# Recitation of the Lord's Prayer



## cih1355 (Aug 11, 2008)

Is it a common practice among Reformed churches to recite the Lord's Prayer verbatim during worship services? I'm curious because I recently visited an OPC church in the San Diego area and the Lord's Prayer was recited during the worship service.


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 11, 2008)

We do it frequently, maybe once a month. (OPC)


----------



## Roldan (Aug 11, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Is it a common practice among Reformed churches to recite the Lord's Prayer verbatim during worship services? I'm curious because I recently visited an OPC church in the San Diego area and the Lord's Prayer was recited during the worship service.



Yes, its common. And even though we know that in Christ teaching us how to pray he gave us that Lord's Prayer outline, we still insist on reciting it verbatim as if that was His intent. Some will argue that He meant for us to recite it verbatim but a close examination of the context will teach us otherwise considering the fact that our Lord was actually correcting and teaching His students that REPETITIOUS PRAYER IS MEANINGLESS, lol I scratch my head as to how we so easily overlook that point and rather stay faithful to our presbyterian traditions on this matter rather than being faithful to the text and Sola Scriptura, its just a tradition passed down through the centuries. We recite it at the Church I attend in spanish but I refrain because of my position, not that its bad in and of itself to recite it verbatim but why would I do it if I don't agree, that would be going against my conscience and I'm just not like that. 

My advice to you brother or sis would be just to learn from the content of the Prayer and incorporate its principles into your prayer life.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 11, 2008)

It is also worth noting that the end of the prayer in Matthew is absent from the earliest manuscripts. Matthew 6:13 should end with "deliver us from evil". Much like the "end" of Mark's Gospel. 

"...for Yours is the Kingdom and the power and the glory forever". While true is not found until the 5th or 6th century.


----------



## rescuedbyLove (Aug 11, 2008)

The PCUSA church I went to when I was a kid recites it every Sunday.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 11, 2008)

Of course the real question should be what formulation do you use? 

debts, and debtors

sins, and sinners

or 

trespasses and trespasses against us


----------



## Roldan (Aug 11, 2008)

rescuedbyLove said:


> The PCUSA church I went to when I was a kid recites it every Sunday.




So does my Church. Right at the backend of the Pastors congregational prayer, he ends it in the Lord's Prayer, but whatever.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 11, 2008)

Roldan said:


> Some will argue that He meant for us to recite it verbatim but a close examination of the context will teach us otherwise considering the fact that our Lord was actually correcting and teaching His students that REPETITIOUS PRAYER IS MEANINGLESS, lol I scratch my head as to how we so easily overlook that point and rather stay faithful to our presbyterian traditions on this matter rather than being faithful to the text and Sola Scriptura, its just a tradition passed down through the centuries.



the "vain repetitions" that Christ speaks of certainly can't be directed towards His prayer. I would not call anything that our Lord teaches to be "vain."
Another way of looking at it is a prohibition against "repetitious babbling" since it points to a senseless repetition of meaningless words.

I would think that the prohibition speaks more against what we see in some charismatic circles with their supposed speaking in tongues.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 11, 2008)

One more thing...

Look at Luke 11:1-4


----------



## N. Eshelman (Aug 11, 2008)

My congregation recites in the AM worship right after the pastoral prayer. I can take it or leave it. 

I do not think that the RPW prohibits it, so I am not opposed to it.


----------



## rescuedbyLove (Aug 11, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> > Some will argue that He meant for us to recite it verbatim but a close examination of the context will teach us otherwise considering the fact that our Lord was actually correcting and teaching His students that REPETITIOUS PRAYER IS MEANINGLESS, lol I scratch my head as to how we so easily overlook that point and rather stay faithful to our presbyterian traditions on this matter rather than being faithful to the text and Sola Scriptura, its just a tradition passed down through the centuries.
> ...



Anything you say without thinking, or without really meaning it from your heart, is vain. The words our Lord used were not vain when HE said them, but they can be when we say them.


