The Regulative Principle

Although it is a common expression within Presbyterian and other denominations today, it is not clear when the name ‘Regulative Principle’ was first used. The earliest use of which I am aware is by John Murray. It is possible that it is a twentieth century term. Whether that is the case or not, there is no doubt that the idea of a regulative principle was used before then. Two examples from the nineteenth century will suffice, one from the United States and the other from Scotland (many more could be given). First, John L. Girardeau, in the preface of his 1888 book Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of God, writes: ‘It is that principle, emphasised in the following remarks [the chapters of his book] as scriptural and regulative, that lends importance to the discussion, and redeems it from the reproach of being narrow and trifling.’ Second, John MacEwan, a prominent minister in the late nineteenth-century Free Church of Scotland, states that it is ‘the Scriptural principle which regulates the matter of worship under every dispensation’. Given that Girardeau and MacEwan describe the principle as regulative, it is not difficult to see how the name ‘Regulative Principle’ was devised.

Of course, other names were also given to the principle. For example, one such name is mentioned by David Woodside, in his book The Soul of a Scottish Church, which is a history of the United Presbyterian Church in Scotland, who describes the principle as the ‘leading principle’ of Presbyterian worship. He was not sympathetic to how the principle was used, but he recognised that it had played a governing role in the worship practices of Presbyterian churches in Scotland.

As one looks at the Christian church across the world today, he sees a wide variety of worship services. Of course he does not need to look across the world; instead all he needs to do is look around his city or town, and in some cases he can even look around his denomination. There are two common responses to this variety of expression in worship services. One response is to hold on in an unthinking manner to the practices that have been handed down, and such a response is a wrong use of tradition. The other response is to celebrate the diversity. A 2004 American publication entitled Exploring the Worship Spectrum, which contains the views of a diverse set of authors on the topic of worship, gives the impression that diversity of expression in the worship services of the Christian church is desirable and legitimate, even when one method is totally different from another method. Within the volume are found the following types of worship services: formal liturgical, traditional hymn-based, contemporary music-driven, charismatic, blended and emerging. The contributors to the volume do not take account of whether or not there is a regulative principle that governs the worship of God, which is not surprising, given that it is likely that the vast majority of Christian churches and their leaders reject the idea of a regulative principle regarding worship.

The emphasis on worship found in recent Christian literature is not limited to what goes on in a Christian worship service. Several authors have focused on the concept that all of life should be an act (or ongoing acts) of personal worship and stress that participation in worship services is only one aspect of a life of worship. They rightly point out that it is hypocritical to participate in worship services on the Lord’s Day and live in disobedience to God on the other days. To borrow John Frame’s distinction, worship has a broad sense and a narrow sense: the broad sense concerns all of life and the narrow sense concerns what takes place in a worship service. There is the possibility that if one focuses on the broad rather than on the specific, more attention will be paid to what one does in life in general rather than on what one does in a worship service.

What is the regulative principle?

The basic meaning of the regulative principle is that a public worship service should only contain elements authorised by the Word of God. These elements are singing of praise, prayer, reading of the Scriptures, preaching, collections, benediction, and the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The usual day on which such a public service should take place is the Lord’s Day and a biblical service of public worship will only contain these elements.

It is acknowledged that some elements may have different forms. The element of prayer may be done in the form of a written prayer, or it may be done in the form of a spontaneous prayer; yet the number of forms is not limitless, for it would be wrong to have a prayer in a language other worshippers present could not understand. Yet regarding the reading of the Scriptures, it is difficult to see how it could have more than one form, unless the form concerns how much of the Scriptures should be read.

In addition to specific elements and variety of forms, there are circumstances connected to the practice of the elements, and those circumstances are decided by additional factors not revealed in the Bible. For example, the preaching of the Word is an element; form would include whether the sermon is part of a series of expositions on a biblical book or a sermon that stands by itself; circumstances connected to this element include the choice of location, the use of a microphone, and whether listeners sit or stand as they listen. Circumstances can be adjusted or discarded, as we can see from the way in which the Lord’s Supper was practiced in the New Testament church: the Supper was an element and the love feast that often accompanied the Supper was a circumstance. Inappropriate behaviour by wealthy church members in Corinth took place at the love feast. Paul told them to cease the circumstance (the love feast) in order to have a proper element (the Lord’s Supper).

The distinction between elements, forms and circumstances can be expressed in this way: elements refer to what is essential in worship, forms refer to how these elements are done, and circumstances refer to where and when the elements take place (sometimes circumstances can affect the elements – singing sounds different in a warm church building than it does on a cold, wet mountainside). So on a Lord’s Day morning, as an essential feature of public worship the sermon (element) can be delivered in an expository series (form) in a suitable building with the help of a microphone at eleven o’clock (circumstances).

Where does the regulative principle apply?

It is important to note that, as far as I can understand the biblical requirements, the regulative principle concerns public worship and does not apply to spontaneous expressions of individual worship or to group situations not connected to regular public worship by a congregation. Under such extra group activities can be placed occasions in which members of congregations have home meetings for singing, additional meetings for prayer and Bible study, youth fellowships, old people’s fellowships etc. The regulative principle cannot be used to arrange the activities of such meetings for the simple reason that the Bible does not indicate what should happen at them. For example, there is biblical requirement that singing of praise form an essential aspect of public worship, but there is not a biblical statement which says that singing should be part of an additional home meeting for prayer. Instead of the regulative principle governing such meetings, those who organise them should use other biblical principles such as ‘do what makes for peace’ or ‘do what edifies’.

How did the regulative principle arise?

