Hi Chris! Thanks for the question. Yes, you can download! Tom

Really thankful for these resources! I have a question though. There are free recordings of the creeds and confessions that we can listen to and are really helpful for saturation, memorizing, and even familiarizing one’s self to these wonderful creeds and confessions.

My question though is, since they are free and it seems can be downloaded via website, can they be downloaded to be shared to our church members?

Thank you in advance for your response.

Grace and peace,

Chris

Praise God from whom all blessings flow!

Hey Matthew!

You know, I’m really sorry about this, but we don’t know! There is no record of where we got it. Perhaps someone could help us?

Thanks,

Tom

Yes, the Scriptures do teach that all are born sinful and that the Gospel is to be preached to all people without distinction. In addition, the Scriptures clearly teach that there are spiritual benefits to being born to Christian parents or even one Christian parent. Paul says this explicitly in 1 Cor. 7:14: “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” In my sermon I discuss the meaning of this verse fully. For lack of space and time I’ll summarize here: for the children to be holy means that the children are members of the Covenant of Grace at least externally. They may not be regenerate or have saving faith (internal membership in the covenant) but they are legally members of this covenant (external membership). As members of the covenant they are regarded are Christians and are to be baptized.

This theology teaches that as members of the Covenant of Grace they are promised the benefits of that covenant: regeneration, faith, grace, justification, sanctification, etc. However, they must profess their faith publically in a true visible church. If they refuse to do this or deny Christ, then they are excommunicated from the church. This is the kind of denial the author of Hebrew discusses throughout his letter. If this happens, then the person’s baptism signifies and seals his judgment.

In summary, no one is entitled to eternal life. The children of believers are promised salvation, which the sacrament of baptism signifies and seals. But these children must have true faith in Christ.

Rich, You’re welcome! Tom

Rich

Thank you for your question.

Our federation grants permission to covenant children to participate in the Lord’s Supper once they profess their faith publicly in the Sunday worship service. Covenant children are Christians because they are in the Covenant of Grace by birthright from at least one Christian parent (1 Cor. 7:14). But before they participate in the Lord’s Supper, the consistory must hear a clear profession of faith, which grasps Christ, His work for the child and what it means to be fed with Christ’s “crucified body and shed blood” (Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 75).

The Heidelberg Catechism questions and answers 81 and 82 require that all coming to the Table (including children) have true faith. Likewise, our church order article 43 also requires the same. Furthermore, this same article encourages parents to present their children to the consistory to make their public confession of faith in Christ when they have come to the “years of understanding.”

Pastor Tom Morrison

Thanks for your question, Case.

The URC’s church order, article 45 says this: “The consistory shall supervise participation at the Lord’s Table. No member shall be admitted to the Lord’s Table who has not first made public profession of faith and is not living a godly life. Visitors may be admitted provided that, as much as possible, the Consistory is assured of their biblical church membership, of their proper profession of faith, and of their godly walk.”

Our particular church communes people from true Presbyterian and Reformed churches. We will commune people from other true churches too but need to discuss the church first with the person visiting.

Cheers!

Tom

Who may attend the Lord’s Supper in the URC? Any believer or just the URC members?

Thanks
Case

Henry,

I am glad to know that your CC pastor teaches the Bible verse by verse, that is better that nothing. However, CC has always claimed it teaches verse by verse, yet this claim is patently false. It is impossible to teach through 10 chapters of the Bible in a single service, as many claim they do. The reality is they simply skip from one verse to another like a frog jumps across a pond. That kind of “teaching” is not exposition, it amounts to nothing more than backing a truck full of ideas up to a verse then reading those ideas into the verse under consideration, along with “funny” stories of course, and then calling it teaching the Bible verse by verse. As for your “pastor” I am glad to hear he is a nice and humble man; you still should be aware however, that he teaches Chuch Smith’s version of false Christianity.

I hope you keep listening to the pod casts so that you can learn more about what the historic Christian church has taught and confessed.

Grace and peace,

Pastor John

Tyler,

The only “liberty” that we have in worship, is the liberty to do that which fits within the framework of what God commands. For example, God commands that we worship Him in song; however, he does not command us to sing a certain number of songs in a given worship service. We are at liberty to choose as many songs as our sanctified common sense determines appropriate for the occassion. This is not at all a violation of the regulative principle since it does not claim the liberty to sing whatever songs we would like; it simply recognizes that within the framework of what is Biblically required we are allowed some variation in terms of how we apply what is actually commanded. Let me know if this helps or you would like a different example.

