# Covenant Renewal Worship



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 23, 2005)

Where did this come from? What is it? Who started it?

It seems very similar to what all the Federal Vision supporters' churches do as far as worship/liturgical practice is concerned.


----------



## turmeric (Aug 23, 2005)

Never heard of it. What is it?


----------



## kceaster (Aug 23, 2005)

*Gabe...*

I'm not sure how others look at it or if this would indeed be the origin of it, but the cup of the Lord represents the new covenant in His blood. If anything, when we are at the Lord's Table, and hopefully this is often, we are renewing the covenant in His blood by obeying His command in remembrance.

I think our weekly sabbath can also be viewed as being like those times when the covenant really was renewed. When the people oathed and said, "All the words which the LORD has said we will do."

I do not think that this terminology started with FV. At least I hope it didn't. I know Mike Horton talks about this concept as being a Reformed one. Perhaps Dr. Clark can help in this area as to the historicity.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 23, 2005)

Well, I understand the concept of covenant renewal, but I am talking about the order of the services themselves. They are extremely high-church liturgical, and there is not much singing of Scripture involved at all. It is mostly a recitation of man-written words and creeds, kneeling, raising, etc. Very Romish in my estimation. I am just curious who "started this" and under what Biblical warrant - I see none.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 23, 2005)

One of my Federal Vision acquaintances says that James Jordan wrote a lot on this topic to help get this liturgy back in the church. It is apparently a "comprehensively catholic" liturgy that adopts things from every denomination and puts the best of it together, from history.


----------



## Scott (Aug 24, 2005)

There is nothing Romish about it. They do not hold a mass. Their liturgies tend to resemble those of Calvin's geneva. If you look at the elements, they are the same as those in the WCF, if "psalms" is broadly understood. As far as manmade words, these people tend to push for inclusion of psalms in worship. While not EP, they typically have more psalms than other churches. 

I am not saying that I completely buy into the "covenant renewal" idea. Some of the theoretical underpinnings don't make allot of sense. Yet, the services are typically very orthodox.

One downside is that some covenant renewal people seem to buy into paedocommunion. That is another way the covenant renewal people are not Romish, as Roman Catholics do not practice paedocommunion. Certainly not all CR people support paedocommunion, but there is an uncomfortable association.

Here is a book review of a book on covenant renewal.

[Edited on 8-24-2005 by Scott]


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I am not saying that I completely buy into the "covenant renewal" idea. Some of the theoretical underpinnings don't make allot of sense. Yet, the services are typically very orthodox.
> 
> One downside is that some covenant renewal people seem to buy into paedocommunion. That is another way the covenant renewal people are not Romish, as Roman Catholics do not practice paedocommunion. Certainly not all CR people support paedocommunion, but there is an uncomfortable association.


This probably is because of the influence of the writings of Jordan; I've noted the same; the big cheerleaders for this do seem to be also cheerleaders for paedocommunion.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well, I understand the concept of covenant renewal, but I am talking about the order of the services themselves. They are extremely high-church liturgical, and there is not much singing of Scripture involved at all. It is mostly a recitation of man-written words and creeds, kneeling, raising, etc. Very Romish in my estimation. I am just curious who "started this" and under what Biblical warrant - I see none.



I'm not sure about the other FV churches, but the last time I was at Auburn Avenue, we sang three or four psalms, one hymn, and a metrical version of Isaiah 2. Of course, you would still be correct in labeling it high church.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 24, 2005)

RC Sproul, Jr used this terminology pretty recently in his blog, which I'm sure a lot of people here read. But since no one has linked it yet, here it is. You can see the paedocommunion stance that some have referred to:



> If you were to come to worship with us, if you were to experience high Presbyterian liturgy, a covenant renewal service, what you would find could be seen, in a manner of speaking, almost like a Baptist tent revival. First, we are called by God to appear before Him. We begin with God calling us to appear, all of us, men, women and children. It is the Lord´s Day, the Day of the Lord when the Lord comes to inspect us. What will he find? A room full of sinners. This is why we respond to His call by confessing our sin, or to put it another way, by repenting. This too is for every man, woman and child. All Christians, whether they´ve been baptized yet or not, are called to repent. Next we hear the assurance of God´s pardon, we respond in grateful thanksgiving by praising God in song. Then another curious thing happens. All of us, men, women and children, profess our faith together, either reciting the first question to the Heidelberg Catechism or singing together the Apostle´s or the Nicene Creed. There again we acknowledge our sins, and our dependence upon the grace of God.
> 
> Having confessed that we belong to Him, we listen then to His instructions, as the Word of God is preached. And then comes the altar call. No kidding. Every Lord´s Day everyone, man, woman and child, is called to come forward and either embrace Christ´s work for the first time, or to rededicate their lives to Christ. Which one it is we don´t much care. Either way they are at peace with God. Of course we don´t call this an altar call. We call it celebrating the Lord´s Table.



http://highlands.gospelcom.net/journals/hsc/


----------



## AdamM (Aug 24, 2005)

In regard to Covenant Renewal worship, I think in **some** cases there is tendency to lessen the importance and priority of the preaching in worship. Often times I am left with the impression that in CR worship, that the celebration of the Lord's Supper is most prominent in the worship service or at least some advocates hesitate to acknowledge the preeminence of the preached Word (too Greek, too rational I suppose.) I understand that this is not true in all cases, so I don't want to paint with too broad of brush, but is this a shift anyone else here has picked up on?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 24, 2005)

> In regard to Covenant Renewal worship, I think in **some** cases there is tendency to lessen the importance and priority of the preaching in worship.



Good thing you modified it with "some." Steve Wilkins regularly preaches for 45 minutes and Doug Wilson wrote a book arguing for the preached word.
(I hope I don't get banned for saying that).



> Well, I understand the concept of covenant renewal, but I am talking about the order of the services themselves. They are extremely high-church liturgical, and there is not much singing of Scripture involved at all. It is mostly a recitation of man-written words and creeds, kneeling, raising, etc. Very Romish in my estimation. I am just curious who "started this" and under what Biblical warrant - I see none.



If so, then I am the formost of Papists, except for the kneeling thing.


----------



## AdamM (Aug 24, 2005)

> Good thing you modified it with "some." Steve Wilkins regularly preaches for 45 minutes and Doug Wilson wrote a book arguing for the preached word.
> (I hope I don't get banned for saying that).



Yes, I did say **some** and for the very reason you mentioned. I too know several pastors who have a very high liturgy and place a great importance on preaching, but I do think it is fair to say that within the movement of CRW, there are a number of proponents who think in at least Westminsterian circles, that the sermon has been given too prominent of place in worship.


----------



## Peter (Aug 24, 2005)

High church ceremonialism is the foremost problem (in doctrine and worship) in the Reformed Church in my opinion. Because 1) its prevalence (especially in the PCA) (2) the way it's thought of and treated as innoculous (3) the zeal & sacrifice with which reformers contended against it in the past (4) how it seems to be a springboard for other popish errors such as ex opere operato powers of sacraments, works salvation, and FV and RefCatholicity in general (5) how much it angers God when finite humans presume to know how to worship God better than he does... obedience is better than sacrifice.

[Edited on 8-24-2005 by Peter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> High church ceremonialism is the foremost problem (in doctrine and worship) in the Reformed Church in my opinion. Because 1) its prevalence (especially in the PCA) (2) the way it's thought of and treated as innoculous (3) the zeal & sacrifice with which reformers contended against it in the past (4) how it seems to be a springboard for other popish errors such as ex opere operato powers of sacraments, works salvation, and FV and RefCatholicity in general (5) how much it angers God when finite humans presume to know how to worship God better than he does... obedience is better than sacrifice.





{Edited to fit in thread by Moderator}

[Edited on 8/25/2005 by wsw201]


----------



## Scott (Aug 26, 2005)

Peter: What ceremonies bother you? What is "ceremonialism?" In my experience by far the larger problem in PCA and other reformed churches is that they are nearly indistguishable from low-church independent groups, like Bible churches, with their low view of the sacraments and all. 

From what I have seen, CR is just an understanding of how we order the elements of worship. And they tend to me more ordered than the sometimes "on the fly" nature of many indepedent and Bible churches.

