# Is kneeling permitted in worship?



## Pergamum

Can we kneel in worship to pray? To receive communion? Or is this a hold-over from Medieval Catholic tradition. Or Reformed Churches allowed to permit kneeling?


----------



## MLCOPE2

Our elders encourage us to "kneel, sit, or stand; whatever brings you closer to the Lord" during our corporate prayer time. They always kneel in the front for the corporate prayer as well.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The Puritans spent a lot of argument to contend that kneeling in communion was in effect idolatry amongst other objections. See George Gillespie's argument in part three chapter four of his book against the English ceremonies.


Pergamum said:


> To receive communion?


----------



## Philip

Where in Scripture is it specified what the default posture is?


----------



## J. Dean

Depends on if you're kneeling in humility to God vs. kneeling in adoration of a physical object (ie-the Catholic eucharist).

Just because one is kneeling during communion does not mean he is doing so in direct worship of the elements in an idolatrous fashion. 

That being said, I think it's more about the position of the heart before God than it is the physical prostration of the body.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

What is NOT PERMITTED is the binding of ones conscience to the matter of kneeling without scriptural warrant.


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

Kneeling is a sign of reverence for God and should not be outlawed because it looks like "Romanism". There is too much of a reaction to "Romanism" in Reformed circles and we tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, as the saying goes. So yes, it should be permissable to kneel when praying to God, or stand if you are so led.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I think the problem in our day is we've thrown over reformation principles and there is not enough reaction against Romanism.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

cajunhillbilly53 said:


> Kneeling is a sign of reverence for God and should not be outlawed because it looks like "Romanism". There is too much of a reaction to "Romanism" in Reformed circles and we tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, as the saying goes. So yes, it should be permissable to kneel when praying to God, or stand if you are so led.



Willard, have you thought this through?
By this line of reasoning we are permitted to do anything we so feel led to do in worship as long as we claim it to be a sign of reverence.


----------



## Stargazer65

Is kneeling for prayer really going to lead to worship anarchy? It's not like anybody is talking about jumping jacks or headstands. Jesus knelt down for prayer, so I don't think it started in Rome.


----------



## JBaldwin

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think the problem in our day is we've thrown over reformation principles and there is not enough reaction against Romanism.



I agree.

The kneeling before the Eucharist in a Roman Catholic mass is idoltry. Ask any knowledgeable Roman Catholic, and he will tell you that he is kneeling before the "body of Christ" in reverence (worship) when he kneels to partake of the wafer and wine. The catholics treat the wafer and wine as if they are the physical body of Christ. This is what the puritans would have rejected. 

Kneeling in prayer would be another matter.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I agree about prayer but to say the RC view was all the Puritans rejected is not quite right. I refer again to the chapter in Gillespie's English popish ceremonies written against the Anglican liturgy that was being imposed at that time in Scotland and the reasoning given for kneeling in receiving the Lord's supper by its defenders. He also argued against the practice as no longer indifferent because the practice was a monument of idolatry past and a present badge of idolatry. 


JBaldwin said:


> This is what the puritans would have rejected.
> 
> Kneeling in prayer would be another matter.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

I don't see any problem with kneeling in PRAYER. 

And when he came to the place, he said to them, “Pray that you may not enter into temptation.” And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed,
(Luke 22:40-41 ESV)



Oh come, let us worship and bow down;
let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker!
(Psalm 95:6 ESV)

And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all.
(Acts 20:36 ESV)

Daniel prayed on his knees three times a day every day (Dan 6:10). Stephen prayed on his knees to the Lord before he died as a martyr (Acts 7:60). Peter knelt down before the corpse of Tabitha, prayed for her and she came back to life (Acts 9:40). 

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,
(Ephesians 3:14 ESV)

You can also easily find many references to "standing" and "prostrate" (Matthew 26:39) prayers, as well. Thus, it seems to me there is no issue with kneeling, or other "positons" for prayer, as long as it is sincere worship versus Pharasaic "Look at how religious I am by going the extra mile." This is NOT to say that "anything we think is sincere worship goes." Rather, there seems to be ample warrant in the scripture for kneeling in prayer. I would have to think about kneeling for communion. That is not clear to me and smacks of popism. Need to study that issue. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Philip

Chris, if I hear you right, what you are saying is that the Puritans rejected kneeling at the Lord's Supper because of the connotations of Romanism that the practice carried at the time. Given the three hundred years dividing their time from ours, would the practice still carry those connotations for most Protestants? It certainly doesn't for me (I've attended churches where this was the practice).

On the question of binding the conscience: can kneeling be incorporated as part of the ordinary decent and orderly practice of a church? If the minister may ask those present to stand or be seated at certain times, is there a good reason why kneeling could not be incorporated?

A third (and related) question would be whether one's physical posture in prayer can be an aid to reverence. We are, after all, physical beings and (since we are Christians, not Gnostics) we believe that the body matters.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Philip,
No, I don't think time diminishes things really here. I think we actually need to be more concerned because after degradation from liberalism and being happy at least we kept the fundamentals, we are left with having incorporated a lot of practices into worship that fly against our Reformation principles. I am not one that thinks superstition and idolatry are less a problem in the modern protestant church. Check out the chapter in Gillespie to at least see the reasoning at that time.


----------



## JBaldwin

NaphtaliPress said:


> I agree about prayer but to say the RC view was all the Puritans rejected is not quite right. I refer again to the chapter in Gillespie's English popish ceremonies written against the Anglican liturgy that was being imposed at that time in Scotland and the reasoning given for kneeling in receiving the Lord's supper by its defenders. He also argued against the practice as no longer indifferent because the practice was a monument of idolatry past and a present badge of idolatry.
> 
> 
> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the puritans would have rejected.
> 
> Kneeling in prayer would be another matter.
Click to expand...


We agree. When I said it was what the puritans would have rejected, I should have clarified it as one of the things they rejected. Thanks for making that clarification.


----------



## Unoriginalname

So I am sorry I am lost are we saying kneeling in prayer is wrong? Or are we (and the puritans) just saying kneeling before taking the Lord's supper is wrong?


----------



## JBaldwin

Unoriginalname said:


> So I am sorry I am lost are we saying kneeling in prayer is wrong? Or are we (and the puritans) just saying kneeling before taking the Lord's supper is wrong?



I won't speak for Chris, but I am not saying that it is wrong to kneel in worship, my thought is that kneeling at communion is similar to what the Roman Catholics do, and in their worship, kneeling at that point in their worship is idolatry.


----------



## dudley

NaphtaliPress said:


> I think the problem in our day is we've thrown over reformation principles and there is not enough reaction against Romanism.



I do not kneel at communion or at church at all when in prayer. I have tried to distance myself from anything that reminds me of Romanism and the catholic church. I say amen and agree completely with you Chris when you said “I think the problem in our day is we've thrown over reformation principles and there is not enough reaction against Romanism.” 

Before even becoming a Presbyterian I openly renounced Roman Catholicism and her pope and all her false teachings before the session I attended with the elders to be accepted into membership in the Presbyterian church. Thus when I became a Protestant I not only embraced the teachings of the Reformed Faith and the Westminster standards; I renounced completely Roman Catholicism as did the Protestant reformers ,strangely sometimes I feel more Protestant than the people who were born into the fold, cradle Protestants . I sometimes think they do not understand why we are Protestants. We protest the heresy’s of the Romanists and proclaim the truth of the Gospel and the true faith, the ancient faith of the apostles restored to us by the Reformers after 1000 years of papist and Romanist corruption.