Grace and peace,

Pastor John

Hopefully very soon my friend!

Nick,
Pastor John McArthur is ordained by the Independent Fundamental Churches of America which is an organization requiring all ordained members to subscribe to dispensational theology and to the position that only “born again” persons constitute the membership of the church. At least one reason then, why John McArthur does not baptize infants, is because he would violate his vows of ordination. Futhermore, the church he pastors is also a member in the IRCA, which means that if he did baptize infants, either the church would have to fire him or the church would have to dissolve its membership with the IFCA since they would be in violation of the doctrinal standards of that organization.

Beyond that, there are doctrinal reasons for why McArthur refuses to baptize infants, namely, his commitment to dispensational theology. Dispensational theology posits a radical disjunction between the church under the Old Covenant, and the church under the New. This means then, that Dr. McArthur does not really hold to or teach “reformed theology.” Though we concede that he teaches aspects of so-called “calvinistic” doctrines, he repudiates confessional Reformed theology at many points. That being the case, it is not proper to see Dr. McArthur as “reformed” or a teacher of “reformed theology.” In making these distinctions, we don’t mean to be contentious, in fact, we believe that we are characterizing things as they really stand and in such a way that even Dr. McArthur himself would agree with. Various public statements made by McArthur make it very clear that he does not see himself as “reformed” and does not want his teaching to be identified in that way.

Confessional Reformed churches see the doctrine of the church and the baptism of the children of believers very differently. While Reformed theology sees a distinction between the New Covenant church and national Israel, it does not see a radical distinction between the NC church and the covenant people of Israel. The reason why Reformed theology holds that there is a basic continuity between the covenant peple of God under both economies of the covenant is because there is one covenant of grace that has been sovereignly administered by God from the gates of Eden, after Adam’s fall, through Abraham and beyond, and its promises have been climactically fulfilled and ratified by the work of Jesus Christ. Since there is but one covenant of grace, and since God has always included children of believers in that covenant, we believe that children of believers are to be baptized and distinguished from the unbelieving world, as was done under the OC by means of circumcision. This does not mean that we believe every baptized child is saved or will be saved any more than circumcision meant a child of an OC member was saved or would be saved by virtue of their covenant standing. However, we hold, based upon scripture, that the promises of the covenant are to the children of believers and we trust and pray that God will confirm those covenant promises which are sealed unto our children in baptism.

I hope this answer helps. If you would like further clarification feel free to respond.

Grace and peace,

Pastor John

This is the only subject that I do not understand in URC teaching.

Thank you.

Arjen,
Very pleased to make your acquaintance. We are glad that you stopped by urc learning. Its great to know that we share a ike common faith.

Grace and peace!

Looking for an english translation of the Belgic Confession, I find your website and I’m astonished that I can read something about the three forms of unity. Being a member of the dutch reformed churches, I also know these forms as “the three forms of unity”. Because we believe that our confession is ‘only’ a good summary of the Holy Bible, it is a reason for me to say: “yes, protestants are catholic”. We may live in different places and perhaps never meet each other, but we have the same faith in common.

Greetings,

Arjen Karssenberg
Amersfoort, The Netherlands

Chuck Smith is going on a preaching tour with Lovesong, the early 1970s Calvary Chapel singing group, to bring dropouts from the early days of Calvary Chapel back into their fold. Based on the Calvary Chapel movement’s background, and if his emphasis is what I heard (at the concert at Calvary Chapel East Anaheim on 6/0/10), I fear that they will remain in the shadows.

The early Calvary Chapel movement grew because of the hippie mentality. The hippies expected the dawning of the “Age of Aquarius.” Chuck Smith came and suggested a timetable, and even a date, for the return of Jesus, based on his unorthodox way of interpreting the Bible. This built on the hippie appetite for the novel. (See End Time Visions: The Road of Armageddon [Broadman & Holman], by Richard Abanes, for more information about Chuck’s date suggestion.)

Many hippies accepted a form of monism that elevated individual desire and mysticism in their personal experiences. The Calvary Chapel movement, through Lovesong and other groups, focused on personal experience, physical expression, and mysticism rather than being as focused on God and the work of Jesus Christ. Hippies felt more at home with them. (See Hank Hanegraaff’s book Counterfeit Revival [Word Publications] to learn about the type of worship experiences that some within the early Calvary Chapel movement came to embrace.)