----------



## Roldan (Aug 11, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> > Some will argue that He meant for us to recite it verbatim but a close examination of the context will teach us otherwise considering the fact that our Lord was actually correcting and teaching His students that REPETITIOUS PRAYER IS MEANINGLESS, lol I scratch my head as to how we so easily overlook that point and rather stay faithful to our presbyterian traditions on this matter rather than being faithful to the text and Sola Scriptura, its just a tradition passed down through the centuries.
> ...



Me neither. But like I said His intent was not for us to recite verbatim and because we have not been faithful to His teaching in taking His outline on HOW to pray, WE have in turn reduced His precious words into "vain repetition" because of our tradition, In my humble opinion.




> Another way of looking at it is a prohibition against "repetitious babbling" since it points to a senseless repetition of meaningless words.
> 
> I would think that the prohibition speaks more against what we see in some charismatic circles with their supposed speaking in tongues.



It could be looked at that way but on the other hand, I don't think He had babbling sounds in mind when He instructed us on the Prayer but rather that when the hypocrites pray(using His words) they attempt to impress those around them by using a large quantity of words and most importantly those words do not come from the heart but become religious repetitions and therefore to God are meaningless. So again in my opinion I believe that reciting the Lord's Prayer verbatim and not seeing it soley for its model of prayer it has become vain and repetitious, heartless, robotic and religious hence meaningless.


----------



## Roldan (Aug 11, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> I do not think that the RPW prohibits it, so I am not opposed to it.



Actually if you hold to the view (and I believe the biblical view) that the Lord's Prayer is the ultimate MODEL on how to pray and not meant to be recited verbatim, then yes it would go against the RPW because we are not commanded to recite this prayer and incorporate it into our worship. As a matter of fact even if it was meant to be recited verbatim, it still is not commanded to be used in public worship and actually states to be done in private behind closed doors (Matt. 6:6) hmmmmm. 

So either way, many will still view it as being in violation of the RPW.


----------



## Davidius (Aug 11, 2008)

Roldan,

Are the angels being vain and repetitive who hover around God's throne and repeat "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty. The earth is filled with his glory."


----------



## larryjf (Aug 11, 2008)

Roldan said:


> > Another way of looking at it is a prohibition against "repetitious babbling" since it points to a senseless repetition of meaningless words.
> >
> > I would think that the prohibition speaks more against what we see in some charismatic circles with their supposed speaking in tongues.
> 
> ...



I would respectfully disagree with you here. I think the Greek text points more to what I have described in my post.
Thankfully there is room in Christ's kingdom for such differences


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 11, 2008)

We use it during the morning worship service, right after the invocation.


----------



## Roldan (Aug 11, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Roldan,
> 
> Are the angels being vain and repetitive who hover around God's throne and repeat "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty. The earth is filled with his glory."



Of course not, but then again they are not fallen creatures corrupted by sin and therefore are joyfully and heartfully repetitive hence meaningful.


----------



## Roldan (Aug 11, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> > > Another way of looking at it is a prohibition against "repetitious babbling" since it points to a senseless repetition of meaningless words.
> ...




I'm all for knowing greek and all that but you don't have to know greek to consider the whole context of the passage. The burden is on you to prove that when Christ was referring to the Scribes and Pharisees aka hypocrites they were speaking in some type of meaningless speech similar to the charasmatic movement.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 11, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Of course the real question should be what formulation do you use?
> 
> debts, and debtors
> 
> ...




We are a "debtors" church.
Trespassers will be shot!


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 11, 2008)

We recite it every Sunday after the Pastoral Prayer. 
I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 11, 2008)

Roldan said:


> I'm all for knowing greek and all that but you don't have to know greek to consider the whole context of the passage. The burden is on you to prove that when Christ was referring to the Scribes and Pharisees aka hypocrites they were speaking in some type of meaningless speech similar to the charasmatic movement.