It is recognised that the acceptance of the regulative principle was one of the distinctions between the Reformed and Lutheran branches of the Protestant Reformation as far as the public worship of God was concerned. While the Reformed branch, of which Calvin is the notable exponent, insisted that the Bible, properly interpreted, must be our only guide, the Lutherans were prepared to include features not authorised by the Word of God but which they argued were helpful additions. The acceptance of the principle by the Reformed wing did not mean that all its leading theologians were agreed concerning what elements of public worship were authorised by the Bible. Nor did it mean that Lutheran theologians and pastors were determined to add to the teaching of the Bible.

The early development of the regulative principle was made against the background of Roman Catholic worship in which there were many extra-biblical practices, such as the intercession of saints and the use of relics. It was inevitable, in those times, for the reformers to differ as to how far reform of worship practices should be taken. Since Calvin came after Luther and Zwingli, it is not surprising that his attitude for continued reform took him further than his predecessors. Nor should it be surprising that subsequent followers of Calvin, such as the Scottish Presbyterians or those grouped in England under the general title of Puritans, took reform of public worship further than he did, and their understanding is found in the Westminster Confession’s statements which were intended to be used by the Reformed Churches in England, Scotland and Ireland. The Westminster Confession of Faith has been the subordinate standards of Presbyterian Churches throughout the world for over three centuries and its acceptance by them means that they profess to adhere to the Regulative Principle.

The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Regulative Principle

Three clear statements concerning the role of the regulative principle in ordering the required features of public worship are found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. In 21.1, in the chapter ‘Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day’, the Confession states: ‘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 Scripture.’ A. A. Hodge explains the significant implications of this confessional statement: ‘That God in his Word has prescribed for us how we may worship him acceptably; and that it is an offence to him and a sin in us either to neglect to worship and serve him in the way prescribed, or to attempt to serve him in any way not prescribed.’

In 20.2, in the chapter ‘Of Christian liberty, and Liberty of Conscience,’ the Confession refers to the regulative principle in its connection to a believer’s conscience: ‘God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word; or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.’ As John Macpherson observed, ‘Not only in things directly opposed to God’s Word, but even in regard to things not determined by God’s Word, the individual conscience must have its rights respected.’

A third statement that has implications for our understanding of the regulative principle is found in 1.6 (in the chapter ‘Of the Holy Scripture’): ‘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 the 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.’ This statement admits two additional aspects that affect the regulative principle: first, circumstances include features that are ‘common to human actions and societies’; second, it is appropriate to identify an element or a form (since they come under matters connected to God’s glory) because it is ‘either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture’. Of course, one cannot use ‘good and necessary consequence’ in such a way as to allow what God forbids.

At least two important connections are made in these statements as far as the regulative principle is concerned. First, it is obvious that there is a clear link between the regulative principle and the sufficiency of Scripture (the principle affirms that the elements for worshipping God have been authorised by himself in his Word and nowhere else) and, second, the regulative principle enables a person to have true liberty of conscience in that he should only engage in activities in God’s worship that have divine authorisation. The regulative principle, according to the Confession, not only makes its advocates biblically based but also frees them from slavery to mere human suggestions and practices, no matter how aesthetically pleasing such may be.

Are the Confession’s statements biblical?

Since the reform of the church is an ongoing process, it is appropriate for current church leaders to assess (1) whether or not their forebears were correct in forming the regulative principle, (2) whether or not their predecessors achieved their aim of implementing the regulative principle, and (3) if the evidence suggests that they did not, the current ruling elders have the responsibility of ensuring that biblical change is brought about so that conformity to biblical standards are attained.

Yet if they conclude that their forebears got the practice right as far as biblical demands are concerned, contemporary leaders have the duty of maintaining and defending such practices. Given that our office-bearers accept the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith as a biblical statement of doctrines, its adoption of the regulative principle should be assessed to see whether it is biblical, and if it is, then it should be advocated enthusiastically by our office-bearers because they will want to ensure that the congregations for which they are responsible to God are following his revealed will as closely as possible. Therefore, the first question that must be settled is whether the regulative principle describes the basic requirement demanded by the Bible’s stipulations concerning the worship of God. In other words, does God state what can be allowed in his worship, or has he left gaps for humans to fill in with what they think best? So what biblical evidence can be provided?

It is straightforward to observe that God gave specific details concerning worship as far as Israel was concerned. Exodus and Leviticus contain precise instructions about the sacrificial system practised at the tabernacle and later at the temple. The basic feature of the worship of Israel – which is, that God alone decides how he should be worshipped – was spelt out in the second commandment of the Decalogue: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments’ (Exod. 20:4-6). Of course, it is striking to note that at the time Moses was receiving this commandment from God at Mount Sinai, the children of Israel, gathered at its foot, were engaged in corporate disobedience of this commandment when they worshipped using a golden calf. We can see the same principle insisted upon by God regarding the furniture of the tabernacle when he stipulated to Moses in Exodus 25:40: ‘And see that you make them after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain.’ Moses was not at liberty to introduce his own ideas, or those of anyone else, into the worship of God.

Does the regulative principle operate in the New Testament church? In Matthew 15:7- 9, the Lord Jesus condemns the Pharisees because they regarded the commandments of men as authoritative in the worship of God. The Saviour points out that their actions did not result in a reduced worship; instead, they produced vain worship. It is worth observing that the Lord Jesus does not allow any to say that such innovations were the product of a devout heart; rather they were clear evidence that the perpetrators of them were far away from God. The obvious deduction from this passage is that human opinions and innovations were illegitimate as far as God’s worship was concerned.

Yet some could respond and say that they agree with the claim that God prescribed the religious practices of Israel, but not so in the New Testament era (the prohibition condemned by the Lord Jesus, since it happened before his death and resurrection, concerned the Old Testament period). Can such an idea concerning the New Testament period be accepted? The answer is no. In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), the Saviour makes it clear that his apostles should pass on to disciples only the teachings that he gave them. The Great Commission is often presented as if its main emphasis was a missionary focus of worldwide evangelism whereas an essential emphasis of the Saviour’s instruction to the apostles was strict adherence to his previously given teaching. And ‘teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ does not allow for addition to or subtraction from his teaching. The apostles would not have included in their teachings what had not been given to them by their Master. And such teaching would have included the worship practices of his church. This means that always implementing the regulative principle is evidence of accepting the headship of Christ over his church.

