The elect are those who repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. The purpose of the church is to be a "Word and Sacrament" ministry as proclamation of the Word and administration of the sacraments is the way that God saves people. Unfortunately, far too many fall into an unbiblical understanding of Reformed soteriology along the lines of "justification by election" as opposed to Justification by Faith which God imputes to the elect through the Gospel proclamation-see Peter's first sermon in Acts 2:38. Part of the problem, I think, is that in North America the temptation is to define ourselves over and against Wesleyan-Arminianism. The other issue is too many in the Reformed family have done a bad job teaching doctrine.
Founders Ministry is actually a Calvinistic wing of the Southern Baptists. It is my observation that much of the broader evangelical world has moved closer to Reformed theology (or at least soteriology) in the past couple decades while many in our circles have been trying to water down our doctrine. The issue shouldn't be "Do we teach doctrine or emphasize outreach?" It should be "How do we teach doctrine well, so that we share the Good News with more people?" Now for the record many of our churches and pastors are doing a good job, but there often seems to be a lack of focus on the denominational level, at least in my anecdotal experience.
The overture, I suspect is motivated by a couple impulses. The first is a desire by some in our denomination to embrace a mainline social gospel where the church works as a political activist organization, often for perspectives from a certain place on the political spectrum.
The second, is a desire to push back against the obsessive "pro Israel" theology of the dispensationalists. Their zeal for pro-Israel activism often takes on an unbiblical, racist attitude toward the Palestinian Arabs.
In both cases, I think it would be better to challenge our seminary and Faith Alive to provide better discipleship materials. Regarding the first issues, we ought to learn about the Reformed 2 Kingdoms view of Calvin as well as Kuyper's concept of Sphere Sovereignty. On the second, why not promote better discipleship materials on eschatology? I see that we do have a video series "God Wins" on the Book of Revelation and that seems like a good start.
Put another way: the antidote to bad public theology is good public theology.
Nick, you obviously have strong opinions about this topic. What is it that you would hope to accomplish by getting the denomination directly involved? Are you not free to petition your own member of Congress or Parliament?
In the examples you give, I would disagree that it is the role of the denomination to intervene directly. We could denounce persecution of religious and ethnic minorities or point out the sinfulness of government segregation but I don't think that the CRCNA had any particular expertise to advise the governments of the U.S. or Canada how to approach those issues. Apartheid was a unique case in that churches in South Africa had adopted an unbiblical justification for it- to that extent it made sense to respond in the theological area since that is ostensibly the church's sphere of competency. Similarly, I have no problem with the CRCNA denouncing the excesses of Dispensational theology.
I appreciate the passion many members bring to various issues, but I am concerned unless we return to a higher view of Sphere Sovereignty our Synods are going to more and more become political forums. Where do we draw the line?
Nick, I would hope if we are being effective in discipleship that our members would be discerning when engaging Fox News, the New York Times or any other source. I find that most people, if you get past a few key issues that they are passionate about tend to have more nuanced views than the party line often pushed by various cable news commentators.
My concern, however, is that if we take Total Depravity seriously, there is no individual or group of individuals we can count on to be completely objective, this includes within the church. There are few people who would argue that Sojourners, for example, does not generally promote a liberal Democrat agenda or a group like the Family Research Council does not promote a conservative Republican agenda. The vast majority of Christians including clergy, college faculty and others generally "engage public policy" along the lines of one of these camps.
Again, though, I am curious where the line should be drawn in terms of issues that the church should address? What is adiaphora in terms of public policy? I know of divisive issues like gun control or taxes where people in my own church of reputable character and biblical knowledge vehemently disagree.
As I said in my prior post, better teaching of Reformed views of eschatology would help with regard to Israel and Palestine. My concern is that increasingly our denomination is more comfortable asserting itself on political than theological issues.
Jesus is the Lord of All Life, but the sinners who comprise the church are not. The Reformed tradition going back to Calvin has always affirmed the 2 Kingdoms (Right hand and Left hand) even if not always agreeing on where the lines should be drawn.
As far as the abortion issue, the church has always opposed elective abortion from the earliest times. This does not mean that I am comfortable with the church endorsing or lobbying for specific legislation, rather we need only disciple our members on why the destruction of innocent human life is wrong. Similarly we ought to reflect on Augustinian Just War principles, this does not mean that the institutional church ought to take positions on nuanced foreign policy decisions of the U.S. or Canada.