I would say that the CR people at least have a better understanding of what is going on in worship, namely a dialogue between God and man. It is not just a random mixture of agreed-upon elements. The CR understanding in that respect is correct. The is a fairly standard reformed understanding. For example, Ch. 3.1 of the OPC's book of Church Order provides:



> As a service of public worship is in its essence a meeting of God and his people, the parts of the service are of two kinds: those which are performed on behalf of God, and those which are performed by the congregation. In the former the worshippers are receptive, in the latter they are active. It is reasonable that these two elements be made to alternate as far as possible.



This is to reflect the dialogue that goes on. It is one reason why only ordained ministers should officiate, as they are actually speaking on God's behalf. 

Scott

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Peter (Aug 26, 2005)

Scott, I didn't mean to imply anything about CR, I don't know enough about it. 

By ceremonies and ceremonialism I mean that form of worship and those practices which were fiercely denounced and opposed by the Reformed Churches especially the Church of Scotland, to name a few specific practices, kneeling for communion, crossing one's self, genuflecting, rote repetition from a prayer book, decore such as surplice and other priestly garp, crosses, candles, crucifixes, etc.


----------



## Peter (Aug 26, 2005)

Anyone attempting the aforementioned at my church would receive a 4-legged stool flung at their head. :bigsmile:


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 26, 2005)

> kneeling for communion, crossing one's self, genuflecting, rote repetition from a prayer book, decore such as surplice and other priestly garp, crosses, candles, crucifixes, etc.



The CR churches I have attended have none of the above in their order of worship.


----------



## Scott (Aug 26, 2005)

As I understand the Church of Scotland had written prayers. So did many other reformed churches. Insistence on the exclusive use of free form prayers was unique only to some churches (the American congregational experience is one example). I am not aware of CR churches advocating surplices (although they often wear Genevan gowns, as was common to reformers), genuflection or crucifixes. The presence of crosses and candles (at least in certain settings) is common among most traditions now, with limited exceptions.


----------



## Peter (Aug 26, 2005)

To my knowledge the CoS had only examples of prayers and directions for what to pray for, not formal prayers to be recited by the clergy and the congregation as the Church of England. 

The Directory for Public Worswhip speaking of the English Liturgy:



> For, not to speak of urging the reading of all the prayers, which greatly increased the burden of it... Prelates and their faction have labored to raise the estimation of it to such a height, as if there were no other worship or way of worship of God, amongst us, but only the service book; to the great hinderance of the preaching of the word, and (in some places especially of late) to the justling of it out as unneccessary, or at the least, as far inferior to the reading of common prayer: which was made no better than an idol by many ignorant and superstitious people who pleasing themselves in their presence at that service, and their lip-labor in bearing a part in it, have thereby hardened themselves in their ignorance and carelessness of saving knowledge and true piety.
> In the mean time, Papists boasted that the book was a compliance with them in a great part of their service...


----------



## AdamM (Aug 26, 2005)

It would seem to me that one of the characteristics of Reformed worship in the Presbyterian stream has been the emphasis upon simplicity and Word based worship. Here is a link to an excellent article on worship written by Packer where he expounds on the theme: 

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=39||489




> The Glory of Worship
> 
> But these problems concerned the forms and externals of worship only, and our present interest is rather in the inner reality of worship, as the Puritans understood it. Here, wherever else they differed, they were at one, and the written material they have left us is completely homogeneous, as we shall hope to show by a fairly wide range of quotations. What is worship? It is essentially doxology, a giving of glory, praise, honor, and homage to God. In the broadest sense of the word, all true piety is worship. 'Godliness is a worship,' wrote Swinnock:
> Worship comprehends all that respect which man oweth and giveth to his Maker...It is the tribute which we pay to the King of Kings, whereby we acknowledge his sovereignty over us, and our dependence on him...All that inward reverence and respect, and all that outward obedience and service to God, which the word [sc,godliness] enjoineth, is included in this one word worship. [2]
> ...




[Edited on 8-26-2005 by AdamM]

[Edited on 8-29-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## Robin (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well, I understand the concept of covenant renewal, but I am talking about the order of the services themselves. They are extremely high-church liturgical, and there is not much singing of Scripture involved at all. It is mostly a recitation of man-written words and creeds, kneeling, raising, etc. Very Romish in my estimation. I am just curious who "started this" and under what Biblical warrant - I see none.



