Anything missing?

I figured that I would post the Evangelical Free Church of Canada's page of its Doctrine and Distinctives and then pose a couple of questions. The EFCC's list is a whole lot shorter than the CanRC's Three Forms of Unity - my guess is that it might be about two pages or so if printed.

  • First question: Do you think that there are any problems with this text? My one misgiving concerns millenialism, and the statement's definition of the EFCC as premillenial. Beyond that I can't really find any statements there that I'd disagree with.
  • Second question: Do you think that any statements should be added to this about which there is no room for legitimate disagreement between Christians?

Comments

Statements 1 thru 3 are correct. Statement 4 I'm not 100% sure about the convicting men thing. Statements 5 thru 10 are correct. Statement 11 seems to be incorrect due to the whole millenialism thing. Statement 12 seems to be correct, though the wording is a bit unusual.

As you mentioned, the whole premillenialism thing sort of throws a wrench in things. According to the Theopedia definition of millenialism, it looks like time is up and nothing has happened.

What would I add? Stuff to combat Arminianism for starters. The Three Forms of Unity are quite lengthy for two reasons: ye olde choice of wording, and thoroughness. Neither the EFCC list nor the Three Forms cover absolutely everything that could arise, but the Three Forms cover more topics.

It is nice though to establish common ground, and it looks like there is a decent amount here even if it's not 100%.

As you mentioned, the whole premillenialism thing sort of throws a wrench in things. According to the Theopedia definition of millenialism, it looks like time is up and nothing has happened.

How exactly is time up?

What would I add? Stuff to combat Arminianism for starters.

So what exactly do you feel is missing? I find that the combination of numbers 3, 5, and 6 is pretty much sufficient to cover the necessities.

I suppose that I'm beginning to agree more and more with the words of someone that I believe I mentioned on Rotundus before - something along the lines of "when I speak of personal responsibility I sound Arminian, but when I speak of election I sound Calvinist". It's kind of interesting - when I dug through the concordance of my NIV study Bible and look for passages regarding falling away, about half of them follow this up with statements to the effect that God will not allow people to fall - but the remaining half don't (I'm trying to remember the specific word or phrase that I looked up, but I can't recall it offhand).

How exactly is time up?

The 1000 years is over.

So what exactly do you feel is missing? I find that the combination of numbers 3, 5, and 6 is pretty much sufficient to cover the necessities.

Upon closer inspection, #6 says that one must receive Christ to be saved. This is contrary to Reformed doctrine.

What exactly is the point of this exercise?

Upon closer inspection, #6 says that one must receive Christ to be saved. This is contrary to Reformed doctrine.

However, it could also mean that it Christ was given to us, and that we, without any doing of our own, received it - just like you receive a package in the mail. . . it was put into your lap.

What exactly is the point of this exercise?

The point is to discover what other churches believe, and to find faults both in other churches' doctrine and our own.

However, it could also mean that it Christ was given to us, and that we, without any doing of our own, received it - just like you receive a package in the mail. . . it was put into your lap.

Regardless of the intended interpretation, the fact that there are at least two possible interpretations indicates that elaboration and/or clarification is needed.

The point is to discover what other churches believe, and to find faults both in other churches' doctrine and our own.

I do not disagree that we should be doing this, but I was referring more to this particular discussion as opposed to the general discussion of denominational differences. Why is Dave asking us if anything is missing from the EFCC's list?

The 1000 years is over.

Did you spend any time actually looking at millenialism? (the idea is that Christ comes back and starts a 1000 year regain on earth - the 1000 year counter doesn't actually start till then).

What exactly is the point of this exercise?

Call it a church search...

Did you spend any time actually looking at millenialism? (the idea is that Christ comes back and starts a 1000 year regain on earth - the 1000 year counter doesn't actually start till then).

Ah ok, I thought they meant he would come back in 1000 years. Doesn't really sound in line with Revelation though.

Call it a church search...

That's what I figured, and to say I didn't see this coming would be a lie. I'm not going to endorse another denomination just because you feel like jumping ship. If you feel that staying in the CanRC is not an option, the URC would be an ideal switch since they are recognized as a true church by Synod. Again, not something I want to endorse, but I know a few people who have done it for various reasons. Unless the issue you have also exists in the URC, in which case there's no point asking us for feedback because naturally we're biased towards Reformed thinking and I know how much you dislike biased arguments.

Grr!!! I had a reply all thrown together and then my web browser crashed (you can blame Adobe Acrobat for that). Here I go again... hopefully this time it'll work.

