Introduction

Classically, Reformed theology has used the Regulative Principle of Worship to inform which elements of worship are permissible. According to the Regulative Principle, the Word of God regulates what is allowed in worship; if it isn’t commanded by God, then it isn’t permitted.

While this view was widely held by Reformed Christians up through the puritans, it has largely fallen by the wayside in the present day. The opposing principle, the Normative Principle of Worship, has become the dominant view in American Protestantism. It is more lenient, permitting whatever is not forbidden outright in the scriptures.

Even as the past few decades see a recovery of more historic expressions of Classical Protestantism, the Regulative Principle still remains dubious in the minds of Reformed Christians. In truth, the Regulative Principle is not some stuffy, anti-papist hangover of Puritanism. Rather, it is a rich inheritance of the Reformed faith, founded on the sound testimony of scripture, reason, and history. Its fullness is worth understanding and recovering.

The Definition of Worship

Worship is Immediately Done unto God Alone

Worship has been variously defined by Reformed theologians. Aspects of worship have been variously distinguished in its study, such as internal versus external worship, public versus private worship, the kind versus the material of worship, natural versus instituted worship, and so on. A simple definition which encompasses all the meaning of these various aspects is difficult to construct. Generally, definitions center around worship being some set of actions which are rendered to God as what He is owed. This idea seems to capture how the Bible speaks of worship on the whole. For the sake of discussion, we will define worship in the following manner:

Worship is immediate action upon God that is acceptable to God.

This definition warrants some explanation. Firstly, the usage of the word “upon” denotes that the object of our worship is God. God is the one we worship; no true worship is directed at any other.

Secondly, the word “immediately” is used in a slightly different sense than the colloquial use. Here it is meant in the sense of “in direct connection to”, or sharing a direct relationship between. In this sense, it is contrasted with the word “mediately”, in the sense of “not directly or primarily in connection to”, or more simply, “by means”. Worship is immediate action upon God because it can only be done for the sake of God alone; it is not an action done for the sake of men or other creatures in addition to God, including ourselves. There is no other person through whom we worship God, or to whom we render some duty in order to worship God. Worship consists of actions we do directly to God and for God; in this sense, it is immediate.

It is tempting to think that simply acting in obedience to God’s commands is what constitutes worship. Is not all of life worship? But identifying worship with obedience captures too much, as there are many obedient things which are not, properly speaking, worshipful. Loving our neighbor is obedience, but it would be difficult to call it worship in the same sense as prayer, or singing psalms, or taking the Lord’s supper. When we love our neighbor, God is pleased with our actions and ultimately glorified through them, but the act of loving was immediately directed at our neighbor, and only mediately directed at God. We really loved God when we loved our neighbor, but we did so indirectly; our neighbor was the means through which we expressed our love to God. Since our obedience and love was directed at our neighbor and not God alone, it cannot be worship, because God alone is the proper recipient of worship. If our love wasn’t directed at our neighbor, then we weren’t really loving them at all, and therefore we weren’t being obedient. Therefore when we speak of obedience and its relation to worship, we must distinguish between immediate obedience, those things we do for God’s sake alone, and mediate obedience, those things which we do both for the sake of God and our neighbor.

When we engage in other acts of what is properly called worship, such as prayer, fasting, singing, keeping the Lord’s Day, hearing the word, etc., we do these immediately unto God, for God’s own sake. Even when an act of worship involves another person, such as praying for someone or presenting a child for baptism, such acts flow from an immediate posture before God involving the desire to obey and please Him, reverence for His power, assurance of His grace, knowledge of His fatherly providence over all creation, and so on. If we didn’t believe God was like this, we would be worshiping hypocritically, aiming to please ourselves or men around us with vain acts of external adherence; we would be immediately seeking to please ourselves and not God.

The idea of worship being defined by what is immediately done to God, and not mediately done to Him, is confirmed by many theologians in church history. Aquinas and the Scholastics’ definition of worship was “homage performed to God immediately, in consideration of his excellency”. Samuel Rutherford, as ardently opposed to the papacy as he was, echoes Aquinas’ definition in his own when he calls worship “an act of man whereby God is immediately honored.”

Other Reformed theologians who preferred to identify all obedience to God with worship still held to the mediate/immediate distinction. This was the view of Ursinus. While he defined worship as obedience to the whole of the Ten Commandments, he still drew the immediate/mediate distinction between actions in relation the two tables of the law:

Now generally in the Decalogue is commanded the worship of God: that which is contrary to God’s worship is forbidden. The worship of God is either immediate, when moral works are immediately performed unto God: or mediate, when moral works are performed unto our neighbor in respect of God. (Ursinus, How the Decalogue is Divided)

This is in accord with the longstanding tradition of Protestants to use the Ten Commandments as a framework for understanding what the law demands of us in terms of duty to God and man. The first table of the law are the immediate acts, the duties we owe to God only, while the second table of the law are the mediate acts, the duties we owe to God through our neighbor. In addition to the first/second table distinction, John Yates helpfully relates this to the distinction between piety and charity, a helpful scheme of summarizing each set of duties:

The Schoolmen define [worship] to be an immediate act of the will upon God: but this is the whole rule of divinity, which is nothing else but the ordering of the will so as it may please God. Now the act of the will is either to believe or obey, and obedience is either immediate, as piety, or mediate as charity. Hence the love of my neighbor is not an immediate act upon God, and in this sense worship is well distinguished from charity: as having no nearer object than God. (John Yates, A Model of Divinity)

In whichever sense the word “worship” is used, there is an intension of a set of actions which are done for the sake of God alone. We may call these actions immediate acts of obedience, piety, or simply “worship”, in a more narrow sense of the term. For the sake of discussion, this is the sense in which we will take the word “worship”.

