|
Post by freefromprc on Feb 14, 2016 18:55:59 GMT
How do you teach the covenant on the mission field? Of course you can't talk much about it because the PRC has perverted the word to the point that is has become extinct on the mission field. You cannot teach people that their children are out of luck being elect since their parents are heathens and expect to have any positive influence with your mission work. Take for example the 'work' in India. Big long newsletter - talk of baptism, growth etc, but strikingly absent is a mention of the covenant.
"Our time spent with the Vellore PRC was a time of renewed friendships. It was very obvious to us that the church members were being fed and growing spiritually through the labor of Pastor Paulraj. While we were there we witnessed the baptism of 8 young people of Grace Foster Home and the confession of faith of 8 others on a separate Sunday."
The problem is obvious, how does the PRC dare baptize NON covenant children? Foster children at that? You would think that this little issue in itself would create some interest in questioning the closed minded cultish doctrine of the covenant. It is also interesting that even though the covenant is such a huge distinctive in the PRC there is no mention of it in this lengthy newsletter. See for yourself .... www.prca.org/current/news/churches/usa-canada/georgetown-prc-hudsonville-mi/item/4623-mission-india-outreach-newsletter-february-2016 Of course the covenant cannot be mentioned because it simply doesn't work on the mission field, which in itself should be a reason to question it.
Hmmmm....
|
|
|
Post by cannalily on Feb 15, 2016 13:33:24 GMT
Pretty convenient twist of doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by crusader on Feb 27, 2016 23:15:19 GMT
If the covenant requires believing parents, are all foster children excluded?
|
|
|
Post by crazychurch on Mar 7, 2016 23:05:03 GMT
**crickets** from the PRC and their little foot soldiers on this one.
|
|
|
Post by freefromprc on Mar 8, 2016 14:30:35 GMT
I remember discussions about whether or not adopted children should be baptized since their blood parents may not be in the covenant
|
|
potato
Elderberry
Potatoes are potatoes so why should it be, that you and I should mash together so awfully.
Posts: 133
|
Post by potato on Mar 8, 2016 15:38:43 GMT
If the covenant requires believing parents, are all foster children excluded? What I remember of this concept is that children of believers are just more likely to be believers, not that there was something special in the bloodline itself. So no it's not a requirement and wasn't taught that way either. Seems reasonable that Christian parents are most likely to have Christian children, while Muslim parents will have Muslim children. Some people here clearly have a different opinion/experience, I just felt the need to voice this because I think we need to be careful and not use false information when discussing our issues with PRS and their doctrines. I don't think the intention for the site is to be a PR bashing site.
|
|
|
Post by freefromprc on Mar 8, 2016 18:43:30 GMT
If the covenant requires believing parents, are all foster children excluded? What I remember of this concept is that children of believers are just more likely to be believers, not that there was something special in the bloodline itself. So no it's not a requirement and wasn't taught that way either. Seems reasonable that Christian parents are most likely to have Christian children, while Muslim parents will have Muslim children. Some people here clearly have a different opinion/experience, I just felt the need to voice this because I think we need to be careful and not use false information when discussing our issues with PRS and their doctrines. I don't think the intention for the site is to be a PR bashing site. This is not false information, here is some reading on the topic...from the standard bearer... sb.rfpa.org/articles/baptism-adopted-children?keyword[]=adoption&keyword[]=baptism&keyword[]=covenant
(There is a lot more information available about this sticky topic that just doesn't fit so well with the PRC view of the covenant, however, it does turn my stomach to read through that rag so if interested, do some more digging yourself)
Insofar as this decision of Synod makes the practice of baptizing adopted children uniform in all our churches, we feel it is a good decision. What is valid in one church in the denomination should be valid in all the churches. However, with regard to the question whether adopted children should be baptized before they come to years, there has been considerable difference of opinion in the past.