The hippies failed to emphasize the mind in thinking through social and personal problems, which led to strange political beliefs and lifestyle problems. Chuck Smith, with his background in the Pentecostal Foursquare church, emphasized a very feelings-oriented approach to issues related to the Christian faith, which led to those in the early Calvary Chapel movement vesting authority in individuals like Chuck Smith and other leaders instead of using our minds to understand the Bible. This was consistent with the hippie mentality. (See Chuck Smith’s pamphlet called Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Word of God [The Word for Today] to learn about the way that Chuck Smith approaches theology.)

The hippies distrusted the traditions of the United States, including the things that they considered “traditional” that were associated with the church. Chuck Smith taught that the churches were unfaithful in the early 70s, and taught that God, through him and the Calvary Chapel movement, brought revival. This fed their distrust of the church as an institution. (See Chuck Smith’s book Harvest to learn about the way that he and others in the Calvary Chapel movement viewed other Christian churches.)

I fear that Chuck Smith’s current approach won’t help those who dropped out of the Calvary Chapel movement because he may not focus on what Jesus did for us through His death and resurrection.

Chuck, in his sermon after Lovesong finished their concert, emphasized that we, as Christians, are free from sin’s power, but mentioned little if anything about Jesus dying to pay for our sins. And so, instead of emphasizing that we’re free from sin’s penalty through faith in Jesus Christ, Chuck emphasized that Jesus gives us freedom from sin’s power in our lives on this side of eternity.

The Calvary Chapel dropouts need another message. They know that we’re not entirely free from sin’s power on this side of eternity. Not only does the Bible tell us that we continue to struggle with sin as believers (see Romans 7), but some of them have been raked over the coals because of their own sins and the sins of others. They need to be told that they’re saved from sin’s penalty through faith in Jesus, despite their struggles and failures in their lives. Jesus died to pay for our sins so that we won’t be punished for them. God, through faith in Jesus, gives us Jesus’ “good” to cover our “bad” so that we’re seen as being good when we’re really not. In other words, they need to be taught about the work of Jesus Christ and the Bible’s teaching about justification (see Romans 3-5), emphasized through the Protestant Reformation and the churches that flourished as a result.

Chuck’s solution won’t fix people’s problems because he doesn’t emphasize that Christians continue to sin. In fact, he really seemed to manipulate folks at the end of the service to get people to come forward for the altar call. He asked everyone to ask God for help to overcome the power of sin Then, he asked those who asked for help to raise a hand so God would see their raised hand. Lastly, he asked everyone who raised a hand to come forward, and then led them in a prayer to become Christians. It would have been easy to infer from what he said that those who struggle with sin aren’t Christians, but if they came forward they would become a Christian and from that day forward have new victory over all of their struggles.

The truth is at mature Christians struggle with sin. The hippie mentality hurts instead of helps those in the Calvary Chapel movement. They need to be told about freedom from the penalty of sin and question and abandon unhealthy aspects of the hippie mentality.

Eric,
You are not very clear in the things you write, so if what I critique here is not really what you intend to say, please let me know. In what follows I will address what I perceive to be your main points:

First, you seem to be arguing that S & S hosts—(as well as Reformed theology in general) have an incorrect understanding of the term “catholic” which you think you set straight from the historical record by quoting from St. Ignatius. Let me begin by saying, the term “catholic,” comes from a Greek word “katholikos” which simply means universal. In the context of this comment, Ignatius is applying the term to the church universal which confesses the truth, not to a local or regional church such as Rome. It is clear that he does not place the locus of all ecclesiastical authority in the Roman church and its bishop, nor does he exclusively identify the true church with the Roman church. A primary reason why this term was used to refer to the church by early Christians, such as Ignatius, is because cults and heretical groups were usually isolated and located in a particular place or region while the true church was not narrowly confined to a specific locale, rather it was spread throughout the world. That thought leads to the next point here, which is that Rome did appropriate the term “catholic” and apply it to the Roman church and argued that the true church is found only where a particular church identifies itself organizationally with the ROMAN bishop who stands in succession with the apostle Peter. The point the S & S hosts were making when they said, “the Roman Catholic church stole the term ‘catholic’ and now apply it to themselves exclusively” is that Rome illegitimately applies the term “catholic” to itself exclusively and in a way that is wholly inconsistent with how the early church intended the term to be used. Rome, by applying the term to itself exclusively is identifying the true church with a specific locale and region, which was precisely what heretics and cults did in early church history. The Reformed use the word “catholic” in a manner that is consistent with the early Christians by confessing that the church is found in any place where the church bears the three marks of the true church.