Worship is Acceptable to God

Secondly, in order to be true worship an action must be acceptable to God. An action being immediate unto God is not sufficient for an action to be considered worship; God does not accept all actions which are done in His name, no matter how well-meaning the action is by the person who does them. As well, cursing God, forgetting God, taking God’s name in vain, etc. are all immediate acts which God obviously does not approve of.

Worship Has an Internal and an External Aspect

All Christians agree that we must obey God in how He tells us to worship. More formally, we all agree with the premise:

If an action of worship is commanded by God, then we ought to obey it.

This is straightforward and uncontroversial. God commands that we do certain things in His name, and because He commands them, we should obey them. God commands us to take the Lord’s Supper, so we ought to. God commands us to be baptized, so we ought to. God commands us to have faith, so we ought to.

Biblically, obedience does not mean simple external adherence to a command. The entire Bible consistently teaches us that every act of true obedience has both an internal and an external aspect; one must obey both with their external actions and with their heart. Jesus famously teaches us this in the Sermon on the Mount regarding murder:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

And again regarding adultery:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

A man may be physically faithful to his wife his whole life, but in God’s eyes, lustful thoughts and desires make him no better than one who wasn’t. The pious and charitable man is not only one outwardly, but inwardly too. We should always take great heed to watch our internal posture whenever we seek to obey God.

Likewise worship, being a type of obedience to God, must also have an internal and an external aspect to it. If a man can commit adultery in his heart whilst remaining physically faithful to his spouse his whole life, then certainly our worship can take on a merely external form without any internal substance behind it. Even the giving of the law of Moses required internal obedience:

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. (Deuteronomy 10:16)

God doesn’t just want to be worshiped with our external actions; He wants our hearts to glorify Him.

Worship must therefore begin with the internal reality of knowing, believing, and trusting God. Men cannot worship what they do not know or what they do not believe to be true. Likewise men cannot worship an omnipotent, merciful, loving God in truth if they did not trust Him, otherwise their knowledge and belief would be hypocritical and inconsistent with their actions. These three qualities of knowledge, belief, and trust are what make up the essence of faith; no true worship can come from a faithless heart. It is a necessary condition of all other aspects of worship; faithless praise, faithless eating and drinking, faithless washing, and faithless prayer are all detestable and fraudulent acts to God, which only pretend to be worship on the outside.

Our Lord told us in a positive fashion that worship flows firstly from new life and understanding: “the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23). Conversely Paul, in a negative fashion, describes the condemnation which unbelievers reap upon themselves by failing to acknowledge God inwardly: “when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:21). In the Old Testament, the prophet Hosea chastised Israel for performing external acts of ceremonial worship while internally their hearts were far from God: “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6).

This is why the Reformed faith continually emphasizes understanding as essential to worship, over and against the externalism of the religion of Rome. We are to worship “in spirit”, that is, with the inner man, and “in truth”, that is, in understanding and accordance with the will of God. There is no room for mere external adherence, faithlessness, or superstition in true worship; we must take great care when we worship to worship with our whole being, and strive as much as we are able to join our external acts of piety with faith, so that God may be truly honored by what we do.

But worship is not only internal and spiritual. It must flow from internal action to external action in order to be genuine, beginning with inward honoring of God which desires to respond to His call to worship Him, and ending with the completion of our obedience in external action. In faith we pray, we read the scriptures, we listen to the word preached, we sing praises to God, we submit to baptism and baptize our children, we eat the Lord’s Supper, we rest on the Lord’s Day, and so on. We do each of these things not because our heart devises its own ideas as to how we are to worship God, but simply because God commands us to do them. No true faith remains forever internal, without expressing itself in external action: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17). Likewise Moses was nearly killed by the Lord for not worshiping God according to the law of circumcision (Exodus 4:24-26). We cannot say that our worship is true unless we render both internal and external actions to God. We must therefore be diligent to search out and perform the external actions which God commands us to do, not neglecting them or fabricating dishonorable additions to our external worship.

The Regulative and Normative Principles Contrasted

All Obedience Requires a Principle of Governance

The question of how to determine which actions God accepts as worship is generally answered according to one of two opposing principles by Christians. Among Protestants, either the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) or the Normative Principle of Worship (NPW) is used. The former is historically the stance of the Reformed churches, while the latter is historically the stance of the Anglican and Lutheran churches, and more lately the Evangelical churches.

