Thanks Richard for your input. On a website like this we sure get a variety of opinions, and it’s good to hear your opinion, as well. But I think your reasoning falls short in a couple of places. One, your comment that has Paul saying slavery is wrong because Paul considers Onesimus as a brother and should be treated graciously rather than as he deserves as a runaway slave doesn’t follow sound reasoning. Paul doesn’t ask Philemon to release Onesimus from his slavery or suggest that slavery is wrong, but only to treat him beyond that which he deserves because he has been so useful to Paul. Paul doesn’t say that all slaves should be treated as brothers, only Onesimus. Nor is Paul condemning the institution of slavery. Paul never criticizes the institution of slavery in the Old Testament as practiced by the Jews, or the practice within his own Roman culture. In fact, Paul likens Christianity to the institution of slavery, only a willing slavery, where the slave lives in willing obedience to his owner and master. If Paul considered slavery as wrong, I doubt that he would use the practice of slavery as a model for the Christian’s life. I think you are pushing way beyond what Paul had in his mind. You are imposing your own convictions on him.
As to your thoughts about the Bible’s message in regard to homosexuality and its clarity, I think you may be on a slippery slope. Although there appears to be a clear condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1, as well as in other passages (Old Testament), what is not clear at all is if Paul is talking about homosexuality across the board. It’s obvious he is talking about those who suppress and deny God’s divine nature. He is talking about those who refuse to honor and give thanks to him. He is talking about those who worship man-made idols instead of the God of heaven and earth. Even when the Old Testament criticizes homosexuals it is those who demonstrate a perverted practice from within a heathen religious culture. Paul or the Old Testament isn’t condemning homosexuals who claim a commitment to Christ and to the faith of the Bible and who want to be useful to God in his present kingdom. So it seems likely that Paul isn’t criticizing all homosexuals, but only those who pervert human sexuality. Paul could have as easily condemned those who pervert heterosexual sexual relationships. And if he did, such condemnation would not include a normal heterosexual sexual relationship within the bonds of marriage, especially a Christian marriage. So what you, Richard, claim to be clear is not at all clear to many who read the same Bible verses as you read. What is clear, is that Paul is condemning the hatred of God by the heathen, but at the same time promises eternal life to those who persevere in doing good and by such seek honor, glory and eternal life. That’s sounds like any Christian homosexual who loves the Lord and seeks to honor God through a chaste life or through marital commitment in a life long relationship of love.
Such scrutiny of Scripture has nothing to do with the undermining of Scriptural authority but rather a seeking for God’s message of salvation for those who have been chosen by God. If there is uncertainty (not a holy uncertainty) it is the uncertainty planted by those who misrepresent God’s intentions and tend to be exclusionary of those different from themselves.
Thanks Al (Mulder) for your take on uncertainty or looking into a glass darkly... It’s obvious that Bible believing Christians do not hear the Spirit saying the same thing on much of anything, Hence the thousands of different Christian denominations, all claiming the Bible as their authority but yet believing different things on every topic coming out of Scripture. Do we call this a Spirit led church?
Hey Rob, sounds like you have a good and valid concern. I’ll try to answer as I understand the concern. You asked if the promises implied in infant baptism apply only if infant baptism is performed. Of course not. Just as the promises of believer’s baptism don’t impart anything (a grace) to the believer, so also with infant baptism. To both, they are just an outward sign, a symbol. So you don’t have to get hung up on that.
You ask why we don’t see examples of infant baptism in the New Testament. Remember, in the New Testament period, Christianity was a new and developing religion. Even though Christianity piggy backed on Judaism, it didn’t accept all the principles of Judaism (as Jesus made clear), and also were developing new principles of their own (such as the Trinity). Baptism was one of these developing areas. The advent of churches as we know them today took a very long time to develop. Church took place in homes, involving very small congregations (if you could even call them that). With time, individuals, husbands and wives, started bringing their families to church, a whole new dimension to church.
The early church began to see their church communities take on a broader perspective, of including children and families. They no longer thought of the church as made up of only believers, but of believers and their children. How could they include children in the believing community? So they began to see children as belonging (not in sense of possessing salvation) to the church, as their very own and having a great responsibility to train them up in the Christian faith. You may have noticed in many Christian Reformed Churches, the minister will walk down the aisle of the church with the newly baptized baby in his arms, telling the congregation that this child is now a member of the covenant community. And as such the congregation has a tremendous responsibility for the training of this child. And then the congregation affirms their responsibility to this family. Baptism is a corporate thing, a covenant community thing.
