You can get the WCF from BoT or RHB and you can get Durham on the Ten Commandments at RHB (Naphtali Press does not stock that, Durham on Job or the collected sermons).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In my church, we actually have midweek public worship services for our Wednesday meeting. We do not hold them to be mandatory to attend unless providentially hindered. It's like an abridgement of the daily worship from the Reformation era. However, public worship is a privilege. Unless there was good reason to not attend (the "lawful duties" you mention), the expectation is that people will attend. Having the Lord's supper on other days would not be for the edification of all (all the more so since it symbolizes the unity of the whole body), since not everyone is able to attend midweek due to their lawful callings. So your conclusion still follows in such cases: having public worship on other days does put different expectations on people.Man does not have liberty to substitute otherwise lawful duties for the public worship of the Lord. To call men to worship before a holy God and then tell them that if you want to spend time with family instead it is fine is a gross contradiction. This is why weekday Bible studies are not regarded as public worship and are not conducted in the same manner and with the same elements as a Lord's Day service.
Indeed. Additionally, without dropping the other shoe, one ends up confirming them in their superstition that one is trying to evangelize them from. Evangelism is more than just "baptizing:" it is also teaching them to observe whatsoever has been commanded.I would never do so without dropping the other shoe because of the pervasive idolatry of the idea there are holy days and times other than the Lord's Day, and at the least lest I stumble someone who may be led by my silence to retain or go on in such manner of thinking.
In my church, we actually have midweek public worship services for our Wednesday meeting. We do not hold them to be mandatory to attend unless providentially hindered. It's like an abridgement of the daily worship from the Reformation era. However, public worship is a privilege. Unless there was good reason to not attend (the "lawful duties" you mention), the expectation is that people will attend. Having the Lord's supper on other days would not be for the edification of all (all the more so since it symbolizes the unity of the whole body), since not everyone is able to attend midweek due to their lawful callings. So the conclusion still follows in such cases: having public worship on other days does put different expectations on people.
In my church, we actually have midweek public worship services for our Wednesday meeting
It's like an abridgement of the daily worship from the Reformation era.
Yes, there is a call to worship. It is exactly like the public worship service on the Lord's day, except the focus is on intercessory prayer. We do not view the call to worship as requiring attendance unless providentially hindered; it simply is just the way the worship service is started. (Edit 2: I mean, their calling upon the people to worship God is an authoritative action, but on their view, the giving the call is not something that inherently makes mandatory attendance.) The being required to attend unless providentially hindered is attached to the sanctity of the Lord's day, rather than merely to the calling by the church officers. (Edit: I mean, I suppose a rogue church officer in our context could try to make attendance aside from the Lord's day compulsory; but they would not have the Scriptural authority to lawfully do so.)In your practice do you have a call to worship?
Perhaps it is best if I link to the sermon by Gavin Beers on the matter. He cites one of the books of discipline (I don't recall which one) and finds Scriptural precedent in the daily worship of the OT and NT. It is true though that aside from the midweek meeting, the daily worship was an abridged one with a lecture.I know of no citation where the Reformed churches of days passed, met routinely for days as u describe other than what the directory has in its appendix.
Yes, that is correct. We also have additional worship services in connection with our communion seasons. These also are not viewed as mandatory (people are not required to attend unless providentially hindered).Am I to understand that your church meets for worship on every Wednesday evening also?
Yes, but what you miss is that the ministry of the Supper and the authoritative preaching of the Word is exercising the keys itself.
Excommunication is separating men from the communion of the body of Christ and especially in the Lord's Supper. The reason why we often admonish church members not to lightly excommunicate themselves by not partaking of the Supper is that to allow the Supper to pass by, whether present or no, is a serious matter.
These also are not viewed as mandatory (people are not required to attend unless providentially hindered).
Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. I understand mandatory attendance to mean that people are required to attend unless providentially hindered. I was trying to say that this is not what is required of people for our other worship services: our other worship services are not mandatory (as I defined above). People are free to not attend these other meetings if they have other lawful duties to attend to.This statement implies that it is compulsory; rarely are people providentially hindered. I will listen to GB's teaching on it. At first glance, it seems legalistic.
Sometimes have, sometimes haven't in recent years. The practice is lectio continua largely. It's not pumped nor promoted or any way singled out to the congregation. I'll know tomorrow. My church has moved more and more to an understated use of those times in recent years.Does anyone here attend a church that won’t be preaching a distinctly Easter message this Sunday, or doesn’t preach an Incarnation message in December?
As I have already indicated above, one "may" but one should take into account scandal and offense of things theoretically indifferent; the Scriptural rules of the use of things indifferent apply. James Durham in his work on scandal and offense puts it squarely in this arena when he saysFocusing on Friday’s practice might eclipse the heart of the matter. This discussion would seem to impinge upon the question of whether tomorrow’s sermon may distinctly relate to the Resurrection. In other words, is it imprudent or even forbidden to depart from a series being preached in order to focus on Christ’s resurrection. Same goes for an Advent series. Does the Reformed church (particularly pastors and sessions) cave in to RC superstitions, lead weaker brothers astray and legitimize the error of alleged Holy Days by giving congregations what they might expect to hear on these two occasions?
