Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 67

Thread: Communion in weddings?

  1. #1

    Communion in weddings?

    Is communion appropriate/allowed in weddings (given that the marriage is between believers)? and what is your reasoning from scripture?

    Any input would be greatly appreciated.

    blessings,
    matt
    Matthew Morales (Husband to Rachel)
    Redeemer Presbyterian Church (Santa Rosa, CA)

    "...But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word." Isaiah 66:2b (ESV)

    "Hammer away, ye hostile hands; Your hammers fail, God's anvil stands"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,094
    Blog Entries
    10
    Matt,

    I seriously question that a wedding ceremony/service is the time or place to celebrate the Lord's Supper.

    Wherefore whosover shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

    But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

    For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

    ...

    I Corinthians 11:27 ff
    Some of the issues -
    Who participates? Bride and groom only? Entire wedding party?
    People coming to the wedding are suitably prepared to come to the table and partake worthily? What about unbelieving friends and relatives? What about the fencing of the table and the administration of the sacrament and the involvement of the Session?

    Check out the Confession of Faith and Catechisms on this doctrine and review the proof texts. Do you hold to a Scriptural and confessional view of the sacraments?

    The bottom line - I think this put the burden of proof on those who want to argue that a wedding ceremony is an appropriate season in which to hold the Lord's Supper. I know how my Session would handle it.

    Cheers,
    J. Sulzmann

    [Edited on 8-31-2006 by jaybird0827]
    ~Jay~
    Husband of ENS, father of J II. | Indian Trail, NC
    disabled - cancer
    Communicant Member, Precentor | Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte, NC | Presbyterian Reformed Church

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    6,034
    Matt, Yes, IF the wedding is part of the worship service of the church.

    The modern idea of a large "production" style wedding would be incompatable with the sacrament however if you had the exchange of vows during or after the worship service it would be almost a requirement.

    In my reading of history this was often the practice--to say the vows publicly at (or often after) the public worship.

    Part of our problem is that we have linked the exchange of vows ( a religious activity) with the wedding feast to such a point that we think of them as the same thing. They are not the same. If we recognize this then saying vows in a service of the church rather than renting out the church for a production will seem more natural, and well, Christian.
    TE Kevin Rogers
    MNA Church Planter
    Redeemer Community Church
    Moncton NB

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    23,501
    Blog Entries
    7
    Originally posted by jaybird0827
    Matt,

    I seriously question that a wedding ceremony/service is the time or place to celebrate the Lord's Supper.

    Wherefore whosover shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

    But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

    For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

    ...

    I Corinthians 11:27 ff
    Some of the issues -
    Who participates? Bride and groom only? Entire wedding party?
    People coming to the wedding are suitably prepared to come to the table and partake worthily? What about unbelieving friends and relatives? What about the fencing of the table and the administration of the sacrament and the involvement of the Session?

    Check out the Confession of Faith and Catechisms on this doctrine and review the proof texts. Do you hold to a Scriptural and confessional view of the sacraments?

    The bottom line - I think this put the burden of proof on those who want to argue that a wedding ceremony is an appropriate season in which to hold the Lord's Supper. I know how my Session would handle it.

    Cheers,
    J. Sulzmann

    [Edited on 8-31-2006 by jaybird0827]
    If marriage is not a sacrament nor peculiar to the church of God, as the Westminster Assembly said, then it is primarily a civil affair with religious elements which ought to be solemnized by a minister when the parties being married are Christians. Therefore it is not a worship service, even if held in a church, any more than if a chaplain prays at a legislative meeting or an oath is taken in a court room.

    The Westminster Directory of Public Worship also recommends against solemnizing a marriage on the Lord's Day, and specifically directs that no "futher ceremony" take place other than prayer and vows.

    From a practical standpoint, I think Jay's points are well taken. From a theological standpoint, linking a marriage ceremony with the Lord's Supper and calling it a worship service leans towards the Roman Catholic view that marriage itself is a sacrament and requires a worship service.
    Andrew

  5. #5
    I believe it would be inappropriate to celebrate the Lord's supper during a wedding.

