RPW and the reading of Confessions/Creeds

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arch2k

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by puritansailor
I don't care much for the liturgical use of Creeds in any fashion. They are nice historical doctrinal statements. I guess, it's the Puritan in me, but I don't like using Creeds in worship because I can find no command to use them in Scripture in that manner.
Click to expand...
Quoted from an old thread

I have often wondered this myself, and was reminded as we recited the Apostle's creed at the RPCNA church I visited this Lord's day. Is it a violation of the RPW to recite Creeds and Confessions during public worship?

If it is not a violation, where in scripture do we find the positive command to do so?
 
Jeff,

I agree with Patrick's quote. When I am at a church that requires responsive reading from the congregation, I abstain.

[Edited on 8-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
I don't know about this, Gentlemen.

Isn't it the case that the Apostle Paul quoted a very early creed in 1Co 15:3:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;

I heard in a debate once between an atheist and a Christian concerning the resurrection of Christ, that the above is a form on an early "creed" that was recited among believers during the earliest years of the Church.

If such is indeed the case, then Paul was using this creed in worship, since the letter was supposed to be written to the whole church and read aloud during their meeting.

Perhaps there's even some other "creeds" that were recited by writers of the New Testament in a very basic form....
 
Originally posted by alwaysreforming
I heard in a debate once between an atheist and a Christian concerning the resurrection of Christ, that the above is a form on an early "creed" that was recited among believers during the earliest years of the Church.
Click to expand...

Chris,

First of all, if this was an early creed (which is a possibility), Paul was most likely using it in his sermon, not as a seperate element (the reading of a creed/confession by the congregation). I don't see quoting the WCF or other confessions in a sermon as something that would be violating the RPW, (just as quoting a commentary like Matthew Henry would be acceptable in a sermon but not as responsive reading). It is the reading of creeds/confessions as an element of worship (a seperate section) that I am raising issue with.
 
Originally posted by alwaysreforming
I don't know about this, Gentlemen.

Isn't it the case that the Apostle Paul quoted a very early creed in 1Co 15:3:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;

I heard in a debate once between an atheist and a Christian concerning the resurrection of Christ, that the above is a form on an early "creed" that was recited among believers during the earliest years of the Church.

If such is indeed the case, then Paul was using this creed in worship, since the letter was supposed to be written to the whole church and read aloud during their meeting.

Perhaps there's even some other "creeds" that were recited by writers of the New Testament in a very basic form....
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Paul was not the author of the language of 1 Cor. 15.3? What proof is there for that assertion? Moreover, even if he was quoting someone else's creed, how is that an affirmative command for the congregation to recite other creeds in public worship?

The idea that something becomes an element of worship because something supposedly extra-Biblical is allegedly quoted in Scripture and Scripture is to be read in public worship sounds very far fetched to me.

I think Paul is the author and there is no reason to believe that he was quoting someone else. Therefore, I see no basis for congregants to recite creeds in worship. Recitation of creeds is not among the elements of worship found in Scripture or in the Westminster Confession. Creeds and Confessions definitely have a place, but not in the mouths of congregants during public worship.

The RPW requires an affirmative command to justify an element of worship. That is lacking in this alleged element of public worship.



[Edited on 8-21-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
This is from the JFB commentary:

1Co 15:3 -
"I delivered unto you" "” A short creed, or summary of articles of faith, was probably even then existing; and a profession in accordance with it was required of candidates for baptism

I first heard of this when atheist Gerd Ludeman was debating William Lane Craig, and they were arguing over the "dating" of the concept of the resurrection, I believe.

I'm not trying to posit the concept too strongly, just adding in a couple of cents for contemplation as food for thought.
 
Originally posted by joshua
Again, such as with the supposed "fragment" hymns of the early church that people claim are in certain passages, I ask: By what substantiation can you say these were hymn fragments, or that the above is an early creed?
Click to expand...

None. I wasn't trying to argue for creeds, hymns, or the like (although I don't have a problem with them). I was just posting what I heard to inspire additional conversation on the topic.

I was hoping someone else might know something one way or another.
 
As far as the existence of elementary "creeds" go, the closest we can get in the pages of Scripture are probably the "faithful sayings" (1 Tim. 1:15; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Tit 3:8).

