Puritan Demands -An Overreaction?

[Reformed Catholic]

Greetings brothers,

Recently, I have been attending a Reformed Episcopal Church and have been inquiring into Anglicanism due to the influence of some friends and the apparent historical continuity that is so treasured by believing Anglicans. I have been discussing the demands of the Millenary Petition (a list of requests given to King James I by Puritans) with some Anglican brothers recently and they claim that the demands were an overreaction against Roman Catholicism and unfounded. Some of their complaints:

1. The signing of the cross during baptism - a tradition as early as the third century with Scriptural references in Ezekiel 9:4; Exodus 17:9-14; and especially Revelation 7:3. Furthermore, the signing of the cross itself (outside of baptism) was also attacked by Puritans elsewhere despite being such a universal and early practice of the church (Tertullian, who lived not so far from the Apostles themselves, called it "an ancient practice")

2. Confirmation - Another extremely early and seemingly universal (catholic) practice in the church with Scriptural defense in passages such as Acts 8:14–17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, speaking of the laying on of hands for the purposes of bestowing the Spirit.

3. Use of the ring in marriage - While I don't seem to find any Scriptural backing for the practice, the demand against it seems to be for no other than "Well Papists do it, so we shouldn't" which isn't convincing reasoning to me

4. Bowing at the name of Jesus - Why be against this? (Other than the obvious reactions against papists and anything they do). Did the Apostle not say that "at the mention of the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those in heaven, those on earth and those under the earth"(Philippians 2.10)? Demanding the removal of such a practice, just because the pesky papists did it, once again, seems unfounded.

Brothers, I hope this doesn't come across as accusatory or offensive. I am still thoroughly Reformed at heart but I realize that our Puritan fathers in the faith were flawed men too who lived in certain circumstances and so, I desire to know their reasoning. Are these overreactions? Did the Puritans consider, or even care, how thoroughly historical and universal these practices were (not to mention the Scriptural passages backing them)? How would interpreting the Bible divorced from Church History make us any different from a Mormon or Restorationist who think the Saints of the past to be useless?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Those who hold to the 39 articles are precluded from membership on PB because of the doctrine of worship. If you are rejecting puritan principles like the regulative principle and intending to go Anglican, you'll need to resign membership.

If you are unsure; what have you read as far as the puritan argument against these practices? The first and second are dealt with in the Presbyterian literature against the imposition of the AngloCatholic ceremonies at the time leading up to the second reformation. The fourth was retired after the second reformation; you can read about it in the histories covering the Westminster Directory for Public Worship. Number 3 was likely opposed as a superstition or unbiblical ceremony. Nothing wrong with rings; but adding to the worship of God would be the issue. See recommended reading on the regulative principle of worship here: https://reformedbooksonline.com/top.../worship/the-regulative-principle-of-worship/

 

[py3ak]

Take the first item on the list. The Scripture references mentioned mention a mark being placed on the forehead or Moses lifting up a staff. The stretch from there to making a cruciform gesture is rather painful. Perhaps the practice might be considered relatively inoffensive, but the attempt to support it with those cross-references is such a bad interpretation that it calls for resistance.

Nor is it only Puritans who object to such things. See the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, Disputation 47:3-13 and Calvin's Institutes 4:19.4 for accounts that accept a place for a sort of ceremony of confirmation and yet vigorously reject any sacramental nature in it, with all the attendant requirements.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

If you are rejecting puritan principles like the regulative principle and intending to go Anglican, you'll need to resign membership.

Not the case at all. I affirm the Regulative Principle as is taught by many pastors even within the PCA. Worship must be according to Scripture. Now having said that, I think that disagreements over the nuances of the RP are fair game since even well respected PCA pastors (who have sworn an oath affirming the RP) would hold things like Christmas services and Lent services in disagreement with others who hold more strict views. You might disagree, but I suspect you wouldn't kick out a PCA Pastor who joined the Puritan Board and held to such a view (correct me if I'm wrong).

what have you read as far as the puritan argument against these practices?

