Is not the Lord's Supper, at least in part, a "remembrance of baptism" or "renewal of baptismal vows"? Do we not at the Lord's Supper profess that we renounce sin and desire to follow Christ? Why do we need somthing along side of the Lord's Supper. Apparently the Lord's Supper, God given, instituted by Christ, and biblically based is no longer sufficient. Why is the CRC continuially adding Old Covenant type ceremonies, rituals, and objects for the purpose of enhancing the worship experience? The Belgic Confession Articles 25 and 29 make clear that it is the false church that is not satisfied with what God has provided by the preaching of the Gospel and the (only) two sacraments and "basis itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ"?
How wonderful - a ceremony to celebrate a ceremony! The only issue is that the truth of the scriptures is replaced by human imagination. The risen Lord Jesus Christ is replaced by "I THINK" fantasies. Obviously, the living Word, the Risen Christ, the teacher of the church by his Word and Holy Spirit is so weak and feeble he needs to be propped up with all kinds of human inventions, OT type ceremonies, and visible object lessons of all kinds. "And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)
Worshipping by dipping your hands in water is no more scandalous or idolatrous than Eve’s eating the fruit of the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden. The essential point: does God tell us how he wants to be worshipped or do we tell him how we are going to do so? The essence of sin is to think that we know as God knows and therefore we can add all kinds of ceremonies and visible images to our worship. Christ gave the HIS church, not ours, the gospel and only TWO visible outward signs and SEALS for the growth and confirmation of our faith. My question for you is why are you not satisfied with with Chriat has provided? Is it not sufficient? Do you know better than he does? See the description of the church that acts falsely in Belgic Confession Article 29.
Your worship ceremony of hand dipping in essence and nature is identical to all the OT God given liturgical practices which the NT describes as “elements” and “rudiments” of the world which kept Israel in bondage until Christ came. They were all God given and he made exceedingly clear that Israel was not to add or subtract anything from what he had revealed. The OT liturgy was composed of “shadows” and now we have the reality. Why the urgency to return to shadow land of our own devices. The second commandment forbids any attempt to make God visible and the NT forbids returning to OT type ceremonies. Furthermore the NT forbids adding or subtracting anything from God’s revelation.
When Christ is central and we realize the fullness of all blessings that are in him, how he shares all that with us and the great hope that he is – dipping hands is quite meaningless. Paul in Philippians 3 clearly considers that all his attempts to live as an OT Jew are simply manure compared to the excellency of the knowledge of Christ.
Furthermore Jesus in talking to the Samaritan woman at the well makes clear that no longer in the mountains and high places with man made statues and idols, nor in Jerusalem with its God given OT liturgy, has any relevance to the true worship of the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
We can create all kinds of worship ceremonies and visible representations and teaching tools but we cannot create seals. We simply cannot decide for God by what means the Spirit of Christ is going to work in our hearts and lives. Nevertheless, the church continually wants to abandon faith and seeks to live by sight. The problem of the false prophet as recorded in scripture makes clear the human attempt to abandon God’s word and live by man’s imagination and fanciful ideas. Not a good idea. See Calvin’s Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 11.
My position which you label as "such an extreme" is essentially that of John Calvin. You may find it helpful to read Book 1, chapter 11 and Book 4, chapter 10 of Calvin's Institutes. Calvin's understanding is also embodied in the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism and has been the position of the reformed and presbyterian churches until this modern era. Should I be insulted that you got my name wrong?
Baptism points to entry into union with Christ. The Lord’s Supper points to our continued union with him. Christ by his Holy Spirit uses these to confirm and strengthen our faith. Thus they are both signs and seals. We can create all kinds of visible representations and ceremonies. But we cannot effect what Christ alone can do. Dipping your hands in water may mean something to you but it is simply useless to confirm and strengthen faith. We can create signs but we cannot effect the sealing of the Holy Spirit by any of them.
It puzzles me why someone invented a visible church ceremony to rehearse entry into Christ when we have the Lord’s Supper, which is not a human invention but God given, and should remind us not only of our entry into him but also our continued union with him.
Why do you wish to add to what God has given in Scripture? Why do you think that the Lord’s Supper is not sufficient? Why do you think that what God has given needs to be propped up with man’s devices and ceremonies?
"The real issue here is not Women in Church Office/Keep Women Out of Office." As a conservative I find the framing of this issue highly offensive. The real issue for the church is rightly discerning the truth of the scriptures. This synod did not do. It claim it was "wise" to let both contradictory positions function in the church. And then it adopted only one by writing IT in the church order. Allow me to define the issue in similar manner to the above quote. The real issue is whether chertain passages of scripture will continue to be declared null and void or whether all scripture will be the final authority. The real issue is whether "we are going to decide which scripture no longer applies" or whether we accept all scripture as inspired revelation.
Furthermore, Trinity Sparta and Second Kalamazoo are not rogue churches going their own way. They are seeking carefully to follow Synodical procedures to receive the church's approval. That exhibits far more faithfulness and care for the church that individuals, churches, or even Synod deciding that parts of scripture are not longer valid. What Synod has abandoned is nothing less than being a "bondservant of Jesus Christ" See my previous post for details.
