Scriptures, it was manifestly
intended that we should draw conclusions from what is therein set down in express
words.113

Hetherington writes: “They [the Scottish Reformers] dared, therefore, to conclude that Divine
authority might be rightfully claimed, not only for the direct statements contained in the
Scriptures, but also for whatsoever could be deduced from Scripture by just and necessary
inference.”114

Francis Petticrew writes:

A practice about a mere matter of detail, a mere circumstance, a thing held by the
Church to be indifferent, immaterial, and on purpose left open, does not constitute
common law. But a practice founded on a principle does to all intents and purposes
constitute common law. And this is the character of the practice of this Church in
excluding the use of instrumental music in the worship of God. That principle was
substantially this, that for all the constituents of worship, you require the positive
sanction of divine authority, either in the shape of direct command, or good and
necessary consequence, or approved example; and that you are not at liberty to
introduce anything else in connection with the worship of God, unless it comes
legitimately under the apostolic heading of “decency and order.”115

James H. Thornwell writes: “We have not been able to lay our hands upon a single Puritan
Confession of Faith which does not explicitly teach that necessary inferences from Scripture
are of equal authority with its express statements: nor have we found a single Puritan writer,
having occasion to allude to the subject, who has not explicitly taught the same things. The
principle of inference they have unanimously affirmed. Our own Confession of Faith—and
surely that is a Puritan document—does it, in a passage already cited.”116

John L. Girardeau writes: “A divine warrant is necessary for every element of doctrine,
government and worship in the church; that is, whatsoever in these spheres is not commanded
in the Scriptures, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence from their statements,
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
is forbidden.”117

A. A. Hodge writes:

That, while the Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice, and while
nothing is to be regarded as an article of faith to be believed, or a religious duty
obligatory upon the conscience, which is not explicitly or implicitly taught in
Scripture, nevertheless they do not descend in practical matters into details, but,
laying down general principles, leave men to apply them in the exercise of their
natural judgment, in the light of experience, and in adaptation to changing
circumstances, as they are guided by the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit.

This liberty, of course, is allowed only within the limits of the strict interpretation
of the principles taught in the Word, and in the legitimate application of those
principles, and applies to the regulation of the practical life of the individual and of
the Church, in detailed adjustments to changing circumstances.118

B. B. Warfield writes:

It must be observed, however, that the teachings and prescriptions of Scripture are
not confined by the Confession to what is “expressly set down in Scripture.” Men
are required to believe and to obey not only what is “expressly set down in
Scripture,” but also what “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced
from Scripture.” This is the strenuous and universal contention of the Reformed
theology against Socinians and Arminians, who desired to confine the authority of
Scripture to its literal asservations; and it involves a characteristic honoring of
reason as the instrument for the ascertainment of truth. We must depend upon our
human faculties to ascertain what Scripture says; we cannot suddenly abnegate
them and refuse their guidance in determining what Scripture means. This is not,
of course, to make reason the ground of the authority of inferred doctrines and
duties. Reason is the instrument of discovery of all doctrines and duties, whether
“expressly set down in Scripture” or “by good and necessary consequence deduced
from Scripture”: but their authority, when once discovered, is derived from God,
who reveals and prescribes them in Scripture, either by literal assertion or by
necessary implication. The Confession is only zealous, as it declares that only
Scripture is the authoritative rule of faith and practice, so to declare that the whole
of Scripture is authoritative in the whole stretch of its involved meaning. It is the
Reformed contention, reflected here by the Confession, that the sense of Scripture
is Scripture, and that men are bound by its whole sense in all its implications. The
reemergence in recent controversies of the plea that the authority of Scripture is to
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
 be confined to its expressed declarations, and that human logic is not to be trusted
in divine things, is, therefore, a direct denial of a fundamental position of
Reformed theology, explicitly affirmed in the Confession, as well as an abnegation
of fundamental reason, which would not only render thinking in a system
impossible, but would discredit at a stroke many of the fundamentals of the faith,
such e.g. as the doctrine of the Trinity, and would logically involve the denial of
the authority of all doctrine whatsoever, since no single doctrine of whatever
simplicity can be ascertained from Scripture except by the use of the processes of
the understanding. It is, therefore, an unimportant incident that the recent plea
against the use of human logic in determining doctrine has been most sharply put
forward in order to reject a doctrine which is explicitly taught, and that repeatedly,
in the very letter of Scripture; if the plea is valid at all, it destroys at once our
confidence in all doctrines, no one of which is ascertained or formulated without
the aid of human logic.119

William S. McClure writes: “God’s commands are either explicit, clearly stated, or they are
implicit, implied as a logical, necessary inference from authoritative example, such as that of
Christ or His Apostles.”120

William Young writes: “The mode of prescription need not be that of explicit command in
single text of Scripture. Approved example warrants an element of worship as surely as does
an express precept. Moreover, good and necessary consequence may warrant acceptable
worship. Without entering upon disputed questions as to the proper subjects of baptism, all
would agree that Scripture warrants the admission of women to the Lord’s table, although no
express command or approved example can be adduced.”121

Michael Bushell writes:

When we say that each element of worship requires a divine warrant, we do not
mean that an explicit command in a single text is required in every instance.
Commandment in the narrow sense of the term is not necessary to establish divine
prescription. Approved example or inference from relevant scriptural data is
sufficient to determine the proper manner of worship. The Confession of Faith
clearly operates on the assumption that principles derived from the Word by “good
and necessary consequence” are every bit as binding upon us as those “expressly
set down in Scripture.” It is remarkable that there is so much confusion in
Reformed circles concerning the validity of this essential principle.... The assumed
validity and binding character of argument by inference from Scripture is an
essential part of the life of every Christian and lies at the base of every statement
of doctrine or belief that goes beyond the express words of Scripture. Certainly we
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
 may want from time to time to question the validity of inferences which some
people draw, but that is a different question altogether from that of whether or not
the church may bind the conscience of a believer on the basis of an inference from
Scripture.122

It is important that one understand the proper, broad interpretation of the regulative principle,
for anti-regulativists often point to historical examples in the Bible as proof texts against sola
scriptura over worship. When an anti-regulativist comes to a worship practice in the Bible that
does not have a prior inscripturated divine imperative behind it, it is assumed that such
practices must have originated from human tradition. When a Puritan or Reformed regulativist
encounters a worship practice that is approved by God, yet is not accompanied by an explicit
command, it is assumed (based on the analogy of Scripture) that such a practice is based on
some prior revelation that did not make it into the canon. For example, John Owen writes:

For a long time God was pleased to guide his church in many concerns of his
worship by fresh occasional revelations, even from the giving of the first promise
unto Adam unto the solemn giving of the law of Moses; for although men had, in
process of time, many stated revelations, that were preserved by tradition among
them, as the first promise, the institution of sacrifices, and the like, yet as to sundry
emergencies of his worship, and parts of it, God guided them by new occasional
revelations. Now, those revelations not being recorded in Scriptures, as being only
for present or emergent use, we have no way to know them but by what those to
whom God was pleased to reveal himself did practice, and which, on good
testimony, found acceptance with him. Whatever they so did, they had especial
warrant from God for; which is the case of the great institution of sacrifices itself.
It is a sufficient argument that they were divinely instituted, because they were
graciously accepted.123

Opponents of the regulative principle argue that the Puritan or Reformed understanding of
“approved historical examples” is an argument of begging the question (i.e., assuming that
which one sets out to prove); or, that it is an argument from silence; or, that regulativists are
guilty of forcing the evidence to fit their own faulty starting point. All these objections,
however, are easily refuted if one understands necessary inference from Scripture and follows
standard Protestant procedures of interpretation.

One of the most fundamental principles of biblical interpretation is that Scripture cannot
contradict itself. Another important principle is that when two or more passages seem to
contradict each other, the clearer portions of Scripture should be used to interpret the less clear.
If one follows these interpretive rules, determining which understanding of an approved
historical example is biblical will be simple.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Note the many reasons why the regulativist approach must be accepted. (1) There are several
passages in the Bible which unequivocally condemn adding to God’s law-word (e.g., Deut.
4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5). (2) Man is not permitted autonomously to determine his own ethics,
theology or worship. (3) There are also passages where both Christ (e.g., Mt. 15:2-9; Mk. 7:1-
13) and Paul (e.g., Col. 2:20-23) condemn human traditions in worship. These passages are not
hard to understand. Indeed, they are crystal clear, if one is willing to accept what they say.
Given the clear teaching of Scripture regarding adding human traditions to ethics or worship,
what interpretation should one choose when one encounters Jesus or the apostles engaging in
worship that is not specifically discussed in the Old Testament Scriptures?

If one argues that Jesus by his attendance at synagogue was endorsing human traditions in
worship, then one has chosen an interpretation which contradicts clear portions of Scripture. If
one argues that the sola scriptura and regulative principle passages must be reinterpreted in
light of passages such as Jesus attending synagogue worship or the change of public worship to
Sunday, then one is guilty of using passages which do not even speak directly to the issue of
human tradition in worship (and thus are not clear passages) to overthrow the clear passages
that do speak directly to the issue of human additions. When regulativists approach passages
where God accepts the worship offered, yet there are no accompanying divine imperatives,
they do not simply argue from silence or impose an arbitrary starting point or assumption on
the text. Instead, they stand upon the overall clear teaching regarding worship and therefore
legitimately infer that what God accepts cannot be “the doctrines and commandments of men.”

The regulativist position is not only supported by standard biblical hermeneutical procedures
but is also supported by an inspired New Testament interpretation of an Old Testament
worship practice that was not accompanied by any inscripturated divine commands. Genesis
4:3-5 says, “And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the
fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat.
And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering.
And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.” In this passage Abel’s blood sacrifice is
accepted, while Cain’s bloodless plant offering is not. Note, there are no previously recorded
divine imperatives regarding blood sacrifice in the book of Genesis. If one applies the same
anti-regulativist interpretation to this passage that has been used of Jesus and the synagogue
service, then one would have to conclude that God preferred Abel’s human tradition over
Cain’s. The author of Hebrews implicitly rejects the anti-regulativist’s interpretation when he
says that “by faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Heb. 11:4).
Biblical faith presupposes divine revelation. Throughout Hebrews 11 true faith is spoken of as
a belief in God’s word that results in obedience to God’s revealed will. Any idea that Abel’s
offering was based on reason alone, or that God’s acceptance of the blood sacrifice was
arbitrary or based on the subjective state of Abel’s heart alone, must be rejected as

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

unscriptural. John Brown concurs.

Though we have no particular account of the institution of sacrifice, the theory of

its originating in express divine appointment is the only tenable one. The idea of
expressing religious feelings, or of expiating sin, by shedding the blood of animals,
could never have entered into the mind of man. We read that God clothed our first
parents with the skin of animals, and by far the most probable account of this
matter is, that these were the skins of animals which He had commanded them to
offer in sacrifice. We have already seen, in our illustrations of the ninth chapter,
ver. 16, that all divine covenants, all merciful arrangements in reference to fallen
man, have been ratified by sacrifice. The declaration of mercy contained in the
first promise seems to have been accompanied with the institution of expiatory
sacrifice. And expiatory sacrifice, when offered from a faith in the divine
revelation in reference to it, was acceptable to God, both as the appointed
expression of conscious guilt and ill desert, and of the hope of mercy, and as an act
of obedience to the divine will. It would appear that this revelation was not
believed by Cain, that he did not see and feel the need for expiatory sacrifice, and
that his religion consisted merely in an acknowledgment of the Deity as the author
of the benefits which he enjoyed. Abel, on the other hand, did believe the
revelation. He readily acknowledges himself a sinner, and expresses his penitence
and his hope of forgiveness in the way of God’s appointment. Believing what God
has said, he did what God had enjoined.124

The Hebrews 11:4 passage offers indisputable biblical proof that acceptable worship cannot be
based on a human tradition which involves, not a faith in God and his infallible Word, but a
faith in man’s wisdom and imagination. Acceptable worship can only be based on faith in
divine revelation. Therefore, when one notes that Noah offered clean animals, or that the
apostles observed a first-day Sabbath, or that Jesus and Paul read and exposited the Scriptures
in the synagogue (all without accompanying explicit divine imperatives), one should never
assume that these accepted worship practices were based on human tradition. They were based
on faith in the spoken word of God. 125

60 One of the great problems that Reformed denominations have today is the existence of
corrupt and dishonest ministers and elders. There are a number of ordained men today who,
after having professed their allegiance to the Westminster Standards, work to undermine them
in their writing and teaching. There are men who consider themselves Reformed who openly
attack the regulative principle which is one of the pillars of the Calvinistic reformation. There
are sessions that are introducing many innovations in public worship. The long-term goal of

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

some ministers and elders is a Presbyterian church with Episcopal worship built upon
prelatical principles. To such men the words of James Begg are appropriate. He writes: “If it
be true, it ought to be firmly maintained, and all worship for which a divine warrant cannot be
pleaded, ought to be opposed and discarded. Till it is abandoned, every Presbyterian minister
can only be an honest man by maintaining it. It is utterly vain, and worse, to dispose of our
solemn obligations by vague and pointless declamation. The position taken up by the
Presbyterian Church is either sound or unsound. ‘To the law and to the testimony; if they speak
not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.’ And the only class of men
more inconsistent and criminal than those who leave such a matter in doubt, are those who, in
accepting office, profess to hold the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, and promise to
maintain it, but who afterwards treat their solemn professions and vows with faithlessness and
disregard.... Now we are not proving this [the regulative principle of worship] for the sake of
the office-bearers of the Presbyterian Church. They have all solemnly vowed that, according to
their convictions, these are the principles of Scripture which they will defend to the utmost of
their power. To do anything else therefore, to make any other profession, without abandoning
the office which they received in connection with their previous avowal, is simply an act of
perjury, fitted to bring disgrace on the Christian Church, and to give the enemies of the truth
cause to blaspheme. Every Presbyterian office-bearer is as much bound as we are to maintain
and vindicate these principles, and neither directly nor indirectly to connive at their subversion.
We live, however, unfortunately, in a day when ‘truce breaking’ is not uncommon; and when
many, instead of following ‘no divisive courses,’ according to their solemn vows, seem to
make the promotion of innovations in the worship of God one of their favourite employments.
Religion is wounded in the house of her professed friends. We can imagine nothing more fitted
to eat like a canker into the faith and morals of the community” (Anarchy in Worship
[Edinburgh: Lyon and Gemmell, 1875], 10, 12-13).

61Steve Schlissel, “All I Really Need to Know about Worship I Don’t Learn from the
Regulative Principle” (Part IV), Messiah’s Mandate.

62R. J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1977 [1973]), 4-5, 9-10.

63 Regarding areas of life that are ethically indifferent or adiaphora, there are at least four
biblical principles that must be followed. First, everything that we do, no matter how mundane,
must be done to God’s glory. “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all
to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). “For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to
himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore,
whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom. 14:7-8). Second, a matter that normally
would be indifferent ceases to be indifferent if it would cause a weak brother to sin. “It is good
neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

offended or is made weak” (Rom. 14:21). Third, an activity that in itself is indifferent ceases to
be indifferent if it cannot be done in faith with a clean conscience. “To him who considers
anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean....he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because
he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:14, 23). Fourth, an
act that normally is adiaphora ceases to be adiaphora if a person becomes enslaved to or
comes under the power or control of that activity. “All things are lawful for me, but all things
are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of
any” (1 Cor. 6:12). “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are
lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Cor 10:23). There are many things that are lawful,
such as Twinkies, Big Macs, candy bars, Coca-Cola and fine cigars, that can be abused and
thus do not edify. Even organic brown rice can be abused and used in a sinful manner.

64
John Knox, “A Vindication of the Doctrine That the Sacrifice of the Mass Is Idolatry” in
Works, David Laing, ed. (Edinburgh: The Bannatyne Club, 1854), 3:37-38.

65David Dickson, Commentary on the Psalms (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1959 [1653-
55]), 1:141-142.

66 John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 1:455.

67 Ibid., 3:353-354.

68 William S. Plummer, Psalms (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1975 [1867]), 794.

69David Clarkson, “Public Worship to Be Preferred Before Private” in The Blue Banner
(Dallas, TX: First Presbyterian Church Rowlett, July/August, 1999), 1.

70 Matthew Henry, Commentary (McLean, VA: MacDonald, n.d.), 6:1006.

71John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament (Streamwood, IL: Primitive Baptist Library,
1979 [1810]), 4:579.

72Frank Smith, “An Introduction to the Elements of Worship” in Worship in the Presence of
God, 135.

73 Matthew Henry, Commentary, 1:536.

74 A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1958 [1869], 312.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

75 David Clarkson, 3.

76 Ibid., 6.

77 Frank Smith, “What is Worship?” in Worship in the Presence of God, 14-15. David C.
Lachman, in refuting the “spiritual gift” argument, makes an important observation that is
germane to our discussion: “Much ingenuity has been exercised in attempting to justify various
worship practices. Some have even argued that music is a spiritual gift, claiming that the lists
of spiritual gifts given in Scripture are not exhaustive, but rather illustrative. But such
arguments generally contend only for a few other supposed gifts, usually including such
artistic accomplishments as dance, drama and even magic. Beyond these and similar forms of
entertainment, no one ever suggests that a surgeon perform some particularly difficult
operation or a plumber clear a clogged drain as a part of worship, however talented they may
be. Although all these may be legitimate parts of our lives, Scripture nowhere suggest that God
is pleased by any of them when they are included as part of our worship. What we may well do
to the glory of God in our lives in general is not thereby given any warrant to be intruded into
our worship of Him” (“Christian Liberty and Worship” in ibid., 99).

78 Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, 71-72.

79 Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1987), 201.

80 Matthew Henry, Commentary (McLean, VA: MacDonald, n.d.), 5:210-211.

81 David Dickson, Matthew (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1987 [1647]), 207.

82Samuel Rutherford, The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication

(London: John Field, 1647), 138.

83 The second half of verse 8 beginning with “the washing of” is not included in modern
critical editions of the Greek New Testament (e.g., United Bible Societies’ Greek New
Testament [third edition]; the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament [26th edition]). Most
modern translations (ASV, RSV, NASB, NEB, JB, NIV) reflect modern textual criticism by
leaving out the second half of verse 8. The expanded reading of verse 8 is found in the Textus
Receptus (or the Received Text) and the Majority Text (or the Byzantine/Traditional Text).
The KJV and NKJV are based on the Textus Receptus. In short, the critical editions of the
Greek New Testament (that virtually all modern translations are based upon) depend primarily
on a few older manuscripts that were discovered chiefly in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries (e.g., Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). The majority texts are not as

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

old as those used in the critical editions; however, they are far greater in number and were used
by Christ’s church since at least as early as the fifth century. Modern scholarship regarding the
majority texts (i.e., archeology, verification of various readings by older papyri, ancient
versions and quotations from the early church fathers [e.g., the disputed ending of Mark was
accepted as canonical by the second century A.D.]), serious problems with the presuppositions
and methodology of the early critical scholars such as Wescott and Hort, and great variations
between the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts have pointed many Christians back to the
Majority Text as superior to the modern critical text. This author accepts the KJV or NKJV
reading of Mark 7:8 as reflecting the actual words of Jesus Christ. Accepting the regulative
principle, however, is not dependant upon accepting the Majority Text reading of Mark 7:8.

84 J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Mark (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,
1993), 101-102. Ryle (1816-1900) was an Anglican minister and bishop (of Liverpool) and
therefore did not adhere to the regulative principle. Nevertheless, his remarks on Mark cited
above are true.

85 Spurgeon, Matthew, 203.

86Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Phillipsburg, NJ:

Presbyterian and Reformed, n.d. [from the 1852 edition]), 518-519.

87John Eadie, Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1979 [1884]), 199-200.

88 Kevin Reed, Biblical Worship (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1995), 56.

89 Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1986 [1692]), 63.

90John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981),
181.

91 Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, 149, 151-152.

92Steven Schlissel, “All I Really Need to Know About Worship I Don’t Learn From the
Regulative Principle” (Part IV) in Messiah’s Mandate.

93 Greg Bahnsen, “Exclusive Psalmody” in Antithesis 1:2 (March-April, 1990), 51. The
argument that singing is not a separate element of worship was popularized by Vern S.
Poythress, professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and a PCA minister. In 1974 he

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

wrote, “We regard teaching-by-singing and teaching-in-the-narrow-sense as simply two forms
of teaching, each particularly effective in meeting certain needs and expressing certain aspects
of Christian doctrine. Each has its advantages and limitations, due to the nature of the medium
of expression. We challenge the exclusive psalmist position to prove from Scripture, rather
than assume, that teaching-by-singing and proclaiming are ‘two separate elements of worship.’
To us they appear little more ‘separate’ than preaching to a visible audience versus preaching
over the radio” (“Ezra 3, Union with Christ, and Exclusive Psalmody,” Westminster
Theological Journal 37 [1974-75], 225-226). The latest expression of this argument comes
from the pen of John M. Frame: “Even if we accept the division of worship into elements, it is
not plausible to argue that song is an element of worship, independent of all others. As we saw
in the preceding chapter, song is not an independent element, but rather a way of dong other
things. It is a way of praying, of teaching, of confessing, etc. Therefore, when we apply the
regulative principle to matters of song, we should not ask specifically what words Scripture
commands us to sing, but rather, what words Scripture commands us to use in teaching, prayer,
confession, etc.” (Worship in Spirit and Truth: A Refreshing Study of the Principle and
Practice of Biblical Worship [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1996], 124).

94 John Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth, 62, ftn. 1.

95 If a pastor is preaching through a book of the Bible and in the natural course of his
exposition he comes to a passage on the birth or incarnation of Christ on or near December
25th, then choosing that text is a circumstance of worship. But, if a pastor is preaching through
a book and purposely changes the subject to the incarnation or birth of Christ on or near
December 25th then he has deliberately regarded an extra-biblical holy day, and is using the
choosing of a text as a circumstance, as an excuse. Some of the reasons that Reformed
believers give for not celebrating Christmas are: (1) The Bible has only authorized the Lord’s
day or the Christian sabbath as a special religious holy day. In it believers are to celebrate the
whole work of redemption. (2) Jesus Christ was not born on December 25th and thus
Christmas is a lie. Our Lord was born in the fall of the year. (3) It is immoral for Christians to
syncretize biblical worship with paganism and popery. Believers should have nothing to do
with remnants of paganism or the trinkets of Antichrist. (4) The Bible tells God’s people to
“love not the world, neither the things that are in the world” (1 Jn. 2:15). Christmas was the
invention of rank pagans and apostate Romanists. It is loved and admired by pagans
(sodomites, murderers, child molesters, Hollywood, etc.) all over the world as a special “holy
day.” Therefore, it is unchristian and should be shunned by all believers.

96 An instance of historical example is Lord’s-day public worship. There is no explicit

command or divine imperative changing public worship from the seventh day (Saturday) to the
first day (Sunday) of the week, recorded in Scripture. Yet in the New Testament, the change
from the seventh day to the first day is recorded as an accomplished fact (Ac. 20:7, 1 Cor.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

16:2, Rev. 1:10). Not every divine command or prophetic word has been inscripturated (i.e.,
included in the Bible). The universal practice of the apostolic church, such as Lord’s-day
public worship, is binding because of the unique authority given to the apostles, i.e., direct
revelation. When the apostles died, direct revelation ceased and the canon was closed; now our
doctrine, worship, and all historical examples are limited to the Bible, the word of God. Those
who appeal to church traditions, invented after the closing of the canon, for authority in
establishing worship ordinances, are, in principle, no better than Jeroboam the son of Nebat (1
Kgs. 12:26-33).

97 “There is of course careful distinction to be made between the Word of God and inferences
drawn from the Word of God. We may challenge the validity of inferences drawn from
Scripture and attempt to determine whether they are indeed scriptural, but we may never in the
same way challenge the validity of the explicit statements of Scripture. The words and
statements of Scripture are absolutely authoritative. Their authority is underived and
indisputable. The authority of valid inferences from Scripture, on the other hand, is derivative
in nature, but one cannot argue that such inferences are therefore less authoritative than the
express declarations of Scripture. They simply make explicit what is already expressed
implicitly in Scripture” (Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, 124). Some of the most
important and foundational doctrines of Christianity are drawn from inferences of Scripture,
such as the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the trinity.
That the use of “good and necessary consequence” or logical inference from Scripture to
formulate doctrine is biblical can be seen in the following passages: Lk. 20:37ff., Mt. 22:31ff.,
Mk. 12:26, Mt. 19:4-6, 1 Cor. 11:8-10.

