Recitation of the WCF after the call to worship

[TheOldCourse]

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

This seems like too much weight for our historical understanding of the synagogue to bear, even if Calvin thought this way. The Mishna, which describes synagogical worship, is late 2nd/early 3rd century. Do we trust accounts of Christian worship of a similar antiquity to be authoritative descriptions of the apostolic church? We do not, and yet even extrapolation from such sources are not subject to such a paradigm shift as Jewish worship practices were subject to after the destruction of the temple. Surely that should urge caution.

As I mentioned above, many (most?) modern historical treatments of synagogical worship do not take the Talmudic synagogue to be equivalent to the second temple Palestinian synagogue, and instead see the Talmudic synagogue as taking on some of the functions of the temple worship in the absence of a functioning temple. For instance, as far as I'm aware there is no solid evidence of public prayer or singing of any sort in the Palestinian synagogue prior while the temple was standing. Instead, scholars generally see the 2nd temple synagogue as being similar to the "city gate" of earlier Jewish society, in that it's role was social and educational but not cultic. It was where social issues and interpretation of the Torah was discussed and the leaders of the community came together. As such, being removed from the synagogue was not to be barred from worship (which, in Christ's day, was primarily a temple affair), but actually in some sense excommunicated from Jewish society. I don't have them with me at the moment, but I can provide citations if you so wish.

Now whether you buy all that or not, and admittedly most of it is an argument from silence, at the very least that the nature of the synagogue of Christ's day is controverted should cause us to question whether the "necessary" of good and necessary consequence is satisfied. Not to mention that, at a more fundamental level, establishing elements of worship on extra-Scriptural sources, no matter how ancient and historically accurate, seems to cause the sufficiency of Scripture for worship to fall into question and with it the whole RPW.

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

^what he said.

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

Given the OP, would one or many who presently use creeds and confessions in public worship please make a biblical case in order to satisfy the RPW. I think the interlocuters would all benefit from such a conversation.