Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: daved@academy.westford.ccur.com (Dave Davis) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Williamson's Regulative Principle Message-ID: Date: 1 Jul 89 07:46:00 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 60 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [Please post.] Someone on the net has recently mentioned a work called the Regulative Principle in Worship, by Gerald Irvin Williamson. I have not yet been able to obtain a copy (I may be able to get his "Wine in the Bible and the Church"), but the principle, if I understand it, is that "what is not commanded in the worship of God is forbidden." My response to to what I have heard so far is that this concept is unfruitful and unscriptural, but I would like to hear from others, particularly those with better _sola scriptura_ credentials than mine. If we affirm that what God has not commanded, he has forbidden, as regards worship at least, we are immediately in a position of difficulty with the New Testament. It seems that we are verging towards saying that God could perfectly well have made it clear that, for instance, we are not to baptize babies (instead we have these troublesome verses about whole households), he could have had Paul write, "oh, by the way Timothy, if you ever hear of anyone asking the dead saints to pray for them, you must stop them; I give this to you on my authority as an apostle" ; instead we have this problem with verses in Revelation about offering up bowls of prayer, and in other difficulties with verses from I Peter and Hebrews as well. We have the task, like it or not, of finding the truth in and making sense out of a canon of Scripture that has the particular quality of speaking to every age, not just ours and not just the first century. It seems too much to ask of a suffering Church through the centuries to hold fast to such a abstract, intellectual principle as 'what is not commanded, is forbidden.' What does one say to electric lights? I know that some denominations treasure the characterization 'a New Testament church', but I see inconsistency and special pleading here. Is it not more trusting of God to say, what is not expressly forbidden as regards worship lies within the freedom of a Christian? Is it not more trusting of the Scriptures? Of course I could be wrong. If I can obtain a copy of Williamson, I will take a look. But I think I will continue to affirm the Christian freedom that Paul speaks of in Galatians 5:1 and Colossians 2:16-23, rather than something that sounds like a new law to replace the old one. Dave Davis -These are my views, and not those of Concurrent Computer. daved@westford.ccur.com {harvard,uunet,petsd}!masscomp!daved [Perhaps one could take an intermediate view. It seems clear that this principle is true to some extent. If God hadn't asked us to pray to him, we would have no reason to think that such a thing was fruitful. Nor would we conduct baptism and communion unless they had been specifically ordained. I think we should expect to find the kinds of things we do in worship described in Scripture. That doesn't mean that we expect to find the floor plans of our sanctuaries there, though, nor the words to all the hymns. Certainly Luther and Calvin both believed in Christian freedom, and thought that details of worship were covered under it. --clh]