The Regulative Principle may be formally stated as:

If an action is not commanded to be done in worship, then it is not permitted to be done in worship.

The Normative Principle may be formally stated according to similar terms:

If an action is not forbidden to be done in worship, then it is permitted to be done in worship.

These two propositions also warrant some explanation. The RPW and NPW have been historically stated in various ways, but here they are stated so that their content and form are as easily comparable as possible. Both statements seek to define parameters around which actions are or aren’t prohibited in worship, and what the relationship of these actions are to the commandments of God.

These Principles are necessary because the Bible does not contain a laundry list of commandments regarding every possible actions we may do in worship. There are no Bible verses that say “you may not use smoke machines in worship” or “you must not use grape juice for communion” so we need a governing principle for what to do when God does not make an express decree commanding or forbidding a specific action. Therefore we must have a principle which moves us from what is explicitly commanded to what is implicitly permitted.

As a simple example, I may command my child to “not jump on the couch” because I in general do not permit any jumping on furniture. There is a logical distinction between the explicit command and the implicit permission. A child who tries to be clever by proceeding to jump on the bed because “I didn’t tell them no to” is neglecting an important truth about the nature of obedience: laws of all forms, including household rules, do not enumerate commandments regarding every possible action that can be taken by the governed party. There always must be principles which we use to discern what is permissible from what is commanded, even in our grossly litigious age where it seems like there is a law for everything. It is up to the governed party to do the work of extrapolating from what is commanded to what is permissible (and interestingly, most parents assume some form of the Regulative Principle when it comes to instructing their children).

The Normative and Regulative principles, as I have stated them, reflect this reality in their structure. The antecedent of these statements deals with what God has commanded or forbidden, and the consequent deals with the what He actually permits the worshiper to do.

The Consequences of Each Principle

Adherents of both principles agree that if God commands us to do something, then we ought to do it. Similarly, they both agree that if He forbids something, we ought not to do it. The disagreement is over what to do when an action is not explicitly commanded by God and not explicitly forbidden by Him.

To see the results of applying both principles, let’s assume the following premise for an arbitrary action A which God neither commands nor forbids in worship:

1. Action A is not commanded by God to do in worship, and it is not forbidden by God to be done in worship.

Assuming the Normative Principle is true, we can argue for A’s permissibility in worship:

2. If an action is not forbidden to be done in worship, then it is permitted to be done in worship. (The Normative Principle of Worship)
3. A is not forbidden by God to be done in worship. (From 1)
4. Therefore, A is permitted to be done in worship.

But assuming the Regulative Principle is true, we can argue for A’s impermissibility in worship:

2. If an action is not commanded to be done in worship, then it is not permitted to be done in worship. (The Regulative Principle of Worship)
3. A is not commanded by God to be done in worship. (From 1)
4. Therefore, A is not permitted to be done in worship.

We may conclude several things from these two arguments. Firstly, it is apparent that the Normative and Regulative Principles are not compatible with each other; affirming both Principles will lead to irreconcilable contradictions, such as the same action A being both permissible and impermissible in worship. You have to pick one or the other.

Secondly, given that they are incompatible Principles, we know that one of them is true and one of them is false. If there is no clear command to do A, and no clear prohibition of A, a judgment call has to be made about whether A is permissible or not. There are only two options: either God accepts A in worship, or He doesn’t. If you say we should play it safe and only do things which are commanded, then that’s the Regulative Principle. If you say that the acceptance of A depends upon circumstances, that’s the Normative Principle; affirming that the permissibility of A is governed by circumstance is an implicit denial that A is governed only by the command of God alone. One of them is right and one of them is wrong, there is no via media.

Thirdly, the choice of governing principle has big implications. Anglicans and Lutherans are the classic adherents to the Normative Principle and as such are known for their use of many extra-Biblical elements in their worship. These denominations variously between them use vestments, elaborate adornments to their church buildings, their veneration of icons, their episcopalian or esrastian polities, and their church calendars with various holy days and feast days throughout the year. None of these are commanded by God to do, but neither are they forbidden. Hence these Christians believe they are permissible, and generally prefer to govern such things by prudence, wisdom, tradition, and what Godly ministers deem fruitful for edification, rather than the bare teaching of Scripture. Mainstream Evangelicalism has also largely adopted the Normative Principle to govern its worship. In its more serious forms, Evangelicalism prizes the use of worship bands, extra-Biblical church offices, parachurch ministries, “childrens’ churches”, and “women’s ministries”, among many other things. In its less serious manifestations, it liberally uses additional means such as smoke machines, light shows, skits, female church officers, and loads more. Unlike more historic users of the Normative Principle, these extra means seem not to be governed by tradition or prudence, but only by what works to get as many people through the doors as possible.

