Professor Frame summarized as follows (“Christian Life,”): 

(A) Elements of worship must be prescribed by scripture. ‘Whatever is not commanded is forbidden.’ In Lutheranism a different principle prevails, ‘Whatsoever is not forbidden is permitted.’ Roman Catholicism is even further from the Reformed principle, claiming the right to command what scripture neither commands nor forbids. Modernism is even worse, permitting and at times commanding what scripture forbids. 

(B) The regulative principle does not require that everything we do in worship be the response to a specific divine command. Acts performed in response to inferences from scripture or as circumstances of worship are permitted. Again, what we see here is a blurring of the categories. What the Westminster Seminary professor giveth in point (A), he taketh away in point (B). If the regulative principle has any meaning—and is meaningfully distinct from, say, a Lutheran formulation—the elements of worship constitute the particular acts of worship; but in this professor’s framework, particular acts may themselves be “circumstances” of worship (and therefore, by definition, not requiring a divine command). Professor Frame went on to question the wisdom of the Westminster Confession of Faith in drawing a sharp distinction between life in general and worship in particular.