# Reformation Sunday and the RPW



## BGF (Oct 20, 2015)

Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter, etc. Many on this board see the observation of these holidays and seasons as a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship, and I am very sympathetic to that view. With the advent (pun intended) of Reformation Sunday. What justification is there for the observation of this day in light of the RPW? I view the practice favorably but wonder if I'm inconsistent in my thinking. 

If you argue against the celebration of man made holidays, what is the justification for celebrating this one?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 20, 2015)

The reason that many do not observe days like Christmas and Easter is because these man-made holidays have been elevated to the status of "holy" days, and the reason that many choose not to observe Halloween is because it openly celebrates evil. As long as such occasions avoid these pitfalls, there is nothing inherently wrong with observing a special day. I doubt many would object to observing a day such as Independence Day or Memorial Day precisely because they manage to avoid those things. The only trouble I can see with such a day is that it is apparently on Sunday. We must be careful not to distract from what we have already been commanded regarding the Sabbath, and I can see how Reformation Sunday might do just that.


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2015)

BGF said:


> If you argue against the celebration of man made holidays, what is the justification for celebrating this one?



I think Reformation Day arose in Lutheran and Reformed communions which already accepted the observance of holy days.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 20, 2015)

From the Directory for the Publick Worship of God


> Concerning the Observation of Days of Publick Thanksgiving.
> 
> WHEN any such day is to be kept, let notice be given of it, and of the occasion thereof, some convenient time before, that the people may the better prepare themselves thereunto.
> 
> The day being come, and the congregation (after private preparations) being assembled, the minister is to begin with a word of exhortation, to stir up the people to the duty for which they are met, and with a short prayer for God's assistance and blessing, (as at other conventions for publick worship,) according to the particular occasion of their meeting.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 20, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> From the Directory for the Publick Worship of God
> 
> 
> > Concerning the Observation of Days of Publick Thanksgiving.
> ...



So would this in your mind be justification for a yearly event? If so why not Christmas and Easter?


----------



## BGF (Oct 20, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > From the Directory for the Publick Worship of God
> ...



Earl,

I was thinking along the same lines. When does an occasional call for a thanksgiving assembly become an expected yearly observance?


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2015)

earl40 said:


> So would this in your mind be justification for a yearly event? If so why not Christmas and Easter?



There is no justification for an annual day of ecclesiastical thanksgiving. The divines were speaking of thanksgiving which followed individual providential occurrences, just as with days of humiliation.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 20, 2015)

We don't fast annually for some providence that no longer is occurring.


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2015)

Jeremiah Burroughs, Exposition of Hosea (1643), 409: "Though men may thus depute and appoint days to worship God, yet they cannot state any such days, but as God’s providence permits, according to the present occasion. Therefore it would be a sin for a state to appoint nominally a day for religious fasting: God did so, but men have no power to do so, because they do not know but God may call them to rejoicing upon that day, they have not knowledge of the times. All that we can do is this, when God calls us to fasting, we must appoint days of fasting; when God calls us to rejoicing, we must appoint days of rejoicing. Therefore to appoint the time of Lent as a religious fast is sinful, and the statute itself threatens a mulct upon that man who shall call it a religious fast: stated fasts, which are not limited by Providence, are certainly evil. The monthly fasts now enjoined, if we should say we will have them once a month till this day twelvemonths, or two years, I persuade myself the state should sin; but to have it as long as God’s hand is upon us, as long as the occasion lasts, and God’s providence calls us to it, is justifiable."


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 20, 2015)

I agree with Bill that "Reformation Sunday" distracts from the Sabbath. "Reformation Day" (observed around the 31st, but not on the Sabbath) is not as dangerous, but it still makes me wary. It's probably unwise to multiply annual celebrations in the modern West, where there is so much confusion about holy days.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 20, 2015)

As a side note why would we celebrate Reformation Day in that it appears the time of great reformation has passed? Maybe we could have a call to mourn the state of the church in that the majority of it knows as much about the reformation as I do about Quantum physics. I was speaking to a coworker yesterday about so called holy days and said that if I was in mourning during a holy day and wanted to cry while others celebrate I would be looked upon as acting inappropriate. Now if I am sad I can weep in church on His Holy Day and not be looked at as if I had 3 eyes. Not so if I am at a service that is designated a celebration. Our Lord gave us the one day a week to act and be human before Him which can entail both mirth and joy. I can attest that I loved being in church on Sunday while I mourned the death of my loved ones and I had no one look at me as if I was crazy because I was in mourning. This simply does not happen with so called holy day celebrations.


