URC Learning: Comments

Comment on The Ten Commandments | part 16: decorum in the worship service by Rev. John Sawtelle

Rev. John Sawtelle — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:45:22 +0000

Eric
This is a very difficult passage. You are correct that Luther and Calvin believed women should wear a head covering in worship as a sign of submission. I am not convinced that this passage deals with public worship, and therefore I am not willing, at this point to argue for head coverings. It seems to me that anyone who reads the passage in this way, will also be forced by the logic of their argument to also allow women to pray and to prophesy publicly in worship as v5 indicates. I am currently preaching through 1 Corinthians, and you can be sure, I will address this when I get there. So check back in several months, and you will receive a more a complete answer.

Comment on The Ten Commandments | part 16: decorum in the worship service by Eric

Eric — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:59:49 +0000

What is your opinions on head coverings? I see that Calvin held that women should cover their heads in church with cloth, and that also goes for Knox, and Luther. I also see that it seems this stance was never really addressed, but just faded away. Do you think Calvin held a false view on 1Cor11?

Comment on Belgic Confession by 5 May 2009 | ChristianObserver.org

5 May 2009 | ChristianObserver.org — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:59:35 +0000

[...] study will follow the historic Reformed Confessions commonly known as The Three Forms of Unity, The Belgic Confession of Faith (1561), The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and The Canons of Dort (1618-1619). Please access the Gig [...]

Comment on Apostles’ Creed by Rev. John Sawtelle

Rev. John Sawtelle — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:43:17 +0000

Yes, I understand that to be the the position of Lutherans historically. The Reformed have rejected a literal, physical descent of Christ into hell for several reasons. One, the Heidelberg Catechism interprets the phrase to mean that Jesus experienced hell on the cross, and triumphed over hell and the devil, with his hosts, on the cross. That finds support in Colossians 2:14-15, where Paul says that Jesus “disarmed the rulers and authorities” through his cross. Two, Jesus said “it is finished” (John 19:30) just before he died indicating that he had exhaustively performed the work that had been given him; if he had yet to go to hell to triumph over Satan, then his work was not yet finished. Finally, Jesus told the thief on the cross next to him that he would see the thief with him in heaven, “today!” Jesus could not have been in two places at once at the same time, so that would also lead us to believe he did not literally descend into hell.

For further information on this article of faith, I recommend that you listen to some of the sermons posted on the sight on Lord’s Day 16 or a sermon I preached on 1 Peter 3:18-22, entitled “Encouragement for the afflicted” which deals with 1 Peter 3:19, which is often used to support the literal descent of Christ into hell.

Thanks so much for tuning in.

Pastor John

Comment on Apostles’ Creed by Bonnie Menges

Bonnie Menges — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:03:56 +0000

I am WELS Lutheran and we believe Jesus descended to hell in TRIUMPH. He crushed the devil and his angels; we no longer are dead in our sins.

Comment on Chalcedonian Creed by Gary

Gary — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:53:24 +0000

Dear Rev. Sawtelle;

Thank you for your clarification. I agree that it is unlikely any URC Consistory would *reject* the Chalcedonian Definition, but that wasn’t really my question. The placement of the CD in the list of Ecumenical Creeds officially received by the URC in the “What _WE_ Believe” section of a website which seems to represent official URC doctrinal standards certainly seems to imply that the CD is in fact one of those “official” URC standards. And that is the basis of my question — “Is the Chalcedonian Creed an official creed of the United Reformed Churches in general (as implied by its presentation on this website) or of only some of the URCs?”

I mean no disrespect, Rev. Sawtelle, neither to you and the others who have assembled and maintain this useful website nor to the CD itself. Stated another way, my question would be whether the CD might better be placed in a separate category on the “creeds and confessions” page, perhaps including such other “accepted but ancillary” standards as, for instance, the Westminster Confession and Catechism. Because this website has taken on the formidable task of representing the entire URCNA, it seems at least prudent to differentiate what is required from what is merely (however firmly) accepted.

Thank you again for your response.

Comment on Chalcedonian Creed by Rev. John Sawtelle

Rev. John Sawtelle — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:58:20 +0000

Gary
I will say the same thing to you that I said in an earlier post to TJ. Though Belgic Confession article 9 does not explicitly refer to the Chalcedonian Definition as as a “creed” we receive, I would point out two things which indicate that we implicitly receive the Definition: 1) article 9 does say “we do willingly received the three creeds, namely, that of the Apostles, of Nicea, and of Athanasius; likewise that which, conformable thereunto, is agreed upon by the ancient fathers.” Clearly, the “ancient fathers” agreed upon the Chalcedonian Definition; so, to my mind, that statement says we receive the Definition as well and, 2) read Belgic Confession article 19 carefully, and you will notice that it makes generous use of Chalcedonian categories in its articulation of the hypostatic union, which would tend to support the position that we implicitly receive it.

With that in mind, I find it very hard to believe that any URC pastor or consistory would have the slightest problem with saying that we “receive” the Chalcedonian Definition simply because our Reformed confessions don’t explicitly say that we do.

I hope that helps.

Pastor John

Comment on Chalcedonian Creed by Gary

Gary — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:08:45 +0000

You list the Chalcedonian Creed on a par with the better-known creeds and confessions. Is the Chalcedonian Creed an official creed of the United Reformed Churches in general or of only some of the URCs?

Comment on The Ten Commandments | part 16: decorum in the worship service by Susan

Susan — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:34:48 +0000

Dear Mr. Robles:
If you bring your McBreakfast into the sanctuary, and proceed to unwrap it and eat it during the service, including during the scripture reading, pastoral prayer, singing of psalms, and preaching of the word, what do you think you are focusing on? Where is your attention? Is it divided? What about the attention of the 8-year-old sitting next to you or behind you?

Comment on Toward a Reformed Political Ethic - Part One by Rev. John Sawtelle

Rev. John Sawtelle — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:07:25 +0000

The answer is yes, we submit to the constitution and to the “present state” in all things lawful. As it stands, securing a license for marriage from the state is not something that is unlawful, that is, it is not something that violates any biblical principle.

Are you sinning if you don’t secure a marriage license from the state? Not necessarily, as long as you entered into a binding arrangement and had that contract properly solemnized. You would want to make sure the church was well aware of what you were doing and upon what grounds though. Beyond that, you might consider the fact that your actions, if misunderstood by others, might lead to bringing reproach upon the gospel; and, if you did not take great care to avoid that, your actions, though not sinful in and of themselves, would be sinful because of the consequences they led to.

On the whole, at this time in our nation’s history, the wisest course of action is for a believer to secure a marriage license from the state.

Hope that helps.