I know this is not widely accepted by every adherent to the RPW, but I believe that the "common confession" is a form of swearing oaths or vow-taking, and as such is legitmate in public worship.
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
As far as the existence of elementary "creeds" go, the closest we can get in the pages of Scripture are probably the "faithful sayings" (1 Tim. 1:15; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Tit 3:8).

I know this is not widely accepted by every adherent to the RPW, but I believe that the "common confession" is a form of swearing oaths or vow-taking, and as such is legitmate in public worship.
Click to expand...

According to the Confession, oaths and vows are to be performed upon special occasions. In reviewing the Westminster Standards, including the Directory for Publick Worship and the proof texts used to support the concept of oaths and vows, and history of covenanting, I don't see any Biblical or Confessional support for the idea that congregants are to regularly confess a creed during public worship. The verses cited above are not referenced by the Standards at all, except in one instance which has nothing to do with public worship. I think that these "faithful sayings" are just that: "faithful sayings." The closest thing I can think of that would be Biblically justified is the confession of faith involved in the sacrament of baptism, or membership vows, or the extraordinary act of covenanting, none of which involve reciting the Apostle's Creed regularly in public worship or anything like that. The proof texts used by the Confession for oaths and vows certainly don't reference the alleged "creeds" found in Scripture. While it is Biblical to confess one's faith, I don't see any command to make that a regular element of worship, as is required by the RPW; moreover, the most that could be proved by the supposed creeds in Scripture is that we should recite the language of Scripture, not man-made creeds, no matter how orthodox. I am a great believers in confessions of faith. The church needs to confess her faith. Individual Christians need to confess their faith. But it is not a Biblically ordained regular element of worship. In general, apart from the extraordinary occasions I already mentioned, I think the only normal occasion for congregants to speak during public worship is during the singing of psalms. As the WLC says,

Question 156: Is the Word of God to be read by all?

Answer: Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.
Click to expand...

If this is true of reading the Word of God (out loud), how much more true is it that the laity are not to read uninspired words during public worship, be they ever so orthodox.


[Edited on 8-22-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
I'm surprised this RPCNA church does this. If you find out how they are able to do this or how it is accepted by the Presbytery, please let me or us know. I'm curious.
 
I don't think the argument (above) from the authorized reading of Scripture has much force, a fortiori. I don't think is is effective as an argument from greater to less, because there are other things which all participate in, which do not come up to a certain level. The Reading/Preaching of the Word is a restriction.

As for vows/oaths being "occasional," as an argument against, it is to no purpose; if such is in fact an oath, then it is admitable as such, and none may gainsay.

As for congregational participations generally, I'll have to check the Geneva liturgy, but I know for certain that Calvin's Strasbourg liturgy contained at least one vocal, non-singing congregational response. I know that the Reformation advanced in a century to the days of Westminster, and the Scottish Kirk, but it is possible for us to go to church, and leave Calvin outdoors? Or attend Calvin's preaching, but stifle ourselves in the service he's conducting? Can we be "more Presbyterian than Knox?" (to steal a line from the papists).

OK. As long as we acknowledge what we are doing...
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I don't think the argument (above) from the authorized reading of Scripture has much force, a fortiori. I don't think is is effective as an argument from greater to less, because there are other things which all participate in, which do not come up to a certain level. The Reading/Preaching of the Word is a restriction.

As for vows/oaths being "occasional," as an argument against, it is to no purpose; if such is in fact an oath, then it is admitable as such, and none may gainsay.

As for congregational participations generally, I'll have to check the Geneva liturgy, but I know for certain that Calvin's Strasbourg liturgy contained at least one vocal, non-singing congregational response. I know that the Reformation advanced in a century to the days of Westminster, and the Scottish Kirk, but it is possible for us to go to church, and leave Calvin outdoors? Or attend Calvin's preaching, but stifle ourselves in the service he's conducting? Can we be "more Presbyterian than Knox?" (to steal a line from the papists).

OK. As long as we acknowledge what we are doing...
Click to expand...

There are several reasons why the recitation of the Apostles' Creed and the like are to be excluded from Biblical worship.

There is no warrant to equate recitation of the Apostles' Creed with an oath or a vow, as defined by Scripture or the Westminster Standards.

Scripture does not give to the laity any warrant or command to speak out loud during public worship, apart from congregational singing, or extraordinary, occasional elements of worship, such as vows.