The regulative principle and instrumental music

Given that the context of this set of papers concerns the use of instrumental music and items of praise in public worship, it is worth pointing out that, as far as the worship by Israel was concerned, the Lord gives precise instructions concerning the use of musical instruments, both at the tabernacle and the temple. The only instruments commanded for use in divine worship at the Tabernacle were trumpets (unless one also includes the golden bells on the skirt of the robe of the high priest), and these trumpets had to be blown by priests. This situation continued until the building of the temple by Solomon and the preparation for it by David. Hezekiah took account of this in 2 Chronicles 9:25-27 as centuries later he implements his own reforms: ‘And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, harps, and lyres, according to the commandment of David and of Gad the king’s seer and of Nathan the prophet, for the commandment was from the LORD through his prophets. The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. Then Hezekiah commanded that the burnt offering be offered on the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song to the Lord began also, and the trumpets, accompanied by the instruments of David king of Israel’ (italics mine).

This scriptural summary of what took place at the temple reveals that there were four types of instruments played in public worship: the Levites played cymbals, harps and lyres; the priests blew the trumpets. Further, the summary reveals why David introduced those instruments – the commandment was from the Lord through his prophets. David, despite his authority as king, was not at liberty to introduce additional practices without divine authority. And I suspect the above list covers the instruments mentioned in Psalm 150. Whatever else may be said about such musical instruments, it is obvious that their usage was prescribed by God during the Old Testament period in which his worship was found in fixed worship locations in Israel.

In contrast, readers of the New Testament will not find examples of the use of musical instruments in the worship of God by Christians in the New Testament period. As the various New Testament books are read, it is often deduced that no reason is given for the lack of references, or else that the silence indicates musical instruments were being used but no comment was necessary. But these are wrong conclusions arising from the fact that we are reading the texts two thousand years distant from their composition. The first question we should ask is not, ‘What are the texts saying to me in my twenty-first century environment?’ Instead, the correct question is, ‘What did the texts mean for the writer and the readers to whom they were sent initially?’ With this awareness in mind, we can make further comments on the non-use of musical instruments in the New Testament church.

First, given that former Jews and proselytes, and they composed a considerable proportion of the New Testament church, were instructed in the significance of the Old Testament, they would automatically link instrumental music in divine worship with definite places, people and activities specified in the Old Testament, and these recipients would know that until God gave further instruction about the matter no additions could be made. They knew that the Old Testament specified the place where instruments could be played (tabernacle and temple) and specified the religious officials who could play them (priests and Levites). Further the use of instruments, as far as the public worship of God was concerned, occurred at the same time as animal sacrifices were offered (I am not aware of another kind of occasion in the temple services in which musical instruments were played). Today we find it hard to make an automatic connection between musical instruments and animal sacrifices, but a New Testament worshipper, familiar with what had gone on at the Temple, would not have that difficulty. For a New Testament worshipper, the absence of animal sacrifices and other Levitical rituals would also mean the absence of musical instruments. He was not at liberty to say, ‘In my worship service, I will keep the musical instruments even although I am not in the temple in Jerusalem, nor am I a priest or a Levite, nor do I have an animal sacrifice.’ Without further divine revelation indicating a change of practice, a New Testament worshipper was prevented from adjusting God-given instructions in the Old Testament about how and where to use musical instruments – which is the same as saying that the implementation of the regulative principle prevented the worshipper from changing the precise instructions given by God concerning the use of musical instruments in divinely-authorised occasions of public worship.

Second, while the New Testament is silent on the use of musical instruments in the Christian assemblies, it is not silent regarding what took place in those meetings. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11–14 and in 1 Timothy 2 mentions several activities: e.g., prayer, prophecy, tongue speaking, teaching, giving out a psalm. While I believe that some of those activities cannot happen now because certain gifts, such as speaking in tongues, have ceased, other activities are permanent features of worship (e.g. prayer, teaching, practising the Lord’s Supper). It is surprising that Paul would not give instructions about musical instruments if they were in use in the services, and according to the regulative principle, which demands positive permission concerning the elements to include in public worship, the lack of reference to instruments indicates that they were not elements of public worship.

Third, several lists of gifts are given in the New Testament letters and not once is the ability to play musical instruments identified as a spiritual gift (I take this term to mean a gift that the Spirit uses for the edification of his church). If musical instruments are necessary for divine worship, it is very surprising that those who could play them are not encouraged to do so in any of the lists of gifts. The regulative principle, which stresses that divine instruction is required, leads to the conclusion that the ability to play a musical instrument is not a spiritual gift.

Fourth, some will ask the significance of singing, in the New Testament era, psalms which refer to musical instruments that should no longer be played. Such a question also must be asked about psalms that mention the various sacrifices, personnel, and other activities connected to the temple worship. The question is often asked in a manner that implies a person will need the brains of Einstein before it can be answered. The answer is straightforward – all of it has been fulfilled in Christ. I see no greater difficulty in singing about a burnt offering than Paul had when he told, in prose, the Roman Christians to present themselves as burnt offerings (Rom. 12:1), or to sing about priests than Peter had when he adopted the description of Israel as a nation of priests and applied it to the church (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). Paul commands the Corinthians to sing with understanding, and when singing psalms, which he mentions as occurring in their services (1 Cor. 14:26), part of that understanding involves how Christ fulfils the Old Testament rituals. The regulative principle reveals that it is appropriate to use Old Testament rituals to depict New Testament realities and, since instrumental music was an Old Testament ritual, the regulative principle would indicate that the only possible application of such a ritual is as illustrative of Christian truth and experience.