Rev. Ophoff expresses the view that "they may be, if the parents were believers, otherwise not." Monsma and Van Dellen state, "Consequently, the present writers believe it is better to postpone the baptism of adopted children in question. until they manifest themselves as Christians" (p. 234, Church Order Commentary). The same authors refer to Dr. Bouwman's Gereformeerde Kerkrecht and add, "It may also be said that the recent or present clay leaders of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands are, as far as we know, all opposed to the practice of baptizing children of non-Christian parentage, though adopted into Christian homes." In the same commentary it is pointed out that the great Synod of Dordt already faced this question in connection with children of pagan origin who came from the Dutch East Indies and were adopted in Christian homes. Monsma and Van Dellen say that, "The Synod judged that these children should not be baptized until they in due season should make profession of faith." Then they quote the following part of the Synod's decision: "Concerning children of pagans which, because of their youth, or because they cannot understand the language, have not been able to receive instruction from the Christians, although they may have been incorporated into the homes of Christians by adoption, it was also judged by majority vote that these should not be baptized before they have come to such years that they can be instructed in the first principles of the Christian religion according to the measure of their understanding, and after such has also taken place."
The point is, infant baptism of adopted children is frowned upon in the PRC, this should make them reconsider their incorrect view of the covenant. By the way, there is MUCH more information available in PRC writings that shows they DO NOT approve of baptizing adopted children, even though they have in the past done so.
|
|
potato
Elderberry
Potatoes are potatoes so why should it be, that you and I should mash together so awfully.
Posts: 133
|
Post by potato on Mar 8, 2016 19:52:50 GMT
What I remember of this concept is that children of believers are just more likely to be believers, not that there was something special in the bloodline itself. So no it's not a requirement and wasn't taught that way either. Seems reasonable that Christian parents are most likely to have Christian children, while Muslim parents will have Muslim children. Some people here clearly have a different opinion/experience, I just felt the need to voice this because I think we need to be careful and not use false information when discussing our issues with PRS and their doctrines. I don't think the intention for the site is to be a PR bashing site. This is not false information, here is some reading on the topic...from the standard bearer... sb.rfpa.org/articles/baptism-adopted-children?keyword[]=adoption&keyword[]=baptism&keyword[]=covenant
(There is a lot more information available about this sticky topic that just doesn't fit so well with the PRC view of the covenant, however, it does turn my stomach to read through that rag so if interested, do some more digging yourself)
Insofar as this decision of Synod makes the practice of baptizing adopted children uniform in all our churches, we feel it is a good decision. What is valid in one church in the denomination should be valid in all the churches. However, with regard to the question whether adopted children should be baptized before they come to years, there has been considerable difference of opinion in the past.
Rev. Ophoff expresses the view that "they may be, if the parents were believers, otherwise not." Monsma and Van Dellen state, "Consequently, the present writers believe it is better to postpone the baptism of adopted children in question. until they manifest themselves as Christians" (p. 234, Church Order Commentary). The same authors refer to Dr. Bouwman's Gereformeerde Kerkrecht and add, "It may also be said that the recent or present clay leaders of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands are, as far as we know, all opposed to the practice of baptizing children of non-Christian parentage, though adopted into Christian homes." In the same commentary it is pointed out that the great Synod of Dordt already faced this question in connection with children of pagan origin who came from the Dutch East Indies and were adopted in Christian homes. Monsma and Van Dellen say that, "The Synod judged that these children should not be baptized until they in due season should make profession of faith." Then they quote the following part of the Synod's decision: "Concerning children of pagans which, because of their youth, or because they cannot understand the language, have not been able to receive instruction from the Christians, although they may have been incorporated into the homes of Christians by adoption, it was also judged by majority vote that these should not be baptized before they have come to such years that they can be instructed in the first principles of the Christian religion according to the measure of their understanding, and after such has also taken place."