By contrast, Reformed Christians were historically strong adherents to the Regulative Principle, adorning their churches and their liturgies very simply in order to draw the mind towards only the elements of worship expressly defined by Scripture. Up front, a Reformed church building will display only the pulpit, baptismal font, and table, an architectural commitment to the scriptural simplicity of the elements of New Covenant worship. Word and Sacrament are primary in Reformed worship. Church officers are usually not clothed with vestments or clerical collars, but traditional masculine dress is preferred. Historically other measures were taken, such as exclusively singing Psalms, not observing holy days or feast days, and eschewing a complex hierarchical polity for a simpler form of federated local consistories. In our day, Normative worship has crept into the Reformed churches, having been influenced by evangelicalism.

Obviously, the choice of governing principle matters greatly given this broad set of differences in practice amongst these various Christian groups. The Normative/Regulative Principle discussion should not be just fringe topic amongst armchair theologians and academics. Knowing that how we worship is acceptable to God should be of utmost concern for Christians who strive for greater obedience and holiness. If we love Christ, then we must labor to investigate which of these two Principles is most faithful to His teaching.

The Regulative Principle of Worship Defended

Having defined what worship is, introduced the Regulative and Normative Principles of Worship, examined the question they attempt to answer, and sufficiently compared them, we now turn to this very question. I believe that the Regulative Principle is more Biblical, rational, and historical than the Normative Principle, and that the church of Christ should labor for its re-implementation.

The Regulative Principle is Biblical

The Old Covenant Was Regulated By It

In several places in scripture, God positively commands the Regulative Principle. Deuteronomy contains the nearest thing to an explicit statement of it:

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. (Deuteronomy 4:2)

Deuteronomy, along with Leviticus, are the places wherein the entirety of the Old Covenant system of worship was laid out, all the way down to the specific actions of pious ceremony in worship. As part of the preamble to the rest of the giving of the Law, God warns His people to observe all that He commands, and nothing more. They are to neither add to the word, nor diminish from it, “that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God”.

God took this commandment seriously:

And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace. (Leviticus 10:1-3)

This event was so memorable for the Israelites that it was recounted twice in the book of Numbers. Nahab and Abihu were priests, sons of Aaron, the ones who were entrusted with keeping the ceremonial law of God. When God told them to add nothing to His commandments, He meant nothing; not even a simple bowl of incense. The text says they offered “strange fire” upon the altar, which God “commanded them not”. We don’t know why they did this. Perhaps it was pagan syncretism, or perhaps it was simply a “good idea” that Nadab and Abihu thought they had. Whatever the case, God made it clear to the rest of Israel that worship is not about what we want to do, but what He requires of us: “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified.”

Lest we think that this warning only applies to the Old Covenant, we should recall the words of the Apostle:

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. (1 Corinthians 10:1-6)

For many Christians today, the Old Covenant was a completely different means of God’s administration, entirely different in substance than the New Covenant. But this isn’t true. It is true that the administration of the Old Covenant is different than the administration of the New Covenant. The Old Covenant had elaborate types, the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, the land of Canaan, and many other elements which prefigured Christ. By contrast, the New Covenant has seen Christ revealed in His fullness, and thus requires a much simpler administration. Nonetheless, the substance of both covenants remains the same, in that they were kept by means of faith in the Gospel. The Old Covenant nation of Israel may rightly be called the Old Covenant church.

Paul is explaining this reality in 1 Corinthians 10. In God’s providential preservation of His Word, God gave the New Covenant church all the stories of the Old Covenant church are for us to profit from in the New Covenant. We are one and the same church. We are baptized; so were they. We have spiritual food and drink; so did they. We follow Christ; so did they. Nevertheless, “with many of them God was not well pleased”, and God made an example of them for our benefit, so that “we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted”. This includes not adding to nor diminishing from God’s commandments for New Covenant worship, that God may be glorified.

The Traditions of Men Degrade True Worship

We don’t just have to look to the Old Covenant to discern the Regulative Principle. Consider our Lord’s words in Mark 7:

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, this people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. (Mark 7:5-9)

We may not several things from this passage. Firstly, these “traditions of the elders” had grown to encompass a number of man-made commandments beyond what God had instituted, for Christ says they are among “many other such like things ye do”. Secondly, these man-made traditions were used to bind the consciences of the people, being taught as “doctrines”, as if their adherence was taught as a matter of obedience to God. Thirdly, God did not accept these traditions, even if He didn’t explicitly prohibit them in His word. There is nothing wrong with washing your hands before you eat, except when you do so out of a pretended obedience to the Lord. Jesus does not laud the Pharisees for their numerous additions to worship, or hint in any way that such additions augment or enhance worship. Rather, our Lord reminds the Pharisees that worship flows from an inner, immediate honoring of God. The addition of manmade external actions in worship diminish our worship. They may look pious and impressive to men, but they only serve to promote the kind of externalism that God hates in our worship: “this people honoureth me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me”. He reminds them that by piling up these external actions of observance on the conscience, they worship the Lord “in vain”, and in doing them they fully “reject the commandment of God”.

