The Regulative Principle

The Regulative Prince is

whatever is not commanded is forbidden

Now I would say it should be "whatever is commanded is necessary and what is not commanded is forbidden" but thats not what this post is about. What it is about is John Frame has a different view on its implications.

Is buying cabbage really adiaphoron, morally indifferent? I would say no. Buying cabbage, like all human actions, is a matter of concern to God. He says, "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). This command, like those in Rom 14:23, Col 3:17, 24, and elsewhere, is absolutely general. It covers all human activities, including buying cabbage. If we buy cabbage to the glory of God, he is pleased; if we do not, he is not. The act is not morally indifferent or neutral; it is either good or bad, depending on its goal and motive. Therefore, in an important sense, there are no adiaphora; there is no human act that is morally neutral.7 Every human act is either right or wrong, either pleasing or displeasing to God.

This means that all human actions are ruled by divine commandments. There is no neutral area where God permits us to be our own lawgivers. There is no area of human life where God abdicates his rule, or where his word to us is silent. What law governs the buying of cabbage? Well, 1 Cor 10:31 at least, not to mention narrower biblical principles requiring parents to nourish their children, to guard the health of themselves and others, etc. Actions in accord with these biblical principles are right, actions not in accord with them are wrong. It is not a matter of merely avoiding explicit prohibitions; rather it is a matter of keeping the commands of God.

And thus I would conclude that all human life is under RP1, and RP2 plays no role in biblical ethics.8 In every action, we are either obeying or disobeying a biblical command.

Now the RP2 is the Lutheran model:

"whatever is not forbidden is permitted

So if all of life is to be governed by the Regulative Principle, one would have to figure out several defenses. For instance:

Using computers
Using automobiles
Spending time on the internet
Plowing fields with machinery
Using machinery for that matter
Watching Television
Campaigning for an office
Spending a single second in some mindless entertainment like a movie or video games

Now Frame may actually take away this requirement because he goes on to say:

Does this mean that God commands me to buy a particular cabbage at the store? No. God commands me to glorify him, etc., and buying the cabbage is a "mode," a "way" of fulfilling that commandment. I could, perhaps, have fulfilled it in many other ways. Strict as it is, RP1 allows, both in worship (as we have seen) and in the rest of life, some freedom of application. Here again, there is no real difference between worship and the rest of life. In both cases, the three qualifications listed earlier must be taken into account: (a) we determine our responsibilities not only on the basis of explicit proof texts, but also on the basis of "good and necessary consequence"; (b) there are some "circumstances" not specifically mentioned in Scripture which we seek to arrange wisely, in accord with the broader principles of the word; and (c) Scripture grants us much (though not unlimited) freedom in the ways we carry out divine commands.

With that, I would say the requirement of defenses falls to only:
Watching TV
Spending Time on the INternet
And Spending time with other entertainments
Plus whatever things I didn't think of in the few seconds I spent thinking up stuff that match the new criteria

For instance can playing a video game like for instance Halo glorify God? I suppose one could evangelize while playing it. But doing that while shooting other players seems a bit of a stretch. But I suppose Evangelism could be used for doing any of those things.

Of course there is the question of where is the line between following rules and legalism? And what about Christian Liberty as defined in 1 Corinthians?