    1) The Lord's supper is meant to be celebrated as a communion of a body of believers. Weddings can include heretics, infadels and idolaters of all sorts. It would be almost impossible for a session to guard the table against such abuses.

    2) Weddings are primarily civil in their administration. This is shown by the fact that it is moral that two unbelievers can be married to each other without violation of God's law. Also, weddings are a time of civil celebration that includes acts not appropriate for the Lord's day (parties etc.). The wedding at Cana is an example of this. The Westiminster divines followed this line of thoughts when they included the following in the Directory for Public Worship:

    After the purpose or contract of marriage hath been thus published, the marriage is not to be long deferred. Therefore the minister, having had convenient warning, and nothing being objected to hinder it, is publickly to solemnize it in the place appointed by authority for publick worship, before a competent number of credible witnesses, at some convenient hour of the day, at any time of the year, except on a day of publick humiliation. And we advise that it be not on the Lord's day.

  6. #6
    Matt,

    I agree with those who oppose communion during weddings.

    The argument cannot be settled on the basis of proof-texts. It has to be settled on the basis of an understanding of the nature of the church as covenant assembly and the nature of the sacraments as covenant signs and seals. See the papers on my site under dogmatics on the church and the sacraments for more on this.

    Weddings are a private/civil function. They may be held in church and officiated by a minister but that does not make them stated services. That's why we recognize marriages conducted by civil authorities. When a minister conducts a wedding, he does so by by virtue of his office but we don't regard marriage as a sacrament. That notion, however, is not entirely banished from the thinking of many people in evangelical and Reformed congregations.

    By contrast, communion is neither a private nor civil function. It was instituted by our Lord for the covenant community gathered in formal, stated assembly as the covenant assembly. This context is embedded in the institution of the supper and in Paul's rehearsal of the institution in 1 Cor 11:23-6.

    That is why, in weddings, things might be permitted (candles etc - not that these things are to be encouraged!) that could never be permitted in a covenant assembly.

    I understand that there is widespread confusion about these things, but that's because the RPW has been so universally ignored, even in Reformed churches.

    On a practical level, fencing the table in such a setting would be nightmare.

    On another matter, please email me off-list ([email protected]) would you?

    Blessings,

    rsc

    Originally posted by matthew11v25
    Is communion appropriate/allowed in weddings (given that the marriage is between believers)? and what is your reasoning from scripture?

    Any input would be greatly appreciated.

    blessings,
    matt
    [Edited on 8-31-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

  7. #7
    I am not even Roman Catholic and I believe a wedding is a worship service, at least for the two believers getting married. I originally didn't believe this but my fiancee explained her view of it and I agreed with her. Therefore, when we get married, she and I will take communion. And we don't have to answer to anybody else but God.

  8. #8
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    I am not even Roman Catholic and I believe a wedding is a worship service, at least for the two believers getting married. I originally didn't believe this but my fiancee explained her view of it and I agreed with her. Therefore, when we get married, she and I will take communion. And we don't have to answer to anybody else but God.
    Why do you believe weddings are a worship service?

  9. #9
    Because the man and woman are both Christians and they are making vows before God, and they are doing it for the glory of God. Life itself, lived for the glory of God is "worship" therefore a wedding would fall under that category.

    Even the Reformers believed that life itself was "worship" so I hope nobody says my "views are novel".

  10. #10
    See this thread as well. I agree with those who believe the question is not whether we should have communion at wedding, but whether we should bring weddings into the public worship of God at all?
    Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
    • Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
    • Westminster Letter Press
    The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
    The Blue Banner Archive
    Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines: Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath?
    The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).
    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

  11. #11
    I'll check it out but I am confused why some of you are against bringing weddings into worship. Is God not pleased when two Christians make vows before Him? What is wrong with worshipping God while you are getting married? Why would we ignore Him on any day let alone that day?