Let me lighten my burden a bit then...
The immediate context is clearly NOT referring to the Scribe and Pharisees...

_But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, *as the heathen do*: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. (Mat 6:7)
_

The "tongues" of the charismatic circles is very similar to Hindu practices...

In the Kundalini (serpent power) practices they speak in this same kind of "tongues"


----------



## caddy (Aug 11, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> It is also worth noting that the end of the prayer in Matthew is absent from the earliest manuscripts. Matthew 6:13 should end with "deliver us from evil". Much like the "end" of Mark's Gospel.
> 
> "...for Yours is the Kingdom and the power and the glory forever". While true is not found until the 5th or 6th century.


 
Interesting...


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 11, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Is it a common practice among Reformed churches to recite the Lord's Prayer verbatim during worship services? I'm curious because I recently visited an OPC church in the San Diego area and the Lord's Prayer was recited during the worship service.



Curt,

Do you sing certain hymns frequently at your church? If so, is that a "vain repetition"? I think not.

The book of Psalms is a collection of liturgical prayers, hymns, medetations, etc. In other words, God intended that such divine odes would be recited by His people throughout the ages. Also consider the fact that Christ sang a collection of these Psalms with His disciples; was this vain repetition? I think not.

As such, praying the Lord's Prayer as a liturgical device is nothing short of biblical, and enriches the worship service.

Anything man does can be "empty words"; whether he makes it up on the spot, or whether it's written on a piece of paper for him to read. God wrote a bunch of prayers down for us to read: the Psalms. To argue against liturgical prayers is (to me) fairly short-sighted, and will inevitably lead to hypocrisy, due to the repetition of hymns we sing, and the fact that we're not _spontaneously _singing them.

Also, the recitation of the Lord's Prayer is not a Presbyterian tradition: it is a universal, long-established custom, with a strong bibilcal and theological justification. The burden of proof would rest with anyone wishing _*not *_to recite it. 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Roldan (Aug 11, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it a common practice among Reformed churches to recite the Lord's Prayer verbatim during worship services? I'm curious because I recently visited an OPC church in the San Diego area and the Lord's Prayer was recited during the worship service.
> ...



Adam, your comparing apples to oranges.

And Presbyterian tradition or not its still tradition NOT based on a scriptural command, seems like everyone like to use the RPW card at convenience when it fits.

And lastly the burden has been proven from the context of the passage, the burden is on those who want to recite it to prove that Christ intended it to be recited verbatim and not only that but recited in worship, and not be argued from tradition but to be argued exegetically from the TEXT. The fact that its in the bible is not an argument and even opens up a variety of things to enter.

Prove your assertions exegetically from the text.


----------



## Roldan (Aug 11, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm all for knowing greek and all that but you don't have to know greek to consider the whole context of the passage. The burden is on you to prove that when Christ was referring to the Scribes and Pharisees aka hypocrites they were speaking in some type of meaningless speech similar to the charasmatic movement.
> ...



Actually He is equating them as the same and He still is referring to the use of MANY words as opposed to unintelligable words.


----------



## sastark (Aug 11, 2008)

Jesus taught us: "When you pray say..." 

The WCF 21.3 says:



> Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of His Spirit, according to His will, with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love and perseverance; and, if vocal, in a known tongue.



Therefore, when we pray in worship, it is NOT against the RPW to pray the Lord's prayer. Christ taught us to _say these words_ when we pray (yes, it is also a model for all prayers, but He commanded that _these words_ be said). 

Further, the WLC says:



> Q. 187. How is the Lord’s Prayer to be used?
> 
> A. The Lord’s Prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern, according to which we are to make other prayers; *but may also be used as a prayer*, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer.