Let me rephrase the question. If evangelism is the essence and/or the primary function of the church, why did Paul not appoint evangelism committees instead of consistories? Evangelism as popularly understood deals with only opening the door to Christ. To make that the primary task of the church is like saying that the primary task of marriage is conceiving children. The actual conception, the joining of sperm and egg takes only a very few seconds: then follows 9 months of gestation and 20 years of parenting. Apparently the primary task of the church is door keeping.
As far as the gospels and Acts being filled with evangelism, that fact is that the great majority of the preaching of Jesus was to the Old Testament Church, to both the faithful and the fallen. The same is true in the first part of Acts. Jesus preached in synagogues and Paul, immediately after his conversion began preaching in synagogues.
In the great commission Jesus sent old covenant believers, now new covenant believers into the world to make, not converts, but disciples. He sent Israel into the world to gather the nations into Israel. But they were first sent to Jerusalem, then to Judea and Samaria, and finally to the ends of the earth. Transitioning from unbelief to faith usually doesn’t take long. Making disciples takes a lifetime: thus consistories instead of evangelism committees.
There really are not two E’s, one for joining Christ and the other for living in him. There is the common perception that the “gospel” is for the unchurched and a different message is for the church. This suggests that there is one gospel for being joined to Christ and another gospel for remaining in Christ: one gospel for baptism and a second gospel for the Lord’s Supper.
Paul knew only one “evangel”, one gospel. His primary task was not converting people and changing their lives, but rather preaching Christ. “We preach not ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord. “ Paul’s commission was to “bear the name of Christ to the nations. Whether he was in the synagogue, the town square or the newly formed churches – he had only one message – Christ. I am determined to know nothing amongst you except (the bodily risen) Christ and him crucified. The one GOSPEL is God’s power to give the gift of faith and to maintain the life of faith. Note also that Paul spent a great deal of is time and energy building up the churches.
Furthermore, the “gospel” of today’s evangelism is not gospel at all. The witnessing today takes basically two forms. The first is “God love you and has a wonderful plan for your life” and the second is “I want to tell the world that I am a Christian”. The first concentrates on the person needing change and the second on the person trying to effect change.
The first is not biblically accurate – think of those drowned in the flood or the Red Sea. The risen Lord’s plan for Paul was to experience a great deal of suffering and Paul later says that all who would life godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution ( II Tim 3:12). How many apostles were martyred? The second is essentially talking about yourself and your marvelous spiritual experiences: in doing so the believer replaces Christ with himself. This is forbidden by the first and second commandments.
Furthermore, these are exactly the two methods used in modern advertising. Buy our product and your life will be changed. Drink our beer or use our cosmetics and you will enjoy the good life. The second is the personal testimony – I have used this product and it has changed my life – and it could change yours also.
Our life of faith cannot even begin to approach the sinless perfection and flawless faith and obedience of the Lord Jesus. The gospel is always about the risen Christ once crucified and his personal redemptive experiences. His life of faith and obedience has reconciled us to the Father and continues to sustain and nurture us. This is the heart of the one gospel. Paul had one passion – I want to know Christ, the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings. He had one goal in life – make this Christ known. The apostles didn’t talk much about themselves – they had a great deal to say about Christ and for good reason.
To split the church’s task into two, I would suggest, seriously distorts the biblical message. We need to return to the singularity of the biblical gospel and learn to share Paul’s passion for Christ.
Will you be able to save, edit and continue writing comments before posting? Several times I have been writing, accidentally hit a wrong key and the entire comment disappeard.
We are deluding ourselves if we think that the ordination of women is not a confessional or biblical issue. The fact that Synod declared it to be non-confession did not make it so. A great deal of time and energy was expended developing the biblical basis for each position. Synod was faced with two positions that are mutually exclusive and contradictory. BOTH CANNOT BE BIBLICALLY CORRECT!!! How one interprets scripture is the fundamental confessional and biblical matter. So what did Synod do? It abandoned the hard work of deciding which view was correct and pushed the entire problem into the realm of “sincerely held beliefs” and supposedly allowed both positions to stand and function in the life of the church.
Then, however, Synod contradicted itself by writing into the church order only the position which allowed women to be ordained into the ministry. It thereby in fact adopted this position’s biblical interpretation and made it a confession issue. While churches are allowed to ordain men only to the three offices, the official position of the CRC is that women may be ordained in all the offices. The CO itself is a confessional document about how we have agreed (confessed) to work together as a denomination and not a few of the rules are rooted in scripture. This action reveals the real agenda of the “liberals” for the ones that I know insisted that Galatians 3 demands the ordination of women in all the offices. I had a conversation a while back with one of these individuals and reminded him that 40 or 50 thousand left the CRC over this issue and his response was – I got what I wanted.
Synod’s decision also relativizes the ABSOLUTE equality of Galatians 3:26-29 by applying it to only a very few men and women, those qualified to meet the requirements of Calvin Seminary. Superior and inferior, greater and lesser gifts still exist and function in the church. I am quite sure that the receptionist at the front desk at the denominational building is not paid the same as the Executive Director. The “equality” of the SEEDS (plural) becomes more important than the excellency of THE SEED SINGULAR, Jesus Christ himself. Check out that passage for yourself. Paul clearly says there are not seeds plural but only one seed singular. Of course, Paul was probably wrong about that also. Thus under the guise of “equality” respect of persons (James 2:1-7) continues. Those rich in gifts are applauded. Those poor in gifts are simply ignored. Precisely how western culture operates.
