Reformed Theology on Christopher Carter

The Regulative Principle of Worship Explained and Defended

Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0000

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.

Circumcision: A Sign of Faith

Wed, 13 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0000

There are those who say that circumcision is not a sign of faith, but rather an ordinance of the law, having nothing to do with faith at all. They do not deny that the sign of circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant, rather, they uphold that the Old Covenant was only a covenant in the flesh, a covenant which demanded outward obedience to the law, with circumcision being merely the first task of obedience to it. As such, they say, given the uselessness of this Old Covenant in producing the obedience which God desired, God did away with it, replacing it with the New Covenant and its sign of baptism, signifying the spiritual resurrection of the individual. They say circumcision is not a sign of such inward change; whereas baptism is a sign of faith, circumcision only signified ancestral generation from Abraham, serving only to identify those covenant people of Israel through lawful ordinance applied in accord with natural reproduction. Scripture is opposed: circumcision is a sign of faith, and a schoolmaster of it.

Against the Divine Right of Kings

Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0000

In some parts of the world, the dominant political theory from the late 16th century to roughly the late 18th century was a doctrine known as the Divine Right of Kings. This doctrine states that a monarch is not answerable to any earthly authority. The reasoning behind this is that the king is established by God Himself, and is thus answerable only to God for His actions. He may rule over everyone else with an iron rod, and be as benevolent or as harsh as he was determined to be. Neither parliament or the clergy had any legitimacy to doubt the actions of earthly king, let alone resist them. This doctrine fueled the absolutism of King James I of England, one of the greatest supporters of the Divine Right theory, and also heavily influenced the absolute rule of Louis XIV of France, who called himself the “Sun King”.