Gabe, this is what our service is like....rest assured it is modeled after the commands of worship in the OT/NT. At first glance, I thought it very RC. But what did I know, being raised in Calvary Chapel and Billy Graham crusades? Our service was taken from a pared-down format Calvin used - Michael Horton helped transcribe the liturgy, as I understand (as he and Kim Riddlebarger planted Christ Reformed Church, in Anaheim, CA.)

Here's the liturgy: 

http://www.christreformed.org/resources/liturgy1.shtml?main

One thing I find so exhilarating about it is we get to learn the entire Bible via OT scriptures tied to their NT counterparts; Christ is at the center; and last but not least, it makes unbelievers very uncomfortable! This is such a good thing, because the Gospel exposure is potent - pouring out, full-blast each Lord's Day! 

The Supper is as if Christ Himself were right there with us, renewing His promise - as real as tasting bread/wine and hearing His Word.

Robin


----------



## Peter (Aug 27, 2005)

As someone born and raised RC for the 1st ten years of my life I can tell you this liturgy is very RC. Have you seen the RC missal?


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 27, 2005)

I visited the local RPCNA church last Lord's day, and noticed that their service is CRW. See this page from their website.

Here is their liturgy.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I visited the local RPCNA church last Lord's day, and noticed that their service is CRW. See this page from their website.
> 
> Here is their liturgy.



This is disturbing to me.


----------



## Robin (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Gabe,

please explain...why disturbing?

r.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...




From the RPCNA Testimony of Faith:



> *1. All people are required to worship the true God, in a scriptural manner, with sincerity of heart. Sincerity cannot make unscriptural worship acceptable to God. Proper worship is to be conducted in an orderly manner. The tendency to emphasize ritual, liturgy and ceremony is contrary to the Scriptures.*
> Acts 24:16; John 16:2; Isa. 1:11-15; John 4:24; Heb. 10:19-22.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 27, 2005)

Gabe,
How would you define ritual?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> From the RPCNA Testimony of Faith:
> 
> ...



Yikes! Don't tell Calvin or Knox!! You, know, Knox, the pastor of the lady who threw the stool -- the one who had a liturgy?

I think I'll stick with WCF 21 and not add any testimonies.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 27, 2005)

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Yikes! Don't tell Calvin or Knox!! You, know, Knox, the pastor of the lady who threw the stool -- the one who had a liturgy?
> 
> I think I'll stick with WCF 21 and not add any testimonies.



So you're EP now? I am constantly confused at the unending, contradictory appeals to both Calvin/Knox and the WCF as authority, when both sides are constantly in disagreement with them on various issues.

The RPCNA Testimony is saying nothing different from this:



> *1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.*
> Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:24; Ps. 119:68; Jer. 10:7; Ps. 31:23; Ps. 18:3; Rom. 10:12; Ps. 62:8; Josh. 24:14; Mark 12:33; Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9; Acts 17:25; Matt. 4:9-10; Deut. 4:15-20; Ex. 20:4-6; Col. 2:23.



[Edited on 8-27-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

If you are going to appeal to Calvin/Knox (who were both EP and opposed to the use of instruments in worship) on worship, then you need to be in agreement with their complete view of worship, to not contradict yourself. Likewise, to appeal to WCF 21 as your basis of worship - and not be EP - is also not a valid appeal. You can't argue this way, because it is picking and choosing what you want to agree with you, and ignoring where it disagrees with you. The only thing we can appeal to, in such a discussion (on worship) is the Scriptures, unless we are 100% confessional, which I know you and others on this board are not. In fact, most on the board are not, with the exception of Andrew, Dr. MacMahon and a few others. They have the logical right to appeal to the WCF on issues of worship, but those who disagree with some or many claims of the WCF on worship can't simply appeal to it to argue their case, especially from silence (as the issue of liturgy and ceremony certainly is, in regards to what the WCF teaches).

[Edited on 8-27-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



The point is that you looked at ONE order of worship, saw the word "liturgy" and then jumped to the huge conclusion that this was somehow the same thing that the Testimony was referring to.

Every church has a liturgy, including the one you attend, unless the order of worship is random every week. "Ritual" and "ceremonies" are in reference to the badges of Popery, which clearly the elements of this liturgy are not, since they are nearly identical with Knox's and Calvin's order of worship.