----------



## Pergamum

If you visit a church that desires you to kneel to pray or take communion, what should you do? What if the church is clearly Reformed and does not believe in the Popish doctrines of the Mass?


----------



## Romans922

I don't know about public worship, but at least in private worship/living these are some of the many different postures described when praying in Scripture: 

*Standing* (Genesis 18, 1 Samuel 1, Matthew 6), *Praying with hands spread out or lifted heavenward* (Exodus 9, Nehemiah 8, 1 Timothy 2), *Bowing the head* (Genesis 24, 2 Chronicles 29, Luke 24), *the lifting heavenward of the eyes *(Psalm 25, John 11, Acts 8) [so we don’t have to close our eyes when we pray], *Kneeling* (as Paul does here: 2 Chronicles 6, Matthew 17), and *Falling Down with the Face upon the Ground* (Genesis 17, Deuteronomy 9, Mark 7).


----------



## dudley

Pergamum said:


> If you visit a church that desires you to kneel to pray or take communion, what should you do? What if the church is clearly Reformed and does not believe in the Popish doctrines of the Mass?



If the church is truly Reformed and does not believe in the Popish doctrines of the Mass, I would follow their custom. My Presbyterian church does not kneel for communion or prayer and I also prefer that as I want to be as distant as I can from the Roman catholic rituals.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

Kneeling is a perfectly acceptable posture to be in for prayer. Regarding public worship the pastor should invite all to kneel, as able. We are after all in corporate worship. I do not know that it is particularly helpful if some folks decide to kneel and others decide to stand or sit. I would love to see Reformed churches arrange the furniture so as to allow space for kneeling. Indeed, kneelers would be good also.
Standing is also a perfectly acceptable posture for prayer. In the congregation where I am a member we stand for most of the prayers in the worship service.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

A truly Reformed church would not have kneeling at the Lord's supper. I surely would not do so for reasons hinted or noted above. Gillespie concludes thus:
"Whatsoever gesture in process of time crept into the Lord’s supper otherwise than sitting, of it we may truly say, 'from the beginning it was not so.'”
Again, see his rather technical chapter addressing the arguments of the English and Scottish prelates for kneeling against which he argues it is inescapably idolatrous. (English Popish Ceremonies, book 3, chapter four).


----------



## dudley

NaphtaliPress said:


> A truly Reformed church would not have kneeling at the Lord's supper. I surely would not do so for reasons hinted or noted above. Gillespie concludes thus:
> "Whatsoever gesture in process of time crept into the Lord’s supper otherwise than sitting, of it we may truly say, 'from the beginning it was not so.'”
> Again, see his rather technical chapter addressing the arguments of the English and Scottish prelates for kneeling against which he argues it is inescapably idolatrous. (English Popish Ceremonies, book 3, chapter four).



Amen Chris, I agree with you…“A truly Reformed church would not have kneeling at the Lord's supper” John Calvin condemned the Mass of Roman Catholicism in no uncertain terms. “Of all the idols, he knew none so grotesque as that in which the priest called down Christ into his hands by ‘magical mumblings’ and offered him anew on the sacrificial altar, while the people looked on in ‘stupid amazement.’" 1 Calvin proceeded to formulate his ideas on worship (liturgy) by basing them on the clear warrant of Scripture and appealing to the in- variable custom of the ancient church.. 2 The Reformer concluded, “No assembly of the church should be held without the Word being preached, prayers being offered, the Lord’s Supper administered, and alms given.” 

The early Reformed never kneeled because of the repulsion they held for the popish mass and the adoration of a piece of bread in a golden monstrance. It is and was always Idolatry. It is why I do not kneel. I hold a repulsion for all the gross idolatrous practices of the papists. I renounce it and the RCC and those practices as did the early Reformers.


----------



## Andres

21st Century Calvinist said:


> We are after all in corporate worship. I do not know that it is particularly helpful if some folks decide to kneel and others decide to stand or sit.



This is the issue for me. I would be concerned about the unity of the body if some are kneeling, some are standing, some are sitting, etc.


----------



## Pergamum

In regions with no acquaintance with Papism, is the prohibition against kneeling for communion still appropriate?


----------



## dudley

Pergamum said:


> In regions with no acquaintance with Papism, is the prohibition against kneeling for communion still appropriate?



I see no purpose in kneeling and like Chris Caldwell I think it implies that Christ the Lord is physically present , that the bread and wine are actually the real body and blood of Christ which we as reformed protestants deny and reject. I think to kneel evening regions where papism and popish rituals are not well known could lead however to the gross superstitions that exist in the roman catholic mass. The Reformed view of the supper is in complete alignment with other texts of Scripture. The fact that in the sacrament we are truly nourished by Christ's body and blood, by faith, not the mouth, bears a close resemblance to the many texts that describe our Lord's relationship to his church, such as those of the vine and branches, the head and body, and Christ's words about abiding in him. Thus we need not kneel and I think we should not. Likewise, it is in accordance with Christ's sending of the Holy Spirit in John 16: "I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer...But when the Spirit of truth, comes...He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you." Therefore, though Christ is not bodily present with us, we nevertheless have access to him and all his benefits because of the work of the Holy Spirit. This is why the author to the Hebrews can describe those who have been baptized and have "tasted of the heavenly gift," as those "who have shared in the Holy Spirit" (Heb. 6:4). It is also why Jesus can refer to himself as "the bread of life" (John 6:48), while also acknowledging that "it is the Spirit who gives life" (John 6:63). It is the Holy Spirit that unites us to Christ and all his benefits.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks. Fascinating.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> In regions with no acquaintance with Papism, is the prohibition against kneeling for communion still appropriate?



Good point, as a former RC and now rabid protestant I believe if The Lord leads you to kneel do so....and do not tell anybody here you did. Of course at our church if you want to raise your hands during worship you will be allowed to do so, but most there look at you like you are a kook...well we try not to look. So knell at your own risk.


----------



## Pergamum

I am not sure kneeling is a good idea in my context, even if Catholicism is not known in my main, immediate area of focus. For one thing, I don't wanna get muddy knees, and also the prospect of having people kneel in front of the one dispensing the Lord's Supper seems strange since I've only seen it done myself in Catholic and Lutheran settings. I would hate to do anything to detract from my main desire to stress that the preparatory work before taking the Supper is the inward prep of the heart and not of bodily postures.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> I am not sure kneeling is a good idea in my context, even if Catholicism is not known in my main, immediate area of focus. For one thing, I don't wanna get muddy knees, and also the prospect of having people kneel in front of the one dispensing the Lord's Supper seems strange since I've only seen it done myself in Catholic and Lutheran settings. I would hate to do anything to detract from my main desire to stress that the preparatory work before taking the Supper is the inward prep of the heart and not of bodily postures.



Then do not kneel...though I would not go to the point as saying it is not permitted.


----------



## Pergamum

Earl:

Yes, inadvisable and not permittable are two different things.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> Earl:
> 
> Yes, inadvisable and not permittable are two different things.