There is no prohibition in the Confession against using the Lord's prayer in worship. Those who claim it is contrary to the RPW bear the burden of proof and argue against the Confession.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 11, 2008)

Roldan said:


> Adam, your comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> And Presbyterian tradition or not its still tradition NOT based on a scriptural command, seems like everyone like to use the RPW card at convenience when it fits.
> 
> ...



Hey Ricky,

You're missing the forest: see my argument about the Psalms: liturgical prayers intended to be used in public worship; see the example of Christ singing a liturgical prayer at the Passover in the gospels.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Roldan (Aug 11, 2008)

sastark said:


> Jesus taught us: "When you pray say..."
> 
> The WCF 21.3 says:
> 
> ...



So then we could also incorporate in our worship all the *sound* Roman Catholic prayers that they use in their worship since it fits the WCF definition of prayer or how your using it anyways, right?




> Christ taught us to _say these words_ when we pray (yes, it is also a model for all prayers, but He commanded that _these words_ be said).



This is where we would disagree, Christ commanded no such thing. He says to *"in this manner therefore pray" NKJV* or "Pray then like this" ESV *"pray then in this way"* *""This, then, is how you should pray" NIV* 

This is the meaning in the greek




> Further, the WLC says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



WHere is their exegetical support for using it as a prayer?

BTW I'm just using the RPW argument for those who are strict RPWers


----------



## sastark (Aug 11, 2008)

Roldan said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus taught us: "When you pray say..."
> ...



If the words are *sound*, then it doesn't matter who originally wrote them, it matters who is praying them.





> This is where we would disagree, Christ commanded no such thing. He says to *"in this manner therefore pray" NKJV* or "Pray then like this" ESV *"pray then in this way"* *""This, then, is how you should pray" NIV*
> 
> This is the meaning in the greek



*Luke 11:2*



> *ESV*
> And he said to them, "When you pray, say:





> *NIV*
> He said to them, "When you pray, say:





> *NKJV*
> So He said to them, “When you pray, say:





> *KJV*
> And he said unto them, When ye pray, say,





> 1550 Stephanus New Testament
> lego: to say (Strong's # 3004)





> *1881 Westcott-Hort*
> lego








> > Further, the WLC says:
> >
> >
> >
> ...



Again, the burden of proof is _on you_ to show that the confession is wrong. 



> BTW I'm just using the RPW argument for those who are strict RPWers


----------



## larryjf (Aug 11, 2008)

Roldan said:


> Actually He is equating them as the same and He still is referring to the use of MANY words as opposed to unintelligable(sic) words.



The "vain repetitions" or "βατταλογήσητε"...if that font doesn't show up it's "Battalogesete" which means "to babble"

so yes, it does mean unintelligible.

The "much speaking" is, of course, in reference to the use of many words...but it must be taken in context of the rest of the verse, and clearly "vain repetitions" does mean "babbling"


----------



## Ivan (Aug 11, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> We do it frequently, maybe once a month. (OPC)



I've done it in churches I've pastored....Baptist churches.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 11, 2008)

It should be distinguished whether we are speaking of 1) the pastor alone reciting the words of the Lord's prayer in public worship; or 2) the pastor and the congregation reciting it in unison in public worship. For the former, I grant it is lawful, though not desirable every week. For the latter, I do not grant it to be lawful. 

The Westminster Directory of Public Worship says:



> And because the prayer which Christ taught his disciples is not only a pattern of prayer, but itself a most comprehensive prayer, we recommend it also to be used in the prayers of the church.



William Gouge notes, "It [the Lord's Prayer] is not only a most absolute prayer in itself, but also a perfect pattern for other prayers" (_A Guide to Go to God, or an explanation of the perfect Patterne of Prayer, the Lord's Prayer_, Preface, cited in Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, _Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation & the Directory for Worship_, p. 124, foonote 25). 