98 The Westminster Confession of Faith does not just set forth broad categories but rather
gives well defined, distinct worship elements that all serve as the ordinary parts of religious
worship. The Confession names “prayer with thanksgiving” (21:3); also “the reading of the
Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in
obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence: singing of psalms with grace in
the heart; as also the due admiration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by
Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths and vows,
solemn fastings, and thanksgiving upon several occasions, which are, in their several times and
seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner” (21:5). The authors of the Confession
clearly believed that scriptural authorization or proof was required for each separate part of
worship. That is why each distinct element of worship is proof-texted by the Confession. The
confessional view of the circumstances and elements of worship is supported and reflected in
the writings of the greatest theologians of that time. George Gillespie (1613-1648) wrote:
“Beside all this, there is nothing which any way pertaineth to the worship of God left to
determination of human laws, besides the mere circumstances, which neither have any holiness
in them, forasmuch as they have no other use and praise in sacred than they have in civil

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

things, nor yet were part-determinable in Scripture, because they are infinite; but sacred
significant ceremonies, such as cross, kneeling, surplice, holidays, bishopping, etc., which
have no use and praise except in religion only, and which, also, were most easily determinable
(yet not determined) within those bounds which the wisdom of God did set to his written word,
are such things as God never left to the determination of any human laws” (A Dispute Against
the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded upon the Church of England, Christopher Coldwell,
ed. [Dallas, TX: Naphtali, 1993 (1637, 60)], xli). Samuel Rutherford (c. 1600-1661) wrote: “In
actions or religious means of worship, or circumstances physical, not moral, not religious, as
whether the pulpit be of stone or of timber, the bell of this or this metal, the house of worship
stand thus or thus in situation” (The Divine Right of Church-Government and
Excommunication [London: John Field for Christopher Meredith, 1646], 109). William Ames
(1576-1633) wrote: “The outward circumstances are those which pertain to order and decency.
1 Corinthians 14:40. Let all things be done decently and in order. But the general rule of these
is that they be ordered in that manner which maketh most for edification. 1 Corinthians 14:26.
Of this nature are the circumstances of place, time, and the like, which are common adjuncts to
religious and civil acts. Therefore although such like circumstances are wont to be called of
some rites, and religious or ecclesiastical ceremonies, yet they have nothing in their nature
which is proper to religion, and therefore religious worship doth not properly consist in
them” (The Marrow of Sacred Divinity [London: Edward Griffen for Henry Overton, 1642],
318). John Owen (1616-1683) wrote: “It is said men may add nothing to the substance of the
worship of God, but they may order, dispose, and appoint the things that belong to the manner
and circumstances of it, this is all that is done in the prescription of liturgies. Of circumstances
in and about the worship of God we have spoken before, and removed that pretense. Nor is it
safe distinguishing in the things of God where himself hath not distinguished. Indeed, there is
nothing in its whole nature, as it belongs to the general being of things, so circumstantial, but
that if it be appointed by God in his worship, it becomes a part of the substance of it; nor can
anything that is so appointed ever by any be made a circumstance of his worship” (“A
Discourse Concerning Liturgies and Their Imposition” in Works [Carlisle, PA: Banner of
Truth, 1965 (1850-53)], 15:40). Thomas Ridgely (1667-1734) wrote: “The first idea contained
in them [worship ordinances], is that they are religious duties, prescribed by God, as an
instituted method in which he will be worshiped by his creatures.... Now, the ordinances, as
thus described, must be engaged in according to a divine appointment. No creature has a
warrant to enjoin any modes of worship, pretending that these will be acceptable or well-
pleasing to God; since God alone, who is the object of worship, has right to prescribe the way
in which he will be worshiped. For a creature to institute modes of worship would be an
instance of profaneness and bold presumption; and the worship performed would be ‘in vain’;
as our Saviour says concerning that which has no higher sanction than the commandments of
men” (A Body of Divinity [New York: 1855], 2:433).

99 M. R. Wilson, “Passover” in Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., International Standard Bible

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 3:677.

100 Alfred Edersheim writes: “the ‘cup of blessing,’ which was the third, and formed part of
the new institution of the Lord’s Supper, being mentioned in verse 20. In washing their hands
this customary prayer was repeated: ‘Blessed art Thou, Jehovah our God, who hast sanctified
us with Thy commandments, and hast enjoined us concerning the washing of our hands.’ Two
different kinds of ‘washing’ were prescribed by tradition—’dipping’ and ‘pouring.’ At the
Paschal Supper the hands were to be ‘dipped’ in water” (The Temple: Its Ministry and Services
as They Were at the Time of Christ [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950], p. 239. Note Edersheim’s
footnote to the quote above: “The distinction [between two types of ritual hand washings] is
also interesting as explaining Mark vii 3. For when water was poured on the hands, they had to
be lifted, yet so that the water should neither run up above the wrist, nor back again upon the
hand; best, therefore, by doubling the fingers into a fist. Hence (as Lightfoot rightly remarks)
Mark vii 3, which should be translated: ‘For the Pharisees...except they wash their hands with
the fist, eat not, holding the traditions of the elders’” (ibid., ftn. 4). Note, Mark 7:2ff. is a
parallel account with Matthew 15:2ff. What all this means is that if Jesus and the disciples
celebrated the Seder as it is set forth in the Mishnah (as many assert), then Christ was guilty of
participating in the exact same ritual that earlier in the gospel accounts he and his disciples
refused to do and which elicited a scathing condemnation of the Pharisees by our Lord. We
regard such a scenario as exegetically and theologically impossible. There are other problems
with the idea that Jesus followed the Seder according to Mishnah. For instance, the gospel
accounts do not speak of four cups but merely one which was shared by all the disciples.

101 Alfred Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation after the Destruction of Jerusalem under
Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979 [1856]), 381.

102 Note how the Mishnah perverts the meaning of Leviticus 18:21 and endorses idolatry.
“MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT
UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE
FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH
FIRE, OR, THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
GEMARA. R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is
not idolatry.... R, Simeon said: if to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not [Sanhedrin
64a]. R. Aha the son of Raba said: If one caused all his seed to pass through [the fire] to
Molech, he is exempt from punishment, because it is written, of thy seed implying, but not all
thy seed [Sanhedrin 64b]” (The Babylonian Talmud quoted in Gary North, Tools of Dominion:
The Case Laws of Exodus [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990], 1019). (In the
Talmud, the Mishnah is always written in all capitals.)

103 George Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies, 269-270.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
104 F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 181.

105 Leon Morris writes: “Yet, just as the reference to the water in ch.7 seems to point us back
to the rock in the wilderness rather than to the pouring of water from the golden pitcher, so the
light may refer us to the pillar of fire in the wilderness. We have noted the reference to the
manna in ch. 6, so that in three successive chapters the wilderness imagery seems consistently
used to illustrate aspects of Jesus’ Person and work. It must always be borne in mind that light
is a common theme in both Old and New Testaments, so that it is not necessary for us to find
the source of Jesus’ great saying in any non-biblical places’ (The Gospel According to John
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], 437). R. C. H. Lenski writes: “Maimonides states that this
ceremony took place every evening during the feast, others are sure that it occurred only on the
first evening. The main difficulty in connecting the word of Jesus with this ceremony is that it
leaves out an essential part of the figure. Those candelabra were stationary, and men danced in
the courts, while Jesus speaks of a movable light: ‘he that follows me.’ We may say more. In
7:37, when Jesus calls those that ‘thirst’ and bids them come to him and ‘drink,’ he does not
stop with the ceremony of drawing water from Siloah and pouring it out at the altar, in which
no quenching of thirst by drinking is pictured; he reaches back to the original blessing received
at Meribah where the thirsty actually received water to drink. He does the same here. One of
the great blessings during the desert sojourn of Israel was the pillar of cloud and of fire,
evidence of the presence of Jehovah with his people” (St. John’s Gospel [Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1961], pp. 593-594).

106E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock,
1980 [1865]), 1:429.

107 Hengstenberg writes: “The feast was not only one of thanksgiving, it was also one of hope;
and of this latter aspect of it, Isa. xii. 3 was the appropriate text. Jesus declares Himself to be
the water of salvation, announced by the prophet Isaiah; and Isaiah himself gave the warrant
for doing so. The connection of the springs of salvation with the person of the Messiah is plain
from the relation of ch. xii. to ch. xi., where all the salvation of the future is bond up with the
person of the Messiah. And what Isaiah said in ch. xii. concerning the waters of salvation,
receives its consummation also in ch. iv. 1, to which the words ‘ean tis dipsa poeto’ definitely
allude: comp. on ch. vi. 45, iv. 14” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:405). Brooke Foss
Westcott writes: Nothing can prove more clearly the intimate relation between the teaching
recorded by St. John and the Old Testament than the manner in which Christ is shown to
transfer to Himself the figures of the Exodus (the brazen serpent, the manna, the water, the
fiery pillar)” (The Gospel According to St. John [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], 277).

108 J. P. Lewis, “Feasts” in Merrill C. Tenney, ed., The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 1976), 2:525.

109Thomas M’Crie, Lectures on the Book of Esther (New York: Robert Carter, 1838), 287-
288.

110 Ibid., 298-300.

111 Let us briefly examine the writings of an independent Calvinistic minister who opposes
Reformed worship. He writes: “The very existence of the synagogue, however, undoes the
regulativist’s position! For he knows that the synagogues existed. And he knows that Christ
and the Apostles regularly worshiped at synagogues without so much as a breath of suggestion
that they were institutionally or liturgically illegitimate. And he knows that he cannot find so
much as a sliver of a Divine commandment concerning what ought to be done in the
synagogue. And, according to his principle, if God commanded naught concerning what ought
to be done, then all was forbidden. And if all was forbidden, then the whole of it—institution
and liturgy—was a sinful abomination. But that brings him back to Christ attending upon the
service of God there and Christ following its liturgy: did He sin by participating in an entire
order of worship that was without express divine warrant? The thought is blasphemy!” (Steve
Schlissel, “All I Really Need to Know About Worship I Don’t Learn from the Regulative
Principle,” Part 1, in Messiah’s Mandate, 7).

112
Samuel Parker quoted in John Owen, “The Word of God the Sole Rule of Worship” in
Works (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1967 [1644]), 13:462.

113Robert Shaw, Exposition of the Confession of Faith (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters
Revival, n.d. [1845]), 16.

114 W. M. Hetherington, History of the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, Scotland, 1848), 1:15.

115 Francis Petticrew, “Speech of the mover of the report to the General Assembly, 1873” in
James Glasgow, Heart and Voice: Instrumental Music in Christian Worship Not Divinely
Authorized (Belfast: C. Aitchison; J. Cleeland, n.d.), 4-5. Glasgow adds the following footnote:
“Not religious circumstances entering into and blending with worship, but men’s mere social
circumstances, as of times, places, persons, &c” (ibid., 5).

116James H. Thornwell, “Boards and Presbyterianism” in Collected Writings (Carlisle, PA:

Banner of Truth, 1974 [1875]), 4:255.

117 John L. Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Havertown,

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

PA: New Covenant Publication Society, 1980 [1888]), 9.

118 A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1961 [1869]), 39.

119B. B. Warfield, “The Westminster Doctrine of Holy Scripture,” in Works (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1981 [1931]), 6:226-227 (originally published in The Presbyterian and Reformed
Review iv [1893], 582-655).

120William S. McClure, “The Scriptural Law of Worship” in John McNaugher, ed., The
Psalms in Worship (Edmonton, AB: Canada; Still Waters Revival Books, 1992 [1907]), 33.

121 William Young, The Puritan Principle of Worship (Vienna, Va.: Publication Committee of
the Presbyterian Reformed Church, n.d.), 10.

122Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion (Pittsburgh, PA: Crown and Covenant, 1993 [1980]),
122-123. Note also Brian M. Schwertley, The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas:
“Whatever is not commanded in Scripture is forbidden. Anything that the church does in
worship must have warrant from an explicit command of God, be deduced by good and
necessary consequence, or be derived from approved historical example (e.g., the change of
day from seventh to first for Lord’s Day corporate worship)” (Southfield, MI: Reformed
Witness, 1996), 4.

123 John Owen, “The Word of God the Sole Rule of Worship” in Works (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner
of Truth, 1967 [1644]), 13:467.

124 John Brown, Hebrews (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1963 [1862]), 493-494.

125 One objection to the Puritan and Reformed concept of approved historical examples from
Scripture is that it is pharisaical and Romish. It is argued that when Reformed theologians
assume that historical examples are based on prior revelation that was not inscripturated, they
are advocating a form of binding and normative oral tradition. This comparison with Pharisees
and Romanists is a clever yet unwarranted ad hominem attack. The Pharisees and Roman
Catholics were and are guilty of adding their own doctrines and commandments to what the
Bible teaches. They justify their additions to the Scripture by advocating a source of divine
revelation which is independent of the Bible. The Jews have their Talmud (which in English
translation runs to 34 large volumes) and the Roman Catholics have the church fathers,
councils, decrees and papal declarations. Puritan and Reformed pastors and theologians add
nothing of their own to the doctrine or commandment of Scripture. They do not believe in any
independent sources of revelation outside of the Bible. They simply infer from the Bible itself

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

that in the few cases where God is described as accepting worship practices that are not
accompanied with explicit instructions, the people involved (such as Abel [Gen. 4:4] or Noah
[Gen. 8:20]) had based their practice on a previous communication by God. As noted above,
the Reformed interpretation is a necessary inference from Scripture. Approved historical
examples come only from the text of Scripture, and not from any Pharisaical or Romish type of
independent oral tradition. It is one thing to infer a communication based on a particular text of
Scripture, and quite another to posit with absolutely no biblical evidence that God spoke the
whole Talmud to Moses on Mount Sinai. Opponents of the regulative principle are comparing
apples to oranges, and they know it. Who has more in common with a Pharisee or Romanist?
Someone who adds his own human traditions to what God has authorized? Or someone who
refuses to add to God’s word?

Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing MI, 2000

Home Free Downloads Books to Buy

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Summary and Conclusion
This study regarding sola scriptura and its relation to the regulative principle of worship has
proved a number of important assertions. First, it has shown that the scriptural law of worship
formulated by the Calvinistic reformers and set forth in all the Reformed creeds and
confessions is thoroughly biblical. Reformed worship should be embraced by all professing
Christians. Those men who mock the regulative principle and who urge Reformed believers to
abandon this crucial pillar of the Reformation should not be heeded at all. (Indeed, they should
be intellectually honest and join an Episcopal church.)

Second, an analysis of non-Reformed views of worship has uncovered a number of

insurmountable theological, exegetical, logical and ethical problems that are intrinsic to all
such theories:

1. The idea that men are permitted to add to the worship authorized by God in his word
contradicts the express teaching of Scripture. There is simply no way that men can circumvent
the plain meaning of the sola scriptura passages without ignoring or altering their obvious
contextual and historical meaning. Jehovah says, “Do not add or detract from what I have
commanded.” There is nothing complex or difficult or esoteric regarding the regulative
passages. A charge that is so often made is that the regulative principle itself is a human
addition to Scripture. This charge is totally unfounded. God says, “Do not add or detract,” and
therefore regulativists refuse to add or detract. The regulative principle is simply a theological
restatement of the plain teaching of God’s word. To those who regard the regulative principle
as an unbiblical addition, we ask: How can a strict obedience to what the Bible teaches be
wrong? Has the church been harmed when she followed the teaching of Scripture without
turning to the right or to the left? Are regulativists guilty of sin when they refuse to obey the
traditions of men that have no warrant from God’s word? Can a church member be disciplined
for refusing to participate in a man-made ritual? If the answer to this question is yes, then
please explain how a Christian can be disciplined when nothing in Scripture was violated.
Romanists and prelatists have an answer to this question. However, we do not heed the words
of Antichrist.

2. The idea that men are permitted to add their own innovations to authorized worship is also a
denial of the sufficiency and perfection of God’s word. Are the ordinances that God has given
to the church sufficient or are they inadequate? If one believes that they are not sufficient, then
please identify what is lacking. If one believes that the Scriptures are sufficient, then why add
worship ordinances that are not needed? Also, please explain how the doctrines and
commandments of men can perfect God’s word and lead to edification. Did not the apostle

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Paul warn the church that human commandments are not real wisdom and do not sanctify (Col.
2:23)? What would a great painter such as Claude Monet (1840-1926) have thought if
imbeciles and children were given paints and then permitted to alter and “perfect” his paintings
as they saw fit? Such acts would be the height of stupidity and arrogance. Yet men do far
worse when they add to the holy, sufficient and perfect Scriptures of God.

3. Non-Reformed theories do not properly take into account God’s nature and character (e.g.,
his infinite holiness, majesty, righteousness, etc.), and man’s sinful nature. The idea that men
(even regenerate men) after the fall can acceptably approach in worship a thrice-holy God on
their own terms, according to their own rules, is contrary to Scripture and sanctified common
sense. James Begg writes:

Man as a sinner, as all true Christians will admit, has no right to approach into
God’s presence at all. The amity which previously existed in Eden was broken up
by the Fall. God “drove out the man,” and He alone is entitled to say whether, and
on what conditions, he shall ever again be permitted to approach His throne. It is
manifest presumption on the part of fallen creatures to dictate to God either that
there shall be worship at all or what form it shall assume. In entering the courts of
earthly monarchs, even where a right to enter is conceded, every rule and form of
the court must be carefully observed; and far more is this important in entering, by
gracious permission, into the immediate presence of the King of kings and Lord of
lords.126

The worship of Jehovah must be sincere, through Jesus Christ, and it must be of divine
appointment. Fallen human reason should never have an independent creative role in
determining doctrine, ethics, or worship ordinances. It must be totally dependent on Scripture.

4. It is impossible for men to impose human innovations in public worship without violating
their congregants’ Christian liberty. All man-made rites and ceremonies in public worship
invariably involve some type of human compulsion. Believers are commanded by God to
attend Sabbath day public worship. When bishops, pastors or sessions place a man-made rite
or ceremony in the public worship service, they force their congregants either: (a) to
participate in non-authorized will worship or, (b) to separate themselves from the unbiblical
corruptions. The non-regulativists’ idea that human traditions are permissible in public
worship (from the standpoint of Christian liberty) can only be defended in two ways, both of
which are unbiblical and arbitrary.

One method of defense is to argue that God has given the church a power independent of
Scripture. In other words, not only can bishops, pastors and sessions add their own inventions
to public worship, they also have an authority to order church members (under the threat of

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

discipline and excommunication, if necessary) to submit to the new human ordinances. This
position is nothing less than popery and prelacy at its worst. (This author is unaware of any
anti-regulativist “Reformed” or “Presbyterian” writers who have used such a blatantly
Romanist argument.)

The most common defense is that humanly devised rites and ceremonies are within the sphere
of adiaphora or matters indifferent. The problem with this view is that it is based on a false,
arbitrary definition of adiaphora. What are indifferent matters? For something to be
indifferent, it must be: (1) a matter that is not determinable or required by Scripture, (2)
something that is truly circumstantial to worship and not an element or essential part of it, (3)
something that is optional or voluntary or (4) something that is unnecessary (i.e., something
that can be eliminated at any time, unlike prayer, preaching, the Lord’s Supper, etc.). When a
congregation adds a human tradition to the public worship service, that practice cannot
honestly be regarded as adiaphora, for, (1) as part of the service it is no longer optional or
voluntary, unless one leaves or refuses to attend; (2) it is placed alongside of and receives the
same treatment as commanded elements; (3) it is part of essential worship or (4) as part of
public worship it is enforced by implicit and/or explicit compulsion. Although churches may
refer to human traditions as adiaphora to justify their use in public worship, they never act as
if the additions are indifferent in practice. When words are defined in an arbitrary manner, one
can prove any proposition. The adiaphora argument is an excuse founded upon a lie.127

Third, an analysis of the most common objections to the regulative principle has shown that
these objections are not based on a careful exegesis of Scripture but upon misunderstandings,
misrepresentations and pure speculation. Some arguments are founded upon a
misunderstanding of the sola scriptura passages and adiaphora. Others are based on a false
definition of the regulative principle. Similarly, others are dependent upon a false
understanding of the circumstances of worship. Most arguments, however, are based on pure
speculation. Theories are developed using extra-biblical materials (e.g., the Mishnah) and then
are imposed upon the passage of Scripture in question.

The doctrine of sola scriptura and the regulative principle of worship must be taught,
emphasized, and rigorously defended in our day of declension, ignorance and apathy. The
heroic struggle by men such as Calvin, Knox, Melville, the English Puritans and Scottish
Covenanters for the reformation of worship must continue. This point cannot be too strongly
pressed in the present day when biblical worship is attacked from all sides; when the greatest
opponents of Reformed worship come from the supposedly Reformed and theonomic camp.
Such men, in defiance of Scripture, seek to “improve” the worship of God by their own
inventions. They seek to remove the liberty that we have in Christ from the doctrines,
commandments and traditions of men. They arrogantly mock the Reformation attainments of
our spiritual forefathers. These so-called teachers of the law offer us human autonomy and the

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

tyranny of church officials, all in the name of Christian liberty. What is the “weighty” evidence
that is offered to lead us to abandon our creeds and confessions in favor of adding human
traditions to worship? It is primarily speculations founded upon the Mishnah. A love of human
traditions has caused many normally competent teachers and scholars to resort to exegetical
gymnastics and twisted reasonings of the worst sort. Our best defense against all such
Romanizing arguments is a vigorous offense. The great truth of sola scriptura taught and
accompanied by the Spirit of God will penetrate the mists of confusion and ignorance, rending
asunder the pillars of popery and prelacy. To secure this great end, let us earnestly work and
pray.

126 James Begg, Anarchy in Worship, 4-5.

127 There are other serious problems with the non-regulativist position that need to be
addressed. A very serious problem that every Christian should note from Scripture and church
history is that human additions to the ethics, worship, doctrine, or church government set forth
in the Bible invariably drive out what God has warranted in favor of the man-made traditions.
What happens is that men simply do not have the self restraint to carefully limit their own
traditions. An innovation is added here and there and these new additions eventually become
loved and “indispensable” to the church governors and their congregations. A few man-made
traditions may not seem to be much of a problem at first, but one must keep in mind that the
church is a very old institution. Over time man-made innovations accumulate until the doctrine
and worship of a church are radically changed. Over many generations so many man-made
doctrines, commandments and worship innovations are added to the church that pure gospel
worship, and even the gospel itself, is obscured and even lost. This has happened in different
degrees to Judaism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, evangelicalism and even many
Reformed churches. People who reject the regulative principle do not have any solid limiting
factor upon their additions. How many innovations are acceptable? When should we stop
adding more? Pastors who argue against the regulative principle say that there is no need for
concern, “the session will keep the additions under control.” The truth, however, is that apart
from the regulative principle it is almost impossible to get rid of human traditions. Once a
tradition is loved and accepted by a congregation (e.g., Christmas), woe unto the pastor who
attempts to rid the church of such non-commanded elements! The only dependable, safe
method for avoiding man-made corruptions is to draw the line on worship content and
ceremony where God draws the line. To allow sinful men to draw and redraw the line as they
please has been a total disaster for the church. Jesus’ rebuke to the Pharisees has a very broad
application: “Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your
tradition” (Mt. 15:6).

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing MI, 2000

Home Free Downloads Books to Buy

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Appendix A
John Calvin and the Regulative Principle
John Calvin (1609-1564) was the greatest theologian and expositor of Scripture of the
Protestant Reformation. Through the theological academy at Geneva and his abundant
writings, Calvin did more to shape the doctrine and worship of Presbyterian, Reformed and
Puritan churches than anyone else. Calvin’s teaching regarding worship is clearly reflected in
all the various Reformed creeds and confessions: the French Confession (1559), the Scottish
Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the
Second Helvetic Confession (1566), and the Westminster Standards (1643-1648).