This is precisely why I posed the question brother. I am seeking to understand the Puritan reasoning behind these since I am not a Pastor or Seminary Student (at least not yet ) with access to all these resources.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Not the case at all. I affirm the Regulative Principle as is taught by many pastors even within the PCA. Worship must be according to Scripture. Now having said that, I think that disagreements over the nuances of the RP are fair game since even well respected PCA pastors (who have sworn an oath affirming the RP) would hold things like Christmas services and Lent services in disagreement with others who hold more strict views. You might disagree, but I suspect you wouldn't kick out a PCA Pastor who joined the Puritan Board and held to such a view (correct me if I'm wrong).

This is precisely why I posed the question brother. I am seeking to understand the Puritan reasoning behind these since I am not a Pastor or Seminary Student (at least not yet ) with access to all these resources.

If anyone holds that you can appoint actual holy days in addition to the Lord's Day, no, they take too great an exception to reformed doctrine and are not admitted members, PCA or not. Yes; PCA pastors like the church calendar; but its usually due to other factors than embracing the 39 Articles view of church power and appointing uncommanded ceremonies. There are plenty of old threads on that. I would recommend looking at the link I gave for literature. I'd recommend the 2014 edition of George Gillespie's Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies, but it is out of print. The section on worship in James Bannerman's Church of Christ would be next I would suggest; but again, see the many suggestions and links at that link given above.

 

[KPaul]

This is precisely why I posed the question brother. I am seeking to understand the Puritan reasoning behind these since I am not a Pastor or Seminary Student (at least not yet ) with access to all these resources.

Have you had occasion to check out Puritan Search as created by some board members yet? It's a fantastic resource which houses thousands of Puritan writings. You will have a great, searchable library and may find what you're looking for there. I highly recommend taking a look if you don't already have it.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

If anyone holds that you can appoint actual holy days in addition to the Lord's Day, no, they take too great an exception to reformed doctrine and are not admitted members, PCA or not. Yes; PCA pastors like the church calendar; but its usually due to other factors than embracing the 39 Articles view of church power and appointing uncommanded ceremonies.

Agreed entirely. I didn't mention the 39 Articles at all and PCA pastors who held Lent / Christmas services have told me themselves that they don't see it as an objectively holy day: just that they don't think holding such services is forbidden. Once again, I'm not becoming Anglican. I'm simply studying a denomination I had very little knowledge about and have been challenged with some of my own tradition's viewpoints. I intend to attend a Reformed Seminary, God-willing. I am just thinking that maybe the Puritans' hard-line against practices like bowing at the name of Jesus or doing the sign of the cross may have been overreactions against Rome. Disagreeing with practices so universal in the ancient church (not just Roman Catholicism) should make us tremble - even if we think we're right.

 

[Sam Jer]

Disagreeing with practices so universal in the ancient church (not just Roman Catholicism) should make us tremble - even if we think we're right.

The old testament church had a longstanding tradition of taking to the high places to worship God and make sacrifices. Even Solomon did it! (1 Kings 3:2-4 KJV)
And the tradition of using golden calves goes all the way back to Aaron the first high priest.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

The old testament church had a longstanding tradition of taking to the high places to worship God and make sacrifices. Even Solomon did it! (1 Kings 3:2-4 KJV)
And the tradition of using golden calves goes all the way back to Aaron the first high priest.

Good thing no one’s arguing for the infallibility of the church fathers!

Taking serious the Saints of the past who died and were persecuted defending what they believed to be true doctrine and the true interpretation of the Scriptures is not comparable to that at all.

 

[MW]

When I was younger I thought the regulative principle was there only to protect worship from corruption. Experience has shown me how the Scriptures are used to support corrupt practices and I can see that the regulative principle is just as important to keep the Scriptures from perversion.

 

[Sam Jer]

Good thing no one’s arguing for the infallibility of the church fathers!

Taking serious the Saints of the past who died and were persecuted defending what they believed to be true doctrine and the true interpretation of the Scriptures is not comparable to that at all.

I take Solomon seriously, but I don't use that as a way to justify making private shrines, practicing polygamy, or marrying with unbeleivers.
I take Aaron seriously, but I don't use it to justify making golden calfs.
I take Peter seriously, but don't justify denying Christ.