Furthermore, by its decision Synod adopted the “culturally conditioned argument” which makes parts of scripture null and void. The biblical data about master-slaves, husband-wives and Paul’s pronouncements about men only in office are declared to be no longer relevant or operative. This of course is “sincerely believed”. In regards to the master-slave passages, Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. wrote in the April 178, 1989 Banner “We decide (emphasis mine) that Paul and Peter’s instructions to slaves meant that slaves at that time- while the church was young and vulnerable – ought to obey their masters as the Lord. But we wouldn’t dream of applying these instructions to ourselves” (emphasis mine)
Isn’t that exactly what Eve did in Eden. She decided that her opinion, her “sincerely held belief” was superior to God’s Word and acted accordingly: so also Synod. Note the serpent’s opening line (Gen. 3:1) “Has God said”? He thereby challenges God’s word and pretends to know the mind of God (Gen. 3:5).
But what is at the heart of the Pauline slave-master passages? The very first Q&A of the Heidelberg Catechism (which sums up all our confessions) – “…I am not my own but belong body and soul… to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ…” Our ONLY comfort. Note what scripture actually says in Ephesians 6:5-9 “be obedient…as unto Christ…as servants of Christ…doing the will of God from the heart…with good will doing service as unto the Lord…you masters, DO THE SAME THING.” Colossians 3:22-4:1 continues in the same vein – “you serve the Lord Christ…masters, render unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.” In I Peter 2:18-25 Peter encourages not only servants but all believers to endure griefs, suffering wrongfully…you were called to suffering…because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps…”
I Corinthians 7:22-23 “For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise he that was called being free, is Christ’s bondservant. You were bought with as price; become not bondservants of men.
Romans 14:7-8 “For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.” This is the very purpose of Christ’s death and resurrection. In Philippians 3 Paul considers all his human religious accomplishments as garbage, as loss for the sake of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. He want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death.”
Here is the heart of the gospel and gospel life. And it is precisely this which Plantinga and Synod have decided is no longer relevant and they would not dream of applying to our lives today. Synod by its decision has thrown away the heart of the gospel. Paul in no way “permits the institution of slavery” but rather challenges it at the very heart of the matter – the sinful pride that exalts self and seeks to enslave all others. But what Paul makes exceedingly clear that all believers, no matter what their station in life – are slaves of Jesus Christ. We do not belong to ourselves, but to him. Obviously, the majority of ministers and elders in the CRC no longer believe that they are bondservants of Christ.
A related issue is that the CRC no longer holds to Calvin’s understanding of the second commandment. It too is null and void. Apparently the second commandment prohibits making visible representations of false gods but allows infinite visible representations of the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Many churches busily manufacture visible representations of God or some aspect of his being, all done in order to enhance the believer’s worship experience. So now the Lord Jesus Christ, the only true image of the invisible God is just another one of the multitude of images (the vain imaginations of men’s minds) available to the church and probably not the most important one at that. The idols that men manufacture are always more important to them than the God who reveals himself in Jesus Christ. This is clearly a confession issue: BC Art 25,29,33, HC LD 25 and LD 35. Visible representations of deity are clearly forbidden. But nobody seems to care. Israel finally came under the severe judgment of God because they continually made visible representations of him as well as images of false gods, led in so doing by Israel’s leaders, its prophets, priests and kings.
The real issue for conservatives is that Synod by its decision has made scripture irrelevant since all that matters now is not whether one is biblical correct but whether one is “sincere” in believing what they do. Seating women at Classis or Synod is the visible tip of an iceberg of theological and hermeneutical confusion and error, the existence of which the church refuses to face.
By its decision Synod has abandoned the theology and practice of Calvin who upheld the final authority of Scripture and adopted that of Schleiermacher who believed that theology and church practice came out of the consciousness (the sincere beliefs) of the community of faith. Allow me a personal anecdote of this fact. A while back, on this blog I had an interchange with an individual about how to witness. I pointed out that biblically, witnessing points to the risen Christ once crucified and his experiences on our behalf. He reprimanded me, calling me arrogant because I wanted to be biblical correct, and asserted that this approach would only turn people off to the gospel. He insisted that what needed to be done was to tell people about our fantastic spiritual experiences which should be fresh daily. Clearly his thoughts were elevated above scripture and his experiences more important that Christ’s.
Furthermore, concept churches and theological classis already exist. Classis Grand Rapids East which covers a small geographical area (in which I happen to live) is also a theological classis. It functions in harmony with Synodical decisions and those of the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship which among other things strongly advocates the use of images in worship services in order to enhance the worshipping experience. My conservative theology is not acceptable and I would not be welcome unless I agreed to keep silent in the church.
I also want to point out that the issue of ordaining women was never about preaching the gospel. It was and still is all about the use of women’s gifts in the instituted church. In other words it is all about women having professional religious careers in the instituted church. The ministry is now for both men and women just another career path. The pulpit has then become a place to display the excellence of human talent and ability just as in the theater and sports venues. Pulpit speech is now nothing more than “sincerely held belief”, human speech that is no longer the Word of God preached.
So in regards to a theological classis: since the conservative position has been written out of the church order, they (the weak) ought to at the very least be allowed to follow their own “sincerely held beliefs” in working together with likeminded believers. If liberals are free to have concept churches and theological classis, why not conservatives? To deny them their freedom would clearly contradict biblical teaching.