I'm not going to endorse another denomination just because you feel like jumping ship. If you feel that staying in the CanRC is not an option, the URC would be an ideal switch since they are recognized as a true church by Synod. Again, not something I want to endorse

Well, a move to a different province necessitates a change in congregation. Given that you view the URC as a true church, is your statement "not something I want to endorse" intended as an expression of indifference, or of opposition to such a move (specifically relating it here to the URC, rather than some other church)? If your statement was intended as one of opposition - why?

Unless the issue you have also exists in the URC, in which case there's no point asking us for feedback because naturally we're biased towards Reformed thinking and I know how much you dislike biased arguments.

We all have our biases (myself included), and therefore any argument will to some extent reflect that. Basically, what I ask for is that people be aware of their own biases (as a general principle, the more a person is willing to acknowledge their biases, the greater the confidence that I have in their work).

Anyone here happen to ever read the magazine Christian Renewal? It's a magazine to which the subscribers seem to be dominantly from the URC (that's based on the church directory at the back of each issue, which include a whole lot of URC congregations plus a few CanRC congregations and churches from a number of other denominations - or even churches independent of any denomination). It's included from time to time some reports from the URC committee(s) dealing with the CanRC (I've dug through a number of back issues looking for those particular issues, but there's some significant gaps in coverage - we probably have the remaining issues around the house somewhere though), and I don't really think that there's been any objection raised by that committee against the CanRC that I haven't been able to agree with.

My most signficant objections to the CanRC are confessional in nature (the over-restrictiveness of some of the confessions IMO). The problem then relates to the language found in certain forms (regarding the second of these two links, note that this page seems to suggest that the URC uses the same form as the CRC). The parts of the forms that I disagree with are found in the first question of the first form, and the second question of the second form. I think that the Three Forums of (Dis)unity are too restrictive, and therefore find myself unable to agree with such a statement as made therein. Something that I can agree on the other hand, would be the form used in the PCA (see section 57-5), even though that denomination seems to be even more restrictive than the CanRC.

Basically, there are the conflicting problems of over-restrictiveness and under-restrictiveness. How best to accomodate a range of views where possible, while being sufficiently restrictive so as to incorporate only true Christians. It's not a question easy to find an answer for.

The approach of the CanRC to this problem has been confessionalization to a great extent. Not only do I think that this has failed (note which confessions the Christian Reformed Churches adhere to, and the CanRC's problems with that organization), but that it has as a corollary injected unnecessary divisiveness into the Church.

Well, a move to a different province necessitates a change in congregation. Given that you view the URC as a true church, is your statement "not something I want to endorse" intended as an expression of indifference, or of opposition to such a move (specifically relating it here to the URC, rather than some other church)? If your statement was intended as one of opposition - why?

I do not want to encourage anyone to switch to another denomination, as if to say that the CanRC is not the correct denomination to be in. With regards to the URC, although it is a separate denomination is has been recognized by Synod as a true church and in the future both denominations will hopefully merge into one. I don't know what the remaining differences are which prevent this merger from happening sooner, but I wish that I did. It is this uncertainty which makes me not want to endorse switching to the URC, but if you absolutely feel you have to switch I think it would be the best choice. If you can find the list, I'd be very interested to see it.

As for your objections, could you perhaps clarify a bit? What exactly are you disagreeing with? How are the three forms of unity too restrictive in your opinion?

Although I'm not very familiar with other confessions, I've heard that the Westminster Confession is even more restrictive (eg. with regards to actions permissible on Sunday). I wouldn't say that the Three Forms have failed. What I would say is that they cover exactly what was intended, and perhaps nothing more. Divisiveness seems to arise in two cases: 1. a portion claims that the others are not abiding by a certain point (eg. CanRC versus CRC); 2. an issue is presented which is not covered by the Three Forms.

Once in a while I have wondered why we don't have confessions that were written recently. Have no important issues arisen in the past few hundred years? I also find the way the Three Forms are layed out to be a bit cumbersome for the purposes of apologetics. It's been my observation during Bible study that it takes longer than it should to find stuff, and in some cases what people did find feels to me like it doesn't quite cover the topic that we were supposed to looking for (though that may have been because the questions in the book we're studying are pretty crappy).

I'm beginning to wonder if the skinnyness of the boxes for replies at this level is the reason why comment viewing of this sort was shut off in the software when the site was running PHP Nuke.

I do not want to encourage anyone to switch to another denomination, as if to say that the CanRC is not the correct denomination to be in. With regards to the URC, although it is a separate denomination is has been recognized by Synod as a true church and in the future both denominations will hopefully merge into one.

