Generally agree, but interesting that the Liberal (opposition) leader in Canada has recently said he would not permit candidates who disagreed with abortion rights, which it would seem is a moral issue. In any case, would not a common sense approach be that generally delegates should be able to participate and be persuaded by discussion at the assembley, while in certain instances where a tremendous amount of discussion has already ocurred, the council may feel obligated to bind their delegates to a particular position, especially if they have put in an overture, or if their perception of an issue is such that they are concerned that delegates might be persuaded in the moment and come to regret it later?
Alejandro, the form for baptism on Hymnal page 958 in the address to the parents, first paragraph, clearly says this: "We must therefore, use the sacrament for the purpose that God intended and not out of custom or superstition..." In the third point there it also says, "Do you promise to do all you can to teach these children, and to have them taught, this doctrine of salvation?"
Second, I agree that the significance of baptism does not depend on the character of the elder who baptizes, nor on the personal purity of the parents. But its significance does depend on obedience of believers, since it is supposed to be an act of obedience by believers in God's covenant . God said a number of times in the old testament that he did not want the sacrifices of Israel, even though He himself had commanded these sacrifices. God denied the significance of these sacrifices because they were done in disobedience, they had become superstitious rituals rather than acts of worship. Baptism is a form of worship and obedience. If it is done in disobedience, what should we attribute to it? If it is done by unbelievers, or done in the form similar to believing in four leaf clovers or superstitiously not walking under a ladder, what should we attribute to it?
As far as differences between North American and South American romCatholicism, or that in Indonesia, or southern europe vs northern europe, that is a much more complicated topic, which I will not address now. Other than to say that to some degree I agree with you, but yet I leave that judgement to those who have more experience. I myself have had many conversations with a former romcath converted to reformed faith here in north america, and she is more insistent that the Rom Cath church is idolatrous than I would tend to be. I have been in a Rom Cath church in Cuernevaca, and seen a couple in Mexico City, and talked to converts there, as well as having spent an hour talking to a retired RomCath priest from Ontario who enlightened me about a number of attitudes with their hierarchy. And I know a number of RomCath in our town, finding them generally pleasant, and some of them very committed and likeable and sincere.
I believe that we should not condemn missionaries nor preachers who pastorally understand why former RCs would want to break all ties with any baptism performed in such a church environment. This might apply not only to RCs but also potentially to some episcopalian situations or united church situations. As I mentioned before, I once attended a service in the Netherlands in a reformed church where the pastor baptized a child whose parents never attend church. Now if that child grows up as a pagan, which he is likely to do (although God can work marvelous exceptions), and then the child when he is 35 years old, becomes converted and a Christian, then it is possible that his former baptism by non-practising christians may leave him quite cold and disillusioned. We can make absolutes about baptism being once for all and only once, but it will be undeniable that his baptism had not been done in obedience, but rather merely as a peace offering to grandparents or a purchase into "respectability". God does not delight in such disobedience.
I will address your other points in a second post.
Alejandro, let me say I appreciate your earnestness and your "contending for the faith" In regards to your point 3: I have said before that during the reformation, the RomCatholics persecuted the protestants, and the protestants persecuted other protestants, in particular the dissenters and anabaptists. I pray that this has ended several centuries ago. I agree that some anabaptists have a shallow theology and a lack of understanding of covenant. But I am also familiar with baptists who believe in and promote covenant theology, ie. "Reformed Baptists"(a seeming anachronism). I also believe that much theology originates from a gut feeling about what is right and wrong. It is difficult to promote covenant theology when it is misused by churches in the sense of, as it says in Jude "they have turned the grace of our God into a license for immorality..." In the same way they have turned covenant, which is all about the grace of God, into a license for immorality. By their works you shall know their faith. True, we know that baptism does not save, and that not all who are baptized will be saved, but when it is done in deceit and falsehood, or in disobedience, and when this becomes an obvious tolerated trend, then it is understandable why some would have an aversion to such a practice.