Archibald Hall expounds the DPW thus (_Gospel Worship_, Vol. 1, Chap. 5, Sec. 4, pp. 204, 207, 208):



> V. I shall, in the next place, enquire, Whether it is proper to use stated forms of prayer, when we call upon God?
> 
> It is generally allowed, that if set forms are found, or agreeable to the will of God, they may be used by children, or such as are weak in knowledge. All are agreed in commending the prudence of our first reformers in England, who, by composing homilies and forms of prayer, endeavoured, as much as might be, to provide an help for the doleful ignorance of the clergy. But it is humbly submitted to the impartial consideration of the intelligent and serious, whether the advantages of praying freely, without being tied to a form, are not manifest and great? A perpetual confinement to the best forms, will be attended with such inconveniences as these:[7]
> ...
> ...



So it is certainly allowable for the minister to recite the Lord's Prayer in public worship, although there is a need to be alert to the dangers of roteness and quenching the Spirit which may naturally accompany set forms, even lawful ones. 

Upon which, John Brown of Haddington notes concerning the Westminster Shorter Catechism 99 (_Exposition of the Shorter Catechism_, pp. 342-343):



> Q. What special rule of direction in prayer hath God given us? -- A. That form of prayer which Christ hath taught his disciples, which is commonly called _the Lord's prayer_, because the Lord Jesus prescribed it.
> 
> Q. Did Christ prescribe it as a form, the express words of which we are bound to use? -- A. No; but as a pattern of prayer, directing us what we should pray for, and in what order we should offer our requests.
> 
> ...



Fisher's Catechism on WSC 99:



> Q. 9. What is the special rule of direction for the duty of prayer?
> 
> A. It is that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples, commonly called, The Lord's Prayer.
> ...
> ...



As for the question of the congregation reciting anything in public worship, apart from extraordinary vows or "amen" at the end of worship, I know of no Biblical warrant. The voice of the minister is the voice of the people to God.

Thomas Cartwright, _The Reply to the Answer of the Admonition_, Chap. 2, 21st Division, Sec. 2, p. 109:



> For God hath ordained the minister to this end, that, as in public meetings he only is the mouth of the Lord from him to the people, even so he ought to be the only the mouth of the people from them unto the Lord, and that all the people should attend to that which is said by the minister, and in the end both declare their consent to that which is said, and their hope that it should so be and come to pass which is prayed, by the word "Amen;" as St Paul declareth in the epistle to the Corinthians, and Justin Martyr sheweth to have been the custom of the churches in his time.



William Gouge, _The Sabbath's Sanctification_, pp. 3-4:



> Question 11. What duties are done by the people?
> ...
> (4.) Saying "amen" audibly to the blessing.
> ...
> As for an audible pronouncing of "amen," if the minds of them that pronounce it have been upon that which the minister uttered, and their hearts have given consent thereto, it compriseth altogether as much as the minister hath uttered. This is the only warrantable means for people to utter their minds in a congregation. It must, therefore, be uttered by everyone, altogether, so loud, as the minister may hear their consent, as well as they hear what he hath uttered in their name. For the one is as requisite as the other.


----------



## Roldan (Aug 11, 2008)

> If the words are *sound*, then it doesn't matter who originally wrote them, it matters who is praying them.




So you wouldn't have a problem reciting the prayer of Jabez either in your worship, coo.




> Luke 11:2
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...



And? Are you using this text over against the Matt. text inferring a contradiction? And do you recite the Luke version instead of the Matt. version since you are presupposing a command in Luke to *"say"* this version of the Lord's Prayer verbatim. Which is it?




> Again, the burden of proof is _on you_ to show that the confession is wrong.



The proof is in the text, both of them. I already showed that its a model for prayer, no need to recite verbatim. If churches want to recite it then by all means go ahead but don't tell me its because its a command but be honest and say its tradition, yes thats right even when the divines wrote in the confession that it may be used as a prayer it was tradition that drove them to pen that in. They were not infallible my dear brothers and sisters lets not be tempted to over exalt the confession(which ever version you prefer) above biblical exegesis.