Of course taking the saints of the past seriously is important. But they failed too. Especially as you consider much of the New Testament church was under Rome, and even before the papacy showed up in it's full deceptive and shameful glory, the mystery of iniquity was at work already (2Thes. 2:7)
If you do believe the regulative principle, then this forces you're hands. The lack of a scriptural command makes any use of the practice just as irrelevant to the question of their'e use as Solomon's wisdom being granted after prayer at one of the high places.

And imagine for a moment a nonbeleiver walks in and sees some of these stuff. A Jew, a Muslim. Won't he be asking questions? Couldn't it create a completely unnecessary stumbling block? (Matt. 18:6, Luk. 17:1)
Or perhaps cause a superstitious Romanist to be reassured in his sin?

Lastly, "The papists do it" can sometimes be a very good reason not to. Israel was commanded to destroy the Canaanite altars lest they fail. (Deut. 7:4-5)

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Again, see the literature for the arguments that sign of the cross, pretended holy days, etc. are breaking the second commandment. On top of that, Efraim is correct. We are to put away monuments of idolatry, such as sign of the cross, holy days, etc., and not identify with idolaters by borrowing their practices under pretense or not of "but I don't mean it the same way." See this portion of Gillespie on monuments of idolatry.

Agreed entirely. I didn't mention the 39 Articles at all and PCA pastors who held Lent / Christmas services have told me themselves that they don't see it as an objectively holy day: just that they don't think holding such services is forbidden. Once again, I'm not becoming Anglican. I'm simply studying a denomination I had very little knowledge about and have been challenged with some of my own tradition's viewpoints. I intend to attend a Reformed Seminary, God-willing. I am just thinking that maybe the Puritans' hard-line against practices like bowing at the name of Jesus or doing the sign of the cross may have been overreactions against Rome. Disagreeing with practices so universal in the ancient church (not just Roman Catholicism) should make us tremble - even if we think we're right.

I take Solomon seriously, but I don't use that as a way to justify making private shrines, practicing polygamy, or marrying with unbeleivers.
I take Aaron seriously, but I don't use it to justify making golden calfs.
I take Peter seriously, but don't justify denying Christ.

Of course taking the saints of the past seriously is important. But they failed too. Especially as you consider much of the New Testament church was under Rome, and even before the papacy showed up in it's full deceptive and shameful glory, the mystery of iniquity was at work already (2Thes. 2:7)
If you do believe the regulative principle, then this forces you're hands. The lack of a scriptural command makes any use of the practice just as irrelevant to the question of their'e use as Solomon's wisdom being granted after prayer at one of the high places.

And imagine for a moment a nonbeleiver walks in and sees some of these stuff. A Jew, a Muslim. Won't he be asking questions? Couldn't it create a completely unnecessary stumbling block? (Matt. 18:6, Luk. 17:1)
Or perhaps cause a superstitious Romanist to be reassured in his sin?

Lastly, "The papists do it" can sometimes be a very good reason not to. Israel was commanded to destroy the Canaanite altars lest they fail. (Deut. 7:4-5)

 

[MyCrows]

The pope can command me to bow in the name of Christ all he wants, but I will not heed the invented authority he wields.

Why do you think people attribute the power to him that they do? He pretends to act with the authority that comes with the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I take Solomon seriously, but I don't use that as a way to justify making private shrines, practicing polygamy, or marrying with unbeleivers.
I take Aaron seriously, but I don't use it to justify making golden calfs.
I take Peter seriously, but don't justify denying Christ.

Of course taking the saints of the past seriously is important. But they failed too. Especially as you consider much of the New Testament church was under Rome, and even before the papacy showed up in it's full deceptive and shameful glory, the mystery of iniquity was at work already (2Thes. 2:7)
If you do believe the regulative principle, then this forces you're hands. The lack of a scriptural command makes any use of the practice just as irrelevant to the question of their'e use as Solomon's wisdom being granted after prayer at one of the high places.

And imagine for a moment a nonbeleiver walks in and sees some of these stuff. A Jew, a Muslim. Won't he be asking questions? Couldn't it create a completely unnecessary stumbling block? (Matt. 18:6, Luk. 17:1)
Or perhaps cause a superstitious Romanist to be reassured in his sin?

Lastly, "The papists do it" can sometimes be a very good reason not to. Israel was commanded to destroy the Canaanite altars lest they fail. (Deut. 7:4-5)

Well said brother.