This perspective was also seen in the Jewish faith, where the children of the Jewish community received circumcision as a sign of being a Jew, a sign of belonging. Of course our children still have to come to faith, but with the faith community’s encouragement and training, they have a leg up. So baptism is not just about the child, but also about the faith community. I think it is affirming to the parents to know that there is a whole community who promise their love and support in the daunting task that lies ahead.
Thanks, John, for clearing up what it means to be a true follower of Jesus. The problem, though, is that I’ve never known a true follower of Jesus as you have described him/her. Maybe you should read over your description of a true follower yourself. Have you ever known someone who fit the description that you have given? Do you even fit that description? So how are these other so called (false) followers in any worse shape than those who don’t stand up to the standard that you describe as true? If you can’t cut the mustard of being a true follower (by your standard) then you are no better off than these others.
You say in your description of a true follower that they, “embrace the cross and the death to the old nature; they refuse to tolerate the seductive compromise of the surrounding culture of Rome...” How many true followers of Jesus do you know who doesn’t drive a car, own a television or radio, live in a decent home, wear the latest clothing styles or buy their clothes at Walmart or other popular clothing stores, and give more than 10% of their earnings to the church? I can’t think of any who have not compromised with our culture. You may be the first or only one. And if as you suggest, a true follower of Jesus embraces the cross and the death to the old nature, I don’t know anyone who does not daily give into the old nature. In the fact that all people are miserable failures (by the description that you give of a follower), then I guess there are no true followers of Jesus.
I think that you need to rethink what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
Thanks Jasmine. I remember one of my seminary professors telling us, “beware of who greets you at the train station.” In other words beware of those who want to befriend you because they often have an agenda. They might be the nicest people and the kind of persons that you would want to befriend, but they have a history with the church that you don’t have. They see the needs of the church differently than you might see them. So when you aren’t altogether onboard with their agenda, there can be a falling away and hurt feelings. And, as people can be people, you as the pastor can be painted as unsympathetic or worse. Another possibility in the pastor/member relationship is that you, as pastor, are expected to hold confidences but it doesn’t always work that way when the tables are turned. It’s often a feather in the cap of a member to be able to say, the pastor told me such and such, or to say, the pastor did/does this or that. Choose your friends carefully because you don’t always know who you can trust, and you will be in your position as pastor for a long time.
Thing is Staci, infant baptism doesn’t really fit into the overall Baptist theology. Baptist theology and Reformed theology are very different at many points. A Baptist theologian works hard to build or put together an altogether consistent Biblical theology in which the whole package is consistent throughout. So to drop infant baptism (the Reformed practice) into that Baptist perspective will make the picture inconsistent. The same will be true if someone tries to drop infant dedication (the Baptist practice) into the Reformed theological perspective. Just as infant baptism isn’t consistent with a Baptist theological view, nor is infant dedication consistent with the Reformed theological view. That is why neither Baptists nor Reformed are quick to mix their theologies. One inconsistency leads to another and then to another and so on.
Hi Staci. You ask a good question. And of course, the answer varies from person to person. Many people are not overly vested in the theology of their particular denomination. So changing from a Reformed denomination to a Baptist can easily feel rather refreshing, especially seeing that Baptists groups tend to be more experiencial in their faith expression. Faith within Baptists groups tend to be more exciting (some would say more uplifting). Sometimes Reformed folk long for a more experiential faith that they see in Baptists or Pentecostals. So coming from a Reformed persuasion, a person might like the idea that baptism testifies to my experience of faith, rather than the Reformed idea of baptism testifying to God’s leading and choosing in salvation. The Reformed expression of faith and salvation tends to be more “head” focused (recognizing what God has done and then being grateful), whereas the Baptist tend to be more “heart” focused (enjoying the experience of salvation). Seeing as babies cannot (not possible) to have that faith experience, the Baptists refuse baptism for children and opt for dedication. The Reformed folk, acknowledge a covenantal perspective (Old Testament carried through to the New) in which God envelopes our children within the family of believers and therefore give the covenant sign (Baptism in the New, Circumcision in the Old) to believers and their children (even though the children are not believers at that point). As part of the Christian family, the (Reformed) church takes seriously its obligation to train up their children in the Christian faith and pray for their salvation.
