Skip to main content

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?

I would really like to know the reason why.

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.

"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.

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?

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. 

If Jesus is dead there is no salvation and there can be no intimacy.  He earned salvation for us and payed the price in his humanity.  For John Calvin is was always through the flesh of Jesus to God the Father.  Because we are united to him by faith through the Holy Spirit he shares with us all of his blessings.  Look at QA 76 of the Heidelberg.  In John 6 Jesus says we must continually eat his flesh and drink his blood.

The only kind of intimacy with Christ that I know about is to keep on believing in him and trusting him with my life. 

I hear a lot of talk about feeling God's presence, hearing God talking directly to me (private revelation) and having spiritual expieriences.  I have asked people what God "feels like" and no one can tell me.  I have never had any private revelation telling me what car to buy or which call to take.  I don't know what "spiritual experiences" are.  I know what human experiences are with all their emotions and feelings.   I have felt close to people as well as rejected by people.

In the last three decades there has been a  growing emphasis on our human words primarily in terms of prayer and testimonies.  In my opinion these have become more important that God's revealed truth in the scriptures.  What I think, feel and experience becomes more important than Christ himself.

There is indeed such a thing as "spiritual experience", but how does the bible define it.  James says in 1:27 "True and undefiled relgion (read religious experiences) before our God and Father is to visit widows and orphans and keep oneself unspotted from the world."  The life of faith is clearly defined in terms of keeping the commandments which have an internal dimension but also an external one that always involves the neighbor.  Paul says in Romans 12 that we should present our bodies a living sacrifice which is our spiritual service or worship.  There is a great deal of creatureliness in genuine spirituality.   John says if a man says he loves God and hates his nabor he is a liar and the truth is not in him.   Pauls says in Gal 5:14 "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  Isn't it interesting that he mentions no love for God.  We may well mistake human emotions for spiritual experiences.

Now regarding personal testimonies.   My evaluation about what the Lord is doing in my life is not the word of God nor the means of grace.   My words about my self  is not the power of the gospel. In I Thess 4:18 Paul says "Wherefore comfort (or exhort) one another with these words."   He says something similar in I Thess. 5:11 "Wherefore comfort (exhort) one another, and build each other up, even as also you do."  He is clearly refering, not to believers experiences, or even his own, but to the word of God revealed and written. 

My experiences are all flawed and so is my description of those experiences.  How dare I even begin to compare them with Christ's perfect experiences and the truth of the Living Word written in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the risen Christ.   I know of only one biblical way to comfort and encourage and that is with the gospel, the words of grace and mercy revealed in Jesus Christ crucifed and risen.  My personal spiritual stories have no power to change anyone' life.  I don't even have any power to convince anyone of the truth of the gospel as faithful to the scriptures as my words may be.  Only the bodily risen Jesu, who is at the same time the eternal Word is able, by his Holy Spirit using the words of the gospel, the words of truth in the bible, to change hearts and lives and to give comfort and encouragement.   This is the only way an unbeliever can become a believer and the only way a believer can be encouraged and grow in Christ. 

In the garden of Eden there were two possible paths.  The first was to obey the word that God had given - a rather strange word forbidding Adam and Eve to eat of one specific tree.  The second path was the one Eve took first, and then Adam - the path of the personal experience of beling like God.  What does Scripture say?  Eve saw that the tree was good for food and a delight to the eyes and desirable to make one wise - she ate - she experienced.  I John 2:15-17 picks up on these three.  "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.  If any man love the word, the love of the Father is not in him.  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh (good for food), and the lust of the eyes (pleasing to look at) and the vainglory of life (wise in one's own eyes), is not of the Father, but is of the world.  And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever."  

Consider also the visit of Jesus to Emmaus recorded in Luke 24.  The two travelers are down hearted.  (As an aside reflect on what Cleopas says to Jesus " are you the only one in Jerusalem who doesn't  know hwat has happened?"  He was the only who truly knew.  Is there some divine humor here?)  After they explain themselves Jesus scolds them for not believe the the OT scriptures.  Then he opens the bible to them point it to himself.  They don't know who he is until he acts as the host and serves them.  Then their eyes were opened and they knew him and he vanished immediately from sight.  Think of the intimacy and spirituality of that experience.  And what did they say on the way back to Jerusalem .  Wasn't that the most exciting spiritual experience we ever had,  wasn't that wonderful to be that close to Jesus, etc, etc.  Verse 32 records their reaction.  " Was not our heart burning within us while he spake to us on the way, while he opened to us the scriptures? 

It is only throught the words of scripture, the words of the gospel that we have access to Jesus and it is only through him that we have access to the Father.  There is no other way.   The risen Lord Jesus is to have first place in everything ( Colossians 1).

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post