Fifth, it is possible that some will argue that instrumental music is not an element but a circumstance in the New Testament period. One would assume that they are using ‘circumstance’ in line with the meaning indicated in the Westminster Confession when it linked a circumstance to situations ‘common to human actions and societies.’ I can think of many types of gatherings connected to human societies which do not include instrumental music as an essential feature of their meeting together. Circumstances are not features intrinsic to worship, which music would be; instead they are matters that make it appropriate for worship to occur in a location, such as a suitable building. I am not aware that any of the compilers of the Confession regarded instrumental music as a circumstance in the New Testament age, and to suggest that they did is to make their example of how other human societies meet meaningless.

Further, apart from the fact that there is no biblical evidence for the claim that instrumental music can now be regarded as a circumstance, this form of reasoning would allow a New Testament congregation to take any Old Testament element and turn it into a circumstance. Therefore, it would allow the burning of incense and the wearing of priestly and Levitical garments, and such features are allowed in churches that do not adhere to the regulative principle. (I assume those who have this reasoning would draw the line at regarding animal sacrifices as suitable circumstances, but I cannot see how they can do so consistently once they allow instrumental music to change from an element into a circumstance.) The New Testament does retain several Old Testament elements (singing of psalms, reading of God’s Word, prayer), but I am not aware of a passage which indicates that an Old Testament element was changed into a New Testament circumstance. If such a passage cannot be located, then the regulative principle forbids us imagining that such a practice occurred and indicates that such reasoning has no biblical support.

This response to the claim that the element of instrumental music in the Old Testament became a circumstance in the New Testament also deals with the concern some have expressed regarding the use of the word ‘evil’ to describe some features of public worship. Personally, I don’t have any difficulty in saying that using incense in worship is sinful, because I don’t believe that God has indicated he is pleased with such an addition to New Testament worship. And since God has not told his New Testament churches to include instrumental music in his worship, is it not sinful to add it to his requirements? On several occasions in the New Testament, we are informed that it is sinful to add to or take from divine instructions about an issue. The fact that instrumental music is used in the majority of Christian churches, even evangelical ones, is not the basis of deciding whether the practice is right or wrong. If we were to use the opinions of the majority of Christian churches, including evangelical denominations, as the basis of our beliefs and practices, then we would have to change our views on baptism, spiritual gifts, the second coming of Christ and other doctrines. We don’t have any difficulty disagreeing with fellow-Christians on these matters and pointing out that we think they are wrong, so why should it be difficult to say that we think they are wrong in their use of instrumental music if we conclude that the New Testament forbids it?

Sixth, instrumental music belongs to the church in the days of its minority and is inappropriate, and therefore wrong, for the New Testament church to use. I, and no doubt many others, have been impressed by the force with which John Calvin made this point. He argued repeatedly that musical instruments belonged to the infant state of the church (the Old Testament period) and were not needed and should not be used in the adult state of the church (the New Testament period). Note what he says about Psalm 149:2: ‘The musical instruments he mentions were peculiar to this infancy of the Church, nor should we foolishly imitate a practice which was intended only for God’s ancient people.’ Calvin gives the same opinion in his comments on Psalm 81:2: ‘With respect to the tabret, harp, and psaltery, we have formerly observed, and will find it necessary afterwards to repeat the same remark, that the Levites, under the law, were justified in making use of instrumental music in the worship of God; it having been his will to train his people, while they were as yet tender and like children, by such rudiments, until the coming of Christ. But now when the clear light of the gospel has dissipated the shadows of the law, and taught us that God is to be served in a simpler form, it would be to act a foolish and mistaken part to imitate that which the prophet enjoined only upon those of his own time.’ The consistency shown by Calvin in this matter concerning musical instruments was based on his acceptance of the regulative principle.

The above reasons are sufficient to indicate why it is wrong to use instrumental music in public worship and why it is not surprising that the Christian church, for most of its existence, did not permit their use in corporate worship of God. Since that is the case with instrumental music, what is the Bible’s teaching on items of sung praise?

The Regulative Principle and Items of Praise

In the Old Testament, there are many songs not found within the Book of Psalms. These songs include the song sung by the children of Israel at the Red Sea and songs found in various prophetic books such as Isaiah and Habakkuk. Given that the final collection of the Psalms was arranged after the return from the exile, which was subsequent to the composition of these songs, it is notable that the Book of Psalms does not include the above-mentioned songs. For one reason or another, it must have been decided not to include them in the Psalms. While we cannot state the reasons, we can see the limitations on which items should be included in the Book of Psalms. Given that it was the psalms from the Psalter that were used in Temple worship, it is obvious that divine inspiration of a song was not, in itself, sufficient reason for it to be included in the praise book of Israel. A devout Israelite who wanted to observe divine worship according to the regulative principle of only using what God had mandated would observe that several divinely-inspired songs found elsewhere in the Old Testament were not included among those that the Lord provided for public worship of his name.

There are several passages in the Gospels which are said to be songs. These include the praise of Mary when she visited Elisabeth (Luke 1:46-55) and Zechariah when he publicly named his son as John (Luke 1:68-79). In addition to the fact that Luke does not say that these passages were sung by Mary or Zechariah, there is no indication from Luke that they should be sung in Christian churches. The regulative principle demands proof that they were songs, and such evidence is not very clear, and also demands proof that they should be used by God’s people and that is non-existent. The fact that Mary and Zechariah were enabled, even inspired, by the Spirit to utter them is not sufficient as a reason for saying that others should sing them in public worship. Even if they are songs, they can be regarded in the same way as other inspired songs from the Old Testament period that were not used in public worship.