This, however, is not the best solution. The best solution would be for every member to turn away from every form of “sincerely held beliefs” and return to “the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.” (II Cor. 11:3), by holding fast the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 1:9). Paul saw the Corinthian church turning away from the gospel and called them back to Christ. Let us not pretend that this cannot possibly happen in the CRC. Psalm 122:9 has it right “For the sake of the house of Lord our God, I will seek your good.” However, the operative principle today seems to be “I got what I wanted.” Unity is not based on “sincerely held beliefs”; it can only come from submission to the Risen Lord through faithful obedience to his word of truth. There can be no unity between Calvin and Schleiermacher.
This is the second article in a month (See Greg Selmon's "Today's Compelling Story of Grace" 10-18-12) that suggest the motivation for witness is found in the spiritual superiority of the individual believer. Critical to witness is the believer's dynamic experiences of grace, fresh each day, and their personal passion for God. What I hear being said is that we must be like the pharisee in the front of the temple who thanks God that he is not like other men, that he has all these fantastic spiritual experiences, that he is not like the sinner in the back of the room. We must have something to show and tell about ourselves (called sharing Christ), when actually it is simply talking about and possibly even boasting about ourselves.
Probably the most fantastic spiritual experience in this life would be to be raised from the dead. The rich man in Hades pleads with father Abraham to send Lazarus back to his brothers arguing that the bible (Moses and the Prophets) is not sufficient - they need to see something. The answer comes back that is they do not believe the bible neither will they believe if someone rises from the dead.
Genuine spiritual growth results in a growing realization that all the benefits and blessings of salvation are not found in self but in the person of the bodily risen Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, so say the apostles. Now pershaps I am spiritually regressing but the older I have become the more if feel like the "sinner" in the back of the temple and the man who buried his one talent. So according to your thesis I would have no impetus for witnessing. While love for God is the highest commandment it is not the most important thing in this life. We are not saved by our love but by our faith, which is a gift of God. By that gift we become increasingly convinced of the historical facts and present reality of the bodily risen Jesus. I am not interested in telling others about my fantastical "grace experiences" because I have none to tell about. But there seems to be a great desire and passion to talk about the person of Christ and his experiences, that he is risen and he is Messiah and Lord. That is the essence of the biblcal witness and the heart of the gospel.
Scripture is very clear that we are not to boast about ourselves, but only about Christ himself. That can be done only by using the truth and facts of the scriptures as they point to Christ. He himself makes this point in Luke 24 both on the way to Emmaus and to his disciples. Paul says in II Cor. 4 that we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord.
In Acts 23-26 Paul summarizes this his entire gospel in terms of the hope of Israel - the resurrection of the body. In acts 2-4 the heart of the apostolic witness becomes plain. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God. You killied him. God raised him from the dead and made him MNessiah and Lord and in him is the forgiveness of sins. See also Acts 13. In Acts 17 Paul asserts that God has appointed a man by which he will judge the world and has demonstrated this by raising Jesus from the dead.
I would suggest that the lack of motivation comes from the fact that the church has almost comletely ignored the fact and significance of the bodily resurrection of the Man Jesus ( yes I affirm his full deity). All my life I have heard that my "gratitude" is the driving force for living a life of faith - while scripture (even the Heidelberg Catechism) locates the motivation factor in the renewing work of the Risen Jesus by his Holy Spirit after his image. Paul says - I count all my religious accomplishments as garbage for the sake of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. I want to know Christ, the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his suffering. We hardly ever hear about the return of Christ and when it is mentioned we are told that we are going to spend eternity in heaven even though scripture, both Old and New, makes clear we will spend eternity in a renewed created order with our complete persons - spirit, soul and body make new, whole and imperishable. I don't know many beleivers who are enthused about our glorious future.
Christ is viewed primarily as "a spirit being" and as "God". It seems that his glorified humanity, the very same humanity in which he was sin's curse on the cross, has evaproated into the divine all. Very Platonic and new age. The fact of the matter is that there is a man on God's throne. By man came death - by man came the resurreciton of the dead. If the dead cannot be raised, then Jesus is still dead and we are fools to trust a dead man. The apostles were not passionate about thier own spiritual expereinces - they were passionate about the reality of the bodily risen Lord and the fullness of present blessings found in him as well as the tremendous, sure and living hope that he is.
I would also suggest that Piper has things backwords. He is essentially saying that we are nothing but mirrors reflecting God's love back to himself. I don't matter, you don't matter - all that matters is God. Again this strikes me as very new age like. While we may not lose our indiduality all that matters is the flow of love to God as though he were a giant vacuum cleaner or black hole sucking all the energy out of the very things he has made. He needs nothing from us for he is full and complete in himself. God so loved the world that he gave. Ephesians 2:7 states the purpose of saving us - so that God forever and ever can show us the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. He wil continually unfold and reveal himself to us forever in a renewed created order without sin. What a great message to tell - not about my experiences - but about who he is.
Posted in: Post Baptismal Use of Waters of Baptism?
Is not the Lord's Supper, at least in part, a "remembrance of baptism" or "renewal of baptismal vows"? Do we not at the Lord's Supper profess that we renounce sin and desire to follow Christ? Why do we need somthing along side of the Lord's Supper. Apparently the Lord's Supper, God given, instituted by Christ, and biblically based is no longer sufficient. Why is the CRC continuially adding Old Covenant type ceremonies, rituals, and objects for the purpose of enhancing the worship experience? The Belgic Confession Articles 25 and 29 make clear that it is the false church that is not satisfied with what God has provided by the preaching of the Gospel and the (only) two sacraments and "basis itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ"?