Depending on the direction of migration, whether from a Baptist to a Reformed church, or from a Reformed to a Baptist church, and also depending on how important the finer points of theology are to such a person, the move can either be quite smooth and easy or, on the other hand, can be quite difficult.
For an interesting source that explains the differences in the way Reformed and Baptist churches look at salvation, you might want to consult “The Canons of Dort,” in the back of the CRC hymnal. It presents the Reformed (Calvinistic) view, but also criticizes the Arminian (Baptist) view. Most Christians, it would seem, prefer the Baptist view over the Reformed. But the bottom line is, which is more Biblical? That might be where the Reformed have the edge.
I hope this is helpful, and of course this is my take on the topic. Wishing you well. Sorry for the length.
It’s interesting to observe how people celebrate Easter, as well as Christmas. I don’t think it is necessary to be offended by people who make Easter into a holiday of their own making. For many, Easter is no more than a nice opportunity for family get-togethers and an opportunity to do something special for the children and grandchildren. Chocolate Easter bunnies are still standard Easter fare for many Americans and Canadians. Even the U.S. president has a wonderful Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn.
For many North Americans, Easter is not a religious day of remembrance. The Christian message carries no meaning for them. So why would they be inclined to celebrate it as such, any more than we would be inclined to celebrate Muslim or Jewish holidays according to their tradition. North American culture is increasingly becoming multi cultural and multi religious. The fact that North American businesses and work places give their employees off on these dates does not necessitate how these holidays should be spent. So for increasing numbers of people, these holy days are becoming holidays, a time to enjoy family and friends.
I’ve heard it said that the date for Christmas was originally a pagan holiday that Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on. So today we see, increasingly, our culture celebrating their own celebration on the date we celebrate the birth of Jesus on. Perhaps it’s best if we just all get along together without taking offense.
Thanks Danielle. Interesting question. “How do we stay in dialogue with people who strongly disagree with us on an issue we are passionate about, especially when that issue affects the lives of people in very tangible ways?” I wonder, what is the purpose for such dialogue? The question itself begs of the notion that we are right (an issue we are passionate about) and those responding are wrong. Is the purpose of such dialog to convince those dialog that they are wrong? Or is there a possibility that you might possibly change your position after such dialog? I’m guessing, probably not.
Such dialog, if not open to the possibility of changing opinions in either direction, in reality only serves to confirm those dialoguing in their own positions. I think, quite possibly, that would be the result of such dialog for the “Do Justice” blog. And that’s not all bad. I enjoy such blogging for that very reason, that most often I come away confirmed in my own previous position because I’ve thought the issue through or have dug deeper into the issue.
Thanks, Doug, for your comment. Turning on the “conversation function” is the right start.
Thanks Angelyn for posting this article. Such an article helps to put global warming into perspective. It does make the dangers of global warming tangible. Of course, making the shift away from such warming is a terribly expensive project, probably incalculable in dollars and cents (billions upon billions of dollars on national and international economies). I wonder if such a tremendous project could be tempered by moving populations away from the southern regions of Bangladesh or portions of Rhode Island or the Keys? Why do we wait until it is already too late to take such action?
Thanks Doug for the further info. It’s quite obvious I know little about this topic. I do believe that global warming and the response from world governments will be tremendously expensive. This will no doubt put a drain on the economies of our globe, but especially on the U.S. economy as they are often asked to carry more than their fair share as a world leader. So if there are other mitigating factors and less expensive means that would help resolve the problem such as in Bangladesh, why not pursue those first? If I hear Doug correctly, it sounds as if there could be a problem of misdiagnosis in Bangladesh, so perhaps other avenues could be more effective in resolving the problems there. That’s not to say there isn’t a problem with global warming and that we have a responsibility in that regard. But what lengths do we go to, and at what expense? There are many other issues to be concerned with at the same time. We can’t put all our eggs in one basket. Thanks Doug, for the input.
Thanks, Bonnie, for your post Christmas advent reflection. You suggest being hopeful as we wait for Christ to come in all his fullness. We wait for the “not yet” even as we have experienced the “already.” I hand it to you, Bonnie, that you have a very positive attitude toward one of the great difficulties and frustrations of the Christian faith, the expectant waiting for Christ’s return.