As EP is the proper application of the regulative principle of worship and the principle of sola scriptura, so likewise are uninspired creeds, lacking warrant from Scripture are to be excluded from the mouths of the congregation. God has ordained how he is to be worshipped and we are to approach him by means of his word alone, not the words of men. If God does command the recitation of the Apostles' Creed in the Bible, and he does not, then to do so is out of accord with the aforementioned principles of worship.

Like the Lord's Prayer and other godly sayings, which are good in themselves, such sayings when performed rotely week after week tend towards vain worship. This is a major reason, apart from the RPW, why Presbyterians opposed the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, which contains many godly sayings, but when written into the weekly service as prescribed, set liturgy, tend towards spiritually dead worship.

The Westminster Assembly in their preparation of the Directory of Public Worship specifically rejected the use of the Apostles' Creed. They thought the place for the Apostles' Creed was in the time of catechism, apart from public worship. The forms of worship used by both Knox and Calvin, while an admirable improvement upon Roman worship, nevertheless needed further Reformation. The Assembly improved upon their worship, and it is no disrepect to Calvin and Knox to say that the Assembly was sounder in their application of the RPW than they. Genevan worship is greatly to be appreciated, but it is not the most Reformed and pure worship in the history of the Reformation. The Directory of Public Worship -- binding upon my church -- was an improvement upon Genevan forms of worship, in part by excluding manmade creeds and hymns, and is most consistent, in my view, with the RPW.
 
Jeff,

I'm glad you posted that, Reformed worship has historically been liturgical, with Knox, Bucer, Calvin and others all promoting the use of the creeds. Furthermore, If I recall correctly I do not believe it was the Scottish divines or the Presbyterian contingent that pushed for the "minimalized" worship in the DPW, but the Independency group.

I don't have a copy of the original Book of Common Order here at my office, but I believe it too utilized the creeds.

[Edited on 23-8-2005 by Athanasius]
 
I don't know anything about this source, so use that as a word of caution when reading this, and not a recommendation of this man or website.

That being said, here is one article I found on the subject.

Here is an excerpt:

The Necessity and Usefulness of Creeds

It might seem overly dramatic to some, but it is nevertheless true--if we are going to be faithful to the Bible itself, we must use "human" creeds. It is not just that creeds are permissible and biblical, but the Bible demands that we publicly express our faith in concise, accurate, and intelligible language--which is precisely what creeds attempt to do. This is an important point. When someone asks you, "What do you believe as a Christian?" you must respond with a summary of what you believe the Word of God teaches. You might say something like this: "That's a good question. If you have a few minutes I can summarize it for you. I believe the Bible teaches . . ." The words "I believe" (Latin = credo ) come quite spontaneously to your lips. I am not suggesting that you simply quote the Apostles' Creed to the inquirer--though that is, of course, one acceptable way of summarizing the biblical faith--but my point is that composing creeds is inescapable. Everyone has a creed because everyone has a way of summarizing and expressing what one believes [4].

The Bible itself demands that we make personal, public confession of our faith (Matt. 10:32-33; 16:13-17; John 6:66-69; Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Tim. 6:13). Genuine faith always seeks public expression in confession and proclamation (Acts 19:18; 2 Cor. 4:13). Genuine faith that is truly a matter of the heart can never remain a secret of the heart. Our Lord said, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45). The heart must speak and make public its deepest commitments. The important question is: Will your personal creed be an accurate and faithful summary of the Christian faith?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Like the Lord's Prayer and other godly sayings, which are good in themselves, such sayings when performed rotely week after week tend towards vain worship.
Click to expand...

[somewhat off topic]

It is interesting that John Owen (and others) took the position that the Lord's Prayer was NOT to be used in public worship. See his work A DISCOURSE CONCERNING LITURGIES, AND THEIR IMPOSITION. He claims that because the Lord's prayer is meant for instruction in private prayer is enough to determine that it was not meant to be recited in public worship.

[/somewhat off topic]
 
Are these scriptures dealing with or in the context of public worship? If not, shouldn't we reject the use of creeds/confessions for lack of explicit command?

Matthew 10:32-33 "œTherefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 16:13-17 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "œWho do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" So they said, "œSome say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "œBut who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "œYou are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "œBlessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

John 6:66-69 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. Then Jesus said to the twelve, "œDo you also want to go away?" But Simon Peter answered Him, "œLord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation

1 Tim 6:13 I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate,

Those of you who are defending the use of creeds/confessions: What scriptural evidence would you use as explicit command to confess during public worship?