Second, in what appears to be a mere afterthought, you seem to say that the S & S hosts don’t believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. You simply assert this but make absolutely no reference to anything said on any S & S program to substantiate that claim. This is a very serious charge you are making, because you are essentially saying that the hosts of S & S, who are all ministers in good standing in the Reformed church, are blaspheming heretics. If what you say is true, it is scandalous; however, if it is not, you are engaging in slander. When you make public comments such as this, you are obligated, at minimum, by the law of love, to substantiate your claims with evidence. Simply asserting it in an offhanded way without any support causes you to come across both as hostile and lacking in credibility, which I sincerely hope is not the impression about yourself that you want to form in the opinions of others.

FOR THE RECORD, THE 3 HOSTS OF THE S & S ALL WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUBSCRIBE TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AS CONFESSED BY THE ECUMENICAL CREEDS OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Third, you INCORRECTLY ARGUE that Calvinists are NESTORIANS. It is clear from the words in your post that you don’t understand what the Nestorian controversy is and it is clear that you don’t understand the Reformed doctrine of the incarnation. Let’s begin with your articulation of “Calvino-Nestorianism” as you put it. You say that it consists in “making the hypostatic union a product of the incarnation,” “confessing Jesus to be a human person,” “confessing a human Jesus being damned by the Father at the cross,” or “the Father damning His divine Son thereby splitting the Trinity. Either route being heretical.”

First, let’s review what Nestorianism is. Nestorius was a 5th century bishop of Constantinople. Nestorius is notable for calling Mary the “chistotokos” (the bearer of Christ) instead of “theotokos” (the bearer of God). His intention was to clarify that Mary was not the source of Christ’s divinity, but it was not to deny that Christ was actually fully divine. Whatever his intentions were, the church ruled that Nestorius’ construction did not adequately express the personal union of the divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ. Nestorius and Nestorianism was eventually condemned first in 431 at the Council of Ephesus and later at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The 4th ecumenical council, the Council of Chalcedon, correctly articulated the relationship of the human and divine natures in the PERSON of Christ as follows, saying that Christ is:

consubstantial with the Father concerning his divine nature, and consubstantial with us concerning his human nature; in all things like unto us, but without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father concerning his divine nature, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the MOTHER OF GOD CONCERNING HIS HUMAN NATURE; One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in TWO NATURES, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably.

All this means that the DISTINCTION of natures is not taken away by the UNION and that the PROPERTIES of each nature are preserved in the PERSON of Christ. The other thing to note, is that by applying the term “bearer of God” to Mary, the church is expressing the truth that Jesus derived a true human nature from Mary, and that Jesus, the son of Mary according to his humanity, was God from the moment of his conception. This is what all Christians must confess about the relationship between the two natures in the person of Christ.

Now, having stated that, let’s examine what the Reformed confessions confess about the person of Christ. The Heidelberg Catechism says in Q15 that our mediator and redeemer is “true God and true and righteous man.” The Belgic Confess takes the very same position but articulates it in greater length and precision when it says in article 10 that Jesus Christ “according to His divine nature is the only begotten Son of God, begotten from eternity, not made, nor created, but co-essential and co-eternal with the Father, equal unto him and in all things. He is the Son of God, not only from the he assumed our nature but from all eternity” and then confesses in article 18 that the Son really did assume “the true human nature with all its infirmities, sin excepted” and finally it goes on to confess in article 19 that “by this conception the person of the Son is inseparably united and connected with the human nature, so that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures UNITED IN ONE SINGLE PERSON; yet each retains ITS OWN DISTINCT PROPERTIES.”

It is very clear from these statements in the Reformed confessions, that the Reformed church DOES NOT CONFESS A NESTORIAN VIEW of the person of Christ. That the Reformed church confesses what the church historically teaches and confesses is evident in the fact that it uses the very categories of the Chalcedonian Definition. To claim that it teaches something contrary is to be either entirely unaware of the Reformed view of Christ or it is to willfully distort what the Reformed church confesses. Let the reader choose where you make your stand.