 

[Phil D.]

The controversy of the wedding ring is interesting. The Puritan objection was explained in an Admonition to Parliament (1572; uncertain authorship), which was in reference to the wedding liturgy in the 1559 BCP.

As for matrimony, that also hath corruptions, too many. It was wont to be counted a sacrament; and therefore they use yet a sacramental sign to which they attribute the virtue of wedlock, I mean the wedding-ring, which they foully abuse and dally withal, in taking it up and laying it down: in putting it on they abuse the name of the Trinity, they make the new-married man, according to the popish form, to make an idol of his wife, saying, "with this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, etc."​

In defending the BCP, Archbishop Whitgift appealed to some comments by Matin Bucer (who served in an advisory role in the BCP's composition).

There is another rite and ceremony used, that the bridegroom should lay upon the book the ring, or any other sign or token of wedlock, be it gold or silver, which he will give to his wife; and from thence the minister taking it doth deliver it to the bridegroom; and he delivereth the same to the bride with a prescript form of words contained in the book. This ceremony is very profitable, if the people be made to understand what is thereby signified, as that the ring and other things, first laid upon the book, and afterward by the minister given to the bridegroom to be delivered to the bride, do signify that we ought to offer all that we have to God before we use them, and to acknowledge that we receive' them at his hand to be used to his glory. The putting of the ring upon the fourth finger of the woman's left hand, to the which, as it is said, there cometh a sinew or string from the heart, doth signify that the heart of the wife ought to be united to her husband; and the roundness of the ring doth signify that the wife ought to be joined to her husband with a perpetual band of love, as the ring itself is without end.​

Thomas Cartwright then responded, summarily dismissing Bucer's position.

If it be M. Bucer's judgment which is alleged here for the ring, I see that sometimes Homer sleepeth. For, first of all, I have shewed that it is not lawful to institute new signs and sacraments, And, then, it is dangerous to do it, especially in this which confirmeth the false and popish opinion of a sacrament, as is alleged by the Admonition. And, thirdly, to make such fond allegories of the laying down of the money, of the roundness of the ring, and of the mystery of the fourth finger, is (let me speak it with his good leave) very ridiculous and far unlike himself. And, fourthly, that he will have the minister to preach upon these toys, surely it savoureth not of the learning and sharpness of the judgment of M. Bucer.​

​

So the objection to the ring clearly had to do with its perceived place within the "sacramentalization" of the wedding ceremony. However, in Puritan writings subsequent to the Millenary Petition it is hard to find many specific objections, or indication that it remained an important issue, or that the practice was abandoned completely by Puritan ministers.

 

[J.L. Allen]

@NaphtaliPress

I don't mean to say this from any impropriety, but aren't there Anglican folk on here? Isn't our very own @yeutter Anglican?

 

[yeutter]

Those who hold to the 39 articles are precluded from membership on PB because of the doctrine of worship. If you are rejecting puritan principles like the regulative principle and intending to go Anglican, you'll need to resign membership.

I would note that the Church Order of Dort provides for, indeed seems to require the observance of some of what the Covenanters call pretended Holy Days.

"Article 67​

The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, with the following day, and whereas in most of the cities and provinces of the Netherlands the day of Circumcision and of Ascension of Christ are also observed, Ministers in every place where this is not yet done shall take steps with the Government to have them conform with the others."

Omar says that the Anglicans that he has been discussing the Millenary Petition are members of the Reformed Episcopal Church. I would note that by and large the Reformed Episcopal Church despite the name is no longer a Reformed body, rather it has morphed into an Anglo-Catholic Anglican jurisdiction.

Some other Anglican jurisdictions [jurisdiction is contemporary Anglican speak for denomination] are still reformed and still have parishes that use the Heidelberg Catechism to instruct their young people.

Church Order of Dort - Reformed Standards

All the reformed documents in one tidy package

reformedstandards.com

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I would note that the Church Order of Dort provides for, indeed seems to require the observance of some of what the Covenanters call pretended Holy Days.

In controversies between the board's list of confessions, Westminster governs. Also, Voetius, who was there at Dort, argues this was supposed to be a temporary solution and only an issue because of stubborn people and the insistence of magistrates.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

@NaphtaliPress

I don't mean to say this from any impropriety, but aren't there Anglican folk on here? Isn't our very own @yeutter Anglican?