As to your point 4: I would not agree to rebaptism for anyone baptized in a reformed christian church as an infant. But I am becoming sympathetic to a discussion on it, putting the onus on anyone who requests it to prove that the original infant baptism was done in deliberate disobedience. Some might call this a "disputable matter." I agree with your emphasis on unity, even on as much unity as possible with other believers in other denominations. But our great unity must have its basis in honesty and obedience to Christ and His Word. A superficial unity of forms and procedures will carry us just as far as it carried the Israelites when they offered sacrifices to God as they travelled to the high places to also offer sacrifices to Baal. And a desire for unity such as the desire of Annanias and Sapphira to be like their neighboring Christ followers, will achieve nothing and will mean nothing if it is done in deceit or pride or envy.
My thinking on this has changed over the years. I used to think only crc professing members should participate. Then I realized that believing in Jesus as Lord and Saviour was more important; how could we exclude other believers for non-membership? But I thought that for baptized children they should still make membership profession first, because they lacked discernment. Then I realized that some children had more discernment than some professing members. The discernment in I Corinthians 11 refers to caring for others in the body of Christ, not some greater esoteric knowledge of magnificent theological and confessional insights. And I realized that the apostles at the time of the Lord's Supper were all deniers and abandoned Jesus only a day later. And even Judas was included in this last supper. So it makes no sense for the way we restrict this.
I have often participated in communion at many evangelical churches in several denominations, because I have no ability nor reason to think that they are not sincere spirit filled christians. The extreme of crc not allowing rca to participate, or prc not permitting visiting orc to participate highlights the absurdity of our claims to make this sacrament dependant on an official membership. This sacrament does not belong to a denomination, and we should acknowledge that. The warning that scripture gives, should be the one we give, and the invitation scripture gives, we should give, and we should leave it at that, unless someone lives in very serious moral disobedience, where mockery is obvious. Even then, we should be cautious, given that Jesus did not prevent Judas. We know that people can be Christ-followers without being official crc members. And this opens the way for older "non-professing" but living-as-christ-follower christians to participate joyfully.
Preaching the Word, means preaching Christ, since Christ is the Word. The Word made flesh. When Christ is missing from the message, then it seems the word has not really been preached. But preaching the Word in spirit and in truth is not dependant upon the reception of it. Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me. The Word is True, the Truth, and Life, whether the listener crucifies Jesus again, or whether he comes on his knees with tears in his eyes. The Word is the Good News, the gospel to those who believe and accept, but it is a warning to those who do not.
I am rethinking this a bit.... while I think that the preaching of the word is not dependant on the reception of it, I am now remembering also that scripture says that God's Word will not return empty. And so perhaps the response of the youth in particular says something about whether the word is really being preached or not. Or whether our lives contradict the preaching. Whether as people we are more concerned about wealth, careers, social and political policy, retirement, social approval, "getting with the times", or are we more concerned about following Christ? If we are more concerned with "getting with the times", or being acceptable to our non-christian neighbors, then perhaps the word has not really been preached. Jesus is the Word. Jesus said we must be born again. That doesn't mean making some intellectual assent to some theoretical doctrines. It means living for Christ as if your life depended on it. Which it does. It means that your standard will be different than worldly standards. It means you will die for your faith. It means you will be renewed for Christ, and because of Christ.
Is a graceless Christ still Christ? Christ is full-bodied, perfectly obedient, complete sacrifice, true God and true man. Preaching grace without obedience is not preaching Christ. Preaching obedience without grace is not preaching Christ.
Different methods of preaching (the "how") are appropriate for different audiences, different circumstances, different times. And they are effective in appropriate circumstances. We may say sometimes, "well, I heard the word.. but I didn't like it... he made it sound pretty unattractive..." or, we may say sometimes the converse, "what a speaker! what stories! what alliteration and humor!... but I had a hard time seeing Jesus in the message..." or, "What a gospel! What a Christ! What a life to live! and what a believer who presented it!! I pray God I would die for it!"
Bombast (Depending on how you define "bombast".) may have been appropriate for some of the prophets, ie. Jeremiah, Elijah, Paul, at some times. But underneath it, if you look for it, is the grace to accept the repentance which is called for. We live in an age of "process" and method (the how instead of the what), and often content and substance suffers as a result.
