Recitation of the Lord's Prayer

[Ivan]

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

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

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

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

The Westminster Directory of Public Worship says:

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

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

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

V. I shall, in the next place, enquire, Whether it is proper to use stated forms of prayer, when we call upon God?

It is generally allowed, that if set forms are found, or agreeable to the will of God, they may be used by children, or such as are weak in knowledge. All are agreed in commending the prudence of our first reformers in England, who, by composing homilies and forms of prayer, endeavoured, as much as might be, to provide an help for the doleful ignorance of the clergy. But it is humbly submitted to the impartial consideration of the intelligent and serious, whether the advantages of praying freely, without being tied to a form, are not manifest and great? A perpetual confinement to the best forms, will be attended with such inconveniences as these:[7]
...
That our blessed Lord: taught his disciples to pray, by giving them a general directory, is allowed; but that he ever tied them up to a form in praying cannot be proved. When he gave them a direction to pray, he said, "After this manner pray ye," etc. Matt 6:9; and again, "When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven," etc. Luke 11:2. It is probable enough our Lord gave these directions at different times, though the substance of them is the same. But the alteration of the words is enough to satisfy any unprejudiced mind, that he could not intend them to be used as a stated form. And the church of England has thought fit to differ in the words of the fifth petition from both. It is pretty clear, that the phrases when ye pray, say, Luke 11:2, and after this manner pray, ye, Matt 6:9, are precisely of the same import, and explain one another: and neither of them import, that the very words, which our Lord then expressed, were to be constantly used; but only that the scope of them should direct us in performing this duty. "Because the prayer which Christ taught his disciples is not only a pattern of prayer, but itself a most comprehensive prayer, we recommend it also to be used in the prayers of the church." Assembly's Directory for the public worship of God; on the article of praying after sermon. [DPW POSTPRAYER]

[7] See Dr. Watts's Guide to Prayer, chapter 2, section 2.

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

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

Q. What special rule of direction in prayer hath God given us? -- A. That form of prayer which Christ hath taught his disciples, which is commonly called the Lord's prayer, because the Lord Jesus prescribed it.

Q. Did Christ prescribe it as a form, the express words of which we are bound to use? -- A. No; but as a pattern of prayer, directing us what we should pray for, and in what order we should offer our requests.

Q. How prove you that Christ did not prescribe it as an express form of prayer? -- A. Because in Matthew, who relates this form most exactly, Christ only says, After this manner pray ye; Matthew and Luke relate it differently; and Christ, and his prophets and apostles, used different expressions in prayer, Matth. xi. and xxvi. Acts i. and v. Eph. iii. John xvii, &c.

Q. May none use set forms of prayer? -- A. Yes; young children, and such as through weakness are incapable to conceive prayer, may use them.

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

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

Q. How doth it invert the order of prayer? -- A. As by this means, instead of our hearts regulating our words, the words of the form must regulate our heart.

Q. How doth it encourage sloth? -- A. As it makes us careless of self-examination, and of study of the scriptures for instruction in prayer, and stirring up of our hearts to seek after the gift or grace of prayer.

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

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

Fisher's Catechism on WSC 99:

Q. 9. What is the special rule of direction for the duty of prayer?

A. It is that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples, commonly called, The Lord's Prayer.
...
Q. 13. Did Christ prescribe this prayer as a form, or as a pattern?

A. He prescribed it as a PATTERN, for direction in the duty of prayer, Matt. 6:9 -- "After this MANNER pray ye."

Q. 14. What is the difference between a form and a pattern of prayer?

A. A form of prayer is a certain mode of expression, which must be used without the least variation; whereas a pattern is only a directory as to the matter, leaving the suppliant himself to clothe his desires with such words as are most adapted to his present circumstances.

Q. 15. Why then is the Lord's prayer called, in the answer, that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples?

A. Because the words of this prayer, "may be used as a prayer" to God, equally with other scriptures, "so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer."[178]

Q. 16. How does it appear, that this prayer is not designed for a form to the precise words of which Christ's disciples and followers are to be tied strictly down, in all after ages?

A. This plainly appears, from its not containing expressly all the parts of prayer; and from its not being related by Matthew and Luke in the same manner.

Q. 17. What are those parts of prayer which are not expressly contained in the Lord's prayer?

A. They are the confession of our sins, and the thankful acknowledgment of God's mercies: neither of which are in express terms, but by consequence only, contained in the said prayer.

Q. 18. From what part of this prayer may confession of sins be deduced?

A. From the fifth petition; for, when we pray, "Forgive us our debts," we, by consequence, confess that we have debts to be forgiven.

Q. 19. How is a thankful acknowledgment of mercies included in the Lord's prayer?

A. When we pray, "Hallowed be thy name," we, of consequence, make a thankful acknowledgment of all those known instances, in which God's name has been glorified; and when we pray, "Give us this day our daily bread," we acknowledge the bounty of his providence, which has hitherto so kindly supplied our wants.

Q. 20. How do the evangelists, Matthew and Luke, differ, as to the manner in which they relate this prayer?

A. Though there be a perfect harmony between them, as to the sense or matter of the prayer; yet there is some difference as to the mode of expression, particularly in the fourth and fifth petitions.

Q. 21. How do they differ in the fourth petition?

A. Matthew has it, "Give us this day our daily bread," chap. 6:11; Luke, "Give us day by day our daily bread," chap. 11:3.