New believers have to learn words like "propitiation", explaining our polity is just another part of discipleship. I didn't grow up CRC, the first time my pastor talked about "going to Classis" I thought he was talking about vocational training. Still, I see no reason to get rid of a perfectly useful traditional word. Too many are too eager to throw out the Reformed baby with the Dutch bathwater, pulling us either in a broad evangelical or mainline direction. Being a little unique here and there isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The problem is so called "civil religion" which those of us in evangelical (or if you prefer "orthodox Reformed") traditions have sought to avoid. It is a difficult balancing act of wanting to be out among our communities proclaiming the Gospel but not pretending that Jesus Christ is simply "another path" and putting him on a mantle next to pagan gods of other religions. In the U.S. a lot of these tensions arose in the wake of 9/11 when there were several "interfaith vigils".
I am no theologian and I don't have a simple answer, I would just say that we need to carefully consider interfaith engagement and certainly steer clear of any forum where we are not able to declare Christ as "the way, the truth and the life".
I have found, even in our small tradition, there are many different understandings of common grace. At a minimum we should be able to agree that certain institutions such as the government or civic organizations like a Rotary Club are a form of mercy that God graciously provides all people. Historically, we have discouraged members from engaging in institutions that imply equality of different religions, this is why the CRCNA has been strongly critical of Freemasonry, for example.
It is good for Christians to engage in all spheres of life including those ruled by the "Left Hand" (to use a John Calvin term) such as government, commerce and other institutions. Not only are these venues where we may interact, build relationships with and hopefully share the Good News with non-believers, but they are honorable unto themselves- ordained by God. I can also see the legitimacy of dialogue with leaders of other faith traditions, particularly in missions context for example where we are attempting to maintain peace and find ways to live and work together while respecting our differences.
I would still be very reluctant, though, to attend an "interfaith" service where prayers and ceremonies to other gods are performed. My 2 cents, fwiw
Doug, you may also consider the Pickens Plan: http://pickensplan.com/
It utilizes more natural gas, but also nuclear and hydro-power. Part of the problem with the Institutional Church taking sides on policy specifics is it assumes that the binary, partisan positions are the only realistic alternatives.
Posted in: How 'Definite Atonement' Secures the Purpose, Mode and Outcome for Missions
The elect are those who repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. The purpose of the church is to be a "Word and Sacrament" ministry as proclamation of the Word and administration of the sacraments is the way that God saves people. Unfortunately, far too many fall into an unbiblical understanding of Reformed soteriology along the lines of "justification by election" as opposed to Justification by Faith which God imputes to the elect through the Gospel proclamation-see Peter's first sermon in Acts 2:38. Part of the problem, I think, is that in North America the temptation is to define ourselves over and against Wesleyan-Arminianism. The other issue is too many in the Reformed family have done a bad job teaching doctrine.
Posted in: How 'Definite Atonement' Secures the Purpose, Mode and Outcome for Missions
Founders Ministry is actually a Calvinistic wing of the Southern Baptists. It is my observation that much of the broader evangelical world has moved closer to Reformed theology (or at least soteriology) in the past couple decades while many in our circles have been trying to water down our doctrine. The issue shouldn't be "Do we teach doctrine or emphasize outreach?" It should be "How do we teach doctrine well, so that we share the Good News with more people?" Now for the record many of our churches and pastors are doing a good job, but there often seems to be a lack of focus on the denominational level, at least in my anecdotal experience.
Posted in: Any Current or Past Elders?
Hello
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
The overture, I suspect is motivated by a couple impulses. The first is a desire by some in our denomination to embrace a mainline social gospel where the church works as a political activist organization, often for perspectives from a certain place on the political spectrum.
The second, is a desire to push back against the obsessive "pro Israel" theology of the dispensationalists. Their zeal for pro-Israel activism often takes on an unbiblical, racist attitude toward the Palestinian Arabs.
In both cases, I think it would be better to challenge our seminary and Faith Alive to provide better discipleship materials. Regarding the first issues, we ought to learn about the Reformed 2 Kingdoms view of Calvin as well as Kuyper's concept of Sphere Sovereignty. On the second, why not promote better discipleship materials on eschatology? I see that we do have a video series "God Wins" on the Book of Revelation and that seems like a good start.
Put another way: the antidote to bad public theology is good public theology.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Nick, you obviously have strong opinions about this topic. What is it that you would hope to accomplish by getting the denomination directly involved? Are you not free to petition your own member of Congress or Parliament?