I do. The Presbyterian Reformed Church also will not be doing so. Some RPCNA congregations that I know of will also not do so.Does anyone here attend a church that won’t be preaching a distinctly Easter message this Sunday, or doesn’t preach an Incarnation message in December?
Does anyone here attend a church that won’t be preaching a distinctly Easter message this Sunday, or doesn’t preach an Incarnation message in December?
Regarding infrequent gatherings like a particular Thursday once per year, if there is a call to worship and God’s Holy Word is expounded but the Supper is forbidden, what would that communicate, that the Supper is more special than the Word?
OK, I thought you might be leaning in this direction but I didn’t want to address it prematurely. But since it’s your stated position, I’ll address it now the best I can.
To be (a) absent from communion and to be (b) excommunicated are similar in one respect. They both result in being absent from the table. However, they’re not the same in a most critical respect. All (b) entails (a) but not all (a) entails (b). In other words, to be “merely” absent from communion is not tantamount to excommunication. If it were, then when someone missed communion he’d need to be formally received back into fellowship.
When people miss the Supper, their credible professional of faith is not generally called into question as if they were delinquent in doctrine or lifestyle. When people are absent due to neglect, illness or whatever, they are not being declared by the elders as outside the church.
Letting the elements pass by is not an ecclesiastical censure. It’s certainly a serious matter worthy of gentle shepherding but we mustn’t confuse it with declaring one outside Christ’s fold.
Yes, there is a call to worship. It is exactly like the public worship service on the Lord's day, except the focus is on intercessory prayer. We do not view the call to worship as requiring attendance unless providentially hindered; it simply is just the way the worship service is started. (Edit 2: I mean, their calling upon the people to worship God is an authoritative action, but on their view, the giving the call is not something that inherently makes mandatory attendance.) The being required to attend unless providentially hindered is attached to the sanctity of the Lord's day, rather than merely to the calling by the church officers. (Edit: I mean, I suppose a rogue church officer in our context could try to make attendance aside from the Lord's day compulsory; but they would not have the Scriptural authority to lawfully do so.)
Perhaps it is best if I link to the sermon by Gavin Beers on the matter. He cites one of the books of discipline (I don't recall which one) and finds Scriptural precedent in the daily worship of the OT and NT. It is true though that aside from the midweek meeting, the daily worship was an abridged one with a lecture.
(see around 12 minutes for the historical overview; and around 17 minutes for the biblical analysis): https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1120182140402
Yes, that is correct. We also have additional worship services in connection with our communion seasons. These also are not viewed as mandatory (people are not required to attend unless providentially hindered).
Will do, brother. The furthest out is Durham on the Ten Commandments. It was painstakingly edited by our own @NaphtaliPress. I will DM you direct links.@Reformed Bookworm, would you mind sending me info in a PM about the 2 outer books above. Maybe links to purchase from RHB. Thanks, G
I think I am going to order the outer 2 (including Durham) today and maybe Brakel!Will do, brother. The furthest out is Durham on the Ten Commandments. It was painstakingly edited by our own @NaphtaliPress. I will DM you direct links.
That warms my heart to hear you may start the journey with Brakel! He has been such a blessing to my wife and I!I think I am going to order the outer 2 (including Durham) today and maybe Brakel!
Well it is between A’ Brakel’s full volume set or a limited edition pink Easter bunny tank top (truly fabulous) for church tomorrow.That warms my heart to hear you may start the journey with Brakel! He has been such a blessing to my wife and I!
Certainly. Most of the confessional Presbyterian churches (that aren't PCA, anyways) that I've attended do not. Mine does not.
Historically the Continental churches did celebrate "holy days." This was a point of contention between them and the English speaking churches.
Although my denomination allows for them, they are not required to be observed in the individual churches. My local church normally has a topical sermon at these days having to do with the resurrection, etc. As far as I am aware, we do not consider them holy days, rather good occasions to consider topics that are "culturally relevant."
Personally, I think it's a good occasion to consider these topics, though it should never bind the conscience.
Our church recognizes resurrection Sunday but none of the secularization of it. The early church did as well; when it was observed rather than whether to observe it was a divisor between east and west.Focusing on Friday’s practice might eclipse the heart of the matter. This discussion would seem to impinge upon the question of whether tomorrow’s sermon may distinctly relate to the Resurrection. In other words, is it imprudent or even forbidden to depart from a series being preached in order to focus on Christ’s resurrection. Same goes for an Advent series. Does the Reformed church (particularly pastors and sessions) cave in to RC superstitions, lead weaker brothers astray and legitimize the error of alleged Holy Days by giving congregations what they might expect to hear on these two occasions?
Does anyone here attend a church that won’t be preaching a distinctly Easter message this Sunday, or doesn’t preach an Incarnation message in December?
Does anyone here attend a church that won’t be preaching a distinctly Easter message this Sunday, or doesn’t preach an Incarnation message in December?
Sometimes have, sometimes haven't in recent years. The practice is lectio continua largely. It's not pumped nor promoted or any way singled out to the congregation. I'll know tomorrow. My church has moved more and more to an understated use of those times in recent years.
All excommunications are not alike, certainly. To be judicially excommunicated is not the same to be self-excommunicated... Now when one self-excommunicates they may (and often are) wrong about their status, thus the "gentle shepherding," but it still not an act without significancel.
Again, your position turns on an equivocal notion of excommunication. The keys were not given to individuals but to God’s ordained overseers.