  12. #12
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    I am not even Roman Catholic and I believe a wedding is a worship service, at least for the two believers getting married. I originally didn't believe this but my fiancee explained her view of it and I agreed with her. Therefore, when we get married, she and I will take communion. And we don't have to answer to anybody else but God.
    Where in the Scriptures does it permit some believers to have communion and exclude others? The Lord's Supper is a sacrament of the Church isn't it? What right do you have to tell others who are communing members of the church that they must watch the means of grace but not partake?

    This is American sentimentalism.
    Fred Greco
    Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
    Christ Church Blog

    "The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

  13. #13
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    I'll check it out but I am confused why some of you are against bringing weddings into worship. Is God not pleased when two Christians make vows before Him? What is wrong with worshipping God while you are getting married? Why would we ignore Him on any day let alone that day?
    God is pleased when I walk with my boys? Is that worship? Shoudl we have communion then? God is very pleased (He says so in His Word) when my wife and I have marital relations. Is that worship? Should there be a called gathering? Shoudl we have the Supper?

    The points is that the Supper is a communial meal (hence the common term for it: "communion" ) that is to be a part of the corporate gathered worship of the Lord's people. A wedding is not that. It does not occur on the Lord's Day, not everyone is invited, and the RPW is not followed (nor should it be). It is a public taking of vows.
    Fred Greco
    Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
    Christ Church Blog

    "The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

  14. #14
    Originally posted by fredtgreco
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    I am not even Roman Catholic and I believe a wedding is a worship service, at least for the two believers getting married. I originally didn't believe this but my fiancee explained her view of it and I agreed with her. Therefore, when we get married, she and I will take communion. And we don't have to answer to anybody else but God.
    Where in the Scriptures does it permit some believers to have communion and exclude others? The Lord's Supper is a sacrament of the Church isn't it? What right do you have to tell others who are communing members of the church that they must watch the means of grace but not partake?

    This is American sentimentalism.
    FWIW, my wife and I took communion when we got married 4 years ago. I regret it and repent of it. My leanings were to not do it but I hadn't thought all of the way through it. I went along with her, because she wanted to. Now it is difficult watching that part of the ceremony on video.
    Chris Rhoades -33
    Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

    Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
    ""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

  15. #15
    Originally posted by fredtgreco
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    I am not even Roman Catholic and I believe a wedding is a worship service, at least for the two believers getting married. I originally didn't believe this but my fiancee explained her view of it and I agreed with her. Therefore, when we get married, she and I will take communion. And we don't have to answer to anybody else but God.
    Where in the Scriptures does it permit some believers to have communion and exclude others? The Lord's Supper is a sacrament of the Church isn't it? What right do you have to tell others who are communing members of the church that they must watch the means of grace but not partake?

    This is American sentimentalism.
    You know what? I'm getting sick and tired of answering people's questions the best I can and getting nothing but sarcasm back? You want to be sarcastic? I can do it to. One, I'm not American. I don't care what kind of sentimentalism it is; I am not American. Kindly refrain from that "phrase" when talking about me. Thank you.

    Two, who are YOU to say that we can't have communion. I was trying to protect unbelievers from taking communion, therefore I wanted it to be her and I. Besides, it is our wedding before God; not anyone else's.

    Three, if you can't be a little more polite, then don't bother me.

  16. #16
    Originally posted by fredtgreco
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    I'll check it out but I am confused why some of you are against bringing weddings into worship. Is God not pleased when two Christians make vows before Him? What is wrong with worshipping God while you are getting married? Why would we ignore Him on any day let alone that day?
    God is pleased when I walk with my boys? Is that worship? should we have communion then? God is very pleased (He says so in His Word) when my wife and I have marital relations. Is that worship? Should there be a called gathering? should we have the Supper?

    The points is that the Supper is a communial meal (hence the common term for it: "communion" ) that is to be a part of the corporate gathered worship of the Lord's people. A wedding is not that. It does not occur on the Lord's Day, not everyone is invited, and the RPW is not followed (nor should it be). It is a public taking of vows.
    Stupid questions normally call for stupid answers. But the only answer to your questions is "yes", those are all acts of worship. According to the Reformers and myself.