For the skeptic, he/she would call your expectant waiting unreasonable, beyond the scope of rational thinking. When do you finally give up and start realizing maybe this expectation is mere wishful thinking?
The apostle Paul thought the return of Christ would occur during his lifetime. The apostle John, while in exile on the island of Patmos, was awaiting the apocalypse to happen at any time and that he would see it. The Christian crusaders thought they were carrying out the final battle of Armageddon against the forces of evil in the 12th and 13th centuries. During the time of the Reformation, many Christians thought the Roman Catholic pope was the anti-Christ and that the end of time was about to take place. There were those in the 1960's who thought John Kennedy was the anti-Christ and that we were in the end times. Christian radio host Harold Camping of Family Radio predicted the return of Christ for2011, but it didn’t happen either. That is just the tip of the iceberg of those who thought the return of Christ should have already happened. They too, like you, were waiting for the “not yet” of Christ’s kingdom, but were found to be disillusioned. Other Christians have given up altogether on Christ’s actual return and have spiritualized the thoughts and teachings of a future kingdom. The skeptic stands by on the side line and suggests that such unfulfilled wishful thinking makes Christianity suspect.
But you, Bonnie, are staying the course, expectantly hanging on to your hope for Christ’s return. So I laud you and hope you are right in your expectation. Hang in there.
Thanks John for an interesting article that addresses the issue of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.
Is the Bible as authoritative as Kruger or you make it out to be? The only people who recognize the authority of the Bible are Christians, and by their commitment it is doubtful if many of them really recognize its authority either. You must recognize that there are a multitude of religions and sects that have their own sources of authority, just like Christians. For instance Muslims believe the Koran was given to Mohamad by God through the angel Gabriel. Therefore the Koran is the absolute authoritative word of God. Like Christians, Muslims believed that their Scriptures are absolutely inspired of God and are without error. Mormons, likewise, believe the book of Mormon (initially the twelve golden plates) was given to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni, and therefore is also the inspired word of God and capable of giving correct interpretation to the Bible. All religions have their so-called inspired and authoritative Scriptures that represent ultimate authority.
And yet we, as Christians, discount the authority and validity of their Bibles, just as the adherents of other religions discount the authority of our Bible. So which Scriptures are really authoritative or are any? When reading a history book of recorded events, historians may record the actual existence of Jesus. But history books do not record his miraculous birth and ascent from heaven to earth, nor do they record his miraculous resurrection from the dead and ascent back into heaven as historical fact. Nor do historians record any of the miracles of other religions as historical fact. Such miracles, whether found in the Bible, Koran, the book of Mormon or any other Scriptures are considered “faith knowledge” and not historical fact. They are subjective truth rather than objective truth or empirical truth. It is only Christians who recognize the Bible as carrying any authority. What are the grounds by which we discount other religions and their authoritative Scriptures? It’s the same grounds by which they discount the Bible. So what makes Kruger or any Christian think that only the Bible is authoritative?
The person who is not a Christian looks at the account of Jesus in the Bible as an embellished account of history, much in the same way that Santa Claus is an embellished account of Saint Nicolas. The same could be said of the key characters found in the Scriptures of other religions, an embellishment of a historical character (such as Mohamad) or historical facts. So when so few people, worldwide, recognize the Bible’s authority, over the authority of their own religions (or no religion) why would anyone acknowledge Kruger’s comment in regard to the Bible’s authority?
Beyond all this, recognize that there are thousands of Christian denominations today. All may claim the authority of the Bible but all interpret it differently, even on key issues. When the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit will lead his church in all truth, it makes me wonder what has happened to the Spirit’s leading. When churches and individuals can make the Bible say almost anything they want it to say, who is to say who has the final and authoritative word on any issue?