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 21, 2015)

We enjoy warm fellowship around a meal, then have a huge worship service with brothers from surrounding congregations. How in the world does that detract from the sabbath?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 21, 2015)

The problem is in the fact the Sabbath is the day for the regular, public worship of God; not for man-made celebrations. I don't think it matters if what one is celebrating is a good thing: the Sabbath is not for that. Our upcoming Communion Season will be over the weekend which includes Remembrance "Sunday" (the Sabbath closest to the 11th of November, Armistice Day), commemorating the end of WW2. This happens every year. Now, commemorating the sacrifice and the bravery of those who fought and died protecting our country and other free countries in WW2 is a commendable thing to do, but it is not appropriate for the Sabbath, which is strictly regulated by the Word of God. We will not observe that commemoration because we are gathered to worship God as He has appointed (beside the fact that we are commemorating an infinitely greater and more efficacious sacrifice). The Sabbath is the Lord's Day: it is the one day of the week He has reserved for Himself and for His people to worship Him. It is not for us to start "doubling up" celebrations- of whatever kind- on His day because, as is often the case, it's convenient (we'll get a bigger crowd than during a weekday; captive audience) or even if it's "religious". Man-made celebrations/remembrances should be kept for the six days which God has given us for our own labour and recreation. This is where the RPW becomes so valuable: it makes us analyse whether what we're doing, even if it's "religious" or commendable, is something which God Himself has asked and commanded of us. Fallen man is always tempted to add to and tweak the worship of God, thinking he will make it more appealing, more appropriate, or even to celebrate worthy things/events; this tendency is to be resisted. It is not what God has commanded.

I think that is a very good point in relation to appointing annual events/celebrations divorced from providence. It is quite appropriate for a church body to appoint a day of fasting, or thanksgiving, or humiliation and prayer in response to a particular act of providence, or act of a nation's government, or at a time of war &c. but these should be on an "ad hoc" basis, as deemed appropriate at the time.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 21, 2015)

I'm curious if most of you don't celebrate Thanksgiving for the same reasons articulated.

Incidentally, I'm not arguing for it to disrupt the normal worship of God. I don't think anyone is calling it a holy day or a day that is required to be remembered. Whether it qualifies formally for a day of Thanksgiving. No Churches are making it a stated worship service where people are expected to attend. I find it interesting that the Puritans regularly practiced preaching outside of stated worship services but that when people want to voluntarily (not under compulsion) gather for a service outside of stated worship to gather to remember the Reformation that we're calling it a holy day. It seems like a category error to me.

What's the fundamental difference between people meeting in a home after Church to give the day over to the Lord and gathering together later as regional Churches (that only occurs very infrequently) to have fellowship and a time of worship?

Would there even be, in some minds, any reason why local congregations ought to be encouraged to gather together on an annual or semi-annual basis to worship together or are we making it a "holy day" any time we do that? I'm seriously asking becaus, universally, everyone who attends talks about what a blessing it is to spend time together as a broader Church (since we're not Baptists) and the desire to do it more often. Nobody is compelled to come but it seems as if, for some, the mere mention of any kind of regular gathering of Churches becomes, de facto, a "holy day" and we're crypto-Anglican because we desire to gather together for a time of worship.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 21, 2015)

Is what is described below a "Holy Day"?