Of course I was just responding to some other posts that say it is not permitted. Baby out with the bathwater In my most humble opinion.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Dregs out with the bath water actually.
One really has to deal with the issue of "why kneel". If it has no meaning, then why not use the scriptural posture of participating in a meal? If kneeling is customary for a meal in some culture that would be some consideration. But beyond that, if kneeling is done in the act of receiving, it is for some reason to displace the scriptural pattern of the overall posture of a meal.


----------



## earl40

NaphtaliPress said:


> Dregs out with the bath water actually.
> One really has to deal with the issue of "why kneel". If it has no meaning, then why not use the scriptural posture of participating in a meal? If kneeling is customary for a meal in some culture that would be some consideration. But beyond that, if kneeling is done in the act of receiving, it is for some reason to displace the scriptural pattern of the overall posture of a meal.



Curious. Why do we not have a full course meal when we take the Lord's supper? This seems to be the "pattern" presented in scripture. Correct me if I am wrong.

---------- Post added at 09:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------




NaphtaliPress said:


> Dregs out with the bath water actually.
> One really has to deal with the issue of "why kneel". If it has no meaning, then why not use the scriptural posture of participating in a meal? If kneeling is customary for a meal in some culture that would be some consideration. But beyond that, if kneeling is done in the act of receiving, it is for some reason to displace the scriptural pattern of the overall posture of a meal.



Curious. Why do we not have a full course meal when we take the Lord's supper? This seems to be the "pattern" presented in scripture. Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## CharlieJ

Pergamum said:


> I would hate to do anything to detract from my main desire to stress that the preparatory work before taking the Supper is the inward prep of the heart and not of bodily postures.



Do bodily postures not train the heart? Most Christians do teach their children particular postures for prayer. Posture does teach. That, I think, is the basis of both the people who advocate the posture and those who prohibit it. One side thinks that the posture teaches something appropriate, the other something inappropriate. We can distinguish but should not oppose the spiritual and the bodily. The body is the vehicle of the spirit's actions.


----------



## Skyler

NaphtaliPress said:


> Dregs out with the bath water actually.
> One really has to deal with the issue of "why kneel". If it has no meaning, then why not use the scriptural posture of participating in a meal? If kneeling is customary for a meal in some culture that would be some consideration. But beyond that, if kneeling is done in the act of receiving, it is for some reason to displace the scriptural pattern of the overall posture of a meal.



That being the case, it would seem to me that standing to receive the Lord's Supper is also out, would it not?


----------



## Pergamum

NaphtaliPress said:


> Dregs out with the bath water actually.
> One really has to deal with the issue of "why kneel". If it has no meaning, then why not use the scriptural posture of participating in a meal? If kneeling is customary for a meal in some culture that would be some consideration. But beyond that, if kneeling is done in the act of receiving, it is for some reason to displace the scriptural pattern of the overall posture of a meal.



Yes, those are my thoughts, too:



> ..."why kneel". If it has no meaning, then why not use the scriptural posture of participating in a meal? If kneeling is customary for a meal in some culture that would be some consideration.



I have tried to ask myself the alternate question just to more fully think things through, "Why not kneel" but it makes no sense in context of a meal.

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would hate to do anything to detract from my main desire to stress that the preparatory work before taking the Supper is the inward prep of the heart and not of bodily postures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do bodily postures not train the heart? Most Christians do teach their children particular postures for prayer. Posture does teach. That, I think, is the basis of both the people who advocate the posture and those who prohibit it. One side thinks that the posture teaches something appropriate, the other something inappropriate. We can distinguish but should not oppose the spiritual and the bodily. The body is the vehicle of the spirit's actions.
Click to expand...


Yes, those are good points.

---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------




Skyler said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dregs out with the bath water actually.
> One really has to deal with the issue of "why kneel". If it has no meaning, then why not use the scriptural posture of participating in a meal? If kneeling is customary for a meal in some culture that would be some consideration. But beyond that, if kneeling is done in the act of receiving, it is for some reason to displace the scriptural pattern of the overall posture of a meal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being the case, it would seem to me that standing to receive the Lord's Supper is also out, would it not?
Click to expand...


Hmmmm.....isn't sitting the customary pattern in most churches?


----------



## earl40

Skyler said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dregs out with the bath water actually.
> One really has to deal with the issue of "why kneel". If it has no meaning, then why not use the scriptural posture of participating in a meal? If kneeling is customary for a meal in some culture that would be some consideration. But beyond that, if kneeling is done in the act of receiving, it is for some reason to displace the scriptural pattern of the overall posture of a meal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being the case, it would seem to me that standing to receive the Lord's Supper is also out, would it not?
Click to expand...


Good point......Thy shall not stand, kneel, where do we stop?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

We should be content to stop at God's prescriptions and patterns. Otherwise we are free to take communion standing on our head if it were possible. If that sounds impious, why is it not impious to take it kneeling which sorts us with idolaters as the Puritans would say? What I'm saying is hardly novel. 

Here's Ridgley briefly on the subject:
A body of divinity: wherein the ... - Thomas Ridgley - Google Books

Here is Philip Henry's objections to kneeling at the Lord's supper (Matthew's daddy):
The life of the Rev. Philip Henry, A ... - Matthew Henry - Google Books

Knox/Hopper on the subject.
Southern Presbyterian review - Google Books

Thomas Shepherd (from his life)
The works of Thomas Shepard: first ... - Thomas Shepard - Google Books

I'm not sure if anyone more recent goes into this as minutely as George Gillespie or not. He puts the question of actual idolatry within these bounds (which he then follows with arguments, in his popish ceremonies part 3 chapter 4):
§7. The question about the idolatry of kneeling between them and us stands in this: “Whether kneeling, at the instant of receiving the sacrament, before the consecrated bread and wine, purposely placed in our sight in the act of kneeling as signs standing in Christ’s stead, before which we, the receivers, are to exhibit outwardly religious adoration, be formally idolatry or not?”​

If anyone seriously wants to dive into this question with Gillespie I will offer my new version of that section (about 30 pages) which is more easily followed I think than the 19th century version online. To big to post and you will need to agree to use it for private use only as I intend publication in early 2013. Private message me if interested in the PDF.

I'm sorry that my interaction on this is so spotty, but this is really all I have time for. Perhaps some of our other defenders of Puritanism can step in if these resources are not enough?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

earl40 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dregs out with the bath water actually.
> One really has to deal with the issue of "why kneel". If it has no meaning, then why not use the scriptural posture of participating in a meal? If kneeling is customary for a meal in some culture that would be some consideration. But beyond that, if kneeling is done in the act of receiving, it is for some reason to displace the scriptural pattern of the overall posture of a meal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curious. Why do we not have a full course meal when we take the Lord's supper? This seems to be the "pattern" presented in scripture. Correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

What? Bread and Wine are not full course meals and the specific purpose behind having a full course meal and partaking of the Lord's supper are so distant in meaning that I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion. If you are referring to the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 there was abuse and misunderstanding taking place. The Lord set the elements and Paul restated what those were. They were not a full course meal. Their purpose is even defined with specificity. 

Concerning the original post, kneeling is disruptive and just an outward show. We should have hearts full of humility (bowed hearts). Posture in Church should not be disruptive or for show. We can take many illustrations from scripture and apply them to ourselves in an ill manner. Because the publican smote his breast and wouldn't look up to heaven, should we all do this in a service or allow it? I submit that the point of this text in Luke 18 isn't telling us how to physically perform as much as trying to illustrate the attitude of despising one's sin and pleading for mercy. To make a show in front of others is readily condemned in scripture. To have an attitude of humility of heart and not drawing attention to one's self is highly commended. The prayer closet is not the worship service. And the worship service is not the prayer closet.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks, Chris, for all the quotes.