Posted in: Homosexuality and Holy Uncertainty
Thanks Richard for your input. On a website like this we sure get a variety of opinions, and it’s good to hear your opinion, as well. But I think your reasoning falls short in a couple of places. One, your comment that has Paul saying slavery is wrong because Paul considers Onesimus as a brother and should be treated graciously rather than as he deserves as a runaway slave doesn’t follow sound reasoning. Paul doesn’t ask Philemon to release Onesimus from his slavery or suggest that slavery is wrong, but only to treat him beyond that which he deserves because he has been so useful to Paul. Paul doesn’t say that all slaves should be treated as brothers, only Onesimus. Nor is Paul condemning the institution of slavery. Paul never criticizes the institution of slavery in the Old Testament as practiced by the Jews, or the practice within his own Roman culture. In fact, Paul likens Christianity to the institution of slavery, only a willing slavery, where the slave lives in willing obedience to his owner and master. If Paul considered slavery as wrong, I doubt that he would use the practice of slavery as a model for the Christian’s life. I think you are pushing way beyond what Paul had in his mind. You are imposing your own convictions on him.
As to your thoughts about the Bible’s message in regard to homosexuality and its clarity, I think you may be on a slippery slope. Although there appears to be a clear condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1, as well as in other passages (Old Testament), what is not clear at all is if Paul is talking about homosexuality across the board. It’s obvious he is talking about those who suppress and deny God’s divine nature. He is talking about those who refuse to honor and give thanks to him. He is talking about those who worship man-made idols instead of the God of heaven and earth. Even when the Old Testament criticizes homosexuals it is those who demonstrate a perverted practice from within a heathen religious culture. Paul or the Old Testament isn’t condemning homosexuals who claim a commitment to Christ and to the faith of the Bible and who want to be useful to God in his present kingdom. So it seems likely that Paul isn’t criticizing all homosexuals, but only those who pervert human sexuality. Paul could have as easily condemned those who pervert heterosexual sexual relationships. And if he did, such condemnation would not include a normal heterosexual sexual relationship within the bonds of marriage, especially a Christian marriage. So what you, Richard, claim to be clear is not at all clear to many who read the same Bible verses as you read. What is clear, is that Paul is condemning the hatred of God by the heathen, but at the same time promises eternal life to those who persevere in doing good and by such seek honor, glory and eternal life. That’s sounds like any Christian homosexual who loves the Lord and seeks to honor God through a chaste life or through marital commitment in a life long relationship of love.
Such scrutiny of Scripture has nothing to do with the undermining of Scriptural authority but rather a seeking for God’s message of salvation for those who have been chosen by God. If there is uncertainty (not a holy uncertainty) it is the uncertainty planted by those who misrepresent God’s intentions and tend to be exclusionary of those different from themselves.
Thanks Al (Mulder) for your take on uncertainty or looking into a glass darkly... It’s obvious that Bible believing Christians do not hear the Spirit saying the same thing on much of anything, Hence the thousands of different Christian denominations, all claiming the Bible as their authority but yet believing different things on every topic coming out of Scripture. Do we call this a Spirit led church?
Posted in: Infant Baptism or Dedication: What Should We Consider?
Hey Rob, sounds like you have a good and valid concern. I’ll try to answer as I understand the concern. You asked if the promises implied in infant baptism apply only if infant baptism is performed. Of course not. Just as the promises of believer’s baptism don’t impart anything (a grace) to the believer, so also with infant baptism. To both, they are just an outward sign, a symbol. So you don’t have to get hung up on that.
You ask why we don’t see examples of infant baptism in the New Testament. Remember, in the New Testament period, Christianity was a new and developing religion. Even though Christianity piggy backed on Judaism, it didn’t accept all the principles of Judaism (as Jesus made clear), and also were developing new principles of their own (such as the Trinity). Baptism was one of these developing areas. The advent of churches as we know them today took a very long time to develop. Church took place in homes, involving very small congregations (if you could even call them that). With time, individuals, husbands and wives, started bringing their families to church, a whole new dimension to church.
The early church began to see their church communities take on a broader perspective, of including children and families. They no longer thought of the church as made up of only believers, but of believers and their children. How could they include children in the believing community? So they began to see children as belonging (not in sense of possessing salvation) to the church, as their very own and having a great responsibility to train them up in the Christian faith. You may have noticed in many Christian Reformed Churches, the minister will walk down the aisle of the church with the newly baptized baby in his arms, telling the congregation that this child is now a member of the covenant community. And as such the congregation has a tremendous responsibility for the training of this child. And then the congregation affirms their responsibility to this family. Baptism is a corporate thing, a covenant community thing.