The Apostle Paul is consistent with this teaching of Christ when gives the same warning to the Colossian church:

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (Colossians 2:18-23)

Paul frees the conscience of the Christian from “ordinances…after the commandments and doctrines of men”. He calls these man-made elements “rudiments of the world”, and calls for Christians to lay hold of their newness of life by embracing their freedom from such ordiancnes. He makes a classic Pauline argument: believers are died to the world in Christ, so they should not subject themselves to it again. In the eyes of Paul, this “self-made” worship degrades true worship. It appears to have a form of wisdom, discipline, and holiness, but accomplishes nothing in a Christian’s fight against fleshly indulgence.

The churches of Christ would do well to heed Apostolic teaching on this point. The Eastern “Orthodox” church anathematizes anyone who does not venerate icons, and highly regards those who keep the enumerable man-made ordinances of monastic life. The Roman “Catholic” church observes an incalculable number of holy days and feast days, rituals for washings, rites, traditions, and doctrines which are not taught by Christ or the Apostles. Even the Protestant churches are enamored with the practices of the papists, such as Lent and Advent, holding them to be apostolic traditions when God has not commanded us to do them.

The Man of God Needs Nothing More than Holy Scripture

The fact that man-made additions to worship are unprofitable is confirmed by the Bible’s view of itself. In his second letter to Timothy, the Apostle admonishes him on the sufficiency of Holy Scripture:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Paul does not claim that Scripture is only necessary for all Godliness, as if other things were needed for Godliness to be complete. He asserts that the Bible is utterly sufficient to make the man of God perfect and thouroughly furnished for every good work. There is nothing we need to add to the command of God to make it more profitable for us to grow in Godliness and worship God rightly. If there was some element of our worship that needed to be added beyond what God has already commanded us to do, then Scripture wouldn’t be able to make us “perfect”, or “thoroughly furnish” us for all good works.

Put another way, if elaborate church calendars, feast days and holy days, vestments, candles, iconography, smoke machines, and womens’ ministries were necessary in order for us to be thoroughly furnished for good works, then God would have commanded us to do these things.

God Condemns Baal-Worship With Regulative Principle Language

Though the following passage does not prove the Regulative Principle in the same way as the previous ones, it is noteworthy supporting evidence:

And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (Jeremiah 32:35)

Baal-worship was rampant in Israel. It was a wicked means that Israel used to slay their own children in the fire of Molech, and obviously a dark and heinous crime which was forbidden by God explicitly in the Law. “Have no other gods before Me” and “do not murder” are enough to condemn this iniquity. There is even a specific command within the Law against this specific crime: “And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech” (Leviticus 18:21).

God could have condemned them by citing any of these explicit covenant laws; the Regulative Principle is not needed here. But instead of citing a specific violation of the law, God condemns them for adding to the law: “I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind”. Perhaps He chose to do this because Israel made these sacrifices to Molech as an act of worship, and God was reminding them that worship belongs to Him alone. Perhaps He did it for some other reason. Regardless of why he chose this language, it is clearly Regulative Principle language; the absence of a command from God is an implicit command against.

The Regulative Principle is Historical

It is Confessionally Reformed

On the basis of these scriptural examples, the Reformed confessions affirm the Regulative Principle. Article 32 of the Belgic Confession says regarding the order and discipline of the church:

Therefore we reject all human innovations and all laws imposed on us, in our worship of God, which bind and force our consciences in any way.

Westminster Confession 21.1 is even more pointed:

But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to 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 representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

Westminster 21.5, on the basis of scripture, implicitly forbids any act of worship not listed:

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: besides religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon several occasions; which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.

The Reformed catechisms teach that the Regulative Principle contained in the second commmandment. Heidelberg Catechism 96 teaches:

Q. What is God’s will for us in the second commandment?

A. That we in no way make any image of God nor worship him in any other way than has been commanded in God’s Word.

Westminster Larger Catechism 109 agrees, and is quite a bit more extensive:

Q. What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all, or of any of the three Persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.

These confessional documents are consistent with magesterial Reformed teaching. Calvin teaches the Regulative Principle in his commentary on Romans 12:

Men are indeed pleased with their own inventions, which have an empty show of wisdom, as Paul says in another place; but we learn here what the celestial Judge declares in opposition to this by the mouth of Paul; for by calling that a reasonable service which he commands, he repudiates as foolish, insipid, and presumptuous, whatever we attempt beyond the rule of his word.

Vermigli is very pointed:

In rites and ceremonies divinely instituted, it is not lawful for man by his choice to add or detract anything.

John Knox taught that the New Testament reiterated the Regulative Principle that was explicit in the Old Covenant:

For this sentence he prouounces: Not that which seems good in thy eyes, shalt thou do to the Lord thy God, but that which the Lord thy God commanded thee, that do thou: Add nothing unto it, diminish nothing from it. Which sealing up his New Testament He repeats in these words: ‘That which ye have, hold till I come,’ etc.

There are many, many other sources in addition to the ones listed here that could be cited. The Regulative Principle is unquestionably confessional and standard in the Reformed tradition.

It was Reformed Practice

The Singing of Psalms

Reformed theologians did not merely teach the Regulative Principle; they were practicers of it, and exalted it architecturally and liturgically. One of the foremost ways they did this was by exchanging the singing of man-made hymns for Psalms and Scriptural songs.