To be honest, by and my thoughts on this are similiar to those expressed in a letter found in the April 13, 2005 issue of Christian Renewal:


All the Bible really knows is local autonomous churches (congregations) who seek fellowship with each other (in the true faith) where that is possible. That's all. No independentism, but neither rule from the top (hierarchy). Our [I assume that he's referring to the URCNA's] Church Order puts it this way: "Federative relationships do not belong to the essence or being of the church... Entrance into and departure from a federative relationship is strictly a voluntary matter" (#7 of Foundational Principles)

I don't know what the remaining differences are which prevent this merger from happening sooner, but I wish that I did. It is this uncertainty which makes me not want to endorse switching to the URC, but if you absolutely feel you have to switch I think it would be the best choice. If you can find the list, I'd be very interested to see it.

Well, I've found references to the CanRC's want for a denominational seminary (the URC has none) as one point of contention. I think that this summarizes my views on that point.

Another difference that I've found mentioned is over the Psalmbook, and the CanRC's mandate that Genevan tunes MUST be included where available. I spent some time trying to dig up the report back again and failed to do so, but I think that the URC may not have mandated the inclusion of all 150 Psalms in any songbook. Additionally, I'm not sure that they agreed with the CanRC's argument over the proportions of Psalms and Hymns (don't quote me on the last two here, as I'm not totally sure).

A third thing that I found mention of an objection to was "Lord Supper policy". I have no idea specifically what they're objecting to here, although your pastor may have an idea.

Anyways, I've got to run off and get some other stuff done now, so I'll work on replying to the remainder of your comment sometime in the future.

Well, I've found references to the CanRC's want for a denominational seminary (the URC has none) as one point of contention. I think that this summarizes my views on that point.

LOL, as I mentioned before one minister isn't representative of all of them. I can't point to any good examples though having not read very many books in this subject area. I would like to reiterate though that not all CanRC ministers went to our seminary, so that doesn't seem to be a requirement but merely an option.

Another difference that I've found mentioned is over the Psalmbook, and the CanRC's mandate that Genevan tunes MUST be included where available. I spent some time trying to dig up the report back again and failed to do so, but I think that the URC may not have mandated the inclusion of all 150 Psalms in any songbook. Additionally, I'm not sure that they agreed with the CanRC's argument over the proportions of Psalms and Hymns (don't quote me on the last two here, as I'm not totally sure).

Can you blame them? Most of the Genevan tunes are terrible. I think that the 150 psalms should be included, but I'd like to see some of the tunes replaced. I'm also open to having more hymns, and so is the Book of Praise Committee; they're reviewing submissions right now. Unfortunately some people have different ideas about what constitutes a good hymn than other people, so it takes time. It took until 1979 before we had a complete hymn section (with 65 hymns, Hymn 1B was added later). Some of the submissions probably match some of what the URC use already. I've heard rumblings that the URC's songbook is one of the main sources for additional hymns being considered, and that the reason for initiating this update was due to the URC.

A third thing that I found mention of an objection to was "Lord Supper policy". I have no idea specifically what they're objecting to here, although your pastor may have an idea.

Lord's Supper is a hot item even within the CanRC, so I'm not surprised. I don't have a pastor/minister, but if I did I would definitely ask him. Word on the street is that Rev. Kampen is quite interested/involved in the URC talks, so that's one possibility. Rev. Moes is probably another good possibility since he's served in both denominations.

LOL, as I mentioned before one minister isn't representative of all of them. I can't point to any good examples though having not read very many books in this subject area. I would like to reiterate though that not all CanRC ministers went to our seminary, so that doesn't seem to be a requirement but merely an option.

As I understand it, the question is not primarily about whether or not it's a good seminary (although it may be a factor), but whether a denomination should in fact run a seminary.

The reason our seminary was started is because it was felt other seminaries were not Reformed enough in doctrine.

Well, places like the URCNA manage to get their pastors from elsewhere. Does the existance of places such as the Mid-America Reformed Seminary, where I think a large number of URCNA pastors hail from, mean that the CanRC college could now be shut down in your opinion? (evidently the official position of the CanRC is no, if this is still an issue in negotiations with the URCNA.

IMHO the location of our seminary is a little more convenient for those already in Canada.

Ok, I'm sick of comments contained in skinny little boxes so I'm posting this as a new response even though it is a response to previous comments.

As for your objections, could you perhaps clarify a bit? What exactly are you disagreeing with? How are the three forms of unity too restrictive in your opinion?