This perspective was also seen in the Jewish faith, where the children of the Jewish community received circumcision as a sign of being a Jew, a sign of belonging. Of course our children still have to come to faith, but with the faith community’s encouragement and training, they have a leg up. So baptism is not just about the child, but also about the faith community. I think it is affirming to the parents to know that there is a whole community who promise their love and support in the daunting task that lies ahead.
Posted in: Will the "Followers of Jesus" Please Stand Up?
Thanks, John, for clearing up what it means to be a true follower of Jesus. The problem, though, is that I’ve never known a true follower of Jesus as you have described him/her. Maybe you should read over your description of a true follower yourself. Have you ever known someone who fit the description that you have given? Do you even fit that description? So how are these other so called (false) followers in any worse shape than those who don’t stand up to the standard that you describe as true? If you can’t cut the mustard of being a true follower (by your standard) then you are no better off than these others.
You say in your description of a true follower that they, “embrace the cross and the death to the old nature; they refuse to tolerate the seductive compromise of the surrounding culture of Rome...” How many true followers of Jesus do you know who doesn’t drive a car, own a television or radio, live in a decent home, wear the latest clothing styles or buy their clothes at Walmart or other popular clothing stores, and give more than 10% of their earnings to the church? I can’t think of any who have not compromised with our culture. You may be the first or only one. And if as you suggest, a true follower of Jesus embraces the cross and the death to the old nature, I don’t know anyone who does not daily give into the old nature. In the fact that all people are miserable failures (by the description that you give of a follower), then I guess there are no true followers of Jesus.
I think that you need to rethink what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
Posted in: Pastor as Friend?
Thanks Jasmine. I remember one of my seminary professors telling us, “beware of who greets you at the train station.” In other words beware of those who want to befriend you because they often have an agenda. They might be the nicest people and the kind of persons that you would want to befriend, but they have a history with the church that you don’t have. They see the needs of the church differently than you might see them. So when you aren’t altogether onboard with their agenda, there can be a falling away and hurt feelings. And, as people can be people, you as the pastor can be painted as unsympathetic or worse. Another possibility in the pastor/member relationship is that you, as pastor, are expected to hold confidences but it doesn’t always work that way when the tables are turned. It’s often a feather in the cap of a member to be able to say, the pastor told me such and such, or to say, the pastor did/does this or that. Choose your friends carefully because you don’t always know who you can trust, and you will be in your position as pastor for a long time.
Posted in: Infant Baptism or Dedication: What Should We Consider?
Thing is Staci, infant baptism doesn’t really fit into the overall Baptist theology. Baptist theology and Reformed theology are very different at many points. A Baptist theologian works hard to build or put together an altogether consistent Biblical theology in which the whole package is consistent throughout. So to drop infant baptism (the Reformed practice) into that Baptist perspective will make the picture inconsistent. The same will be true if someone tries to drop infant dedication (the Baptist practice) into the Reformed theological perspective. Just as infant baptism isn’t consistent with a Baptist theological view, nor is infant dedication consistent with the Reformed theological view. That is why neither Baptists nor Reformed are quick to mix their theologies. One inconsistency leads to another and then to another and so on.
Posted in: Infant Baptism or Dedication: What Should We Consider?
Hi Staci. You ask a good question. And of course, the answer varies from person to person. Many people are not overly vested in the theology of their particular denomination. So changing from a Reformed denomination to a Baptist can easily feel rather refreshing, especially seeing that Baptists groups tend to be more experiencial in their faith expression. Faith within Baptists groups tend to be more exciting (some would say more uplifting). Sometimes Reformed folk long for a more experiential faith that they see in Baptists or Pentecostals. So coming from a Reformed persuasion, a person might like the idea that baptism testifies to my experience of faith, rather than the Reformed idea of baptism testifying to God’s leading and choosing in salvation. The Reformed expression of faith and salvation tends to be more “head” focused (recognizing what God has done and then being grateful), whereas the Baptist tend to be more “heart” focused (enjoying the experience of salvation). Seeing as babies cannot (not possible) to have that faith experience, the Baptists refuse baptism for children and opt for dedication. The Reformed folk, acknowledge a covenantal perspective (Old Testament carried through to the New) in which God envelopes our children within the family of believers and therefore give the covenant sign (Baptism in the New, Circumcision in the Old) to believers and their children (even though the children are not believers at that point). As part of the Christian family, the (Reformed) church takes seriously its obligation to train up their children in the Christian faith and pray for their salvation.
