Recitation of the WCF after the call to worship

[Scott Bushey]

Greetings in the Lord,
I was just wondering what the PB thinks in regard to recitation of the WCF after the call and it being a break in the RPW?

Thanks in advance,

Scott

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Do you mean as an act of corporate worship as in reciting the so called Apostle's creed etc.? I'm not convinced the practice has clear warrant and I'm pretty sure the drafters of the Westminster Standards were not either.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Hi Chris,
Yes and I tend to agree; however, on what specific grounds would you think it would be a break?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Not a sufficiently clear warrant that the congregation should do this. I'm sure that is why the assembly nix'd the creed and responses (responsals) from the congregation. I'd be surprised if there is not an older thread on this.

 

[Rom]

I'd lean towards Chris' view as well.

The Elements of Worship in the WCF itself are listed as the following in Ch. 21.5. I do not see the recitation of creeds as an element of worship. Oaths, vows, fastings and thanksgivings are listed here, but they appear (in my reading) to be for 'special occasions'.

5. The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, (Acts 15:21, Rev. 1:3) the sound preaching (2 Tim. 4:2) and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith and reverence, (James 1:22, Acts 10:33, Matt. 13:19, Heb. 4:2, Isa. 66:2) singing of psalms with grace in the heart; (Col. 3:16, Eph. 5:19, 13, James 5:13) as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: (Matt. 28:19, 1 Cor. 11:23–29, Acts 2:42) beside religious oaths, (Deut. 6:13, Neh. 10:29) vows, (Isa. 19:21, Eccl. 5:4–5) solemn fastings, (Joel 2:12, Esth. 4:16, Matt. 9:15, 1 Cor. 7:5) and thanksgivings upon special occasions, (Ps. 107, Esth. 9:22) which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner. (Heb. 12:28)

 

[Dearly Bought]

Here are some of the past threads on this question:

Confession of Faith in Worship
RPW: Are we commanded to recite parts of Confessions or Creeds in Worship?
RPW and the reading of Confessions/Creeds​

I would tend to also agree that there is lack of warrant for this practice.

 

[VictorBravo]

Recitation of the whole thing?

I can see a church having a sermon series on it, broken up in manageable parts. But I think reciting all of it at once stretches the idea of "homologia" beyond the breaking point.

 

[Edward]

the sound preaching ... of the word

It could arguably fit under this. Although that was probably not the drafters' intent.

Recitation of the whole thing?

A reaction that I share. Unless the service is several hours long, it seems that the time could be better devoted to the reading and preaching of the word, and the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.

 

[Leslie]

Putting the recitation of the confession in such a prominent place speaks loudly and clearly that 'sola scriptura' has been abandoned in favor of 'sola confessions.' I've seen this in Reformed churches. Scripture reading, if it occurs at all, is given little attention. The congregation sits down, and the reading is done rapidly while people only listen, most of them not following in the pew Bibles. The recitation of the confession is a big deal. People stand, the reading is slow and deliberate, with deep respect. These anti-scriptural and anti-confessional values are not lost on young people.

 

[fredtgreco]

I don't believe there is anything wrong with affirming our faith (once delivered to the saints - Jude) in worship. It is a summary of what the bible teaches, similar to preaching (although not the same and not a substitute). We have an affirmation in worship that is sometimes the confession, sometimes a creed (Apostles or Nicene), sometimes scripture. We always read an extensive portion of scripture apart from the sermon text.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Gentleman,
Forgive me if I wasn't clear enough; Of course I am referring to portions of the WCF in the liturgy, not the whole confession. That would be silly.

Fred,
Every Reformed church I have attended holds to the same as you have described. I believe the issue arises for some in that, there is no command in scripture to do this, hence, out it goes.

 

[Andres]

there is no command in scripture to do this, hence, out it goes

This is good enough reason for me.

 

[VictorBravo]

Every Reformed church I have attended holds to the same as you have described. I believe the issue arises for some in that, there is no command in scripture to do this, hence, out it goes.

It would seem that "profess" and "profession" (homologia) in, say, 2 Cor. 9:13 or in several places in Hebrews at least strongly imply confessing certain basic truths as a body. That might be command enough. I hadn't thought of this before.

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

R. Victor Bottomly, not that this is my view, but wouldn't 2 Cor 9:13 more reasonably establish the use of oaths and vows as a part of religious worship (WCF 22) by approved example rather than implicitly authorizing the recitation of various creeds and confessions?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Here are some of the past threads on this question:

Confession of Faith in Worship
RPW: Are we commanded to recite parts of Confessions or Creeds in Worship?
RPW and the reading of Confessions/Creeds​

I would tend to also agree that there is lack of warrant for this practice.