It is often claimed that passages in the New Testament letters, such as Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-20, are hymns or fragments of hymns. Of course, such comments are only suggestions with no biblical authority whatsoever. One of the so-called hymns (2 Timothy 2:11-13) is even said by Paul to be a trustworthy saying and he does not indicate it was a song. Further, it is often said that Philippians 2:5-11 is an example of an early Christian hymn. Yet such a claim is not accepted by all competent scholars who comment on the passage and provide reasons why it should not be regarded as a hymn. The practice in modern translations of formatting such passages in poetic form is not evidence that these passages were either composed by the biblical writers for use as hymns in churches or quoted by biblical writers as items already sung in churches. There is no evidence that indicates such passages were hymns in use before the biblical writers inserted them into their letters or that they were used as hymns by churches after they had received the letters containing them. All the practice indicates is that modern day translators think these passages are poetic in form, which they might be, but even that does not mean they were hymns. The regulative principle demands more proof than this before it allows us to claim with one hundred per cent certainty that we have divine authorisation to turn such passages into items to use in God’s praise.

Another comment often made is that the saints in heaven do not sing psalms. This comment is based on the accounts of heavenly worship contained in the Book of Revelation. It is a relevant question to ask, ‘Who are singing the songs recorded in the Book of Revelation?’ The answer to this question will depend on the Bible Version one uses: songs that in the Authorised Version are sung up the redeemed are in other versions sung by angels and other heavenly beings (for example, in these other versions we can note the following: in Revelation 5:9-10 the singers of the new song distinguish themselves from the redeemed; the singers in 11:17-18 do the same; it is not obvious that the great multitude singing in 19:1-3 and 19:6-8 are the saints, indeed verse 7 would indicate that the singers are a separate group). As far as I can see, there is only one song in the Book of Revelation that is sung by a portion of the redeemed and that is 15:3-4.

Three comments can be made about this. First, there is no evidence from the Book of Revelation that its songs are heavenly versions of hymns that the early church sang on earth; instead, most of its songs don’t even involve the participation of the redeemed. Second, there is no hint in 15:3-4 that this song should have been sung on earth since it describes a response made in heaven to God’s actions on earth. Third, such songs can be regarded as other inspired songs found in the Bible but regarding which there are no instructions that they should be used by God’s people in public worship on earth.

Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs

Discussion has taken place regarding the meaning of Paul’s phrase in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.’ It is evident from both passages that the singing of such items was part of communal exhortation and instruction – in the Ephesian passage Paul says that the believers are addressing one another and in the Colossian passage he says that they are teaching and admonishing one another. The only element in public worship with authority to inform the minds of Christians and to correct their lives is the Word of God. This is why accurate and helpful writings by orthodox authors are not used in congregations as the basis of sermons. Yet if we assume that hymns and spiritual songs refer to extra-biblical compositions and still allow them to be the basis of mutual edification, we are giving to such material a place we would never give to prose writings, no matter how accurate they are. The doctrinal deficiencies of numerous hymns are obvious – many are Arminian, others are pre-millennial (even when written by Calvinists), some reflect defective notions about sanctification, etc. What does a worshipper do when he comes across a verse in a hymn he does not believe is accurate in a theological sense? Keep silent (an unusual way of giving mutual edification) or sing it (and give the impression that he believes the lines he is singing). In contrast to such dilemmas, worshippers have to use praise items that are accurate, and the Book of Psalms fulfils that requirement.

Further, it is evident that the items Paul described as ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ existed both in Ephesus and Colosse when he wrote the letters, otherwise why would he indicate his readers were already using them for mutual edification? It is generally accepted that the letters were written within a decade after the churches were founded, and even if Paul had only been describing what was taking place as he wrote the letter, it would be a very short time for congregations to produce a range of worship material. Further, there is no hint that these churches had been singing anything else throughout those years, which points to the likelihood that throughout that decade, even from their commencement as churches, the two churches had been singing these items.

Is there a collection which they could have used from their commencement as churches? The congregation in Ephesus had among its members those who once belonged to Jewish synagogues in the city. They would have been very familiar because of regular usage with items of worship material that were entitled as psalms, hymns or songs. These titles are found in the Book of Psalms as translated in the Septuagint. Why should it be regarded as unlikely that the church in Ephesus continued to sing the psalms, hymns and songs that had been sung in the synagogue? It is not known whether there was a synagogue in Colosse or whether the original members of the church there came from the synagogue. But it is agreed that the church in Colosse was founded by Epaphras who had been converted through Paul’s ministry in Ephesus, and it would not be surprising for Epaphras to use the same items as were used in Ephesus.

Scholars are divided over whether ‘spiritual’ in the original language describes the three items (psalms, hymns, and songs) or the last item (songs). From a syntactical viewpoint, it is connected to ‘songs’, and the reason may be that psalms and hymns were obviously religious whereas songs needed a descriptor. Since the songs are described as spiritual, which I take to be a reference to the Holy Spirit, it is a description that indicates these songs were divinely inspired. The inspired writings of the apostles and others have been collected together in the New Testament. Where are the inspired songs that were composed in that period? If there were any, it is very surprising that they are not collected together within the New Testament in order for them to be used by the church. There is no hint in the New Testament that individuals, even the apostles, were especially gifted by the Spirit to compose items of praise. The absence of such a New Testament collection does not remove from us the obligation to sing Spirit-inspired songs, and thankfully we have a collection of such songs in the Book of Psalms.