Your statement about appeals to authority unless one is in 100% agreement with everything the cited authority believed is too ridiculous to comment upon. But then again, I would not have expected you to beat the EP hobby horse when given the remotest chance.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I am constantly confused at the unending, contradictory appeals to both Calvin/Knox and the WCF as authority, when both sides are constantly in disagreement with them on various issues.





It sometimes seems like we draw from either 1st generation reformers or the Westminster puritans (at the points in which they conflict) whenever they align with what we want or like to see in worship. 

As much as I would like to see them align on everything, there are differences to the way worship was conduted by Calvin et al, and the Westminster divines "simplistic" idea of worship.

At the end of the day, as much respect I have for Calvin, my understanding aligns closer to the divines in this regard.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 27, 2005)

Let us NOT overreact to FV/paedocommunion and other abberant forms of Reformed theology by tossing out anything that resembles it in other areas of theology or practice. 

To simply have a liturgy, as Fred pointed out, is to be in line with the whole Reformation unless we want to be like Quakers and only do things as the Spirit moves us. 

And for the record Gabe, Calvin was NOT an exclusive psalmodist since they sang the Apostle's Creed in the services at Geneva (even G.I. Williamson admits this point).


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Jeff,

I am not overly into a more formal liturgy either. (Again, every church has a liturgy). The problem is not that people cite one source or another. The problem is when we make assumptions, or unknowingly false statements. The truth is that you cannot be "closer to the divines" than Calvin. Their orders of worship were nearly identical (and the BCP as well), as shown by this chart I culled from Horton Davies. The key is not the _order _of worship (what many falsely refer to as "liturgy" in the negative sense, but in the _elements_ of worship.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 27, 2005)

I'm sorry you find what I said (most of what I say, actually, but that is not for me to deal with) as rediculous and not worth discussing, Fred. However, you are committing a logical fallacy every single time you appeal to the WCF along with Calvin on issues related to worship. You are excluding evidence that would change the outcome of your stance on worship (which you hold to be the only correct one, I'm sure, as we likely all do). This is the fallacy of exclusion and is not a valid argument.

The Westminster Divines teach a view of worship. Calvin teaches a view of worship. These views on worship sometimes mesh, but in some places they do not. Your view of worship does not mesh with either, 100%. These are all objective facts.

For you to appeal to the WCF as a defense of your position on worship is invalid, because you are forced to be _selective_ in choosing what evidence you wish to appeal to. You cannot appeal to WCF 21 in its entirety, because to do so would oppose your position on worship on some issues and points, but not all or most. Likewise, for you to appeal to Calvin, who staunchly opposed the use of instruments in worship (which you disagree with), and believe that only Scripture was to be sung in worship, namely the Psalms (which you apparently disagree with in a strict sense), is invalid, because Calvin's views on worship do not mesh 100% with your views on worship. To appeal to Calvin on worship, you must exclude some of his beliefs in order to support your own. Again, the fallacy of exclusion.

Therefore, only those who are 100% confessional can appeal to the WCF to support their total view of worship, unless they admit where they are, themselves, wrong or unconfessional and contradictory. It is fine to appeal to the WCF if you are not completely confessional, but you should be honest and admit your inconsistency or contradiction in order to produce a strong, valid argument for your viewpoint. The same applies with Calvin's views on worship. Likely, not many of us agree with every single word Calvin said on worship, so when presenting our case for worship, and appealing to Calvin's teachings, to be a responsible arguer we must make a point of mentioning our exceptions to his views and where we are inconsistent with them. Otherwise, we are mis-representing Calvin by appealing to him to support our view on worship which opposes, on some distinct points, his view of worship.


----------



## Peter (Aug 27, 2005)

This is the liturgy at my church, its CR too:

http://www.latinliturgy.com/nomass.html

come on people WCF 21, its all about the mass!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> And for the record Gabe, Calvin was NOT an exclusive psalmodist since they sang the Apostle's Creed in the services at Geneva (even G.I. Williamson admits this point).



I am well aware of this, but I reject any notion that would claim this was a form of worship directed towards God, and not a device for affirming their own faith and beliefs, and edifying one another (as Eph 5:19/Col 3:16 commands).


