In the Agenda to Synod 2000 (pages 374-376) four categories were listed as an aid in determining how significant an issue was. Those categories are Confessional (like the deity of Christ, not used here in the same sense that it is currently used in the CRC), Moral, Wisdom and Adiaphora. Infant baptism, as referred to in this article, is a matter of wisdom. Could these four categories be used possibly in considering office bearers who do not fully agree with all of our confessions? Obviously, any deviation in the Confessional or Moral categories would not allow a person to serve.
Thanks for the article! Although I don’t necessarily think it wise that we allow Reformed Baptist elders or ministers in CRC churches, and if we did in a desperate circumstance, then they would need to avoid promoting their false doctrine their church. However, I don’t believe this theological topic equates with the current struggle that revisionists are having. One is a clear salvation issue, and the other is not. Scripture teaches that no homosexual will inherit the Kingdom of God, but we know that Jesus himself declared that the thief next to him on the cross would enter His Kingdom, even though there would have been no possible way for him to have been baptized (as and infant or adult). I believe the issue is more simple than how you have presented it here, but I appreciate the concerns you have raised. Don’t let the revisionists muddle the issue. There are solid Biblical arguments on both sides of the Baptism debate (much stronger for Paedo than Credo), but when it comes to sexual immorality, and sodomy in particular, there is no Biblically faithful debate to be had on this issue, and anyone trying to subvert Gods teaching, and misrepresent His character on this matter is displaying the fruit of their apostate heart which does not desire to be obedient to Gods commands, but rather to man’s worldly commands.
Is the notion of registering one's difficulty with a particular point of doctrine not foreign to continental Reformed churches? Not so to the Presbyterian world which subscribes to a far more detailed confessional standard, hence such an allowance. It is very doubtful that faithful Presbyterian churches would allow diverging views and practices on Baptism. It is not a fine point of doctrine that would qualify for an exception in the pledge to uphold confessional standards.
In the Agenda to Synod 2000 (pages 374-376) four categories were listed as an aid in determining how significant an issue was. Those categories are Confessional (like the deity of Christ, not used here in the same sense that it is currently used in the CRC), Moral, Wisdom and Adiaphora. Infant baptism, as referred to in this article, is a matter of wisdom. Could these four categories be used possibly in considering office bearers who do not fully agree with all of our confessions? Obviously, any deviation in the Confessional or Moral categories would not allow a person to serve.
Thanks for the article! Although I don’t necessarily think it wise that we allow Reformed Baptist elders or ministers in CRC churches, and if we did in a desperate circumstance, then they would need to avoid promoting their false doctrine their church. However, I don’t believe this theological topic equates with the current struggle that revisionists are having. One is a clear salvation issue, and the other is not. Scripture teaches that no homosexual will inherit the Kingdom of God, but we know that Jesus himself declared that the thief next to him on the cross would enter His Kingdom, even though there would have been no possible way for him to have been baptized (as and infant or adult). I believe the issue is more simple than how you have presented it here, but I appreciate the concerns you have raised. Don’t let the revisionists muddle the issue. There are solid Biblical arguments on both sides of the Baptism debate (much stronger for Paedo than Credo), but when it comes to sexual immorality, and sodomy in particular, there is no Biblically faithful debate to be had on this issue, and anyone trying to subvert Gods teaching, and misrepresent His character on this matter is displaying the fruit of their apostate heart which does not desire to be obedient to Gods commands, but rather to man’s worldly commands.
Thanks for this article.
Is the notion of registering one's difficulty with a particular point of doctrine not foreign to continental Reformed churches? Not so to the Presbyterian world which subscribes to a far more detailed confessional standard, hence such an allowance. It is very doubtful that faithful Presbyterian churches would allow diverging views and practices on Baptism. It is not a fine point of doctrine that would qualify for an exception in the pledge to uphold confessional standards.
Anyone to weigh on this?
Excellent explanation! Thank you!