I can't seem to find any.:um:
 
Confessional "statements" by the congregation in worship are as old as the earliest church record. That's why the early Reformers retained them.

[Edited on 8-23-2005 by Contra_Mundum]
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Confessional "statements" by the congregation in worship are as old as the earliest church record. That's why the early Reformers retained them.

[Edited on 8-23-2005 by Contra_Mundum]
Click to expand...

I appreciate you jumping in on this discussion, but does that make it right?
 
Rev. 4. The heavenly worship service, has unison confession. See also Rev. 7.

"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

1 Chron. 16:36. And all the people said, "Amen", and "Praise the Lord." here Two words suffice to a confession. I think the context leaves no doubt as to whether this was a worship service. Compare Neh. 8:6, "Amen Amen." See 1 Cor. 14:16.

I have already stated my opinion of the instructional value of the "faithful sayings." What kind of sayings were they?

Say what you will about Jesus explicit command, Mt. 6:9, there doesn't seem to have been any time in recorded church history that this form of prayer was not a church recitation.

I don't know the protocol of the Jewish use of the Shema, Deut. 6:4, but it was certainly a creed from ancient days.

The bottom line for me is, these statements (from "Amen" to the Lord's Prayer, to orthodox doctrinal formulations) are oaths and vows, and as such are plainly sanctioned by the church and the WCF. They are not "individualistic," they are memorizable, they are able to be conducted decently and in order, unlike the pastoral prayer they do not require one man--the minister--to act for the whole congregation, they evidence the unity of the gathered army of the Lord, marshalled for battle (which is what we do on Sunday--or we are supposed to).

[Edited on 8-23-2005 by Contra_Mundum]
 
Bruce, I appreciate your thoughts here. If I may ask, wher edo you drawthe link from an instrutional tool like a "faithful saying" to their sanctioned use as an element of confession in public worship?
 
Let me be clear: The issue of "faithful sayings" I brought up to help with a biblical defense of having "creeds" at all. Paul refers to 4 different ones, and all in the context of the Pastorals, the first church BCO there ever was.

Now, that being said, work out the implications of these sayings. They were common currency in the churches, and not (I reckon) simply in the ones that Paul founded. The very expression (and the multiple references) seems to indicate that these are merely representative of early church statements. 1 Tim. 4:9, 2 Tim 2:11-13, and Tit. 3, beginning someplace after the beginning of verse 3, are corporate statements of faith, on the face. You have another "memorable phrase" in 1 Tim. 3:16. What is the presumed context for these statements? If there are those who do not wish to conclude with me that these are conducive to worship, I will not argue with them, or try to force my point on them. They are welcome to rest in a bit more ambiguity, and I do not fault them. I am willing to err, if need be, and do so in good Reformed company.

Here's an a fortiori argument: if it is permissible, in a worship service, for a single person, or a group, to individualistically recite entire vows, or even to merely assent with an "I do" or "Amen" in answer to questions, then it is not at all absurd or contrary to strict RPW principles for an entire congregation to avow in solemn recital holy Words or orthodox formulations corporately (decently and in order) when they may, leaving what the minister does on their behalf because they cannot do decently and in order (free prayer, for example).

What about the Lord's Prayer. As every good WSC inductee knows, the form is itself instructional, each part being a doctrinal assertion (fleshed out in the questions 99-107. Therefore, in a Confessional church, whenever it is recited it is a statement of faith, an OATH. Now, if that has lapsed into formalism, it is no less a sin (nor more so) than careless attendance on the ordinances, conscionless hearing the word, or singing psalms not from the heart.
 
Suggested Reading:
The Patristic Roots of Reofrmed Worship. by Hughes Oliphant Old (out of print, I believe)
Leading In Worship, ed. by Terry L. Johnson
from Leading In Worship
The Reformers claimed to be doing nothing more or less than reviving the worship insitituted by the Apostles. Calvin's liturgy claims to provide a "Form of Church Prayers . . . According to the Custom of the Ancient Church." As Hughes Oliphant Old has demonstrated in his important (but neglected) study, The Patristic Roots of Reofrmed Worship, the Reformers based their reformation of worship primarily upon the exegesis of Scripture. Theirs, however, was not a naive Biblicism. They also valued the Church Fathers as witnessess to how Scripture was understood by those closest to the Apostles. For them, as Old argues, "the writings of the Fathers were read as witnessess to the purer forms of worship of the ancient church."10 The Fathers were valued because they "could confirm a usage which had been established by Scripture." Consequently, when they argued from Scripture for a given reform, they were able to demonstrate through extensive citations of ancient sources both that the early church was the model upon which their work was based, and htat the medieval liturgy had departed from this earlier tradition. The following elements, many which have become common to the regular worship of both Roman Catholics and Protestants, were restored on the basis of the Reformers careful study:
invocation and/or call to worship;11
Scripture reading and preaching by lectio selecta;12
prayer of illumination;13
reading of the law of God, and confession of sin;14
prayer of intercession;15
congregational hymnody and Psalmody;16
recitation of the creed;17
benediction.18