As for the false distinction you set up in your point number 2 between the Reformed either confessing a human Jesus being condemned by the Father on the cross or the Logos was condemned by the Father on the cross there by splitting the Trinity, it is HOPELESSLY CONFUSED. The Father sent the Son to assume a true human nature in which the disobedience was committed in order to make satisfaction for sin and to bear punishment for sin IN THAT NATURE BY THE ACCURSED DEATH OF THE CROSS. Orthodox Christianity CANNOT confess that the deity of Christ suffered and died on the cross as you suggest in the second option you propose in the latter half of point 2, because then it would confess something which is inconsistent with the very nature of God, namely, that the deity could suffer and that it could die; neither is possible, because if the Logos, the Son of God, could suffer and could die, HE IS NOT GOD. AT THE SAME TIME, we insist with orthodox Christianity, the suffering of Christ according to his HUMANITY was INSEPARABLE from His divine nature, so that by the power of his GODHEAD, He might bear the wrath of God in his human nature. This inseparability of the natures is essential for the work of redemption in order that he might, by the power of his Godhead, overcome death and restore to sinners righteousness and life. The false distinction you set up, ironically BREATHES THE SPIRIT OF NESTORIANISM, which drives a RADICAL WEDGE between the natures of Christ, which is the very thing you charge Reformed theology with!

The 3rd point you make is UTTERLY INCOHERENT, and in no way logically flows from anything you say in point number 2. You seem to be claiming that “imputational theology” is rooted in Reformed theology’s supposedly Nestorian view of the hypostatic union. The best I can make of your argument in point number 3 is that you have a Eutychian view of the hypostatic union which collapses the distinctions between the human nature and the divine nature. This is apparently your position because you charge the Reformed view of denying that the Logos is the subject performing the economic actions pertaining to securing our salvation. The fact of the matter is, that the Reformed, along with orthodox Christianity and the scriptures, say that Christ according to his humanity represents man in the covenant of works, and through his obedience and suffering, IN OUR PLACE, secures salvation by earning righteousness by his active obedience to the law and by his suffering God’s wrath in our place. The fruit which results from this covenantal transaction is righteousness and life, which is then imputed to the elect who are represented by Jesus Christ in the covenant of works. This is not a novel view, it is the very thing the apostle Paul teaches in Romans 5:18-19 which says, “through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (v18) and “through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (v19). Paul could not be more clear that our redemption is in the BODY OF CHRIST (that is the humanity of Christ). It was in the body of Christ that obedience to the law was performed and it was in the body of Christ that satisfaction for sin was made. That means then, that the humanity of Christ is the medium through which the blessings of salvation come to us.

ALL THIS MEANS that salvation does not consist in Christ mediating to us the divine nature by means of the hypostatic union, it means that salvation consists in having the actual obedience and satisfaction of Christ, performed by the humanity of Christ, imputed to us by God. Let me hasten to add, that the Reformed do not envision that this representative work of Christ was performed apart from the divine nature, because it is impossible for the divine and human natures to be separated from one another, for they were inseparably joined in the holy conception of Jesus Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary.

This inseparable connection of the natures in performing the work of redemption is taught by Paul in Acts 20:28 when he says God “purchased the church with his own blood.” Paul does not mean that God actually bled at the cross, it is a rhetorical way of speaking. Classically, theologians have called this the “communicatio idiomatum” meaning that, what is true of one nature, can be LINGUISTICALLY applied to the other nature. It does not mean that there is an actual confusion of the attributes of each nature, it means that what can be properly said of one nature in the person of Christ can be applied rhetorically of the other. To my point though, this manner of speaking UNDERSCORES the fact that the divine nature of Christ was inseparably connected to the human nature of Christ in performing the acts of our redemption which are in turn imputed to sinners for salvation.

Eric, I have attempted to fairly understand your arguments and then refute them theologically and exegetically. I trust that you are a person who is open to instruction and therefore I admonish you to study what has been written here, and to align your views with the orthodox faith which the church confesses, based upon careful study of the scripture. I would also admonish you to be far more careful of the claims you make and the positions you take. It is clear that you are not theologically trained and your views seem to be based upon a very superficial understanding of theology. To speak publicly like you have out of such thorough ignorance, you manifest an arrogant pride which is contrary to a disciple of Christ. Additionally, the charges you level against the ministers who are the hosts of S & S are entirely unfounded and you owe a public apology to these ministers for the ignorant and false charges you have made against them.

