Basically, we think that the very concepts that underlie Calvary Chapel are a complete distortion of scripture. To package up the Arminian gospel, the refusal to be a church just be a chapel, and to have Chuck Smith run the whole thing out of Costa Mesa, while wrapping the false doctrines up in the facade of being a bunch of Bible teaching, Bible believing folks who just want to win a few hippies for Jesus, is a sham that needs to be exposed. Calvary Chapel has made itself name brand Christianity in So Cal and people listen to what Calvary Chapel has to say about as mindlessly as Roman Catholics listen to the pope. If you are going to sell yourself as simple, apostolic Christianity, you better be able to explain why your doctrine and why your practices are Biblical, and not just that they are apostolic because Chuck claims he has a spiritual pipeline to hear straight from God.

Thank you.

Thank you for the encouraging message. Boy are we stuck in a wilderness here. I hope you keep posting regularly for those of us starving out here. We can’t find a gospel preaching church anywhere. We really miss worshipping there.

Michael and Anna

Pastor John

I am planning on going to a Calvary Chapel tomorrow for church NOT an anti-Semitic, self-centered, “wish you the world respected you” Reformed museum!

So there you have the Christian obligation with respect to the 4th commandment. That summary of duties is based upon a careful interpretation of the commandment as understood through the lens of apostolic revelation and interpretation of what was at the heart of the meaning of the 4th commandment. In other words, the NT writers, along with the Old Testament prophets saw a typological and ceremonial element to the 4th commandment which was fulfilled and set aside with the finished work of Christ, and a moral obligation that is binding upon all Christians.

If you have further questions you might be interested to listen to my sermon posted on the web site based upon Galatians 4:9-10.

Thanks for dropping by URC learning.

Pastor John

I was listening to “Law and the gospel” sermon and is not clear to me if we have to keep the Sabbath or not as the other commandments. I always have this problem cause the commandment says keep the seventh day???
Could you please answer this

Many thanks

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

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.

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

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.

I guess my main question is. Do we submit to the constitution? Or do we submit to the present state? I feel that the present state is very unconstitutional. Marriage licenses are in violation of article 1 section 10 of the constitution which says “No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.”

Here is the next question. Am I sinning if I legally do not get a marriage license? Or am I sinning if I do?

Here is a great link on this topic from a lawyer in the 1800’s http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm

Thanks guys!

The key issue in your gay marriage debate reference is that the government has no business defining a marriage. Marriages have always been defined and contracted within communities whether that be the family, the church, or some other religious order.

As for using rational arguments for the existence of God to in turn posit God as the basis for moral order in society, I don’t see a problem with that per say. The Declaration of Independence says that all men are endowed by their “Creator” with certain unalienable rights. In this very significant, national, founding document it sounds to me like, God is identified as the basis of human rights. So no, I don’t see a problem here. Obviously a number of other supplementing arguments and qualifications are going to be needed to clarify your position, but there does not seem to be anything inherently inconsistent with your commitment to a natural law-based political philosophy.

I understand the problems with theonomy, but what I don’t understand is why some would go so far and say that a vote against gay marriage is a theonomic stance. (Even though the state has no power to define marriage, they just want to think they do)

Can I argue the existence of God in the political world and still be able to consider myself a natural law type? I feel this is a key issue for me and many others. I feel that with the absence of God in the political world, there is no argument for peoples rights.

First, the Heidelberg Catechism in Q103 establishes the Continental Reformed view of the 4th commandment. It lists six specific applications which are binding upon a Christian in view of the 4th commandment: 1) diligently attend church, 2) learn the word of God at church, 3) use the Holy Sacraments, 4) call publicly upon the Lord, 5) give Christian alms, and 6) fight sin every single day. Elders in a Reformed church may not bind and compel the conscience of any believer beyond those six things. I know it has been popular among some Reformed people to add to the confessionally Reformed position by using the Westminster Standards. The problem with that is, ministers and elders may not bind or compel church members actions with a confession they don’t subscribe to.

As for the requirement to attend both worship services on Sunday in order to be an officer, you can see why that is an issue. The Reformed believe that the elders are charged with ensuring that the worship service is conducted in a manner consistent with the regulative principle. If an elder is regularly not at both services, it will be very difficult for him to verify that worship is being conducted properly. In this case then, it seems that the requirement for office is based on a practical necessity.

