I am going to respond to you Jim, but it will only sound more contentious to you, probably. I hope not. But I feely unduly attacked by you calling me "contentious". I wish you would debate more of the issue at hand rather than talk about process and things like that.
"Needlessy contentious"
1. all the issues I bring forth are legimate issues and can be debated. I have not personally attacked anyone and have been respectful of all positions.
2. Just because what I bring up may be controversial doesn't mean the ideas shouldn't be discussed. This is the purpose of such blogs to discuss. Yeah, I raise tough questions, but that again is the purpose of such blogs.
"alienated readers"
1. What could cause someone to be alienated? My comments are no different in essence as what Chad and John post. If people don't like discussing hot topics or if my conclusions don't match up with what they beleive of course they won't read. I am alieated by many blogs other people write, but I don't complain. I respect other positions no matter what they are. It seems that just because people don't like what I write all of sudden I become contentious.
"But your responses clearly show that either you don't understand the rigours and processes of denominational
and committee work or you don't consider such subtle"
1. I appreciate the hard work invovled. I just didn't appreciate the outcome of the work of the first versions.
2. I have been on an advisory committee and worked with people who have come up wirth reports. I understand the work and debate and hair splitting issues.
3. I don't know see how writing about the importance of "fully agree" and "defend" and how the first versions of the CO missed this and what a danger that posed doesn't appreciate the work of the committee. What people are concerned about was the outcome. And that is what I am calling attention to.
"Thus what happened at Synod this year was simply not a major revision"
1. I don't want to repeat here. But the addition of "fully agree" and "defend" do constitute a major change. Becuase without that language we in essence open ourselves up to not having doctrinal standards. As Chad says, the advisosry committee took the teeth from the old and put it in the new.
2. again, I assert the only reason why the vote was unanimous was because of the addition of the langauge "fully agree." Othwise, the debate likely would have raged on like in 2011.
"whose doctrines fully agree with the Word of God" is by nomeans close to saying that the particular articulations of those doctrines in the confessions themselves fully agree with that Word."
1. Is this the loophole everybody wanted? I can beleive in election b/c the BC mentions it, but I will really believe in the Arminian idea of election? However, it doens't hold up.
2. the way a doctrine is articluated is a doctrine! It is to say the same thing! Your comment doesn't make sense to me.
great comments Rob. I greatly appreciate your passion for a confessional foundatoin for churches.
I have a question for you. Where do you see that the CO allows for people to be 3 point calvinsts and things like that?
to me, the language of "fully agree with God's Word" takes care of that. Jim seems to find a loop hole in that only the doctrines agree with God's word but not the articulation of those doctrines. However, an articulation of a doctrine is a doctrine, isn't it?
I hope this makes sense. I am trying to be concise. very concise.
Bev, you raise some good questions. And I have learned a lot from the discussions.
You ask where in Calvin's Institutes does he talk about cessationism. I have found his remarks on this subject in his commentaries. Read his commentaries on 1 Cor 12-14 (prophecy and tongues) and James 5 (healing). I just read it on James 5 a few weeks ago in preparation for a sermon.
Also, the idea that cessationism teaches God doesn't speak to us any more today is a misunderstanding. This position teaches God does speak to us today in his living Word. What was written in the Bible many years ago still applies to us today. Through the preaching of the Word explained and applied to us God speaks.
The topic is confessions in this thread. And this does relate to the confessions. Those who are more Charismatic, i could use some help more in understanding how you look at our confessions in light of the Charismatic teachings.
For example, Belgic Confession 5 says that only the book recognized as canonical can be used for the regulating, founding, and establishing our faith. And Belgic Confession 7 says that the Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely.
So if our confessions keep us within boundaries as we have been discussing, how can a Charismatic view of "prophecy" fit within our confessional basis? doesn't the Charistmatic view of God speaking in individual situations through dreams, visions, internal thoughts or whatnot, contradict BC 7? Why do we need "other ways" of speaking if his will is perfectly contained in the Bible?
I am curious to learn more about the position I have not had much interaction with. So thanks for discussing.
This article was awesome. I hope this gets in the hands of congregation members. I have talked to many pastors who have had times of weeping because all they hear is criticism. Some pastors go through long spells of no appreciation shown. Unfortuantely, many pators are "expendable" to them--if they don't like somethign, they can be run out of town and treated like garbage.
Here are some stats that Thabiti Anyabwile cites from The Schaeffer Institute in an article he writes called "Don't Make Your Pastor a Statistic." http://www.9marks.org/blog/dont-make-your-pastor-statistic I hope the stats are better for our denomination.
Health and Well-Being
70% of pastors constantly fight depression.
50% of pastors feel so discouraged that they would leave the ministry if they could, but have no other way of making a living.
Marriage and Family
80% believe pastoral ministry has negatively affected their families.
80% of spouses feel the pastor is overworked.
80% spouses feel left out and under-appreciated by church members.
Church Relationships
70% do not have someone they consider a close friend
Longevity
50% of the ministers starting out will not last 5 years.