> Prophesyings
> 
> A third form of Puritan preaching was the prophesyings—also called “exercises” or “godly exercises.” Prophesyings were a kind of biblical conference or form of continuing education for the ministers.27 Though the forms varied in different localities, prophesyings were held at centrally located churches where three to six ministers would preach on the same text, moving from the youngest to the oldest. The last preacher would summarize the findings and emphasize the practical “uses” of the doctrines that were expounded. A senior moderator would then lead a session critiquing the sermons. In these “iron-sharpens-iron” sessions, ministers could hone their exegetical and preaching skills.
> From the early 1570s on, the public was invited to some of these preaching seminars, since they too had a passion for sound preaching. Not all ministers were in favor of this practice, however. Francis Bacon (1561–1626) later wrote, “I know that prophesyings were subject to great abuse, and would be more abused now; because heat of contentions is increased. But I say the only reason of the abuse was, because there was admitted to it a popular auditory, and it was not contained within a private conference of ministers.”28 The public—sometimes as many as a few hundred—sat in the back of a conference, usually with the Geneva Bible open on their laps, looking up each text cited by the ministers. Afterward, they often could ask questions that the ministers would answer. Sometimes, however, they were excluded from the critiquing sessions so they would not intimidate ministers whose sermons were being “censured.”
> ...


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 21, 2015)

We do not observe it with other churches, and I rarely even mention it--maybe I'll recall once every 6-7 years. I do schedule "A Mighty Fortress most years, but mostly as an afterthought and because it's a good hymn that we sing well. If a church in the West does utilize it today it should be in sackcloth and ashes because the Church is in disrepair. To The Torah!


----------



## earl40 (Oct 21, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm curious if most of you don't celebrate Thanksgiving for the same reasons articulated.



What I do this time a year is enjoy the family get together and am grateful to The Lord He has allowed me to enjoy this time via the sinful proclamation of this day by the magistrate being set apart....every year. Now in saying this what The Pilgrims did was to have that first thanksgiving which specifically celebrated the providence at that time. Now someone can correct me if I remember incorrectly that the first Puritans did not last too long here in the USA and maybe we could have called for a time of mourning for them after they vanished? Of course hard to do if hardly anybody is left to mourn.  So am not I celebrating "Thanksgiving" officially but am grateful to the Lord for providing myself with a day off of work (sometimes) though my wife and the ladies do not celebrate it to the extent I do because I enjoy the fruit of their labor which I would happily give up if they wished.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 21, 2015)

To me the issue isn't one of making it a "holy day": churches are free to organise lectures, conferences &c. as they see fit. The issue is the Sabbath. People should only be going to other people's homes on the Sabbath if they have been in the public worship together. Meeting up with others, especially for events, becomes social visiting which is not for the Sabbath, if we follow the teaching of the Westminster Standards on the keeping and sanctification of the Sabbath.

Preaching outside the public worship service is different: it is the primary means of grace, and there is Biblical precedent for "street preaching". Of course great wisdom and discernment is necessary when approaching such a task.

But I see no reason why these celebrations need to be held on a Sabbath. It is not a Biblically mandated service/event therefore it should be kept to those days which God has given us for our own labour and recreation.

But there is also a lot to the point that what do we actually have to celebrate, when the church has fallen into such a dismal state? If our churches were full of the same spirit and spirituality of the Reformers and the Puritans and the older godly generations I have the feeling we wouldn't need an annual day to celebrate the Reformation: we would be living it out in our lives, in our congregations and denominations on a daily basis.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 21, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> But there is also a lot to the point that what do we actually have to celebrate, when the church has fallen into such a dismal state?


The issue is not whether the past is being celebrated or whether the Church at large is in a healthy state. Most Reformation Day services I've been involved in are times not where we're celebrating things being in a good state but an opportunity for the people gathered to be reminded of Reformational principles. It's a time to be reminded of Semper Reformanda and that the Church needs to stay true to the principles recovered in the Reformation.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing that members of several Churches desiring to gather on the Lord's Day at a Church is inappropriate where the only appropriate use of the time is private or family meditation throughout the day. People gathering to hear someone preach about the nature of faith or grace doesn't seem to me to be a violation of the day being given to the Lord. Again, nobody is binding the conscience that they must use that time on the Sabbath to attend the service but it does afford opportunity for the regional Church members to gather in one place to worship. I get the impression from some that the very idea that Churches could gather is the establishment of a holy day even if it didn't occur on the Sabbath.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 21, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> To me the issue isn't one of making it a "holy day": churches are free to organise lectures, conferences &c. as they see fit. The issue is the Sabbath. People should only be going to other people's homes on the Sabbath if they have been in the public worship together. Meeting up with others, especially for events, becomes social visiting which is not for the Sabbath, if we follow the teaching of the Westminster Standards on the keeping and sanctification of the Sabbath.
> 
> Preaching outside the public worship service is different: it is the primary means of grace, and there is Biblical precedent for "street preaching". Of course great wisdom and discernment is necessary when approaching such a task.
> 
> ...