----------



## CharlieJ

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Concerning the original post, kneeling is disruptive and just an outward show.



If the whole church is doing it as a matter of custom, I fail to see how it is disruptive or a show. If an individual suddenly decided to kneel in a congregation that normally does not, then that could be disruptive and/or a show.

On a different note, none of the masses I've visited recently have had kneeling. The partakers stood and came forward in a line. On the other hand, both the Lutheran and the Anglican churches I've attended did kneeling. So, maybe it's not so popish anymore.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The problem is not just a popish idolatry as I've tired to indicate without posting a whole book.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

NaphtaliPress said:


> We should be content to stop at God's prescriptions and patterns. Otherwise we are free to take communion standing on our head if it were possible. If that sounds impious, why is it not impious to take it kneeling which sorts us with idolaters as the Puritans would say? What I'm saying is hardly novel.
> 
> *If anyone seriously wants to dive into this question with Gillespie I will offer my new version of that section (about 30 pages) which is more easily followed I think than the 19th century version online. To big to post and you will need to agree to use it for private use only as I intend publication in early 2013. Private message me if interested in the PDF.*
> 
> I'm sorry that my interaction on this is so spotty, but this is really all I have time for. Perhaps some of our other defenders of Puritanism can step in if these resources are not enough?



Guys,

This 33 pages of Gillespie that Chris has offered is not the easiest thing to read but it is a treasure. It actually answers the OP in my estimation and addresses issues that we should have to deal with in our own hearts and in our own Churches. I am going to have to spend a few days looking more intently at understanding what Gillespie is saying but he brings out a lot of the ramifications and applications that we should deal with concerning worshipping God in the mediate and immediate. He points out something that I believe I gained a better mindset on when concerning worshipping Christ. Many in today's Church worship the physical as well as the spiritual aspects of Christ's person and in so doing fall into Idolatry. We even can fall into idolatry at the Lord's table by not understanding the differences of worship concerning mediate and immediate. You might wonder what I mean by that last statement but I don't feel I am up to par as being able to communicate it as good as I need to. I highly recommend you ask Chris for this and work your way through this 33 page nugget of gold.


----------



## earl40

PuritanCovenanter said:


> *Many in today's Church worship the physical as well as the spiritual aspects of Christ's person* and in so doing fall into Idolatry. We even can fall into idolatry at the Lord's table by not understanding the differences of worship concerning mediate and immediate. You might wonder what I mean by that last statement but I don't feel I am up to par as being able to communicate it as good as I need to. I highly recommend you ask Chris for this and work your way through this 33 page nugget of gold.




Is there a thread that discusses this above here? Especially the part where it appears to say we are not to worship the physical aspects of Jesus.

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the original post, kneeling is disruptive and just an outward show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the whole church is doing it as a matter of custom, I fail to see how it is disruptive or a show. If an individual suddenly decided to kneel in a congregation that normally does not, then that could be disruptive and/or a show.
> 
> On a different note, none of the masses I've visited recently have had kneeling. The partakers stood and came forward in a line. On the other hand, both the Lutheran and the Anglican churches I've attended did kneeling. So, maybe it's not so popish anymore.
Click to expand...


I am hesitant to post again here till I read over what Chris referenced....but here I go. 

Though I would not worship at an orthodox church the point that if one finds oneself at a good Lutheran church I would suggest to not sit down while the entire congregation is kneeling.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CharlieJ said:


> If the whole church is doing it as a matter of custom, I fail to see how it is disruptive or a show.



Charlie,
I hope you will pardon me. I think I have an answer to this but I really don't have the time nor do I want to take the time to go into all of this at this time.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Earl, 

I recommend you ask Chris for the excerpt of the book. It really does do a good job defending the simplicity of worship and addresses the confusion that has entered into the theology and practice of worship. It is a work well worth having in my estimation. It really addressed these issues as we are dealing with them today. Who would have thought that the same things that plague the Church today plagued it back then? After all it is said that the issues the Church needs to address today are different than those during the time the Standards were being worked out. One of the problems I see is that we are dealing with symptoms that might look differently today but they are directly related to us as they were then. The symptoms might appear different today but the problem is that we aren't addressing the root problems so the symptoms just show more signs of infirmity because the disease is progressed a bit more. At least that is what I am seeing. 

Earl just ask Naphtali if he will send this to you and work your way through it. You won't regret it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

earl40 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Many in today's Church worship the physical as well as the spiritual aspects of Christ's person* and in so doing fall into Idolatry. We even can fall into idolatry at the Lord's table by not understanding the differences of worship concerning mediate and immediate. You might wonder what I mean by that last statement but I don't feel I am up to par as being able to communicate it as good as I need to. I highly recommend you ask Chris for this and work your way through this 33 page nugget of gold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a thread that discusses this above here? Especially the part where it appears to say we are not to worship the physical aspects of Jesus.
Click to expand...


Earl,
Here is a quote from the book that addresses this issue.

Review: George Gillespie’s English Popish Ceremonies | Naphtali Press



> EPC, p. 207 (Naphtali Press, forthcoming)
> As touching the first, albeit we may and should adore the man Christ with divine worship, yet we may not adore his manhood, or his flesh and blood. 1. Because though the man Christ is God, yet his manhood is not God, and by consequence cannot be honored with divine worship. 2. If adorability agree to the humanity of Christ, then may his humanity help and save us: idolaters are mocked by the Spirit of God for worshipping things which cannot help nor save them. But the humanity of Christ cannot save us nor help us, because _omnis actio est suppositi_ [_all action is of a one subjoined_], whereas the human nature of Christ is not _suppositum_ [_subjoined_]. 3. None of those who defend the adoring of the humanity of Christ with divine worship, do well and warrantably express their opinion. First, some of the schoolmen have found no other respect wherefore the manhood of Christ can be said to be adored, except this, that the flesh of Christ is adored by him who adores the word incarnate, even as the king’s clothes are adored by him who adores the king.1 And thus they make the flesh of Christ to be adored only _per accidens _[_by circumstance_]. _But I_, says the Archbishop of Spalato, _do not think the apparel of the king, with which he is clothed, is to be adored by anyone_.2 And, I pray, why does he that worships the king worship his clothes more than any other thing which is about him, or beside him, perhaps a hawk upon his hand, or a little dove upon his knee? There is no more but the king’s own person set by the worshipper to have any state in the worship, and therefore no more worshipped by him.
> 
> 1.  Aquin., 3a quest. 25, art. 2.
> 2..  De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 43. Ego vero, non puto à quoquam regis vestimenta quibus est indutus, adorari. [Cf. Ibid., libros VII, VIII, IX, X (Frankfurt: 1658) 292.]



Naphtali Press is updating and republishing this book. Evidently he did it many years ago. I imagine there was a lot of hard work put into doing it. For one thing it is a major work to take something from the old English and put it into the English we read today spelling wise. Symbols that resembled F's are S's today as V's were U's. Chris also took the old archaic words and gave modern definitions of the old language parenthetically as well as he did this with the Latin also. Chris has done an excellent job so that someone like me could read this book.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I just reread Joel Beeke's endorsement of the book from the 1995 edition. This was my exact same thought on just the 33 pages I read. 



