Amendments to the Three Documents

I believe that the committee dealing with the word changes would be interested in your views, especially if you can give some specific examples (where one or the other 'translations' was not correct and where the choice that was made was in error.  The committee decided not to re translate all the documents but tried to choose the best existing translation.

None of the original documents were written in poetic style as far as I know. Again an example would be appreciated.  Translation of poetry is very difficult. How to keep the metric (or other poetic device) without changing the meaning?  The psalms is an example. All we can find out about the poetic device (first lines begin with the different letters of the Hebrew Alphabet for example) can only be recognized in the footnotes.  I believe that in these documents the meaning of the sentence is paramount.

What I have found about "process Theology" on wikipedia is interesting; Many facets as described seems close to a Reformed view. However, the following shows Process Theology is not identical to Reformed Faith, as I understand it.

The Christ of process theology does not represent a hypostasis of divine and human persona. Rather God is incarnate in the lives of all humans when they act according to a call from God. Jesus fully and in every way responded to the call of God and so the person of Jesus is theologically understood to be “the divine Word in human form.” Jesus was not God-man in essence, but fully identified with God at all moments of life.[6]

Headship is certainly a Reformed concept. The term "federal headship" is a bit foreign to the CRC I believe and with the Women in Office issue has been refined in concept and application. 

There is certainly biblical support for Women in Office as well as certain passages that make it an issue for many, but the change you refer to is not a 'back door' method for same. The CRC  has used many direct methods to argue for or against. 

I believe that using 'Adam and Eve' is more exact. In the past, Adam was held as the representative of the whole human race, but with such emphasis on Women's rights and responsibilities, Adam may only be seen as the representative of  males and Eve the representative of females. If that is the case for many readers, it is better to explain the whole human race is meant by referring to both Adam and Eve.

"Amendments to the three documents" may not be the most appropriate for this forum. It may be better to have it discussed under 'elders'. However, I do not see any reference to this topic

The change in the three documents was to simplify the common hymnal that is to be published. The CRC requested the inclusion of the three documents; hence the attempt to find common wording.

You may like to check the Belhar confession, also before the churches for comment. This document is certainly about how to love our neighbour.

The three documents were written in the time when detailed theological statements were thought to be very important in the Western Church. I doubt they have the similar impact today.

I believe that the jump to LDS is quite large. See Heidelberg Catechism #24 for example:

http://www.crcna.org/pages/heidelberg_spirit.cfm#QandA 62  

I believe that the phrase Judeo-Christian is possible because we both consider the Old Testament to be the Word of God and use it to understand how to love God and neighbour.  

Any group that considers Jesus only as a great prophet but no mediator between God and man is actually quite far away from Christianity even though they may agree with many of the practises how to love our neighbour.

"Proper thinking about theological propositions" may have been very important during the Reformation for protestants to distinguish themselves from Catholics . However to claim that as the only 'goal' of Christianity goes a bit too far since the mandate of Christians is to love God and neighbour. 

The Catechism builds the argument carefully right from Sunday #1 to #52, answering most of your questions.

Discipline needs to be done prayerfully, and very carefully since all we do is stained with sin. If a member needs discipline it is likely because the person does not seem to be bothered with his/her sin and the sin may be very difficult for others.

There are quite a few problems in trying to have an 'objective' test. 

for instance http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+25 (vs 31 etc)  shows clearly that Christians will not know about the "good works" they did.  Our problem is that once we think we know we did a good work we then tend to be quite proud of it which could actually nullify it all.

How can we tell the real reason a person did something well.  Was it due to thankfulness or spite? And then we realize that we can hardly do anything 100% and so the Catechism builds the argument that any 'objective' test will not work; That all is a gift - even all the good works.

We can then live and be thankful for such gifts we receive and try every day again.

Hi Bill, Your second commit under answer 62  is a false assumption that the act is separate from the intent. Evil intent cannot produce good works and good intent will not produce evil actions. Now there are good intentions that can produce a undesirable results and evil intentions that produce results that appear to be good. By committing

 unrepentant evil acts you open yourself to judgment of fellow believers. Sanctioning a member is the churches attempt to get the member to repent and change not a form of punishment for a particular act.  Did you get sanctioned?

Thanks Bill,  Those comments were interesting.

Hey Billwald, forgive my un-knowledge of what is where in the Bible, it sounds like you are testing the limits of how far you can go, (which kids and adolescents do, it's a part of growing up), is that different from hiding our sin? doesn't  Paul  (I think, straighten me out if needed) not write the question that if we accept the Christ, our sins are forgiven and so we can sin more so that grace can abound? the answer to that is, by no means. I think that we are sinful by nature, even after accepting Jesus as your saviour, and so we are "as if without sin before God". So, us doing something wrong and deal with God afterward is a bit like the Roman Catholic Church and their indulgences, which set Martin Luther on the path to reformation. But, you're not alone, I wouldn't be far off the mark if I say we all do it, besides why are we in church? to show how good and holy we are, a condition we should strive for, but also one we like to use too much, keeping others away as well. It looks like the proverbial circle, and nothing is new under the sun doesn't it.

I appreciate Ken's statement.  It is true, however, that police see many horrible activities and situations which may make their lifeview different from 'ordinary' folk who may hardly, if ever see these situations first hand.  Questions such as can God forgive this?  Could God not have prevented this? may well be a daily experience for many police.

Could the only way out be daily prayer where the police can honestly express his/her feelings to God, and let God show the police his love in some meaningful way?