Bryan,
These previous threads were very helpful. Thanks.

 

[JOwen]

Reciting the Apostles Creed in the service is the equivalent of the shema of the synagogue. The Shema, which begins with the famous verse "Hear O Israel, The Lord thy God is one Lord", is not a prayer. It is the congregational “I believe” or a confession to His Oneness. This is still recited in all orthodox Synagogues today. In fact, if you look at the old Hebrew, you will notice that the letters "Ayin" and "Daled" are enlarged since they spell out the Hebrew word for "witness," to enforce the idea that one is giving testimony. It is to the Oneness of God's salvation revealed in Trinity that we express publicly. Our Continental tradition follows Calvin's Geneva on this. Calvin knew the RPW, and in his reformation of the church @ Geneva, left this in it. Calvin's service ended with collections for the poor, intercessions, the Apostles' Creed, brief pastoral encouragements, singing another psalm, and the Aaronic benediction.

The Mishna, as quoted in The Encyclopedia Biblica, says there are five distinct parts of the service of the synagogue: (1) the recital of the Shema, certain parts of the Pentateuch, Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21; and Num. 15:37-41; (2) the prayer; (3) the reading of the law; (4) the reading of the prophets, and the benediction; (5) the translation and explanation of the Scripture lesson (or preaching). Dr. Lightfoot, and almost all others, (with the exception of Edersheim), believe psalm singing came in under the category of prayer. Edersheim contends that there was no singing at all. So those that recite the AC do have biblical and deeply reformed reasons for doing so. It's not just a tradition, but, in my opinion, a Scripturally defensible one. .

 

[Dearly Bought]

Rev. Lewis,
I looked at the referenced passages in the Pentateuch and I'm having trouble finding any biblical reference/example for this practice in public worship. I understand the testimony of Jewish tradition, but surely that alone does not establish a practice as biblical?

 

[jwithnell]

Who are we worshipping? The confession of faith ensures that we are worshipping the one true God and not engaging in some idolatrous wishful thinking. We are confessing our faith before others as commanded in scripture. Private beliefs are to be tested in the public context of the church.

Contrary to a previous post, in my experience the congregations that use a public profession of faith during worship also place the highest value on using scripture in worship reflected in the public readings, the Psalms, preaching in-depth and at length, reading of the law, quotations of scripture in public prayer, etc., etc.

Generally, we are wisest to use the creeds of the historic church -- these have been stated for centuries and unite us as believers across time and space. Occasional use of other confessions, such as short quotations from WCF, can be a useful if it supports the themes brought out in a particular service, generally based on the text that will be read with the sermon.

 

[VictorBravo]

R. Victor Bottomly, not that this is my view, but wouldn't 2 Cor 9:13 more reasonably establish the use of oaths and vows as a part of religious worship (WCF 22) by approved example rather than implicitly authorizing the recitation of various creeds and confessions?

Maybe so, but I wasn't invoking 2 Cor 9:13 as authority. Instead, I was noting the use of the word "profess," which is the same basic word used in Hebrews 3:1, 4:14, 10:23--"homologia"--"same-speaking".

The idea that there was a profession or confession that was likely spoken by the church as a whole is what I was talking about.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Reciting the Apostles Creed in the service is the equivalent of the shema of the synagogue. The Shema, which begins with the famous verse "Hear O Israel, The Lord thy God is one Lord", is not a prayer. It is the congregational “I believe” or a confession to His Oneness. This is still recited in all orthodox Synagogues today. In fact, if you look at the old Hebrew, you will notice that the letters "Ayin" and "Daled" are enlarged since they spell out the Hebrew word for "witness," to enforce the idea that one is giving testimony. It is to the Oneness of God's salvation revealed in Trinity that we express publicly. Our Continental tradition follows Calvin's Geneva on this. Calvin knew the RPW, and in his reformation of the church @ Geneva, left this in it. Calvin's service ended with collections for the poor, intercessions, the Apostles' Creed, brief pastoral encouragements, singing another psalm, and the Aaronic benediction.

The Mishna, as quoted in The Encyclopedia Biblica, says there are five distinct parts of the service of the synagogue: (1) the recital of the Shema, certain parts of the Pentateuch, Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21; and Num. 15:37-41; (2) the prayer; (3) the reading of the law; (4) the reading of the prophets, and the benediction; (5) the translation and explanation of the Scripture lesson (or preaching). Dr. Lightfoot, and almost all others, (with the exception of Edersheim), believe psalm singing came in under the category of prayer. Edersheim contends that there was no singing at all. So those that recite the AC do have biblical and deeply reformed reasons for doing so. It's not just a tradition, but, in my opinion, a Scripturally defensible one. .

