After a long discussion, he finally concluded: “There are distinct ions … between faith-worship and other human activities, but those differences are subtle, not as sharp as they are sometimes made out to be. There is a basic unity of structure among all of life’s activities in their relation to God’s law.” Again, we shall see the consequences of the professor’s thinking along these lines in his later writings on worship, and the results are not subtle. Mr. Frame also discussed the issues of exclusive psalmody and musical instrumentation. Regarding the content of worship song, he framed the debate this way: “The logical status of song: What is song? Is it an ‘element’ of worship…? A ‘circumstance?’ An aspect of some other element?” Having set up the terms of debate according to his preferences, he argued: “We must not simply assume that it is an independent element, as, e.g., John Murray does in his minority report to the OPC General Assembly. Some argument is needed.” His position is as follows: “I maintain that song is not an independent ‘element’ of worship, but a form by which other elements are carried on. It is a form of prayer, praise, teaching , etc.” He also argued: “If song is really a form of prayer, teaching, etc., then when we apply the regulative principle, we must ask, not what scripture commands us to sing, but rather what scripture commands us to pray, teach, etc. But all Christians agree that extra-scriptural words may be used in prayer, praise, and teaching” (“Christian Life,”). Here, we can see more clearly the problem in Professor Frame’s position. The regulative principle means that the particular elements or parts of worship are prescribed; but in his view, it is merely aspects (prayer, praise, teaching, exhortation, etc.) which are Biblically mandated—aspect s which can come to expression in a variety of ways. 

Accordingly, even the reading of scripture would not necessarily be a prescribed element of worship, since all Christians agree that extra-scriptural words may be used in teaching. As a matter of fact , neither the reading of the Word nor the preaching of the Word could be considered to be mandated under Professor Frame’s system. If it is true that whatever you may preach you may also sing, then there is nothing to prohibit someone from singing a sermon rather than preaching it. Further confusion regarding the regulative principle is manifest in Professor Frame’s consideration of the question of instrumental music. On the one hand, he appealed to various scripture passages which mention musical instruments, in an effort to justify using them in public worship today; on the other hand, he wrote that instruments are a “circumstance” which can “provide the important function of coordinating pitch and rhythm in the singing” (“Christian Life,” 157). But, a circumstance of worship is something which, by definition, is outside of scripture; to appeal to scripture to justify a particular practice and simultaneously to assert that that practice is a matter of circumstance, is contradictory.