The Regulative Principle: The Proofs

Grüß euch abermals im Namen des Herrn Jesu! Greetings once more in the Name of the Lord Jesus!

Today I will be continuing our series on the regulative principle of worship and church-government. Now that we have defined what the regulative principle is, let’s discuss the proofs given for it in the Belgic and Westminster confessions. All in all, we will be learning in this post that (1) we must only look to Christ and his inspired Scriptures, and not to the teachings of men, to discover the proper way of worshipping God and governing His visible Church; that (2) only those who are given inward illumination from God will gain a true understanding of and belief in the Scriptures; and that (3) when it comes to issues in the Church that only involve decency and order, its officers may make ordinances of their own inventions which all members are expected to follow.

The Belgic Confession (1561)

We will begin with the Belgic Confession, in which we find two groupings of Scriptural proofs.

In the first group, to support the statement that church-officers “ought studiously to take care that they do not depart from those things which Christ, our only master, hath instituted,” the Confession references,

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, [so] walk ye in him: rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. (Col. 2:6-7)

Now, it’s often the case in the proof texts for Reformed confessions, that the authors cite only one verse and assume that the reader is familiar with the surrounding context. So, to understand many of these proof texts, we’re going to have to look at the chapter of Scripture that each verse or set of verses was pulled from.

The Philosopher in Meditation
by Rembrandt Harmenszoon
van Rijn (1606-1669)

In St. Paul’s letter to the Colossian church, after he opens with a grand description of Christ’s redemptive work and his supremacy over all things in Chapter 1, he applies that teaching in Chapter 2 . He warns the Colossians against any who would try to sidetrack them from the worship taught by Christ through useless speculations of secular “philosophy” (τῆς φιλοσοφίας), through man-made customs (τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, “the precepts of men”), or through the ceremonies of the Old Testament (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, “the elementary things of the world,” i.e., the visible signs of the Aaronic priesthood). It’s with these warnings in mind that Paul told the Colossians to be “rooted and built up” in Christ. And therefore, when it comes to the worship of God, all Christians and most especially the office-bearers of the Church (pastors, elders, deacons, and doctors/teachers) need to possess faith grounded in the teachings of Christ, not in the teachings of philosophy nor of tradition nor of the ceremonies of the Law of Moses. And this is the Confession’s first grouping of proofs.

In the second group, when the Confession states that it rejects “all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever,” it cites the following Scriptures:

Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. (1Cor. 7:23)

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matt. 15:9)

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men… (Is. 29:13)

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (Gal. 5:1)

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Rom. 16:17-18)

Each of these verses touches on a certain feature of not worshipping God with “human inventions,” but some of the verses are more self-evident than others. Probably none of us needs further explanation of Matt. 15:9, Is. 29:13, or Rom. 16:17-18, which explicitly refer to Jehovah’s displeasure with man-made worship and commandments.  And most likely, Gal. 5:1 is also clear to anyone who has read that letter. Paul is urging his Gentile audience not to be persuaded by the Judaizers who insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation in addition to the Gospel.

What the Confession is trying to say by 1Cor. 7:23, however, might be a little more difficult to see. St. Paul was writing in response to people who had argued that “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” and he was stressing in response that, while the statement was true, nevertheless Christians are given the liberty to have sexual relations within the boundaries of marriage. However, in the case of believers whose spouses divorce them, Paul recommended, the believer should let the unbeliever leave the marriage. Why? As Paul explains, we should all rest content with the outward circumstances that God gives us, because Christ and his commandments are the principle things in life.

Men of the world will try to persuade us by their own reasoning that we ought not to be married for purity’s sake, or that we ought to be circumcised for salvation’s sake, or that we ought to be free from slavery for our own sake. But in all things, we who are of the kingdom of heaven are Christ’s servants or freedmen. And we shouldn’t be slaves to what men say, on their own authority, that we ought to do. This is what the apostle means by, “be not ye the servants of men.” [1] And with that thought, we conclude the second and last group of proofs that the Belgic Confession offers.