Posted in: Post Baptismal Use of Waters of Baptism?
How wonderful - a ceremony to celebrate a ceremony! The only issue is that the truth of the scriptures is replaced by human imagination. The risen Lord Jesus Christ is replaced by "I THINK" fantasies. Obviously, the living Word, the Risen Christ, the teacher of the church by his Word and Holy Spirit is so weak and feeble he needs to be propped up with all kinds of human inventions, OT type ceremonies, and visible object lessons of all kinds. "And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)
Posted in: Post Baptismal Use of Waters of Baptism?
It's not clear to me what you mean by "covenant renewal"? Would you please explain. Thanks
Posted in: Post Baptismal Use of Waters of Baptism?
Worshipping by dipping your hands in water is no more scandalous or idolatrous than Eve’s eating the fruit of the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden. The essential point: does God tell us how he wants to be worshipped or do we tell him how we are going to do so? The essence of sin is to think that we know as God knows and therefore we can add all kinds of ceremonies and visible images to our worship. Christ gave the HIS church, not ours, the gospel and only TWO visible outward signs and SEALS for the growth and confirmation of our faith. My question for you is why are you not satisfied with with Chriat has provided? Is it not sufficient? Do you know better than he does? See the description of the church that acts falsely in Belgic Confession Article 29.
Your worship ceremony of hand dipping in essence and nature is identical to all the OT God given liturgical practices which the NT describes as “elements” and “rudiments” of the world which kept Israel in bondage until Christ came. They were all God given and he made exceedingly clear that Israel was not to add or subtract anything from what he had revealed. The OT liturgy was composed of “shadows” and now we have the reality. Why the urgency to return to shadow land of our own devices. The second commandment forbids any attempt to make God visible and the NT forbids returning to OT type ceremonies. Furthermore the NT forbids adding or subtracting anything from God’s revelation.
When Christ is central and we realize the fullness of all blessings that are in him, how he shares all that with us and the great hope that he is – dipping hands is quite meaningless. Paul in Philippians 3 clearly considers that all his attempts to live as an OT Jew are simply manure compared to the excellency of the knowledge of Christ.
Furthermore Jesus in talking to the Samaritan woman at the well makes clear that no longer in the mountains and high places with man made statues and idols, nor in Jerusalem with its God given OT liturgy, has any relevance to the true worship of the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
We can create all kinds of worship ceremonies and visible representations and teaching tools but we cannot create seals. We simply cannot decide for God by what means the Spirit of Christ is going to work in our hearts and lives. Nevertheless, the church continually wants to abandon faith and seeks to live by sight. The problem of the false prophet as recorded in scripture makes clear the human attempt to abandon God’s word and live by man’s imagination and fanciful ideas. Not a good idea. See Calvin’s Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 11.
Posted in: Post Baptismal Use of Waters of Baptism?
My position which you label as "such an extreme" is essentially that of John Calvin. You may find it helpful to read Book 1, chapter 11 and Book 4, chapter 10 of Calvin's Institutes. Calvin's understanding is also embodied in the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism and has been the position of the reformed and presbyterian churches until this modern era. Should I be insulted that you got my name wrong?
Posted in: Post Baptismal Use of Waters of Baptism?
Baptism points to entry into union with Christ. The Lord’s Supper points to our continued union with him. Christ by his Holy Spirit uses these to confirm and strengthen our faith. Thus they are both signs and seals. We can create all kinds of visible representations and ceremonies. But we cannot effect what Christ alone can do. Dipping your hands in water may mean something to you but it is simply useless to confirm and strengthen faith. We can create signs but we cannot effect the sealing of the Holy Spirit by any of them.
It puzzles me why someone invented a visible church ceremony to rehearse entry into Christ when we have the Lord’s Supper, which is not a human invention but God given, and should remind us not only of our entry into him but also our continued union with him.
Why do you wish to add to what God has given in Scripture? Why do you think that the Lord’s Supper is not sufficient? Why do you think that what God has given needs to be propped up with man’s devices and ceremonies?
I would really like to know the reason why.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
"The real issue here is not Women in Church Office/Keep Women Out of Office." As a conservative I find the framing of this issue highly offensive. The real issue for the church is rightly discerning the truth of the scriptures. This synod did not do. It claim it was "wise" to let both contradictory positions function in the church. And then it adopted only one by writing IT in the church order. Allow me to define the issue in similar manner to the above quote. The real issue is whether chertain passages of scripture will continue to be declared null and void or whether all scripture will be the final authority. The real issue is whether "we are going to decide which scripture no longer applies" or whether we accept all scripture as inspired revelation.
Furthermore, Trinity Sparta and Second Kalamazoo are not rogue churches going their own way. They are seeking carefully to follow Synodical procedures to receive the church's approval. That exhibits far more faithfulness and care for the church that individuals, churches, or even Synod deciding that parts of scripture are not longer valid. What Synod has abandoned is nothing less than being a "bondservant of Jesus Christ" See my previous post for details.
Posted in: “Outreach” Must Have Two E's!