In fact, the man who coined the word “Catholic” was Ignatius, as he applied it to the universal faith. And wrote:

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans”

This cannot be twisted, because this is also one of the reasons Calvin denied Ignatius was an actual person.

Also, not to get to off the main topic. But, one of the hosts said “We agree with the trinity” in which, this is impossible.

1.Calvinsim’s christology is generally Nestorian, and at best, quasi-Nestorian. This is because it makes the hypostatic union a product of the Incarnation — divine nature + human nature = person Jesus. Most Calvinists (like many westerns in general) erroneously confess Jesus to be a “human person.” Gordon Clark and his disciples and other reformed giants like A.A. Hodge openly defend Nestorius and his views. Not to say that he is speaking for all Calvinists, but is ahead of the curve.

2.The Calvino-Nestorian view of the Incarnation has all kinds of other flaws that flow from it. Most notably, Calvinists often confess a human man – Jesus – being damned by the Father at the cross. This is, to say the least, Nestorian, while the other option for Calvinists is to keep the orthodox confession of the sole subject being the Logos, but that leads to the conclusion that the Father damned His divine Son – therby splitting the Trinity. Either route the Calvinist takes, it can only be heretical.

3.Also flowing from this issue is the nature of salvation and problems for imputational theology. If no. 2 is correct in its analysis, then we also cannot rely upon a legal status – itself a created grace earned by a human-person-Jesus – to save us. We need an actual ontological change in our whole being – theosis or deification, and this is denied by 99% of Calvinism. The reason for this is also faulty christology, because Calvinism won’t consitently confess that the Logos is sole subject of all the Incarnate economic actions. It will not confess two energies in Christ because of its denial of the essence energy distinction and adoption of western absolute divine simplicity, as well as its theological voluntarism and a whole host of difficulties that come with classical, unbalanced western augustinian theology.

4.As just mentioned in point 3, the rejection of essence – energy and adoption of absolute simplicity has plagued calvinism with the same problems as outright Augustinianism. Pure monergism means mon-energism, which means the heresy of monothelitism, condemned by the 6th council. Many Calvinists say they confess the 6th council and two wills in Christ, but the WCF mentions two wills nowhere and Calvinism’s acceptance of absolute simplicity means it must of necessity reject two energies in Christ as taught by the 6th council.

In just seven comments, this discussion has turned raucous and such words as “heretical” have surfaced!!!

As I understand our faith none of us will reach perfection until the day we die!!

And all of us…who are here posting…are here by grace and not of ourselves!!! The Holy Spirit has moved each of us to be here because such discussions as we are undertaking here are not of the sort that occur naturally!!

So can we agree to discourse civilly and with sound argument and debate without resorting ti innuendo and name calling??

After all…the Holy Spirit may bring us visitors that see only the rancor and not the love of Christ we so profess!!

Just a thought!!

Brian

Glad you found our site and glad you found this site. Redeemer Reformation Church is actually in Regina, SK. Roger, who posted the link, lives in Saskatoon. Perhaps we’ll see you someday in Regina.

Regards,
Brian Cochran

Bob,
Happy to hear that this works for you, and grateful to know about our friends in the Great White North!

Pastor John

Evan,
I cannot really think of any books that I think put it all together from a confessionally Reformed perspective. My advice is to spend time as a committee searching the Three Forms of Unity in order to develop a perspective on evangelism and worship that is confessionally sound. For instance, to develop a more thorough grasp upon the relationship between worship and evangelism, think deeply upon the connection between Lord’s Day 35 (worship) and Q & A 65,83-84. In order to develop a thoroughly Reformed view on evangelism think about Canons 1:3-4, 2:5,3:17, and 5:14. Ask the question, “what is a self-consciously, confessional view of the relationship between preaching and evangelism?” Having thought about that, then think about what activities an evangelism committee can do in order to help promote evangelism through worship. It will no doubt be obvious to you all that you need to develop outreach activities that help members testify about Christ and provide opportunities to bring unbelievers under the sound of the preached word. Your other option here is to set up public evangelism events where your pastor can preach to a crowd of unbelievers. These kind of events take a lot of careful planning, but they can be useful for evangelistic purposes.

As far as your other question about whether someone can be saved who does not hear the preached word, I would simply say that God is free to work outside of ordinary means. God is able to do what he pleases, and we can be confident that not one single elect person will ever fail to receive salvation in Jesus. Though that is the case, we are obligated to approach the commission to evangelize and to make disciples from what is revealed in God’s word.