Alexander, as I mentioned, the church I serve doesn't participate in "group church gatherings" on this Sunday, and I rarely mention it. However, I recall Missouri Presbytery many moons ago (late 90's early 00's) having massive gatherings in one of the larger churches on that Sabbath evening. The worship was marvelous, the preaching sound, the service twice as long as usual, and it wasn't a "celebration" of any sort. Maybe you've picked up the wrong impression of what occurs here in the States--in the NAPARC world. Actually, I've never been to a Reformation Sunday service in a NAPARC church that was anything but a normal Sabbath service. The preaching was always Word faithful and not man-centered, nor "holy day" centered.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 21, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The issue is not whether the past is being celebrated or whether the Church at large is in a healthy state. Most Reformation Day services I've been involved in are times not where we're celebrating things being in a good state but an opportunity for the people gathered to be reminded of Reformational principles. It's a time to be reminded of Semper Reformanda and that the Church needs to stay true to the principles recovered in the Reformation.



So we have a pastor give an "optional" call to worship?




Semper Fidelis said:


> I guess I'm having a hard time seeing that members of several Churches desiring to gather on the Lord's Day at a Church is inappropriate where the only appropriate use of the time is private or family meditation throughout the day. People gathering to hear someone preach about the nature of faith or grace doesn't seem to me to be a violation of the day being given to the Lord. Again, nobody is binding the conscience that they must use that time on the Sabbath to attend the service but it does afford opportunity for the regional Church members to gather in one place to worship. I get the impression from some that the very idea that Churches could gather is the establishment of a holy day even if it didn't occur on the Sabbath.



If members of several churches gather around every year to celebrate reformation day may I ask what is the difference between that and gathering every year on easter Sunday? In my most humble opinion this is establishing a certain day above and apart from the other Sundays. Now I understand you believe this would be optional, though the option is if one does not go they would be missing out on something special, which if The Lord wanted His children to attend it would be sinful in of itself. It is clear what Our Lord wants or requires of us, and "optional" attendance is based on the will or preference of individuals.

PS. I am not one of the "some" who would say if a group of churches wanted to gather during the week to worship is sinful. To pray for a particular providential working of God when circumstance call for such is I believe a pastors prerogative. Though I would feel and think I missed a grace of God that I should not have missed and may I ask.....is that a good thing?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 21, 2015)

So, as long as there is no planned regularity to it and the Churches make sure they are completely random about when they decide to get together to have a service where all the Churches are invited then it's OK? Perhaps a random number generator where the month and day are picked (excluding when it falls on Sunday) so as to avoid any taint that it might become a holy day of obligation?

The point to the service is like any other gathering at a Church outside of the appointed time for worship. One can preach outside of the normal Sunday morning worship service (and even have a call to worship) without it being Sunday worship where members are expected to gather weekly on the Lord's Day.

Presbytery meetings are once a quarter here and any/all are welcome to attend. There is a worship service (with preaching since some men have to be examined on their preaching). Only members of the Presbytery and commissioners must request an excused absence. Is the fact that this is predictable and once a quarter now a "holy day"? I might add that both Presbytery meetings (and the General Assembly) worship services are quite profitable but I would not presume to say that those who do not attend are sinning because they have the option to not make it to these services.


----------



## Captain Picard (Oct 21, 2015)

I already posted the "I'm not opposed, generally speaking" thing on the Halloween thread, so I suppose my thoughts here and there could be merged. I don't see anything wrong with a mention of the Reformation on the nearest Sunday, or an observation in thanksgiving of the day as long as it is severed from superstitious practices or matters of explicit sin. Certainly to observe it in the way Rome does its fasts and feasts would be wrong, but I don't think my bible study watching a movie and fellowshipping in observation of the day is a superstitious holy day.