    EVERY day is the Lord's Day. Do not put your legalistic battering rams upon me. I said, and I MEANT it, that I will answer to God. Not you or anyone else.

  17. #17
    Brian,

    Your argument seems to be that

    1) if you make vows then it's a worship service;

    2) all of life is worship

    Is this your argument?

    rsc

    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    Because the man and woman are both Christians and they are making vows before God, and they are doing it for the glory of God. Life itself, lived for the glory of God is "worship" therefore a wedding would fall under that category.

    Even the Reformers believed that life itself was "worship" so I hope nobody says my "views are novel".

  18. #18
    So...should I come to you guys before I decide whatever I do? If I am not going to be considered a Christian because I believe differently than you on stupid trivial matters, then that's fine. I enjoyed my time here. Bye.

  19. #19
    Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
    Brian,

    Your argument seems to be that

    1) if you make vows then it's a worship service;

    2) all of life is worship

    Is this your argument?

    rsc

    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    Because the man and woman are both Christians and they are making vows before God, and they are doing it for the glory of God. Life itself, lived for the glory of God is "worship" therefore a wedding would fall under that category.

    Even the Reformers believed that life itself was "worship" so I hope nobody says my "views are novel".
    Anything in life done to the glory of God is worship. Working hard at your job is worshipping God. The Reformers said it. I agree.

  20. #20
    I do not believe a wedding is a "worship service". If any one is wondering (some of the responses seemed to imply it), I am also against communion in a wedding. But, it is something that I have seen in weddings (and discussed, coming from an evangelical and R.Catholic background) I have been too, and I was wondering what everyone's response would be. I believe the burden of proof is DEFINETLY upon those that desire the Lord's Supper in their wedding.
    Matthew Morales (Husband to Rachel)
    Redeemer Presbyterian Church (Santa Rosa, CA)

    "...But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word." Isaiah 66:2b (ESV)

    "Hammer away, ye hostile hands; Your hammers fail, God's anvil stands"

  21. #21
    Thank you for at least being respectful in your disagreement Matthew. Would that others could do the same.

    Maybe the burden of proof is on me, but I do not feel the burden to prove it. We are going to do it, thousands of other couples do it, and we will answer to God for it.

  22. #22
    I have been at a Baptist wedding where communion was performed. Other than that it was the most Christ-centered wedding I've been to. There was an attempt to verbally fence the table, but basically it was open communion. I think the communion was at best sentimentalism there. I agree with Fred, Dr. Clark, Andrew and the others reasoning that the Lord's Supper should not be celebrated at a wedding.
    Chris
    Currently seeking a church--in transition
    One Pilgrims Progress |Twitter

    And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. Luke 19:13

  23. #23
    Originally posted by Pilgrim
    I have been at a Baptist wedding where communion was performed. Other than that it was the most Christ-centered wedding I've been to. There was an attempt to verbally fence the table, but basically it was open communion. I think the communion was at best sentimentalism there. I agree with Fred, Dr. Clark, Andrew and the others reasoning that the Lord's Supper should not be celebrated at a wedding.
    Another respectful disagreement. That's fine.

    I myself though, disagree with them. And they won't be my judge so this is really nothing to argue about. I regret the fact that I shared my belief as it really angered the "holier than I am" types.

  24. #24
    Originally posted by joshua
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    Stupid questions normally call for stupid answers.
    It's amazing, Mr. Pinnegar, how you request someone to be polite or not "bother" (your words) you and then you reply with great disrespect yourself...and such condescending things to say!

    Don't forget where I said if they want to be sarcastic, I can do it back. It is amazing Sir how you tolerate what was done to me when I only tried to answer a question the best I can.

    Do not put your legalistic battering rams upon me. I said, and I MEANT it, that I will answer to God. Not you or anyone else.
    Yes, you will. And you'll also receieve questions, rebuke, etc. from here publicly, when you post on a PUBLIC forum. So you can either answer questions and assertions, or you can retort with childish attitudes like, "I don't answer to anybody but God" which misrepresents those who ask you to back up your assertions.