I hope all this helps and may God richly bless you and your church as you seek to promote his kingdom.

Pastor John

Legionnaire ministries has a few, they recommend a book entitled ‘Jesus the Evangelist’.

Where there is no service, or preacher is it possible for a person to have salvation and glorify God? Or is this one of those situations where I may not exactly like the answer. Sort of like when I was told for the first time God does not love Everybody

Thanks for your time, I appreciate it.
I imagine you get a lot of arguments on here.

Evan,
You are almost there. Reformed churches don’t make “concessions” for either believers or non-believers, since worship is for God. As Dr. Bergsma, my beloved homiletics professor at Westminster Seminary, used to remind all the first year preaching students, God is the “audience” in worship, not the people. Since God is the audience we dare only do in worship what He commands. To make “concessions” either to believers or non-believers, is to worship man and his feelings, desires, thoughts, and preferences, and though it may draw a crowd, it won’t draw a single person to Jesus and it won’t be a means of true spiritual blessing to anyone. It turns out though, that when we do things as God commands, we have the assurance that His blessing will be upon the worship and that unbelievers will be confronted with His awesome authority. I think that is much closer to what Paul is saying in 1Corinthians 14.

As for loving your neighbor, it seems to me that the best way to love them, is simply to love them. J.I.Packer once said that it’s nothing less than hit and run evangelism to chuck strangers under the chin with gospel verses and walk away as if nothing happened. Rather, Packer argues, and I think correctly so, that we should get to know our neighbors and earn their trust before we try to start witnessing to them. It turns out then, that the bridge to witness and evangelism is showing concern for your neighbors and treating them as you would like to be treated. If more Christians simply did that, they would find many opportunities for witness.

Thanks for tuning in to URC learning.

Pastor John

A side note..When Jesus was talking to the Pharisees about not coming for the righteous, but for the unrighteous. I think He would use that argument for us a lot of the time. He totally knows that the Pharisees were unrighteous, but they were not who He came for. It seems sometimes that arrogance overflows rather than love for our neighbor. Which is why I think we should quit listening to Rush Limbaugh. Listening to that stuff all day, turns your heart hard for those we are demanded to Love.
Love I am certain is not just a feeling, but a tangible doing for their good. I am also sure that we cannot sit around waiting to crank out some feelings of love for our neighbors and enemies. The best way in Which we are to show love for our neighbor is to share with them the greatest gift we have, Jesus Christ.

What are your thoughts about the other sermons on this site concerning evangelism. Before your explanation of terms of ‘evangelism’ and ‘witnessing’ they did not seem on the same page, and basically contradictory.

Bendiga en Dios! Y Gracias para su tiempo. Gloria en Dios Harmano! Many Blessings,
I now hold a much larger respect for the office of Preacher than I already did.

Evan,
I am not sure who the “we” is in your comment that “we see Sunday school positions as an extension of the pulpit.” This is far from true. Confessional Reformed theology sees the pulpit as categorically and fundamentally distinct from any other form of teaching in the church. Heidelberg Catechism Q & A 65 (as well as Q & A’s 83-84) makes it very clear that the the pulpit is not mere instruction, rather, it is a communication of Christ and his grace to the church. According to Romans 10:14-15, Christ actually speaks in the preaching the word, and that is something that no confessionally Reformed person would dare to argue is the case with respect to Sunday School instruction.

As for your concerns about evangelism, let me see if I can clarify some things. First, Refromed theology distinguishes between “witness” and “evangelism.” “Witness” is the testimony about Christ, which every Christian is obligated to perform. That witness flows from our office as prophet, according to Q & A 32 of the catechism, it is rooted in our duty to love our neighbor, and it is based upon the command and example of scripture (Col. 4:5-6; 1Thess. 1:8). Failure of individual Christians to both pray for and actively seek to witness to lost persons is sin, and it must be rebuked and repented of like any other sin. “Evangelism” is the public proclamation of the gospel by an ordained minister. The Church Order of the URCNA, article 47 reflects this principle when it says, “The church’s missionary task is to preach the Word of God to the uncoverted. When this task is to be performed beyond the field of an organized church, it is to be carried out by ministers of the Word set apart to this labor, who are called, supported and supervised by their Consistories.” Clearly, the CO sees “evanglism” as something that is performed by an ordained minister and consists in the proclamation of the gospel. Second, you ask why URC churches have “evangelism committees” if it is the sole duty of the pastor to “evangelize?” The answer is that such committees are a means of organizing, coordinating, and encouraging the members of the church in fulfilling their call to witness to the lost. By organizing outreach events and hosting friendship Sunday events and so forth, these committees help facilitate witness and prepare the way for true evanglism to take place, as members testify about Christ to unbelievers and then invite them to church where they may sit under the preaching of the Word of God and encounter the authoritative voice of Christ in the preaching of the word. Third, I realize that sometimes, as Reformed churches, we can be slow to passionately pursue this command to witness, but don’t be overly discouraged by that. Use your own sense of passion about witness as a model to motivate others around you and pray fervently that God will raise up many to follow your example.