As for what you are able to do on Sunday, the answer is that the Bible does not give specific guidance outside of the six things listed in the catechism. If what you are doing is not in violation of those things and is not in violation of any other commandment, then you are free to engage in it, even on Sunday. Families will have to work these things out in such a way that whatever activities they are involved in, that those activities don’t become an excuse for missing worship.

I hope this helps.

Pastor John

Calvin on the proper observance of the Supper:

“If God choose to add anything to his word, it ought not to be regarded as a virtue to reject this addition as superfluous. It is no small insult offered to God, when his goodness is despised in such a manner as if his proceedings towards us were of no advantage, and as if he did not know what it is that we chiefly need….While we believe the word of God, we ought not to despise the aids which he has been pleased to add for the purpose of strengthening our faith…What then is the use of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper? Must they be regarded as superfluous? Not at all; for any one who shall actually, and without flattery, acknowledge his weakness, of which all from the least to the greatest are conscious, will gladly avail himself of those aids for his support. We ought indeed to grieve and lament, that the sacred truth of God needs assistance on account of the defect of our flesh; but since we cannot all at once remove this defect, any one who, according to his capacity shall believe the word, will immediately render full obedience to God. Let us therefore learn to embrace the signs along with the word, since it is not in the power of man to separate them…Fanatics of the present day disregard Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and consider them to be childish elements. They cannot do this without at the same time rejecting the whole gospel; for we must not separate those things which the Lord has commanded us to join.” Commentary on Isaiah 7:12

What I heard helped to salve a recent disappointment.

My wife and I sought to join a reformed church recently. We attended for eight months, got involved with bible study, and met with the pastor on several occasions.

Having been a christian for over 35 years, I learned that there is sometimes a difference in the requirements for membership, vs. the expectations for membership.

For requirements we look to the Word; Mark Dever has written several helpful books and articles on the requirements and responsibilities of membership, but I digress.

Although we did struggle with the biblical warrant for infant baptism, the requirements for membership URCNA are no problem for my wife and I. The requirements seem biblical, and reasonable.

I asked the Pastor about expectations for members. He said to attend both morning and evening services. If members do not attend both, the elders will typically make an inquiry. If I ever wanted to be an elder, I would have to attend both. In addition, when it comes to Sunday, not to go out to eat because that would be causing someone else to work. No going to the gym, riding a bike, planting in the yard.

My heart sank. I brought up Col 2 … hoping to find common ground. The Pastor sees Col 2 weighted towards justification; not sanctification. I see it weighted towards both.
We got no where.

Ironically, I would have typically gone to both services as a member [because this is what I did in other churches where I was a member].

But to create a “rule” in the form of an expectation merely awakens sin. If I don’t go at night, I feel guilty knowing that the elders are watching. If I go, my flesh grows pride, knowing that the elders are watching. In essence, I would be under a “tradition of men”.

But again … it is tragic … because without the rule I would have attended both services out of gratefulness. Once the rule is enforced, gratefulness dies. Once the Law becomes alive, sin abounds.

The biblical warrant is to worship and to not forsake the assembly of the saints; if a church wants to fulfill that warrant one, two, three, or five times on Sunday [like several churches in Korea or China do] … beautiful. But to enforce a rule that you MUST go more than once … seems to press a point hard to find in the Word.

As to all the rules on Sunday … equally tragic. My wife is a home health nurse and makes phone calls on Sunday night to set her Monday visits. The Pastor told us she would be exempt because that is an act of mercy. My gym going, planting a garden, or bike riding on the other hand would be wrong because that was centered on me.

Also, I was told that if I only went to church Sunday Morning – then perhaps I was only interested in defining the minimum standard for obedience.

I told the Pastor that we were close on orthodoxy, but far apart on orthopraxy, and we departed in peace.

The Pastor is a wonderful guy, husband, and father and a very good bible teacher. I would like to me more like him in several areas. But it seemed like we were steering the ship very close to the waters of hyper-convenantilism.