----------



## Poimen (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Um... They WERE singing it. Therefore it was a song that was not a psalm, hence Calvin was not an exclusive psalmodist. 

It doesn't matter if they affirming their faith and beliefs because all songs do that. And all songs must be directed towards God because all of worship is ultimately about glorifying Him. 

Calvin was not an exclusive psalmodist.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 27, 2005)

I disagree. The Apostle's Creed is not a worship song, nor is it meant to be, nor have I seen any evidence that would prove Calvin saw it as such. I simply see it as a traditional way of teaching/memorizing (by song) and affirming their faith. To simply sing it does not mean it has become a worship song. Singing things in order to teach them (such as the catechisms) is an age-old, common practice. I believe this is what they were doing, and this falls in line directly with Calvin's interpretations of Eph 5:19/Col 3:16, since he did not see them as referring to an act of corporate worship.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 27, 2005)

> *"While the Strasbourg psalter of 1539 and the Geneva Psalter included the Apostles Creed, it should be remembered that it was widely believed at the time that the Creed was composed by the apostles themselves. It is also noteworthy that from 1562, when the Geneva Psalter was expanded to include all the one hundred fifty Psalms, most editions ceased to supply accompanying melodies for the text of the Lord's Prayer, the Apostles Creed, and ClÃ©ment Marot's prayers for before and after a meal, and none of these texts ever appear on the tables of songs used in the Genevan church.(207)"*
> Sherman Isbell, _Singing of Psalms. . . ._, XIV.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I am not overly into a more formal liturgy either. (Again, every church has a liturgy).



This is good. I am not into a more formal liturgy either. I also realize that every church has SOME form of liturgy.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The problem is not that people cite one source or another. The problem is when we make assumptions, or unknowingly false statements.



I don't have a problem with citing either Calvin or Westminster, my point was that in matters of worship, they are not exactly the same. 



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The truth is that you cannot be "closer to the divines" than Calvin.



I think that one CAN be closer in worship style/elements/form etc. to Westminster than Calvin.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Their orders of worship were nearly identical (and the BCP as well), as shown by this chart I culled from Horton Davies.



Thanks for the chart. That is helpful. Earlier this year I attended What is Reformed Worship? at our sister PCA church, hosted by Derek Thomas. During the conference, he examined and parallelled Calvin's liturgy and the Westminster's "liturgy." 
Here is the The Strassburg Liturgy (1539) and the The Strassburg Liturgy (1545).



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The key is not the _order _of worship (what many falsely refer to as "liturgy" in the negative sense, but in the _elements_ of worship.



I agree that it is not the order of elements that is the primary difference between Calvin and Westminster. It is the elements of which I was referring to (i.e. Apostle's creed, reading of the law etc.).


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'm sorry you find what I said (most of what I say, actually, but that is not for me to deal with) as rediculous and not worth discussing, Fred. However, you are committing a logical fallacy every single time you appeal to the WCF along with Calvin on issues related to worship. You are excluding evidence that would change the outcome of your stance on worship (which you hold to be the only correct one, I'm sure, as we likely all do). This is the fallacy of exclusion and is not a valid argument.
> 
> The Westminster Divines teach a view of worship. Calvin teaches a view of worship. These views on worship sometimes mesh, but in some places they do not. Your view of worship does not mesh with either, 100%. These are all objective facts.
> ...



I do understand what you are getting at here, your thinly veiled attempt to make EP a test of orthodoxy, so that you can use that as a trump over others. But it doesn't wash. It is prima facie ridiculous to say that because X believes A, B, C, and D, and I believe A, B, and D, and you A, B, and C, that X cannot be used as evidence for the correctness of "D." Remember the context: it was not to show anything about Psalmody, but rather liturgy. So it makes logical sense to say that because you believe in EP, and the divines did, no one can criticize your opinions as being contrary to the divines on anything with worship? If that is the case, then you can reduce your post count by 70%, since you won't be able to criticize any non-EPers, because you are contra Westminster and Calvin on liturgy.