Paul said he tried to be all things to all men, in order to bring them to Christ. Some people find a circuitous subtle approach more appealing, and others find a straight-up blunt approach more appealing. And sometimes we don't know which will be more effective, since the Lord works in mysterious ways. In any case, the essential content and substance of the Word should not suffer, because otherwise the method won't matter. And it all needs to be undergirded with faith and trust in God and his ways.
Back to preaching the word. There seems to be a formal aspect to it, and an informal aspect. We think of preaching the word formally on sundays in a church group setting. But we can also think of the preaching that goes on between members of the body of christ, the preaching of the gospel by missionaries wherever they might be, or the preaching of parents to their children, (and occassionally of children to their parents...).
I think of this: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Shucks, I forgot about Jonah. I bet he was bombastic. Didn't even want to preach to the people of Nineveh. Hoped they wouldn't listen. Can you imagine??? but God worked his miracle, and they repented. Probably a subtle, friendly, apologetic preacher would not have worked; it was not what God wanted. We need to over methodolize less, and trust God more.
Ortho (right) pathy (suffering) affections, sickness. But in this context, we might call it a right attitude of the heart. In a sense though, what we really mean is being born again.... which means having a new heart, a heart which belongs to God, a heart which desires to do God's will, to follow Him, to love Him, to love our neighbor.
Orthodoxy - right beliefs ... reformers often seem to indicate this comes first.
Orthopraxis - right living .... George Macdonald the author and CS Lewis hero hinted that sometimes this comes first.
Jeff, the language... is it conversion, or sanctification?... I've thought that conversion is rather quick, although it may be the result of lots of conversation, experience, bible reading, witnessing. Sanctification, on the other hand is a lifelong process which is the result of the conversion; yet, we are saints already, sanctified completely by Jesus Christ. But even sanctified, our desire is to fight against the sinful desires within us. So we are a bit of a walking contradiction; thanks be to God, that Christ already has the victory!!
Then our desire is that our orthodoxy confirms and guides our understanding of our Lord and Saviour, and guides our orthopraxy, and is in sync with our orthopathy.
A mere orthopraxis is not the same as the orthopathy, the real heart desire to follow the Lord's will rather than our own. Without orthopathy (a true heart), the fruits of the spirit will be lacking. True obedience is really an obedience of the heart, not just of the outward appearance. Several times God said to the Israelites that He didn't want their sacrifices (we might say their orthodoxy), since their hearts (orthopathy) were not right. On the other hand, if our hearts are right, won't we then seek to do what is pleasing to God, and for the benefit of his people, his body, his gospel?
We may get into depth about what orthopathy is. Affections, emotions, feelings, attitude. I personally think it is attitude, since our affections and emotions might mislead us, and we might even misuse them, unless they are guided by a reborn attitude, fruits of the Spirit, and tested by scripture.
Although it is true that participating in communion ought to be a sign of faith, and not a sign of peer approval, the direct connection to making a formal membership profession of faith in a particular denomination is not required by scripture. Of course we would ask and expect only believers to participate. On the other hand, if someone says that they have not read the belgic confession and thus cannot yet make profession of faith in any reformed church, or they agree with most of the confessions, but not with the mandatory requirement for infant baptism and thus cannot in good conscience say that they agree entirely with what is taught on that point, should they therefore be denied participation in the body of Christ? Did Jesus do such? Would we deny christians from ORC, or from NRC, or from Baptist or Pentacostal, or Alliance churches to participate in this remembrance of the body of Christ? even though they have not entered the hallowed "gateway"? If the crc finds a way to distinguish between profession of faith, and a membership committment, then perhaps you might have a point. The two are not the same.
Posted in: Is It Appropriate for Council or Classis to Instruct Their Delegates How to Vote?