Title Page to the 1536 Latin
edition of Institute of the
Christian Religion
by John Calvin (1509-1564)

But notice that the Belgic Confession doesn’t give any Scriptural proofs related to the circumstance-ordinances of worship and church-government. Now, I’m personally not studied enough in the life and writings of the Confession’s author (Guido de Brès) to guess why this might be so, but the lack of proof in the Confession does not mean that the Reformed churches at that time weren’t aware of any Scriptural proofs for circumstance-ordinances. By the time that the Belgic Confession was first printed in 1561, several editions of Calvin’s Institute of the Christian Religion had been published in Latin and Guido’s native French language, and in every single edition of the book, going back to the first Latin edition in 1536, Calvin had defended the need for circumstance-ordinances using the Scriptures 1Cor. 11:2-16 and 1Cor. 14:40. [2] And as we shall see shortly, these are the same passages to which the Westminster Confession appealed to justify its own teachings about circumstance-ordinances.

The Westminster Confession (1647)

There are three groups of proofs given by the Westminster Confession. The first group of proofs addresses the statement that “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life” is found in the Scripture, “unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” The Scriptures referenced as proof are:

…and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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. (2Tim. 3:15-17)

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8-9)

…that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. (2Thess. 2:2)

This is the Reformation teaching of Sola Scriptura: Scripture alone is the Word of God. Scripture alone bears His divine authority. When Paul advised Timothy to study the Scriptures because they could make him “perfect” (i.e. complete) and “throughly furnished unto all good works” (2Tim. 3:15-17), Paul was indicating that everything we will ever need to know about pleasing God is found in the Scriptures. There is nothing that God will ever require of us that has not been revealed in His holy writings, in some way. In fact, if anybody, even angels from heaven or the apostles themselves should teach a way of salvation different from the one revealed in the Word of God, that person would be accursed of God, according to Gal. 1:8-9. So we should be careful that we are not persuaded away from the truths of Scripture by human authority, just as some of the Thessalonians had been troubled by someone who claimed, against Paul’s God-inspired teachings, that Christ had already come (2Thess. 2:2). The first grouping of the Confession's proofs teaches us, therefore, to rely on the Scriptures alone, and not human authorities, for correct teaching about God and man’s relationship to Him—including about worship and church-government.

Yet the writers of the Westminster Confession make it clear that they don’t want to give the wrong impressions that (a) we can just hear about and perform the correct teachings and expect to find salvation apart from any action of the Spirit of God or inward understanding, or that (b) we are so rigidly bound to Scripture in our worship and church-government that we aren’t allowed to add man-made regulations that support decency and order.

Regarding the first wrong impression, that we can get by through merely hearing and performing God’s commandments, the Confession reminds us that “inward illumination” is “necessary for the saving.” And it argues this from the following:

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (Jn. 6:45)

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God… Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (1Cor. 2:9-10,12)

In Jn. 6:45, we must understand that, in context, Jesus had just been explaining that only people, whom the Father has given to the Son in election, will come to the Son as the true manna and true supernatural sign from heaven. The Jews then having grumbled that they didn’t believe Jesus because they knew he had natural parents, Jesus simply repeated: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Immediately after that, he spoke the words of Jn. 6:45, in which he quoted Is. 54:13 (“And all thy children shall be taught of Jehovah...”) to say that the salvation of God is only grasped by people whom the Father chooses and draws by some secret action.

From 1Cor. 2:9-10 & 12, we learn a little bit more about this secret action of the Father: namely, that it is through the Holy Spirit. Again, knowing the context of the proof will bolster our understanding. Earlier in 1Cor. 2, the apostle Paul talks about the “weakness” of the Gospel by the standards of the ungodly world, and how he himself presented it in simple language. And later in the chapter, Paul says very insistently that the “natural man,” the man of the ungodly world, “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” In the second grouping of Westminster’s proofs, we learn that it is not enough merely to hear the teachings of Scripture and do them. A person must believe them genuinely, which he can only do out of an inward revelation of heavenly truth from the Father, through the Spirit.