As just one example of how ridiculous this is, it would also mean that Calvin and the divines would not be sound guides on anything, because both constantly cite the Church Fathers as authorities (look at the number of citations in the Institutes alone) when neither agreed 100% (or perhaps even 75% for that matter) with the Fathers. Even worse, both Calvin and the Puritans appeal to _pagans_ as authorities in their writings. Knox does so with frequency regarding government in _The First Blast of the Trumpet_. So his arguments should be ignored since he uses authorities with which he does not agree 100%?

Sheesh.


----------



## Peter (Aug 27, 2005)

Fred, I don't agree with what Gabe said but I have no idea why you referenced WCF 21 as support for a liturgy which is composed nearly entirely of man made responsorial prayers. ???


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Fred, I don't agree with what Gabe said but I have no idea why you referenced WCF 21 as support for a liturgy which is composed nearly entirely of man made responsorial prayers. ???



Because WCF 21 sets the bounds for worship, and it is completely silent on the issue of liturgy, as further evidenced by the liturgy used by the divines themselves. WCF 21 does not show that such a form of liturgy is necessary or even good (as you point out); but it does show that it is permissible by its silence.


----------



## Peter (Aug 27, 2005)

1. The confession does not speak on every single moral issue. that does not mean the sins it is silent on are permissable. 2. The assembly did adopt a directory for worship which does condemn such novelties.

and if you wouldn't mind please shrink the image of the table you posted.

[Edited on 8-27-2005 by Peter]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 1. The confession does not speak on every single moral issue. that does not mean the sins it is silent on are permissable. 2. The assembly did adopt a directory for worship which does condemn such novelties. 3. Stop equivocating on the meaning of liturgy. no one here is arguing against an order for worship. When we condemn "liturgy" and "liturgicalism" we mean popish ritualism.



1. The Confession describes what is proper worship, and that goes to elements, not order or circumstance.

2. What novelties in the linked liturgy are condemned by the DoW, and where?

3. I am not equivocating on the meaning of worship. Popularly, it has two main definitions: (a) Popish ceremonies, such as the lighting of candles, vain repititions, worship in an unknown language, additional non-Biblical elements and the like, and Popish trappings (surplice, etc). All of these are improper, and should not be in worship. But that is different than looking at an order of worship, deciding it is too formal, and then making it identical it with Popish ceremonies.

Peter- I don't think we have disagreed on this at all. I too spent many years growing up in Popery, and I can spot such vain ceremony as well.

My point was not to say that Popish ceremonies are permissible, but only that we define them properly. To say that reciting the Apostles Creed corporately is the equivalent of using incense is to condemn the very divines that penned the DoW and WCF 21 (which you did not do).


----------



## Peter (Aug 27, 2005)

Fred I previously quoted the preface of DfPW were it expressly condemns this practice.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 27, 2005)

Is this the quote from above?:


> For, not to speak of urging the reading of all the prayers, which greatly increased the burden of it... Prelates and their faction have labored to raise the estimation of it to such a height, as if there were no other worship or way of worship of God, amongst us, but only the service book; to the great hinderance of the preaching of the word, and (in some places especially of late) to the justling of it out as unneccessary, or at the least, as far inferior to the reading of common prayer: which was made no better than an idol by many ignorant and superstitious people who pleasing themselves in their presence at that service, and their lip-labor in bearing a part in it, have thereby hardened themselves in their ignorance and carelessness of saving knowledge and true piety.
> In the mean time, Papists boasted that the book was a compliance with them in a great part of their service...


This is an express condemnation of: the _abuse_ of the Anglican prayer-book as if its use and even overuse was the pinnacle of worship.
1. "...reading of *all* the prayers, which greatly increased the *burden* of it..."
2. "...raise the estimation of it ... as if there were no other worship or way of worship of God..."
3. "...to the great hinderance of the preaching of the word, ... justling of it out as unneccessary, or ... inferior to the reading of common prayer..."
4. "...made no better than an idol ..."

As they pointed out, the papists (or anglo-papists) were able to say that for the most part a _prayer-book service_ differed very little from a Roman service.

This portion, in any case, does not speak to Fred's point.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 27, 2005)

Fred, I believe you have jumped to conclusions as to my intentions. I still disagree with you. We'll move on.


----------



## Scott (Aug 29, 2005)

Fred: Can you email me that Horton Davies chart? 
{Email removed to protect Spam}
Thanks

[Edited on 8/29/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 29, 2005)

Done.


----------