> This book still has lessons to teach us today, not only about the dangers of liturgical renewal movements and the church growth movement, but also about the need to retain the simplicity of scriptural worship at all costs. We would do well to ask ourselves the question: Are we allowing the simplicity of scriptural worship to slip through our fingers — perhaps slowly, subtly, almost imperceptibly — so that we are actually abandoning the very principles for which our forefathers were willing to live and die?



I am excited that this book is going to be republished.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I just reread Joel Beeke's book review concerning the 1995 edition from the Westminster Theological Journal, 57, 1, 1995. This is the last paragraph of that book review. It was my exact same thought on just the 33 pages I read. 



> This book still has lessons to teach us today, not only about the dangers of liturgical renewal movements and the church growth movement, but also about the need to retain the simplicity of scriptural worship at all costs. We would do well to ask ourselves the question: Are we allowing the simplicity of scriptural worship to slip through our fingers — perhaps slowly, subtly, almost imperceptibly — so that we are actually abandoning the very principles for which our forefathers were willing to live and die?



I am excited that this book is going to be republished.


----------



## earl40

PuritanCovenanter said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Many in today's Church worship the physical as well as the spiritual aspects of Christ's person* and in so doing fall into Idolatry. We even can fall into idolatry at the Lord's table by not understanding the differences of worship concerning mediate and immediate. You might wonder what I mean by that last statement but I don't feel I am up to par as being able to communicate it as good as I need to. I highly recommend you ask Chris for this and work your way through this 33 page nugget of gold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a thread that discusses this above here? Especially the part where it appears to say we are not to worship the physical aspects of Jesus.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earl,
> Here is a quote from the book that addresses this issue.
> 
> Review: George Gillespie’s English Popish Ceremonies | Naphtali Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EPC, p. 207 (Naphtali Press, forthcoming)
> As touching the first, albeit we may and should adore the man Christ with divine worship, yet we may not adore his manhood, or his flesh and blood. 1. Because though the man Christ is God, yet his manhood is not God, and by consequence cannot be honored with divine worship. 2. If adorability agree to the humanity of Christ, then may his humanity help and save us: idolaters are mocked by the Spirit of God for worshipping things which cannot help nor save them. But the humanity of Christ cannot save us nor help us, because _omnis actio est suppositi_ [_all action is of a one subjoined_], whereas the human nature of Christ is not _suppositum_ [_subjoined_]. 3. None of those who defend the adoring of the humanity of Christ with divine worship, do well and warrantably express their opinion. First, some of the schoolmen have found no other respect wherefore the manhood of Christ can be said to be adored, except this, that the flesh of Christ is adored by him who adores the word incarnate, even as the king’s clothes are adored by him who adores the king.1 And thus they make the flesh of Christ to be adored only _per accidens _[_by circumstance_]. _But I_, says the Archbishop of Spalato, _do not think the apparel of the king, with which he is clothed, is to be adored by anyone_.2 And, I pray, why does he that worships the king worship his clothes more than any other thing which is about him, or beside him, perhaps a hawk upon his hand, or a little dove upon his knee? There is no more but the king’s own person set by the worshipper to have any state in the worship, and therefore no more worshipped by him.
> 
> 1.  Aquin., 3a quest. 25, art. 2.
> 2..  De Rep. Eccl., lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 43. Ego vero, non puto à quoquam regis vestimenta quibus est indutus, adorari. [Cf. Ibid., libros VII, VIII, IX, X (Frankfurt: 1658) 292.]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...







This may be over my head a tad but what this is appears to be saying is a total seperation of the human and divine nature of Jesus. For instance, doubting Thomas worshiped Jesus when he saw his resurected body. How can seperate his (Thomas) act of worship from the body of Jesus?

Plus the part that says "But the humanity of Christ cannot save us nor help us" may be very problematic? For we are indeed saved by His death on the cross and it was not the divine nature that died but His human nature.


----------



## Pergamum

What other postures are permitted or forbidden in worship? Standing or hand-raising during singing (if not done corporately)? Was kneeling singled out due to Catholic superstition during that era?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

earl40 said:


> This may be over my head a tad but what this is appears to be saying is a total seperation of the human and divine nature of Jesus. For instance, doubting Thomas worshiped Jesus when he saw his resurected body. How can seperate his (Thomas) act of worship from the body of Jesus?
> 
> Plus the part that says "But the humanity of Christ cannot save us nor help us" may be very problematic? For we are indeed saved by His death on the cross and it was not the divine nature that died but His human nature.



Thomas worshiped Christ and not his physical body. His body proved the work he did. We are not saved by his physical body but by what Christ did in his body. You might want to study the doctrine of the hypostatic union. In Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person


----------



## earl40

PuritanCovenanter said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may be over my head a tad but what this is appears to be saying is a total seperation of the human and divine nature of Jesus. For instance, doubting Thomas worshiped Jesus when he saw his resurected body. How can seperate his (Thomas) act of worship from the body of Jesus?
> 
> Plus the part that says "But the humanity of Christ cannot save us nor help us" may be very problematic? For we are indeed saved by His death on the cross and it was not the divine nature that died but His human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas worshiped Christ and not his physical body. His body proved the work he did. We are not saved by his physical body but by what Christ did in his body. You might want to study the doctrine of the hypostatic union. In Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person
Click to expand...


"His body proved the work he did"......Jesus proved the work He did by His Resurection and miracles while in the body. No doubt you meant this, 

So far as Thomas worshipping Jesus I do believe he (Thomas) worshiped Jesus Who has a body. Now how can one seperate His natures especially the risen glorified Jesus who is still both human and divine?

So far as being saved by His body....well it was the body of Jesus that was the "instrment" that died for our sins and that same body rose from the grave glorified and wothy of worship. In other words, no doubt we may kneel in front of His body (which is essential to His human nature) when we are resurected in gratitude....no? 

---------- Post added at 08:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 AM ----------




Pergamum said:


> What other postures are permitted or forbidden in worship? Standing or hand-raising during singing (if not done corporately)? Was kneeling singled out due to Catholic superstition during that era?



I have been gleeming through the references Chris posted and the main problem with the kneeling issue is the RC doctine the bread and wine actually being turned into His body and blood. In other words, as protestants we do not believe such and thus should not kneel in front of the bread and wine.....Now IF ONE ASSUMES the bread and wine do indeed turn then the RC's may have an point. Of course they are wrong, but what is happening here is that we may be forgetting we may worship Jesus in spirit or in faith knowing He is really present (in His divine nature) when we partake. So in essence I think, though I may be wrong, that it wold be OK to kneel during communion knowing He is really before us.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Read the defense of kneeling by the English/Scottish Anglicans and Gillespie's responses. The former were not RCs and I already gave the main thesis somewhere above that Gillespie identifies as the question.


earl40 said:


> I have been gleeming through the references Chris posted and the main problem with the kneeling issue is the RC doctine the bread and wine actually being turned into His body and blood. In other words, as protestants we do not believe such and thus should not kneel in front of the bread and wine.....Now IF ONE ASSUMES the bread and wine do indeed turn then the RC's may have an point. Of course they are wrong, but what is happening here is that we may be forgetting we may worship Jesus in spirit or in faith knowing He is really present (in His divine nature) when we partake. So in essence I think, though I may be wrong, that it wold be OK to kneel during communion knowing He is really before us.