Westminster’s third grouping of proofs tries to head off the other misinterpretation that people may make, namely the idea that Sola Scriptura and the regulative principle forbid us to make our own uninspired regulations about decency and order in the Church. Far from it! There are circumstance-ordinances that “are to be ordered by the light of Nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word…” And the proofs given for this by Westminster are perhaps the most likely to stir up controversy among present-day Puritans:

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (1Cor. 11:13-14)

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… Let all things be done decently and in order. (1Cor. 14:26,40)

Young Lady White
Head Covering and Stole
by Frédéric Dubois (1780-1819)

Among very conservative Reformed Christians, you’re likely to find the opinion that women’s headcoverings are still required for today’s worship. After all, when Paul argues for headcoverings in 1Cor. 11, he appeals to the Creation account of man being placed in authority over woman. Among slightly less conservative Reformed people, you’re likely to find the opinion that the real principle behind 1Cor. 11 is the properness of gender-appropriate clothing, and that the particular cultural expression of this that Paul discusses—headcoverings on women—no longer applies today.

So when the authors of the Westminster Confession clearly reference headcoverings as an example of a circumstance-ordinance of worship, formed by man’s authority and not from the commandment of God, we are not in store for a easygoing discussion. Lord willing, I will eventually write a series that will look at different historical views on the subject of headcoverings, but our main goal here is to understand why the Confession uses the proofs that it does, no matter our personal views.

In the mainstream of the Reformed churches, it’s always been recognized that 1Cor. 11-14 is one continuous stream that deals with the theme of decency and order, just as chapters 1-6 are all one discourse about unity and mutual edification, as chapter 7 is all one discourse about sexual purity, as chapters 8-10 are all one discourse about meats sacrificed to idols, and as chapter 15 is all one discourse about the resurrection of the dead.

When Paul discusses the Lord’s Supper in chapter 11, the issue is not that the Corinthians have followed God’s commandments about the Lord’s Supper incorrectly, but that the Corinthians have been handling the Supper in an indecent manner, as if it were any other common meal. And when Paul addresses spiritual gifts in chapters 12-14, he is mainly concerned that the government and the worship of the Corinthians isn’t orderly: they don’t seem to understand that there are different offices in the Church, or that in worship one thing must proceed at a time. Therefore, the summary of what Paul wishes to teach in chapters 11-14 is that all things must be done in a seemly manner (εὐσχημόνως) and according to order (κατὰ τάξιν). In other words, he wishes to teach us about circumstance-ordinances.

This need for decency and orderliness in the Church applies to headcoverings, as we can see when Paul asks the rhetorical question, 1Cor. 11:13: “Judge in yourselves: is it comely (πρέπον, “becoming” or “seemly”) that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” We can also see it when Paul refers, verse 6, to the “shame” (αἰσχρὸν, “shame” or “dishonor”) of a woman having her head shaven, and the “glory” (δόξα, “praise” or “a good opinion”) of her having long hair. In the early Reformed view, Paul is not talking about some kind of spiritual properness or glory, but about earthly properness and reputation. [3] His point in this chapter was not that male authority and female subjection require a special institution of worship in the New Testament, but that, given the Creation order of the sexes, it was improper and scandalous at the time that some of the Corinthians were appearing with opposite-sex dress. And because it was indecent, it was a circumstance of worship about which Paul and all the other Churches of God had the right to issue a man-made ordinance that said, “We are requiring that you dress in a way that is decent for your sex.” [4]

And this is, in a nutshell, why the authors of the Confession felt that the first half of 1Cor. 11 was a suitable proof for circumstances of worship, as opposed to necessary institutions.

Now, although I’m not trying to argue here for the truth or falsity of the “just a circumstance” view, talking about its evidence requires a disclaimer. For ladies and their husbands who have become convicted that the headcoverings of 1Cor. 11 were merely a cultural practice, it should not be forgotten, in the rush to embrace Christian liberty, that the principle behind this Scripture is decency and order. If not having a headcovering would appear indecent and create scandal in your own particular congregation, and more importantly if you know that it would entice others in the congregation to disobey weak consciences, then you should do what edifies others, not what edifies yourself. You should wear a covering for the sake of decency, order, and charity, while doing your best to politely persuade others of the liberty they actually have in the matter.