Basically the CanRC and URC forms to profession of faith seem to require agreement with the confessions in their entirety. To me, to say that one must (eg.) baptize one's children is an implicit condemnation of the Baptist position. There seems to me to exist reasonable arguments for both continuity and discontinuity. Of the two I tend to find the argument for discontinuity in practice a slight bit stronger than that for continuity, but at the same time unable to convince myself that infant baptism is incorrect (which puts me in a bit of an odd middle ground between the two groups).

If you have time, Augustine's letter to Januarius makes for some interesting reading.

Although I'm not very familiar with other confessions, I've heard that the Westminster Confession is even more restrictive (eg. with regards to actions permissible on Sunday).

Indeed the Westminster Confession is more restrictive in regards to actions on Sunday. At the same time, though, membership there does not seem to require that one agree in whole with the entirety of the confession, but only a number of basic points of the faith.

I wouldn't say that the Three Forms have failed. What I would say is that they cover exactly what was intended, and perhaps nothing more. Divisiveness seems to arise in two cases: 1. a portion claims that the others are not abiding by a certain point (eg. CanRC versus CRC); 2. an issue is presented which is not covered by the Three Forms.

Once in a while I have wondered why we don't have confessions that were written recently. Have no important issues arisen in the past few hundred years? I also find the way the Three Forms are layed out to be a bit cumbersome for the purposes of apologetics. It's been my observation during Bible study that it takes longer than it should to find stuff, and in some cases what people did find feels to me like it doesn't quite cover the topic that we were supposed to looking for (though that may have been because the questions in the book we're studying are pretty crappy).

Well, in one respect, as per Ecclesiastes there is nothing new under the sun. On the other hand, in general documents when translated will sound ackward, and lose some of what they previously possessed (grammatical forms, cultural references, etc.). And, as we distance ourselves further in history from the Reformation era, different concerns are more prominent.

To me, the treatment given the 3 forms in the CanRC is hazardous. These documents often seem to be treated as authoritative, when they are not (and I've heard sermons preached which treated those documents in ways in which I don't think they should have been). I find that the usage of these forms in the church as they presently are encourages some level of intellectual laziness. Just how much time do we spend looking at scripture, versus looking at the catechism - and constantly rereading the verses used as sources? (some of them seem fairly weak to me) How large of a problem is caused by the great level of emphasis placed on anti-Roman-Catholic arguments, and thereby placement of little emphasis on other issues that might be more relevant in our postmodernist world? To what extent do language difficulties imposed by such usage of a translation decrease the accessibility of ideas to the common man? Are people in the CanRC sufficiently aware of what other Christians around us believe (and why)?

Basically the CanRC and URC forms to profession of faith seem to require agreement with the confessions in their entirety. To me, to say that one must (eg.) baptize one's children is an implicit condemnation of the Baptist position. There seems to me to exist reasonable arguments for both continuity and discontinuity. Of the two I tend to find the argument for discontinuity in practice a slight bit stronger than that for continuity, but at the same time unable to convince myself that infant baptism is incorrect (which puts me in a bit of an odd middle ground between the two groups).

One of the weeks you missed Bible Study there was a chapter on Baptism and the issue of infant baptism was in there. Have you looked at that? I myself am thoroughly convinced that infants must be baptized as a sign and seal of inclusion in the new covenant.

On a semi-(un)related note, I find it intriguing that Roman Catholics have Last Rights but not First Rights.

To me, the treatment given the 3 forms in the CanRC is hazardous. These documents often seem to be treated as authoritative, when they are not (and I've heard sermons preached which treated those documents in ways in which I don't think they should have been). I find that the usage of these forms in the church as they presently are encourages some level of intellectual laziness. Just how much time do we spend looking at scripture, versus looking at the catechism - and constantly rereading the verses used as sources? (some of them seem fairly weak to me) How large of a problem is caused by the great level of emphasis placed on anti-Roman-Catholic arguments, and thereby placement of little emphasis on other issues that might be more relevant in our postmodernist world? To what extent do language difficulties imposed by such usage of a translation decrease the accessibility of ideas to the common man? Are people in the CanRC sufficiently aware of what other Christians around us believe (and why)?

I can see where you're coming from, and indeed the Bible is the authoritative document not the confessions. That said, the contents of the confessions should match what is taught in scripture, and the reason for having the confessions is because people have taken scripture out of context or misinterpreted it. I'm not sure about the intellectual laziness, but I definitely agree that some of the proof texts don't seem relevant and I've be more than happy to see somebody go through and fix that. I'd also like to see a better translation or simply a rewording, particular in the Canons of Dort.

Personally my feeling with regards to the Roman Catholics is that it's been well-established that they are wrong in many areas. It's the Arminian teachings that seem to be much more important these days, since it is easier to confuse them as being correct.