    In case you missed it they were extremely rude in their "questioning". How would you like it if I asked you questions the way they were asking them. And really, I don't have to answer to anyone but God. I think you know what is meant by that. It is not saying I won't answer a question, because hey, I already tried to answer the best I could before I was attacked like I was.

    So...should I come to you guys before I decide whatever I do? If I am not going to be considered a Christian because I believe differently than you on stupid trivial matters, then that's fine. I enjoyed my time here. Bye.

    Umm...who asserted that you should come here before you decide to do whatever you do? Who asserted tha you weren't a Christian, because you believe differently? Please define "stupid trivial matters".

    It was implied.

    Is this your good bye from the board, or what?

    You would like that wouldn't you? I already know I don't belong on here because of my "novel" views. I have a question. How many other people have left this board and what was their reason? And please don't forget, look back through this thread to where I tried to answer the question and I was mercilessly attacked for my belief. Then ponder if you would have liked me to have done that.

  25. #25
    Originally posted by joshua
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    I regret the fact that I shared my belief as it really angered the "holier than I am" types.
    This is ridiculous and untrue. You are way too defensive when pressed to back up the things you believe.
    And I will add that you just put down as "holier than I am types" an ordained pastor and seminary professor in a respected seminary who were doing their best to challenge you to think through your desires through argumentation.

    Personally, I think you owe them an apology for trying to help.

    Edit: what you consider attacks are what most logicians call reductio ad absurdums. IOW, a person will take another person's reasoning and apply it to a similar situation that will appear absurd in order to demonstrate the faulty thinking. That was what Fred was doing. He has a pastor's heart.

    [Edited on 8-31-2006 by crhoades]
    Chris Rhoades -33
    Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

    Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
    ""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

  26. #26
    I agree with Josh here Brian. I am saying this with all seriousness and calmness. I wish to see you learn from others on this board (not that everyone has it "all right" here, but there are many elders and pastors that we should respect and learn from). However, I have seen a couple of threads lately where it seems like you are letting your emotions get the better of you. Please treat others with respect, and you will get it.

    If you are anything like me (and I suspect that you are), you have much to learn, and we should take correction and guidence from our elders with humility, not rebellion, even if we end up disagreeing.

  27. #27
    Originally posted by joshua
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    I regret the fact that I shared my belief as it really angered the "holier than I am" types.
    This is ridiculous and untrue. You are way too defensive when pressed to back up the things you believe.
    No I am not and I'm getting rather tired of being accused of such. Did you SEE the way they attacked me? If "I" had done that, you would have had a problem with me. And please, don't tell me what I believe is ridiculous and untrue. It is funny how I am always too defensive while nobody else takes responsibility for being too much of a jerk.

  28. #28
    Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
    I agree with Josh here Brian. I am saying this with all seriousness and calmness. I wish to see you learn from others on this board (not that everyone has it "all right" here, but there are many elders and pastors that we should respect and learn from). However, I have seen a couple of threads lately where it seems like you are letting your emotions get the better of you. Please treat others with respect, and you will get it.

    Hey Jeff, thanks for your advice. I have to ask though, why is it me letting my emotions get the best of me and not some people just being extremely rude? Please look back and see where I respectfully tried to answer the best I could (because I did) and then see the following attacks against me.

    If you are anything like me (and I suspect that you are), you have much to learn, and we should take correction and guidence from our elders with humility, not rebellion, even if we end up disagreeing.

    I do have much to learn. However, I tend not to like being attacked, especially when I tried to respectfully answer the best that I could. I did not receive correction and guidance; I was attacked.

  29. #29
    What was the purpose? I'm not stupid. I knew I was going to be attacked. I simply shared what I believed and stated the fact that I will be accountable to God and not anyone else. Someone asked me about that and I RESPECTFULLY answered them. Then I was attacked. I must learn to keep my beliefs to myself I guess.

  30. #30
    Originally posted by joshua
    Ok, Sir. You're the only one seeing an "attack" here.
    Of course.