They did this because God commands the singing of Psalms, and not man-made songs in public worship. Even the commandment to sing “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” has only what we would call “the Psalms” as its referent; these were understood as three categories of psalms in the Greek Septuagint, among other reasons. If the Regulative Principle is true, then only the singing of psalms is permitted in public worship.

In the Continental Reformed tradition, the most influential Psalter is the Genevan Psalter. It was comissioned directly by Calvin, and contains all 150 Psalms of David set to tune in addition to four additional songs found in scripture called the “Canticles” (the Song of Mary, the Song of Zacharias, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Decalogue). This was the hymnal of Calvin’s Geneva; they sang the Psalms, the Canticles, and nothing else.

The Church Order of Dort similarly restricted singing to only Scriptural songs:

In the Churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, the Song of Mary, that of Zacharias, and that of Simon shall be sung. It is left to the individual Churches whether or not to use the hymn “Oh God! who art our Father.” All other hymns are to be excluded from the Churches, and in those places where some have already been introduced they are to be removed by the most suitable means. (Church Order of Dort, Article 67)

The Scottish Reformed took similar measures. The General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland in 1645 adopted a “Directory for Publick Worship of God” which explicitly directed the Scottish Reformed churches to sing Psalms:

It is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family. (Directory for Publick Worship, Of Singing of Psalms)

They later adopted what is now known as the 1650 Scottish Metrical Psalter as the official songbook of the churches, containing all 150 Psalms of David set to meter. In obedience to the Regulative Principle, many modern Scottish Reformed churches still use this psalter every Lord’s Day, and exclusive psalmody remains the position of several traditional Reformed churches of various kinds.

The Lord’s Day

Secondly, Reformed churches removed the numerous holy days created by the church of Rome, and put a greater emphasis on the celebration of all of Christ on the weekly Lord’s Day. This includes Lent, Good Friday, Easter, Christmas, Epiphany, All Saints Eve (Halloween), and many others.

They did this for a number of reasons. Firstly, they saw that the only holiday (“holy day”) which is commanded to be celebrated in honor of Christ in the New Covenant is the weekly Lord’s Day. The Regulative Principle therefore excludes other holidays which are done for the sake of religious worship. They contended that there is no commandment in the New Covenant to honor Christ by celebrating Advent, or Christmas, or Lent, or Easter, or any other religious holiday but the Lord’s Day.

Secondly, at the time, feast days of the past were rowdy and debaucherous ordeals, not the peaceful and family-centered observations we think of today. They were far from times of increased religious piety and civic morality among those who participated in them; when you imagine an ecclesiastical feast day in the past, think of the ruckus debauchery of modern-day Mardi Gras, Halloween, or St. Patrick’s Day (all actual feast days), not the quietness and sensitivity of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Our modern holidays, though more peaceable, are similarly wrought with materialistic, debaucherous, and superstitious excesses. We would to well to question whether these properties are essential or accidental to these holidays today.

The Reformed churches got rid of the feast days as far as they were able, and consistently emphasized the Lord’s Day as the only lawful day of celebrating Christ. When Calvin was forced by the Civil Magistrate to do a Christmas service, he called out the extra people he saw in the crowd and gave a biting “what’s wrong with you people?” to the rest of the congregation:

Now, I see here today more people that I am accustomed to having at the sermon. Why is that? It is Christmas day. And who told you this? You poor beasts. That is a fitting euphemism for all of you who have come here today to honor Noel. Did you think you would be honoring God?

…But when we insist on establishing a service of worship based on our whim, we blaspheme God, and create an idol, though we have done it all in the name of God. And when you worship God in the idleness of a holiday spirit, that is a heavy sin to bear, and one which attracts others about it, until we reach the height of iniquity. (Calvin, a sermon preached Christmas day, 1551)

In the Dutch churches, it should be granted that the Church Order of Dort allows for the celebration of holidays other than the Lord’s Day:

The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, with the following day, and whereas in most of the cities and provinces of the Netherlands the day of Circumcision and of Ascension of Christ are also observed, Ministers in every place where this is not yet done shall take steps with the Government to have them conform with the others. (Church Order of Dort, Article 69)

However, as Rev. Dr. R. D. Anderson argues, this should likely be taken as an artifact of limiting and tolerating ecclesiastical feast days among the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, not licensing their observance. Previous provincial synods produced church orders strongly discouraging the observance of these days, and Dutch theologians of the time confirmed the limiting intention of this command. The language permitting the observance of these days in the church order was an attempt to maintain ecclesiastical union, not to force the observance of the evangelical feast days upon the conscience as an unquestionable matter of Christian piety. Church orders are consensus documents, and so always reflect some measure of compromise. At most, Dort leaves the observance of these days up to Christian liberty, and does not make their observance compulsory.