Since Paul’s description of the activities in these churches suggests that each of the worshippers already knew what to sing to one another, it means that they would not have to wait through an unspecified period in order to receive further praise items. This would rule out another suggested explanation of ‘spiritual songs’, which is that they were songs given by immediate inspiration to an individual who had been favoured with a spiritual gift such as prophecy or speaking in tongues. It has been argued that the individuals in Corinth who came to the worship service with a ‘psalm’ did so with a song they had been given by the Holy Spirit. Yet it is as conceivable to conclude that they had come to the service intending to sing Old Testament psalms (1 Cor. 14:6). There is no evidence that a gifted individual ever came into a New Testament gathering and informed the gathered congregation, ‘I have been given a new song by the Spirit for you to sing.’ This means that the church did not have to wait for gifted songwriters to appear before it possessed a praise manual; it has always had one, in the Book of Psalms.

It is safe therefore for us to adopt William Binnie’s opinion regarding the meaning of ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’. He writes: ‘Twice in the Pauline epistles Christ’s people are enjoined to speak to themselves in “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs,” singing and making melody in their hearts to the Lord (Eph. v. 19; Col. iii.16). The words, we may be sure, are not set down by the apostle at random; but there is some difference of opinion regarding the precise reference of each. It is to be noted that in the Septuagint the first and third of the terms used by the apostle are constantly employed in translating the titles psalm and song in the superscriptions: the term hymn is found also in the superscriptions, being used by the Seventy where the term Neginoth stands in our version [Binnie in a footnote mentions Psalms 4, 54, and 61 in the LXX]. In all likelihood, therefore, it is these titles in the superscriptions that the apostle has in his eye; and, in that case, his meaning is that we are to comfort our hearts with all the various sacred songs which the Holy Spirit provided of old for the solace of the Church.’

Meaning of ‘psalms’ in the seventeenth century

Discussion has also taken place regarding what was intended by the term ‘psalms’ found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (21.5) and the Directory of Public Worship. Nick Needham, in article called ‘Westminster and Worship: Psalms, Hymns? and Musical Instruments,’ has given examples of the use of the term when these documents were composed which extended beyond the book of Psalms in the Old Testament. What is important for us is not how the term was used in society or even among individual members of the Westminster Assembly, but how the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland that authorised acceptance of the Confession and the Directory used the term.

It is not difficult to see what the General Assembly meant, when arranging for a psalm book to be printed. The first edition of the Scottish Psalter published after the meeting of the Westminster Assembly came out in 1650, and in it additional hymns and spiritual songs were entirely omitted. A previous edition, published sixteen years previously in 1634, had included fourteen extra spiritual songs. It must be evident from this development that the General Assembly regarded as psalms those found in the Old Testament Book of Psalms (it is also evident that they did not regard the Spiritual songs that were included in previous editions as suitable for public worship).

The regulative principle requires the church to use ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ in its corporate worship. There is sufficient evidence that indicates by that description Paul intended the Book of Psalms. What is also striking is that there is no evidence in the New Testament that any uninspired items or other inspired texts were to be sung in public worship.

Objections to the regulative principle

It is well-known that many Christian denominations dismiss the validity of the regulative principle. Some of the objections are based on facile reasons (such as personal tastes in music), but others are more concrete in content. In this section, I will consider some of the latter.

The alternative view to the regulative principle is called the normative principle, which basically allows into divine worship helpful actions that have not been forbidden by the Word of God. It is more expansive than the regulative principle – in addition to biblically required elements the normative principle encourages other features which church leaders consider would be edifying on particular occasions. Worship services in congregations which adopt the normative principle, whether knowingly or unwittingly, will have biblical elements in common but also will contain diversity depending on what additions were accepted for that service. Under the normative principle, there is no reason why film extracts, drama, mime, clowning, painting and other features common today in such services should not be allowed (most of these extra activities seem to come from the arts). The Bible does not contain any explicit prohibition of such activities, so extra features of worship descend into matters of taste. Inevitably those who like these extras will enjoy their worship service and many seem to assume that God will enjoy the service as well. With regard to the last point, the only place where we can discover what pleases God is his instructions in his Word, and contrary to the normative principle God has placed limitations on what he regards as acceptable worship. Services designed according to the normative principle may please the worshippers but they run the solemn risk of displeasing God.

A second objection to the regulative principle is the allegation that its emphasis on simplicity in divine worship reduces it to a mental activity. R. J. Gore comments that the Puritans had a tendency towards rationalism and stressed what he calls ‘the primacy of the intellect’. According to him, their focus was on the mind more than the heart and the will, and especially more than on bodily actions. As far as I can see, Gore does not provide any evidence to back up his assertion apart from their opposition to visible ceremonies (which they rejected because they concluded from his Word that God did not require such rituals in his church). Gore notes that forms of Stoicism and Neo-Platonism were accepted at that time in the intellectual outlook of society and states that it is reasonable to assume the Puritans were affected by it. While there were people in the Puritan era who were influenced by and even promoters of such philosophy, it is unfair to make such a point without providing evidence that those who worked for reforming the church were influenced by it. It is preferable to suggest that what motivated the majority of Puritans was their determination to be as biblical as possible in church life (their writings make this desire very clear). They concluded that worship in the New Testament period would be marked by simplicity (as indicated by the Lord Jesus in John 4 when informing to the woman of Samaria about the future demise of the then legitimate worship in Jerusalem as well as the illegitimate worship in Samaria), and it is unfair and inaccurate to say that they were influenced greatly by prevailing philosophical ideas.

A third objection to the regulative principle is that it can create situations which are legalistic. This consequence comes, it is argued, because the regulative principle focuses on external matters and does not deal with inner attitudes. While it cannot be denied that such has happened, the wrong attitudes are not because of the regulative principle. This is a surprising objection because the same comment could be made regarding any of the commandments God has given. In response it can be argued very strongly that the evidence of a right inner attitude is the desire to please God, and especially to worship him according to his instructions.

A fourth objection to the regulative principle is that it denies Christian liberty. If by Christian liberty is meant the notion that every person has the right to do what he wants, then the regulative principle does prevent such expressions of liberty. Yet Christian liberty is actually freedom to obey God without hindrance from others, including other Christians. In this case, the regulative principle preserves the liberty of the person who wants to worship God according to his Word.