It is important that believers who take upon themselves the name of Reformed or Presbyterian
have some acquaintance with Calvin’s views on worship (in particular the regulative principle)
for a number of reasons. First, we live in a time of serious declension regarding worship in
many denominations that are considered Reformed. Many pastors, teachers and elders in
“Reformed” churches either directly or through subterfuge reject Reformed worship in favor of
a Lutheran or Episcopal conception. Second, because of this declension and ignorance there
has been a reductionism of what it means to be Reformed. For both Calvin and Knox
Reformed meant more than a biblical soteriology; it also meant a biblical conception of
worship (i.e., the regulative principle). Today the word Reformed is used of anyone who
merely accepts the five points of Calvinism. Thus, we have pastors and organizations today
which boast of being “truly Reformed” or “neo-puritan” who a few centuries ago would have
been considered anti-puritan and non-Reformed. Third, today many hold the opinion that
purity of worship should not be a major concern of the church. People who concern themselves
with such matters are often held in contempt. Yet Calvin regarded the true worship of God to
be (as far as the Christian religion) is concerned second to none in order of importance. In
“The Necessity of Reforming the Church” he writes: “If it be inquired, then, by what things
chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it
will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend
under them all the other parts, consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a
knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshiped; 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.”128

What follows is a series of quotations from John Calvin that reveal his doctrine of worship.
Calvin was the champion and chief expositor of what would be called the regulative principle
of worship.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Leviticus 10:1

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron. A memorable circumstance is here recorded, from
whence it appears how greatly God abominates all the sins whereby purity of religion is
corrupted. Apparently it was a light transgression to use strange fire for burning incense; and
again their thoughtlessness would seem inexcusable, for certainly Nadab and Abihu did not
wantonly or intentionally desire to pollute the sacred things, but, as is often the case in matters
of novelty, when they were setting about them too eagerly, their precipitancy led them into
error. The severity of the punishment, therefore, would not please those arrogant people, who
do not hesitate superciliously to criticize God’s judgments; but if we reflect how holy a thing
God’s worship is, the enormity of the punishment will by no means offend us. Besides, it was
necessary that their religion should be sanctioned at its very commencement; for if God had
suffered the sons of Aaron to transgress with impunity, they would have afterwards carelessly
neglected the whole Law. This, therefore, was the reason of such great severity, that the priests
should anxiously watch against all profanation. Their crime is specified, viz., that they offered
incense in a different way from that which God had prescribed, and consequently, although
they may have erred from ignorance, still they were convicted by God’s commandment of
having negligently set about what was worth of greater attention. The “strange fire” is
distinguished from the sacred fire which was always burning upon the altar: not miraculously,
as some pretend, but by the constant watchfulness of the priests. Now, God had forbidden any
other fire to be used in the ordinances, in order to exclude all extraneous rites, and to shew His
detestation of whatever might be derived from elsewhere. Let us learn, therefore, so to attend
to God’s command as not to corrupt His worship by any strange inventions. But if He so
severely avenged this error, how horrible a punishment awaits the Papists, who are not
ashamed obstinately to defend so many gross corruptions?129

Leviticus 22:32

Neither shall ye profane. In forbidding the profanation of His name, He confirms in other
words the foregoing sentiment; guarding by them His worship from all corruptions, that it may
be maintained in purity and integrity. The same, too, is the object of the clause in apposition,
which immediately follows; for they hallow God’s name who turn not away from its rightful
and sincere worship. Let this be carefully observed, that whatever fancies men devise, are so
many profanations of God’s name; for although the superstitious may please themselves by
their imaginations, yet is all their religion full of sacrilege, whereby God complains that His
holiness is profaned.130

Numbers 15:39

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

And, first of all, by contrasting “the hearts and eyes” of men with His Law, He shows that He
would have His people contented with that one rule which He prescribes, without the
admixture of any of their own imaginations; and again, He denounces the vanity of whatever
men invent for themselves, and however pleasing any human scheme may appear to them, He
still repudiates and condemns it. And this is still more clearly expressed in the last word, when
he says that men “go a whoring” whenever they are governed by their own counsels. This
declaration is deserving of our especial observation, for whilst they have much self-satisfaction
who worship God according to their own will, and whilst they account their zeal to be very
good and very right, they do nothing else but pollute themselves by spiritual adultery. For what
by the world is considered to be the holiest devotion, God with his own mouth pronounces to
be fornication. By the word “eyes” he unquestionably means man’s power of discernment.131

Deuteronomy 4:1

Now, therefore, hearken, O Israel. He requires the people to be teachable, in order that they
may learn to serve God; for the beginning of a good and upright life is to know what is
pleasing to God. From hence, then, does Moses commence commanding them to be attentive
in seeking direction from the Law; and then admonishing them to prove by their whole life that
they have duly profited in the Law. The promise which is here inserted, only invites them to
unreserved obedience through hope of the inheritance. The main point is, that they should
neither add to nor diminish from the pure doctrine of the Law; and this cannot be the case,
unless men first renounce their own private feelings, and then shut their ears against all the
imaginations of others. For none are to be accounted (true) disciples of the Law, but those who
obtain their wisdom from it alone. It is, then, as if God commanded them to be content with
His precepts; because in no other way would they keep His law, except by giving themselves
wholly to its teaching. Hence it follows, that they only obey God who depend on His authority
alone; and that they only pay the Law its rightful honour, who receive nothing which is
opposed to its natural meaning. The passage is a remarkable one, openly condemning
whatsoever man’s ingenuity may invent for the service of God.132

Deuteronomy 12:32

What thing soever I command. In this brief clause he teaches that no other service of God is
lawful, except that of which He has testified His approval in His word, and that obedience is as
it were the mother of all piety; as if he had said that all modes of devotion are absurd and
infected with superstition, which are not directed by this rule. Hence we gather, that in order to
the keeping of the First Commandment, a knowledge of the true God is required, derived from
His word, and mixed with faith. By forbidding the addition, or diminishing of anything, he
plainly condemns as illegitimate whatever men invent of their own imagination.133

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

2 Samuel 6:6-12

Moreover, we must gather from it that none of our devotions will be accepted by God unless
they are conformed to his will. This rule ruins all the man-made inventions in the papacy’s so-
called worship of God, which has so much pomp and foolishness. All of that is nothing but
sheer trash before God, and is in fact an abomination to him. Hence, let us hold this
unmistakable rule, that if we want to worship God in accordance with our own ideas, it will
simply be abuse and corruption. And so, on the contrary, we must have the testimony of his
will in order to follow what he commands us, and to submit to it. Now that is how the worship
which we render to God will be approved.134

Isaiah 29:14

On the second point, when God is worshiped by inventions of men, he condemns this “fear” as
superstitious, though men endeavour to cloak it under a plausible pretense of religion, or
devotion, or reverence. He assigns the reason, that it “hath been taught by men.” I consider
melummadah to have a passive signification; for he means, that to make “the commandments
of men,” and not the word of God, the rule of worshiping him, is a subversion of order. But it
is the will of the Lord, that our “fear,” and the reverence with which we worship him, shall be
regulated by the rule of his word; and he demands nothing so much as simple obedience, by
which we shall conform ourselves and all our actions to the rule of the word, and not turn aside
to the right hand or to the left.

Hence it is sufficiently evident, that those who learn from “the inventions of men” how they
should worship God, not only are manifestly foolish, but wear themselves out by destructive
toil, because they do nothing else than provoke God’s anger; for he could not testify more
plainly than by the tremendous severity of this chastisement, how great is the abhorrence with
which he regards false worship.135

Jeremiah 7:21-24

He afterwards adds, that they walked in their tortuous counsels, and also, in the wickedness of
their evil heart. This comparison aggravates their sin,—the Jews preferred to follow their own
humour rather than to obey God and his commands. Had anything been set before them, which
might have deceived them and obscured the authority of the law, there would have been some
excuse: but when there was nothing to prevent them from obeying the command of God,
except that they followed their own foolish imaginations, they were wholly inexcusable. For
what excuse could they have made? That they wished to be wiser than God! How great a

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

madness was this, and how diabolical? But the Prophet leaves them nothing but this vain
excuse, which doubled their guilt. They thought, no doubt, that their heart was well fitted for
the purpose: but he does not here allow them to judge, but distinctly condemns them as they
deserved.

We ought to take particular notice of this passage; for the majority of men at this day set up
their own fictions against God’s word. The Papists indeed pretend antiquity; they say that they
have been taught by their ancestors; and at the same time they plead councils and the
ordinances of the fathers: but yet there is not one of them, who is not addicted to his own
figments, and who does not take the liberty, nay, an unbridled license, to reject whatever he
pleases. Moreover, if the origin of the whole papal worship be considered, it will appear, that
those who first devised so many strange superstitions, were only impelled by audacity and
presumption, in order that they might trample under foot the word of God. Hence it is, that all
things are become corrupt; for they brought in all the strange figments of their own brains. And
we see that the Papists at this day are so perversely fixed in their own errors, that they prefer
themselves and their own trumperies to God. And the same is the case with all the heretics.
What then is to be done? Obedience, as I have said, is to be held as the basis of all true
religion. If, then, on the other hand, we wish to render our worship approved by God, let us
learn to cast aside whatever is our own, so that his authority may prevail over all our
reasons.136

Jeremiah 7:31

Which I commanded them not, and which never came to my mind. This reason ought to be
carefully noticed, for God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he
condemns by this one phrase, “I have not commanded them,” whatever the Jews devised.
There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions, than that they are not
commanded by God: for when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own
fancies, and attend not to his commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was
adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship, in which they absurdly exercise
themselves, would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to
discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense
number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this
principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying his word, they would be
delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet’s words then are very important, when
he says, that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind; as though
he had said, that men assume too much wisdom, when they devise what he never required,
nay, what he never knew.137

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Jeremiah 19:4-5

God first complains that he had been forsaken by them, because they had changed the worship
which had been prescribed in his Law. And this is what ought to be carefully considered; for
no one would have willingly confessed what Jeremiah charged upon them all; they would have
said,—“We have not forsaken God, for we are the children of Abraham; but what we wish to
do is to add to his worship; and why should it be deemed a reproach to us, if we are not content
with our own simple form of worship, and add various other forms? and we worship God not
only in the temple, but also in this place; and further, we do not spare our own children.” But
God shows by one expression that these were frivolous evasions; for he is not acknowledged
except what he orders and commands is obediently received. Let us know, that God is forsaken
as soon as men turn aside from his pure word, and that all are apostates who turn here and
there, and do not follow what God approves....

The Jews might have raised such an objection as the Papists do at this today,—that their modes
of worship were not devised in their time, but that they had derived them from their ancestors.
But God regarded as nothing those kings and the fathers, who had long before degenerated
from true and genuine religion. It must be here observed, that true knowledge is connected
with verity: for they who had first contrived new forms of worship, doubtless followed their
own foolish imaginations; as when any one in the present day asks the Papists, why they weary
themselves so much with their superstitions, good intention is ever their shield,—“O, we think
that this is pleasing to God.” Therefore rightly does God repudiate their inventions as wholly
vain, for they possess nothing solid or permanent.138

Matthew 15:1

Then scribes and Pharisees. As the fault that is here corrected is not common but highly
dangerous, the passage is particularly worthy of our attention. We see the extraordinary
insolence that is displayed by men as to the form and manner of worshiping God; for they are
perpetually contriving new modes of worship, and when any one wishes to be thought wiser
than others, he displays his ingenuity on this subject. I speak not of foreigners, but of the very
domestics of the Church, on whom God has conferred the peculiar honour of declaring with
their lips the rule of godliness. God has laid down the manner in which he wishes that we
should worship him, and has included in his law the perfection of holiness. Yet a vast number
of men, as if it were a light and trivial matter to obey God and to keep what he enjoins, collect
for themselves, on every hand, many additions. Those who occupy places of authority bring
forward their inventions for this purpose, as if they were in possession of something more
perfect than the word of the Lord. This is followed by the slow growth of tyranny; for, when
men have once assumed to themselves the right to issue commands, they demand a rigid

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

adherence to their laws, and do not allow the smallest iota to be left out, either through
contempt or through forgetfulness. The world cannot endure lawful authority, and most
violently rebels against the Lord’s yoke, and yet easily and willingly becomes entangled in the
snares of vain traditions; nay, such bondage appears to be, in the case of many, an object of
desire. Meanwhile, the worship of God is corrupted, of which the first and leading principle is
obedience. The authority of men is preferred to the command of God. Sternly, and therefore
tyrannically, are the common people compelled to give their whole attention to trifles. This
passage teaches us, first, that all modes of worship invented by men are displeasing to God,
because he chooses that he alone shall be heard, in order to train and instruct us in true
godliness according to his own pleasure; secondly, that those who are not satisfied with the
only law of God, and weary themselves by attending to the traditions of men, are uselessly
employed; thirdly, that an outrage is committed against God, when the inventions of men are
so highly extolled, that the majesty of his law is almost lowered, or at least the reverence for it
is abated.139

Matthew 15:9

But in vain do they worship me. The words of the prophet run literally thus: their fear toward
me has been taught by the precept of men. But Christ has faithfully and accurately given the
meaning, that in vain is God worshiped, when the will of men is substituted in the room of
doctrine. By these words, all kinds of will-worship, as Paul calls it, (Col. 2:23) are plainly
condemned. For, as we have said, since God chooses to be worshiped in no other way than
according to his own appointment, he cannot endure new modes of worship to be devised. As
soon as men allow themselves to wander beyond the limits of the Word of God, the more
labour and anxiety they display in worshiping him, the heavier is the condemnation which they
draw down upon themselves; for by such inventions religion is dishonoured.

Teaching doctrines, commandments of men. In these words there is what is called apposition;
for Christ declares them to be mistaken who bring forward, in the room of doctrine, the
commandments of men, or who seek to obtain from them the rule for worshiping God. Let it
therefore be held as a settled principle, that, since obedience is more highly esteemed by God
than sacrifices, (1 Sam. 15:22, 23) all kinds of worship invented by men are of no estimations
in his sight; nay more, that, as the prophet declares, they are accursed and detestable.140

Colossians 2:22-23

The sum is this—that the worship of God, true piety, and the holiness of Christians, do not
consist in drink, and food and clothing, which are things that are transient and liable to
corruption, and perish by abuse. For abuse is properly applicable to those things which are

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

corrupted by the use of them. Hence enactments are of no value in reference to those things
which tend to excite scruples of conscience. But in Popery you would scarcely find any other
holiness, than what consists in little observances of corruptible things.

A second refutation is added—that they originated with men, and have not God as their
Author; and by this thunderbolt he prostrates and swallows up all traditions of men. For why?
This is Paul’s reasoning: “Those who bring consciences into bondage do injury to Christ, and
make void his death. For what is of human invention does not bind conscience....”

Observe, however, of what colours this show consists, according to Paul. He makes mention of
three—self-invented worship, humility, and neglect of the body. Superstition among the
Greeks receives the name of ethelothreskeia—the term which Paul here makes use of. He has,
however, an eye to the etymology of the term, for ethelothreskeia literally denotes a voluntary
service, which men choose for themselves at their own option, without authority from God.
Human traditions, therefore, are agreeable to us on this account, that they are in accordance
with our understanding, for any one will find in his own brain the first outlines of them.... For
it should be a settled point among all the pious, that the worship of God ought not to be
measured according to our views; and that, consequently, any kind of service is not lawful,
simply on the ground that it is agreeable to us. This, also, ought to be a commonly received
point—that we owe to God such humility as to yield obedience simply to his commands, so as
not to lean to our own understanding, etc., (Prov. iii:5)....

Thus, at the present day, Papists are not in want of specious pretexts, by which to set forth their
own laws, however they may be—some of them impious and tyrannical, and others of them
silly and trifling. When, however, we have granted them everything, there remains,
nevertheless, this refutation by Paul, which is of itself more than sufficient for dispelling all
their smoky vapours.141

Institutes of the Christian Religion

Images and pictures are contrary to Scripture

Now we ought to bear in mind that Scripture repeatedly describes superstitions in this
language: they are the “works of men’s hands,” which lack God’s authority (Isa. 2:8; 31:7;
37:19; Hos. 14:3; Mic. 5:13); this is done to establish the fact that all the cults men devise of
themselves are detestable.142

True religion binds us to God as the one and only God

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

But godliness, to stand on a firm footing, keeps itself within its proper limits. Likewise, it
seems to me that superstition is so called because, not content with the prescribed manner and
order, it heaps up a needless mass of inanities.143

Honoring images is dishonor to God

For by his law it pleases him to prescribe for men what is good and right, and thus to hold
them to a sure standard that no one may take leave to contrive any sort of worship he
pleases.144

The sufficiency of the law

On the other hand, the Lord, in giving the rule of perfect righteousness, has referred all its
parts to his will, thereby showing that nothing is more acceptable to him than obedience. The
more inclined the playfulness of the human mind is to dream up various rites with which to
deserve well of him, the more diligently ought we to mark this fact. The best remedy to cure
that fault will be to fix this thought firmly in mind: the law has been divinely handed down to
us to teach us perfect righteousness; there no other righteousness is taught than that which
conforms to the requirements of God’s will; in vain therefore do we attempt new forms of
works to win the favor of God, whose lawful worship consists in obedience alone; rather, any
zeal for good works that wanders outside God’s law is an intolerable profanation of divine and
true righteousness.145

Spiritual worship of the invisible God

In the previous commandment, he declared himself the one God apart from whom no other
gods are to be imagined or had. Now he declares more openly what sort of God he is, and with
what kind of worship he should be honored, lest we dare attribute anything carnal to him. The
purpose of this commandment, then, is that he does not will that his lawful worship be
profaned by superstitious rites. To sum up, he wholly calls us back, and withdraws us from
petty carnal observances, which our stupid minds, crassly conceiving of God, are wont to
devise. And then he makes us conform to his lawful worship, that is, a spiritual worship
established by himself. Moreover, he marks the grossest fault in this transgression, outward
idolatry.146

(Traditions and human inventions in worship condemned in Scripture and by Christ himself,
23-26)
The appeal to the authority of the church contradicts the evidence of Scripture

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

But how important do we think it that the Lord is deprived of his Kingdom, which he so
sternly claims for himself? But it is taken away whenever he is worshiped by laws of human
devising, inasmuch as he wills to be accounted the sole lawgiver of his own worship. So that
now one may think this something negligible, let us hear how highly the Lord regards.
“Because,” he says, “this people...feared me by a commandment and doctrines of men,...
behold, I will astound this people with a great and amazing miracle; for wisdom shall perish
from their wise men, and understanding shall depart from their elders.” [Isa. 29:13-14 p.]
Another passage: “In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of
men” [Matt. 15:9]. And truly, when the Children of Israel corrupted themselves with many
idolatries, the cause of all that evil is ascribed to this impure mixture: they have transgressed
God’s commandments and have fabricated new rites....”

Thereupon, it is afterward said that they, frightened by that punishment, took up the rites
prescribed in the law; but because they were not purely worshiping the true God, it is twice
repeated that they feared him and feared him not [II Kings 17:24-25, 32-33, 41]. From this we
gather that a part of the reverence that is paid to him consists simply in worshiping him as he
commands, mingling no inventions of our own. And pious kings are often praised because they
acted in accordance with all precepts, and did not turn aside either to the right or to the left [II
Kings 22:1-2; cf. I Kings 15:11; 22:43; II Kings 12:2; 14:3; 15:3; 15:34; 18:3]. I say further:
although in some contrived worship impiety does not openly appear, it is still severely
condemned by the Spirit, since it is a departure from God’s precept. The altar of Ahaz, the
pattern of which was brought out of Samaria [II Kings 16:10], could seem to enhance the
adornment of the temple, since it was Ahaz’ intention to offer sacrifices there to the only God,
which he was going to do more splendidly than on the old original altar. Yet we see how the
Spirit loathes this insolence solely because the inventions of men in the worship of God are
impure corruptions [II Kings 16:10-18]. And the more clearly God’s will is revealed to us, the
less excusable is our wantonness in attempting anything.147

Perverse worship an abomination to God

Many marvel why the Lord so sharply threatens to astound the people who worshiped him
with the commands of men [Isa. 29:13-14] and declares that he is vainly worshiped by the
precepts of men [Matt. 15:9]. But if they were to weigh what it is to depend upon God’s
bidding alone in matters of religion (that is, on account of heavenly wisdom), they would at the
same time see that the Lord has strong reasons to abominate such perverse rites, which are
performed for him according to the willfulness of human nature. For even though those who
obey such laws in the worship of God have some semblance of humility in this obedience of
theirs, they are nevertheless not at all humble in God’s sight, since they prescribe for him these
same laws which they observe. Now, this is the reason Paul so urgently warns us not to be
deceived by the traditions of men [Col. 2:4 ff.], or by what he calls ethelothreskeia, that is,

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

“will worship,” devised by men apart from God’s teaching [Col. 2:23, 22]. It is certainly true
that our own and all men’s wisdom must become foolish, that we may allow him alone to be
wise. Those who expect his approval for their paltry observances contrived by men’s will, and
offer to him, as if involuntarily, a sham obedience which is paid actually to men, do not hold to
that path.148

Refutation of Romanist counterevidence

In short, every chance invention, by which men seek to worship God, is nothing but a pollution
of true holiness.149

(Church laws and traditions, and the Christian’s conscience before God, 1-4)
The basic question

This is the power to be discussed, whether the church may lawfully bind consciences by its
laws. In this discussion we are not dealing with the political order, but are only concerned with
how God is to be duly worshiped according to the rule laid down by him, and how the spiritual
freedom which looks to God may remain unimpaired for us.

It has become common usage to call all decrees concerning the worship of God put forward by
men apart from his Word “human traditions.” Our contention is against these, not against holy
and useful church institutions, which provide for the preservation of discipline or honesty or
peace.150

Directions to determine which human constitutions are inadmissible

Paul employs the former reason when he contends in the letter to the Colossians against false
apostles who were trying to oppress the churches with new burdens [Col. 2:8]. He makes more
use of the second reason in the letter to the Galatians, in a similar case [Gal. 5:1-12].
Accordingly, he argues in the letter to the Colossians that we are not to seek from men the
doctrine of the true worship of God, for the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us how he
is to be worshiped. To prove this, he says in the first chapter that the gospel contains all the
wisdom by which the man of God is made perfect in Christ [Col. 1:28]. At the beginning of the
second chapter he states that all treasures of wisdom and understanding are hidden in Christ
[Col. 2:3]. From this he subsequently concludes that believers ought to beware lest they be
seduced from Christ’s flock through empty philosophy, according to the constitutions of men
[Col. 2:8]. But at the end of the chapter he condemns with greater confidence all self-made
religion, that is, all feigned worship, which men have devised for themselves or received from
others, and all precepts they of themselves dare promulgate concerning the worship of God
[Col. 2:16-23].151
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
(Ecclesiastical constitutions authorizing ceremonies in worship are tyrannous, frivolous, and
contrary to Scripture, 9-18)
The Roman constitutions are, according to the foregoing principles, to be rejected

I am not yet touching on the gross abominations with which they have endeavored to
overthrow all piety. But among them it would not be imagined to be such an atrocious crime to
fail to observe in even the least little tradition if they did not subject the worship of God to
their fictions. How do we sin, if today we cannot bear what Paul has taught to be unbearable—
that the lawful order of divine worship is reduced to men’s decision? Especially, when they
command men to worship according to the elements of this world, which Paul testifies to be
against Christ [Col. 2:20]. Again, it is well known with what extreme rigor they bind
consciences to observe whatever they command. When we contradict them, we make common
cause with Paul, who on no account allows faithful consciences to be reduced to human
bondage [Gal. 5:1].152

The papal constitutions deny God’s law

Moreover, this evil thing is added, that when religion once begins to be defined in such vain
fictions, such perversity is always followed by another hateful depravity, for which Christ
rebuked the Pharisees. It is that they nullify God’s commandment for the sake of the traditions
of men [Matt. 15:3]. I do not wish to fight with words of my own against our present
lawmakers; let them win, I say, if they can in any way cleanse themselves of Christ’s
accusation.153

Roman constitutions meaningless and useless

I know that my description of them as foolish and useless will not be credible to the wisdom of
the flesh, which takes such pleasure in them that it thinks the church utterly deformed when
they are removed. But this is what Paul writes: “These have...an appearance of wisdom in
counterfeit worship, in self-abasement,” and for that reason they seem by their severity to be
able to tame the flesh [Col. 2:23 p.]. Surely a most salutary admonition, this, which ought
never to escape us! Human traditions, he says, deceive under the appearance of wisdom.
Whence this deceptive hue? From the fact that they have been feigned by men. Human wit
recognizes there what is its own, and embraces it, once recognized, more willingly than
something truly excellent but less in accord with its vanity.... Lastly, because they apparently
try to restrain the delights of the flesh, and to subject it to the rigor of abstinence, they
therefore seem to have been wisely contrived. But what does Paul say to these? Does he tear
off these masks, that the simple-minded may not be deluded by false pretense? Since to
disprove them he had deemed it enough merely to have said that they were the devisings of
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
men, he passes over all these things without refutation [Col. 2:22], as if he counted them of no
value. Indeed, Paul knew that all counterfeit worship in the church was condemned, and that
the more it delights human nature the more it is suspected by believers; he knew that that false
image of outward humility is so far from true humility as to be easily distinguished from it;
lastly, he knew that elementary discipline is no more to be esteemed than bodily exercise. He
wished the very facts to serve as a refutation of human traditions for believers, for whose sake
these were commended among the unlearned.154

General application of common insights

For whenever this superstition creeps in, that men wish to worship God with their fictions, all
laws enacted for this purpose immediately degenerate to these gross abuses. For God threatens
no one age or another but all ages with this curse, that he will strike with blindness and
amazement those who worship him with the doctrines of men [Isa. 29:13-14]. This blinding
continually causes those who despise so many warnings of God and willfully entangle
themselves in these deadly snares, to embrace every kind of absurdity. But suppose, apart from
present circumstances, you simply want to understand what are those human traditions of all
times that should be repudiated by the church and by all godly men. What we have set forth
above will be a sure and clear definition: that they are all laws apart from God’s Word, laws
made by men, either to prescribe the manner of worshiping God or to bind consciences by
scruples, as if they were making rules about things necessary for salvation.155

As for the present case, suppose that, tearing away all masks and disguises, we truly look upon
that which ought to be our first concern and is of greatest importance for us, that is, the kind of
church Christ would have that we may fashion and fit ourselves to its standard. We shall then
easily see that it is not a church which, passing the bounds of God’s Word, wantons and
disports itself in the framing of new laws. For does not that law once spoken to the church hold
good forever? “Everything that I command you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or
take from it.” [Deut. 12:32.] And another passage: “Do not add to” the Word of the Lord, or
take away from it, “lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar” [Prov. 30:6 p.]. They cannot
deny that this was spoken to the church. What else, then, do they declare but its recalcitrance,
for they boast that, after such prohibitions, it nonetheless dared add and mix something of its
own with God’s teaching? Far be it from us to assent to their falsehood, by which they bring so
much insult upon the church! But let us understand that whenever one considers this inordinate
human rashness—which cannot contain itself within God’s commands but must, wildly
exalting, run after its own inventions—the name “church” is falsely pretended. There is
nothing involved, nothing obscure, nothing ambiguous in these words which forbid the church
universal to add to or take away anything from God’s Word, when the worship of the Lord and
precepts of salvation are concerned.... The Lord, who long ago declared that nothing so much
offended him as being worshiped by humanly devised rites, has not become untrue to

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

himself.156

The Roman constitutions do not reach back to the apostles, or even to the “apostolic tradition”

But to trace the origin of these traditions (with which the church has hitherto been oppressed)
back to the apostles is pure deceit. For the whole doctrine of the apostles has this intent: not to
burden consciences with new observances, or contaminate the worship of God with our own
inventions. Again, if there is anything credible in the histories and ancient records, the apostles
not only were ignorant of what the Romanists attribute to them but never even heard of it.157

Confession of Faith in the Name of the Reformed Churches of

France (1662)

Of the Service of God

Now on our part, in accordance with his declaration, that obedience is better than sacrifice, (1
Sam. xv. 22,) and with his uniform injunction to listen to what he commands, if we would
render a well regulated and acceptable sacrifice, we hold that it is not for us to invent what to
us seems good, or to follow what may have been devised in the brain of other men, but confine
ourselves simply to the purity of Scripture. Wherefore we believe that anything which is not
derived from it, but has only been commanded by the authority of men, ought not to be
regarded as the service of God....