The point is, infant baptism of adopted children is frowned upon in the PRC, this should make them reconsider their incorrect view of the covenant. By the way, there is MUCH more information available in PRC writings that shows they DO NOT approve of baptizing adopted children, even though they have in the past done so.
Clearly the idea of the covenant is twisted around by many members and even pastors in the PR church. The fact that a synodical decision (with apparently lengthy debate) had to be made on what should clearly be a simple cut and dried case of baptizing adopted children. However, you have to give them some credit for ultimately coming to the correct decision as seen in the very last paragraph. Our position now is that it is proper to baptize all of them as long as they are legally adopted. Whether this position is wholly correct is subject to debate but we will have to wait until next time to present some arguments which Monsma and Van Dellen raise against this practice. Although apparently they feel the need to leave in a loophole for this strange belief that there is something special in the blood.
|
|
|
Post by freefromprc on Mar 9, 2016 13:49:45 GMT
This is not false information, here is some reading on the topic...from the standard bearer... sb.rfpa.org/articles/baptism-adopted-children?keyword[]=adoption&keyword[]=baptism&keyword[]=covenant
(There is a lot more information available about this sticky topic that just doesn't fit so well with the PRC view of the covenant, however, it does turn my stomach to read through that rag so if interested, do some more digging yourself)
Insofar as this decision of Synod makes the practice of baptizing adopted children uniform in all our churches, we feel it is a good decision. What is valid in one church in the denomination should be valid in all the churches. However, with regard to the question whether adopted children should be baptized before they come to years, there has been considerable difference of opinion in the past.
Rev. Ophoff expresses the view that "they may be, if the parents were believers, otherwise not." Monsma and Van Dellen state, "Consequently, the present writers believe it is better to postpone the baptism of adopted children in question. until they manifest themselves as Christians" (p. 234, Church Order Commentary). The same authors refer to Dr. Bouwman's Gereformeerde Kerkrecht and add, "It may also be said that the recent or present clay leaders of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands are, as far as we know, all opposed to the practice of baptizing children of non-Christian parentage, though adopted into Christian homes." In the same commentary it is pointed out that the great Synod of Dordt already faced this question in connection with children of pagan origin who came from the Dutch East Indies and were adopted in Christian homes. Monsma and Van Dellen say that, "The Synod judged that these children should not be baptized until they in due season should make profession of faith." Then they quote the following part of the Synod's decision: "Concerning children of pagans which, because of their youth, or because they cannot understand the language, have not been able to receive instruction from the Christians, although they may have been incorporated into the homes of Christians by adoption, it was also judged by majority vote that these should not be baptized before they have come to such years that they can be instructed in the first principles of the Christian religion according to the measure of their understanding, and after such has also taken place."
The point is, infant baptism of adopted children is frowned upon in the PRC, this should make them reconsider their incorrect view of the covenant. By the way, there is MUCH more information available in PRC writings that shows they DO NOT approve of baptizing adopted children, even though they have in the past done so.
Clearly the idea of the covenant is twisted around by many members and even pastors in the PR church. The fact that a synodical decision (with apparently lengthy debate) had to be made on what should clearly be a simple cut and dried case of baptizing adopted children. However, you have to give them some credit for ultimately coming to the correct decision as seen in the very last paragraph. Our position now is that it is proper to baptize all of them as long as they are legally adopted. Whether this position is wholly correct is subject to debate but we will have to wait until next time to present some arguments which Monsma and Van Dellen raise against this practice. Although apparently they feel the need to leave in a loophole for this strange belief that there is something special in the blood. Why should they baptize or not baptize anyone based on their parents?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2016 13:37:46 GMT
I remember discussions about whether or not adopted children should be baptized since their blood parents may not be in the covenant I recall numerous pompous conversations where it was stated that it wasn't ideal or a good idea to adopt because they were not in "the bloodline" . I'm serious. I guess that explains why in many bible believing churches today you will see adoption and foster care supported and encouraged.... not so much in the prc
|
|
|
Post by freefromprc on Mar 12, 2016 16:07:36 GMT
I remember discussions about whether or not adopted children should be baptized since their blood parents may not be in the covenant I recall numerous pompous conversations where it was stated that it wasn't ideal or a good idea to adopt because they were not in "the bloodline" . I'm serious. I guess that explains why in many bible believing churches today you will see adoption and foster care supported and encouraged.... not so much in the prc You are exactly correct. It is another one of those unspoken undocumented rules. They wont so easily come out and say it but it is a fact. I have personally had discussions about it in counsel rooms and it does not fit at all with the PRC view of the covenant. If you don't have 'believing parents' you are screwed.