A fifth objection to the regulative principle is that, at least in its historical usage, it does not take fully into account biblical teaching that all of life is worship. It is unlikely that an advocate of the regulative principle would deny that a Christian is called to serve God in every area of life, but that does not mean he would regard every area of life as having detailed requirements given by God or as always being opportunities for worship.

For example, am I worshipping God (in the sense of the regulative principle) when I drive along in my car, observing the speed limit, and listening to the news on the car radio? I can see how my actions can be described as obedience to God’s law (obeying the civil authority’s speed limit, for example). But I do not believe I am worshipping God in the sense that, at that moment, I am thinking about him or expressing adoration of him and love to him. Instead, I am focused on driving and on listening to the news. With regard to one’s employment, a Christian serves God by working wholeheartedly for an employer. Say that Christian works in a bank. Is he worshipping God, in the sense of the regulative principle, when interacting with a customer about a mortgage (which may happen several times a day)? If he is, then he can invite his customer to church and continue his discussion. Such a scenario is absurd. No doubt, the Christian is serving God when speaking to the customer, but he is not consciously worshipping God, which he is required to do so when engaged in public worship.

Many areas of life, such as how a person uses his money or spends his time, are governed by general principles and there can be situations in which two opposite responses are equally acceptable (he may choose to have an interest in sport or he may choose to have no interest in sport). But the public worship of God is governed by a specific principle, which is that we must include in a worship service the various elements he has prescribed.

The claim that all of life is worship can readily become a basis for disobeying specific commands of God. This is seen in the practice of those who ignore the fourth commandment because they say every day is devoted to God and it is seen in those who ignore the second commandment, which prohibits unauthorized elements in worship, and introduce into divine worship activities that God has not commanded. An artist honours God by painting works of art in everyday life, but if he takes his artistic gift into public worship and, for example, paints a scene from the Bible as an element of worship, he dishonours God because God has not commanded such activities as part of the corporate worship of his name. The regulative principle prevents such intrusions into public worship.

Another objection to the regulative principle concerns the Saviour’s willingness to participate in synagogue services and post-Mosaic feasts (such as the Feast of Dedication in John 10:22), both of which are documented in the Gospels, but neither of which have recorded divine approval, at least as far as their initiation is concerned. The origins of the synagogue are not known: the majority of scholars say it began during the Babylonian exile when the Jews had no temple, while others suggest it began in Mosaic times. Synagogues served a variety of purposes in a community: for example, children were education there. Its main purpose seems to have been gatherings on the Sabbath for prayer, listening to readings from the Old Testament, and explanation of a passage by a suitable person. Given that the divinely-approved worship location was the temple in Jerusalem, it is argued by some that to worship elsewhere was not in line with the regulative principle.

This objection is not new as it was used by the Anglican Richard Hooker against the regulative principle. George Gillespie was aware of the difficulty and responded to it by noting the synagogue provided a need for the Israelites because it was not possible for them to travel to Jerusalem on every Sabbath. According to Gillespie, God could have given divine instructions concerning the synagogue through a prophet (he described this as the extraordinary power). He also noted that if God did not authorize such gatherings, the only other option was Jewish religious authorities (he described this as the ordinary power of the church, which may be a reference to the claims of those who were using this possibility as an argument for the normative principle), and he stated that there is no evidence for this option either. Gillespie also claimed that Mordecai had the spirit of prophecy and therefore had the authority to inaugurate a new feast (the feast of Purim which commemorated the deliverance of the Jews from Haman’s attempt to annihilate them). I don’t mention Gillespie’s explanations because I think they are the best solutions; instead they are cited to show that advocates of the regulative principle have known about this alleged problem for a long time.

Simpler explanations can be given which indicate that the existence of the synagogue does not disprove the regulative principle. Israelites were expected to worship together every Sabbath, and they could not go to the Tabernacle and Temple every Sabbath. Unless an alternative type of gathering has been or can be discovered, the synagogue is the only expression of such local gatherings of Israelites. The presence of the Saviour at such meetings would indicate that they were the gatherings intended for local worship; after all, this inference is an example of what ‘by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture’.

What is important further, with regard to the regulative principle and the synagogue, is what elements were found in a synagogue service. As far as can be discovered, the elements were the same as those found later in Christian services (readings of scripture, prayer, singing of psalms, explanation of scripture). What went on in the synagogue may or may not have influenced the early Christian church – we have no records that convey such information. Yet if it is found that the services of the church and the synagogue are similar, it would be hard to ignore the similarities.

Similarly, with regard to the acceptability of non-Mosaic feasts, they are Old Testament equivalents of a type of occasion recognized as permissible in the Westminster Confession of Faith when days are set aside for thanksgiving on special occasions (the Scriptural proof given in the Confession is the reference in Esther 9:22 in which Mordecai’s inauguration of an extra feast is stated). Further Israel was a nation as well as a religious entity and it was appropriate for them as a nation to have national days of remembrance in response to God’s deliverance of his people in the past.

Benefits of the regulative principle

Several benefits will come from an ongoing application of the regulative principle.

First, the regulative principle enables congregations to honour simultaneously the Word of God and the God of the Bible. God’s Word must be respected if true veneration is to be given to God. It is impossible to honour God if we deliberately choose to ignore his instructions. The way to understand whether or not we are honouring him in a worship service is not by assessing how we feel in the service or how large the congregation is, but whether or not the elements of the service are according to his Word. Of course, it is obvious that we can have the right elements and still fail to honour him. But is it possible to honour him as we should if we arrange on purpose worship services that ignore his instructions?