But on the other hand, if you genuinely feel convicted that Paul was describing a necessary institution of worship, then even if your church’s authorities have made an official rule not to practice headcoverings, you should practice it anyway in obedience to the Lord of your conscience. Necessary institutions of worship always trump circumstance-ordinances; and although you should listen carefully to the rebukes of church-authorities, obedience to the Lord of your conscience always trumps obedience to the chief servants of his House (Acts 5:29).

Conclusion

And these are our proofs for the regulative principle, out of the Belgic and Westminster confessions. In all our worship practices, we are to follow the commandments of God rather than men, but the sole exception is in matters of decency and order, about which the church has the right to impose its own regulations.

In our next installment of the Regulative Principle series, we will begin looking at some of the Reformers who were contemporaries of the Belgic and Westminster confessions, and what they had to say concerning the regulative principle. In order, we will be studying Bullinger, Calvin, the Geneva Bible, Ursinus, Gillespie, Burroughs, Poole, à Brakel, and Henry. After this, there will be some brief discussion of the views of R.J. Gore and T. David Gordon, and perhaps some other present-day authors as well.

Until next time, kämpfe den guten Kampf des Glaubens—fight the good fight of faith!

---NOTES---

[1] This was not John Calvin’s exact understanding of 1Cor. 7:23, nor Matthew Henry’s. Calvin (p.250-51) and Henry believed that these words were directed specifically to literal servants who were being commanded by their earthly masters to do things that violated the commandments of God. The commentators of the 1599 Geneva Bible (p. 29-30) and the Puritan pastor Matthew Poole (p.561), however, followed the interpretation I have laid out, of Paul making the general point that we should not be people-pleasers. Whichever interpretation Guido de Brès (author of the Belgic Confession) was following, he had good enough reason to quote the verse, but I believe that if you follow the Geneva/Poole interpretation, the verse connects to the subject-matter of worship more clearly because in that case it refers back to circumcision.

[2] Ioannus Calvinus, Christianæ religionis institutio, First Latin Edition (Basel: Thomas Platterus & Balthasar Lasius, 1536), 465-6. The passages in question read, “Neq₃ enim aliter haberi potest quod Paulus exigit, ut decĕter omnia & ex ordine fiant: niſi additis obſeruationibus, ceu uinculis quibuſdam, ordo ipſe & decorum conſistăt… Prioris generis [decĕtiæ] exempla ſunt apud Paulum, ne mulieres in eccleſia doceant, ut uelatæ procedant (1.Cor.11).” [For otherwise it (the Church) cannot have what Paul requires, that all things be done decently and from order, unless order itself and decency stand through additional observances, as through particular bonds…  There are examples of the first type (decency) among Paul’s writings, for women not to teach in the church, and for them to appear veiled.] This same section is present in every edition of Calvin’s Institute. In the final (1559) edition, it appears in Book IV., Chapter x., Section 27. Scans of the First Edition can be accessed here: http://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/content/titleinfo/1920842.An English translation of the 1559 edition can be accessed here: https://archive.org/details/instituteschris02allegoog.

[3] It is not the perspective of any classical Reformed commentator that I know of, but I personally suspect that the mysterious “angels” spoken of in 1Cor. 11:10 are also merely earthly “angels,” because the word ἄγγελος can simply mean “messenger” or “news-bearer.” [See Liddell Scott Jones, The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), accessed April 25, 2014, Source: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/] In context, then, all that Paul would have meant by the woman needing to have authority on her head “because of the angels” was that news of the Corinthians’ indecency was in danger of becoming a public scandal, to the harm of the Church. This, I feel, would make the most sense of the expression “therefore” (διὰ τοῦτο), which seems out of place if the “angels” were anything other than what Paul had already just talked about—and he had just talked about public shame.

[4] For this reason, many of the Reformers argued that there was nothing unbiblical about a male minister wearing caps, because by their own time of history, it was proper to the appearance of the ministerial office to wear some kind headgear that signified his office. For example, regarding 1Cor. 11:4, Calvin makes the remark, “Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.” [John Calvin, Commentary of the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians: Vol. 1, trans. John Pringle (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1848), 555, https://archive.org/details/commentaryonepis01calvuoft.]

-----------