God lost His Truth, His Church? (A civil discussion regarding such issues)

[Jean Chauvin]

"In line with that, Dr. Steve Brown (also a Presbyterian) has said that many of the sermons he hears (in "Reformed" churches/seminaries) could, with just the change of a few words here and there, be given in any Synagogue in America. "

A dutch reformed pastor I know well has said nearly the same thing!

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"Continental Divide

On the Continental Reformed side of our feedback, we received "So what else is new?" mail. Though some Continental Reformed, through cross-pollination from Puritans, have embraced a version of the RPW, very few have been in the "strict" camp.4 Nevertheless, the Continental Reformed have long been a people who worship in a God-centered, orderly, and covenantal manner without the RPW.5 Rev. Donald Van Dyken, pastor of an Orthodox Christian Reformed Church, wrote to us, "I must say that I never heard of the Regulative Principle of Worship until exposure to my ministerial colleagues here in the OCRC's who were from Presbyterian background." "

It's dejavu all over again! (From the: I hadn't read that quote before! -I promise! Department.)

Actually, what Rev Van Dyken says is probably true for 99.9% of the CRC/URC members.

Jean

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

W,
you know that to a lesser extent, these arguments can be applied to liberal leaning Protestant "denominations", some that many of us have come out of.

i, like many of those persecuted throughout the ages for their faith, have to lean on the sovergnity and revealed character of God. i am certain that (if you hold to a preterist or partial preterist eschatology), Nero (a real sweetheart), and Nebuchadnezzar, (not the nicest guy in the world), served the purpose of God, but it is really hard to see it when you are tied to a stake, soaked with tar oil, and set on fire to light the Emporer's garden at night.

It will undoutably become clear to us with the passage of time.

BTW,W, i am staying out of that other thread you are on... IMHO a few participants need to look into procurring some prozac, and trying again. Too far developed for me to make a meaningful contribution, even if i could digest the thread rapidly enough (doubtful).

[Wrigley]

It's true for this ex-CRCer.

[Matchett-PI]

"It's dejavu all over again! (From the: I hadn't read that quote before! -I promise! Department.)"

Yeah! I should have pinged rwfromkansas to #107 too!

[nobdysfool]

I tend toward the Traducianism position...but I also see an element of federalism in the fall as well

I am definitely Transducian, although I didn't know that view had a name until I read this thread. Personally, I do not favor the Federal view at all, I think it raises more problems than it solves, and actually waters down the work of Christ. That's just my personal opinion, from my own reading and studying. It actually undermines the Transducian position slightly, in my understanding of it. In my understanding, God created all living things to reproduce after their own kind. Sinful man (and woman) in reproduction can only produce sinful children, i.e. after their own kind. If Adam and Eve had produced children before the Fall, it would be a whole different kettle of fish, IMHO. And, I think that maybe the reason our bodies aren't immediately redeemed is to prevent the same thing from happening on this end of the scale, too. Just a thought, no theological weight attached to it....

[lockeliberty]

I asked my Dad about this when I first saw rdub mention exclusive Psalmsody. He recalled it was a controversy in his childhood. (40's) My reading of Romans 14 and Colossians 2 seem to rule out the "R" in RPW.

[drstevej]

Traducianism also kicks Mormonism to the curb with their spirit babies waiting to get a body!

*** In my understanding, God created all living things to reproduce after their own kind. Sinful man (and woman) in reproduction can only produce sinful children, i.e. after their own kind.***

Also nixes the LDS kids get a free pass until age 8 dogma.

[JesseShurun]

Sinful man (and woman) in reproduction can only produce sinful children, i.e. after their own kind.***

Eve said "I have gotten a man from the Lord" implying that Cain was from the Lord, yet he was sinful. On the other hand, the matriarchs all had to become pregnant with the Lord's help, so you are both right and wrong, today.

[nobdysfool]

Also nixes the LDS kids get a free pass until age 8 dogma.

Hehehe....

[drstevej]

***On the other hand, the matriarchs all had to become pregnant with the Lord's help, so you are both right and wrong, today.***

Not necessarily. The Lord's help was in conceiving but the pregnancies were not different than all pregnancies (save Jesus and the Raelian baby).