  31. #31
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    Maybe the burden of proof is on me, but I do not feel the burden to prove it. We are going to do it, thousands of other couples do it, and we will answer to God for it.
    Brian's comment got me wondering if there's any historical precedent (for lack of a better term) for couples having communion during their wedding. Historically, how prevalent is the practice?
    B.Howes
    Massachusetts

  32. #32
    Bob, I don't know if there's a wide historical precedent. It may just be an RC church thing, but I believe it's a good thing. What better place to have communion than with your bride, I believe.

  33. #33
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    Bob, I don't know if there's a wide historical precedent. It may just be an RC church thing, but I believe it's a good thing. What better place to have communion than with your bride, I believe.
    The better place is with God's people, as He intended it. It is the Lord's Supper for His Church, not for select people.

    I won't say any more, because obviously an appeal to Church history will only provide an opportunity for you to lash out at me. I also won't try and describe the nature of discipline, covenant community and pastoral oversight, since you will simply retort (as you have done several times) that "it's between God and me." Finally, I won't try and discuss the clear distinction that the Reformers and Puritans made between corporate worship and the means of grace on the one hand, and lviing one's life to the glory of God (as perhaps a mode of provate worship) on the other hand, since you will simply respond "the Reformers agree with me" as you have done several times above.

    I have not tried to attack you at all. My comment about "American sentimentalism" was just that. The predominant mode of operating in America (and maybe in Canada, but I don't know and it is not to the point) is for weddings to be basically whatever the bride, groom and parents want. Releasing doves, readings from heretical books, Jewish and/or pagan and/or Islamic ceremonies included "for the family," and any other sorts of things are included. In order to protect himself from embarassment or a fight, the pastor has to have the Session lay down ground rules for all weddings.

    But rather than discuss the core principle that I have clearly enunciated now three times - that the Lord's Supper is a communal meal that no private person can forbid to a communing church member - you have chosen to complain of "being attacked."

    You may then have your answering to God, but I pray you would not be so flippant about that.
    Fred Greco
    Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
    Christ Church Blog

    "The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

  34. #34
    Brian,

    Would it help if we distinguished between "worship" considered broadly and considered narrowly.

    Clearly not everything is "worship" in precisely the same sense. That's why the Reformers also posited a principle of worship that distinguishes between formal stated services and everyday life.

    I agree that we don't need a special priesthood, i.e., all protestants confess the priesthood of all believers, but that conviction doesn't answer every question.

    The Reformed Reformation posited that we may only do in worship what God has commanded. We know that communion is commanded and we know that stated services are commanded and that communion in stated services are commanded. We know that marriage is commanded.

    What we don't know is that weddings are commanded to be performed during services. Nor do we know that communion is commanded during a private, civil ordinance apart from a stated service.

    Do these distinctions help?

    rsc


    Did Calvin practice communion at weddings?



    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
    Brian,

    Your argument seems to be that

    1) if you make vows then it's a worship service;

    2) all of life is worship

    Is this your argument?

    rsc

    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    Because the man and woman are both Christians and they are making vows before God, and they are doing it for the glory of God. Life itself, lived for the glory of God is "worship" therefore a wedding would fall under that category.

    Even the Reformers believed that life itself was "worship" so I hope nobody says my "views are novel".
    Anything in life done to the glory of God is worship. Working hard at your job is worshipping God. The Reformers said it. I agree.

  35. Brian -

    The questions posed to you are not uncalled for, and are not attacking you. They are placing on you, because of your statements, and their tone, the burden of proof. It is simply not acceptable, either as a Christian or a Theologian, to simply say "God will judge me and you don't get to say anything about that. I'm doing what I want and what I believe." unfortunately, God does not play by those rules, which is why He gave the Church pastors and theologians to teach us and lead us. We do not simply get to decide everything we want and how we want and when we want on theological matters. Its never a "Me and my Bible" theology.

    Secondly, some of the things you are saying are completely out of line in tone. You need to make amends on that to them. I've read the whole post twice. Humility is much more befitting a Christian than what you have shown.