And, in passing, I have to say, saying we shouldn't be celebrating the providence of the Reformation because it "isn't happening anymore" is kind of odd to me. Is the true bride of Christ not "semper reformanda"? Do the ripples in history cast by the Reformation still have benefits for us and our descendants?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 21, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> So, as long as there is no planned regularity to it and the Churches make sure they are completely random about when they decide to get together to have a service where all the Churches are invited then it's OK? Perhaps a random number generator where the month and day are picked (excluding when it falls on Sunday) so as to avoid any taint that it might become a holy day of obligation?
> 
> The point to the service is like any other gathering at a Church outside of the appointed time for worship. One can preach outside of the normal Sunday morning worship service (and even have a call to worship) without it being Sunday worship where members are expected to gather weekly on the Lord's Day.
> 
> Presbytery meetings are once a quarter here and any/all are welcome to attend. There is a worship service (with preaching since some men have to be examined on their preaching). Only members of the Presbytery and commissioners must request an excused absence. Is the fact that this is predictable and once a quarter now a "holy day"? I might add that both Presbytery meetings (and the General Assembly) worship services are quite profitable but I would not presume to say that those who do not attend are sinning because they have the option to not make it to these services.



When you gather for Presbytery meetings is this not an orderly thing where you ask God to bless your meeting _at that particular time_ and do so withing the context of a service? This may be appropriate to do, in the providence of God, for that time you meet. Of course I am sure there are others here that have thought about this more deeply than I have, though I know that the idea of a reformation day celebration service every year is no different in my mind than christmas and easter. May I ask why one would need an excuse to not attend the service at Presbytery? There may be a reason which I am not aware of that is derived from scripture.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 21, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> Do the ripples in history cast by the Reformation still have benefits for us and our descendants?



As a former RC I can say each and every day, especially on Sunday, I think of this and thank God for The Reformation.


----------



## Captain Picard (Oct 21, 2015)

earl40 said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> > Do the ripples in history cast by the Reformation still have benefits for us and our descendants?
> ...



Praise God for *former* RCs, myself included.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 22, 2015)

earl40 said:


> When you gather for Presbytery meetings is this not an orderly thing where you ask God to bless your meeting at that particular time and do so withing the context of a service? This may be appropriate to do, in the providence of God, for that time you meet. Of course I am sure there are others here that have thought about this more deeply than I have, though I know that the idea of a reformation day celebration service every year is no different in my mind than christmas and easter. May I ask why one would need an excuse to not attend the service at Presbytery? There may be a reason which I am not aware of that is derived from scripture.


There is a worship service before the Presbytery meeting. I don't know where you got the idea that I was calling for a disorderly worship service.

The point is that a worship service occurs once a quarter before the Presbytery meeting. It is not therefore, by definition, a holy day, because the time for each Presbytery meeting is set in our Presbytery's Bylaws.

It's not so much being excused from worship, per se, but the Presbytery meeting itself. All members of Presbytery (namely TE's) are required to attend Presbytery meetings or seek an excused absence. They are not required to seek an excused absence from the worship service that precedes the Presbytery meeting. It is profitable for them to be there and we're often hearing either a potential licentiate or ordinand preach so we can evaluate his preaching as he'll either be approved/disapproved later that day in the meeting.

The larger issue is that it is an example of a regular gathering of people for the purposes of worship that is not at the appointed Lord's Day time that is not something that every member of every Church in the area is required to attend although they are perfectly welcome to attend and it might be profitable for them to do so. It is not a "holy day" because it occurs with regularity.

As for Christmas and Easter, the idea that every yearly or semiannual opportunity that a Church sets up to invite other Churches to gather for a time of worship together is, by extension, equivalent is a category error. As I said earlier, even if everyone was eager to get all the Churches together for a time of worship at some agreed upon time every year outside of weekly corporate worship then it could never happen, by definition, because it has to be viewed as a holy day. This logic is patently absurd. I don't see any reason why quarterly Presbytery worship services are not, by definition, caught up in the same category if this is true.

The 4th Commandment requires weekly gathering of the people for worship. There is a requirement for all, if able, to attend to worship God with the people of God on the Lord's Day.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 22, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't know where you got the idea that I was calling for a disorderly worship service.



