Sorry Joe[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/blush.gif" alt="blush" title="blush[/img] I did not realise both Beekes were of the HNRC.<br><br>What parts of the HNRC 's doctrine is suspect ?
Howard, <br><br>This little discussion has strayed away from the original topic, "Credenda/Agenda filter": Wilson's article re: "New Perspective on Paul".<br><br>Thus let's get .<br><br>In His Grace,
Roland,<br><br>I just received my copy of Credenda on the NPP--it was a special edition, as you know--yesterday. It will take me a bit of time to digest this, and perhaps others will receive their copies as well. I'll try to post something in a day or two, or send you a PM. The "quiz" in the magazine looks interesting! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>Theo
Dear Joe/Pilgrim:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]No, I do not like the way that is worded, for elders (those in authority, et. al.) do need to make judgments, based upon profession and fruit, et. al. IMHO he characterizes the church with too little discernment. The 1st century Church had much more discernment (Ananias and Sapphira, et. al.). Of course, I do not agree with some of the other theology in the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Church as well.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Lest there be some misunderstanding about the postion of the Denomination mentioned here, Heritage Netherlands Reformed, I thought it wise to bring to the attention of the readers that as I understand it, their theology does in no way prevent elders from exercising the authority necessary to officers in the church to implement church discipline as, for example, addressed in Mathew 18. <br><br>I say that because, while I am not a member of the denomination, I have recently heard a sermon preached on that verse by Rev. VanderZwagg, a member of the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Church and an ordained minister therein, concerning the doctrinal postion taken by his denomination on the issue of church discipline and that postion would not agree with the statement made and quoted from James Beeke's site, if that statement were indeed originally intended to address the issue of church discipline (which I doubt). <br><br>Assuming Rev. VanderZwagg's sermon accuately characterizes the position of the denomination, and I have no reason to believe that it does not, as he copastors Dr. Joel Beeke's church and one would surmise that did his postion differ substantially from that of the denomination the sermon would not be published on Sermon Audio, I can only conclude that James Beeke intended the statement in a restricted sense of the personal judging of the spiritual condition of a person apart from the required scriptural duties included in the office of elder, or that perhaps, though it is less likely, the postion of the author is different from that of the Denomination.<br><br>For any interested the sermon which I believe lays out the postion of the Heritage Reformed Denomination as it touches on the issue in question can be found here:<br><br>http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=92803113131<br><br><br>Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this extremely important issue of Church Discipline in this Denomination.<br><br><br>In Him,<br><br>Gerry<br>
Last edited by acts2027; Sat Dec 20, 200310:09 AM.
When something like this is drawn from Pauline theology, people are apt to remark,"Wow! I've never seen that there before." And they will be right; because it isn't there.
Haven't we all heard it before - disregard the clear theology of Murray, Moo, Cranfield, Hendriksen, and a host of solid exegetes, and look for reinventing Paul. There is a way that seems right to a man. . .
In any case, it is wrong to not assume that anyone who has become a member of the covenant, by viritue of the lawful extending of the right of admintance by the biblical church, and with the lawful signs and seals of that admitance, is not a FULL member of the covenant. The Word of God never intimates or expresses an alternative understanding; that is, God's Word clearly expresses that he has set his love and covenant benefits, including that necessary relationship, according to the promise (don't forget)- a rightful expectation on the part of the parents and the recipient to the promises of that covenant. Ergo, a true COVENANT child. The entire covenant promise is for this child. No limitation is place on what is included in the promise to this child. Relative to adults and their admitance to the covenant on profession of faith: we are to consider the adult as a member of God's covenant people with full rights and privileges of membership in that covenant, and therein, of the church of Jesus Christ, as was the infant or child. One should always rely on the promise of God, not the promises of man.
qwk2lisn stated: In any case, it is wrong to not assume that anyone who has become a member of the covenant, by virtue of the lawful extending of the right of admittance by the biblical church, and with the lawful signs and seals of that admittance, is not a FULL member of the covenant. etc.
So, do I understand you correctly here in saying that "covenant children", i.e., children born into homes where there is at least one genuinely regenerated/converted parent are "full members" of the Covenant of Grace, recipients of saving grace and are thus united to Christ, justified and guaranteed salvation, based upon the immutable "promise of God"?
IF my understanding is correct, then can I also assume that you would stand in full or mostly full agreement with the teachings of Norman Shepherd, Doug Wilson, Barach, & co.? If not, could you tell me how your view differs? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
qwk2lisn said: In any case, it is wrong to not assume that anyone who has become a member of the covenant, by viritue of the lawful extending of the right of admintance by the biblical church, and with the lawful signs and seals of that admitance, is not a FULL member of the covenant. The Word of God never intimates or expresses an alternative understanding; that is, God's Word clearly expresses that he has set his love and covenant benefits, including that necessary relationship, according to the promise (don't forget)- a rightful expectation on the part of the parents and the recipient to the promises of that covenant. Ergo, a true COVENANT child. The entire covenant promise is for this child. No limitation is place on what is included in the promise to this child. Relative to adults and their admitance to the covenant on profession of faith: we are to consider the adult as a member of God's covenant people with full rights and privileges of membership in that covenant, and therein, of the church of Jesus Christ, as was the infant or child. One should always rely on the promise of God, not the promises of man.
This actually angers me. I hope with righteous indignation. I am not angry with you but with the Doug Wilsons of the world and even the other non-Wilsonites who man the pulpits of our churches but have not yet come to grips with this matter in a way that makes sense. It is no small issue.
Is the covenant promise a mere altar call? Believe in Jesus and you will be saved? If so, then the covenant promise is not peculiar to the church, but would apply to all men everywhere. If the covenant promise is a promise of salvation, then it belongs to the elect and them alone. If it is a conditional promise then it belongs to anybody, even the unchurched! What you are confusing is the distinction between the administration of the covenant and the actual establishment of it. True, we are to treat those within the church roles as members of God’s covenant of grace. Notwithstanding, the covenant was established only with the children of the promise, whereas it is to be administered to all those who outwardly qualify. God refused to establish his covenant with Ishmael, but he held him accountable through the administration of the sign of the covenant, which at the time was circumcision. This should settle the matter forever. What is the promise of God after all? It is, I will be your God and you will be my people. There are no ifs ands or buts. This is why the apostle Paul could say that all Israel was not Israel and why we can say today that all the church is not the church. The promise was established with the Seed, which is Christ, and applies to all who are in union with him. The administration of that promise is quite another thing.
Finally, to suggest that God has a peculiar love for those within the administration of the covenant who are not elect is abusurd. He's angry with these people most of all!
Guess I'm lost in the fog. A year or two ago D. Wilson was a regular contributor to R C Sproul's Ligonier Tabletalk magazine, then he disappeared. Wha' Happened?
We have just learned (from Bishop Wright himself) that Bishop N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham in the apostate Anglican Church and leading spokesman for the New Perspective on Paul and new Quest for the Historical Jesus movements, will be a featured speaker at the Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference in Louisiana in January 2005.
This was from John robbins, but even though he is a bit whacked in certain areas, this still officially does them all in as to their position.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Off-Topic2.gif)
.<br><br>In His Grace,![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