Depending on the direction of migration, whether from a Baptist to a Reformed church, or from a Reformed to a Baptist church, and also depending on how important the finer points of theology are to such a person, the move can either be quite smooth and easy or, on the other hand, can be quite difficult.
For an interesting source that explains the differences in the way Reformed and Baptist churches look at salvation, you might want to consult “The Canons of Dort,” in the back of the CRC hymnal. It presents the Reformed (Calvinistic) view, but also criticizes the Arminian (Baptist) view. Most Christians, it would seem, prefer the Baptist view over the Reformed. But the bottom line is, which is more Biblical? That might be where the Reformed have the edge.
I hope this is helpful, and of course this is my take on the topic. Wishing you well. Sorry for the length.
Posted in: Celebrating Easter: Chocolate Bunny Required?
It’s interesting to observe how people celebrate Easter, as well as Christmas. I don’t think it is necessary to be offended by people who make Easter into a holiday of their own making. For many, Easter is no more than a nice opportunity for family get-togethers and an opportunity to do something special for the children and grandchildren. Chocolate Easter bunnies are still standard Easter fare for many Americans and Canadians. Even the U.S. president has a wonderful Easter egg hunt on the White House lawn.
For many North Americans, Easter is not a religious day of remembrance. The Christian message carries no meaning for them. So why would they be inclined to celebrate it as such, any more than we would be inclined to celebrate Muslim or Jewish holidays according to their tradition. North American culture is increasingly becoming multi cultural and multi religious. The fact that North American businesses and work places give their employees off on these dates does not necessitate how these holidays should be spent. So for increasing numbers of people, these holy days are becoming holidays, a time to enjoy family and friends.
I’ve heard it said that the date for Christmas was originally a pagan holiday that Christians chose to celebrate the birth of Jesus on. So today we see, increasingly, our culture celebrating their own celebration on the date we celebrate the birth of Jesus on. Perhaps it’s best if we just all get along together without taking offense.
Posted in: Series: How to Stay in Conversation With the “Other Side”
Thanks Danielle. Interesting question. “How do we stay in dialogue with people who strongly disagree with us on an issue we are passionate about, especially when that issue affects the lives of people in very tangible ways?” I wonder, what is the purpose for such dialogue? The question itself begs of the notion that we are right (an issue we are passionate about) and those responding are wrong. Is the purpose of such dialog to convince those dialog that they are wrong? Or is there a possibility that you might possibly change your position after such dialog? I’m guessing, probably not.
Such dialog, if not open to the possibility of changing opinions in either direction, in reality only serves to confirm those dialoguing in their own positions. I think, quite possibly, that would be the result of such dialog for the “Do Justice” blog. And that’s not all bad. I enjoy such blogging for that very reason, that most often I come away confirmed in my own previous position because I’ve thought the issue through or have dug deeper into the issue.
Thanks, Doug, for your comment. Turning on the “conversation function” is the right start.
Posted in: Time to Take Action: Post-COP21
Thanks Angelyn for posting this article. Such an article helps to put global warming into perspective. It does make the dangers of global warming tangible. Of course, making the shift away from such warming is a terribly expensive project, probably incalculable in dollars and cents (billions upon billions of dollars on national and international economies). I wonder if such a tremendous project could be tempered by moving populations away from the southern regions of Bangladesh or portions of Rhode Island or the Keys? Why do we wait until it is already too late to take such action?
Posted in: Time to Take Action: Post-COP21
Thanks Doug for the further info. It’s quite obvious I know little about this topic. I do believe that global warming and the response from world governments will be tremendously expensive. This will no doubt put a drain on the economies of our globe, but especially on the U.S. economy as they are often asked to carry more than their fair share as a world leader. So if there are other mitigating factors and less expensive means that would help resolve the problem such as in Bangladesh, why not pursue those first? If I hear Doug correctly, it sounds as if there could be a problem of misdiagnosis in Bangladesh, so perhaps other avenues could be more effective in resolving the problems there. That’s not to say there isn’t a problem with global warming and that we have a responsibility in that regard. But what lengths do we go to, and at what expense? There are many other issues to be concerned with at the same time. We can’t put all our eggs in one basket. Thanks Doug, for the input.