Q. 22. What is the meaning of "give us this day?"

A. It is a petition of what we want at present.

Q. 23. What is imported in "give us day by day?"

A. The expression imports, that the wants, which need to be supplied, will daily recur.

Q. 24. How do the two evangelists differ, as to their manner of expressing the fifth petition?

A. Matthew says, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors," chap. 6:12; Luke expresses it, "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive every one that is indebted to us," chap. 11:4.

Q. 25. How do they differ as to the conclusion?

A. Matthew has it; Luke leaves it out.

Q. 26. What is the argument from all this, against the Lord's prayer being designed for a set form?

A. The argument is, that if it had been designed for a set form, the two evangelists would have expressed it in the very same words, without the least variation.

Q. 27. What argument is there from the practice of the apostles against its being a set form?

A. That though several prayers of theirs are recorded in the New Testament, yet none of them use the express words of the Lord's prayer.

Q. 28. Would it not seem that this prayer is commanded to be used as a form, from our Lord's prefixing these words to it: "When ye pray, SAY, Our Father," &c.? Luke 11:2.

A. No more can be intended by this expression in Luke, "When ye pray, SAY ," than what is meant in the parallel place, Matt. 6:9:"AFTER THIS MANNER pray ye;" namely, to use the Lord's prayer as a directory; otherwise, Luke's form, and not Matthew's, should be followed.

Q. 29. May none, at any rate, use set forms, however sound?

A. If set forms are sound, or agreeable to the will of God, they may be used by children, or such as are weak in knowledge, till they acquire some insight in the principles of religion; and then they ought to be laid aside, and extemporary prayer practised and improved.

Q. 30. But may not they, who are weak in knowledge, read sound forms as their prayers to God?

A. No; they ought to repeat them, because the committing of them to memory will tend to imprint the matter of them more deeply on the mind, than the bare reading can possibly do: besides, there is not the least shadow of an example in scripture, for reading prayers to God on any account whatsoever.

Q. 31. Why is the continued practice of set forms unwarrantable?

A. Because the case and circumstances of the church in general, and every member of it, in particular, are so exceedingly various, that it is impossible any set form can correspond to them. Moreover, the continued practice of a set form, as it encourages sloth, so is an overlooking the aid of the Spirit, whose office it is to help our infirmities, when "we know not what we should pray for as we ought," Rom. 8:26.

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

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

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

William Gouge, The Sabbath's Sanctification, pp. 3-4:

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

 

[Roldan]

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

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

Luke 11:2


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

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

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

Quote:
KJV
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say,

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

Quote:
1881 Westcott-Hort
lego

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

Again, the burden of proof is on you to show that the confession is wrong.

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

 

[sastark]

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

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

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

Luke 11:2


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

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

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

Quote:
KJV
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say,

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

Quote:
1881 Westcott-Hort
lego

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

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

Again, the burden of proof is on you to show that the confession is wrong.

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

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

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

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

 

[Roldan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Zenas]

We recite it every Sunday.

 

[cih1355]

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

Curt,

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Adam

Hello Adam,

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

 

[Roldan]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Christusregnat]

Hello Adam,

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

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

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Roldan]

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

I'm saying that the reasoning you gave in the post cannot be a reason to say it's wrong to pray the Lord's Prayer verbatim, because any vanity due to its repetition is the fault of men's hearts, and not God's Words.

Oh ok gotcha. I agree to an extent

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

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

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

Q. What special rule of direction in prayer hath God given us? -- A. That form of prayer which Christ hath taught his disciples, which is commonly called the Lord's prayer, because the Lord Jesus prescribed it.

Q. Did Christ prescribe it as a form, the express words of which we are bound to use? -- A. No; but as a pattern of prayer, directing us what we should pray for, and in what order we should offer our requests.

Q. How prove you that Christ did not prescribe it as an express form of prayer? -- A. Because in Matthew, who relates this form most exactly, Christ only says, After this manner pray ye; Matthew and Luke relate it differently; and Christ, and his prophets and apostles, used different expressions in prayer, Matth. xi. and xxvi. Acts i. and v. Eph. iii. John xvii, &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Roldan]

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

Much agreed, Brother. And I'm almost fairly certain that none heard would confine folks to set forms of prayer.

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

 

[Roldan]

Much agreed, Brother. And I'm almost fairly certain that none heard would confine folks to set forms of prayer.

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

Yes, and the term confine doesn't mean throw set forms of prayer out altogether; rather, don't limit prayers to such. Furthermore, whilst I don't know the context of the question above, I'm assuming that John Brown of Haddington wasn't implicating Scriptural Prayers so much as slothful hearts of men. But the thrust of his question and answer was, I think, to not limiting prayers to that of set forms (i.e. include contemporaneous prayers as well).

Good night, brother. Should have been asleep 2 hours ago.

lol me too

 

[sastark]

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rescuedbyLove]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rescuedbyLove]

That is correct. I do not think there is a problem with the word of God.
And I'm assuming Richard doesn't, either.

And for the record, I was never arguing that it is wrong to pray the Lord's prayer word for word. But I do believe it was meant to be a model.

And, for the record, Ma'am, I never implied that you did or had.

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

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

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

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

and your exposition of the previous statement:

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

I'm saying that the reasoning you gave in the post cannot be a reason to say it's wrong to pray the Lord's Prayer verbatim, because any vanity due to its repetition is the fault of men's hearts, and not God's Words.

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

 

[Roldan]

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

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

 

[kalawine]

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

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

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