Why is it that the greatest missionary the church has known, the apostle Paul, when he writes to the churches says next to nothing about evangelism?
Posted in: “Outreach” Must Have Two E's!
Let me rephrase the question. If evangelism is the essence and/or the primary function of the church, why did Paul not appoint evangelism committees instead of consistories? Evangelism as popularly understood deals with only opening the door to Christ. To make that the primary task of the church is like saying that the primary task of marriage is conceiving children. The actual conception, the joining of sperm and egg takes only a very few seconds: then follows 9 months of gestation and 20 years of parenting. Apparently the primary task of the church is door keeping.
As far as the gospels and Acts being filled with evangelism, that fact is that the great majority of the preaching of Jesus was to the Old Testament Church, to both the faithful and the fallen. The same is true in the first part of Acts. Jesus preached in synagogues and Paul, immediately after his conversion began preaching in synagogues.
In the great commission Jesus sent old covenant believers, now new covenant believers into the world to make, not converts, but disciples. He sent Israel into the world to gather the nations into Israel. But they were first sent to Jerusalem, then to Judea and Samaria, and finally to the ends of the earth. Transitioning from unbelief to faith usually doesn’t take long. Making disciples takes a lifetime: thus consistories instead of evangelism committees.
There really are not two E’s, one for joining Christ and the other for living in him. There is the common perception that the “gospel” is for the unchurched and a different message is for the church. This suggests that there is one gospel for being joined to Christ and another gospel for remaining in Christ: one gospel for baptism and a second gospel for the Lord’s Supper.
Paul knew only one “evangel”, one gospel. His primary task was not converting people and changing their lives, but rather preaching Christ. “We preach not ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord. “ Paul’s commission was to “bear the name of Christ to the nations. Whether he was in the synagogue, the town square or the newly formed churches – he had only one message – Christ. I am determined to know nothing amongst you except (the bodily risen) Christ and him crucified. The one GOSPEL is God’s power to give the gift of faith and to maintain the life of faith. Note also that Paul spent a great deal of is time and energy building up the churches.
Furthermore, the “gospel” of today’s evangelism is not gospel at all. The witnessing today takes basically two forms. The first is “God love you and has a wonderful plan for your life” and the second is “I want to tell the world that I am a Christian”. The first concentrates on the person needing change and the second on the person trying to effect change.
The first is not biblically accurate – think of those drowned in the flood or the Red Sea. The risen Lord’s plan for Paul was to experience a great deal of suffering and Paul later says that all who would life godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution ( II Tim 3:12). How many apostles were martyred? The second is essentially talking about yourself and your marvelous spiritual experiences: in doing so the believer replaces Christ with himself. This is forbidden by the first and second commandments.
Furthermore, these are exactly the two methods used in modern advertising. Buy our product and your life will be changed. Drink our beer or use our cosmetics and you will enjoy the good life. The second is the personal testimony – I have used this product and it has changed my life – and it could change yours also.
Our life of faith cannot even begin to approach the sinless perfection and flawless faith and obedience of the Lord Jesus. The gospel is always about the risen Christ once crucified and his personal redemptive experiences. His life of faith and obedience has reconciled us to the Father and continues to sustain and nurture us. This is the heart of the one gospel. Paul had one passion – I want to know Christ, the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings. He had one goal in life – make this Christ known. The apostles didn’t talk much about themselves – they had a great deal to say about Christ and for good reason.
To split the church’s task into two, I would suggest, seriously distorts the biblical message. We need to return to the singularity of the biblical gospel and learn to share Paul’s passion for Christ.
Posted in: Major Upgrade to The Network Coming Soon
Will you be able to save, edit and continue writing comments before posting? Several times I have been writing, accidentally hit a wrong key and the entire comment disappeard.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
We are deluding ourselves if we think that the ordination of women is not a confessional or biblical issue. The fact that Synod declared it to be non-confession did not make it so. A great deal of time and energy was expended developing the biblical basis for each position. Synod was faced with two positions that are mutually exclusive and contradictory. BOTH CANNOT BE BIBLICALLY CORRECT!!! How one interprets scripture is the fundamental confessional and biblical matter. So what did Synod do? It abandoned the hard work of deciding which view was correct and pushed the entire problem into the realm of “sincerely held beliefs” and supposedly allowed both positions to stand and function in the life of the church.
Then, however, Synod contradicted itself by writing into the church order only the position which allowed women to be ordained into the ministry. It thereby in fact adopted this position’s biblical interpretation and made it a confession issue. While churches are allowed to ordain men only to the three offices, the official position of the CRC is that women may be ordained in all the offices. The CO itself is a confessional document about how we have agreed (confessed) to work together as a denomination and not a few of the rules are rooted in scripture. This action reveals the real agenda of the “liberals” for the ones that I know insisted that Galatians 3 demands the ordination of women in all the offices. I had a conversation a while back with one of these individuals and reminded him that 40 or 50 thousand left the CRC over this issue and his response was – I got what I wanted.
Synod’s decision also relativizes the ABSOLUTE equality of Galatians 3:26-29 by applying it to only a very few men and women, those qualified to meet the requirements of Calvin Seminary. Superior and inferior, greater and lesser gifts still exist and function in the church. I am quite sure that the receptionist at the front desk at the denominational building is not paid the same as the Executive Director. The “equality” of the SEEDS (plural) becomes more important than the excellency of THE SEED SINGULAR, Jesus Christ himself. Check out that passage for yourself. Paul clearly says there are not seeds plural but only one seed singular. Of course, Paul was probably wrong about that also. Thus under the guise of “equality” respect of persons (James 2:1-7) continues. Those rich in gifts are applauded. Those poor in gifts are simply ignored. Precisely how western culture operates.