Why am I telling you all this? Just to say that I am glad to learn that not all reformed churches are this way, and not all URCNA churches would be the same.

We are attending a very conservative Evangelical Free church now. And although they are not overtly reformed, they think it is fine if I am, and they welcome us.

Sad. These sad divisions are just that. Sad.

On the other hand, thank you for the light you have shed on the subject.

May the peace and grace of God be with you.

Sincerely,
John

One, there is substantial agreement on many points of doctrine including the authority and inspiration of scripture, theology proper, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and worship.

Two, it is worth noting that the cultural and political context of the framing of the Westminster Confession and catechisms leads to some very pointed applications which can no longer be subscribed to.

Third, there are some differences between the Three Forms and the Westminster that are important. For instance, the WCF teaches that assurance of faith is not the essence of faith, but rather is a reflex act of the believer. The Three Forms teach assurance of faith is the essence of faith. This sounds like a minor issue but it has been argued quite persuasively that the Westminster view opened the door for the “second blessing” theology which developed later among some Protestants. Also, the view of the Sabbath propounded by the WCF is not the same as in the Heidelberg. The Continental Reformed theologians and confessions refrain from identifying the first day of the week with the Sabbath. They also are careful not to list a very specific list of “duties” and “dont’s” for proper “sabbath” observance.

I hope that brief response is of some help.

As for “natural law” it is a Biblical concept and a Reformed category. Total depravity does not negate natural law; it does require that we use scripture to clarify our understanding of it at points. But if we push your point of view too far, that total depravity affects our ability to reason so severely that we cannot form any sound judgments through reflecting on natural law, then we will be forced, by your logic, to concede that on account of total depravity we can know nothing at all, even doctrinal propositions contained in the word of God, since sin has so thoroughly impaired our intellectual capacities. This is not what the Reformed meant when they argued for the noetic affects of sin.

As a final note, I admonish you to be careful how you throw the word “heretical” around. Church courts define heresy, and to the best of my knowledge, they have never defined natural law heretical.

Thanks for listening.

Willie Sancho
Filipino Reformed Scriptural Translation
P.O. 164 Araneta Center
Cubao, Quezon City 1135
Philippines

Then another responds in reference to thenomy (at 9:30): “As we’ve already answered, this is not to have the entire Old Testament code enforced. That is not what has been given to them because we’ve already seen that there are crimes of thought in that and the government has no ability to do that or right to do so.”

That’s a very offensive slur on theonomists. Theonomists, including myself, are largely libertarian. I don’t know any who argue that the state today should enforce all sins. Fundamental to theonomic teaching is that the civil government should only enforce those laws from the OT that are civil laws. You people have committed a serious sin against the 9th Commandment against me, against Gary North and against any other thenomic author whose stuff I have read.

Then you spend a lot of time arguing for “natural law”, claiming natural law is sufficient saying that it is so because we all have the law written on our hearts. But I thought total depravity taught that regardless of this fact, our ability to interpret that law is damaged because our sinfulness affects our mind, our logic, etc. Therefore, this natural law theory is a direct assault on total depravity and is, therefore, heretical because it rejects a fundamental redemptive truth.

Chapter XX

Meetings For Worship Not To Be Neglected.

As many as spurn such meetings and stay away from them, despise true religion, and are to be urged by the pastors and godly magistrates to abstain from stubbornly absenting themselves from sacred assemblies.

Modesty And Humility To Be Observed In Meetings.

And as we believe that God does not dwell in temples made with hands, so we know that on account of God’s Word and sacred use places dedicated to God and his worship are not profane, but holy, and that those who are present in them are to conduct themselves reverently and modestly, seeing that they are in a sacred place, in the presence of God and his holy angels.

The True Ornamentation Of Sanctuaries.
Therefore, all luxurious attire, all pride, and everything unbecoming to Christian humility, discipline and modesty, are to be banished from the sanctuaries and places of prayer of Christians. For the true ornamentation of churches does not consist in ivory, gold, and precious stones, but in the frugality, piety, and virtues of those who are in the Church. Let all things be done decently and in order in the church, and finally, let all things be done for edification.