The second axiom is, that when we presume to serve God at our own hand, he repudiates it as
corruption. And this is the reason why he exclaims by his prophet Isaiah, (Is. xxix. 13,) that all
true religion has been perverted by keeping the commandments of men. And our Lord Jesus
Christ confirms the same by saying, (Matt. xv. 9,) that in vain would we know God by human
tradition. It is with good reason, therefore, that his spiritual supremacy over our souls remains
inviolable, and that at the very least his will as a bridle should regulate our devotions.158

Of Human Tradition

We have in this matter such notable warnings from common experience, that we are the more
confirmed in not passing the limits of Scripture. For since men began to make laws to regulate
the service of God, and subject the conscience, there has been neither end nor measure, while,
on the other hand, God has punished such temerity, blinding men with delusions which may
make one shudder. When we look nearer to see what human traditions are, we find that they
are an abyss, and that their number is endless. An yet there are abuses so absurd and enormous,
that it is wonderful how men could have been so stupid, were it not that God has executed the

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

vengeance which he announced by his prophet Isaiah, (Is. xxix. 14,) blinding and infatuating
the wise who would honour him by observing the commandments of men.159

Of Idolatrous Intentions

Since men have turned aside from pure and holy obedience to God, they have discovered that
good intention was sufficient to approve everything. This was to open a door to all
superstitions. It has been the origin of the worship of images, the purchase of masses, the
filling of churches with pomp and parade, the running about on pilgrimages, the making of
vows by each at his own hand. But the abyss here is so profound that it is enough for us to
have touched on some examples. So far is it from being permitted to honour God by human
inventions, that there would be no firmness nor certainty, neither bottom nor shore in religion:
every thing would go to wreck, and Christianity differ in nothing from the idolatries of the
heathen.160

The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1544)

Moreover, the rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal
application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look
to the injunctions of Him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have Him
to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness,
must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and
prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it
tends greatly to establish His authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend
entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all
we are able to do is go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path,
there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly,
therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes
us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly,
too, does he, in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse
modes of worship, provoke His anger against us.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship
not expressly sanctioned by His Word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being
seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a
sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honour 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.” “In vain to they

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” (1 Sam. xv. 22; Matth. xv. 9.)
Every addition to His word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere “will
worship” (ethelothreskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has
decided, it is no longer time to debate....161

Having observed that the Word of God is the test which discriminates between his true
worship and that which is false and vitiated, we thence readily infer that the whole form of
divine worship in general use in the present day is nothing but mere corruption. For men pay
no regard to what God has commanded, or to what he approves, in order that they may serve
him in a becoming manner, but assume to themselves a license of devising modes of worship,
and afterwards obtruding them upon him as a substitute for obedience. If in what I say I seem
to exaggerate, let an examination be made of all the acts by which the generality suppose that
they worship God. I dare scarcely except a tenth part as not the random offspring of their own
brain. What more would we? God rejects, condemns, abominates all fictitious worship, and
employs his Word as a bridle to keep us in unqualified obedience. When shaking off this yoke,
we wander after our own fictions, and offer to him a worship, the work of human rashness,
how much soever it may delight ourselves, in his sight it is vain trifling, nay, vileness and
pollution. The advocates of human traditions paint them in fair and gaudy colours; and Paul
certainly admits that they carry with them a show of wisdom; but as God values obedience
more than all sacrifices, it ought to be sufficient for the rejection of any mode of worship, that
is not sanctioned by the command of God....162

In regard to the worship of God, our adversaries next accuse us, because, omitting empty and
childish observances, tending only to hypocrisy, we worship God more simply. That we have
in no respect detracted from the spiritual worship of God, is attested by fact. Nay, when it had
in a great measure gone into desuetude, we have reinstated it in its former rights....163

But the worst of all is, that though God has so often and so strictly interdicted all modes of
worship prescribed by man, the only worship paid to him consisted of human inventions. What
ground, then, have our enemies to vociferate that in this matter we have given religion to the
wind? First, we have not laid even a finger on anything which Christ does not discountenance,
as of no value, when he declares that it is vain to worship God with human traditions. The
thing might, perhaps, have been more tolerable if the only effect had been that men lost their
pains by an unavailing worship; but since as I have observed, God in many passages forbids
any new worship unsanctioned by his Word; since he declares that he is grievously offended
with the presumption which invents such worship, and threatens it with severe punishment, it
is clear that the reformation which we have introduced was demanded by a strong necessity.

I am not unaware how difficult it is to persuade the world that God rejects and even
abominates every thing relating to his worship that is devised by human reason. The delusion
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
on this head is owing to several causes,—“Every one thinks highly of his own,” as the old
proverb expresses it. Hence the offspring of our own brain delights us, and besides, as Paul
admits, this fictitious worship often presents some show of wisdom. Then, as it has for the
most part an external splendour which pleases the eye, it is more agreeable to our carnal
nature, than that which alone God requires and approves, but which is less ostentatious. But
there is nothing which so blinds the understanding of men, and misleads them in their
judgments in this matter, as hypocrisy. For while it is incumbent on true worshipers to give the
heart and mind, men are always desirous to invent a mode of serving God of a totally different
description, their object being to perform to him certain bodily observances, and keep the mind
to themselves. Moreover, they imagine that when they obtrude upon him external pomp, they
have, by this artifice, evaded the necessity of giving themselves. And this is the reason why
they submit to innumerable observances which miserably fatigue them without measure and
without end, and why they choose to wander in a perpetual labyrinth, rather than worship God
simply in spirit and in truth....164

The mockery which worships God with nought but external gestures and absurd human
fictions, how could we, without sin, allow to pass unrebuked? We know how much he hates
hypocrisy, and yet in that fictitious worship, which was everywhere in use, hypocrisy reigned.
We hear how bitter the terms in which the Prophets inveigh against all worship fabricated by
human rashness. But a good intention, i.e., an insane license of daring whatever man pleased,
was deemed the perfection of worship. For it is certain that in the whole body of worship
which had been established, there was scarcely a single observance which had an authoritative
sanction from the Word of God. We are not in this matter to stand either by our own or by
other men’s judgments. We must listen to the voice of God, and hear in what estimation he
holds that profanation of worship which is displayed when men, over leaping the boundaries of
his Word, run riot in their own inventions. The reasons which he assigns for punishing the
Israelites with blindness, after they had lost the pious and holy hypocrisy, and will-worship,
(ethelothreskeia) meaning thereby a form of worship contrived by men.165

The True Method of Giving Peace to Christendom and

Reforming the Church (1548)

We may add that the knowledge of this matter demands its own proper explanation. There are
two principal branches. First, we must hold that the spiritual worship of God does not consist
either in external ceremonies, or any other kind of works whatsoever; and, secondly, that no
worship is legitimate unless it be so framed as to have for its only rule the will of him to whom
it is performed. Both of these are absolutely necessary. For as we savor of nothing but earth
and flesh, so we measure God by ourselves. Hence it is that we always take more pleasure in
external show, which is of no value in the sight on God, than in that inward worship of the

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

heart, which alone he approves and requires. On the other hand, the wantonness of our minds
is notorious, which breaks forth, especially in this quarter, where nothing at all ought to have
been dared. Men allow themselves to devise all modes of worship, and change and rechange
them at pleasure. Nor is the fault of our age. Even from the beginning of the world, the world
sported thus licentiously with God. He himself proclaims that there is nothing he values more
than obedience. (I Sam. xv. 22.) Wherefore, all modes of worship devised contrary to his
command, he not only repudiates as void, but distinctly condemns. Why need I adduce proofs
in so clear a matter? Passages to this effect should be proverbial among Christians.166

Brief Form of a Confession of Faith

I confess that both the whole rule of right living, and also instruction in faith, are mostly
delivered in the sacred Scriptures, to which nothing can, without criminality, be added, from
which nothing can be taken away. I therefore detest all of men’s imagining which they would
obtrude upon us as articles of faith, and bind upon our consciences by laws and statutes. And
thus I repudiate in general whatever has been introduced into the worship of God without
authority from the word of God. Of this kind are all the Popish ceremonies. In short, I detest
the tyrannical yoke by which miserable consciences have been oppressed—as the law of
auricular confession, celibacy, and others of the same description.167

Letter to Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, Duke of

Somerset, Regent of England under the Minority of Edward VI
(1548)

Praise be to God, you have not to learn what is the true faith of Christians, and the doctrine
which they ought to hold, seeing that by your means the true purity of the faith has been
restored. That is, that we hold God alone to be the sole Governor of our souls, that we hold his
law to be the only rule and spiritual directory for our consciences, not serving him according to
the foolish inventions of men. Also, that according to his nature he would be worshiped in
spirit and in purity of heart. On the other hand, acknowledging that there is nothing but all
wretchedness in ourselves, and that we are corrupt in all our feelings and affections, so that our
souls are a very abyss of iniquity, utterly despairing of ourselves; and that, having exhausted
every presumption of our own wisdom, worth, or power of well-doing, we must have recourse
to the fountain of every blessing, which is in Christ Jesus.168

128 John Calvin, “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” in Selected Works: Tracts and

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Letters, Henry Beveridge, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983 [1844]), 1:126.

129John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1981), 3:431-432.

130 Ibid., 1:344.

131 Ibid., 1:365.

132 Ibid., 1:344-345.

133 Ibid., 1:353.

134 John Calvin, Sermons on 2 Samuel (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1992), 246.

135John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981),
1:397-398.

136John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1981), 1:397-398 (italics in original).

137 Ibid., 1:413-414.

138 Ibid., 2:438-439.

139John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists: Matthew, Mark, and Luke
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 2:245-246.

140 Ibid., 2:253-254.

141John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Philippians,
Colossians and Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 201-203.

142John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion I.XI.4, Ford Lewis Battles, trans.
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1:104.

143 I.XII.I, 1:117.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

144 I.XII.3, 1:120.

145 II.VII.5, 1:371-372.

146 II.VIII.17, 1:383.

147 IV.X.23, 2:1201-1202.

148 IV.X.24, 2:1203.

149 IV.X.26, 2:1204.

150 IV.X.1, 2:1179.

151 IV.X.8, 2:1186-1187.

152 IV.X.9, 2:1187-1188.

153 IV.X.10, 2:1188.

154 IV.X.11, 2:1189-1190.

155 IV.X.16, 2:1194.

156 IV.X.17, 2:1195-1196.

157 IV.X.18, 2:1197.

158John Calvin, “Confession of Faith” in Selected Works: Tracts and Letters (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1983 [1844]), 2:147-148.

159 Ibid.

160 Ibid., 148-149.

161 “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” in Selected Works, 1:128-129.

162 Ibid., 1:132-133.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
163 Ibid., 1:151.

164 Ibid., 1:152-153.

165 Ibid., 1:189.

166John Calvin, “The True Method of Giving Peace to Christendom and Reforming the
Church” in Selected Works: Tracts and Letters (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 3:260-261.

167John Calvin, “Brief Form of a Confession of Faith” in Selected Works: Tracts and Letters
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 2:133.

168 John Calvin, “To the Protector Somerset” in Selected Works: Tracts and Letters, 5:189.

Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing MI, 2000

Home Free Downloads Books to Buy

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Appendix B
The Neo-Presbyterian Challenge to
Confessional Presbyterian Orthodoxy:
A Biblical Analysis of John Frame’s Worship in
Spirit and in Truth
Introduction

John Frame, a Presbyterian Church in America ordained minister, “worship leader” and
professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary,
Orlando,169 has written a book that both defends and sets forth the worship paradigm of most
modern “conservative” Presbyterianism. (By conservative Presbyterianism we refer to those
Presbyterian bodies that strictly adhere to biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth, literal miracles,
vicarious atonement, a literal resurrection and the five points of Calvinism.) Before analyzing
many of the fundamental assertions of Frame’s book, this author would like to commend
Frame for a number of things. First, the book, Worship in Spirit and in Truth, is well written
and organized. Second, Frame has tackled a subject that is very important and hardly
addressed in this century. Third, Frame is strongly committed to biblical inerrancy and the
absolute authority of the Bible. Although Frame’s book has some commendable aspects, it
must be condemned over-all as a serious departure from the standard, historical understanding
of Reformed worship. What is particularly disturbing regarding Frame’s book is that he
abandons the Westminster Standards, yet presents himself as a champion of the regulative
principle taught in those Standards. Frame is either guilty of serious self-deception, or he is
incredibly dishonest. In this brief analysis of Frame’s book we will consider: (1) Frame’s book
as a justification of the status quo (i.e., neo-Presbyterian worship), (2) Frame’s
misrepresentation of the position regarding worship of the early Presbyterians and Westminster
Standards, (3) Frame’s redefinition of the regulative principle, (4) Frame’s bizarre, arbitrary
and unorthodox exegetical methodology that he uses to justify many human innovations in
worship, and (5) Frame’s case for modern “celebrative” worship.

Defending the Status Quo

One of the purposes of Frame’s book is to justify the type of worship practiced by his and
many other churches. He writes: “Part of my motivation was a concern to preserve for my
local congregation and others like it the freedom to worship God in its accustomed style—one

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

that is nontraditional, but in my judgment, fully spiritual.”170 Frame throughout the book refers
to traditional vs. non-traditional worship. Although he never defines traditional worship, it is
clear that he is not in favor of it. He says, “Historically oriented books typically try to make us
feel guilty if we do not follow traditional patterns. Theological traditionalists also typically
want to minimize freedom and flexibility. Even those who offer suggestions for ‘meaningful
worship’ are often very restrictive, for they tend to be very negative toward churches that don’t
follow their suggestions.”171 This statement, which occurs in the preface of the book, is a
classic case of what debaters call “poisoning the well.” According to Frame, there is traditional
worship, which he implies is founded upon human tradition, and there is his type of worship
which is truly free of human traditions and is biblical. We will see, however, that Frame
proposes all sorts of things in worship that have no warrant from God’s word. If, by traditional,
Frame was condemning uninspired hymns, musical instruments (e.g., the piano and organ) and
extrabiblical holy days (e.g., Christmas and Easter), then he would be on the right track.172
However, one will note as he reads Frame’s book that his problem with the typical old-
fashioned corrupt “Presbyterian” worship is that it does not have enough human innovations.
He is really in favor of more, not less, human autonomy.

As this study progresses we will see that there are two basic schools of thought regarding
worship in “conservative” Presbyterian circles. There are strict, consistent regulativists who
follow the original intent of the Westminster Standards. Such people worship exactly as
Presbyterians did for over two hundred years (i.e., employing a capella exclusive psalmody
without extra-biblical holy days). There are others (the vast majority) who have found ways to
circumvent the regulative principle and bring in various human innovations. Frame, as part of
the latter group, is simply being more consistent. That is primarily the reason that Frame’s
Arminian-charismatic style of worship is being adopted throughout “conservative”
Presbyterian denominations that have already abandoned biblical worship. Frame’s main
disagreement with old-fashioned corrupt “Presbyterian” worship (e.g., Trinity Hymnal and a
piano) is really one primarily of style or taste. (Although there are also still some major
philosophical differences regarding the role of the mind in worship and mysticism.) Frame’s
disagreement with the Westminster Standards and strict regulativists is fundamental and
foundational. Thus, most of his book is directed against the Westminster Standards and the
worship that it produced (exclusive a capella psalmody without extra-biblical holy days, etc.).

In a sense, Frame has done the church of Christ a great service by putting in written form for
all to read and analyze a defense of neo-presbyterian worship. What is neo-presbyterian
worship? It is Arminian-charismatic style worship conducted by Presbyterians who pretend to
hold to the Westminster Standards in the sphere of worship. One can understand where Frame
is coming from, from the following statement: “In a way, the volume seeks to summarize the
thinking underlying the worship of the ‘New Life’ Presbyterian churches: New Life
Presbyterian Church in Escondido, California, where I worship, our ‘mother church’ of the

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

same name in Glenside, Pennsylvania, and others.”173 The “mother church” to which Frame
refers was founded in the 1970s by Orthodox Presbyterian pastor Jack Miller. The “mother
church” in Glenside adopted the worship practices of Arminian-charismatic churches and
discovered that the new worship practices were fun, attracted young people and led to church
growth. It is important to note that the new “non-traditional” worship adopted by the original
New Life Church in Glenside, which is now practiced in a many of the Presbyterian Church in
American congregations and number of Orthodox Presbyterian churches, did not come into
being from a careful exegesis of Scripture by Reformed pastors and theologians. It was simply
borrowed lock, stock and barrel from Arminian charismatics who couldn’t care less if there
was such a thing as the regulative principle. Frame, a “worship leader” in such a church,
attempts in his book to harmonize such worship with the Reformed faith, twenty years after
such worship was adopted. He has taken upon himself the task of harmonizing a non-
Reformed, Arminian-charismatic worship paradigm with the strict regulativist paradigm of the
Westminster Standards. In a moment we will see that this involves redefining the Reformed
concept of “divine warrant” so broadly that almost anything is permitted in worship. Frame has
the job of fitting a very large square peg (Arminian-charismatic worship) into a very small
round hole (the Reformed-confessional doctrine of worship). Therefore, he spends a great deal
of time with a hammer and chisel, making the small round hole very large and square. One
must give Frame credit for the skill with which he so smoothly, cunningly and craftily
completely redefines the regulative principle, all the while claiming total allegiance to the
Westminster Standards.

Another stated purpose of Frame’s book is to soothe the guilty consciences of Reformed
pastors who know enough theology and church history to recognize to a certain extent that
they have departed from Reformed, confessional worship. He writes:

Presbyterian worship—based on the biblical “regulative principle,” which I

describe in these pages—was in its early days very restrictive, austere, and
“minimalist.” It excluded organs, choirs, hymn texts other than the Psalms,
symbolism in the worship area, and religious holidays except for the Sabbath.
Presbyterians in the “Covenanter” tradition, such as those in the Reformed
Presbyterian Church of North America and a few other denominations, still
worship in this way, but they are in that respect a small minority of conservative
Presbyterians today.

Nevertheless, the Puritan theology of worship that produced this minimalism is

still taught in theologically conservative Presbyterian churches and seminaries as
the authentic Presbyterian and Reformed view of worship. This is partly because
that theology is reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms,
to which these churches subscribe. But the Westminster standards actually contain

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 very little of the Puritan theology of worship. The Puritan and Scottish divines who
wrote the Westminster standards were wise not to include in them all their ideas of
worship. The principles responsible for liturgical minimalism come from Puritan
and other Reformed texts that go above and beyond the confessional documents.
Yet these extraconfessional texts themselves have considerable informal authority
in conservative Presbyterian churches.

The result has been that although few conservative Presbyterian churches actually
worship in the Puritan way, the Puritan theology of worship remains the standard
orthodoxy among them. This discrepancy sometimes leads to guilty consciences. I
have talked to pastors, for instance, who are unwilling to go back to exclusive use
of the Psalms in congregational singing, yet feel awkward about singing hymns.
They almost seem to think that they ought to worship as the Puritans did, even
though they have no intention of doing so. They worry that this wavering amounts
to an inconsistency in their commitment to the Reformed faith and to Presbyterian
orthodoxy.

I believe that Presbyterians need to do some rethinking in this area. In my view,

the Westminster Confession is entirely right in its regulative principle—that true
worship is limited to what God commands. But the methods used by the Puritans
to discover and apply those commands need a theological overhaul. Much of what
they said cannot be justified by Scripture. The result of our rethinking, I hope, will
be a somewhat revised paradigm for Presbyterian worship; one thoroughly
Reformed in its assumptions, affirming the regulative principle and the statements
of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, but allowing much greater
flexibility than the Puritans did in applying God’s commands for worship. Such a
revised paradigm will relieve the guilty feelings mentioned earlier, not because it
allows us to ignore God’s commandments, but because it helps us to understand
more accurately what our Lord expects of us.174

Frame’s book should be seen for what it is. It is first and foremost a defense of the departure
and declension in the area of worship that has occurred over the past two hundred years in
most Presbyterian denominations. Frame openly admits in the quote above that there is a
“discrepancy” between what modern Presbyterians profess and what they actually practice.
This discrepancy causes some Presbyterian ministers to feel guilty. Therefore (according to
Frame), what these ministers need is a new “revised paradigm” that allows “much greater
flexibility” (which amounts to “much greater human autonomy”), so that churches can worship
in the corrupt, backslidden fashion they are accustomed to without “guilty feelings.” In order
to soothe guilty consciences Frame wages guerilla warfare upon Reformed worship. He attacks
the regulative principle by completely redefining it and gutting it. He then attacks the standard,

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

historic biblical positions held by Presbyterians until the declension began (e.g., exclusive
Psalmody, the non-use of instruments in public worship, the non-celebration of pagan, papal
holy days, etc.). The secondary purpose of Frame’s book is to justify to his already
backslidden (Trinity Hymnal, piano and organ) audience the superiority of Arminian-
charismatic contemporary worship. We will see that what most modern Presbyterians need is
not an apologetic for declension but rather a call to sincere repentance. There must be a return
to the biblical attainments of our covenanted Presbyterian forefathers.

Rewriting History

Before we turn our attention to Frame’s treatment of the regulative principle we first must
consider the misrepresentation of church history that is given to make it appear that his
position is not contrary to the Westminster Standards. He writes: “[T]he Westminster
Standards actually contain very little of the Puritan theology of worship. The Puritan and
Scottish divines who wrote the Westminster Standards were wise not to include in them all of
their ideas on worship. The principles responsible for liturgical minimalism come from Puritan
and other Reformed texts that go above and beyond the confessional documents. Yet these
extra-confessional texts themselves have considerable informal authority in conservative
Presbyterian churches.”175

The purpose of this statement is to make a distinction between the teaching of the Westminster
Standards and “extra-confessional texts” (i.e., books, tracts, pamphlets, and sermons) by
Puritans and other Reformed persons “that go above and beyond the confessional documents.”
According to Frame it is not the confession that produced “liturgical minimalism”176 but rather
Puritan extremists who went too far. Why does Frame separate the teachings of the
Westminster Standards from the writings on worship of those Puritans and Presbyterians who
wrote the Westminster Standards? The simple reason that Frame and other advocates of neo-
presbyterian worship repeatedly misrepresent the teaching of the Westminster Standards is that
they do not want to admit that their position is anti-confessional. Advocates of neo-
presbyterian worship (e.g., uninspired hymns, musical instruments in worship and extra-
biblical holy days [e.g., Christmas and Easter]) either ignore or misrepresent church history.

In order to prove that the distinction that Frame makes between the Westminster Standards and
the Puritan and other Reformed texts that supposedly go beyond the Confession and produce
“liturgical minimalism” is false, and that Frame’s attack on this supposed minimalistic worship
is anti-confessional, we will briefly consider three positions that Frame opposes yet were
advocated by the Westminster Assembly: exclusive psalmody, the non-use of musical
instruments in worship and the rejection of extra-biblical holy days.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

In the Confession of Faith (21.5) we read regarding religious worship: “The reading of the
Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in
obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in
the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by
Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God.” According to the Confession
what are Christians to sing during the ordinary religious worship of God? They are to sing
Psalms. The question that is often raised concerning this section of the Confession is: does the
term “psalm” refer to the book of Psalms, religious songs in general, including man-made
hymns, or to all inspired Scripture songs? Advocates of neo-presbyterian worship like to point
out the fact that the word psalm is not capitalized, as if this proves the word is used in some
vague, generic sense. The problem with this argument is the simple fact that the authors the
Westminster Standards only capitalized the word Psalms when it was used as a title of the
whole book. Note the following quote from the Directory for the Publick Worship of God:

We commend also the more frequent reading of such Scripture as he that readeth
shall think best for edification of his hearers, as the book of Psalms, and such like.
When the minister who readeth shall judge it necessary to expound any part of
what is read, let it not be done until the whole chapter or psalm be ended.... After
reading of the word, (and singing of the psalm,) the minister who is to preach.... It
is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing psalms together in the
congregation, and also privately in the family.

In singing of psalms, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered; but the chief
care must be to sing with understanding, and with grace in the heart, making
melody unto the Lord.

That the whole congregation may join herein, every one that can read is to have a
psalm book; and all others, not disabled by age or otherwise, are to be exhorted to
learn to read. But for the present, where many in the congregation cannot read, it is
convenient that the minister, or some other fit person appointed by him or the other
ruling officers, do read the psalm, line by line, before the singing thereof.177

The quote above proves that the word psalm or psalms refers not to worship songs in general
whether inspired or uninspired but to the book of Psalms in particular.

Further examination of the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly proves that the only song
book approved by the assembly for public worship was Mr. Rouse’s version of the book of
Psalms.

Mr. Reynolds made a report of an answer to the Lords about Mr. Barton’s Psalms.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 It was read and debated.... This answer to the House of Commons.

Ordered—That whereas the Honorable House of Commons hath, by an order

bearing the date of the 20th of November 1643, recommended the Psalms set out
by Mr. Rouse to the consideration of the Assembly of Divines, the Assembly hath
caused them to be carefully perused, and as they are now altered and amended, do
approve of them, and humbly conceive that it may be useful and profitable to the
Church that they be permitted to be publicly sung.(1)

Ordered—The Committee that perused the Psalms shall carry this up to the
Honorable House of Commons.

Dr. Temple, Dr. Smith, Dr. Wincop, to carry up the answer to the House of
Lords.178

A footnote tells us the response of the House of Lords.