Furthermore, by its decision Synod adopted the “culturally conditioned argument” which makes parts of scripture null and void. The biblical data about master-slaves, husband-wives and Paul’s pronouncements about men only in office are declared to be no longer relevant or operative. This of course is “sincerely believed”. In regards to the master-slave passages, Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. wrote in the April 178, 1989 Banner “We decide (emphasis mine) that Paul and Peter’s instructions to slaves meant that slaves at that time- while the church was young and vulnerable – ought to obey their masters as the Lord. But we wouldn’t dream of applying these instructions to ourselves” (emphasis mine)
Isn’t that exactly what Eve did in Eden. She decided that her opinion, her “sincerely held belief” was superior to God’s Word and acted accordingly: so also Synod. Note the serpent’s opening line (Gen. 3:1) “Has God said”? He thereby challenges God’s word and pretends to know the mind of God (Gen. 3:5).
But what is at the heart of the Pauline slave-master passages? The very first Q&A of the Heidelberg Catechism (which sums up all our confessions) – “…I am not my own but belong body and soul… to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ…” Our ONLY comfort. Note what scripture actually says in Ephesians 6:5-9 “be obedient…as unto Christ…as servants of Christ…doing the will of God from the heart…with good will doing service as unto the Lord…you masters, DO THE SAME THING.” Colossians 3:22-4:1 continues in the same vein – “you serve the Lord Christ…masters, render unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.” In I Peter 2:18-25 Peter encourages not only servants but all believers to endure griefs, suffering wrongfully…you were called to suffering…because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps…”
I Corinthians 7:22-23 “For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise he that was called being free, is Christ’s bondservant. You were bought with as price; become not bondservants of men.
Romans 14:7-8 “For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.” This is the very purpose of Christ’s death and resurrection. In Philippians 3 Paul considers all his human religious accomplishments as garbage, as loss for the sake of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. He want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death.”
Here is the heart of the gospel and gospel life. And it is precisely this which Plantinga and Synod have decided is no longer relevant and they would not dream of applying to our lives today. Synod by its decision has thrown away the heart of the gospel. Paul in no way “permits the institution of slavery” but rather challenges it at the very heart of the matter – the sinful pride that exalts self and seeks to enslave all others. But what Paul makes exceedingly clear that all believers, no matter what their station in life – are slaves of Jesus Christ. We do not belong to ourselves, but to him. Obviously, the majority of ministers and elders in the CRC no longer believe that they are bondservants of Christ.
A related issue is that the CRC no longer holds to Calvin’s understanding of the second commandment. It too is null and void. Apparently the second commandment prohibits making visible representations of false gods but allows infinite visible representations of the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Many churches busily manufacture visible representations of God or some aspect of his being, all done in order to enhance the believer’s worship experience. So now the Lord Jesus Christ, the only true image of the invisible God is just another one of the multitude of images (the vain imaginations of men’s minds) available to the church and probably not the most important one at that. The idols that men manufacture are always more important to them than the God who reveals himself in Jesus Christ. This is clearly a confession issue: BC Art 25,29,33, HC LD 25 and LD 35. Visible representations of deity are clearly forbidden. But nobody seems to care. Israel finally came under the severe judgment of God because they continually made visible representations of him as well as images of false gods, led in so doing by Israel’s leaders, its prophets, priests and kings.
The real issue for conservatives is that Synod by its decision has made scripture irrelevant since all that matters now is not whether one is biblical correct but whether one is “sincere” in believing what they do. Seating women at Classis or Synod is the visible tip of an iceberg of theological and hermeneutical confusion and error, the existence of which the church refuses to face.
By its decision Synod has abandoned the theology and practice of Calvin who upheld the final authority of Scripture and adopted that of Schleiermacher who believed that theology and church practice came out of the consciousness (the sincere beliefs) of the community of faith. Allow me a personal anecdote of this fact. A while back, on this blog I had an interchange with an individual about how to witness. I pointed out that biblically, witnessing points to the risen Christ once crucified and his experiences on our behalf. He reprimanded me, calling me arrogant because I wanted to be biblical correct, and asserted that this approach would only turn people off to the gospel. He insisted that what needed to be done was to tell people about our fantastic spiritual experiences which should be fresh daily. Clearly his thoughts were elevated above scripture and his experiences more important that Christ’s.
Furthermore, concept churches and theological classis already exist. Classis Grand Rapids East which covers a small geographical area (in which I happen to live) is also a theological classis. It functions in harmony with Synodical decisions and those of the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship which among other things strongly advocates the use of images in worship services in order to enhance the worshipping experience. My conservative theology is not acceptable and I would not be welcome unless I agreed to keep silent in the church.
I also want to point out that the issue of ordaining women was never about preaching the gospel. It was and still is all about the use of women’s gifts in the instituted church. In other words it is all about women having professional religious careers in the instituted church. The ministry is now for both men and women just another career path. The pulpit has then become a place to display the excellence of human talent and ability just as in the theater and sports venues. Pulpit speech is now nothing more than “sincerely held belief”, human speech that is no longer the Word of God preached.