Generally agree, but interesting that the Liberal (opposition) leader in Canada has recently said he would not permit candidates who disagreed with abortion rights, which it would seem is a moral issue. In any case, would not a common sense approach be that generally delegates should be able to participate and be persuaded by discussion at the assembley, while in certain instances where a tremendous amount of discussion has already ocurred, the council may feel obligated to bind their delegates to a particular position, especially if they have put in an overture, or if their perception of an issue is such that they are concerned that delegates might be persuaded in the moment and come to regret it later?
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Alejandro, the form for baptism on Hymnal page 958 in the address to the parents, first paragraph, clearly says this: "We must therefore, use the sacrament for the purpose that God intended and not out of custom or superstition..." In the third point there it also says, "Do you promise to do all you can to teach these children, and to have them taught, this doctrine of salvation?"
Second, I agree that the significance of baptism does not depend on the character of the elder who baptizes, nor on the personal purity of the parents. But its significance does depend on obedience of believers, since it is supposed to be an act of obedience by believers in God's covenant . God said a number of times in the old testament that he did not want the sacrifices of Israel, even though He himself had commanded these sacrifices. God denied the significance of these sacrifices because they were done in disobedience, they had become superstitious rituals rather than acts of worship. Baptism is a form of worship and obedience. If it is done in disobedience, what should we attribute to it? If it is done by unbelievers, or done in the form similar to believing in four leaf clovers or superstitiously not walking under a ladder, what should we attribute to it?
As far as differences between North American and South American romCatholicism, or that in Indonesia, or southern europe vs northern europe, that is a much more complicated topic, which I will not address now. Other than to say that to some degree I agree with you, but yet I leave that judgement to those who have more experience. I myself have had many conversations with a former romcath converted to reformed faith here in north america, and she is more insistent that the Rom Cath church is idolatrous than I would tend to be. I have been in a Rom Cath church in Cuernevaca, and seen a couple in Mexico City, and talked to converts there, as well as having spent an hour talking to a retired RomCath priest from Ontario who enlightened me about a number of attitudes with their hierarchy. And I know a number of RomCath in our town, finding them generally pleasant, and some of them very committed and likeable and sincere.
I believe that we should not condemn missionaries nor preachers who pastorally understand why former RCs would want to break all ties with any baptism performed in such a church environment. This might apply not only to RCs but also potentially to some episcopalian situations or united church situations. As I mentioned before, I once attended a service in the Netherlands in a reformed church where the pastor baptized a child whose parents never attend church. Now if that child grows up as a pagan, which he is likely to do (although God can work marvelous exceptions), and then the child when he is 35 years old, becomes converted and a Christian, then it is possible that his former baptism by non-practising christians may leave him quite cold and disillusioned. We can make absolutes about baptism being once for all and only once, but it will be undeniable that his baptism had not been done in obedience, but rather merely as a peace offering to grandparents or a purchase into "respectability". God does not delight in such disobedience.
I will address your other points in a second post.
Posted in: Does rebaptism automatically disqualify that person from holding office in the Christian Reformed Church?
Alejandro, let me say I appreciate your earnestness and your "contending for the faith" In regards to your point 3: I have said before that during the reformation, the RomCatholics persecuted the protestants, and the protestants persecuted other protestants, in particular the dissenters and anabaptists. I pray that this has ended several centuries ago. I agree that some anabaptists have a shallow theology and a lack of understanding of covenant. But I am also familiar with baptists who believe in and promote covenant theology, ie. "Reformed Baptists"(a seeming anachronism). I also believe that much theology originates from a gut feeling about what is right and wrong. It is difficult to promote covenant theology when it is misused by churches in the sense of, as it says in Jude "they have turned the grace of our God into a license for immorality..." In the same way they have turned covenant, which is all about the grace of God, into a license for immorality. By their works you shall know their faith. True, we know that baptism does not save, and that not all who are baptized will be saved, but when it is done in deceit and falsehood, or in disobedience, and when this becomes an obvious tolerated trend, then it is understandable why some would have an aversion to such a practice.