Somehow you still seem to think that an interpretation of scripture is not scripture. You continue to repeat the claim that it is a mere interpretation, a mere argument; that is not what the Reformed are saying. The interpretation is scripture because it is a good and necessary inference from scripture. You cannot continue to say that the Reformed have come up with a third category in between infallible explicit statements of scripture and fallible applications of scripture, called “arguments” or “interpretations” which are sort of quasi-fallible, but only for people who believe in the argument. I am not sure why you continue to argue this, but that is essentially what you are doing. Your argument revolves around the principle that only explicit statements of scripture are scripture; everything else is an “interpretation” or an “argument” as you continue to put, making it appear that these arguments or interpretations are only of limited authority, and therefore not fully binding, except upon the one who propounds it.

In the first post, I pointed to a few examples of Christian doctrine which are based upon inference from the text of scripture, which are binding doctrines upon all Christians. What will you do with the doctrines of the Trinity, the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, and the practice of women participating in the Lord’s Supper? Will you say that these doctrines are binding only for those who propound these interpretations but not for those who don’t?

Now, for your argument about baptism. I don’t know of any Reformed people who argue that baptism confers faith or even covenant status upon a believing adult or infant child. Baptism externally and visibly seals an individual into the covenant. It does not mean that a person is saved or elect. Baptism has been instituted by Christ himself to mark out his covenant people externally and is necessary only in the sense of it being a required precept of covenant inclusion, not a required means. The thief on the cross is an example of this. Jesus told him that he would be with him TODAY in paradise; that man was saved and included in the covenant, yet, the man was not baptized before he died. That indicates to us that baptism is not necessary for salvation, it is necessary duty because Christ commands it for ordinary circumstances. The Reformed have not argued it differently. Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics and others argue for baptismal regeneration, which would seem to make it a requirement for salvation and that would seem to tie God’s hands a bit. However, they have arguments which get around that problem.

If your problem with the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism is that it imposes a limitation on the sovereignty of God in saving his elect, you should be relieved of that because no one is arguing for such a limitation. Certainly you will agree that there have been millions upon millions of infant children of believers who have died either before birth or during birth and never were baptized. Would that mean none of them are going to heaven since they were not baptized? Certainly not! Baptism is not a means of salvation, and we must assume that God is free to act apart from the normal means of grace in extraordinary situations.

As I conclude, I come back to the beginning; for this discussion to go anywhere, you need to defend your position that only explicit statements of scripture are infallible and binding and that “interpretations” or “arguments” are not. If you don’t we have nowhere else to go. I would be interested to see how you defend your position though.

Thanks for engaging me in discussion.

Grace and peace,

Pastor John

I am sorry to say that you have entirely misread my argument, and have thus set up a “straw man” in your response. Henceforth, I will attempt to clarify my position as simply as possible.

First, you say I claim that “only explicit statements of scripture are scriptural and authoritative.” Where, in my initial statement, is this claim to be found? Rather, I said that such interpretations are “incomplete at best” and such logical (human) inferences are “precarious”, that is, not secured absolutely and with certainty. I also admitted that “you ARE certainly, as you say, “warranted” and “justified” in doing so (i.e. attempting such an interpretation).” However, as I go on to say, “your very own language presupposes interpretation. Again, as you put it, “The Reformed ARGUE that the command to baptize covenant children is IMPLICIT (not explicit) in the command to circumcise covenant children in Genesis 17″, and “the practice of infant baptism under the new covenant is WARRANTED and JUSTIFIED.” Your argument for infant baptism is, as you admit yourself, an argument; that is, an unique interpretation of specific passages within the Bible. To be sure, this is not at all my claim, this you yourself have unknowingly admitted in your careless use of language.

Thus, “claim #1″, as you so aptly put it, is not really a claim at all. I only wished to point out your misuse of language. That is, while you originally said “Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of scripture”, you ought to have said: “Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of the Reformed INTERPRETATION of scripture.” In other words, you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture, as is often necessary (thus I do not deny that logical inferences may be used); however, you should acknowledge (in your language usage) that such an inference presupposes interpretation. This is a basic hermeneutical principle.