So in regards to a theological classis: since the conservative position has been written out of the church order, they (the weak) ought to at the very least be allowed to follow their own “sincerely held beliefs” in working together with likeminded believers. If liberals are free to have concept churches and theological classis, why not conservatives? To deny them their freedom would clearly contradict biblical teaching.
This, however, is not the best solution. The best solution would be for every member to turn away from every form of “sincerely held beliefs” and return to “the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ.” (II Cor. 11:3), by holding fast the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 1:9). Paul saw the Corinthian church turning away from the gospel and called them back to Christ. Let us not pretend that this cannot possibly happen in the CRC. Psalm 122:9 has it right “For the sake of the house of Lord our God, I will seek your good.” However, the operative principle today seems to be “I got what I wanted.” Unity is not based on “sincerely held beliefs”; it can only come from submission to the Risen Lord through faithful obedience to his word of truth. There can be no unity between Calvin and Schleiermacher.
Posted in: Why Are Believers Not Declaring the Gospel?
This is the second article in a month (See Greg Selmon's "Today's Compelling Story of Grace" 10-18-12) that suggest the motivation for witness is found in the spiritual superiority of the individual believer. Critical to witness is the believer's dynamic experiences of grace, fresh each day, and their personal passion for God. What I hear being said is that we must be like the pharisee in the front of the temple who thanks God that he is not like other men, that he has all these fantastic spiritual experiences, that he is not like the sinner in the back of the room. We must have something to show and tell about ourselves (called sharing Christ), when actually it is simply talking about and possibly even boasting about ourselves.
Probably the most fantastic spiritual experience in this life would be to be raised from the dead. The rich man in Hades pleads with father Abraham to send Lazarus back to his brothers arguing that the bible (Moses and the Prophets) is not sufficient - they need to see something. The answer comes back that is they do not believe the bible neither will they believe if someone rises from the dead.
Genuine spiritual growth results in a growing realization that all the benefits and blessings of salvation are not found in self but in the person of the bodily risen Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, so say the apostles. Now pershaps I am spiritually regressing but the older I have become the more if feel like the "sinner" in the back of the temple and the man who buried his one talent. So according to your thesis I would have no impetus for witnessing. While love for God is the highest commandment it is not the most important thing in this life. We are not saved by our love but by our faith, which is a gift of God. By that gift we become increasingly convinced of the historical facts and present reality of the bodily risen Jesus. I am not interested in telling others about my fantastical "grace experiences" because I have none to tell about. But there seems to be a great desire and passion to talk about the person of Christ and his experiences, that he is risen and he is Messiah and Lord. That is the essence of the biblcal witness and the heart of the gospel.
Scripture is very clear that we are not to boast about ourselves, but only about Christ himself. That can be done only by using the truth and facts of the scriptures as they point to Christ. He himself makes this point in Luke 24 both on the way to Emmaus and to his disciples. Paul says in II Cor. 4 that we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord.
In Acts 23-26 Paul summarizes this his entire gospel in terms of the hope of Israel - the resurrection of the body. In acts 2-4 the heart of the apostolic witness becomes plain. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God. You killied him. God raised him from the dead and made him MNessiah and Lord and in him is the forgiveness of sins. See also Acts 13. In Acts 17 Paul asserts that God has appointed a man by which he will judge the world and has demonstrated this by raising Jesus from the dead.
I would suggest that the lack of motivation comes from the fact that the church has almost comletely ignored the fact and significance of the bodily resurrection of the Man Jesus ( yes I affirm his full deity). All my life I have heard that my "gratitude" is the driving force for living a life of faith - while scripture (even the Heidelberg Catechism) locates the motivation factor in the renewing work of the Risen Jesus by his Holy Spirit after his image. Paul says - I count all my religious accomplishments as garbage for the sake of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ. I want to know Christ, the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his suffering. We hardly ever hear about the return of Christ and when it is mentioned we are told that we are going to spend eternity in heaven even though scripture, both Old and New, makes clear we will spend eternity in a renewed created order with our complete persons - spirit, soul and body make new, whole and imperishable. I don't know many beleivers who are enthused about our glorious future.
Christ is viewed primarily as "a spirit being" and as "God". It seems that his glorified humanity, the very same humanity in which he was sin's curse on the cross, has evaproated into the divine all. Very Platonic and new age. The fact of the matter is that there is a man on God's throne. By man came death - by man came the resurreciton of the dead. If the dead cannot be raised, then Jesus is still dead and we are fools to trust a dead man. The apostles were not passionate about thier own spiritual expereinces - they were passionate about the reality of the bodily risen Lord and the fullness of present blessings found in him as well as the tremendous, sure and living hope that he is.
I would also suggest that Piper has things backwords. He is essentially saying that we are nothing but mirrors reflecting God's love back to himself. I don't matter, you don't matter - all that matters is God. Again this strikes me as very new age like. While we may not lose our indiduality all that matters is the flow of love to God as though he were a giant vacuum cleaner or black hole sucking all the energy out of the very things he has made. He needs nothing from us for he is full and complete in himself. God so loved the world that he gave. Ephesians 2:7 states the purpose of saving us - so that God forever and ever can show us the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. He wil continually unfold and reveal himself to us forever in a renewed created order without sin. What a great message to tell - not about my experiences - but about who he is.