----------



## sastark (Aug 12, 2008)

Roldan said:


> > If the words are *sound*, then it doesn't matter who originally wrote them, it matters who is praying them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would I have a problem reciting a section of Scripture in worship? If 1 Chronicles 4 was part of the responsive Scripture reading, would you abstain?



> > Luke 11:2
> >
> >
> > Quote:
> ...



No. There is no contradiction. Luke establishes that it is acceptable to recite the exact words the Lord taught us. To say we can't is in contradiction to this passage.




> > Again, the burden of proof is _on you_ to show that the confession is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is in the text, both of them. I already showed that its a model for prayer, no need to recite verbatim. If churches want to recite it then by all means go ahead...



We agree that if churches want to recite it, it is not a problem?



> ...but don't tell me its because its a command but be honest and say its tradition, yes thats right even when the divines wrote in the confession that it may be used as a prayer it was tradition that drove them to pen that in. They were not infallible my dear brothers and sisters lets not be tempted to over exalt the confession(which ever version you prefer) above biblical exegesis.



No one says that the authors of the WCF were infallible, but it is the confession you said you hold to when you joined this board (unless, of course, you hold to the London Baptist Confession).


----------



## Roldan (Aug 12, 2008)

sastark said:


> Why would I have a problem reciting a section of Scripture in worship? If 1 Chronicles 4 was part of the responsive Scripture reading, would you abstain?



I'm with you brother. No I wouldn't abstain. My point is that alot of what we do in our churches are traditional in nature and yes I Know not all tradition is bad and I'm not saying that it is, my original point was that there are alot of STRICT RPW'rs around here and it seems to me that it is inconsistent to hold to such a strict sense of the RPW when it comes to instruments etc... but still incorporate the Lord's Prayer into their worship when it was never a command to recite the Lord's prayer verbatim. I don't hold to such a strict view I agree with most of what Frame proposed in his book. So maybe that would clear up alittle of where I'm coming from.




> No. There is no contradiction. Luke establishes that it is acceptable to recite the exact words the Lord taught us. To say we can't is in contradiction to this passage.



I disagree. I don't believe that the Luke text teaches that at all, and if it does then which version to we recite exactly? 





> We agree that if churches want to recite it, it is not a problem?



Correct. Do we agree that if churches do not recite it, it is not a problem either?




> No one says that the authors of the WCF were infallible, but it is the confession you said you hold to when you joined this board (unless, of course, you hold to the London Baptist Confession).



No no no, I hold to the WCF but have my exceptions here and there and with Large and short catech. Like this issue for example lol


----------



## Zenas (Aug 12, 2008)

We recite it every Sunday.


----------



## cih1355 (Aug 12, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it a common practice among Reformed churches to recite the Lord's Prayer verbatim during worship services? I'm curious because I recently visited an OPC church in the San Diego area and the Lord's Prayer was recited during the worship service.
> ...



Hello Adam,

Certain hymns are sung at my church frequently and I would not consider singing those hymns a vain repetition unless one is not even thinking about he is singing about. Praying the Lord's Prayer over and over again does not necessarily mean that one is making a vain repetition. I wasn't arguing against praying the Lord's Prayer. I was curious about the practice of Reformed churches.


----------



## Roldan (Aug 12, 2008)

joshua said:


> As for the _propriety_ of congregational reading of it in worship, I am inclined toward Andrew's post. But I must say, as to the validity (if any) of the posts below, they cannot stand. The problem, as you both point out, is not God's Word, but the hearts of men.
> 
> 
> rescuedbyLove said:
> ...



I think Andrew's post pretty much ends this discussion. 

And Joshua please excuse my ignorance but I'm kinda confused as to what you meant by the post you quoted. Were you saying it has no validity?


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 12, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Hello Adam,
> 
> Certain hymns are sung at my church frequently and I would not consider singing those hymns a vain repetition unless one is not even thinking about he is singing about. Praying the Lord's Prayer over and over again does not necessarily mean that one is making a vain repetition. I wasn't arguing against praying the Lord's Prayer. I was curious about the practice of Reformed churches.