The later Scottish Reformed, English Puritans, and American Puritans did not observe ecclesiastical feast days, including Christmas. Scotland outright banned Christmas for 400 years, from 1560 until its relisting as a national holiday in 1958. The British Parliament under Oliver Cromwell also banned Christmas from the 1640s to the Restoration in 1660. Puritan America also outlawed Christmas, and it didn’t achieve popular celebration until the late 1800s. In 1659 the Massechutts Bay Colony wrote a law that you could be fined if you celebrated Christmas.

A defense of the Reformed view of psalmody and holy days is outside the scope of this article, and isn’t the intention of it. Suffice it instead to say that our Reformed forefathers did not think the Regulative Principle was a matter of mere theoretical intrigue; it was an essential, practical principle that guided their piety and worship.

It Was the Doctrine of Early Fathers

The Regulative Principle is also seen in the early fathers. Helpfully, Reformed Books Online contains numerous quotes from early fathers that espouse the Regulative Principle in one way or another. I have selected a few pertinent ones, and am thankful to the creators of the website for assisting me in my patristic weaknesses.

Clement of Rome’s exegesis of Leviticus 10 sounds very Reformed:

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him.

Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned.

Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed. (Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians)

Ambrose is straight to the point:

The things which we find not in the Scriptures, how can we use them? (Ambrose, Offic.)

Augustine, on the role of the pastor, says:

Whatsoever you hear [from the holy Scriptures] let that savor well unto you; whatsoever is without them, refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (Augustine, On the Pastor, Ch. 11)

Of course, many examples of Normative worship may be found amongst the early fathers as well. But adherents to the Regulative Principle do not harbor insecurity in the false belief that their view is a 16th century innovation. The ancient church attests the Regulative Principle, if even only in seed form.

Responding to Objections Against the Regulative Principle

Even with this broad consensus across the Reformed tradition in affirming the Regulative Principle, objections are still raised.

Difference of Application Does Not Invalidate the Principle

A common objection to the Regulative Principle regards the boundaries of what it governs. Are some hymns or canticles permissible, or only psalms? Is the use of musical instruments allowed? Are metrical psalms permissible, or chanting only? Which actions are considered “worship”? Where is the line between the form and the elements of worship, or the content and the circumstances of worship? What exactly does God command?

The response to this objection is twofold. Firstly, the fact that a term’s extensional members cannot be clearly discerned does not mean the term itself is bad or incoherent. We use terms with unclear extensions all the time. What is the exact cutoff for whether a man should be considered “short”, or the precise bench press number to consider him “strong”? How credible does a man have to be in order to be a “professing believer”? Clearly the shortest man who ever lived would be “short”, and likewise Brian Shaw is clearly a “strong” man. And likewise, there are credible professors of Christianity and non-credible ones. So too, some things are clearly commanded, and some things are clearly worship. Other things lie on the boundaries, but this doesn’t make the concepts of worship or commandment incoherent or logically flawed.

Secondly, what is in dispute with this objection to the Regulative Principle is not actually the Principle itself. Disputes over what is commanded and what constitutes worship are question of the extensions of these terms. Those who hold to the Regulative Principle all agree perfectly on the Principle itself; they disagree on what it applies to (what are the commandments of God), and when it applies (which actions are worship). Proponents of the Normative Principle are not immune to this either, since what God forbids is also extensionally unclear.

If only terms with a clear extensional definition are allowed to be used in theology, it simply proves too much for the opponent of the Regulative Principle.

The Regulative Principle Is Not Divisive

This lack of extensional clarity may cause some to conclude that the Regulative Principle is inherently divisive. Certainly, Reformed Christians like to debate and discuss ideas, and we hold a lot of different perspectives among us. The application of the Regulative Principle is no exception. Given all the positions that people have on these matters, how is any unity possible within a church, let alone among churches?

Firstly, the finer points of what the Regulative Principle governs are clearly secondary matters which do not touch on the essential parts of Christianity. Unity is possible without uniformity.

Secondly, Reformed church polity preserves inter-church federation in the midst of differences. On the finer points of practice, Synod and Classis often seem to make decisions reflecting general preferences, but leave the details to be worked out by the local Consistory. In Reformed polity, Synod and Classis are “broader” courts, not “higher” courts. Their authority is merely an extension of the local Consistory’s authority. In this sense, the decisions of the broader courts are binding, but only insofar as they do not contradict scripture. If they do, the local Consistory can override them.

This is why the Church Order of Dort allowed the evangelical feast days: some consistories observed them, and others didn’t. Article 39 of the URCNA’s Church Order reflects a similar sentiment regarding psalmody:

The 150 Psalms shall have the principal place in the singing of the churches. Hymns which faithfully and fully reflect the teaching of the Scripture as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity may be sung, provided they are approved by the Consistory. (URCNA Church Order, Article 39)

URCNA Synod clearly had a preference for psalmody, but leaves the details up to the local Consistory. This allows member churches to still federate together in unity despite local differences.

Christmas Is Not Unprohibitable

Many “arguments” against the Regulative Principle are a result of the Regulative Principle’s conclusions confronting popular cultural practices. Hymns and man-made worship songs and and holy days are well-loved in American Christianity, so much so that they can seem to be immutable premises. These loves may cause us to unconsciously make arguments of the following kind:

1. If a doctrine prohibits Christmas, then that doctrine is wrong.
2. The Regulative Principle prohibits Christmas.
3. Therefore, the Regulative Principle is wrong.