BTW, my wife and I were helped in the conceiving of our daughter via Danocrine (reduce endometriosis) and Clomid (fertility drug). I assure you our daughter was not born sinless, yet she is a wonderful gift from God!

[JesseShurun]

The Lord's help was in conceiving but the pregnancies were not different than all pregnancies (save Jesus and the Raelian baby).

So, Isaac was nothing special? Jacob was nothing special? Joseph was nothing special? Even John the Baptist was nothing special? What bible do you read anyway?

On another note, there is biblical support for the notion that a righteous person's household, children, servants etc. recieve special protection from the Lord.

[lockeliberty]

As you know I've been studying a cult that holds a form of traducianism to deny the diety of Christ. (Sinless sperm) I understand that any cult will pervert true doctrine yet that doctrine seems to lend itself to the notion that Christ's sinlessness was merely a factor of his not being conceived of a fallen man. Any comments?

[RnMomof7]

Traducianism also kicks Mormonism to the curb with their spirit babies waiting to get a body!
*** In my understanding, God created all living things to reproduce after their own kind. Sinful man (and woman) in reproduction can only produce sinful children, i.e. after their own kind.***
Also nixes the LDS kids get a free pass until age 8 dogma.

interesting observation...

[MarMema]

I think Peter was meant in this passage to exemplify the qualities God sought in His priesthood of believers, not that Peter was the first pope over a hierarchy of priests who sat over believers in authority.

There is some discussion of this issue here under essays, "Is Peter the Rock?".

[drstevej]

***So, Isaac was nothing special? Jacob was nothing special? Joseph was nothing special? Even John the Baptist was nothing special?***

human egg + human sperm = human baby with a soul (nothing special in this sense)

What makes each special is unrelated to the procreation process which brought them into the world. Now Jesus is another matter.

[MarMema]

In the early years of the Roman church, in fact for centuries, the Roman bishop was not a pope in the modern sense. In fact, the real notion of a pope took about a thousand years to develop and for papal successors to establish their power. Priestly celibacy was not enforced for a thousand years. Mariolatry, in the modern sense, simply did not exist until relatively modern times. The Eucharist, while always a doctrine, did not receive the same emphasis as it does in modern times.

Well bravo and thank you! It was at that same "thousand years" point where the RC church split and took off to "develop" it's own doctrine.

On another note I am reading a book by Alexander Schmemann who discusses the practise and emphasis of the Eucharist in the early church.

[JesseShurun]

What makes each special is unrelated to the procreation process which brought them into the world. Now Jesus is another matter.

Well, (and I forgot Moses), Isaac, and Jacob and Uncle Joe, were all prototypes of the coming Messiah, so yeah, nothing whatsoever special to Jewish or Christian theology. Whatever was I thinking! Just a sperm and an egg, anybody could be them. God wasn't even involved. What'd He care, it's not like He had a plan or anything.Plus, it was just coincidental all that stuff in Genesis re Sarah, and Rebecca and Rachel. Just filler.

[the_doc]

You and I are not necessarily far apart if apart at all.

Many of the ardent RPW advocates I've read almost take the position that the RPW insures that one's worship is acceptable to God.

In some situations, RPW could function as an instrumental mechanism by which one's worship becomes UNacceptable to God. (See the OT for this! "Did I comand you to do all these things?")

[rwfromkansas]

These speak of Christian liberty in controversial issues of the day, but don't touch on the actual worship service's order itself. Therefore, I do not think it has any bearing to the issue at hand for the most part. But, the end of Col. 2 speaks of "will worship" and the danger of following man's way....bolstering the RPW I think.

As I look across Scripture in the NT, I have yet to find anything that I believe supports the "follow your heart; God is pleased with anything you do" approach to worship.

That is self-created/selfish religion not based upon a concern with WHAT GOD HAS SAID HE WANTS IN WORSHIP, BUT INSTEAD WHAT WE WANT.

I am concerned with what God wants, not what is pleasing to the ears of man.