Does Your Congregation Recite the Lord's Prayer?

Status
Not open for further replies.

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
When I post about our only hope as being a massive work of the Spirit coming in revival, I get maybe three responses.
Maybe it’s because it sounds odd and vaguely unconfessional. Our only hope?

That would be Christ, not necessarily revival.

Notwithstanding, may God revive us all...thy kingdom come.
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
Do you want to know what is most interesting to me about this and other similar threads? And I'm the one who started this one.

When I post about our only hope as being a massive work of the Spirit coming in revival, I get maybe three responses.
And one of those is usually a joke of some sort.

Wake up, before it's too late.
:scratch: :scratch: :scratch:
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
This is contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith's teaching on Oaths/Vows.

WCF 21.6 - "...besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions".

I have found that a lot of Presbyterians unhappy with the RPW attempt to appeal to this as an "out".. But that is not what the Confession of Faith teaches. It does not envision this being a weekly or regular occurrence. Besides - an oath binds to performances, see Chapter 22, and is to be administered. If you want to tell your congregants you are administering an oath, try telling them that before you recite it. But then they will say you are being confounding. Even the unlearned will think you are from another planet.
(response below should track with Tom's Q to me, as much as with Rom's post)

When I administer a baptismal oath, as I did to parents of covenant children just a little while ago, I ask them not only to "do" certain things (performances) but also whether they "believe" certain things, which they verbally affirm. When one swears in a court of law to tell the truth, the truth he speaks is conjoined to his oath. It is all one piece.

A public confession is witness testimony. Confessing the faith is a form of vow-taking. Whether the framers of our Confession did or did not desire the taking of vows (like the occasional baptismal vows) to be anything more than highly occasional, and preferred no regular or weekly witnessing in this manner, yet for all that the fact doesn't change that it IS such corporate witnessing.

Those who pray the Lord's Prayer (and there are other practices, like recitation of the Creeds, which things have precedence in the Reformed Churches back to Calvin, if not favored in early Scottish Presbyterianism) have behind their declaration of those lines the plain faith of the Catechism spelling out what their church believes, teaches, and confesses--if they need more than the words themselves. Children and adults should learn both the prayer, and the Catechism exposition. Say it alone, or with others ("Our Father..."), the form Jesus taught us is so a witness.

Annual communion might be what some Westminster commissioners felt was the proper frequency--by the way, both sacraments are oath events, even without formal adjuring with congregational verbal response at the Supper; even the word sacrament comes from a Latin term used for a military oath--but even so, those who aim at greater frequency for the Supper have as much of the Standards to rest in as do those who keep to a more primitive Presbyterian practice.

So, I'm going to deny that a common confession, even of the Lord's Prayer, is contrary to or contradicted by the WCF. It seems consistent to me when regarded (and I think properly) under a lawful element of worship, even if not all congregations holding (nearly) the same Confession exhibit their commitment in the same manner or frequency. I think there's clearer warrant for the Prayer and the Creed than trying to find explicit warrant for uninspired hymnody.
 

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Senior
I don't think I understand what you're saying, brother. That people aren't discussing a massive work of the Spirit and revival more, when they should be?

I think that's everyone that commented.
@C. M. Sheffield
@VictorBravo
@Jonathan95
@hLuke
@kainos01

I don't think I should change the OP's purpose by turning this into a different topic. So this is a kind of answer to everyone that either misunderstood my post (for it was most definitely off-topic) or didn't like it.
  1. I was wrong to post what I did about revival as it was totally off-topic.
  2. I thank you all for your participation in my thread on the Lord's Prayer. I learned a lot. I started out totally disagreeing with reciting the Lord's prayer, but have moderated my view by what many said. So thanks again.
  3. I have been frustrated of late how seemingly disinterested most have been to discuss our dire need for God to do an extraordinary work of waking the Church. That's because of the, maybe half dozen times, I either commented on or started a new thread on the subject of revival; I ALWAYS got a ho-hum response. I just did a search for the word "revival" by member "Ed Walsh" and found 33 times when I spoke of the subject and got very little interaction.
Below is my experience for the last two years:
At least six months before Covid, I started sharing my opinion that the USA and the whole world, for that matter, is ripe for judgment and that unless the Church wakes up and agrees together to pray (like in pleading and begging with strong crying - Hebrews 5:7) for God to come and intervein, we are going to lose what's left of our freedoms, at least in the USA. My own pastor made fun of me like I was chicken little. And almost no one I spoke to was interested, and some tried to discourage me from my belief. Thus my frustration and the out-of-place post.

A few weeks ago, I started writing (not posting) a paper titled, Trivial Pursuit--It's Not a Game.

Thanks for your patience with me.

Ed Walsh
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
  1. I have been frustrated of late how seemingly disinterested most have been to discuss our dire need for God to do an extraordinary work of waking the Church. That's because of the, maybe half dozen times, I either commented on or started a new thread on the subject of revival; I ALWAYS got a ho-hum response. I just did a search for the word "revival" by member "Ed Walsh" and found 33 times when I spoke of the subject and got very little interaction.

Ed, it's easy to get discouraged that more edifying posts aren't interacted with as much as controversial ones.
Then again, we tend to interact more when we disagree than when we agree. It's possible that you get little interaction because there is significant agreement. It certainly happens on other clearly edifying topics, so perhaps that is partially to "blame" here?
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
It's possible that you get little interaction because there is significant agreement.
That is it precisely. When you come to the PB and say "The world is going to hell and the church needs an extraordinary work of revival!" the response is going to be "Yep, amen." Not really a whole lot to discuss as far as most here are concerned.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
Ed, it's easy to get discouraged that more edifying posts aren't interacted with as much as controversial ones.
Then again, we tend to interact more when we disagree than when we agree. It's possible that you get little interaction because there is significant agreement. It certainly happens on other clearly edifying topics, so perhaps that is partially to "blame" here?

I will add my Amen to this. We pray constantly for revival and seek the revival of our local city in our congregation (where the Lord has called us specifically to minister to). We support everything you say @Ed Walsh . I am blessed to know your heart is in this place, brother.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
It is generally a good rule of thumb never to read too much into how much something is liked or even disliked on social media and discussion boards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top