----------



## earl40

NaphtaliPress said:


> Read the defense of kneeling by the English/Scottish Anglicans and Gillespie's responses. The former were not RCs and I already gave the main thesis somewhere above that Gillespie identifies as the question.
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been gleeming through the references Chris posted and the main problem with the kneeling issue is the RC doctine the bread and wine actually being turned into His body and blood. In other words, as protestants we do not believe such and thus should not kneel in front of the bread and wine.....Now IF ONE ASSUMES the bread and wine do indeed turn then the RC's may have an point. Of course they are wrong, but what is happening here is that we may be forgetting we may worship Jesus in spirit or in faith knowing He is really present (in His divine nature) when we partake. So in essence I think, though I may be wrong, that it wold be OK to kneel during communion knowing He is really before us.
Click to expand...


Thank you Chris. I have started reading the PDF this morning and have not gotten to the part you refered to in this thread. May I ask to keep this thread open for a while because reading Gillespie is a little tough even with you help, which is greatly appreciated.  Also which part of the book does Knox present against kneeling?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Well, it's tough for me too. At some point some real theologians need to weigh in; but we can pick out the general argument perhaps. Now, I should also say, that even if all there were against kneeling in communion, was the RCC practice, that should be enough to rule out kneeling [as a posture for the Lord's supper]. I have pointed out the reforming rule for lack of a better term before on threads about the sign of the cross and alluded to it above somewhere. Badges/monuments of idolatry should be removed.


earl40 said:


> Thank you Chris. I have started reading the PDF this morning and have not gotten to the part you referred to in this thread. May I ask to keep this thread open for a while because reading Gillespie is a little tough even with you help, which is greatly appreciated.


----------



## Whitefield

I see the question "Is kneeling permitted in worship?" breaking down into three specific questions. 

1. Is it permitted to kneel at the Lord's Supper?
2. Is it permitted to kneel at any other time during public worship?
3. Is it permitted to kneel at any time during private worship?

I don't think a negative answer to one of these necessarily and automatically requires a negative to the others.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Correct; as noted several times, Gillespie puts the question very specifically (see above somewhere).


Whitefield said:


> I don't think a negative answer to one of these necessarily and automatically requires a negative to the others.


----------



## Pergamum

If the Catholic Church had never advanced the false beliefs associated with the Mass, would kneeling be permitted? I.e., is this prohibition against kneeling based on historical outworkings of providence or on a universal moral principle?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Yes. Moral principal irrespective of RCC idolatry and historical badge of idolatry.


Pergamum said:


> I.e., is this prohibition against kneeling based on historical outworkings of providence or on a universal moral principle?


----------



## Pergamum

Chris, 

Yes, that is what I am not understanding. 

I see the reasoning behind a stance against a long-standing Catholic error and think it wise not to look Popish to those acquainted with the Catholic Church and its errors. 

But I cannot see anything immoral per se about kneeling in prayer or in corproate worship, since I don't see postures commanded or forbidden anywhere in scripture. 

Where are particular postures either commanded or forbidden in Scripture? Wouldn't this be a circumstance of worship rather than an element?



> Ps. 95:6 says “Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the Lord our maker.”













> Kneeling is the most commonly mentioned posture for prayer in the Bible, and there are three ways by which the Bible refers to it, three different Hebrew phrases or terms.
> 
> II Chron. 6:13 Solomon kneeling for dedicatory prayer at the Temple dedication.
> I Kings 19:18 all the knees that have not bowed to Baal
> Isa. 45:23 ‘every knee shall bow before me as in Phil 2:10; Romans 14:11
> Ezra 9:5 Ezra kneeling for a public prayer of penitence and confession
> II Chron. 7:3 all Israel knelt before God
> 2 Chron. 29:29 King Hezekiah and al with him knelt in worship before the Lord
> Another word means ‘prostrate oneself’ though this may be simply another form of kneeling
> I Chron 29:20 “all Israel prostrated itself before the Lord
> Neh. 8:6 “Ezra and all the people bowed down and worshipped the Lord with faces to the ground’
> And so of prayer in the Psalter: 5:7; 132:7; 138:2
> 
> In the NT similarly, kneeling is found frequently noted as posture
> 
> Luke 22:41 Jesus in Gethsemane
> Acts 7:60 Stephen
> Acts 20:36 Paul and the Ephesian elders
> Acts 21:5 Paul with the Church at Joppa



Did Gillespie interact with these verses? Or were his arguments primarily centered on how "papish" kneeling looked?

---------- Post added at 03:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 AM ----------

I also found these quotes and I am trying to determine their authenticity:





> The inward attitude certainly holds first place in prayer, but outward signs, kneeling, uncovering the head, lifting up the hands, have a twofold use. The first is that we may employ all our members for the glory and worship of God; secondly, that we are, so to speak, jolted out of our laziness by this help. There is also a third use in solemn and public prayer, because in this way the sons of God profess their piety, and they inflame each other with reverence of God. But just as the lifting up of the hands is a symbol of confidence and longing, so in order to show our humility, we fall down on our knees. (John Calvin, Commentary on Acts 20:36)





> Let us take, for example, kneeling when solemn prayers are being said. The question is whether it is a human tradition, which any man may lawfully repudiate or neglect. I say that it is human, as it is also divine. It is of God in so far as it is a part of that decorum whose care and observance the apostle has commended to us. But it is of men in so far as it specifically designates what had in general been suggested rather than explicitly stated. (John Calvin, Institutes, IV.10.30)



and




> ...nothing prohibits a man who cannot bend his knees because of disease from standing to pray. (John Calvin, Institutes, IV.10.31)




Would Calvin and Gillespie have disagreed on this issue; or where they addressing different points?

---------- Post added at 03:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 AM ----------




> As for bodily gestures customarily observed in praying, such as kneeling and uncovering the head, they are exercises whereby we try to rise to a greater reverence for God. (John Calvin, Institutes, III.20.33)



Was this an issue where the reformers were split, or was their an unanimous verdict with only a few dissenters?

---------- Post added at 03:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 AM ----------

Regarding prayer, sitting seems the least proved from Scripture as a recommended posture. Although, while I have eaten standing up, it does seem that kneeling or standing to eat a supper is unusual.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pergy, Have you read the portion of Gillespie that Chris offered? I suggest you do that.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Why not check Gillespie out? I've already given the basic argument which stood between him and the Anglicans above somewhere. He makes his case in the PDF I'm making available. As to the verses, we have the record of the institution of the Lord's Supper and the posture used. I see no case to vary from it. Yet assume the case posture is merely is circumstantial, more the reason to avoid kneeling per rules governing things indifferent (supposedly) and the rule I've noted out of Gillespie on dealing with monuments of idolatry.