Thanks for expressing your concern, and I challenge you to maintain fervency in prayer for the lost and the growth of Christ’s heavenly kingomd.

Grace and peace,

Pastor John

Also, in addition to showing love for our neighbor wouldn’t we have to evangelize and teaching in order to get people to coming to church with us?

There are also some other text which show that there are separate office with different purposes. Yet at the end of the day coming together for the same purpose of Glorifying the living God. Some are preachers some are teachers and some are evangelists. Then it goes on to say that preachers should do the work of an evangelist.

Currently I am of the stance that ministry and evangelism is the work of every Christian, ordained or not. Of coarse doing this all in attempt to bring them into the church so they may be part of the body and grow for the glory of God.
Why do most URC churches have evangelism committees if the preacher is the only evangelist and it is our sole duty to bring unbelievers in to church?

This is something that I struggle with tremendously, and in fact have bitterness toward the church because the lack of zeal for the lost.
Is this my viewpoint incorrect?

I had a negative experience in a church from an Arminian background. As a Calvinist, I sought to help out at this church and thought that I was for the most part accepted and affirmed in my service despite differences of belief. The pastor of the church later made it clear publicly that I didn’t have his support. This was a blessing in one sense, because it was, I believe, the way the Lord showed me with more clarity about how he felt about my service there and led me in my service to Him, but from a human standpoing, it was difficult.

Because we’re all sinners, there will always be interpersonal issues to work through in churches. When there’s at least agreement on the nature of God’s grace to us, though, it will make dealing with other issues easier. Now, this church wasn’t a Calvary Chapel, and don’t intend any disrespect to those part of the Calvary Chapel tradition, but since Calvary Chapels are Arminian for the most part, it would be most conducive to Christian unity, the peace of the church, and interpersonal relationships for Calvinists to find churches that have a background in Calvinism.

Bryan,

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.

I do believe it is the Spanish version.

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

Thanks for stopping by URC learning. I am glad you took time to post your comments. We always appreciate feedback from people who take the time to listen to what is posted on the site. If you have some specifics you would like to share with us about why you thought what you heard was so pathetic, we would welcome those remarks too.

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!

Although they seem to be able to explain everything in revelations that calls to people to “Make a decision” now, or in other words to consider joining calvarys weekly tithes.

Consider the fact that the context in Revelations is more open to debate then Romans, still they skip through Romans, why ?

Alex,
Good question, I am glad you brought it up. I cannot answer you based on the sermon you are referring to but I can give you my answer. First, Christians are under a twofold obligation to keep the law; one, because they are image bearers, they are to be subject to their sovereign Creator in everything that He commands, and second, because they are redeemed by the blood of Christ, they are to submit to Him as Lord out of gratitude. Second, because the 4th commandment is a part of God’s law, then yes, Christians must obey the 4th commandment. Third, the real question that remains is, what does the 4th commandment require of Christians under the New Covenant. The Heidelberg Catechism in Q & A 103 gives this explanation of what is binding upon Christians in the 4th commandment: in the first place God wills the ministry of the Gospel and the schools be maintained, and that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church to learn the Word of God, to use the Holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the name of the Lord, and to give Christians alms. In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by His Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath. The Catechism basically divides the Christian’s obedience to the 4th commandment into 2 parts: 1) things I must do on the Lord’s Day, and 2) things I must do every day. The first part consists in a 4-fold obligation: 1) attend church to learn the Word of God, 2) use the Holy Sacraments, 3) call publicly upon the Lord, and 4) give Christian alms. The second set of duties requires two things: 1) rest from my sin every day, and 2) allow the Lord to work sanctifying grace in me.

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

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.

Name calling does not equal love.

a cult is “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.”

1 Cor 13:2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

1 John 4:20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.