I apologize if you saw I did such.  I simply meant to covey that the regular call to worship every quarter is simply out of the ordinary day Our Lord appoints.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 22, 2015)

MW said:


> Jeremiah Burroughs, Exposition of Hosea (1643), 409: "Though men may thus depute and appoint days to worship God, yet they cannot state any such days, but as God’s providence permits, according to the present occasion. Therefore it would be a sin for a state to appoint nominally a day for religious fasting: God did so, but men have no power to do so, because they do not know but God may call them to rejoicing upon that day, they have not knowledge of the times. All that we can do is this, when God calls us to fasting, we must appoint days of fasting; when God calls us to rejoicing, we must appoint days of rejoicing. Therefore to appoint the time of Lent as a religious fast is sinful, and the statute itself threatens a mulct upon that man who shall call it a religious fast: stated fasts, which are not limited by Providence, are certainly evil. The monthly fasts now enjoined, if we should say we will have them once a month till this day twelvemonths, or two years, I persuade myself the state should sin; but to have it as long as God’s hand is upon us, as long as the occasion lasts, and God’s providence calls us to it, is justifiable."



I can see where the state can do such as providence lasts. So what about how the quarterly worship services the church calls to the pastors every quarter? Of course I ask as one who is not an officer in the church but I suppose there may be a history of pastors gathering and worshipping before the gathering, and if so was there any disagreement if this ought to be done? Maybe Pastor Strange would have some thoughts on this with his background.


----------



## bookslover (Oct 22, 2015)

BGF said:


> Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter, etc. Many on this board see the observation of these holidays and seasons as a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship, and I am very sympathetic to that view. With the advent (pun intended) of Reformation Sunday. What justification is there for the observation of this day in light of the RPW? I view the practice favorably but wonder if I'm inconsistent in my thinking.
> 
> If you argue against the celebration of man made holidays, what is the justification for celebrating this one?



Getting back to the OP: Doesn't the RPW only apply specifically to what goes on during a stated Lord's Day worship service? If so, then I don't see how it can be applied to making declarations, one way or the other, about Christmas, Easter, etc.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 22, 2015)

No, that is not correct.
"But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." WCF 21.1.


bookslover said:


> Getting back to the OP: Doesn't the RPW only apply specifically to what goes on during a stated Lord's Day worship service?


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 22, 2015)

bookslover said:


> BGF said:
> 
> 
> > Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter, etc. Many on this board see the observation of these holidays and seasons as a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship, and I am very sympathetic to that view. With the advent (pun intended) of Reformation Sunday. What justification is there for the observation of this day in light of the RPW? I view the practice favorably but wonder if I'm inconsistent in my thinking.
> ...



Think of it this way: may you worship God through statues and images in your closet?


----------



## bookslover (Oct 22, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> No, that is not correct.
> "But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." WCF 21.1.
> 
> 
> ...



Judging by your quotation, my statement *is* correct.


----------



## BGF (Oct 22, 2015)

bookslover said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > No, that is not correct.
> ...



No. The quoted section is from the chapter titled "Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day". The first section deals with the principle of how God is to be worshipped generally. The Sabbath Day worship is detailed later. 

Worship occurs outside of of the Lord's Day service. The rules may be different, but there are still rules.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 23, 2015)

No, it isn't, as Brett and Tyler have articulated. See WSC 51 and WLC 109. 


bookslover said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > No, that is not correct.
> ...


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Oct 24, 2015)

MW said:


> Jeremiah Burroughs, Exposition of Hosea (1643), 409: "Though men may thus depute and appoint days to worship God, yet they cannot state any such days, but as God’s providence permits, according to the present occasion. Therefore it would be a sin for a state to appoint nominally a day for religious fasting: God did so, but men have no power to do so, because they do not know but God may call them to rejoicing upon that day, they have not knowledge of the times. All that we can do is this, when God calls us to fasting, we must appoint days of fasting; when God calls us to rejoicing, we must appoint days of rejoicing. Therefore to appoint the time of Lent as a religious fast is sinful, and the statute itself threatens a mulct upon that man who shall call it a religious fast: stated fasts, which are not limited by Providence, are certainly evil. The monthly fasts now enjoined, if we should say we will have them once a month till this day twelvemonths, or two years, I persuade myself the state should sin; but to have it as long as God’s hand is upon us, as long as the occasion lasts, and God’s providence calls us to it, is justifiable."