----------



## dudley

NaphtaliPress said:


> We should be content to stop at God's prescriptions and patterns. Otherwise we are free to take communion standing on our head if it were possible. If that sounds impious, why is it not impious to take it kneeling which sorts us with idolaters as the Puritans would say? What I'm saying is hardly novel.
> 
> Here's Ridgley briefly on the subject:
> A body of divinity: wherein the ... - Thomas Ridgley - Google Books
> 
> Here is Philip Henry's objections to kneeling at the Lord's supper (Matthew's daddy):
> The life of the Rev. Philip Henry, A ... - Matthew Henry - Google Books
> 
> Knox/Hopper on the subject.
> Southern Presbyterian review - Google Books
> 
> Thomas Shepherd (from his life)
> The works of Thomas Shepard: first ... - Thomas Shepard - Google Books
> 
> I'm not sure if anyone more recent goes into this as minutely as George Gillespie or not. He puts the question of actual idolatry within these bounds (which he then follows with arguments, in his popish ceremonies part 3 chapter 4):
> §7. The question about the idolatry of kneeling between them and us stands in this: “Whether kneeling, at the instant of receiving the sacrament, before the consecrated bread and wine, purposely placed in our sight in the act of kneeling as signs standing in Christ’s stead, before which we, the receivers, are to exhibit outwardly religious adoration, be formally idolatry or not?”​
> 
> If anyone seriously wants to dive into this question with Gillespie I will offer my new version of that section (about 30 pages) which is more easily followed I think than the 19th century version online. To big to post and you will need to agree to use it for private use only as I intend publication in early 2013. Private message me if interested in the PDF.
> 
> I'm sorry that my interaction on this is so spotty, but this is really all I have time for. Perhaps some of our other defenders of Puritanism can step in if these resources are not enough?



I agree with you Chris. To kneel as the Romanist idolaters is to recognize that the bread has the carnal presence of Christ as the Lutherans also do. As Reformed Protestants we should remember that the Lord is present spiritually in communion and the bread and wine are sacramental signs to remind us of the sacrifice of Christ and the last supper which was meal. We receive and eat and drink the wine for spiritual nourishment of our souls. We receive the bread as such the body and blood of Christ are truly communicated because the bread and wine are sacramental signs by which he true communion not to be perishable food for the body but nourishment and food for eternal life , our soul. Thus the real presence of Christ is affirmed yet any carnal or local notion of presence be it Roman catholic or Lutheran is denied. I deny the roman catholic and Lutheran view and kneeling would send the message that we recognize the carnal presence of Christ which we do not …it is idolatry.


----------



## Pergamum

English Popish Ceremonies: Historical Introduction by Roy Middleton | Naphtali Press

A dispute against the English popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland : Gillespie, George, 1613-1648 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Here is where I accessed this book. I have not read all of it. Some parts are heavy plodding. The portion on the dedication of buildings, etc, was interesting, though.


The phrase that is repeated over and over is "Popish ceremonies." I.e., the argument seems to turn upon the inappropriateness of an action due to past idolatries associated with this action (by Rome).

Where is kneeling addressed? Can you help me find the chapter: Part 7: Popish Ceremonies are Proved to be Idolatrous Because They are Formally Idols Themselves (EPC 3.4.1-3.4.6) | Naphtali Press




> [Gillespie goes on for many more pages dealing specifically with the idolatry of kneeling at the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. These pages are not included here. See the printed versions. You may order the Naphtali Press version of English Popish Ceremonies from Amazon.com if you like. ]




---------- Post added at 04:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 AM ----------

Dudley,

I am looking for an argument as to why kneeling, in and of itself (without any reference to Popish ceremonies) is wrong. Is it wrong per se, or only wrong due to what historical abuses have caused it to mean?

It appears that kneeling in prayer is fine. If, however, one kneeled to pray and then immediately took the supper, I am trying to see how this could be wrong.

---------- Post added at 05:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 AM ----------

Linked is a website of a Presbyterian church that practices kneeling in worship: Heritage Presbyterian Church - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Are their reasons sound?

Can we say that kneeling in prayer is permitted but kneeling upon receiving the supper is not? What if prayer directly precedes receiving the supper, must we require the partaker to stand before administering the supper first?


----------



## dudley

Pergamum said:


> English Popish Ceremonies: Historical Introduction by Roy Middleton | Naphtali Press
> 
> A dispute against the English popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland : Gillespie, George, 1613-1648 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
> 
> Here is where I accessed this book. I have not read all of it. Some parts are heavy plodding. The portion on the dedication of buildings, etc, was interesting, though.
> 
> 
> The phrase that is repeated over and over is "Popish ceremonies." I.e., the argument seems to turn upon the inappropriateness of an action due to past idolatries associated with this action (by Rome).
> 
> Where is kneeling addressed? Can you help me find the chapter: Part 7: Popish Ceremonies are Proved to be Idolatrous Because They are Formally Idols Themselves (EPC 3.4.1-3.4.6) | Naphtali Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Gillespie goes on for many more pages dealing specifically with the idolatry of kneeling at the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. These pages are not included here. See the printed versions. You may order the Naphtali Press version of English Popish Ceremonies from Amazon.com if you like. ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 AM ----------
> 
> Dudley,
> 
> I am looking for an argument as to why kneeling, in and of itself (without any reference to Popish ceremonies) is wrong. Is it wrong per se, or only wrong due to what historical abuses have caused it to mean?
> 
> It appears that kneeling in prayer is fine. If, however, one kneeled to pray and then immediately took the supper, I am trying to see how this could be wrong.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 05:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 AM ----------
> 
> Linked is a website of a Presbyterian church that practices kneeling in worship: Heritage Presbyterian Church - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Are their reasons sound?
> 
> Can we say that kneeling in prayer is permitted but kneeling upon receiving the supper is not? What if prayer directly precedes receiving the supper, must we require the partaker to stand before administering the supper first?
Click to expand...



It is wrong primarily due to what historical abuses have caused it to mean. That is why the Reformers objected. I agreed with Chris. To kneel as the Romanist idolaters is to recognize that the bread has the carnal presence of Christ as the Lutherans also do. As Reformed Protestants we should remember that the Lord is present spiritually in communion and the bread and wine are sacramental signs to remind us of the sacrifice of Christ and the last supper which was meal. The real presence of Christ is affirmed yet any carnal or local notion of presence be it Roman catholic or Lutheran is denied. I deny the roman catholic and Lutheran view and kneeling would send the message that we recognize the carnal presence of Christ which we do not …it is idolatry. I was always repulsed even while still a Roman catholic at the adoration of a bread wafer. I knew Christ was present and at one time I believed in the catholic teaching of transubstantiation. After Vatican II the worship of the bread wafer stopped. Then this current pope re introduced it and many other old popish ceremonies…that is when I left the Roman catholic church and became a Protestant. I discovered that Calvin and Knox’s teaching on the Lords Supper was what I believed to be the truth. My study of the Protestant reformation also led me to believe that both transubstantiation and the adoration of the Eucharist were inventions of 11th century popes. No Biblical basis. I renounced all those Roman catholic teachings when I renounced the pope and roman Catholicism at the time I was becoming a Presbyterian. I now believe to kneel and adore a piece of bread is a blasphemy of the Lords Supper. It is heresy and to kneel would to me give a sign that we accept the view of the papists . I also as I said am repulsed now a the adoration of the bread , Mary , the saints and all the popish rituals which deny the true message of salvation. I now think that the catholic teaching on the Lords supper and practices are a blasphemy and I also think the mass is an abomination. I renounce it as did the reformers did. I think we need to keep our Protestant identity. I can identify with Calvin and I understand what he meant when he said “Surely, though, they should not have a monopoly on reverence in worship. John Calvin (who thought the Pope was the Antichrist!) himself recommended kneeling in prayer to assist our hearts: I also like Calvin think the papacy is an antichrist institution and popes are in essence anti-Christ’s .It is also why I renounced the pope when I renounced my Roman Catholicism . I believe and follow the original Westminster Confession. I think there is an argument for kneeling but my fear is it would be misunderstood. I have distanced myself from anything that is Roman catholic and popish in any way. I think Roman Catholicism is a man made religion and her distortions are a deceit of Satan himself. I do think the Roman catholic church is the Whore of Babylon .It is why I am now a Reformed Protestant.