Long time members have weathered or been grandfathered through the various tightenings of the membership rules. He's reached out to me via message. The admins will discuss it.

 

[yeutter]

I don't mean to say this from any impropriety, but aren't there Anglican folk on here? Isn't our very own @yeutter Anglican?

Yes I am a 39 Article Anglican
I am here by the indulgence of the Board despite being an Anglican. If the moderators ask me to leave, I will go back to lurking
I first posted on Puritan Board to defend historic Anglican clerics, William Paley, and Bishop Joseph Butler and their apologetics, from what I thought was an unjustified attack by a follower of VanTil. I initially stuck around to defend classical apologetics as being the historic apologetics of puritanism.
I have stuck around in recent years because I have learned a great deal

Voetius, who was there at Dort, argues this was supposed to be a temporary solution and only an issue because of stubborn people and the insistence of magistrates.

Thank you, I was unaware of this

 

[CGS]

I suspect that the "______ (fill in the blank) was just an overreaction to Roman Catholicism..." argument has been used to justify all manner of corruptions in the church. A church that I formerly attended had multiple images of Christ in the "sanctuary" and the welcome center. This was a church that supposedly held to the Westminster Standards. I inquired about the 2nd commandment violations and specifically referred to WLC #109. I was informed by one of the elders that WLC #109 was put there as an overreaction to the Roman church's use of icons and idols. So that argument was used to essentially nullify part of the Westminster standards and allow for 2nd commandment violations.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

The pope can command me to bow in the name of Christ all he wants, but I will not heed the invented authority he wields.

Thankfully we all agree (including Anglicans). Leaving the authority of the Pope aside, what is wrong with the practice itself? Is it really vile to bow upon the hearing of the name of Jesus? Have you looked into Pope Gregory's reason behind introducing the practice:

“… whenever that glorious name is recalled, especially during the sacred mysteries of the Mass, everyone should bow the knees of his heart, which he can do even by a bow of his head.” - Pope Gregory X

Notice the foreshadowing to what the Apostle states is the right end of all creation:

“At the mention of the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those in heaven, those on earth and those under the earth”

Calvin frequently quoted another pope, Gregory the Great, for his masterful expositions of doctrines such as predestination and God's sovereignty. So clearly one can be against the office of the papacy while acknowledging the spiritually profitable statements and works of previous popes, would you not agree?

 

[MarrowMan]

Greetings brothers,

Recently, I have been attending a Reformed Episcopal Church and have been inquiring into Anglicanism due to the influence of some friends and the apparent historical continuity that is so treasured by believing Anglicans. I have been discussing the demands of the Millenary Petition (a list of requests given to King James I by Puritans) with some Anglican brothers recently and they claim that the demands were an overreaction against Roman Catholicism and unfounded. Some of their complaints:

1. The signing of the cross during baptism - a tradition as early as the third century with Scriptural references in Ezekiel 9:4; Exodus 17:9-14; and especially Revelation 7:3. Furthermore, the signing of the cross itself (outside of baptism) was also attacked by Puritans elsewhere despite being such a universal and early practice of the church (Tertullian, who lived not so far from the Apostles themselves, called it "an ancient practice")

2. Confirmation - Another extremely early and seemingly universal (catholic) practice in the church with Scriptural defense in passages such as Acts 8:14–17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, speaking of the laying on of hands for the purposes of bestowing the Spirit.

3. Use of the ring in marriage - While I don't seem to find any Scriptural backing for the practice, the demand against it seems to be for no other than "Well Papists do it, so we shouldn't" which isn't convincing reasoning to me

4. Bowing at the name of Jesus - Why be against this? (Other than the obvious reactions against papists and anything they do). Did the Apostle not say that "at the mention of the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those in heaven, those on earth and those under the earth"(Philippians 2.10)? Demanding the removal of such a practice, just because the pesky papists did it, once again, seems unfounded.

Brothers, I hope this doesn't come across as accusatory or offensive. I am still thoroughly Reformed at heart but I realize that our Puritan fathers in the faith were flawed men too who lived in certain circumstances and so, I desire to know their reasoning. Are these overreactions? Did the Puritans consider, or even care, how thoroughly historical and universal these practices were (not to mention the Scriptural passages backing them)? How would interpreting the Bible divorced from Church History make us any different from a Mormon or Restorationist who think the Saints of the past to be useless?

