Rob, Thanks for your article. I recall younger days when I thought God intended doubt. I doubted whether I had believed enough or done enough to be saved. I thought assurance would be arrogance. My college friend even came out of a tradition which said that anyone who had assurance of salvation was part of a cult. Then God's word at I John 5:13 confronted me. It called for my assurance in Christ and his finished work. It called for me to look outside of myself for revealed truth and assurance. Our Heidelberg Catechism likewise calls us to Biblical doctrine for our comfort. I'm learning to doubt myself while trusting God's word and our historically solid summaries of it. Now I see that true arrogance is listening to myself instead of God's revealed word and generations of its faithful confessions. I'm thankful for God's banner of covenant love and faithfulness presented in Scripture and our statements of faith. It is revealed for us and our children. Let's wave the banner in our denominational publication so that all God's doubting children may rally to Him for security.
Thomas, I agree, of course, that your scenario of head-in-the-sand orthodoxy exists. I wonder if you would also agree that stand-for-nothing-fall-for-anything ecumenicism also exists? That is, allowing so many questions that we lose the answers. Do you see a ditch on both sides of the road? If not, we're not driving in the same direction. If you do, how do you propose we avoid allowing the virtue of uncertainty (if certainty is sinful uncertainty must be a virtue) to replace what we believe with a long list of never-ending questions?
You are correct, Tom, in that we see through a glass darkly. There are many things we do not fully understand. And there are things that have been sufficiently revealed so that we may know. The deity of Christ is a definite. Also, at least two synods ruled 3:1 that same-sex acts are not acceptable to God. On topics like that our Banner needs to speak clearly so that the members of our denomination and other readers understand clearly. That is why synod this year changed the Banner's mandate.
Thomas, when Reformed minds have disagreed since the Reformation, they gave one another the respect of open debate which led to a decision being made. Have you ever wondered how it is that all the Reformed catechisms are so remarkably close doctrinally? It wasn't an accident but it was the result of dialogue which led to doctrinal unity (the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper being one of the very, very few exceptions). Failure to follow that pattern in the interest of establishing doctrinal unity, rather than diffusion, is not only not Reformed, it is not healthy for the Body.
Rob, Thanks for your article. I recall younger days when I thought God intended doubt. I doubted whether I had believed enough or done enough to be saved. I thought assurance would be arrogance. My college friend even came out of a tradition which said that anyone who had assurance of salvation was part of a cult. Then God's word at I John 5:13 confronted me. It called for my assurance in Christ and his finished work. It called for me to look outside of myself for revealed truth and assurance. Our Heidelberg Catechism likewise calls us to Biblical doctrine for our comfort. I'm learning to doubt myself while trusting God's word and our historically solid summaries of it. Now I see that true arrogance is listening to myself instead of God's revealed word and generations of its faithful confessions. I'm thankful for God's banner of covenant love and faithfulness presented in Scripture and our statements of faith. It is revealed for us and our children. Let's wave the banner in our denominational publication so that all God's doubting children may rally to Him for security.
Thomas, I agree, of course, that your scenario of head-in-the-sand orthodoxy exists. I wonder if you would also agree that stand-for-nothing-fall-for-anything ecumenicism also exists? That is, allowing so many questions that we lose the answers. Do you see a ditch on both sides of the road? If not, we're not driving in the same direction. If you do, how do you propose we avoid allowing the virtue of uncertainty (if certainty is sinful uncertainty must be a virtue) to replace what we believe with a long list of never-ending questions?
You are correct, Tom, in that we see through a glass darkly. There are many things we do not fully understand. And there are things that have been sufficiently revealed so that we may know. The deity of Christ is a definite. Also, at least two synods ruled 3:1 that same-sex acts are not acceptable to God. On topics like that our Banner needs to speak clearly so that the members of our denomination and other readers understand clearly. That is why synod this year changed the Banner's mandate.
Thomas, when Reformed minds have disagreed since the Reformation, they gave one another the respect of open debate which led to a decision being made. Have you ever wondered how it is that all the Reformed catechisms are so remarkably close doctrinally? It wasn't an accident but it was the result of dialogue which led to doctrinal unity (the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper being one of the very, very few exceptions). Failure to follow that pattern in the interest of establishing doctrinal unity, rather than diffusion, is not only not Reformed, it is not healthy for the Body.