    Thirdly, some of the theological views you are propagating are not held by the reformers and are not held by the Confessions. To stay on the board, you have to hold to a Confession. Which one do you hold? As a baptist, I'm assuming you hold to the 1689 Confession - is this right?
    C. Matthew McMahon, Ph.D., Th.D.
    John 5:39, "...search the Scriptures..."
    A PURITAN'S MIND www.apuritansmind.com
    Puritan and Reformed eBooks and digital downloads at the PURITAN SHOP www.puritanshop.com
    Home Church - Christ Presbyterian Church
    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

    "If the glory of God is dear to you, and the goodness of God has touched your hearts, draw forth your love to God in fervent and frequent prayers and lend your best assistance in every way according to your power and places, to hinder errors, heresies, and all ungodliness, and to further the word of Reformation according to the word of God; that all the ordinances of God may be set up in their purity, the government of Christ received and established in the hands of choice officers, that profane, scandalous, and ignorant persons may be kept off from the Lord’s Table, and that Jesus Christ may reign gloriously in the hearts and lives of all his people in his own way, and in all his holy ordinances." Thomas Mockett (1602-1670) The Christian's Duty to Forsake All for Jesus Christ, page 16.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    6,034
    Fred, you are correct modern "western" weddings are out of hand. All sorts of foolish things are done by christians in the modern wedding.

    The problem IMHO is that weddings have become a form of play or a performance put on to dazzle the guests & one up your peers.

    The problem the Westminster Divines saw in their day was very different. When they advised against weddings on the Lords Day (an almost universal practice until that point) it was bcause wedding feasts often degenerated into drunkeness.

    I think that it is possible to return to the older practice of simple "weddings" i.e. an exchange of vows within or right after the worship sevice on the Lords Day.

    In this context I think that celebrating the sacraments would be fitting. Imagine the powerfull symbolism of exhanging vows in a service that also included a baptism. (of someone elses baby of course).
    TE Kevin Rogers
    MNA Church Planter
    Redeemer Community Church
    Moncton NB

  37. #37
    Originally posted by fredtgreco
    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    Bob, I don't know if there's a wide historical precedent. It may just be an RC church thing, but I believe it's a good thing. What better place to have communion than with your bride, I believe.
    The better place is with God's people, as He intended it. It is the Lord's Supper for His Church, not for select people.

    And you obviously don't see what I'm saying.

    I won't say any more, because obviously an appeal to Church history will only provide an opportunity for you to lash out at me.

    Don't say something you can't prove. People have a problem with me doing that and you don't know what I would have done. However, it appears that you were going to say more. I am not going to answer them though.

    I also won't try and describe the nature of discipline, covenant community and pastoral oversight, since you will simply retort (as you have done several times) that "it's between God and me." Finally, I won't try and discuss the clear distinction that the Reformers and Puritans made between corporate worship and the means of grace on the one hand, and lviing one's life to the glory of God (as perhaps a mode of provate worship) on the other hand, since you will simply respond "the Reformers agree with me" as you have done several times above.

    I have not tried to attack you at all. My comment about "American sentimentalism" was just that. The predominant mode of operating in America (and maybe in Canada, but I don't know and it is not to the point) is for weddings to be basically whatever the bride, groom and parents want. Releasing doves, readings from heretical books, Jewish and/or pagan and/or Islamic ceremonies included "for the family," and any other sorts of things are included. In order to protect himself from embarassment or a fight, the pastor has to have the Session lay down ground rules for all weddings.

    I will take you at your word. It was more than your American sentimentalism comment that I was referring to though.

    But rather than discuss the core principle that I have clearly enunciated now three times - that the Lord's Supper is a communal meal that no private person can forbid to a communing church member - you have chosen to complain of "being attacked."

    It's how you did it. I also gave my explanation to support my belief. And I take it by this, you are against closed communinon? In that, we would agree.

    You may then have your answering to God, but I pray you would not be so flippant about that.