(1)TheHouse in consequence resolved ‘that this Book of Psalms set forth by Mr.
Rouse, and perused by the Assembly of Divines, be forthwith printed.’—Journals
of House of Commons, vol. iv. p. 342.179

The only debates that occurred in the Westminster Assembly regarding the singing of praise
were over whether or not other translations of the book of Psalms should be sung in the
churches. The assembly only authorized the Rouse version because “it is so exactly framed
according to the original text” and for the sake of uniformity and edification.

The Committee made report of an answer to the House of Lords about Mr.
Barton’s Psalms. It was read; and upon debate it was.

Resolved upon the Q., To be transcribed and sent to the Lords as the answer of this
Assembly to their order. Mr. Carter, jun., enters his dissent to this vote of sending
up this answer to the Lords.(1)

(1)Thisanswer is not inserted in the Minutes, but it has been preserved in the
Journals of the House of Lords, and is as follows:—

TO THE RIGHT THE HOUSE OF LORDS ASSEMBLED IN PARLIAMENT.

The Assembly of Divines received April 9th from this Honourable House an Order,

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 bearing date March 20th, 1646, to certify this Honourable House why the
translation of Psalms by Mr. Barton may not be used and sung in the churches, by
such as shall desire it, as well as any other translation; do humbly return this
answer: That whereas on the 14th of November 1645, in obedience to an order of
this Honourable House concerning the said Mr. Barton’s Psalms, we have already
commended to this Honourable House one translation of the Psalms in verse, made
by Mr. Rouse, and perused and amended by the same learned gentlemen, and the
Committee of the Assembly, as conceiving it would be very useful for the
edification of the Church in regard it is so exactly framed according to the original
text: and whereas there are several other translations of the Psalms already extant:
We humbly conceive that if liberty should be given to people to sing in churches,
every one that translation they desire, by that means several translations might
come to be used, yea, in one and the same congregation at the same time, which
would be a great disruption and hindrance to edification.—Journals of House of
Lords, vol. viii. pp. 283, 284.180

The last debate regarding whether or not Mr. Barton’s translation of the Psalms (or any other
version other than the Rouse version) occurred on Wednesday morning, April 22, 1646.181 As
noted in the quote above, it was resolved that only Mr. Rouse’s version would be permitted in
the churches. Only six months later, on Friday morning October 30, 1646, chapter 21—“Of
Religious Worship” was voted on and agreed to by the assembly.182 The idea (that is rather
common today) that the word “psalms” in the chapter regarding religious worship includes
uninspired hymns is clearly false. Did the Puritan and Presbyterians go beyond the Standards
(as Frame asserts) in their insistence upon exclusive Psalmody? No, absolutely not! If neo-
Presbyterians want to include hymns and campfire ditties in their worship services, their
backslidden General Assemblies do allow it. They, however, should be open and honest and
admit that they are anti-confessional on this matter.

In his Exposition of the Confession of Faith (1845) Robert Shaw teaches that the “singing of
psalms” in the Confession of Faith means the biblical Psalms.

3. Singing of psalms. This was enjoined, under the Old Testament, as a part of the
ordinary worship of God, and it is distinguished from ceremonial worship.—Ps.
lxix. 30, 31. It is not abrogated under the New Testament, but rather confirmed.—
Eph. v. 19; Col. iii. 16. It is sanctioned by the example of Christ and his apostles.—
Matt. xxvi. 30; Acts xvi. 25. The Psalms of David were especially intended by God
for the use of the Church in the exercise of public praise, under the former
dispensation; and they are equally adapted to the use of the Church under the
present dispensation. Although the apostles insist much upon the abolition of ritual
institutions, they give no intimations that the Psalms of David are unsuitable for
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
 gospel-worship; and had it been intended that they should be set aside in New
Testament times, there is reason to think that another psalmody would have been
provided in their room. In the Book of Psalms there are various passages which
seem to indicate that they were intended by the Spirit for the use of the Church in
all ages. “I will extol thee, my God, O King,” says David, “and I will bless thy
name for ever and ever.”—Ps. cxiv. 1.183

Not only is the teaching of the Confession of Faith and Directory of Public Worship clear on
this issue, it is a fact of history that Presbyterians in Scotland, Ireland and North America were
exclusive Psalm singers until the latter part of the eighteenth century. What is of particular
interest regarding the abandonment of exclusive psalmody by the large Presbyterian bodies in
the eighteenth century is that exclusive psalmody was not abandoned as a result of careful
study and refutation by pastors, scholars and theologians. The departure of various
Presbyterian denominations from exclusive psalmody (i.e., biblical worship) occurred
primarily for three reasons.

(1) Various Presbyterian churches lost the biblical understanding of the regulative principle of
worship and thus only applied it to the public worship service. “Private” gatherings, family and
private worship were considered areas of life outside the strict parameter of divine warrant.
Virtually all the innovations of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries came into the churches
through practices that were arbitrarily placed outside of the “sola scriptura” (e.g., family
worship, Sunday School, revival meetings, etc.).

(2) Many Presbyterians were influenced by the pietistic, sentimental revivalism that swept
through the colonies in the eighteenth century. During this time a number of families and
pastors began using Isaac Watts’ Psalms of David Imitated (1719) instead of the carefully
translated 1650 psalter employed by Presbyterians of the day. Watts’ version of the Psalms
was a radical departure from exclusive psalmody which went far beyond even a paraphrase of
the Psalms. In many instances it amounted to uninspired hymns loosely based on the Psalms.
One must never forget that Isaac Watts, in the preface to his Hymns and Spiritual Songs
(1707), openly admitted that he regarded the Psalms of David as defective, “opposite to the
Gospel” and liable to cause believers to “speak a falsehood unto God.” Watts’ version of the
Psalms became accepted by many families and various ministers and was a stepping stone to
the blatant uninspired hymnody of Watts’ hymnbook.

(3) The innovations of the eighteenth century would not have taken root if the presbyteries in
the colonies had done their job and disciplined ministers who had corrupted the worship of
God and departed from Scripture and the Westminster Standards. There was an unwillingness
to make purity of worship an issue of discipline. There were various battles over the Watts’
version from 1752 through the 1780s. The outcome, however, was always the same. The

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

presbytery or synod involved refused to take decisive action, thereby allowing the Watts
imitations to continue. As a result, those unwilling to pollute themselves separated to smaller,
more biblical Presbyterian bodies. The declension was codified in 1788 when a new directory
for worship was adopted which changed the statement of the 1644 directory, “singing of
Psalms,” to “by singing Psalms and hymns.”

Michael Bushell warns us to learn from the sins and mistakes of the PCUSA. He writes:

Under the pietistic and humanistic influences attending and following the Great
Awakening, the American Presbyterian Church eventually came to the conclusion
that the peace of the church was best to be served by allowing considerable
diversity in the worship practices of the churches under its care. The worship
practice of the Presbyterian church was, in effect, cut loose from the bonds of
Scripture and allowed to run its own course. It was this situation as much as
anything else that led eventually to the Presbyterian church’s defection to
Modernism. If a church will not keep its worship pure and biblical, if it will not
jealously guard its own practice when its people come before God in self-
conscious praise and adoration, then it is not to be expected that it will long
maintain its doctrinal purity. It is no small wonder that men have so little respect
intellectually for the Scriptures when daily they ignore their clear commands
concerning how their Author is to be worshiped. The worship of the Presbyterian
church in this country is dictated now largely by the demands of convenience, not
the demands of Scripture, and there is no basic difference between liberal and
evangelical churches on this score, not at least as regards outward form. To our
brethren in the various Reformed communions who would disagree with this, we
would ask this simple question: “If the regulative principle were not taught in the
Scriptures, what difference would it make in your worship?” The answer in most
cases would have to be, “very little.” We would also ask our brethren whether they
have sought self-consciously to apply the regulative principle to their worship
practice. We have a suspicion that most of the people in our Reformed churches
have never even heard of the regulative principle, much less sought to apply it. Our
Reformed churches have inherited a pattern of thinking which will countenance
virtually any practice in worship as long as it does not offend the wrong people.
These are harsh words, but we are fully convinced that they are accurate.184

Another supposed “minimalistic” practice that Frame implies goes beyond the Westminster
Standards was the non-use of musical instruments in worship. Was the non-use of musical
instruments in worship only the opinion of some Puritans who went beyond the consensus of
the Westminster Assembly? No. Absolutely not! A letter from the Scottish ministers and elders
who were delegates to the Westminster Assembly to the General Assembly of Scotland (1644)

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

proves the opposite. It reads: “[W]e cannot but admire the good hand of GOD in the great
things done here already, particularly; That the Covenant (the Foundation of the whole Work)
is taken; Prelacie and the whole train thereof, extirpated; The Service-Book in many places
forsaken, plain and powerful preaching set up; Many Colleges in Cambridge provided with
such Ministers, as are most zealous of the best Reformation; Altars removed; The Communion
in some places given at the Table setting; The great Organs of Pauls and of Peters in
Westminster taken down; Images and many other monuments of Idolatry defaced and
abolished.”185 The General Assembly of Scotland responded to the letter from the
commissioners by writing an official letter to the Church of England. It reads: “We were
greatly refreshed to hear by Letters from our Commissioners there with you...of the great good
things the Lord hath wrought among you and for you...many corruptions, as Altars, Images,
and other Monuments of Idolatry and Superstition removed...the great Organs at Pauls and
Peters taken down.”186 The non-use of musical instruments in worship was the norm of
Puritans and Presbyterians and was the main position of the Westminster divines. The non-
musical instrument position among Presbyterians began to be abandoned in the 1880s.

A third practice which Frame would consider “minimalistic” and extreme is the non-
celebration of holy days (e.g., Christmas and Easter) other than Sunday, the Christian sabbath.
Is this position something that goes beyond the Westminster Assembly? No. The assembly
made itself very clear on this matter. Its Directory for the Publick Worship of God (1645) says,
“There is no day commanded in the Scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s
day, which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no
warrant in the Word of God, are not to be continued.”187

Frame apparently wants us to believe that there is the Westminster Standards, with which he is
in agreement, and there are Puritan and other Reformed texts that go beyond the Confession
and need to be corrected. Given the fact that the Assembly endorsed exclusive psalmody, the
abolishment of musical instruments in worship, and holy days, we ask Frame to show us what
are the “minimalist” views that go beyond the Confession that he is referring to. There were
Puritans who argued that churches should stop saying the creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the
Confession, and the doxology. There also was disagreement over issues such as conventicles.
However, division did not occur over these side issues. If these are the issues that Frame is
referring to, one cannot tell by reading his book. The issues that do bother Frame, that he
spends time refuting, were all matters which were endorsed by the Westminster Assembly.
Therefore, it is fair to conclude that Frame’s book at many points is an attack on the
Westminster Standards in particular and Reformed worship in general.188

Frame’s Redefinition of the Regulative Principle

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

In this section we will prove that Frame completely redefines the regulative principle of
worship. It is very important that Reformed believers who adhere to the Reformed symbols
understand that Frame’s concept of divine warrant has virtually nothing to do with the
Westminster Standards. In fact, what Frame offers as an exposition of the regulative principle
is totally unique. This author (who has studied this issue extensively) is unaware of any
Reformed theologians, expositors or authors who have advocated views on the regulative
principle or divine warrant that are even remotely similar to Frame’s view. (The closest view
perhaps is Steve Schlissel’s “informed principle of worship” which is founded on an open
rejection of the regulative principle.189) Frame should have followed his own advice on how to
write a theological paper. He writes: “At the very least, it will involve exegetical research and
intelligent interaction with biblical texts. Otherwise, the theological work can hardly make any
claim to scripturality; and if it is not scriptural, it is simply worthless.”190 We will see that
Frame’s use of the biblical texts for divine warrant of such things as drama are not intelligent,
not scriptural and completely worthless. Frame continues, “Additionally, there should usually
be some interaction with other orthodox theologians to guard against individualistic
aberration.”191 Frame’s understanding of the regulative principle is clearly an individualistic
aberration. This reviewer challenges Frame and the seminary professors who endorsed his anti-
confessional book to produce one Reformed author who agrees with Frame’s concept of divine
warrant.

Frame lays the foundation of his own unique version of the regulative principle in chapters 4
and 5. In chapter 4 (“rules for worship”) Frame discusses the regulative principle. In chapter 5
(“What to Do in Worship”) he deals with the elements of worship. What Frame does in these
chapters is very deceptive. First, he gives a fairly standard, orthodox definition of the
regulative principle. (In this section, however, he does ignore how Puritans and Presbyterians
defined methods of divine warrant.) After he identifies himself as a confessional Presbyterian
who adheres to the regulative principle, he then proceeds to systematically redefine and
destroy the historic confessional understanding of the regulative principle. A careful reading of
Frame’s book reveals that Frame believes the historic confessional understanding of the
regulative principle is unbiblical and unworkable. Because Frame believes that the historic
confessional understanding of the regulative principle is unbiblical and unworkable, he sets it
aside and then proceeds to give his own unique version of it.

How does Frame replace the confessional regulative principle with his own unique version of
it? There are a number of things that must be examined in our analysis of Frame’s redefinition.
First, Frame takes the position that the Bible does not offer specifics regarding worship but
only generalities. This type of argument was common among Anglican theologians (e.g.,
Hooker) as they attempted to refute the Puritans. According to Frame, the specifics are left to
man’s discretion. Second, Frame gives a false portrayal of the Puritan-Presbyterian position
regarding informal vs. formal meetings. He also makes no distinction between public, family

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

and private worship and ignores the distinction between extraordinary events and set times of
worship. Frame wants to be able to mine the Scriptures for divine warrant in places that clearly
have nothing to do with a public worship service. Third, Frame rejects the confessional view
regarding the circumstances of worship in favor of what he calls “applications.” This departure
from the Confession allows Frame to move away from specific warrant to warrant that is
dependent on general rules or principles. Frame takes the rules that the Westminster divines
applied only to circumstances or incidentals of worship and uses them as divine warrant for
worship ordinances. Fourth, Frame rejects the Westminster Confession of Faith’s view
regarding the elements of worship. Frame replaces the confessional view of separate elements
that are each dependent on specific divine warrant in favor of a few general categories that
men can apply as they see fit. As we consider Frame’s redefinition of the regulative principle
we must not lose sight of the fact that Frame’s book is a defense of neo-Presbyterian (i.e.,
Arminian-charismatic style) worship. Frame’s clever redefinitions are directed at one goal.
That goal is the removal of the strict, “minimalistic,” confessional concept of divine warrant in
favor of a very broad, general, loose concept of divine warrant.

Frame’s Lip Service to the Westminster Standards

If one reads Frame’s endorsement of the Westminster Standards and his initial definition of the
regulative principle in isolation from the rest of his book, one would get the impression that
Frame was a confessional or orthodox Presbyterian. Frame writes: “My own theological
commitment is Presbyterian; I subscribe enthusiastically to the Westminster Confession of
Faith and Catechisms, and I trust that that commitment will be quite evident in this book.”192

Note that Frame defends the Reformed understanding of worship against non-Reformed views.
He writes: “Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Lutherans have taken the position that we
may do anything in worship except what Scripture forbids. Here Scripture regulates worship in
a negative way—by exercising veto power. Presbyterian and Reformed churches, however,
have employed a stronger principle: whatever Scripture does not command is forbidden. Here
Scripture has more veto power; its function is essentially positive. On this view, Scripture must
positively require a practice, if that practice is to be suitable for the worship of God.”193 Frame
then quotes the classic regulativist statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith (21.1)
and says, “The operative word is ‘prescribed.’ Eventually this restriction of worship to what
God prescribes became know as the ‘regulative principle.’”194 Frame continues, “Can any of
us trust ourselves to determine apart from Scripture, what God does and does not like in
worship? Our finitude and sin disqualify us from making such judgments.... Scripture itself
condemns worship that is based only on human ideas.... Scripture, God’s word, is sufficient for
our worship, as for all life.”195 Frame refers to a number of standard regulative passages such
as Leviticus 10:1-2, Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 15:8-9, Mark 7:6-7 and Colossians 2:23.196

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Frame Reveals His True Colors

After reading Frame’s statements regarding his commitment to the Westminster Standards and
the regulative principle, one would naturally think that Frame was a champion of the regulative
principle and the Reformed worship of Calvin, Knox, the Puritans and early Presbyterians. The
truth of the matter, however, is that Frame’s concept of the regulative principle and divine
warrant as delineated in the rest of his book is an explicit rejection of the Westminster
Standards and Reformed confessional worship.

One can begin to see Frame’s real opinion of the regulative principle when he writes: “Unlike
some Presbyterian writers, I believe that I understand, and understand sympathetically, why
some sincere Christians prefer not to worship in the Presbyterian way. I recognize that there
are real problems in the traditional Presbyterian view that need to be addressed from the
Scriptures, and I intend to deal with these problems seriously.”197 Did we not just read about
Frame’s strong commitment to the Westminster Standards and the regulative principle of
worship? If Frame adheres to the Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms, as
he claims, then would he not believe that the Presbyterian way is the biblical way? Is he not
admitting here that he believes there are problems with the Westminster Standards that need to
be addressed by the Scriptures? In other words, the Westminster Standards are unscriptural and
need to be altered in order to meet biblical teaching. Is it possible that Frame is not referring to
the Standards themselves but to the corruption of the Presbyterian worship that has occurred
since the second half of the eighteenth century? No. Since Frame spends a good deal of time
defending the declension that has occurred, one can only come to the conclusion that Frame
believes there are “real problems” with the Westminster Standards.

Frame also admits that his concept of the regulative principle leaves plenty of room for human
autonomy. He writes: “The first key to meaningful worship is to do as God commands.
Beyond that, of course, there is the question of how best to carry out those commands in our
own time and place. This is the question of the “language” in which we should express our
worship to God and in which we should seek to edify one another. But we must know what
limits God has placed upon us before we can determine the areas in which we are free to seek
more meaningful forms. One of my main concerns in this book is to define both the areas in
which we are bound by God’s norms and the areas in which we are set free (by those same
norms!) to develop creative applications of those norms.”198 The key to understanding
Frame’s redefinition of the historic understanding of the regulative principle is the phrase
“creative applications.” (His unique view regarding “creative applications” will be dealt with
below.)

Frame believes that the regulative principle does not lead God’s people to any particular “style

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

of worship.” He writes: “In the remainder of this book, therefore, I will not urge anyone to
conform to the Puritan style of worship or to any other style. In that respect, this book will be
rather unusual, compared to most other worship books! Rather, I shall present the regulative
principle as one that sets us free, within limits, to worship God in the language of our own
time, to seek those applications of God’s commandments which most edify worshipers in our
contemporary cultures. We must be both more conservative and more liberal than most
students of Christian worship: conservative in holding exclusively to God’s commands in
Scripture as our rule of worship, and liberal in defending the liberty of those who apply those
commandments in legitimate, though nontraditional, ways.”199 According to Frame the Bible
does not offer any blueprints in the sphere of worship. It rather is vague and general and thus
leaves the details to man (i.e., human autonomy).200

According to the Westminster Standards and Puritan thought, the regulative principle gives
men freedom from human traditions and innovations in worship. Frame defines the regulative
principle in a manner that gives freedom to innovate as long as some general guidelines are
followed and the innovations are called “creative application.” He writes: “In my view, once
we understand what Scripture actually commands for worship, we will see that it actually
leaves quite a number of things to our discretion and therefore allows considerable flexibility. I
believe that most books on worship, Presbyterian and otherwise, underestimate the amount of
freedom that Scripture permits in worship.... This book, however, will stress that Scripture
leaves many questions open—questions that different churches in different situations can
legitimately answer differently.”201 If the regulative principle restricts men to only those
practices that are dependent upon divine warrant or scriptural proof, how can one argue that
this principle gives men great freedom? If by freedom Frame means freedom from doctrine,
commandments and innovations of man or a certain freedom in areas that are circumstantial to
worship (e.g., seating arrangement, lighting, type of pulpit, etc.), then we would agree. But,
Frame’s definition of freedom goes way beyond the Westminster Standards. He defines
freedom as “creative application” of general principles that can lead to completely different
types of worship. Note the phrases such as: “our discretion,” “considerable flexibility,”
“creative application,” “many questions open,” “we are free to seek more meaningful forms,”
etc. Frame wants worship that is based on human autonomy and that is full of innovations, but
which in a very loose, convoluted manner is somehow connected with the general teachings of
Scripture.

Frame’s “No Specifics” Regulative Principle

Frame’s unique definition of the regulative principle is in part founded upon his understanding
of synagogue and (apostolic) Christian meetings. He writes: “Jesus attended the synagogue
regularly and taught there (Luke 4:15-16), so there can be no question as to God’s approval of
the institution. It is interesting, however, to note that the synagogue and the temple were very
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
different in their scriptural warrant: God regulated the sacrificial worship of the tabernacle and
the temple in detail, charging the people to do everything strictly according to the revealed
pattern. He hardly said anything to Israel, however, about the synagogue (or, for that matter,
about the ministries of teaching and prayer carried out on the temple grounds), leaving the
arranging of its services largely to the discretion of the people. Of course, they knew in
general what God wanted: he wanted his word to be taught and prayer to be offered. But God
left the specifics open-ended.”202 Frame argues that divine warrant is applicable only in a
“general” manner. The specifics are “open-ended.” That is, the specifics are determined by
man.

Frame asserts that the Christian meeting was like the synagogue in that scriptural warrant does
not descend to the level of specific parts of worship. Therefore, various actions that are part of
new covenant religious worship do not require “specific scriptural authorization.” He writes:
“Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to prove that anything is divinely required specifically
for official services.”203 He adds, “The New Testament tells us a little more about the
Christian meeting (which was more like the synagogue than like the sacrificial worship of the
temple), but it gives us no systematic or exhaustive list of the events that were authorized for
such services. Certainly it gives us no list of elements in the technical sense of Puritan theology
—actions requiring specific scriptural authorization as opposed to circumstances or
applications that do not.”204

After arguing that the regulative principle does not apply to specifics (which Frame knows is a
non-confessional understanding of the regulative principle), he sets forth his own unique
version of divine warrant. He writes: “Where specifics are lacking, we must apply the
generalities by means of our sanctified wisdom, within general principles of the word.... The
New Testament does not give us an exhaustive list of what was and was not done at early
Christian meetings. However, as in the case of the Old Testament synagogue, we may, by
appeal to broad theological principles, gain assurance as to what God wants us to do when we
gather in his name.”205 In the area of worship Frame believes that the Bible is not specific. It is
incomplete, vague and general. The Bible is like a defective map with some large roads noted
yet with the details missing. If the map is to be useful (or workable), men must use their
“sanctified wisdom” to fill in the specifics, details or missing pieces. Frame has adopted a
position that is closer to Episcopalianism than the strict regulativist position of the
Westminster Standards. Although Frame does not say that men are permitted to make things
up as long as their innovations are not contrary to Scripture, he does allow men a great area of
autonomy as long as practice is loosely based on “the general principles of the word.”

There are a number of ideas in Frame’s statements that need further comment. First, Frame has
adopted the anti-regulativist interpretation of the Jewish synagogue. He assumes that since
there is not a set of inscripturated divine imperatives regarding the synagogue meetings,
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
therefore what occurred in the synagogues was left “to the discretion of the people.” Before
Frame even begins his chapter on the regulative principle (i.e., “The Rules for Worship”) he
argues that the regulative principle as historically defined at the most only applied to “the
sacrificial worship of the tabernacle and the temple.”206 Frame believes that the Westminster
Standard’s teaching that specific warrant is required for every worship ordinance or element is
wrong and unbiblical. If Frame’s understanding is correct, then there is no regulative principle.
All of Frame’s talk regarding his strong commitment to the Westminster Standards is a sham.

Frame’s analysis of the Jewish synagogues does raise a few important questions. Does the fact
that there is not a set of explicit commands in Scripture which regulate the synagogues prove
that the Puritan-Presbyterian concept of divine warrant (that applies to specific parts or
elements of worship) is unscriptural? Did the Westminster divines and our Puritan and
Presbyterian forefathers make a serious blunder when they adopted the strict regulativist
position and incorporated it into their confessions and catechisms? Is Frame a hero for boldly
standing up and declaring “the emperor has no clothes”? The answer to all these questions is
an emphatic “No!” One can assume (as do Frame and many others) that synagogues were not
under the regulative principle (as historically defined) and that the Jews were making up the
specifics of worship as they went along. The only problem with such an assumption, however,
is that it contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture.

There are many passages in the Bible which unequivocally condemn adding to God’s law-
word (e.g., Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:5). Man is not permitted autonomously to determine his
own ethics, theology or worship. There are also passages where both Christ (e.g., Mt. 15:2-9;
Mk. 7:1-13) and Paul (e.g., Col. 2:20-23) condemn human traditions in worship. The Bible
does not merely condemn additions or innovations in a general manner but deals with specific
additions (e.g., offering the fruit of the ground instead of blood [Gen. 4:3-5]; strange fire [Lev.
10:1-2]; ritual hand washings [Mt. 15:2-9]; ascetic eating practices [Col. 2:21]. Note also that
the regulative principle (as biblically defined, i.e., the Puritan version) is not restricted to the
tabernacle or temple but is applied to individuals at home and church. Given the fact that
Scripture cannot contradict Scripture and the clearer portions of Scripture should be used to
interpret the less clear, does it make sense (hermeneutically) to assume that the synagogue
meetings were not regulated by divine revelation of some sort? Taking the Scriptures as a
whole, the Puritans believed that it would be contradictory for Christ and Paul to condemn
specific religious additions in the home and church yet countenance additions in the
synagogue. An aspect of “good and necessary consequence” (WCF 1.6, i.e., logical inference
from Scripture) is what Puritans referred to as approved historical example. When one
observes in Scripture that Abel (Gen. 4:4) and Noah (Gen. 8:20-21) offered acceptable
sacrifices to Jehovah without any prior inscripturated divine imperatives, or that the universal
practice of the new covenant church was not seventh but first day public worship apart from
any inscripturated instructions to change the day, then one may logically infer that such

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

practices were based on some form of divine revelation that was not inscripturated.

