Considering the current conversations, deliberations, and Synodical rulings, one wonders just how much interpretive latitude we should be granted when we affirm our historic confessions. How much freedom to we have when we individually weigh what exactly the Catechism enjoins us to believe and do. I will cite two examples and pose that question in light of what the Catechism says.
1. From the first section of the Catechism I quote Q & A 8:
Q. But are we so corrupt that we are totally unable to do any good and inclined toward all evil?
A. Yes, unless we are born again by the Spirit of God.
I assume that this is confessional to the core for us Christian Reformed people. Any deviation from this teaching must surely be anathema to us.
My question is this: would the Christian Reformed Church countenance preachers who declare that any President of the United States who is not born again by the Spirit of God is totally unable to do any good and inclined to all evil? Seriously? Do we believe that about the current President?
If so, why the deafening silence from most of our pulpits?
If not, mustn’t we allow for a little nuance in the way we read, interpret and practise the Catechism?
2. From the third section of the Catechism I quote Q & A 87:
Q. Can those be saved who do not turn to God from their ungrateful and unrepentant ways?
A. By no means. Scripture tells us that
no unchaste person, no idolater, adulterer, thief, no covetous person, no drunkard, slanderer, robber, or the like will inherit the kingdom of God.
In this Q & A the Catechism couples unchastity with idolatry, adultery, thievery, covetousness, drunkenness, slandering, and robbing as mortal sins unless they are repented and turned away from.
Clearly, Q & A 87 is meant as a warning, which we are to share with one another to teach us what may never be tolerated as a way of life approved by God. Does our confession require us to declare these uncomfortable truths only to members of our own congregations or to all in our society?
If so, we should hear a whole lot more denunciation of these very behaviours in our political leaders.
If not, we should consider ourselves free to exercise some degree of discretion and judgement when declaring them to serial adulterers, thieves, covetous people, drunks, and slanderers, both inside and outside the church.
So how much latitude do we really wish to grant one another in these matters?
I'm sorry Keith, but I can't buy your simplistic logic in applying the Council of Jerusalem's ruling to the present. If the Council's rulings are eternally binding, then the apostle Paul deserved disciplinary action for denying the validity of its decision regarding eating meat offered to idols (see 1 Corinthians 8). And surely we do not really want to apply church discipline to anyone who eats the meat of strangled animals, do we? By what authority would we exempt ourselves from two of the requirements of the Jerusalem Council from eternal application, but hang on to the remaining one?
Posted in: Guidance on the Meaning of “Affirming the Confessions”
from Richard Vanderkloet, February 16, 2025
Considering the current conversations, deliberations, and Synodical rulings, one wonders just how much interpretive latitude we should be granted when we affirm our historic confessions. How much freedom to we have when we individually weigh what exactly the Catechism enjoins us to believe and do. I will cite two examples and pose that question in light of what the Catechism says.
1. From the first section of the Catechism I quote Q & A 8:
Q. But are we so corrupt
that we are totally unable to do any good
and inclined toward all evil?
A. Yes, unless we are born again
by the Spirit of God.
I assume that this is confessional to the core for us Christian Reformed people. Any deviation from this teaching must surely be anathema to us.
My question is this: would the Christian Reformed Church countenance preachers who declare that any President of the United States who is not born again by the Spirit of God is totally unable to do any good and inclined to all evil? Seriously? Do we believe that about the current President?
If so, why the deafening silence from most of our pulpits?
If not, mustn’t we allow for a little nuance in the way we read, interpret and practise the Catechism?
2. From the third section of the Catechism I quote Q & A 87:
Q. Can those be saved
who do not turn to God
from their ungrateful
and unrepentant ways?
A. By no means.
Scripture tells us that
no unchaste person,
no idolater, adulterer, thief,
no covetous person,
no drunkard, slanderer, robber,
or the like
will inherit the kingdom of God.
In this Q & A the Catechism couples unchastity with idolatry, adultery, thievery, covetousness, drunkenness, slandering, and robbing as mortal sins unless they are repented and turned away from.
Clearly, Q & A 87 is meant as a warning, which we are to share with one another to teach us what may never be tolerated as a way of life approved by God. Does our confession require us to declare these uncomfortable truths only to members of our own congregations or to all in our society?
If so, we should hear a whole lot more denunciation of these very behaviours in our political leaders.
If not, we should consider ourselves free to exercise some degree of discretion and judgement when declaring them to serial adulterers, thieves, covetous people, drunks, and slanderers, both inside and outside the church.
So how much latitude do we really wish to grant one another in these matters?
Posted in: Don’t Say No Yet (An Encouragement to Future Office-bearers in the CRC)
I'm sorry Keith, but I can't buy your simplistic logic in applying the Council of Jerusalem's ruling to the present. If the Council's rulings are eternally binding, then the apostle Paul deserved disciplinary action for denying the validity of its decision regarding eating meat offered to idols (see 1 Corinthians 8). And surely we do not really want to apply church discipline to anyone who eats the meat of strangled animals, do we? By what authority would we exempt ourselves from two of the requirements of the Jerusalem Council from eternal application, but hang on to the remaining one?