You are asking the wrong question. The question is never “what’s wrong with x”. It should be “what’s right with x”. I don’t think the Puritans are over-reacting as much as they are asking a different question altogether and are opposed to something’s institution as a means of growing faith/love/obedience without Scripture commending its use for such a purpose. Especially given the fact that these means were made mandatory, which is regularly the case when man institutes his own means of grace.

The simple fact is this, if God has not appointed “x” as a means of favor to strengthen and nourish the love, faith, and obedience of His people, then there is no good reason to do it. There is no promise of God attached to it, there is no Spirit given efficacy. It is purely man made and thus, of no real value, sentiments not withstanding.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

by and large the Reformed Episcopal Church despite the name is no longer a Reformed body, rather it has morphed into an Anglo-Catholic Anglican jurisdiction.

How so? What parts of the Reformed Episcopal Church have become Anglo-Catholic that weren't so in the past?

 

[MyCrows]

Have you looked into Pope Gregory's reason behind introducing the practice:

“… whenever that glorious name is recalled, especially during the sacred mysteries of the Mass, everyone should bow the knees of his heart, which he can do even by a bow of his head.” - Pope Gregory X

Is this a serious question?

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Greetings brothers,

Recently, I have been attending a Reformed Episcopal Church and have been inquiring into Anglicanism due to the influence of some friends and the apparent historical continuity that is so treasured by believing Anglicans. I have been discussing the demands of the Millenary Petition (a list of requests given to King James I by Puritans) with some Anglican brothers recently and they claim that the demands were an overreaction against Roman Catholicism and unfounded. Some of their complaints:

1. The signing of the cross during baptism - a tradition as early as the third century with Scriptural references in Ezekiel 9:4; Exodus 17:9-14; and especially Revelation 7:3. Furthermore, the signing of the cross itself (outside of baptism) was also attacked by Puritans elsewhere despite being such a universal and early practice of the church (Tertullian, who lived not so far from the Apostles themselves, called it "an ancient practice")

2. Confirmation - Another extremely early and seemingly universal (catholic) practice in the church with Scriptural defense in passages such as Acts 8:14–17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, speaking of the laying on of hands for the purposes of bestowing the Spirit.

3. Use of the ring in marriage - While I don't seem to find any Scriptural backing for the practice, the demand against it seems to be for no other than "Well Papists do it, so we shouldn't" which isn't convincing reasoning to me

4. Bowing at the name of Jesus - Why be against this? (Other than the obvious reactions against papists and anything they do). Did the Apostle not say that "at the mention of the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those in heaven, those on earth and those under the earth"(Philippians 2.10)? Demanding the removal of such a practice, just because the pesky papists did it, once again, seems unfounded.

Brothers, I hope this doesn't come across as accusatory or offensive. I am still thoroughly Reformed at heart but I realize that our Puritan fathers in the faith were flawed men too who lived in certain circumstances and so, I desire to know their reasoning. Are these overreactions? Did the Puritans consider, or even care, how thoroughly historical and universal these practices were (not to mention the Scriptural passages backing them)? How would interpreting the Bible divorced from Church History make us any different from a Mormon or Restorationist who think the Saints of the past to be useless?

I think the scripture references for some of these things are taken out of context.

1. Nowhere does the bible tell us to make a sign of the cross on the forehead at baptism. To insist on such a thing would be wrong.
2. The laying on a hands is interesting, and a further study of that would be cool to see.
3. If this is something commanded for pastors to do, then yes that would be wrong. We have freedom in this area. The Bible doesn't tell us that a ring has to be used in a wedding ceremony.
4. I don't think this passage is talking about every Christian getting down on one knee whenever they hear the name of Jesus. Think about how many times in a worship service you hear the name Jesus. You might as well spend the entire time on one knee then.

As alluded to above, Christians have freedoms of interpretation and practice, but they should not force them on a church to make them law. I think quite a few of these points are mostly superstitious.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

The simple fact is this, if God has not appointed “x” as a means of favor to strengthen and nourish the love, faith, and obedience of His people, then there is no good reason to do it.