Honouring God and his Word requires two basic outlooks from his people. One is that they submit to his authority and the other is that they accept the sufficiency of Scripture. Adding elements to his worship that he has not prescribed in his Word is a practical denial of both these outlooks. Making these additions also indicates that we think his Word does not provide us with his wisdom on the issue of his worship and instead suggests that he has left this important event to be arranged by the imperfect understanding of human beings, even redeemed ones. The regulative principle enables us to acknowledge the sovereignty of God, the wisdom of God and the sufficiency of His Word regarding public worship of his name.

Second, the regulative principle gives protection to his church and does so in several ways. It protects the church from the opposite extremes of tradition and novelty. No doubt we are aware of the influence of tradition on life in general and sometimes many things are done because they always have been done. In the church, tradition has been used as a weapon to prevent legitimate changes – one wrong use of tradition has been the insistence by some of using archaic language in the worship of God. Since the Bible demands that worship is intelligent to those involved, it is imperative that terminology used in worship services should be clear in its meaning. Implementing the regulative principle prevents religious intolerance caused by advocates of tradition. On the other hand, the regulative principle prevents the church being enslaved to the latest fad that others are using in their worship services. Such novelties arise continually, and the only response we have to their implementation is that God has not required us to use them in his worship. So the correct use of the regulative principle preserves the church from the spiritual chains of both tradition and novelty.

Third, the regulative principle protects the church from the tyrannical authority of church courts and the persuasive approaches of gifted leaders. It is very easy for the courts of any denomination to move from the position of servants who serve Christ to the place of leaders who impose their own agenda on a denomination. This can be done with regard to any church practice, including public worship. How can members of a church be protected from such changes in public worship? By assessing whether or not any proposed adjustments are implementations of the regulative principle. Once the regulative principle is removed from the outlook of a denomination, then such a denomination is under the tyranny of majorities, even if the votes swing back and fore on a particular matter. God, in his grace, has given his church his instructions with regard to public worship and the regulative principle prevents his people from being denied by church courts their privilege of worshipping him according to his instructions.

Fourth, it is also inevitable that applying the regulative principle will result in uniformity of worship. Since God has revealed the elements he requires in his worship, then every worship service should include them. He has not said to one congregation that they can choose three of his elements and add several of their own, nor has he allowed another congregation to choose all his elements and add several of their own. Instead, he has stated what the elements are. Uniformity of worship does not require that the forms by which the elements are practiced be the same. It may be that, regarding the element of psalmody which God has prescribed, one congregation may use a different translation from another congregation, but they cannot replace psalmody with alternative songs. Similarly, a pastor may choose to pray in the form of extemporaneous prayer, or he may choose to read a prayer he composed beforehand, but he is not allowed to remove the element of prayer from the service or offer it in a language his congregation cannot understand. Whatever differences there may be in form, the elements must be the same, which means that a correct application of the regulative principle will result in uniformity of worship as far as the elements are concerned.

Fifth, the regulative principle enables contemporary church leaders and others to assess whether previous actions by their own denomination were biblical. Many comments have been made recently as to whether our forefathers in the post-1900 Free Church were correct to forbid the use of instrumental music and uninspired praise in public worship. Suggestions have been made regarding the appropriateness of their actions and whether or not their decision has resulted in benefits for the Presbyterian cause in Scotland, or even if their decision, had it been made before 1904, would have ensured the Free Church would have lost the House of Lords case held in that year (which concluded that the United Free Church was not entitled to the property etc of the pre-1900 Free Church). It is not possible for us today to say whether or not their motives were correct because we cannot know their hearts, although Christian charity would wish not to charge them with wrong motives; nor can we say that their decision has prevented a large evangelical Presbyterian Church in Scotland – such an assessment is beyond our knowledge, and all that can be said on such a matter is that the assessment is merely a guess. But it is possible for us to assess whether their decision was correct as far as biblical requirements for public worship are concerned? The regulative principle states that public worship should not include elements that God has not authorized. Were our predecessors wrong when they declared that instrumental music and uninspired praise were not required by God in his worship? The arguments presented in this paper would indicate they were not wrong, and it is the regulative principle that enables us to make this conclusion.

Sixth, the regulative principle enables subsequent churches to engage in the same practices as were required by Christ of the apostolic church. This possibility was seen by William Cunningham: ‘the practical effect of it, if it were fully carried out, would just be to leave the Church in the condition in which it was left by the apostles, in so far as we have any means of information – a result, surely, which need not be very alarming, except to those who think that they themselves have very superior powers for improving and adorning the Church by their inventions.’

Conclusion

Of course, it is easy to say that public worship of God should be according to his Word – most Christians will say so. What is not easy is to refuse to allow into public worship elements that are forbidden by the regulative principle. A range of reasons can make such a refusal difficult: respect for brothers who introduce such elements (an obvious example is Presbyterian churches that claim their use of hymns and musical instruments is allowed by the regulative principle) can cause one to hesitate in saying that their worship is against the regulative principle; the desire for unity among churches with the same Confession of Faith (although why unity should be limited to them and not include all Christians is not very clear) can be nullified by a strict application of the regulative principle; fear that we may have created a false standard by our interpretation of what elements are allowed can also make one reluctant to press one’s view as far as it demands. Yet when all these and other reasons are weighed in the balance against obedience to God’s revealed will, it becomes clear that conformity to his requirements takes priority.

This paper has given evidence that the Westminster Confession of Faith’s description of a regulative principle is an accurate presentation of the Bible’s requirements. Further evidence has been detailed which makes it plain that instrumental music and uninspired songs should not be used in the public worship of God. Even regarding inspired songs, data has been provided that makes it clear that such songs in public worship should be limited to the song book provided by God himself – the Psalter. Reflecting on these aspects confirms the divine injunction originally given in response to an expression of worship: ‘To obey is better than sacrifice.’