With drama, if the purpose of the drama is to teach, surely it is a form of teaching? Do we not have liberty as to how we teach? Is the sermon the only permissible form of teaching? You could make a strong case from the Bible that teaching should be interactive. And what about a dramatised Bible story? That could be considered both a scripture reading and a teaching.

I also thought about the Scripture itself – for example when Paul wrote his letters (which were most of the references you gave), the NT canon had not been compiled and so he was undoubtedly referring to the Jewish bible. So you could say that there is no NT mandate for reading the NT in church! What about baptism – as far as I know, all biblical examples were done in public, in the open air, and not inside a building behind closed doors. So the Bible appears to clearly specify not just the element of baptism, but also some aspects of its form and circumstances. The argument could be made that as baptism is a public profession of faith, then it is an essential element of baptism for it to be done in a public place. The meaning of the element is affected by the form and circumstances.

On liturgies, I have worshipped in the Church of England and there is actually considerable flexibility. Most evangelical Anglican churches don’t use much in the way of set prayers, and there are many different liturgical options to choose from. I don’t know what the “extra-biblical elements” you mentioned are.

The truth is that the RPW can be interpreted however you want. Hence my view that it is simply a way to justify the status quo. It is a completely meaningless and irrelevant concept that falls apart under close examination.

On the contrary, I readily admit that there are many gradations within the RWP, however, most of the differences have to do with form and not with the elements themselves. The examples you cite, for example, are mostly to do with form. Everyone agrees that the elements of music is acceptable, there is just disagreement as to what form it will take.

Drama, however, is a unique element that has no biblical warrant, except for baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Church buildings is another step removed. It has to do with the circumstances of worship, which allow for even more liberty. I would suggest you read my more thorough discussion of the RPW here: http://www.religiousaffections.org/articles/worship/the-liberating-regulative-principle-of-worship

RE: liturgies. I am not against liturgy at all. We all have liturgy. In fact, I am all for a formal liturgy in worship. What I am against is the kind of prescribed liturgy of the Church of England or the RCC that prescribes certain prayers to be spoken and other extra-biblical elements to be included.

Of the course the RPW is a man-make system. It is simply an honest attempt by conservative Christians throughout the ages to allow God to determine how he wants to be worship instead of relying on our own creativity and ingenuity. It is an attempt by godly pastors to protect the consciences of their people.

You see the RPW as a homogenous belief, but in reality there are numerous different versions of it. Historically, many churches that subscribed to it adopted exclusive a cappella psalmody, but most of those now permit hymns and instruments. And, whilst drama isn’t mentioned in the NT, what if the purpose of the drama is to teach?

The elephant in the room is, of course, the room itself, for church buildings have no biblical authority!

I could say more, but basically the RPW is a man-made invention that is used to justify the status quo in certain churches by means of a selective interpretation of the Bible.

This was not intended to be a thorough defense of the RWP. For a more detailed biblical defense of the principle, please see this post: http://www.religiousaffections.org/articles/worship/the-liberating-regulative-principle-of-worship

Further, the appeal to Cain was not a direct appeal for the RWP, but simply an illustration of the fact that people since the beginning have been struggling with the worship issue.

Thanks for your comment!

When it comes to what we may allow, I believe we must stick with the NT because the Church did not exist in the OT. However, there are transdispensational principles in the OT that can and should inform our worship.

So another example of this would be music. Music is clearly prescribed in the NT, so once we have the prescription, I believe that we can look to the OT for guidance on what forms it may take.

In other words, we must get our elements from the NT, but then we can use the whole of Scripture to inform the way we implement those elements.