    I have nothing to worry about. I love God, and I believe He loves me too. Even though sometimes, some Christians don't. You are free to be condescending to me in the future too. I could care less anymore.

  38. #38
    Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
    Brian,

    Would it help if we distinguished between "worship" considered broadly and considered narrowly.

    Clearly not everything is "worship" in precisely the same sense. That's why the Reformers also posited a principle of worship that distinguishes between formal stated services and everyday life.

    I agree that we don't need a special priesthood, i.e., all protestants confess the priesthood of all believers, but that conviction doesn't answer every question.

    The Reformed Reformation posited that we may only do in worship what God has commanded. We know that communion is commanded and we know that stated services are commanded and that communion in stated services are commanded. We know that marriage is commanded.

    What we don't know is that weddings are commanded to be performed during services. Nor do we know that communion is commanded during a private, civil ordinance apart from a stated service.

    Do these distinctions help?

    rsc


    Did Calvin practice communion at weddings?



    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
    Brian,

    Your argument seems to be that

    1) if you make vows then it's a worship service;

    2) all of life is worship

    Is this your argument?

    rsc

    Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
    Because the man and woman are both Christians and they are making vows before God, and they are doing it for the glory of God. Life itself, lived for the glory of God is "worship" therefore a wedding would fall under that category.

    Even the Reformers believed that life itself was "worship" so I hope nobody says my "views are novel".
    Anything in life done to the glory of God is worship. Working hard at your job is worshipping God. The Reformers said it. I agree.
    Yes, this helps. I can understand the distinctions in worship. I felt like people were putting me down for the simple fact that I was saying living to glorify God was worship.

  39. #39
    Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
    Brian -

    The questions posed to you are not uncalled for, and are not attacking you. They are placing on you, because of your statements, and their tone, the burden of proof. It is simply not acceptable, either as a Christian or a Theologian, to simply say "God will judge me and you don't get to say anything about that. I'm doing what I want and what I believe." unfortunately, God does not play by those rules, which is why He gave the Church pastors and theologians to teach us and lead us. We do not simply get to decide everything we want and how we want and when we want on theological matters. Its never a "Me and my Bible" theology.

    Yes, but nobody in here is my pastor. I simply stated what I believed and then answered the questions RESPECTFULLY until I believed I was attacked. Whether or not I was is irrelevant anymore because I could care less. Nobody has proven to me that communion at a wedding is wrong.

    Secondly, some of the things you are saying are completely out of line in tone. You need to make amends on that to them. I've read the whole post twice. Humility is much more befitting a Christian than what you have shown.

    Ditto. I believe some of the things that were said to me were out of line, along with their tone. That was the problem in the first place. When people stop trying to take my dignity away and make me the equivalent of a piece of trash, I will be humble. As it remains now, I am humble...but angry. One question, if I had said "(something) is much more befitting of a Christian than *insert any name here* has shown" how would you have responded to that? I don't think you would have liked it. Just like I didn't like you saying that. but hey, it's your board. You can put me down all you want.

    Thirdly, some of the theological views you are propagating are not held by the reformers and are not held by the Confessions. To stay on the board, you have to hold to a Confession. Which one do you hold? As a baptist, I'm assuming you hold to the 1689 Confession - is this right?

    I didn't know it was a requirement to agree with everything? Yes, 1689. More importantly, I hold to the Bible. That's a useful resource for us to hold to. I am a Baptist through and through.

  40. #40
    By the way sir, God also gave it to us to test the Scriptures and not just accept everything the pastors and theologians tell us. I am trying to follow that command.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
The PuritanBoard exists to promote robust discussion of theology in a Confessionally Reformed context. The modern trend of short statements of faith belies the many places where the Scriptures teach with great clarity. Though our respective Reformed confessions sometimes disagree, we believe that Churches have been given the gifts of teachers and elders to lead to the unity of the faith and the result of that unity is a Confessional Church confessing together: "This is what the Scriptures teach." The Confessions are secondary to the authority of Scripture itself but they arise out of Scripture as a standard exposition of the Word of God.