note 17: The ancient church used the Creed in connection with the Lord's Supper. The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy by pseudo-Dionysius the Aeropagite views it as a hymn of thanksgiving for creation, redemption, sanctification. North African theologians such as Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augstine view the recitation of the Creed as a pledged oath, a sacramentum, similar to that made by the soldiers to their commanders. Calvin's view was taken almost entirely from these men.
Click to expand...
from pp. 6 & 11

Calvin used a corporate (unison) confession of sin as well as the Apostle's Creed, 1542, 1545 (LiW, pp 121ff)

Calvin's form was carried in modified form to Scotland by Knox (The Form of Prayers... used in the English Congregation at Geneva: and Approved by the Famous and Godly Learned Man, John Calvin), 1556, used until superceded by Westminster Directory in 1645. They used the corporate (unison) Creed (LiW, pp 126ff).

The Directory for Worship, 1644 (more a compendium of rules (rubrics) than a liturgy), approves of the Lord's Prayer. "And because the Prayer which Christ taught his Disciples, is not only a Pattern of Prayer, but a most comprehensive Prayer, we recommend it also be used in the Prayers of the Church." (quoted LiW, p 142). The Creed was published, by the way, as it still is today, with the Standards.

English Puritan Presbyterians (1661) recited together the 10 commandments (LiW. p 145) (unlike the Genevans, who sung them, at least early on), and the Apostle's Creed.


My purpose in putting al this up, as well as the previous posts, is simply to demonstrate that a Scriptural case was made in the days of the Reformation, as today, for collective congregational speech, including orthodox faith-formulations not strictly verbatim Scripture. My position that they are forms of Oaths is Calvin's and Augustin's position. I am not beating anyone over the head with this. Don't take this as something being forced on the church or your church. For God's sake, worship him with a purified conscience. Amen.
 
I answer, first the place is properly to be understood, not of all teachers, but of the apostles. Secondly, if it be spoken of all teachers the words must be understood with limitation, for thus is the ministerial commission, Teach them to observe all things which I have commanded you. . . . Thus the truth of this rule is manifest, and we must lay it up in our hearts as a treasure, and never suffer ourselves to be deprived of it, for the use of it is great. By it we may discern the profaneness of our times. All men can say, God must be worshipped. But when it comes to the point, what is the worship wherewith they honor God? Surely, what they list themselves. Some worship God with their good meaning, some with their good dealing, some with the babbling of a few words, as namely, of the Apostles Creed, and Ten Commandments for prayers. This service of God is very common, but alas, it is poor service. For the rule of divine honor is not the will of him that honoreth, but the will of him which is honored. Secondly, here we learn to detest the service and worship which is performed to God in the Church of Rome. For it contains many parts and points of will-worship, having no warrant from God, either by commandment or promise. . . . For these and many other practices, let them bring forth the Word of God, if they can. They plead for many things, that they have the word of traditions. I answer, that traditions ecclesiastical are no word of God, but the word of man. And traditions which are called apostolical, are either of no moment, or doubtful. For how shall we know certainly, that they were the traditions of the Apostles, considering none hath said so, but some of the Fathers, whose testimonies are not sufficient, because they are subject to error?
Click to expand...

-- William Perkins, The Workes, 3 vols. (Cambridge: John Legate, 1608-09), 1:684
 
Calvin, Knox, Beza, et al, vs Perkins, PuritanA, PresbyterianB
History vs. history; Perkins poking Calvin in the eye

My Scriptural argument is set forth above it.
I will happily reconsider my position (Calvin's, etc.) when I have some biblical refutation to study.