There still is an important distinction between corporately confessing our faith to God with his very Word (the Shema) and using the words of men (the AC/WCF). Even if you can prove the former, the latter does not necessarily follow. I don't mind catechetical preaching (provided the catechism is used as a means to organizing one's thematic preaching ON the Word, rather than preaching on the catechism itself), but corporate confession of our standards it seems to me belongs more properly to Christian education rather than public worship per se. I do still find something laudable in the practice given the relative neglect of the Reformed standards in so many venues, but I'm not sure it satisfies the RPW.

Also, as somewhat of an aside, my understanding is that modern scholarship now, in the main, holds that the synagogue services changed radically in the century or two following the destruction of the temple such that use of Mishna sources (which describe the later synagogue) to illumine early church practices or the synagogue of Jesus' day is fraught with danger. In fact some scholars have even argued that early Christian worship was an important influence on the Talmudic synagogue rather than the other way around. Interesting if true.

 

[JOwen]

Rev. Lewis,
I looked at the referenced passages in the Pentateuch and I'm having trouble finding any biblical reference/example for this practice in public worship. I understand the testimony of Jewish tradition, but surely that alone does not establish a practice as biblical?

Let me briefly answer you question with a tangential, yet reasonable line of thinking as I see things. We pattern our worship after the synagogue worship of the OT, Christ's day, and the days of the Apostles. Where in the RPW do we have the biblical injunction of the synagogue? Historians are perplexed; was it preexilic, exilic, or post exilic? For instance, Psalm 74:8 says, "They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land." But this, begs the question; where was it's inception? I still have not heard a solid exegetical answer for the very place of worship we pattern our congregational worship after. But that's OK. I see that Christ found Himself in such places, presumably from His youth up, thus giving it the warrant. There is no mention in any of the Gospels, of the protest of the Shema, either by Christ, or the Apostles. It follows then that the injunction of the place we pattern our worship after was in some form or other, divinely inspired, else Christ Himself would not worship there. It also follows then that the broadly and sweeping elements of that worship were also condoned by the Lord by virtue of His participation in it, and the omission of rebuke or correction. It is well established that the Synagogue of Christ's day included the Shema (at least post exilic). The warrant then would come form this line of reasoning.

Blessings in your studies brother. We in the FRC love our PRC brethren.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I think we should be careful with this line of argument; it is exactly the same taken by the Anglocatholics Gillespie was contending with as far as warranting holy days (John 10 etc.).

It also follows then that the broadly and sweeping elements of that worship were also condoned by the Lord by virtue of His participation in it, and the omission of rebuke or correction. It is well established that the Synagogue of Christ's day included the Shema (at least post exilic). The warrant then would come form this line of reasoning.

 

[JOwen]

I think we should be careful with this line of argument; it is exactly the same taken by the Anglocatholics Gillespie was contending with as far as warranting holy days (John 10 etc.).

It also follows then that the broadly and sweeping elements of that worship were also condoned by the Lord by virtue of His participation in it, and the omission of rebuke or correction. It is well established that the Synagogue of Christ's day included the Shema (at least post exilic). The warrant then would come form this line of reasoning.

It should be noted, perhaps, that I am not Anglocatholic. Also there are a great many Reformed brethren, both presently, and in ages past, who conscientiously hold/held to both the Puritan & Reformed understanding of the RPW & confessing the Apostles Creed (Including the Continental Reformed, and all the magisterial reformers). Guilt by associative argument is better proved than assume. I have read Gillespie with more than a little depth on the subject. In fact I'll quote him from the work you are referring to, "But as for ceremonies which are proper to God's holy worship, shall we say that the fidelity of Christ the Son hath been less than the fidelity of Moses, the servant?" This, of course, is my whole argument if you include everything I wrote. In fact I'll go one step further, and perhaps leave the subject alone. With the deafening silence on the subject of the origin of the synagogue by way of OT biblical-divine injunction, Christ's example is all one needs in the NT, to assume it is divine, and with it, its corollaries. I remain of course, open to correction.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Jerrold, I don't see why it needs noting. Please don't take brevity for more than it is (and I simply have to be brief given constraints; got to get a journal out). It was the argument that because Christ did not condemn something which he was present at (the addition of an unprescribed day of observance) that opens the pandora's box which I'm concerned to raise caution.

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

Pastor Lewis,
May I ask about your understanding of how synagogal practices inform postapostolic worship? The WCF clearly teaches that the acceptable way of worshipping God must be prescribed by Him, which is now under the gospel, not patterned after the synagogue, done with more simplicity and less outward glory (WCF 7.6; 21.1, 6). Warrant does not come from anyone's silence. At times, unusually insightful exegetical points may make use of an argumentum ex silentio, but God forbid we corrupt His worship by using and any wise approving religious worship not instituted by God himself, whether received by tradition or under the title of antiquity (WLC 109).