The Puritan understanding of approved historical example is supported by Hebrews 11:4

which says, “by faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” Biblical faith
presupposes divine revelation. Throughout Hebrews 11 true faith is spoken of as a belief in
God’s word that results in obedience to God’s revealed will. Any idea that Abel’s offering was
based on reason alone, or that God’s acceptance of blood sacrifice was arbitrary or based on
the subjective state of Abel’s heart alone, must be rejected as unscriptural. Given the analogy
of Scripture, the necessity of faith in acts of religious worship and the acceptance of certain
practices by God in Scripture that appear without detailed instructions, the idea that the
synagogue meetings were not regulated but were determined by “the discretion of the people”
is unwarranted. To assume (as Frame does) that the Jews of the synagogue were making it up
as they went along (“winging it”) is to assume something that contradicts the clear teaching of
Scripture.

Second, Frame argues that like the Jewish synagogues, the Christian meetings were basically
unregulated as to specifics (e.g., “The New Testament...gives us no systematic or exhaustive
list of the events that were authorized for such services”207). Although it is true that in no place
in the New Testament do we find a systematic list of what is to occur in public worship, that
does not mean that the New Testament has nothing to say in the matter or that the various
elements of worship cannot be determined from a study of Scripture. Whether or not the New
Testament gives us a systematic list of worship ordinances for new covenant services is
irrelevant. Many important doctrines and issues are set forth in Scripture in a very non-
systematic manner. Frame is attempting to convince the readers of his book that a regulative
principle that deals with specifics must be rejected. Once he has deconstructed the historic,
traditional understanding of the regulative principle, then he will put in its place the general or
“virtually anything goes” version. However, since the Bible clearly teaches that everything
man does in worship (even to the specifics) must have divine warrant, we must not be deceived
by Frame’s subterfuge. What about Frame’s claim that the New Testament does not give us an
“exhaustive list of the events that were authorized for such services”? The New Testament
does not need to give us an exhaustive list because if a practice is not found in the New
Testament (or taught or inferred from the Old Testament) then it is already forbidden. The idea
that there is not an “exhaustive list” presupposes a prelatical concept of worship and is an
implicit denial of the sufficiency of Scripture in the sphere of worship.

Third, Frame teaches that divine warrant is not specific but general. He argues that since the
Bible does not contain specifics regarding synagogue or New Testament Christian meetings,
men are to seek divine warrant in “broad theological generalities.” Men are to use their
sanctified wisdom to “apply the generalities.” People must follow the “general principles of
the word.” When Frame speaks of divine warrant in terms of “broad theological principles,”

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

“generalities” and “general principles of the word,” he has rejected the Westminster Standards
on this issue and has completely redefined the regulative principle. There is a great difference
between specific warrant from Scripture for a particular practice and basing a practice on a
“generality” or “broad theological principle.” Using Frame’s definition of the regulative
principle one can have an infinite variety of worship options as long as a particular practice is
loosely connected with a “generality” or “broad theological principle.” The strict, narrow
version of the regulative principle advocated by the Reformed confessions produced a general
uniformity of worship for many generations. Frame’s view leads to chaos and a multiformity
of worship practices precisely because it leaves man a large area of autonomy. Frame, of
course, does not call it autonomy. He uses phrases such as “creative application” and
“considerable flexibility.”

In order to reveal how Frame’s concept of divine warrant can prove almost anything one
wants, let us examine how Frame himself justifies certain practices in public worship. On page
56 he argues that greetings should be a part of the worship service. How does he prove that
greetings are prescribed by God? Frame writes: “They [greetings and benedictions] were
clearly part of church life, since they were a regular part of Paul’s letters (see Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor.
1:3; Rom. 15:33; 1 Cor. 16:23-24; 2 Cor. 13:14). Since his letters were most likely read in
church meetings (Col. 4:16; 1 Th. 5:27; Phm. 2), these greetings and benedictions were also a
part of public worship.”208 Normally if a Reformed person wanted to argue in favor of a
special greetings time (i.e., handshake and hug time) during public worship he would look for
a specific command or attempt to infer a greeting time from a scriptural historical example.
Frame, however simply points out that Paul greeted churches in his epistles and his letters
were read in the churches. The fact that all letters contain greetings and that it is doubtful that
whole books of the Bible were read at each service is ignored. Following Frame’s logic one
could argue: Boats are frequently mentioned in Scripture (e.g., 2 Sam. 19:18; Prov. 30:19; Isa.
33:21; Ezek. 27:5; Jon. 1:3-5; Mt. 4:21-22; Mk. 1:19; Lk. 5:3; Jn. 6:22; Ac. 27:16, 30, 32;
etc.); since Scripture is read in the church meetings, boats also should be part of public
worship.

A better example of Frame’s concept of “creative application” is the divine warrant he offers
for the use of drama (i.e., skits or plays) in public worship. Frame’s argumentation in favor of
drama gives us an explicit understanding of his unique definition of divine warrant. He even
introduces his argumentation as an example of an application of a general principle. He writes:

Many churches are using drama today in an attempt to communicate the word of
God more clearly than could be done through more traditional forms of preaching.
Some Presbyterians oppose this, because there is no specific command in Scripture
to use drama in this way. But we have seen that specific commands are not always
needed. When God gives us a general command (in this case the command to

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 preach the word), and is silent on some aspects of its specific application, we may
properly make those applications ourselves, within the general rules of Scripture.
The questions before us, then, are whether drama is legitimately a form of
preaching or teaching, and whether there are any scriptural teachings that would
rule it out as a means of communicating the word. I would answer yes to the first
question, and no the second.209

Note, once again that for Frame specific warrant is unnecessary. When Scripture is silent on
“application” (i.e., when Scripture is insufficient or incomplete), man is to use his autonomous
thought to remove God’s silence. In other words man must take what is insufficient and
general and make it sufficient and specific.

What does Frame offer as divine warrant for drama in public worship? He argues that
“preaching and teaching contain many dramatic elements”210; Jesus “taught parables, which
often included dialogues between different characters”211; Paul’s letters “are often
dramatic”212 and “the book of Revelation is a dramatic feast”213; “the prophets sometimes
performed symbolic actions”214; and, “the Old Testament sacrifices and feasts, and the New
Testament sacraments are re-enactments of God’s great works of redemption.”215

When we read Frame’s application of his own version of the regulative principle we are
astonished that this book was endorsed by four seminary professors from two different
“conservative, Reformed” seminaries.216 Why? Because Frame’s concept of divine warrant is
so general, wide and arbitrary one could prove virtually anything. His concept of “proof”
would make any cult leader smile.

If one thinks this is exaggeration, let’s apply Frame’s concept of divine warrant to other
practices that some people would find “refreshing” in public worship. In the Bible we often
encounter prophets that are depressed. There also are many books in the Bible that contain
many sad and depressing elements. Therefore, we are authorized by God to have blues bands
(with appropriate lyrics, of course) as part of public worship. Why not? As Frame asserts, is
not singing simply one manner of teaching or preaching?

In the Bible we often read of military battles. The apostle Paul often portrays the Christian life
as one of warfare. In the book of Revelation do we not have a great war portrayed between
Christ’s people and the followers of the beast? Therefore, as a creative application of these
general theological principles we can incorporate sword fights into public worship. No one
would be hurt, of course. They would simply be dramatic re-enactments of the Christian life.
The children would love it.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

The “exegetical” methods that Frame uses to prove or justify certain worship practices are
absurd. Frame goes to the Bible and takes things that have nothing to do with public worship
and then makes an arbitrary application to the human innovation he desires. Does the fact that
God required certain prophets to do some unusual and dramatic things tell us anything about
how we are to conduct a public worship service? No, of course not; there is no connection
whatsoever. Does the fact that preaching in Scripture can be dramatic somehow imply that
God has authorized dramatic presentations in public worship? No, not at all. The connection is
totally arbitrary. In fact, not one person throughout all of church history saw such a connection
until Frame made it up. Does the fact that Jesus spoke in parables that had more than one
character in them prove that dramatic presentations are biblical? No. Listen carefully. Don’t
miss this. The characters in Jesus’ parables were not characters in a play or even real people.
Christ was telling a story in his teaching. To argue that our Lord was authorizing dramatic
presentations in public worship is pure fantasy. If Jesus was authorizing drama groups, the
Spirit-inspired apostles didn’t see it, for dramatic presentations were excluded from apostolic
worship. A legitimate application of Jesus’ preaching methodology would be the use of
illustrations and stories in preaching. Does the fact that Revelation (according to Frame) is a
dramatic feast tell us anything about public worship? No. Although the book does contain
some worship scenes couched in apocalyptic imagery, there are no commands, historical
examples or logical inferences pointing to dramatic presentations in the book at all.

The argumentation that Frame uses to “prove” the worship practices that he desires often
reminds this author of the argumentation used by Vern Poythress (professor at Westminster
Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania) in his book The Shadow of Christ in the Law of
Moses.217 Given the many striking similarities, a quote from Greg L. Bahnsen’s analysis of
Poythress’ work is in order. Bahnsen’s analysis fits Frame’s argumentation like a glove. When
reading Bahnsen’s analysis, just substitute Frame’s name for Poythress’s. Bahnsen writes:

Poythress has a penchant for appealing to vague “motifs” in biblical passages and
then telling us (without exegetical basis) that they are suggestive of some
theological “connection” or “relation” (without definition). To deal with broad and
ambiguous allusions is not precise enough to demonstrate any specific conclusion;
because there are no control principles or predictability in how such vague notions
will be taken, the door is left open too wide for the interpreter’s subjective
creativity. And simply to assert that X is (somehow) “related” or “connected” to Y
is trivial—not very informative. (Everything is related in some way to everything
else, after all.) These vague connections play a determinative role where Poythress
wants to draw significant theological conclusions.... The key to drawing artful
“connections” everywhere in the Bible, of course, is to make your categories broad
and vague enough to include just about anything.... What is the theologian
supposed to do with such discussions? They aren’t arguments, really. They are

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 more like mood enhancers (“take a couple of Valium and enjoy the experience”).
Seen in their least harmful light, I suppose such discussions may have homiletical
or pedagogical value—as adductive or illustrative aids for conclusions established
on more reliable exegetical grounds. They may even subjectively reinforce
preconceived theological commitments, but they hardly function as objective proof
in a theological argument, one subject to common rules of reasoning, predictable
results, and public examination. Poythress is not the only author these days who
enjoys this style of writing: stringing together a host of loose “connections” in a
stream-of-consciousness style, often with organizing categories broad enough to
include almost anything anyway, until one stipulates that he has reached a
“conclusion”—one which is usually as vague and ambiguous as it is lacking in
textual warrant. I would like to say that Poythress does it “better” than others, but
there is really little way to judge (since there are so few objective criteria).218

If professing Christians want to use Frame’s concept of divine warrant to “prove” various
practices in public worship, they are free to do so. However, they should be honest and admit
that their version of the regulative principle has nothing to do with the Westminster Standards
or Reformed theology on the subject. Frame’s arbitrary, loose manner of “proving” various
practices from the Scriptures leaves Presbyterian and Reformed churches with no real
restraints on worship except the prelatical (i.e., Episcopal-Lutheran) principle that anything
goes as long as it is not expressly forbidden in the Bible.

Fourth, Frame rejects the Westminster Confession’s doctrine regarding the elements or parts of
worship. He writes:

In response to this kind of question [i.e., the problem of generality and specificity],
the Puritans developed the doctrine of “elements” or “parts” of worship. Worship,
they believed, is made up of certain clearly distinguishable elements: prayer, the
reading of Scripture, preaching, and so on. The regulative principle, they held,
requires us to find biblical warrant for each of these elements. For them, that
answered the question about the level of specificity. We need not find a biblical
command to pray this or that particular prayer (assuming that the prayers under
consideration are all scriptural in their content and appropriate to the occasion), but
we do need a biblical warrant to include prayer as an element of worship.

But there are serious problems with this approach. The most serious problem is
that there is no scriptural warrant for it! Scripture nowhere divides worship up into
a series of independent “elements,” each requiring independent scriptural
justification. Scripture nowhere tells us that the regulative principle demands that
particular level of specificity, rather than some other.219

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Note, that (once again) Frame argues against the Puritans rather than the Westminster
Confession. He says that the Puritan position does not have biblical warrant, which is to say it
is unbiblical. He ignores the fact that: (1) the authors of the Westminster Standards and the
early Presbyterians were Puritans220 and (2) the Westminster Confession (21.3-5) clearly
teaches the Puritan position that Frame rejects. Given the fact that Frame says that he
enthusiastically subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms on page xiv
in his book, one should not be surprised that Frame is unwilling to admit that his enthusiastic
subscription was false, that he subscribed with crossed fingers. Frame, of course, is free to
reject the teaching of the Westminster Standards; however, since he does so, he should be
honest and consistent and join an Episcopal church instead of deceitfully working to
undermine an essential aspect of the Reformed faith.

As we consider Frame’s attack on the confessional concept of elements or parts of worship,

keep in mind that Frame’s strategy throughout his analysis of the rules for worship is to make
divine warrant broad enough to allow human innovations disguised as creative applications.
Therefore, he must eliminate the confessional doctrine of elements of worship, each of which
requires specific divine warrant. There are a number of arguments to consider in Frame’s
rejection of the elements of worship. First, Frame argues that Scripture nowhere teaches “that
the regulative principle demands that level of specificity.”221 He adds, “The problem is that
Scripture doesn’t give us a list of elements required for Christian worship services.”222 Note
Frame’s disingenuous and inconsistent method of argumentation. When he disagrees with the
Puritan confessional view, he demands credible evidence. He wants a command, an explicit
statement or even a detailed list. Yet when he sets out to prove his own ideas regarding divine
warrant he offers no solid exegetical argumentation, only bizarre loose connections and
arbitrary applications. Does the regulative principle descend to the level of the elements of
worship? Is it specific? Although there is no detailed list set forth in the New Testament of
worship elements, the various elements or parts of religious worship are easily proved from
divine imperatives and descriptions of worship services or approved historical examples found
in Scripture. As we consider Frame’s next objection to the idea of specific elements of
worship, the scriptural evidence will prove that Frame is wrong. Furthermore, the biblical
passages that teach the regulative principle itself demand specificity. If Old Testament
believers used Frame’s general flexible version of the regulative principle, it would have been
very easy for the Jews to justify religious hand washings, ascetic eating practices (e.g., note the
Seventh-day Adventist justifications for various eating practices), strange fire, etc.

Second, Frame wants to mix the various elements of worship into general categories. He
writes, “Another problem with the concept of elements of worship is that the things we do in
worship are not always clearly distinguishable from one another. Singing and teaching, for
example, are not distinct from one another (Col. 3:16). And many hymns are also prayers and

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

creeds. Prayers with biblical content contain teaching. The entire service is prayer, since is it
uttered in the presence of God, to his praise. The entire service is teaching, since it is all based
on Scripture. Perhaps it would be better to speak of “aspects” of worship, rather than
“elements” or “parts.”223 Frame adds, “Since we cannot identify elements, we cannot say that
song is an element and therefore requires specific divine commands governing its content.
Even if we accept the division of worship into elements, it is not plausible to argue that song is
an element of worship, independent of all others. As we saw in the preceding chapter, song is
not an independent element, but rather a way of doing other things. It is a way of praying,
confessing, etc. Therefore, when we apply the regulative principle to matters of song, we
should not ask specifically what words Scripture commands us to sing, but rather, what words
Scripture commands us to use in teaching, prayer, confession, etc.”224 For Frame there are not
specific elements of worship but only broad categories that have different aspects. Why does
Frame attack the confessional doctrine of elements of worship? A major reason is that it
enables him to apply biblical rules for one element to another. This is one of the common
arguments against exclusive psalmody. If a person can make up his own words for prayer or
preaching, then (according to Frame’s concept of aspects) one can make up his own words for
singing praise.

Although it is true that elements of singing praise, preaching or teaching and prayer can have
certain aspects in common (e.g., many psalms contain prayer, prayer can contain praise, and
sermons can contain praise and supplication, etc.), the idea that these distinct elements can be
collapsed into one category (e.g., teaching) or that the specific rules given by Scripture for one
element can be applied to the other parts of worship completely breaks down when one
examines the specific rules and context that the Bible gives to each separate ordinance. Note
the following examples.

(1) One element is preaching from the Bible (Mt. 26:13; Mk 16:15; Ac. 9:20; 17:10; 20:8; 1
Cor. 14:28; 2 Tim. 4:2). Preaching involves reasoning from the Scriptures (cf. Ac. 17:2-3;
18:4, 19; 24:25) and explaining or expounding God’s word (cf. Mk. 4:34; Lk. 24:27; Ac. 2:14-
40; 17:3; 18:36; 28:23). New covenant teachers did not speak by divine interpretation, but
interpreted divinely inspired Scripture. In the same manner the Old Testament Levitical
teachers explained and interpreted the inscripturated law to the covenant people (cf. Neh. 8:7-
8; Lev. 10:8-11; Dt. 17:8-13; 24:8; 31:9-13; 33:8; 2 Chr. 15:3; 17:7-9; 19:8-10; 30:22; 35:3;
Ezr. 7:1-11; Ezek. 44:15, 23-24; Hos. 4:6; Mal. 2:1, 5-8). There are specific biblical rules that
apply to preaching that distinguish it from other elements such as praise and prayer. While
both men and women can pray (Ac. 1:13-14, 1 Cor. 11:5) and sing praise (Eph. 5:19; Col.
3:16; Jas. 1:5), only men (1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14) who are called by God and set
apart to the gospel ministry can preach (Mt. 28:18-20; Ac. 9:15; 13:1-5; Rom. 10:14-15; Eph.
4:11-12; 2 Tim. 4:2, etc.). Therefore, the idea that singing praise is not an element of worship
but only one way to teach or a circumstance of teaching is clearly unscriptural. If singing

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

praise were simply one given method of teaching, then women would be forbidden to sing
praise in church, for they are forbidden to teach in the public assemblies. Furthermore, if
singing were a circumstance of worship, then it would be optional and could be excluded from
public worship altogether. Does the average conservative Presbyterian allow women to preach
or teach in the public assembly? No, he does not. But isn’t that because the Bible explicitly
forbids women from teaching or even speaking in church? Yes, indeed it is. What this proves
is that in practice those who adhere to Frame’s unorthodox theories on worship must follow
the distinction between elements of worship in order to conduct a worship service. Frame’s
rejection of distinct elements or parts of worship is simply a clever tactic to eliminate the
specificity of the regulative principle.

(2) Another part of worship is the singing of Psalms (1 Chr. 16:9; Ps. 95:1-2; 105:2; 1 Cor.
14:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Unlike preaching, where the minister uses his own uninspired
words to exposit Scripture, singing praise involves only the use of Spirit-inspired songs. In the
Bible prophetic inspiration was a requirement for writing worship songs for the church (cf. Ex.
15:20-21; Jg. 5; Isa. 5:1; 26:1ff; 2 Sam 23:1, 2; 1 Chr. 25:5; 2 Chr. 29:30; 35:15; Mt. 22:43-44;
Mk. 12:36; Ac. 1:16-17; 2:29-31; 4:24-25). The writing of worship songs in the Old Testament
was so intimately connected with prophetic inspiration that 2 Kings 23:2 and 2 Chronicles
34:30 use the term “Levite” and “prophet” interchangeably.

(3) Reading the Bible is also a part of public worship (Mk. 4:16-20; Ac. 1:13; 13:15; 16:13; 1
Cor. 11:20; 1 Tim. 4:13; Rev. 1:13). Obviously, Scripture reading requires reading from the
Bible alone. Reading from the Apocrypha or Shakespeare or uninspired Christian poetry or
theology books cannot be substituted for this element. Scripture reading, like preaching but
unlike singing praise, is restricted to ministers of the gospel (Ex. 24:7; Josh 8:34-35; Dt. 31:9-
13; Neh. 8:7-8; 13:1; 1 Th. 5:27; Col. 4:16; 1 Tim. 4:3).

(4) Another element of worship is prayer to God (Dt. 22:5; Mt. 6:9; 1 Cor. 11:13-15; 1 Th.
5:17; Phil. 4:6; Heb. 13:18; Jas. 1:5). Unlike the elements of singing praise and reading the
Scriptures, the Bible authorizes the use of our own words in prayer, as long as we follow the
pattern or model given to us by Christ (cf. Mt. 6:9). God promises His people that the Holy
Spirit will assist them when they form their prayers (cf. Zech. 12:10; Rom. 8:26-27).

A brief consideration of the elements of worship noted above proves that the rules which apply
to one element (e.g., prayer) cannot be applied to another element (e.g., singing praise or
reading the Bible) without violating Scripture. Our consideration has also proved that
collapsing various elements into broad categories violates God’s word. The only reason people
artificially construct such broad categories is to avoid the specific rules that God has instituted
for each particular element of worship. Feminists do so to accommodate women reading the
Scriptures and preaching in church. Others do so to allow a dramatic presentation to substitute

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

for the sermon. There are also many who do so in order to substitute the uninspired songs of
men for the inspired psalms of God.

Given the abundant scriptural evidence for the Puritan concept of elements or parts of worship,
one can understand why the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith did not just give
us broad categories but rather set forth distinct worship elements. The Confession names
“prayer with thanksgiving” (21:3), “The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound
preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding,
faith, and reverence: singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration
and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary
religious worship of God: beside religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgiving
upon several occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and
religious manner” (21:5). The work of the Westminster divines on worship was the
culmination of over one hundred years of Reformed exegesis, debate and analysis of the
matter. Their statements were simply a refined statement with some added details of the
writings of the reformers and Reformed symbols that preceded its authorship. Frame’s arrogant
and flippant disregard of the reformers and Reformed confessions, with no real evidence, is
disturbing. That he is a minister in good standing in a denomination which claims adherence to
the Westminster Standards and teaches at a Reformed seminary is even more disturbing.

Third, after rejecting the Westminster Standards on elements or parts of worship Frame leaves
us with aspects of worship. What exactly is an aspect of worship? Although Frame does not
define what he means by aspects, he apparently means “things to do” that are related to his
general categories. Since the English dictionary gives as one of its main meanings for aspect as
“part” we wonder what exactly is the difference between “element,” “part,” “things to do” and
“aspect.” Perhaps a course in perspectivalism will aid our understanding.225 “Perhaps with the
acumen of the medieval schoolmen, Mr. Frame can explain to us the subtle difference between
‘things,’ ‘aspects,’ and ‘parts’ in worship.”226

Frame’s Rejection of the Circumstances of Worship

Frame rejects the confessional concept of circumstances of worship in favor of what he calls
applications. Once again we see Frame setting aside the Westminster Standards and over four
hundred years of Reformed thought for his own unique concept. Note that, as before, Frame’s
goal is to greatly broaden the concept of divine warrant. After quoting the Confession of Faith
(“There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the
church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature,
and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be
observed” [1.6]) Frame writes:

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Scripture, they believed, was sufficient to tell us the basic things we should do in
worship. But it does not give us detailed direction in the area of “circumstances.”

What are these “circumstances”? The confession does not define the term, except
to say that they are “common to human actions and societies.” Some of the
Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians, trying to further explain this idea, taught that
circumstances were secular matters, of no actual religious significance. But surely,
in God’s world, nothing is purely secular; nothing is entirely devoid of religious
significance. That follows from the fact that in one sense worship is all of life. The
time and place of a meeting, for instance, are not religiously neutral. Decisions
about such matters must be made to the glory of God. The elders of a church
would not be exercising godly rule if they tried to force all the members to worship
at 3:00 A.M.! Decisions about the time and place of worship can greatly affect the
quality of edification (1 Cor. 14:26). Although it is “common to human actions and
societies” to make decision about meeting times and places, the decision
nevertheless has religious significance in the context of the church. The divines
understood this, and so they insisted that all these decisions be made “according to
the general rules of the Word.” But then, how are we to distinguish circumstances
from substantive elements of worship?

Furthermore, there seem to be some matters in worship that are not “common to
human actions and societies,” concerning which we must use our human judgment.
For example, Scripture tells us to pray, but it doesn’t tell us what precise words to
use in our prayers on every occasion. We must decide what words to use, within
the limits of the biblical teachings about prayer. That is a decision of great spiritual
importance. It does not seem right to describe this matter as a mere
“circumstance.” Prayer is not “common to human actions and societies.” But in
prayer we must use our own judgment within biblical guidelines; if we don’t, we
will not pray at all.

I agree with the confession that there is room for human judgment in matters that
are “common to human actions and societies.” But I do not believe that that is the
only legitimate sphere of human judgment. In my view, the term best suited to
describe the sphere of human judgment is not circumstance, but application.
Typically, Scripture tells us what we should do in general, and then leaves us to
determine the specifics by our own sanctified wisdom, according to the general
rules of the Word. Determining the specifics is what I call “application.”