Ryan,

I appreciate this thought. Do members in your congregation fold hands while praying? Do they close their eyes? Do they bow their heads, or take off their hats?

The reason I ask this is not to act smart or be provocative. Clearly, we would all realize that such things are mechanics that aid in the devotion of God's people despite not being positively appointed by God as a means in His Word. Why must a member be prohibited from crossing themselves to focus in prayer and remind themselves of the cross? Why must they be forbidden to bow upon hearing the name of Jesus to practice reverence? I'm interested if there is consistency in your argument.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Ryan,

I appreciate this thought. Do members in your congregation fold hands while praying? Do they close their eyes? Do they bow their heads, or take off their hats?

The reason I ask this is not to act smart or be provocative. Clearly, we would all realize that such things are mechanics that aid in the devotion of God's people despite not being positively appointed by God as a means in His Word. Why must a member be prohibited from crossing themselves to focus in prayer and remind themselves of the cross? Why must they be forbidden to bow upon hearing the name of Jesus to practice reverence? I'm interested if there is consistency in your argument.

My name is Ryan, but a different Ryan than you're asking. Personally, I think God has given us as individuals, freedoms to enjoy. The things that you mentioned, I believe Christians are able to practice or not as they see fit. I think the problem becomes when those things are expected from all people, and they are taught as if they are the way one should practice. Sometimes I pray on my face, sometimes I pray standing, sometimes I pray with my hands raised, sometimes I pray with my hands folded, sometimes I pray with my eyes open, sometimes I pray with my eyes closed. I have freedom to pray the way I want to, but I cannot enforce my rules on anybody else.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

For what it's worth, the 39 articles proved impotent in dealing with challenges to Divine Simplicity and other "catholic" ideas that are much more consequential than signs of the Cross or wedding rings. Appeals to catholic tradition are interesting but they need up being selective as a chaotic communion accepts all other much more important heterodoxies while preserving supposedly ancient forms while the theological content of what the Church teaches is up for grabs.

I think it is important to note that the Church notionally operated for a long period with the conviction that the Scriptures were inerrant but didn't really see the need to ground their convictions in something exegetically grounded.

The Post-Reformation period extends a country and a half beyond the 39 Articles and it's not as if everything was "up for grabs" but it did force the Church to evaluate both beliefs and practices in the Word of God. The person asking these questions might as well be asking how the Church could operate for so long with a faulty view of justification or even place transubstantiation at the center of religious devotion. Forms followed convictions that were examined and altered. It's not necessarily "catholic" to retain an altar, even if the Anglicans or the Lutherans retained them for differing reasons.

At the end of the day, an ancient form is just that: it's ancient. It doesn't make it right. It doesn't mean we have to jettison it, but the shoe is on the foot of the person to provide exegetical or GNC warrant for its continue practice and not merely to point to its ancient pedigree.

 

[MarrowMan]

Ryan,

I appreciate this thought. Do members in your congregation fold hands while praying? Do they close their eyes? Do they bow their heads, or take off their hats?

The reason I ask this is not to act smart or be provocative. Clearly, we would all realize that such things are mechanics that aid in the devotion of God's people despite not being positively appointed by God as a means in His Word. Why must a member be prohibited from crossing themselves to focus in prayer and remind themselves of the cross? Why must they be forbidden to bow upon hearing the name of Jesus to practice reverence? I'm interested if there is consistency in your argument.

Again, my contention is that you are asking the wrong questions. "Why can't I do x" is the wrong question. "Why must x be forbidden" is the wrong question. The question is, "why should I do x". What reason is there for this thing that I do, or that we do in worship. Why should I do this thing as a "mechanism to aid in the devotion of God's people?" To answer that question, we look to God's Word and what He has said. Has He said this thing is actually effective in producing or aiding devotion? Can we demonstrate that by that which is expressly stated or can be derived through good and necessary consequence?

The reason we do not rely on ourselves to determine our own aids for devotion is because we are prone to make them into new means. Prone to make them requirements. Prone to make them binding on others. Prone to thinking that somehow, we have a right to determine what is good and evil, profitable or not in God's worship or in our own life of faith. This is to tacitly and subconsciously make ourselves God.