Since we have now established that claim # 1 is actually your claim, not mine, let us examine what you deem to be claim # 2. I admit I was not as clear on this point as I may have been. Nonetheless, you assert that I claim that my “experience invalidates the Reformed argument for infant baptism.” First, my appeal is never to myself, it is to God, as I said: “These things the Lord has taught me” and “Hitherto the Lord my God, who is a living God, has convicted me unto baptism.” Also, I admit that my evidence is “anecdotal” and a matter of “personal revelation” (thus I do not contend that it invalidates the Reformed doctrine, only that I have accepted it as definitive for myself). In fact, I conclude in my summary that “propounding infant baptism is… an interpretation of scripture”, and that “you are entitled to proclaiming your doctrine.” My modus operandi was thereby rhetorical. My concern was to challenge you, through description and sarcasm, to think about what it means to be baptized, and further, what it means to become a Christian (or, as Kierkegaard put it, “Whether Christianity Exists”, that is, whether it is possible to become a Christian within Christendom).

Therefore, it is quite misleading to say that I make an appeal to authority to invalidate the Reformed doctrine of baptism. My appeal is only ever to God, that is, I have faith that God has revealed to me the meaning of MY baptism (Note Bene: this does not at all invalidate the Reformed argument for baptism). Moreover, you have unwittingly forgotten your own appeal to authority, that is, your appeal to the doctrines and interpretations of John Calvin. What makes John Calvin the ultimate authority? Thus your position has become increasingly precarious. Hermeneutically speaking, you have become twice-divorced from God’s word. Not only must His word pass through your interpretive filter, it must first pass through Calvin’s interpretive filter (and then through your interpretive filter). You have therefore been twice-removed from God, which warns of human construction and idolatry.

Now that I have cleared up my previous views, let us discuss the issue from another angle. Since it must be admitted that we cannot be CERTAIN of what God says of baptism – that is, it is not clear whether credobaptists or paedobaptists are more justified in their respective logical inferences from scripture – we must pursue a different line of argumentation. Our understanding of baptism will inevitable be determined by how we define baptism, and vice-versa. If, as you argue, we should be baptized as infants, this baptism is to be a sign of covenantal inclusion (as the male children of Israelites were circumcised to signify their external membership in God’s people). However, this is only an external sign of the covenant, not a guarantor of true faith, and not the covenant itself (for certainly true faith is not dependent upon a sacrament). For example, the Old Testament records many Israelites who turned from God and were punished, showing that their hearts were not truly set on serving God. So while all male Israelites had the sign of the covenant performed on them in a once off ceremony soon after birth, such a signifier was external only and not a true indicator of whether or not they would later exhibit true faith in Yahweh. Baptism, on your view, is to be understood only as an external sacrament which signifies the covenant between each individual and God (as it is in the Old Testament). This is justified. However, if you say that all who are to be included in the covenant must be baptized (as infants), you unduly limit the Lord our God Himself. Does not God’s covenant transcend a human sacrament? Certainly it does. If, you say, it does not, you have unwittingly limited God’s covenant to human behavior and signs (and thus unduly limited God, falling again into a form of idolatry). As it is revealed in the New Testament, both Jew and Gentile are now blessed, and thereby included in God’s covenant (whether there is an outward sign or not). As it is said in Genesis 12:3, “in thee [Abraham] shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

Now, for my own part, I do not define baptism as a sign of the covenant. I understand baptism as a sign of repentance – hence “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38) – and, thus, a commitment through faith (sola fide). The covenant is presupposed and requires no external sign (though, I do not object to such a sacrament). I should qualify that baptism (adult) also is nothing in itself; it is a sign, that is, a human sacrament. It is, I believe, a proclamation of faith. Whether one is truly faithful is determined by God, and God alone.

So, rather than allowing a sacrament determine who is included in the covenant, or who is truly saved, let us, with the utmost humility (assuming we are absolutely unworthy of salvation), allow God, in all His mercy and judgement, determine who is to be saved. For my part, though I accept God’s mercy, I stand in front of Him with “fear and trembling”, fully conscious of my depravity and wretchedness, and utterly guilty of my salvation.

Lord, I pray only that your mercy remain with me; this, I know, is dependent on You alone, not upon sacraments, signs, or any thing of this world.

With Love,

Nicholas of Smithville,

A Servant of the Lord