----------



## jwithnell

To turn the question on its head, where does it say to _sit and fold our hands_ during prayer or worship? I agree that care should be given during the Lord's table because of the idolatrous association with the mass. (Although, our lack of an alter mitigates to some extent.) But I think we've been reactionary against both the RC and the charismatics. Lifting hands in worship and praise and having the opportunity to kneel during prayer are squarely Biblical. Since the first (praise) is not normally associated w/reformed worship, I'd be concerned about being ostentatious. But in prayer, who should be looking except God?




> If you visit a church that desires you to kneel to pray or take communion, what should you do? What if the church is clearly Reformed and does not believe in the Popish doctrines of the Mass?


 This is precisely why I do not participate in the Lord's table at my folk's Lutheran church.


----------



## Pergamum

dudley said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> English Popish Ceremonies: Historical Introduction by Roy Middleton | Naphtali Press
> 
> A dispute against the English popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland : Gillespie, George, 1613-1648 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
> 
> Here is where I accessed this book. I have not read all of it. Some parts are heavy plodding. The portion on the dedication of buildings, etc, was interesting, though.
> 
> 
> The phrase that is repeated over and over is "Popish ceremonies." I.e., the argument seems to turn upon the inappropriateness of an action due to past idolatries associated with this action (by Rome).
> 
> Where is kneeling addressed? Can you help me find the chapter: Part 7: Popish Ceremonies are Proved to be Idolatrous Because They are Formally Idols Themselves (EPC 3.4.1-3.4.6) | Naphtali Press
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Gillespie goes on for many more pages dealing specifically with the idolatry of kneeling at the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. These pages are not included here. See the printed versions. You may order the Naphtali Press version of English Popish Ceremonies from Amazon.com if you like. ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 AM ----------
> 
> Dudley,
> 
> I am looking for an argument as to why kneeling, in and of itself (without any reference to Popish ceremonies) is wrong. Is it wrong per se, or only wrong due to what historical abuses have caused it to mean?
> 
> It appears that kneeling in prayer is fine. If, however, one kneeled to pray and then immediately took the supper, I am trying to see how this could be wrong.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 05:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 AM ----------
> 
> Linked is a website of a Presbyterian church that practices kneeling in worship: Heritage Presbyterian Church - Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Are their reasons sound?
> 
> Can we say that kneeling in prayer is permitted but kneeling upon receiving the supper is not? What if prayer directly precedes receiving the supper, must we require the partaker to stand before administering the supper first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is wrong primarily due to what historical abuses have caused it to mean. That is why the Reformers objected. I agreed with Chris. To kneel as the Romanist idolaters is to recognize that the bread has the carnal presence of Christ as the Lutherans also do. As Reformed Protestants we should remember that the Lord is present spiritually in communion and the bread and wine are sacramental signs to remind us of the sacrifice of Christ and the last supper which was meal. The real presence of Christ is affirmed yet any carnal or local notion of presence be it Roman catholic or Lutheran is denied. I deny the roman catholic and Lutheran view and kneeling would send the message that we recognize the carnal presence of Christ which we do not …it is idolatry. I was always repulsed even while still a Roman catholic at the adoration of a bread wafer. I knew Christ was present and at one time I believed in the catholic teaching of transubstantiation. After Vatican II the worship of the bread wafer stopped. Then this current pope re introduced it and many other old popish ceremonies…that is when I left the Roman catholic church and became a Protestant. I discovered that Calvin and Knox’s teaching on the Lords Supper was what I believed to be the truth. My study of the Protestant reformation also led me to believe that both transubstantiation and the adoration of the Eucharist were inventions of 11th century popes. No Biblical basis. I renounced all those Roman catholic teachings when I renounced the pope and roman Catholicism at the time I was becoming a Presbyterian. I now believe to kneel and adore a piece of bread is a blasphemy of the Lords Supper. It is heresy and to kneel would to me give a sign that we accept the view of the papists . I also as I said am repulsed now a the adoration of the bread , Mary , the saints and all the popish rituals which deny the true message of salvation. I now think that the catholic teaching on the Lords supper and practices are a blasphemy and I also think the mass is an abomination. I renounce it as did the reformers did. I think we need to keep our Protestant identity. I can identify with Calvin and I understand what he meant when he said “Surely, though, they should not have a monopoly on reverence in worship. John Calvin (who thought the Pope was the Antichrist!) himself recommended kneeling in prayer to assist our hearts: I also like Calvin think the papacy is an antichrist institution and popes are in essence anti-Christ’s .It is also why I renounced the pope when I renounced my Roman Catholicism . I believe and follow the original Westminster Confession. I think there is an argument for kneeling but my fear is it would be misunderstood. I have distanced myself from anything that is Roman catholic and popish in any way. I think Roman Catholicism is a man made religion and her distortions are a deceit of Satan himself. I do think the Roman catholic church is the Whore of Babylon .It is why I am now a Reformed Protestant.
Click to expand...


Dudley,

You stated, 


> It is wrong primarily due to what historical abuses have caused it to mean.



In regions which have no acquaintance with Catholicism, is it thus still wrong (if no idolatry is attached to it and one kneels in prayer directly prior to partaking and doesn't bother with taking another posture before taking the supper)? Would you agree that there is no universal morally binding principal which makes kneeling per se (in and of itself) wrong when partaking the supper?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pergamum said:


> Where is kneeling addressed?



Pergy, Chris offered to email anyone the section that discussed it in relation to the Lord's table. You need to message him. Kneeling at the Lord's table has a host of problems. Message Chris and he will send you the pdf. 




NaphtaliPress said:


> If anyone seriously wants to dive into this question with Gillespie I will offer my new version of that section (about 30 pages) which is more easily followed I think than the 19th century version online. To big to post and you will need to agree to use it for private use only as I intend publication in early 2013. Private message me if interested in the PDF.


----------



## Pergamum

Just did, thanks.

I will read it and then, afterward, post again here.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The 33 page extract from the forthcoming revised text of EPC covers section 7-28 (end of chapter) which is all the section on kneeling. I have sent Pergamum the extract but one can look online for part 3 chapter four, and those sections to read the 19th or 17th century text. The extract has extensive addendum on bibliography and the Latin translated. And the PDF should be a very clean read; but I have disabled cut and paste and high quality printing given the provisional nature of the file and that it is from a forthcoming publication.

Again, Gillespie is not arguing against the posture of kneeling in total, but against it at the receiving the elements of the Lord's supper. I gave the thesis above more than once I think. So there are two arguments; one is against kneeling at communion as noted in the thesis as simply unlawful; the other is that it needs to be avoided due to it being a monument of idolatry and badge of ongoing idolatry with the RCC.


----------

