Reformation Sunday and the RPW

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, that is not correct.
"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." WCF 21.1.
Getting back to the OP: Doesn't the RPW only apply specifically to what goes on during a stated Lord's Day worship service?
 
Advent, Christmas, Lent, Easter, etc. Many on this board see the observation of these holidays and seasons as a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship, and I am very sympathetic to that view. With the advent (pun intended) of Reformation Sunday. What justification is there for the observation of this day in light of the RPW? I view the practice favorably but wonder if I'm inconsistent in my thinking.

If you argue against the celebration of man made holidays, what is the justification for celebrating this one?

Getting back to the OP: Doesn't the RPW only apply specifically to what goes on during a stated Lord's Day worship service? If so, then I don't see how it can be applied to making declarations, one way or the other, about Christmas, Easter, etc.

Think of it this way: may you worship God through statues and images in your closet?
 
No, that is not correct.
"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." WCF 21.1.
Getting back to the OP: Doesn't the RPW only apply specifically to what goes on during a stated Lord's Day worship service?

Judging by your quotation, my statement is correct.
 
No, that is not correct.
"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." WCF 21.1.
Getting back to the OP: Doesn't the RPW only apply specifically to what goes on during a stated Lord's Day worship service?

Judging by your quotation, my statement is correct.

No. The quoted section is from the chapter titled "Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day". The first section deals with the principle of how God is to be worshipped generally. The Sabbath Day worship is detailed later.

Worship occurs outside of of the Lord's Day service. The rules may be different, but there are still rules.
 
No, it isn't, as Brett and Tyler have articulated. See WSC 51 and WLC 109.
No, that is not correct.
"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." WCF 21.1.
Getting back to the OP: Doesn't the RPW only apply specifically to what goes on during a stated Lord's Day worship service?

Judging by your quotation, my statement is correct.
 
Jeremiah Burroughs, Exposition of Hosea (1643), 409: "Though men may thus depute and appoint days to worship God, yet they cannot state any such days, but as God’s providence permits, according to the present occasion. Therefore it would be a sin for a state to appoint nominally a day for religious fasting: God did so, but men have no power to do so, because they do not know but God may call them to rejoicing upon that day, they have not knowledge of the times. All that we can do is this, when God calls us to fasting, we must appoint days of fasting; when God calls us to rejoicing, we must appoint days of rejoicing. Therefore to appoint the time of Lent as a religious fast is sinful, and the statute itself threatens a mulct upon that man who shall call it a religious fast: stated fasts, which are not limited by Providence, are certainly evil. The monthly fasts now enjoined, if we should say we will have them once a month till this day twelvemonths, or two years, I persuade myself the state should sin; but to have it as long as God’s hand is upon us, as long as the occasion lasts, and God’s providence calls us to it, is justifiable."

Rev. Winzer,

I found your quotation interesting. It seems like Burroughs is dealing with "the state" or the governing authority to "appoint nominally a day for religious fasting". I am not suggesting that a church should appoint a day nominally, but was this quotation in context with the idea of the state being a Christian state?
 
Jeremiah Burroughs, Exposition of Hosea (1643), 409: "Though men may thus depute and appoint days to worship God, yet they cannot state any such days, but as God’s providence permits, according to the present occasion. Therefore it would be a sin for a state to appoint nominally a day for religious fasting: God did so, but men have no power to do so, because they do not know but God may call them to rejoicing upon that day, they have not knowledge of the times. All that we can do is this, when God calls us to fasting, we must appoint days of fasting; when God calls us to rejoicing, we must appoint days of rejoicing. Therefore to appoint the time of Lent as a religious fast is sinful, and the statute itself threatens a mulct upon that man who shall call it a religious fast: stated fasts, which are not limited by Providence, are certainly evil. The monthly fasts now enjoined, if we should say we will have them once a month till this day twelvemonths, or two years, I persuade myself the state should sin; but to have it as long as God’s hand is upon us, as long as the occasion lasts, and God’s providence calls us to it, is justifiable."

Rev. Winzer,

I found your quotation interesting. It seems like Burroughs is dealing with "the state" or the governing authority to "appoint nominally a day for religious fasting". I am not suggesting that a church should appoint a day nominally, but was this quotation in context with the idea of the state being a Christian state?

It was dealing more broadly with the authority of man in general, just in this case applied to the state. If the state, which has the broadest human authority over the actions of man, has no authority to appoint a day, how can a church who is limited to binding the conscience of man only in things commanded by God have such authority? What authority has any man, whether priest or king, to institute worship practices of his own devising?
 
I found your quotation interesting. It seems like Burroughs is dealing with "the state" or the governing authority to "appoint nominally a day for religious fasting". I am not suggesting that a church should appoint a day nominally, but was this quotation in context with the idea of the state being a Christian state?

Chris has answered correctly that Burroughs was dealing with the authority of man in general and using State authority as an example. It was a Christian State at the time, and the Parliament had called for monthly fasts and occasional thanksgivings. The Scots had some scruple over the monthly fasts but still preached when called upon.
 
I've enjoyed reading all the responses to my OP. When I was younger, the PCUSA church my family attended made a bid deal of Reformation Sunday. There was much ceremony, complete with a Highland bagpipe and drum procession down the center aisle of the sanctuary and a special evening program. I recall it being quite the show. And yet, that's all it was, empty show. Up until this last Lord's Day, I can't recall much mention of Reformation Sunday at my current home church, except in passing. However, Sunday morning, during a brief introduction for a guest preacher from another local PCA congregation, our Senior Pastor gave a short explanation of this observance which was followed by a sermon on one of 5 solas (specifically, grace). It was a biblically based topical sermon that focused on the grace of God. I have no objections to any of this. Our service proceeded with its ordinary flow, other than the guest preacher (again a local PCA pastor and not a celebrity or noted speaker) and the deviation from our sermon series in Matthew. There was no inappropriate celebration of any of the great men of the Reformation on the day set aside to honor the Lord. The pastor did hint that the acknowledgement of this day may become a regular thing, but if done in similar fashion, I'm fine with it. The Reformation was an important moment in history when, in God's sovereignty, he restored the truth of Scripture, which had been suppressed for so long. It should be remembered and it should be taught. More importantly, the truths recovered should be part of the warp and woof of Christ's Church.

But the heart of man is sinful and deceitful. There is danger here. Men are prone to elevate their observations and celebrations to a higher and higher degree, until they are nothing more than the empty howl of the bagpipe and the meaningless thump of the drum. I accuse no one who has responded here of wrongdoing in their Reformation Sunday observances, but I do admit to being very cautious of endorsing the practice.

I hope every day can be a day to give glory to God alone, who saves us by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the Scriptures alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top