The question was asked, "where is the biblical justification for creed use in the church?" Before an answer is attempted, the reply is given, "Nowhere, its just papist rubbish." So I go on to attempt an answer to the original question, but also have to point out that I'm not being novel, because of the preemptive attacks on the position defended as "Romish" that was held by better Reformed men than me. This, by the way, is the same tactic as those who, when they hear the question, "what is the defense of infant baptism," don't wait for an argument to debunk, but just pop off, "None, its just Roman Relics in the church."

I feel like we're back to the same place where we always get here on the PB when we don't agree with each other. We fling quotes at one another from people both sides respect.
 
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Calvin, Knox, Beza, et al, vs Perkins, PuritanA, PresbyterianB
History vs. history; Perkins poking Calvin in the eye

My Scriptural argument is set forth above it.
I will happily reconsider my position (Calvin's, etc.) when I have some biblical refutation to study.

The question was asked, "where is the biblical justification for creed use in the church?" Before an answer is attempted, the reply is given, "Nowhere, its just papist rubbish." So I go on to attempt an answer to the original question, but also have to point out that I'm not being novel, because of the preemptive attacks on the position defended as "Romish" that was held by better Reformed men than me. This, by the way, is the same tactic as those who, when they hear the question, "what is the defense of infant baptism," don't wait for an argument to debunk, but just pop off, "None, its just Roman Relics in the church."

I feel like we're back to the same place where we always get here on the PB when we don't agree with each other. We fling quotes at one another from people both sides respect.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that way, Bruce. Good men do disagree from time to time on matters of worship. I think the RPW lays the burden of proof for incorporating the recitation of extra-Biblical documents by the congregation in worship upon those who assert that it is Biblical. I have not seen any compelling Biblical evidence to support this. In fact, as I have said, by definition there can be no such evidence from the Scriptures. I personally view the Second Reformation as an improvement upon the deficiencies of the First Reformation in worship. The Directory of Public Worship, as previously stated, excluded previously accepted extra-Biblical practices such as reciting the Apostles Creed.

Bruce, Just on a personal note (and for the benefit of those reading this thread, lest any miscontrue), I greatly respect your desire to worship God Biblically. Our disagreement is certainly over the application of the RPW, not over the RPW itself (ie., applicatory, not principial). We may both appeal to authorities that we respect (I certainly respect Calvin and Knox, and I know many good men who believe fervently that reciting the Apostles Creed is an important part of Biblical worship), but it is my personal conviction that the principles of sola scriptura and RPW rule out the Apostles Creed as an element of worship.

I do pray God's blessings upon you, brother. Whether at your church or mine, I would be honored to worship our God with you one of these days, dv.
 
No offense to Bruce, but I just read this thread, and I have to say how relieved I am that there are people out there who agree with me about this! I can't stand that we have to recite things in church.

I feel like it's incredibly mindless; nobody is actually thinking about what they have to say, they're only thinking about saying it properly and keeping up with the pace of the rest of the congregation. While the information may be useful, it would really be better in a catechism. The only thing I see all this recitation as good for is keeping people awake and stopping them from zoning off completely!

At the church I'm attending for the summer, we have to recite about five thousand things each service. It's actually made me appreciate my home church even more; I'll be glad to not have to sing "Praise God from whom all blessings flow, etc." (though it's a good song; we've had to sing it at home, but only as a hymn, not in every service) and "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, etc".

At a church I used to go to (actually, I'm still a member there) we had to sing the Lord's Prayer! But that church, despite being Presbyterian, had seriously strong Anglican leanings. The minister frequently used the Book of Common Prayer. Don't even get me started on that book!
 
The burden of proof to do ANYTHING in worship is on all of us. All of us.

Scripture is the guideline, and if someone can defend the use of creeds and responsive readings (extra biblical) during a corporate worship from Scripture, I will gladly accept this as valid worship and Biblical.

The Bible decides, we don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Pilgrim
  • Locked
Reciting Creeds and the RPW
Replies
11
Views
2K
Poimen
Poimen
Romans922
  • Locked
  • Poll
RPW: Are we commanded to recite parts of Confessions or Creeds in Worship?
Replies
16
Views
4K
ADKing
A
A
  • Locked
RPW and Responsive Reading
Replies
12
Views
7K
Arch2k
A
B
  • Locked
RPW and the priesthood of all believers
Replies
9
Views
2K
BrettLemke
B
C
  • Locked
RPW and the Synagogue
Replies
3
Views
1K
Claudiu
C
Back
Top