As to your point 4: I would not agree to rebaptism for anyone baptized in a reformed christian church as an infant. But I am becoming sympathetic to a discussion on it, putting the onus on anyone who requests it to prove that the original infant baptism was done in deliberate disobedience. Some might call this a "disputable matter." I agree with your emphasis on unity, even on as much unity as possible with other believers in other denominations. But our great unity must have its basis in honesty and obedience to Christ and His Word. A superficial unity of forms and procedures will carry us just as far as it carried the Israelites when they offered sacrifices to God as they travelled to the high places to also offer sacrifices to Baal. And a desire for unity such as the desire of Annanias and Sapphira to be like their neighboring Christ followers, will achieve nothing and will mean nothing if it is done in deceit or pride or envy.
Posted in: How Should Older Baptized Members Come to the Lord's Table?
My thinking on this has changed over the years. I used to think only crc professing members should participate. Then I realized that believing in Jesus as Lord and Saviour was more important; how could we exclude other believers for non-membership? But I thought that for baptized children they should still make membership profession first, because they lacked discernment. Then I realized that some children had more discernment than some professing members. The discernment in I Corinthians 11 refers to caring for others in the body of Christ, not some greater esoteric knowledge of magnificent theological and confessional insights. And I realized that the apostles at the time of the Lord's Supper were all deniers and abandoned Jesus only a day later. And even Judas was included in this last supper. So it makes no sense for the way we restrict this.
I have often participated in communion at many evangelical churches in several denominations, because I have no ability nor reason to think that they are not sincere spirit filled christians. The extreme of crc not allowing rca to participate, or prc not permitting visiting orc to participate highlights the absurdity of our claims to make this sacrament dependant on an official membership. This sacrament does not belong to a denomination, and we should acknowledge that. The warning that scripture gives, should be the one we give, and the invitation scripture gives, we should give, and we should leave it at that, unless someone lives in very serious moral disobedience, where mockery is obvious. Even then, we should be cautious, given that Jesus did not prevent Judas. We know that people can be Christ-followers without being official crc members. And this opens the way for older "non-professing" but living-as-christ-follower christians to participate joyfully.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Preaching the Word, means preaching Christ, since Christ is the Word. The Word made flesh. When Christ is missing from the message, then it seems the word has not really been preached. But preaching the Word in spirit and in truth is not dependant upon the reception of it. Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me. The Word is True, the Truth, and Life, whether the listener crucifies Jesus again, or whether he comes on his knees with tears in his eyes. The Word is the Good News, the gospel to those who believe and accept, but it is a warning to those who do not.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
I am rethinking this a bit.... while I think that the preaching of the word is not dependant on the reception of it, I am now remembering also that scripture says that God's Word will not return empty. And so perhaps the response of the youth in particular says something about whether the word is really being preached or not. Or whether our lives contradict the preaching. Whether as people we are more concerned about wealth, careers, social and political policy, retirement, social approval, "getting with the times", or are we more concerned about following Christ? If we are more concerned with "getting with the times", or being acceptable to our non-christian neighbors, then perhaps the word has not really been preached. Jesus is the Word. Jesus said we must be born again. That doesn't mean making some intellectual assent to some theoretical doctrines. It means living for Christ as if your life depended on it. Which it does. It means that your standard will be different than worldly standards. It means you will die for your faith. It means you will be renewed for Christ, and because of Christ.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Is a graceless Christ still Christ? Christ is full-bodied, perfectly obedient, complete sacrifice, true God and true man. Preaching grace without obedience is not preaching Christ. Preaching obedience without grace is not preaching Christ.
Different methods of preaching (the "how") are appropriate for different audiences, different circumstances, different times. And they are effective in appropriate circumstances. We may say sometimes, "well, I heard the word.. but I didn't like it... he made it sound pretty unattractive..." or, we may say sometimes the converse, "what a speaker! what stories! what alliteration and humor!... but I had a hard time seeing Jesus in the message..." or, "What a gospel! What a Christ! What a life to live! and what a believer who presented it!! I pray God I would die for it!"