1 out of every 10 ministers will actually retire as a minister in some form
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
I am disapointed that you have singled me out, when ohters have said pretty the much the same things.
My full response is at the bottom.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
I am going to respond to you Jim, but it will only sound more contentious to you, probably. I hope not. But I feely unduly attacked by you calling me "contentious". I wish you would debate more of the issue at hand rather than talk about process and things like that.
"Needlessy contentious"
1. all the issues I bring forth are legimate issues and can be debated. I have not personally attacked anyone and have been respectful of all positions.
2. Just because what I bring up may be controversial doesn't mean the ideas shouldn't be discussed. This is the purpose of such blogs to discuss. Yeah, I raise tough questions, but that again is the purpose of such blogs.
"alienated readers"
1. What could cause someone to be alienated? My comments are no different in essence as what Chad and John post. If people don't like discussing hot topics or if my conclusions don't match up with what they beleive of course they won't read. I am alieated by many blogs other people write, but I don't complain. I respect other positions no matter what they are. It seems that just because people don't like what I write all of sudden I become contentious.
"But your responses clearly show that either you don't understand the rigours and processes of denominational
and committee work or you don't consider such subtle"
1. I appreciate the hard work invovled. I just didn't appreciate the outcome of the work of the first versions.
2. I have been on an advisory committee and worked with people who have come up wirth reports. I understand the work and debate and hair splitting issues.
3. I don't know see how writing about the importance of "fully agree" and "defend" and how the first versions of the CO missed this and what a danger that posed doesn't appreciate the work of the committee. What people are concerned about was the outcome. And that is what I am calling attention to.
"Thus what happened at Synod this year was simply not a major revision"
1. I don't want to repeat here. But the addition of "fully agree" and "defend" do constitute a major change. Becuase without that language we in essence open ourselves up to not having doctrinal standards. As Chad says, the advisosry committee took the teeth from the old and put it in the new.
2. again, I assert the only reason why the vote was unanimous was because of the addition of the langauge "fully agree." Othwise, the debate likely would have raged on like in 2011.
"whose doctrines fully agree with the Word of God" is by nomeans close to saying that the particular articulations of those doctrines in the confessions themselves fully agree with that Word."
1. Is this the loophole everybody wanted? I can beleive in election b/c the BC mentions it, but I will really believe in the Arminian idea of election? However, it doens't hold up.
2. the way a doctrine is articluated is a doctrine! It is to say the same thing! Your comment doesn't make sense to me.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
great comments Rob. I greatly appreciate your passion for a confessional foundatoin for churches.
I have a question for you. Where do you see that the CO allows for people to be 3 point calvinsts and things like that?
to me, the language of "fully agree with God's Word" takes care of that. Jim seems to find a loop hole in that only the doctrines agree with God's word but not the articulation of those doctrines. However, an articulation of a doctrine is a doctrine, isn't it?
I hope this makes sense. I am trying to be concise. very concise.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Bev, you raise some good questions. And I have learned a lot from the discussions.
You ask where in Calvin's Institutes does he talk about cessationism. I have found his remarks on this subject in his commentaries. Read his commentaries on 1 Cor 12-14 (prophecy and tongues) and James 5 (healing). I just read it on James 5 a few weeks ago in preparation for a sermon.
Also, the idea that cessationism teaches God doesn't speak to us any more today is a misunderstanding. This position teaches God does speak to us today in his living Word. What was written in the Bible many years ago still applies to us today. Through the preaching of the Word explained and applied to us God speaks.
The topic is confessions in this thread. And this does relate to the confessions. Those who are more Charismatic, i could use some help more in understanding how you look at our confessions in light of the Charismatic teachings.
For example, Belgic Confession 5 says that only the book recognized as canonical can be used for the regulating, founding, and establishing our faith. And Belgic Confession 7 says that the Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely.
So if our confessions keep us within boundaries as we have been discussing, how can a Charismatic view of "prophecy" fit within our confessional basis? doesn't the Charistmatic view of God speaking in individual situations through dreams, visions, internal thoughts or whatnot, contradict BC 7? Why do we need "other ways" of speaking if his will is perfectly contained in the Bible?
I am curious to learn more about the position I have not had much interaction with. So thanks for discussing.
Posted in: It Doesn't Have to be a Big Thing to be a Big Deal
This article was awesome. I hope this gets in the hands of congregation members. I have talked to many pastors who have had times of weeping because all they hear is criticism. Some pastors go through long spells of no appreciation shown. Unfortuantely, many pators are "expendable" to them--if they don't like somethign, they can be run out of town and treated like garbage.
Here are some stats that Thabiti Anyabwile cites from The Schaeffer Institute in an article he writes called "Don't Make Your Pastor a Statistic." http://www.9marks.org/blog/dont-make-your-pastor-statistic I hope the stats are better for our denomination.
Health and Well-Being
they could, but have no other way of making a living.
Marriage and Family
Church Relationships
Longevity