Thanks for the explanation! I would say if someone prayed it over and over as a mantra (as, for example NT Wright recommends), then I would call that babbling; the liturgical use, however, is very scriptural.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Roldan (Aug 12, 2008)

joshua said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> > And Joshua please excuse my ignorance but I'm kinda confused as to what you meant by the post you quoted. Were you saying it has no validity?
> ...



Oh ok gotcha. I agree to an extent

But that wasn't my main reason and I never actually said it was wrong per se.

My main point was that the exegesis of the Matt. and Luke text teach us that Christ was teaching us a model on how to pray not on what to say verbatim. To use Andrew's post...



> *That our blessed Lord: taught his disciples to pray, by giving them a general directory, is allowed; but that he ever tied them up to a form in praying cannot be proved. When he gave them a direction to pray, he said, "After this manner pray ye," etc. Matt 6:9; and again, "When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven," etc. Luke 11:2. It is probable enough our Lord gave these directions at different times, though the substance of them is the same. But the alteration of the words is enough to satisfy any unprejudiced mind, that he could not intend them to be used as a stated form. And the church of England has thought fit to differ in the words of the fifth petition from both. It is pretty clear, that the phrases when ye pray, say, Luke 11:2, and after this manner pray, ye, Matt 6:9, are precisely of the same import, and explain one another: and neither of them import, that the very words, which our Lord then expressed, were to be constantly used; but only that the scope of them should direct us in performing this duty.*






> *Q. What special rule of direction in prayer hath God given us? -- A. That form of prayer which Christ hath taught his disciples, which is commonly called the Lord's prayer, because the Lord Jesus prescribed it.
> 
> Q. Did Christ prescribe it as a form, the express words of which we are bound to use? -- A. No; but as a pattern of prayer, directing us what we should pray for, and in what order we should offer our requests.
> 
> Q. How prove you that Christ did not prescribe it as an express form of prayer? -- A. Because in Matthew, who relates this form most exactly, Christ only says, After this manner pray ye; Matthew and Luke relate it differently; and Christ, and his prophets and apostles, used different expressions in prayer, Matth. xi. and xxvi. Acts i. and v. Eph. iii. John xvii, &c.*



But I do believe that there is some validity to what you quoted of me stating.


*



Q. Why may not others confine themselves to set forms of prayer? -- A. Because to do so checks the teaching of God's Spirit, inverts the order of prayer, encourageth sloth, and is most absurd and unreasonable.

Q. How doth confining ourselves to set forms of prayer check the teaching of the Spirit? -- A. As the form teacheth us what to pray for, which is the work ascribed to the Holy Ghost, Rom. viii. 26.

Q. How doth it invert the order of prayer? -- A. As by this means, instead of our hearts regulating our words, the words of the form must regulate our heart.
Q. How doth it encourage sloth? -- A. As it makes us careless of self-examination, and of study of the scriptures for instruction in prayer, and stirring up of our hearts to seek after the gift or grace of prayer.

Q. How is it most absurd and unreasonable? -- A. It is as if a hungry beggar could not ask alms, or a drowning man cry for relief, without an express form. 

Q. Is not the Lord's prayer a most excellent pattern? -- A. Yes; for it is a short, full, and orderly prayer.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Roldan (Aug 12, 2008)

joshua said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> > Q. Why may not others confine themselves to set forms of prayer? -- A. Because to do so checks the teaching of God's Spirit, inverts the order of prayer, encourageth sloth, and is most absurd and unreasonable.
> ...




coo, but remember that the Lord's Prayer as recited verbatim is considered a set form of prayer, according to this catechism anyways and I agree.


----------



## Roldan (Aug 12, 2008)

joshua said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...



lol me too


----------



## sastark (Aug 12, 2008)

Brother, it sounds like we are in much greater agreement than disagreement. Thanks for hashing this out with me!