Obviously this is a silly argument. I hope it gave you a chuckle. I don’t think anyone thinks this is a good argument, it is only presented to prove the point that we are not immune to considering certain elements of our culture unquestionable. Many Christians today have simply never questioned Lent, Christmas, man-made worship songs, or instruments in worship. Proponents of the Regulative Principle would do well to win people to their case with patience, grace, and understanding; North American Protestantism has been swimming in the Normative Principle for a long time.

At the same time, we must not let our cultural loves become stumbling blocks to greater obedience to Christ. If we have been convinced by the Word of God that Christmas, or Lent, or women’s ministry, or childrens’ church are not pleasing to Him, and yet we continue in these practices, we show that we really love them more than we love Christ. We must always guard against our hearts manufacturing idols.

Edification Is Not a Governing Principle

Some may object that the Regulative Principle is too stringent by not allowing freedom of expression in worship that would be otherwise edifying to the congregation. They contend that there are things which God did not command us to do which are helpful for worship, such as iconography, man-made hymns, or holy days.

It is true that edification is a governing principle of worship:

How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. (1 Corinthians 14:26)

But it is not the only principle. In the same passage, the Apostle clarifies that the commandment of the Lord defines worship, not the edification of the worshiper. He guards against those who would add additional actions to Christian worship, even on account of their status as a prophet or spiritual man:

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 14:37)

And concludes the passage with further adminishment:

Let all things be done decently and in order. (1 Corinthians 14:40)

On the basis of scripture, the response to this objection is twofold. Firstly, whatever we do in worship should be edifying, but it also must be orderly. Man-made traditions have no place in God’s pure worship; they are out of order, even if they are the inventions of very spiritual men. When we consider adding elements to our worship because we think they will be edifying, we must ask if they are lawful. Lawlessness is never edifying.

Secondly, considering worship from the starting point of what fulfills man is the wrong approach. Worship is service to God; our own edification in worship is due to our nature as worshipers befitting the act of worship. Our lives and praise are to be sacrifices unto God, and our worship is what is owed to God in virtue of His majesty. Is the commandment of God lacking in how we are to honor God? Is scripture not sufficient for all godliness?

Jesus Did Not Celebrate Hannukah

This objection is uncommon, but interesting. Glenn Sunshine of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview argues that Jesus held to the Normative Principle because he celebrated Hannukah, a feast which God did not command Israel to celebrate.

So the celebration of Christmas is not essential. Does that mean we should not do it, especially in the light of the absence of a biblical command to celebrate it? Is it a sin to worship in a way not commanded in Scripture, to offer God “strange fire” in the words of Lev. 10:1 (KJV)?

Not so fast.

In John 10:22, Jesus is in Jerusalem celebrating the Feast of Dedication, also known as Hanukkah. The story of Hanukkah takes place during the Intertestamental period and is not in the Hebrew Bible. This means either that Jesus engaged in false worship by participating in a religious festival that was not commanded in Scripture, or that this strict version of the Regulative Principle is more restrictive than Jesus is.

The question is, should we be more scrupulous about worship than Jesus? (Glenn Sunshine, Christmas and the Regulative Principle)

Upon closer examination, this argument doesn’t hold up. The text of John 10:22-23 says:

And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. (John 10:22-23)

The text does not give any indication that the feast was certainly the feast of Hannukah, or that Jesus was actually celebrating the feast; it only says that it was the time of the feast, that it was winter, and that Jesus was in Solomon’s porch. Paul Barth’s article concerning this objection notes that three things must be proven in order for this objection to hold any water:

1. That the Feast of Dedication in the time of the narrative of John 10 was an ecclesiastical holy day not instituted by God.
2. That there were man-made rituals or superstitious abuses of divine ceremonies promiscuously engaged in at that time.
3. That Jesus treated the feast no different than divinely ordained feasts and religiously observed it as such.

All three of these are exegetically untenable.

The Call to Recover Reformed Worship

The final cause of the Regulative Principle, it’s ultimate end and purpose, is the glorification of God by His church. God is glorified when we believe and do what He says. Reformed theology has always been committed to the utmost care in handling God’s holy word, and Reformed worship is no different.

As demonstrated by reason, history, and scripture, the Regulative Principle as expressed by classical Reformed theology is the only sound governing principle for the worship of God. It elevates the commandment of God above all human innovation and preference, eschewing the excesses of pomp and circumstance for the simple sacrifice of praise and the humble service of word and sacrament. As such, it is one of our great inheritances in the Reformed faith.

Many Reformed Christians in the modern era have neglected their heritage at this point, and embraced the Normative Principle under the influence of evangelicalism and the broader culture. My prayer is that we reclaim the Biblical heritage of our fathers. We must resolve within ourselves to please and honor God with our worship, by removing whatever elements are contrary to the Word of God, as far as we are able.