In the examples you give, I would disagree that it is the role of the denomination to intervene directly. We could denounce persecution of religious and ethnic minorities or point out the sinfulness of government segregation but I don't think that the CRCNA had any particular expertise to advise the governments of the U.S. or Canada how to approach those issues. Apartheid was a unique case in that churches in South Africa had adopted an unbiblical justification for it- to that extent it made sense to respond in the theological area since that is ostensibly the church's sphere of competency. Similarly, I have no problem with the CRCNA denouncing the excesses of Dispensational theology.
I appreciate the passion many members bring to various issues, but I am concerned unless we return to a higher view of Sphere Sovereignty our Synods are going to more and more become political forums. Where do we draw the line?
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Nick, I would hope if we are being effective in discipleship that our members would be discerning when engaging Fox News, the New York Times or any other source. I find that most people, if you get past a few key issues that they are passionate about tend to have more nuanced views than the party line often pushed by various cable news commentators.
My concern, however, is that if we take Total Depravity seriously, there is no individual or group of individuals we can count on to be completely objective, this includes within the church. There are few people who would argue that Sojourners, for example, does not generally promote a liberal Democrat agenda or a group like the Family Research Council does not promote a conservative Republican agenda. The vast majority of Christians including clergy, college faculty and others generally "engage public policy" along the lines of one of these camps.
Again, though, I am curious where the line should be drawn in terms of issues that the church should address? What is adiaphora in terms of public policy? I know of divisive issues like gun control or taxes where people in my own church of reputable character and biblical knowledge vehemently disagree.
As I said in my prior post, better teaching of Reformed views of eschatology would help with regard to Israel and Palestine. My concern is that increasingly our denomination is more comfortable asserting itself on political than theological issues.
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Jesus is the Lord of All Life, but the sinners who comprise the church are not. The Reformed tradition going back to Calvin has always affirmed the 2 Kingdoms (Right hand and Left hand) even if not always agreeing on where the lines should be drawn.
As far as the abortion issue, the church has always opposed elective abortion from the earliest times. This does not mean that I am comfortable with the church endorsing or lobbying for specific legislation, rather we need only disciple our members on why the destruction of innocent human life is wrong. Similarly we ought to reflect on Augustinian Just War principles, this does not mean that the institutional church ought to take positions on nuanced foreign policy decisions of the U.S. or Canada.
Posted in: Time to Rename Classis?
New believers have to learn words like "propitiation", explaining our polity is just another part of discipleship. I didn't grow up CRC, the first time my pastor talked about "going to Classis" I thought he was talking about vocational training. Still, I see no reason to get rid of a perfectly useful traditional word. Too many are too eager to throw out the Reformed baby with the Dutch bathwater, pulling us either in a broad evangelical or mainline direction. Being a little unique here and there isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
The problem is so called "civil religion" which those of us in evangelical (or if you prefer "orthodox Reformed") traditions have sought to avoid. It is a difficult balancing act of wanting to be out among our communities proclaiming the Gospel but not pretending that Jesus Christ is simply "another path" and putting him on a mantle next to pagan gods of other religions. In the U.S. a lot of these tensions arose in the wake of 9/11 when there were several "interfaith vigils".
I am no theologian and I don't have a simple answer, I would just say that we need to carefully consider interfaith engagement and certainly steer clear of any forum where we are not able to declare Christ as "the way, the truth and the life".
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
I have found, even in our small tradition, there are many different understandings of common grace. At a minimum we should be able to agree that certain institutions such as the government or civic organizations like a Rotary Club are a form of mercy that God graciously provides all people. Historically, we have discouraged members from engaging in institutions that imply equality of different religions, this is why the CRCNA has been strongly critical of Freemasonry, for example.
It is good for Christians to engage in all spheres of life including those ruled by the "Left Hand" (to use a John Calvin term) such as government, commerce and other institutions. Not only are these venues where we may interact, build relationships with and hopefully share the Good News with non-believers, but they are honorable unto themselves- ordained by God. I can also see the legitimacy of dialogue with leaders of other faith traditions, particularly in missions context for example where we are attempting to maintain peace and find ways to live and work together while respecting our differences.
I would still be very reluctant, though, to attend an "interfaith" service where prayers and ceremonies to other gods are performed. My 2 cents, fwiw
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
In reading Kuyper's views on common grace, he seems to start not with creation order, but with the Noahic Covenant.
The PR's do indeed reject common grace, but they are an extreme outlier on the issue.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Doug, you may also consider the Pickens Plan: http://pickensplan.com/
It utilizes more natural gas, but also nuclear and hydro-power. Part of the problem with the Institutional Church taking sides on policy specifics is it assumes that the binary, partisan positions are the only realistic alternatives.