Talk:Regulative principle of worship

Informed principle
I deleted this text from the article:

''Another view that seeks to strike a balance between the regulative and normative principles is sometimes referred to as the "informed principle of worship" and teaches that
 * 1) ''What is commanded in Scripture regarding worship, it is required.
 * 2) ''What is prohibited in Scripture regarding worship, it is forbidden.
 * 3) What is not prohibited in Scripture regarding worship, it is permissible in worship only if properly deduced from proper application of Scripture using good and necessary consequence.

Clarification is needed on how it is distinguished from the other two principles, and especially on the meaning of the last point. Who advocates it? Is there a link giving more details? --Flex 20:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I know Steve Schlissel advocates this. IIRC, he first proposed it in the Chalcedon Report, but I'm not sure of this.  To quote Reformed.org :

All I Really Need to Know About Worship (I Don't Learn from the Regulative Principle) (offsite at Chalcedon) by Steve M. Schlissel This is a must read series of articles (in progress) that asks some very pointed questions about the legitimacy of the Regulative Principle, and offers some solutions Rev. Schlissel calls, "The Informed Principle of Worship." Whether you are persuaded or not, this series is thought provoking and is igniting a fresh, and to the author, frustrating volley of new debate on this important subject.

• A Critique of Steve Schlissel's Article 'All I Really Need...' (offsite at Blue Banner) by G. I. Williamson


 * Unfortunately, the Schlissel articles are a dead link. The definition given above is essentially the Regulative Principle.  IIRC, Schlissel pretty much restates the Regulative Principle, but then applies it differently or something.  But read the article for details :).  It's been a while, and all I remember is that I disagreed with him.  -- TimNelson 03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Name of this article is incomplete
This is the Regulative Principle of Worship, or RPW as it is known in Reformed circles. That's the full title, used in the Westminster Standards and by Calvin... there is no (as far as I am aware) simple Regulative Principle, except as shorthand for the RPW. I've moved the page to Regulative principle of worship for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Taron (talk • contribs)


 * I've also seen people advocate the Regulative Principle of Government (but I don't). I've moved the page back, and divided it into a general section and a Worship section -- TimNelson 03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please supply a reliable source that applies it that way. While I agree it could be applied almost anywhere, I have never seen it applied except to worship, and the Wikipedia is not about hypothetical applications (that would be original research). N.B. also that tiny minorities need not have their views represented here (cf. WP:NPOV). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. After looking around, I can see it being applied regularly also to church government (see the reference I added to the article, or similar information in Google), but as for application to eg. civil government, I know I've seen it used this way occasionally, but the only reference I could find was the one I just added to the article; I've seen it occasionally elsewhere though (I'm pretty sure this was in Reconstructionist authors).  I'd happily agree that worship is the primary application, and I don't intend that the general (ie. non-worship-specific) use take up any more space than it does now, but I thought it deserved a mention.  I also altered the page to indicate that Worship is the primary use (if you prefer to work in words such as "overwhelming majority", feel free).  I also added 19th century to the usage because that "Regulative Principle of Church Government" article was written in 1841, and there are other articles from a similar era.  --TimNelson 08:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved the page back. The essay by Thornwell does not use the term "regulative principle" (the title does, but that was added by the modern editor of that synthesized essay). The blog entry by Horne doesn't name or cite the people who allegedly use the R.P. to refer to civil government and is thus not a reliable source. The general usage of the term is related to worship, and the article should be named that way. Since that's the way it started, that's the way it should remain until consensus is developed to rename it to the more general term. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox, Roman Catholics, etc
I think its misleading to say that the Orthodox adopt the Normative Principle of worship. Firstly they wouldn't recognise the phrase, as it arose from arguments within mainstream Reformed Protestantism that they were never a part of. But mostly because they do not teach that we have the right to order our worship in any way that isn't specifically forbidden. They do hold that God can only be rightly worshipped in the way ordained by God (the Orthodox way of course) but they say those commandments of God are remembered in the traditions of the Church and are not all found in the Bible. But not NPW at all. Its very prescriptive. People were killed in Russia over agruments about how a priest should hold his fingers when giving a blessing!

As far as I know all the Orthodox churches, and some traditionalist Roman Catholics (and at least a few high-church Anglicans and Lutherans who follow RC worship practices) teach that we do not have freedom to vary worship practices but must worship God in God's way. So its misleading to say they follow the NPW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenBrown (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't know why this article states that Lutherans subscribe to the NPW, since their order of worship is so close to the historic Roman Catholic liturgy.  Looking over A Brief Exposition of the Divine Service further leads me to question the NPW label.  Listing Lutherans as NPW appears to be an unsourced and POV statement in the article.  --Dulcimerist (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Exclusive psalmody has been a stub for some time now, and the information found there could be incorporated into this article. To facilitate development of both pages, and provide context for the source page, I recommend a merge. --JFHutson (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is so much more that could be said about exclusive pslamody, it deserves its own article. It's only one application of the the RPW, and not a necessary part of it. StAnselm (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)