Roldan said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > Why would I have a problem reciting a section of Scripture in worship? If 1 Chronicles 4 was part of the responsive Scripture reading, would you abstain?
> ...



Agreed.



> > No. There is no contradiction. Luke establishes that it is acceptable to recite the exact words the Lord taught us. To say we can't is in contradiction to this passage.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I don't believe that the Luke text teaches that at all, and if it does then which version to we recite exactly?



I still disagree somewhat (I believe a positive command can be established from Luke 11), but I think it is a rather minor point.



> > We agree that if churches want to recite it, it is not a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Do we agree that if churches do not recite it, it is not a problem either?



For now, until I further study the issue, I'm willing to agree with this, yes.



> > No one says that the authors of the WCF were infallible, but it is the confession you said you hold to when you joined this board (unless, of course, you hold to the London Baptist Confession).
> 
> 
> 
> No no no, I hold to the WCF but have my exceptions here and there and with Large and short catech. Like this issue for example lol



I hear ya. Again, thank for the dialog! I found it very edifying. I hope you did as well!


----------



## rescuedbyLove (Aug 12, 2008)

joshua said:


> As for the _propriety_ of congregational reading of it in worship, I am inclined toward Andrew's post. But I must say, as to the validity (if any) of the posts below, they cannot stand. The problem, as you both point out, is not God's Word, but the hearts of men.
> 
> 
> rescuedbyLove said:
> ...


 
That is correct. I do _not_ think there is a problem with the word of God.
And I'm assuming Richard doesn't, either.
And for the record, I was never arguing that it is _wrong_ to pray the Lord's prayer word for word. But I do believe it was meant to be a model.

In my post above, was I trying to say that our hearts, and not the word of God, should govern what we do in worship? May it never be!!
I was just saying that _merely_ reciting words (even Christ's words) is vain. We all know God hates lip service. I wasn't even talking about corporate worship per se.

But, should the congregation recite it _every week_? I don't know...should we have the Lord's Supper every week?


----------



## rescuedbyLove (Aug 12, 2008)

joshua said:


> rescuedbyLove said:
> 
> 
> > That is correct. I do _not_ think there is a problem with the word of God.
> ...



When I said this, I wasn't trying to start an argument or anything, nor did I say you implied anything. But you did say my post "cannot stand":



joshua said:


> As for the _propriety_ of congregational reading of it in worship, I am inclined toward Andrew's post. But I must say, as to the validity (if any) of the posts below, *they cannot stand*. The problem, as you both point out, is not God's Word, but the hearts of men.
> 
> 
> rescuedbyLove said:
> ...



and your exposition of the previous statement: 



joshua said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> > And Joshua please excuse my ignorance but I'm kinda confused as to what you meant by the post you quoted. Were you saying it has no validity?
> ...



So you're right--you didn't _imply _ that I was saying that--you just _said_ it!
I probably never should have posted anything to begin with, since my post about reciting things vainly is a truth that is obvious. Plus, this is pretty much a men's discussion. Sorry!


----------



## Roldan (Aug 12, 2008)

sastark said:


> I hear ya. Again, thank for the dialog! I found it very edifying. I hope you did as well!



Absolutely did brother, thanx for the interaction, and to all as well


----------



## kalawine (Aug 13, 2008)

the "vain repetitions" that Christ speaks of certainly can't be directed towards His prayer. I would not call anything that our Lord teaches to be "vain."
Another way of looking at it is a prohibition against "repetitious babbling" since it points to a senseless repetition of meaningless words.

I would think that the prohibition speaks more against what we see in some charismatic circles with their supposed speaking in tongues.[/QUOTE]

 We recite it at my church every Sunday and I love it. I understand that it was given to us as a model. But when the congregation recites it together I really get a sense of unity and the real meaning come through.


----------