Do CanRC members have a clue what other denominations are about? In most cases definitely not from what I've seen. A lot of people seem to be still struggling with what we ourselves believe. I feel quite confident in what I believe, and I feel like I'm in the minority. I am very interested in the differences in other denominations, but it seems like nobody has done the legwork and compiled it to make it easier for others. And although I'm confident in what I believe, I have a hard time defending it (apologetics). Some topics are not covered by the Three Forms, and some of the topics that are covered don't seem to cover every possible aspect that people will dispute. Then there's also the issue of overlap within the Three Forms and the annoying need to cross-reference, but the cross-reference chart in the BoP is sorted by Catechism making life more difficult if you're looking for cross-references for one of the other forms.

One of the weeks you missed Bible Study there was a chapter on Baptism and the issue of infant baptism was in there. Have you looked at that? I myself am thoroughly convinced that infants must be baptized as a sign and seal of inclusion in the new covenant.

I've read through the book (I had hoped that I would be there for that particular study) and looked at the texts, but I'm still unconvinced (as per our previous discussion). BTW, I managed to find an article supporting infant baptism in the early church which does seem to lend some more support to the practice.

I suppose that this debate is also largely a part of the larger debate on the role of tradition in the Church, and the difficulty of determining the New Testament canon.

On a semi-(un)related note, I find it intriguing that Roman Catholics have Last Rights but not First Rights.

First off, what you're talking about is last rites (not rights). Secondly, while "last rites" is what many know the practice as, that is not what the "official" name used by the Roman Catholics is (as per the Catholic Encyclopedia, this is known as extreme unction in the West, and euchelaion in the East).

From my understanding that practice is also not only performed when a person is on the very verge of death, but also in the case that they are seriously ill. People can and have received "last rites" multiple times in their lives.

As far as the basis the Roman Catholics have for this is concerned, they use Mark 6:13:

They cast out many demons, and anointed many with oil who were sick, and healed them.

and James 4:14,15:

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will heal him who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

By the way, in what sense would infant baptism not count as "first rites"? (BTW, if you're interested in reading further upon the Catholic position on baptism, the Catholic Encyclopedia has an article about it.

Do CanRC members have a clue what other denominations are about? In most cases definitely not from what I've seen. A lot of people seem to be still struggling with what we ourselves believe.

Well, shouldn't taking a look at the views of other denominations constitute part of the process of determining what we ourselves believe? If they have an argument for something based upon the Bible, don't we at very least owe them the courtesy of taking a look at their argument before condemning it? As per Proverbs 18:17, "He who pleads his cause first seems right; until another comes and questions him." Sometimes we may need others to raise questions that we ourselves hadn't thought of.

As far as the basis the Roman Catholics have for this is concerned, they use Mark 6:13:

They cast out many demons, and anointed many with oil who were sick, and healed them.

and James 4:14,15:
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will heal him who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

That's some interesting stuff. I can't say I can recall anyone saying that last rites itself is wrong, but merely that it is not a sacrament. I suspect that the whole anointing thing was more a cultural thing; one example is the woman who anointing Jesus before he was crucified. Anointing has also been used for other purposes in the past, such as the anointing of future kings.

By the way, in what sense would infant baptism not count as "first rites"? (BTW, if you're interested in reading further upon the Catholic position on baptism, the Catholic Encyclopedia has an article about it.

I was thinking along of the lines of a priest performing a sort of first rites immediately after the baby is born just in case it doesn't survive long enough to be baptized. Seemed like something Roman Catholics would want to do.

Well, shouldn't taking a look at the views of other denominations constitute part of the process of determining what we ourselves believe? If they have an argument for something based upon the Bible, don't we at very least owe them the courtesy of taking a look at their argument before condemning it? As per Proverbs 18:17, "He who pleads his cause first seems right; until another comes and questions him." Sometimes we may need others to raise questions that we ourselves hadn't thought of.

From my observation, people have a hard time comparing without first knowing what we believe. A person can't know if they are wrong if they don't know what their position is.

Consequently, I have a hard time seeing the sense in assuming that we are wrong without being able to back it up with something. Using your example of infant baptism, until somebody can prove it's wrong, I consider it to be right. Rejecting both views and sitting on the fence is counter-productive in my humble opinion.

I was thinking along of the lines of a priest performing a sort of first rites immediately after the baby is born just in case it doesn't survive long enough to be baptized. Seemed like something Roman Catholics would want to do.

Well, from what I recall reading about Roman Catholics, in an emergency - if it seems that the child is going to die - baptism should then be performed by whoever is available - regardless even of whether or not they are a Christian.