Posted in: A Post-Christmas Advent Reflection
Thanks, Bonnie, for your post Christmas advent reflection. You suggest being hopeful as we wait for Christ to come in all his fullness. We wait for the “not yet” even as we have experienced the “already.” I hand it to you, Bonnie, that you have a very positive attitude toward one of the great difficulties and frustrations of the Christian faith, the expectant waiting for Christ’s return.
For the skeptic, he/she would call your expectant waiting unreasonable, beyond the scope of rational thinking. When do you finally give up and start realizing maybe this expectation is mere wishful thinking?
The apostle Paul thought the return of Christ would occur during his lifetime. The apostle John, while in exile on the island of Patmos, was awaiting the apocalypse to happen at any time and that he would see it. The Christian crusaders thought they were carrying out the final battle of Armageddon against the forces of evil in the 12th and 13th centuries. During the time of the Reformation, many Christians thought the Roman Catholic pope was the anti-Christ and that the end of time was about to take place. There were those in the 1960's who thought John Kennedy was the anti-Christ and that we were in the end times. Christian radio host Harold Camping of Family Radio predicted the return of Christ for2011, but it didn’t happen either. That is just the tip of the iceberg of those who thought the return of Christ should have already happened. They too, like you, were waiting for the “not yet” of Christ’s kingdom, but were found to be disillusioned. Other Christians have given up altogether on Christ’s actual return and have spiritualized the thoughts and teachings of a future kingdom. The skeptic stands by on the side line and suggests that such unfulfilled wishful thinking makes Christianity suspect.
But you, Bonnie, are staying the course, expectantly hanging on to your hope for Christ’s return. So I laud you and hope you are right in your expectation. Hang in there.
Posted in: The Issue Behind [Every?] Issue: The Authority of the Bible and Its Author
Thanks John for an interesting article that addresses the issue of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.
Is the Bible as authoritative as Kruger or you make it out to be? The only people who recognize the authority of the Bible are Christians, and by their commitment it is doubtful if many of them really recognize its authority either. You must recognize that there are a multitude of religions and sects that have their own sources of authority, just like Christians. For instance Muslims believe the Koran was given to Mohamad by God through the angel Gabriel. Therefore the Koran is the absolute authoritative word of God. Like Christians, Muslims believed that their Scriptures are absolutely inspired of God and are without error. Mormons, likewise, believe the book of Mormon (initially the twelve golden plates) was given to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni, and therefore is also the inspired word of God and capable of giving correct interpretation to the Bible. All religions have their so-called inspired and authoritative Scriptures that represent ultimate authority.
And yet we, as Christians, discount the authority and validity of their Bibles, just as the adherents of other religions discount the authority of our Bible. So which Scriptures are really authoritative or are any? When reading a history book of recorded events, historians may record the actual existence of Jesus. But history books do not record his miraculous birth and ascent from heaven to earth, nor do they record his miraculous resurrection from the dead and ascent back into heaven as historical fact. Nor do historians record any of the miracles of other religions as historical fact. Such miracles, whether found in the Bible, Koran, the book of Mormon or any other Scriptures are considered “faith knowledge” and not historical fact. They are subjective truth rather than objective truth or empirical truth. It is only Christians who recognize the Bible as carrying any authority. What are the grounds by which we discount other religions and their authoritative Scriptures? It’s the same grounds by which they discount the Bible. So what makes Kruger or any Christian think that only the Bible is authoritative?
The person who is not a Christian looks at the account of Jesus in the Bible as an embellished account of history, much in the same way that Santa Claus is an embellished account of Saint Nicolas. The same could be said of the key characters found in the Scriptures of other religions, an embellishment of a historical character (such as Mohamad) or historical facts. So when so few people, worldwide, recognize the Bible’s authority, over the authority of their own religions (or no religion) why would anyone acknowledge Kruger’s comment in regard to the Bible’s authority?
Beyond all this, recognize that there are thousands of Christian denominations today. All may claim the authority of the Bible but all interpret it differently, even on key issues. When the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit will lead his church in all truth, it makes me wonder what has happened to the Spirit’s leading. When churches and individuals can make the Bible say almost anything they want it to say, who is to say who has the final and authoritative word on any issue?
Thanks John for making us think.