Unlike the term circumstance, the term application naturally covers both types of
examples I have mentioned. Applications include such matters as the time and

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 place of worship: Scripture tells us to meet, but not when and where—so we must
use our own judgment. Similarly, Scripture tells us to pray, but does not dictate to
us all the specific words we should use—so we need to decide. As you can see, the
sphere of application includes some matters that are “common to human actions
and societies” and some matters are not.227

There are a number of things to note regarding Frame’s discussion of the circumstances of
worship. First, Frame’s contention that some (unnamed) Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians
regarded circumstances as secular is wrong and misleading. They did not regard the
circumstances of worship as secular or religiously neutral. They did, however, regard them as
things that were not specifically determinable by Scripture, that had a certain commonality
with civil or secular affairs. For example, a civil meeting will have a beginning and end,
chairs, lighting, a podium, a building and a speaker. However, these circumstances of worship
are to be designed or conducted “according to the general rules of Scripture.” Frame (once
again) asserts a false bifurcation of thought between certain (unnamed) Puritans/Presbyterians
and the Westminster divines.

Second, Frame gives an over-simplification of the concept of circumstances in order to make

the confessional understanding look incompetent and unworkable. Frame tells us that since the
words we use in prayer are of “great spiritual importance” and prayer is not “common to
human actions and societies”; therefore, we need to use a better, more workable concept than
the term circumstances of worship. Frame’s alternative is “applications.”

Frame’s argument raises a number of questions. Is what believers do when they pray merely a
circumstance of worship? Is prayer regulated only by the general rules of Scripture? Although
it is true that believers are free to make up their own words in order to meet the various
circumstances and contingencies of daily life, prayer itself is specifically regulated by
Scripture. Jesus told the disciples to pray in a certain manner (Mt. 6:9). He told them not to
“use vain repetitions as the heathen do” (Mt. 6:7). Further, we are told that the Holy Spirit will
assist us when we pray (cf. Zech. 12:10; Rom. 8:26-27). Strictly speaking, prayer is not a
circumstance of worship. The Westminster divines did not regard the content of prayer in the
same manner as the type of seating, lighting, pulpit style, flooring, etc. Therefore, the idea that
choosing one’s own words for prayer in worship renders the concept of circumstances of
worship somehow unworkable is not true.

If one holds to the confessional understanding of the regulative principle, that all the parts or
elements of worship require divine warrant, one must explain those things that are necessary to
conduct a public meeting that are not specifically addressed in Scripture. Does the Bible tell us
what type of building to meet in, or the type of chairs to use, or what type of pulpit should be
used? Are there not areas related to a public worship service that do not directly affect the

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

content or parts of religious worship? The confessional answer that there are some
circumstances relating to worship that are not themselves parts of worship or worship
ordinances is unavoidable and obvious. If Frame observes that in certain areas or applications
the concept of circumstances need clarification, that is one thing. But why does he insist on
tossing it aside for his own concept of applications? The main reason is related to Frame’s
rejection of the confessional doctrine of elements or parts of religious worship, each of which
requires divine warrant. Once one rejects the concept of worship elements, one is left only with
broad categories. Believers are to determine out of broad categories the various “things to do”
in worship. According to Frame the “things to do” can be determined by specific commands or
according to “broad theological principles.” What this means is that Frame has taken the
concept of “the general rules of the word” that the Westminster divines only applied to the
circumstances of worship and has applied it to worship itself. This incredible broadening of the
concept of divine warrant renders the whole section in the Confession dealing with the
circumstances of worship superfluous. Since Frame has already taken the Confession’s “the
general rules of the word” and applied it to worship itself, he must redefine the circumstances
into applications. Why? Because the term “applications” is broad enough to cover everything
relating to worship, whether worship ordinances or the circumstantial areas. In fact, everything
in life that we do as Christians is an application of Scripture in some sense. Frame continues
on his path of taking well thought-out clear distinctions found in the Westminster Standards
and replacing them with very general concepts. Remember, the end game is human autonomy
in worship.

Frame’s Misrepresentation of the Puritan/Presbyterian

Position
Regarding Formal versus Informal Meetings

Frame accuses “some theologians” and the Puritans of only applying the regulative principle to
“formal” or “official” worship services. He writes:

This position on church power, however, led some theologians to distinguish

sharply between worship services that are “formal” or “official” (i.e., sanctioned
by the ruling body of the church), and other meetings at which worship takes
place, such as family devotions, hymn sings at homes, etc., which are not officially
sanctioned. Some have said that the regulative principle properly applied only to
the formal or official service, not to other forms of worship.

But that distinction is clearly unscriptural. When Scripture forbids us to worship

according to our own imaginations, it is not forbidding that only during official
services. The God of Scripture would certainly not approve of people who

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 worshiped him in formal services, but worshiped idols in the privacy of their
homes!

On the Puritan view, the regulative principle pertains primarily to worship that is
officially sanctioned by the church. On this view, in order to show that, say,
preaching is appropriate for worship, we must show by biblical commands and
examples that God requires preaching in officially sanctioned worship services. It
is not enough to show that God is pleased when the word is preached in crowds or
informal home meetings. Rather, we must show that preaching is mandated
precisely for the formal or official worship service. Unfortunately, it is virtually
impossible to prove that anything is divinely required specifically for official
services.228

This is a total misrepresentation of the Puritan position. The truth of the matter is that the idea
that the regulative principle only applied to public worship was not widely accepted until the
late nineteenth century. As worship innovations and declension occurred throughout the
nineteenth century and certain practices such as the use of musical instruments in family
worship, the celebration of Christmas in the home and various Sunday school programs where
women were allowed to speak, ask questions and even teach men became popular, a concerted
effort was made to at least keep these innovations out of the “official service.” In fact, today an
“ultra-conservative” Presbyterian is often defined as someone who wants to keep the
celebration of papal-pagan holy days out of the public worship, yet who thinks celebrating
such days in the home and decorating the home with the trinkets of Antichrist and pagan
paraphernalia is perfectly acceptable. The Puritans and Presbyterians never allowed church
members to violate the regulative principle in the home. People who celebrated Christmas or
Easter were disciplined.

Although the Puritans, Presbyterians and Westminster divines strictly applied the regulative
principle to all worship whether public, family, or private, that does not mean that each sphere
had the exact same rules. For example, in family worship the father is to lead in teaching and
Scripture reading (Dt. 6:7-9). But he is not permitted to dispense or partake of the public
ordinances (i.e., baptism and the Lord’s supper) or exercise church discipline. It is very
important that when we seek divine warrant for a practice in public worship, we distinguish
between commands or historical examples in Scripture that apply to an individual, or family,
or public meeting, or even an extraordinary event. Frame misrepresents the Puritan position
not because he wants to abolish innovations in the home but because he wants to be able to
mine the Scriptures for divine warrant in passages that clearly have nothing to do with public
worship. What is a major justification that Frame offers for drama in public worship? The
prophets sometimes did dramatic things. How does Frame justify liturgical dance in public
worship? He points to several passages that refer to extraordinary national and local victory

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

celebrations (i.e., outdoor parades).229 Frame’s caricature of the Puritan position sets the stage
for his redefinition of the regulative principle and his sloppy, no-real-connection proof-texting
of various modern innovations.230

Frame’s Case for Contemporaneity in Worship

As we consider Frame’s book we must never lose sight of the fact that his book is an
apologetic for the charismatic-Arminian style of worship conducted in the “New Life”
churches. This type of worship is commonly referred to as “contemporary” or “celebrative”
worship. How does Frame justify this new type of worship from Scripture? His argument is
founded upon the fact that tongues must be translated into an understandable language. He
writes:

On the other hand, Scripture also tells us, and more explicitly and emphatically,
that worship should be intelligible. It should be understandable to the worshipers,
and even to non-Christian visitors (1 Cor. 14, especially vv. 24-25). And
intelligibility requires contemporaneity. When churches use archaic language and
follow practices that are little understood today, they compromise that biblical
principle.... Another important consideration is that the style chosen must promote
the intelligibility of the communication. We have seen that this is the chief
emphasis of 1 Corinthians 14, which is the most extended treatment of a Christian
worship meeting in the New Testament. Intelligibility of communication is crucial
to the Great Commission and to the demand of love, for love seeks to promote, not
impede, mutual understanding.

Intelligibility requires us, first, to speak the language of the people, not Latin, as
the Reformers emphasized. But communication is more than language in the
narrow sense. Content is communicated through body language, style, the choice
of popular rather than technical terms, well-known musical styles, etc.231

Frame’s argument for contemporary worship is another example of what he calls “creative
application.” A more accurate designation would be “arbitrary application.” When the apostle
Paul was dealing with a specific problem at Corinth (uninterpreted or non-translated tongues)
was he also making a statement regarding musical styles, body language or contemporary song
styles? No. Neither Paul or the Corinthians or any commentators past or present (with the
exception of Frame) believe or teach that Paul was telling the church to make sure they had
proper body language. Frame is once again grasping after straws. One could just as well apply
Frame’s concept of intelligibility to church architecture, Christian clothing, the pastor’s car
and furniture, etc., for the application is arbitrary. It is not rooted in standard Protestant biblical

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

exegesis.

How did “celebrative” or “contemporary” worship begin? Was there a group of Christians who
out of a serious study of Scripture (e.g., 1 Cor. 14:24-25) decided that God required worship to
be modernized to better speak to our childish, degenerate culture? No. Generally speaking, its
rise in popularity is a combination of three historical developments. First, contemporary
worship has its roots in Arminian pragmatic revivalism. Arminian revivalists learned that
feminine, emotional, tear-jerking songs helped people make a “decision for Christ.” They also
learned that entertainment, performances and organ interludes brought more people into the
tent. Second, in the late 1960s and early 1970s many pot-heads and hippies became professing
Christians. Many of these converted hippies (“the Jesus people”) incorporated the communal,
simple, emotional style of singing they were accustomed to into their services. This new style
of worship often consisted of one-verse choruses that were sung over and over again until
people were worked into an emotional frenzy or meditative type of trance. Sadly, this
emotionalism and trance-like state was and still is equated with the special presence of the
Holy Spirit or a mystical communion with God. Believers need to understand that this new
emotional, non-doctrinal type of worship has its roots not in the Bible but in hedonistic,
counter-culture, mystical paganism. Peter Masters writes: “It was a form of worship fashioned
and conceived in the womb of the hippie meditational mysticism, in which hippies in their
hundreds and thousands would sit on California hillsides with eyes closed, swaying themselves
into an ecstatic state of experience. Former hippies carried into their new Christian allegiance
the method of seeking the emotional release or sensations to which they were accustomed, and
no one showed them a better way.”232

Third, there was the rise of the church growth movement which offered a pious sounding but
totally pragmatic justification for man-centered, entertainment-oriented worship. The fact that
modern “celebrative” music was shallow, worldly and immature was not important because
worship must be user-friendly. It must appeal to shallow, worldly and immature seekers. That
is, it must be attractive to the flesh. In this paradigm, worship is not primarily considered to be
directed to God but to man. Worship is treated as another evangelistic church-growth tool.
Frame would not put the matter so crassly. But his concept of “intelligibility requires
contemporaneity,” even to non-Christian visitors, says much the same thing. Thus, today
churches often have child-like, repetitive songs coupled with rock bands, drama groups,
comedian pastors, liturgical dance, videos and movies.

In another book on worship (Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense), Frame argues
in favor of super-simplified (i.e., dumbed-down) hymns on the basis of Old Testament saints
such as Job, Moses and Isaiah. Job’s lengthy, detailed speeches are compared to traditional
worship. When Job was finally confronted with God he spoke only a few simple words.
Likewise, when Moses and Isaiah were in God’s presence they were in awe and had very little

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

to say.233 Peter Masters’ analysis of Frame’s book advocating contemporary worship is right
on the mark. He writes: “One of John Frame’s many complaints about traditional worship is
that it is far too complex. It has too many words, is too intelligent, and too scholarly. It is not
for ordinary people. In supporting this complaint, the author pronounces himself in favor of
minimal words. He wants to bypass rationality, and substitute feelings as the leading
component in worship. He also insists that there is a physical dimension to worship, dancing
and other activities being valid. He wants to get the senses and sensations strumming in order
to touch God. The point in raising his book at this stage is to show how ‘traditionalists’ who
adopt new worship eventually capitulate to the sensational-mystical-aesthetic philosophy of
worship.”234

The origins and arguments in favor of the modern “celebratory” worship raise a few very
important questions. Why does modern worship have to cater or lower itself to the immaturity
and degeneracy of modern culture? Isn’t such thinking a type of relativism? If rap music
becomes the predominate form of musical expression in society, will the advocates of
“contemporaneity” use rap music in public worship? (Some churches already use “Christian”
rap groups in their worship service entertainment segments.) Also, when Frame and others
look to the Scriptures for proof or guidance regarding worship, why point to passages that have
nothing to do with singing of praise when God has already told us exactly what he wants? God
has written his own hymnal—the book of Psalms—and placed it in the middle of our Bibles,
and commanded us to sing it. The only possible reasons that “celebrative” worship advocates
ignore the obvious and rely on “creative application” is either a woeful lack of knowledge
regarding Scripture or a blatant disregard of Scripture in favor of human autonomy in worship.

The fact that God himself has written and given the church a hymnbook (the Psalter) tells us a
number of things regarding praise, all of which contradict the “celebrative” worship paradigm.
First, note that the Psalms are saturated with deep theology and are doctrinally balanced,
complex, non-repetitive, and often long.235 David and the other inspired prophets who wrote
the Psalms did not regard heavy doctrine and complexity of meaning as impediments to
biblical worship. That is because biblical praise does not attempt to bypass the intellect in
favor of an ecstatic experience. Our faith in Jesus Christ is strengthened by learning and
understanding biblical doctrine, not by experiencing an emotional phenomenon devoid of
cognitive input. There is certainly nothing wrong with experiencing emotions. The Psalms, far
better than any uninspired hymnal, reflect the full range of human emotions from the deepest
despair to the heights of joy and bliss. However, our emotions are to be founded upon biblical
truth. The Holy Spirit uses God’s word to convict and sanctify, not to stir some mystical
emotional experience.

Remember that the “celebrative” worship paradigm is an outgrowth of the charismatic

movement. Philosophically, it is rooted in an irrational type of Christian existentialism. What

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

charismatic churches often do is whip the people into an emotional frenzy by means of
exciting music, visual-sensual programs, cheerleaders called “worship leaders” (whose
primary function is to encourage the people to get more emotional and worked up), highly
repetitive worship choruses, etc. Then when the people are having a wonderful experience they
are told: “Now don’t you just feel the Spirit’s presence? Do you feel the power? This room is
on fire!” These poor deluded souls are taught to equate an “empty-headed,” music-driven
emotional experience with God’s presence. This non-rational, sensual, emotional technique of
experiencing (what they think) is God’s special presence is mysticism. It is any wonder that
many charismatic churches regard doctrine and solid exegetical preaching as unimportant; that
the charismatic movement is leading many Protestants back to Rome? “Emotion-driven,
mystical worship is a delusion, producing intensely emotional and subjective worshipers for
whom personal enjoyment is the chief aim.”236

Second, the fact that God introduced the Psalms to a primitive, agricultural, mostly illiterate
society completely disproves the idea that we need to dumb-down worship by using repetitive
choruses, drama and musical performances. If one applied Frame’s “intelligibility” argument
to the Israelites, would not their worship have to be even more simple and less complex than
that of today’s computer programmers, engineers, pilots and computer scientists? After all, the
vast majority of Israelites were simple peasant farmers and herdsmen. Yet God gave them the
complex, highly theological, lengthy, intellectually challenging book of Psalms. God did not
expect the Israelites to put their minds on hold while they closed their eyes and repeated the
same words over and over and over again like a stoned hippie or Hindu mystic. Biblical
worship requires attentiveness of mind. It requires thinking, understanding and focus.
Certainly a philosophy of worship that (if consistently applied) would require God’s people to
set aside the perfect, sufficient, inspired book of Psalms cannot be true.237

Third, the “contemporaneity” argument is also disproved by the regulative principle. Did the
Jews in the old covenant era go to the Canaanites, Philistines, Egyptians, or Assyrians in order
to make sure that their worship was culturally relevant? Did the New covenant church seek out
“contemporaneity” with Greek or Roman culture? No. They were to do only as God
commanded precisely, i.e., to avoid syncretism with the pagan culture. “Take heed to yourself
that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that
you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will
do likewise.’ You shall not worship the LORDd your God in that way; for every abomination
to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and
daughters in the fire to their gods. Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall
not add to it nor take away from it” (Dt. 12:30-32). Although Americans today are not
sacrificing their children to Molech, many do serve at the altar of hedonism. Our culture does
not look to the prophets of Baal but to sports, Hollywood and Las Vegas. This self-centered,
entertainment oriented, hedonistic attitude has thoroughly penetrated many modern evangelical

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

churches. Modern celebrative music is not a better, more biblical way to worship God. It is a
syncretistic worship. It is a mixture of the elements of worship with the American hedonistic
worldview. Frame’s rejection of the Puritan/Presbyterian/confessional understanding of the
regulative principle and his alternative of “creative application” has one major objective: the
justification of modern syncretistic worship.238

Conclusion

One of the most important debates that is presently occurring between “conservative”
Presbyterians is over the issue of the regulative principle and its application to worship. This
theological battle is crucial, for its outcome will greatly affect the future course of
Presbyterianism. The main battle that is taking place is not between status-quo traditionalists
and charismatic-style celebratists but between strict confessionalists (i.e., those who still hold
to a strict, consistently applied, historical understanding of the regulative principle) and all
those who have rejected or reinterpreted the regulative principle in a non-confessional manner.
Frame is without question one of the chief apologists for those who have rejected the
confessional position and have charted a new course consistent with what is popular among
non-regulativist, Arminian evangelicals. Although in our day we see a renewed interest in
biblical worship (e.g., a capella Psalm singing) it appears that at present the main trend in
worship in conservative Presbyterian denominations is toward the new “celebrative” worship
advocated by Frame. This trend is to be expected. When denominations depart in practice from
the regulative principle with uninspired hymns, musical instruments and extra-biblical holy
days, the trend usually is toward consistency. In other words a little leaven leavens the whole
lump.

The purpose of this review is to warn everyone who considers himself to be Reformed or
Presbyterian that Frame is waging war against biblical worship and the Westminster Standards.
Frame is subversive; he is using deception, ambiguity and deceit to persuade others to embrace
human autonomy in worship. Note that Frame’s subversion is deliberate and well-planned.
Frame is not a novice, a theological amateur who simply made some mistakes because of
immaturity and lack of knowledge. He has taught theology and apologetics at the seminary
level for over 27 years. He knows full well that what he has proposed in his book is a radical
departure from the Westminster Standards. He is an ordained minister and seminary professor
who holds to the Confession of Faith with crossed fingers. Frame and others who have taken
ordination vows to uphold the Westminster Standards, yet who now reject the teaching of the
Standards have three choices: (1) they can be honest and consistent and resign from their
positions as pastor, seminary professor or ruling elder and join a denomination that is
Calvinistic in soteriology yet which openly and confessionally rejects Reformed worship (i.e.,
the regulative principle); (2) they can be dishonest, redefine the regulative principle in an anti-
confessional manner and work to subvert a major Presbyterian distinctive and corrupt others;
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
or (3) they can repent, obey their ordination vows and return to the biblical worship of their
spiritual forefathers.

Frame’s subversion of the Westminster Standards, the endorsement of Frame’s book by

professors from two “conservative” Reformed seminaries, and the publication of his book by a
purported “Presbyterian and Reformed” publisher reveal two things about the time in which
we live. First, we live in a time of great declension. Most of what passes as conservative
Presbyterian practice today in the area of worship is really much closer to Arminian
evangelicalism and prelacy than the original intent of the Confession of Faith. Indeed, it is
doubtful that someone such as John Knox, George Gillespie or Samuel Rutherford could get a
teaching job at any of the “conservative” Presbyterian seminaries today; and, it is virtually
certain that not one major Presbyterian publisher would publish any of their writings on
worship. Why? Because the “conservative” Presbyterian seminaries and major Reformed
publishers and most people in Presbyterian denominations do not really believe in confessional
worship. “A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; the prophets prophecy
falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so” (Jer. 5:30-
31).

Second, we live in a time when confessional subscription is very lax, when ministers and
elders can repudiate and break their ordination vows with virtually no disciplinary
consequences. This situation raises some important questions. (1) If a man openly breaks his
ordination vows and publicly teaches an unbiblical doctrine of worship, can the denomination
and seminary which refuses to discipline such a man really claim to be Reformed? Are they
not by their refusal to enforce their own standards accomplices in that man’s deception and
corrosive false teaching? Is not their inaction an implicit acceptance of heterodox views? “If
Presbyterians took their creed seriously, Mr. Frame would be removed from both the seminary
and the pastorate, and not allowed to teach.”239 (2) Further, is not a refusal to bring sanctions
against such blatant violations of our standards also an unpastoral refusal to protect church
members from false teachers? Is it not an implicit rejection of one of the main purposes of
adopting a biblical, carefully-crafted creed? Gary North’s analysis of the Presbyterian conflict
in the PCUSA (c. 1880-1936) applies to our own time of loose subscriptionism and non-
disciplined covenant breakers. He writes:

The age-old debate between a strict interpretation of a standard and loose

interpretation was a big part of the Presbyterian conflict. To understand what was
involved, consider a speed limit sign. It says “35” (either miles per hour or
kilometers per hour). What if a man drives 36? Will he be ticketed by a
policeman? Probably not. The policeman has limited amounts of time to pursue
speeders. He has to chase the speeder, ticket him, and perhaps appear in court to
defend his actions. In a world of limited resources, a person who speeds by driving

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

36 in a 35 zone is probably going to get away with it; the safety of the public is
dependent on stopping activities of those other, life-threatening speeders. Only if
the community is willing to hire many, many policeman and judges can it afford to
ticket speeders who drive 36.

Now consider someone who drives 55 in a “25” speed zone for young school-age
children. Will a policeman pursue him? Without question. The speeder is putting
children at risk. That speeder is a serious lawbreaker. To refuse to pursue him, a
policeman would be abandoning the very essence of law enforcement. His own job
would probably be at risk for malfeasance. A city that will not bring employment
sanctions against a traffic policeman who steadfastly refuses to pursue such
speeders is saying, in effect: “Our posted signs mean nothing. Drive as fast as you
want, day or night.” In other words, “Young children had better look out for
themselves; we will not do it for them.”

Strict subscription, like speed limits, is designed to protect the vulnerable person
who is under the protection of the law. As surely as a seven-year-old child walking
to school is protected by a speed limit sign and a court system prepared to enforce
it, so is a resident in a country protected by the strict interpretation of a written
civil constitution and a court system prepared to enforce it and so is a Church
member protected by strict subscription to a confession of faith and a court system
prepared to enforce it.

Two conclusions follow: (1) law without sanctions protects no one; (2) law
interpreted by loose construction protects no one predictably. This is true in
ecclesiastical matters as it is in highway safety matters.

The child is under the protection of the law, the posted limit, the police, and the
court, even though he did not publicly swear an oath of allegiance to obey the law.
The speed limit sign is for his protection: the person at greatest risk from speeders.
When he becomes a driver, he will be expected to obey the law.

In the Bible, the widow, the orphan, and the stranger are identified as the most
vulnerable people in the community. The civil law is supposed to protect them.
The minor or resident alien today is protected by the national constitution, even
though he did not publicly swear an oath of allegiance to it, as the person most at
risk of government tyranny.

The visitor or the non-voting Church member is protected by the confession of

faith, even though he did not publicly swear allegiance to it. It protects his soul

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

 from wolves in sheep’s clothing: false shepherds. He will be expected to take
public oath to uphold the confession if he ever becomes a church officer.240

Furthermore, what is the point of official adherence to a creed and requiring ordination vows
to believe in and uphold the teaching of that creed, when ordained men who have sworn
allegiance to that creed can openly deny and subvert some of its most important teachings?
“The whole purpose of a creed is to ‘lock-in’ a particular theological viewpoint, to stand
against the eroding tides of shifting fashion. Consequently, a creed must be understood in
terms of its original intent or else it fails of its purpose....”241 Men are free to disagree with the
original intent of the Westminster Standards. However, if they have sworn allegiance to the
Standards they have a moral obligation to make their disagreements known, resign from their
position as pastor, elder, teacher or deacon and move on. Likewise, denominations and
seminaries which claim allegiance to the Standards yet teach contrary to the Standards and
refuse to discipline men for teaching contrary to the Standards have a moral obligation to (at
the minimum) make changes in the Standards so that they are in accord with what is actually
being taught and practiced. Ordained men, seminaries and denominations which pretend to
adhere to the Standards when they really do not, are guilty of violating the ninth
commandment. They are guilty of false advertising. What is occurring today is fraud on a
massive scale. How can declension be stopped when the original intent of the Westminster
Standards is ignored or set aside to accommodate heterodox views on worship, creation and
women in office? Gentry writes: “[W]hen we witness the attempt at re-interpreting the clear
language before us, deep and serious concerns boil up. Where will this methodology lead?
What elements within the Confession are safe from the re-interpretive hermeneutic? And for
how long are they safe once this interpretive approach is unleashed?”242

Lastly, if crucial sections of the Westminster Standards are ignored or completely redefined in
a manner that contradicts the plain historical meaning of the Standards, will this not eventually
lead to a shift in authority from the original intent of the Standards to an unwritten, historically
relative, arbitrary standard? Yes, it certainly will. Every organization is going to have some
sanctions. So it is never a question (in the long run) of sanctions versus no sanctions. What
happens over a period of time is that the anti-confessional non-historical interpretation of the
Confession becomes the status-quo. Soon, discrete sanctions are used against strict
confessionalists (e.g., they are refused pulpits, teaching jobs, committee assignments and are
shunned and have evil motives assigned to their theological positions [e.g., so and so only
cares about theology not people; or, he is unloving; or, he is divisive; or, he is unconcerned
about church growth, etc.]). Next, over a period of time strict confessionalists are even openly
admonished and disciplined. Note, when negative sanctions are not imposed upon church
officers who have abandoned the Westminster Standards, then a time will come when
sanctions are “imposed in terms of a standard other than the Westminster Confession of Faith
and its two catechisms.”243 Apart from a strict adherence to the Westminster Standards the

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

institutional question will be: By What Other Standard?244 The time will come when those
who adhere to the biblical worship of the confession will be marginalized and then driven out.
For those who believe this scenario is far-fetched, keep in mind that this pattern has been
repeated throughout church history.