Rev. Winzer,

I found your quotation interesting. It seems like Burroughs is dealing with "the state" or the governing authority to "appoint nominally a day for religious fasting". I am not suggesting that a church should appoint a day nominally, but was this quotation in context with the idea of the state being a Christian state?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Oct 25, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremiah Burroughs, Exposition of Hosea (1643), 409: "Though men may thus depute and appoint days to worship God, yet they cannot state any such days, but as God’s providence permits, according to the present occasion. Therefore it would be a sin for a state to appoint nominally a day for religious fasting: God did so, but men have no power to do so, because they do not know but God may call them to rejoicing upon that day, they have not knowledge of the times. All that we can do is this, when God calls us to fasting, we must appoint days of fasting; when God calls us to rejoicing, we must appoint days of rejoicing. Therefore to appoint the time of Lent as a religious fast is sinful, and the statute itself threatens a mulct upon that man who shall call it a religious fast: stated fasts, which are not limited by Providence, are certainly evil. The monthly fasts now enjoined, if we should say we will have them once a month till this day twelvemonths, or two years, I persuade myself the state should sin; but to have it as long as God’s hand is upon us, as long as the occasion lasts, and God’s providence calls us to it, is justifiable."
> ...



It was dealing more broadly with the authority of man in general, just in this case applied to the state. If the state, which has the broadest human authority over the actions of man, has no authority to appoint a day, how can a church who is limited to binding the conscience of man only in things commanded by God have such authority? What authority has any man, whether priest or king, to institute worship practices of his own devising?


----------



## MW (Oct 25, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I found your quotation interesting. It seems like Burroughs is dealing with "the state" or the governing authority to "appoint nominally a day for religious fasting". I am not suggesting that a church should appoint a day nominally, but was this quotation in context with the idea of the state being a Christian state?



Chris has answered correctly that Burroughs was dealing with the authority of man in general and using State authority as an example. It was a Christian State at the time, and the Parliament had called for monthly fasts and occasional thanksgivings. The Scots had some scruple over the monthly fasts but still preached when called upon.


----------



## BGF (Oct 26, 2015)

I've enjoyed reading all the responses to my OP. When I was younger, the PCUSA church my family attended made a bid deal of Reformation Sunday. There was much ceremony, complete with a Highland bagpipe and drum procession down the center aisle of the sanctuary and a special evening program. I recall it being quite the show. And yet, that's all it was, empty show. Up until this last Lord's Day, I can't recall much mention of Reformation Sunday at my current home church, except in passing. However, Sunday morning, during a brief introduction for a guest preacher from another local PCA congregation, our Senior Pastor gave a short explanation of this observance which was followed by a sermon on one of 5 solas (specifically, grace). It was a biblically based topical sermon that focused on the grace of God. I have no objections to any of this. Our service proceeded with its ordinary flow, other than the guest preacher (again a local PCA pastor and not a celebrity or noted speaker) and the deviation from our sermon series in Matthew. There was no inappropriate celebration of any of the great men of the Reformation on the day set aside to honor the Lord. The pastor did hint that the acknowledgement of this day may become a regular thing, but if done in similar fashion, I'm fine with it. The Reformation was an important moment in history when, in God's sovereignty, he restored the truth of Scripture, which had been suppressed for so long. It should be remembered and it should be taught. More importantly, the truths recovered should be part of the warp and woof of Christ's Church.

But the heart of man is sinful and deceitful. There is danger here. Men are prone to elevate their observations and celebrations to a higher and higher degree, until they are nothing more than the empty howl of the bagpipe and the meaningless thump of the drum. I accuse no one who has responded here of wrongdoing in their Reformation Sunday observances, but I do admit to being very cautious of endorsing the practice. 

I hope every day can be a day to give glory to God alone, who saves us by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the Scriptures alone.


----------