Bombast (Depending on how you define "bombast".) may have been appropriate for some of the prophets, ie. Jeremiah, Elijah, Paul, at some times. But underneath it, if you look for it, is the grace to accept the repentance which is called for. We live in an age of "process" and method (the how instead of the what), and often content and substance suffers as a result.
Paul said he tried to be all things to all men, in order to bring them to Christ. Some people find a circuitous subtle approach more appealing, and others find a straight-up blunt approach more appealing. And sometimes we don't know which will be more effective, since the Lord works in mysterious ways. In any case, the essential content and substance of the Word should not suffer, because otherwise the method won't matter. And it all needs to be undergirded with faith and trust in God and his ways.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Back to preaching the word. There seems to be a formal aspect to it, and an informal aspect. We think of preaching the word formally on sundays in a church group setting. But we can also think of the preaching that goes on between members of the body of christ, the preaching of the gospel by missionaries wherever they might be, or the preaching of parents to their children, (and occassionally of children to their parents...).
I think of this: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
"
Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 1:9
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 1:11
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.
Acts 8:4
Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Shucks, I forgot about Jonah. I bet he was bombastic. Didn't even want to preach to the people of Nineveh. Hoped they wouldn't listen. Can you imagine??? but God worked his miracle, and they repented. Probably a subtle, friendly, apologetic preacher would not have worked; it was not what God wanted. We need to over methodolize less, and trust God more.
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Ortho (right) pathy (suffering) affections, sickness. But in this context, we might call it a right attitude of the heart. In a sense though, what we really mean is being born again.... which means having a new heart, a heart which belongs to God, a heart which desires to do God's will, to follow Him, to love Him, to love our neighbor.
Orthodoxy - right beliefs ... reformers often seem to indicate this comes first.
Orthopraxis - right living .... George Macdonald the author and CS Lewis hero hinted that sometimes this comes first.
Orthopathy - right attitude. .... born again?
Posted in: Defining 'preaching of the Word'?
Jeff, the language... is it conversion, or sanctification?... I've thought that conversion is rather quick, although it may be the result of lots of conversation, experience, bible reading, witnessing. Sanctification, on the other hand is a lifelong process which is the result of the conversion; yet, we are saints already, sanctified completely by Jesus Christ. But even sanctified, our desire is to fight against the sinful desires within us. So we are a bit of a walking contradiction; thanks be to God, that Christ already has the victory!!
Then our desire is that our orthodoxy confirms and guides our understanding of our Lord and Saviour, and guides our orthopraxy, and is in sync with our orthopathy.
A mere orthopraxis is not the same as the orthopathy, the real heart desire to follow the Lord's will rather than our own. Without orthopathy (a true heart), the fruits of the spirit will be lacking. True obedience is really an obedience of the heart, not just of the outward appearance. Several times God said to the Israelites that He didn't want their sacrifices (we might say their orthodoxy), since their hearts (orthopathy) were not right. On the other hand, if our hearts are right, won't we then seek to do what is pleasing to God, and for the benefit of his people, his body, his gospel?
We may get into depth about what orthopathy is. Affections, emotions, feelings, attitude. I personally think it is attitude, since our affections and emotions might mislead us, and we might even misuse them, unless they are guided by a reborn attitude, fruits of the Spirit, and tested by scripture.
Posted in: How Should Older Baptized Members Come to the Lord's Table?
Although it is true that participating in communion ought to be a sign of faith, and not a sign of peer approval, the direct connection to making a formal membership profession of faith in a particular denomination is not required by scripture. Of course we would ask and expect only believers to participate. On the other hand, if someone says that they have not read the belgic confession and thus cannot yet make profession of faith in any reformed church, or they agree with most of the confessions, but not with the mandatory requirement for infant baptism and thus cannot in good conscience say that they agree entirely with what is taught on that point, should they therefore be denied participation in the body of Christ? Did Jesus do such? Would we deny christians from ORC, or from NRC, or from Baptist or Pentacostal, or Alliance churches to participate in this remembrance of the body of Christ? even though they have not entered the hallowed "gateway"? If the crc finds a way to distinguish between profession of faith, and a membership committment, then perhaps you might have a point. The two are not the same.