It is our hope and prayer that Frame and all those who take the name Presbyterian and claim
adherence to the Westminster Standards yet who attack the regulative principle (i.e., Reformed
worship) and promote innovations in the worship of God would cease their attacks upon
biblical worship and publicly repent of lying, breaking their vows, taking part in perverted
worship, and causing others to corrupt the worship of God.

169
Frame taught for many years at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, and
Westminster West, Escondido, California.

170John Frame, Worship in Spirit and Truth: A Refreshing Study of the Principles and
Practice of Biblical Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1996), xii.

171 Ibid., xvi.

172 In order to keep this review reasonably short this author will not refute Frame’s arguments
against the historic Reformed positions on exclusive psalmody, musical instruments in worship
and the celebration of extra-biblical holy days (e.g., Christmas and Easter). This author has
already refuted Frame’s arguments (which are typical of the modern Presbyterian status quo)
in other works: The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas; Musical Instruments in
the Public Worship of God and A Brief Examination of Exclusive Psalmody. All these books
are available free at www.reformed.com. Other recommended works are: John L. Girardeau,
Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church (Havertown, PA: New Covenant
Publication Society, 1983 [1888]); Kevin Reed, Christmas: An Historical Survey Regarding Its
Origins and Opposition to It (Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1983) and
Biblical Worship (Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage, 1995); Michael Bushell, The Songs of
Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody (Pittsburgh: Crown and Covenant
Publications, 1977); G. I. Williamson, On the Observance of Sacred Days (Havertown, PA:
New Covenant Publication Society, n.d.) and Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of
God: Commanded or Not Commanded? and D. W. Collins, Musical Instruments in Divine
Worship Condemned by the Word of God (Pittsburgh: Stevenson and Foster, 1881).

173 Worship in Spirit and in Truth, xvi. This author attended the “mother church” in the late

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

1970s and met and talked with Dr. Miller, who was a very sincere, pious and godly man (he
passed on to glory in 1995). In the area of worship, however, his efforts have done much to
corrupt the church of Christ.

174 Ibid., xii-xii, emphasis added.

175 Ibid., emphasis added.

176 Frame has borrowed the term “minimalist” from James Jordan’s Liturgical Nestorianism
(Niceville, FL: Transfiguration Press, 1994). In his book Jordan accuses strict regulativists of
being like Nestorians who denigrated human nature by “saying that God and man were not
joined.” Aside from the fact that it was the Monophysites who denied and thus denigrated the
true humanity of Christ by manner of a fusion of the two natures, Jordan’s argument has
nothing to do with the debate over the regulative principle. It sounds creative and intellectual
and that is enough for many of Jordan’s followers. That Frame would approvingly reference
Jordan’s book is not surprising. Jordan has misrepresented and mocked the regulative principle
for years. He also is well known for “interpretive maximalism.” Through his creative LSD
hermeneutics he discovers hidden obscure meanings in a text. Both men, however, attack the
regulative principle for different reasons. Frame wants charismatic-style worship while Jordan
prefers a more high church liturgical style worship. Note the following quotes from his
Sociology of the Church (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986): “Biblical teaching as a whole
is quite favorable to Christmas as an annual ecclesiastical festival.... As I study Scripture, I
find that Lutheran and Anglican churches are more biblical in their worship [than Baptist and
Reformed], despite some problems” (210). “What I am saying is that the custom [of crossing
oneself] is not unscriptural, and that the conservative church at large should give it some
thought” (212). “This [the Scripture reading and sermon] is all designed to lead us to the
second act of sacrifice: the Offertory. The Offertory is not a ‘collection,’ but the act of self-
immolation.... Thus, the offering plates are brought down front to the minister, who holds them
up before God (‘heave offering’) and gives them to Him” (27). “The whole-personal
priesthood of all believers means not only congregational participation (which requires prayer
books), but also holistic ‘doing.’ It means singing, falling down, kneeling, dancing, clapping,
processions, and so forth” (32). “By requiring knowledge before communion, the church cut
its children off from the Table.... If we are to have reformation, we must reject this residuum of
Gnosticism and return to an understanding that the act of the eucharist precedes the
interpretation of it” (38). Jordan, as Frame, argues from “large, over-arching principles of
worship” (209) and thus often engages in speculative, creative application. If one disagrees
with Jordan’s “high church” views he is arbitrarily labeled (with absolutely no proof
whatsoever) as Neo-platonic, Nestorian, Gnostic, Nominalistic, Stoic, etc.

177 Westminster Confession of Faith, 376, 393.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
178Alex F. Mitchell and John Struthers, eds., Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster
Assembly of Divines While Engaged in Preparing Their Directory for Church Government,
Confession of Faith, and Catechisms (November 1644 to March 1649) from Transcripts of the
Originals Procured by a Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
(Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991 [1874]), 163.

179 Ibid.

180 Ibid., 221-222.

181 Ibid., 221.

182 Ibid., 298.

183 Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still
Waters Revival Books, [1845]), 224-225. Orthodox Presbyterian pastor G. I. Williamson
concurs: “Another element of true worship is ‘the singing of psalms with grace in the heart.’ It
will be observed that the Confession does not acknowledge the legitimacy of the use of
modern hymns in the worship of God, but rather only the psalms of the Old Testament. It is
not generally realized today that Presbyterian and Reformed churches originally used only the
inspired psalms, hymns, and songs of the Biblical Psalter in divine worship, but such is the
case. The Westminster Assembly not only expressed the conviction that only the psalms
should be sung in divine worship, but implemented it by preparing a metrical version of the
Psalter for use in the Churches. This is not the place to attempt a consideration of this question.
But we must record our conviction that the Confession is correct at this point. It is correct, we
believe, because it has never been proved that God has commanded his Church to sing the
uninspired compositions of men rather than or along with the inspired songs, hymns, and
psalms of the Psalter in divine worship” (The Confession of Faith for Study Classes
[Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964], 167).

184 Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion, 210-211. For a more thorough discussion of the
abandonment of exclusive psalmody by the PCUSA, see Bushell, 198-212. The abandonment
of exclusive psalmody by other Presbyterian denominations and Dutch Reformed churches is
discussed in pp. 212-220. For further reading on the PCUSA and Watts’ Psalms see Charles
Hodge, The Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1851), part 2, 244-306.

185 John Maitland, Alexander Henderson, Samuel Rutherford, Robert Baillie and George

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

Gillepsie (the Scottish delegates to the Westminster Assembly, 1644).

186 The General Assemblies [sic] Answer to the Right Reverend the Assembly of the Divines
in the Kirk of England (1644). Samuel Gibson writes: “But it hath been often said, Take away
the Common Prayer Book, take away our Religion. Nay, our Religion is in the Bible, there is
our God, and our Christ, and our Faith, and our Creed in all points. The whole Bible was
Paul’s belief; there are the Psalms of David, and his Prayers, and the Lord’s Prayer, and other
prayers, by which we may learn to pray. We have still the Lord’s Songs, the Songs of Zion,
sung by many with grace in their hearts, making melody to the Lord, though without organs.
There we have all the commandments” (Samuel Gibson [minister, Church of England,
Westminster divine], The Ruin of the Authors and Fomentors of Civil Wars [1645]).

187 Confession of Faith, 394.

188 What is particularly bizarre regarding Frame’s book is that in the paragraph immediately
prior to the one in which he falsely claims that minimalistic worship was not a product of the
Westminster Standards, but came from other Puritan and Reformed works that go beyond the
Standards. He wrote: “Presbyterian worship—based on the biblical ‘regulative principle,’
which I describe in these pages—was in its early days very restrictive, austere, and
‘minimalist.’ It excluded organs, choirs, hymn texts other than the Psalms, symbolism in the
worship area, and religious holidays except for the Sabbath” (p. xii). The regulative principle
(that Frame says in its early days was very restrictive, austere, and minimalist) that produced
the Presbyterian and Reformed worship that Frame describes, is set forth in the strictest
manner in the Standards (e.g., WCF 1.6-7; 20.2; 21.1-5; LC 108, 109, 110; SC 50, 51, 52).
Frame’s version of history makes no sense whatsoever. The Puritans and Presbyterians taught
and practiced a strict regulativist type of worship, yet supposedly in their Standards they
espoused something different. Such a version of events is totally absurd.

189See Brian M. Schwertley, A Brief Critique of Steven Schlissel’s Article Against the
Regulative Principle of Worship (www.iserv.net/~graceopc/pub/schwertley/schlissel.html).

190John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1987), 371.

191 Ibid.

192 Frame, Worship in Spirit and in Truth, xiv-xv.

193 Ibid., 38.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

194 Ibid., 39.

195 Ibid.

196 Frame, 39. Although Frame gives us a list of traditional regulative principle proof texts,
note that he does not really believe that these passages actually prove the regulative principle.
He tells us that he relies on more general principles; however, he does not tell us where or how
these principles are derived from the Bible. He writes: “Some readers will note that although I
earlier cited a list of passages such as Lev. 10:1-3 to show God’s displeasure with illegitimate
worship, I have not used this list to prove the regulative principle, but have instead relied on
more general considerations. It does not seem to me that that list of passages proves the precise
point that ‘whatever is not commanded is forbidden.’ The practices condemned in those
passages are not merely not commanded; they are explicitly forbidden. For example, what
Nadab and Abihu did in Lev. 10:1 was not only ‘unauthorized,’ the text informs us, but also
‘contrary to [God’s] command.’ The fire should have been taken from God’s altar (Num.
16:46), not from a private source (compare Ex. 35:3)” [p. 47, endnote 2]. Frame’s analysis of
the Nadab and Abihu incident is erroneous. The reason that the fire of Nadab and Abihu is
called “strange” (KJV), “profane” (NKJV) or “unauthorized” (NIV) is not because it is
expressly forbidden, but because as the text explicitly says, it was never commanded. The
passages that Frame offers to disprove the traditional regulativist understanding of the passage
do not prove his point at all. The Numbers 16:46 passage simply says that fire is to be taken
from the altar and put on a censer. Neither in this or any other passage are people expressly
told not to use fire from any other source. The point of the regulative principle is that when
God says, “Take fire from the altar,” men must follow God’s direction without adding their
own human rules or traditions. The passage that Frame offers as proof (Ex. 35:3) that fire from
another source is expressly forbidden teaches that the people are not to kindle a fire in their
dwellings on the Sabbath. It has nothing to do with the Leviticus 10:1 passage. That Frame
would list a series of passages in a section on the regulative principle that he really doesn’t
believe teaches the regulative principle is strange. However, since he heartily endorses the
Westminster Standards’ teaching on worship and then explicitly rejects it later in the same
book, we should not be surprised by such contradictions.

197 Ibid., xv.

198 Ibid., xv.

199 Ibid., 46.

200 Frame has also adopted unbiblical views regarding women in public worship. He has
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
imbibed the teachings of James Hurley on this issue, which were set forth to circumvent the
clear teaching of Scripture and accommodate the infiltration of feminism in the church. Frame
writes: “In general, I agree with James Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), and others, who argue that the only biblical limitation on
women’s role is that women may not be elders. Hurley argues that the prohibition on women
speaking in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is not for the duration of the meeting, but for the authoritative
‘weighing of the prophets’ described in vv. 29-33, and that the teaching prohibited in 1 Tim.
2:12 is the authoritative teaching of the office of elder. However we may interpret these
difficult passages, it is plain that under some circumstances women did legitimately speak in
worship (1 Cor. 11:5) and that women were not entirely excluded from teaching (Acts 18:26;
Titus 2:4) (p. 75, endnote 6).” There are a number of reasons why the teaching of Frame and
Hurley must be rejected. First, nowhere in the Bible do we find a distinction between
authoritative versus non-authoritative teaching in public worship. This kind of arbitrary, non-
textually based distinction would have made the medieval scholastics proud. Second, Hurley
ignores the fact that although women were not permitted to ask questions, speak or teach in the
Jewish synagogues in the old covenant and apostolic era, men—the heads of households—
were permitted to ask questions and make comments regarding the Scripture reading and
exposition. Women had to ask their husbands at home. Why ignore the historical context (and
cultural milieu) and read our modern feminist culture back into the text? The answer is simple.
Hurley’s arguments are more a justification of existing practice (i.e., the current declension)
than objective exegesis. Third, at no point in the passage (1 Cor. 14:34-35) or the context are
we told that women keeping silent applies only to the evaluation of prophets. Hurley’s
conclusion is speculation—a speculation not made by virtually any commentator, theologian
or preacher until the rise and popularity of feminism in the 1970s. Fourth, Hurley’s speculative
conclusion contradicts the explicit teaching of 1 Tim. 2:12 where there is no possibility that
Paul is only speaking about the evaluation of the prophets. Fifth, the reasons that are given in
Scripture for women not speaking, teaching or asking questions in church (e.g., [1] God’s
ordained order of authority [1 Cor. 11:3]; [2] Adam was created first [1 Tim. 2:14]; [3] the
woman [Eve] originated from the man [Adam] [Gen. 2:21-22; 1 Cor. 11:8]; [4] the woman-
wife was created as a help-meet to the man-Adam [Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:9]; [5] Eve was
deceived and fell into transgression [1 Tim. 2:14]; [6] the covenant headship of the husband [1
Cor. 14:34-35]) obviously apply to all forms of teaching or speaking in public worship. They
cannot arbitrarily be applied to only one type of speaking or teaching. This point is strongly
supported by Paul’s statements regarding women being submissive and asking their own
husbands at home. Paul is setting forth and supporting the biblical teaching regarding covenant
headship. Hurley artificially applies these broad overarching principles to a tiny sliver of
public worship (the evaluation of prophets) that no longer even applies to the modern church,
for prophecy has ceased. Sixth, the alleged major difficulty of reconciling 1 Cor. 11:5 (where
women are said to pray and prophecy) with 1 Cor. 14:34-35 (where women are forbidden to
speak in church and are commanded to keep silent) has been resolved in ways that do not

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

violate the analogy of Scripture and are much more exegetically responsible than Hurley’s
speculation. Three possible interpretations are: (1) When Paul refers to women praying and
prophesying in 1 Cor. 11:5, the term prophesying refers to women singing the Psalms which
are prophetic Scripture. (2) Paul’s discussion of women praying and prophesying in public
worship is merely hypothetical, for he later forbids the practice altogether in 1 Cor. 14:34-35
(cf. Calvin’s commentary on the passage). (3) Paul under inspiration regards women setting
forth direct revelation from God to be an exception to regular speaking (e.g., making
comments or asking questions) or teaching (i.e., the uninspired exposition of Scripture). In
other words, since prophecy is God himself speaking without human exposition, a woman
prophesying is not herself exercising authority over a man. The passages that Frame uses (Ac.
18:26; Tim. 2:4) for women teaching have nothing to do with public worship. The first passage
refers to Priscilla’s and her husband’s private instructions of Apollos. The second passage
refers to older women who in their inter-personal relationships with younger women are to
teach them how to be good wives and homemakers.

201 Ibid., xvi.

202 Ibid., 2, emphasis added.

203 Ibid., 44, emphasis added.

204 Ibid., 54.

205 Ibid., 54-55, emphasis added.

206 Ibid., 23.

207 Ibid., 55.

208 Ibid., 56.

209 Ibid., 92-93.

210 Ibid., 93.

211 Ibid.

212 Ibid.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

213 Ibid.

214 Ibid.

215 Ibid.

216Richard L. Pratt, Jr. and Steve Brown from Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando;
Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. and D. Clair Davis from Westminster Theological Seminary,
Philadelphia.

217 Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1991.

218Greg L. Bahnsen, No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics (Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics, 1991), 299-300, 302-303.

219 Worship in Spirit and in Truth, 52-53.

220 John Coffey writes: “In describing Scots like Rutherford as Puritan we are following the
example of their contemporaries. When James VI revisited Scotland in 1617 he recalled that
many English Puritans had yielded under royal pressure, and declared ‘Let us take the same
course with the Puritans here.’ Peter Heylyn too, did not hesitate to speak of ‘the Presbyterian
or Puritan Faction in Scotland.’ Rutherford himself noted that ‘we be nicknamed Puritan’ and
complained that ‘a strict and precise walking with God in everything’ was scorned as ‘Puritan.’
The nickname was given throughout the English-speaking world to people who were felt to be
excessively zealous and strict in their religion, people whose intense desire to obey Scripture
often brought them into conflict with royal ecclesiastical policy” (Politics, Religion and the
British Revolutions: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford [Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1997], 18).

221 Worship in Spirit and in Truth, 53.

222 Ibid.

223 Ibid., 54.

224 Ibid., 123-124.

225 Frame offers a few other arguments against the confessional concept of elements or parts

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

of worship. One is what he calls the practical snags argument. He points out that there have
been disagreements over the years regarding what are elements and what are not (p. 53). He
fails to point out, however, that the disagreements that he refers to are all of recent origin and
were primarily dredged up to circumvent exclusive psalmody. Then he brings up the fact that
the Puritans disagreed over issues like reading written prayers and reciting the Apostle’s
Creed. However, he ignores the fact that these were individual disagreements. The Puritans
and Presbyterians were in unanimous agreement regarding the statements on worship in the
Westminster Standards. Does the fact that professing Christians disagree over the abiding
validity of the ten commandments meant that we should jettison the ten commandments and
replace them with something different? Of course not. The fact that people disagree over
certain issues is irrelevant to whether or not a theological position is correct. This issue must
be determined by solid exegetical evidence and not LSD hermeneutics. Frame also raises the
issue of a marriage worship service. Since there is no such thing as a marriage worship service
in Scripture, Frame’s consideration is not germane to the discussion. If Frame wants us to
reject the Westminster Standards and over 400 years of Reformed thought on the subject of
worship, he is going to have to offer something more substantial. A good starting point would
be some good old-fashioned biblical exegesis. We are still waiting.

226 Kevin Reed, “Presbyterian Worship: Old and New” in Brian M. Schwertley, Musical
Instruments in the Public Worship of God (Southfield, MI: Reformed Witness, 1999), 139.

227 Worship in Spirit and Truth, 40-41.

228 Ibid.

229 See Worship in Spirit and Truth, 131.

230 As Frame misrepresents the Puritan’s understanding of the scope of the regulative principle
he also misrepresents the Westminster Confession. He writes: “I am aware that traditional
Presbyterian statements of the regulative principle typically draw a much sharper distinction
than I have drawn between worship services and the rest of life. The Westminster Confession,
for example, states that in all of life we are free from any ‘doctrines and commandments of
men’ that are ‘contrary to’ God’s word, but that in ‘matters of faith, or worship,’ we are also
free from doctrines and commandments that are ‘beside’ the word (20.2)” (43). In this section
on liberty of conscience the phrases “contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or
worship” go together and are connected by the verb “are” to “the doctrine and commandments
of men.” The Confession is not making two separate statements—one regarding all of life and
another regarding only matters of faith. Anything contrary to or beside God’s word in all
matters of faith or worship does not have God’s authority. Shaw writes: “In this section the
doctrine of liberty of conscience is laid down in most explicit terms. The conscience, in all
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
matters of faith and duty, is subject to the authority of God alone, and entirely free from all
subjection to the traditions and commandments of men. To believe any doctrine, or obey any
commandment, contrary to, the Word of God, out of submission to human authority, is to
betray true liberty of conscience” (Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 205). A. A. Hodge
writes: “God has authoritatively addressed the human conscience only in his law, the only
perfect revelation of which in this world is the inspired Scriptures. Hence God himself has set
the human conscience free from all obligation to believe or obey any such doctrines or
commandments of men as are either contrary to or aside from the teachings of that Word” (The
Confession of Faith, 265).

231 Worship and Spirit and Truth, 67, 83.

232
Peter Masters, “Worship in the Melting Pot: Is New Worship Compatible with Traditional
Worship?” in Sword and Trowel no. 3 (London, England, 1998), 13. This author is indebted to
Masters for his many insights into the “new worship.”

233 When we read passages about a prophet entering into God’s presence and being awe-struck
and speaking few words, does this mean that God is telling us by way of “creative application”
that He would like worship songs written that consist of one sentence? No, not at all. A
legitimate application of such texts would be that we worship an infinitely holy, awesome
God. Therefore, when we approach him in worship we need to be very careful to do so
according to his rules. Our God is a consuming fire. Also, the worship of such a God (Jehovah)
ought to be done in a serious, majestic manner. Churches which practice the new “celebrative”
worship with the jokes, skits, entertainment, vain repetition “Romper-Room” choruses, rock
bands and campfire antics, are neither serious, respectful or majestic. “But, brother, these
people are sincere.” Indeed, many are; however, sincerity which is not based on truth is
worthless.

234 Masters, 15.

235 People who argue in favor of repetitive choruses sometimes will point to the Psalms as a
justification of short repetitive phrases in worship song. The truth of the matter is that the
Psalter is nothing like modern choruses at all. Instead of choruses that are repeated over and
over, the Psalms contain what is called a refrain. In Psalm 136 at the end of each verse we find
the refrain “For His mercy endures for ever.” Unlike modern choruses, the refrain is given at
the end of a new and different thought. Every verse of Psalm 136 is different. Thus the mind is
focused in thanksgiving upon God’s attributes and redemptive acts instead of the vain
repetition of modern choruses where the exact same thing is repeated over and over like a
Hindu mantra.

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com

236 Ibid., 14.

237 A common charge against Puritan or truly Reformed worship by high church liturgists and
charismatic-style celebratists is that Puritans view worship as a purely mental activity or a
purely intellectual exercise. They argue that Puritans neglect the whole man (body and soul) in
worship, that what we need is a “ceremonious view” of worship. Then it is often argued that
the holistic view entails gestures, dance, ceremony and ritual, with the eucharist, not the
sermon, being the centerpiece of Christian worship. We are told that there must be act as well
as thought. Another charge that is leveled is that Puritan worship is really a result of Greek
philosophy and not a careful exegesis of Scripture. Are these charges accurate? No. They
consist of a straw-man caricature of Reformed worship and blatant misrepresentations. Do
Puritans view worship as a purely intellectual, mental affair? No. That accusation simply is not
true. For example, the Puritans believe and practice the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s
Supper, where specific acts and elements are signs and seals of spiritual realities. In the Lord’s
supper (for example) all the senses are in operation. There is the hearing of the word, the
tasting and touching of the bread and wine. There is the visual-sensual experience of looking at
the elements. The issue between strict regulativists and high church liturgists is not purely
mental vs. whole-man worship. The real issues are: (a) the Puritans want to limit worship to
only what is authorized by Scripture, while the liturgists want human additions (e.g., pageantry
and ritual); and (b) regulativists understand the centrality of the preached word. It is not that
Puritans set aside emotion and the “whole man.” Following Paul and others they recognize that
proper emotion and visible ordinances must be based on faith and understanding; otherwise,
one is left with empty ritualism and mysticism. Paul says that prayer or singing without
understanding is useless and does not lead to edification (cf. 1 Cor. 14:12-19). The apostle
presupposes that for sanctification to occur there first must be comprehension by the mind.

What about the common accusation that the Puritans have followed Greek philosophy in their
conception of worship? Anyone who is familiar with the writings of John Calvin, John Knox,
John Owen, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford and others know that such an accusation is
totally false. These men derived their philosophy of worship directly from a careful exegesis of
Scripture. Note also that the accusers always make their assertions with zero evidence. It is
ironic that a strict application of the regulative principle is the only philosophy that disallows
the intrusion of human philosophy into the sphere of worship. We ask our brothers who are
dissatisfied with the simplicity of pure gospel worship (or what they denigrate as minimalistic
worship) to show us, based on the real exegesis of Scripture (without creative application and
LSD hermeneutics), where Calvin, Knox and the Westminster divines went wrong. We will
not be dissuaded by smoke and mirrors.

238People who are in favor of “celebrative” worship sometimes portray strict regulativists as
theological snobs, unloving or even as influenced by neo-platonism or nominalism. The truth
Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com
of the matter is that strict regulativists simply want to preserve biblical (i.e., Reformed)
worship from worship that is idolatrous, Pelagian and Arminian. When people ignore or set
aside what God has commanded in favor of autonomy in worship, they are implicitly saying
that God can be approached in worship on man’s terms. That man through his own creativity,
effort, and mystical experience can lift himself up to God. Such thinking is the essence of
paganism and Romanism. The Bible, however, teaches that God alone initiates mediation and
sets forth the worship between himself and his people. Jehovah sets the rules and controls
worship. It is the height of arrogance for sinful men to approach God in worship on their own
terms. Such men may be friendly and sound very pious, humble and loving. But their doctrine
and actions reveal them to be (at least in the area of worship) false teachers and prophets of
declension.

239Kevin Reed, “Presbyterian Worship” in Musical Instruments in the Public Worship of God,
143-144.

240
Gary North, Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church (Tyler,
TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1996), 10-11.

241 Ken Gentry, Jr., “In the Space of Six Days: On Breaking the Confession with the Rod of
Irons” (Chalcedon Report [Vallecito, CA, April 2000]), 17.

242 Ibid.

243 North, Crossed Fingers, 9.

244 Ibid.

Copyright © Brian Schwertley, Lansing MI, 2000

Home Free Downloads Books to Buy

Distributed by Still Waters Revival Books - www.PuritanDownloads.com