|
|
potato
Elderberry
Potatoes are potatoes so why should it be, that you and I should mash together so awfully.
Posts: 133
|
Post by potato on Mar 19, 2016 15:01:49 GMT
I remember discussions about whether or not adopted children should be baptized since their blood parents may not be in the covenant I recall numerous pompous conversations where it was stated that it wasn't ideal or a good idea to adopt because they were not in "the bloodline" . I'm serious. I guess that explains why in many bible believing churches today you will see adoption and foster care supported and encouraged.... not so much in the prc Yet they said we were god's adopted children. Weird some of them would look down on adoption. Others clearly were OK with adoption, as they actually adopted, and baptized children.
|
|
|
Post by cannalily on Mar 23, 2016 0:52:41 GMT
I recall numerous pompous conversations where it was stated that it wasn't ideal or a good idea to adopt because they were not in "the bloodline" . I'm serious. I guess that explains why in many bible believing churches today you will see adoption and foster care supported and encouraged.... not so much in the prc Yet they said we were god's adopted children. Weird some of them would look down on adoption. Others clearly were OK with adoption, as they actually adopted, and baptized children. There are even some ministers who have adopted. I wonder what their official stance would be.
|
|
|
Post by crusader on Apr 5, 2016 2:37:06 GMT
If the covenant requires believing parents, are all foster children excluded? What I remember of this concept is that children of believers are just more likely to be believers, not that there was something special in the bloodline itself. So no it's not a requirement and wasn't taught that way either. Seems reasonable that Christian parents are most likely to have Christian children, while Muslim parents will have Muslim children. Some people here clearly have a different opinion/experience, I just felt the need to voice this because I think we need to be careful and not use false information when discussing our issues with PRS and their doctrines. I don't think the intention for the site is to be a PR bashing site. Are you saying, that the children become part of the covenant as a result of being constantly exposed to the teaching of the church - almost like brainwashing?
|
|
potato
Elderberry
Potatoes are potatoes so why should it be, that you and I should mash together so awfully.
Posts: 133
|
Post by potato on Apr 5, 2016 12:14:20 GMT
What I remember of this concept is that children of believers are just more likely to be believers, not that there was something special in the bloodline itself. So no it's not a requirement and wasn't taught that way either. Seems reasonable that Christian parents are most likely to have Christian children, while Muslim parents will have Muslim children. Some people here clearly have a different opinion/experience, I just felt the need to voice this because I think we need to be careful and not use false information when discussing our issues with PRS and their doctrines. I don't think the intention for the site is to be a PR bashing site. Are you saying, that the children become part of the covenant as a result of being constantly exposed to the teaching of the church - almost like brainwashing? Exactly that, I just try to avoid infuriating buzzwords. Let's face it most religion is kind of batshit crazy. Take christianity, God created the world, decided he did a shit job and drowned everybody. He restarted but decides he still hates everyone he created except the jews so long as they agree to mutilate the end of their penis. After a few centuries of a love/hate relationship with the Jews he sends his son to die for all mankind, who he has basically ignored since he last hit the reset button. Then he decides that he is le tired and goes to take a nap for the next two millenia and nobody has heard from him since. Not very believable to anyone over the age of 10. I still say the best way to make a Christian is to start them young.
|
|