 

[JOwen]

Pastor Lewis,
May I ask about your understanding of how synagogal practices inform postapostolic worship? The WCF clearly teaches that the acceptable way of worshipping God must be prescribed by Him, which is now under the gospel, not patterned after the synagogue, done with more simplicity and less outward glory (WCF 7.6; 21.1, 6). Warrant does not come from anyone's silence. At times, unusually insightful exegetical points may make use of an argumentum ex silentio, but God forbid we corrupt His worship by using and any wise approving religious worship not instituted by God himself, whether received by tradition or under the title of antiquity (WLC 109).

Certainly. The form of presbyterian government on the local level, from the plurality of elders, to the consistory itself, the election (ordaining elders in every location [Titus 1:5]), and as Calvin puts it, the selection of a 'president' of consistory is synigogical. The plurality of local assemblies, each with their own government submitting itself to the wider presbytery is synagogical/presbyterian. Also, the votem and Salutation, local church membership, the reading of the Law, Psalm singing, public prayer, and preaching, the solemnization of vows in marriage (Done on the LD often in the Westminster era), "telling it to the church" in Matthew 18, all, without equivocation, were founded on the synagogue pattern (according to Calvin, Bannerman and many others). There are more things I could mention. My point is, all of these things are, derived by good and necessary consequence (WCF 1:6), and are not expressly set down. The link that ties the expression of these things in their established function in the Reformed Church are built upon the the synagogue pattern readily employed by Christ Himself and the Apostles. I would point you to read Bannerman, both volumes (The Church of Christ), but especially Vol. 2, pages, 274, 282, 311, 430, 441, 461. Bannerman also includes another fine resource (If you read Latin) when he says,

Vitringa De Synagoge Vetcre, A book of immense learning and research, the object being to prove that the government of the synagogue was the model on which that of the Church was founded.

This is how it informs us. As I said before, Christ's own example is all one needs in the NT, to assume its divine origin, and with it, its corollaries Yes, including the shema, or creed). It is for this reason that Calvin, all the magisterial reformers, and the Three Forms of Unity include it in the worship service. You may not agree, but it is defensible both scripturally and historically. Most reformed folk will agree with everything I have pointed out up to the AC as the christian shema. Those who don't see what I am laying out, won't agree with the AC in the service. Those that do, will.

Just to be clear, here is the liturgy in our congregation. A liturgy that is probably more "classically" reformed than most, perhaps even some who are arguing that somehow this position is an aberration.

Votem and Salutation
Reading of the Law (Morning)
Apostolic Creed (Evening)
Reading of Scripture
Prayer
Preaching
Exclusive Psalm Singing

 

[Peairtach]

I don't want to get involved in the substance of this thread, but I would see the biblical basis for the local synagogue in the weekly - and other - "holy convocations" that the Lord prescribed for Israel.

Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.(Lev 23:3)

Males were required - though presumably they could be, or sometimes were in practice, accompanied by females and children - to appear at the central sanctuary only three times in the year.

This would leave a large part of the year without organised worship, if these holy convocations on the weekly Sabbath and other feast days were not organised by the elders and Levites.

The construction of buildings for these holy assemblies would be a practical convenience.

Elements such as church sanctions ("cutting off" ) are taught in the law, and took various forms, some more severe than others.

 

[MW]

and it being a break in the RPW?

It contradicts common sense. The word "confession" is being used to convey a meaning which the title "Westminster Confession" does not contain.

Reciting creeds transforms them into a means of grace, which is a burden they are simply too weak to carry. There is no promise of blessing attached to such an action. What is worse, they supplant the confession of our Lord which is taken up in the singing of the Psalms. Hebrews 2:12. Who is this new Confessor who assumes the place of Christ to speak in the midst of the congregation as the chief priest over the house of God?

 

[littlepeople]

Unless you are requiring strict subscription to the WCF from all worshippers, then I believe it would unfairly bind the consciences of somebody. Perhaps even one or two of the officers have taken exception to a portion, what then? I can see using scripture, or maybe an historic creed, but surely there's a better way to do it.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

As I say I'm not convinced of the overall practice and am becoming more strongly unconvinced with this discussion. But Westminster is an historic creed. Surely if the so called Apostles creed is fair game so is the symbol actually confessed by a church? Besides, folks surely can quibble about phrases and wording in the ancient creeds (e.g. descended into hell)? So the issue exists outside the WCF.

Unless you are requiring strict subscription to the WCF from all worshippers, then I believe it would unfairly bind the consciences of somebody. Perhaps even one or two of the officers have taken exception to a portion, what then? I can see using scripture, or maybe an historic creed, but surely there's a better way to do it.