rodney
Nursery Attendant
Posts: 31
|
Post by rodney on May 21, 2018 12:42:04 GMT
A poll on what contributes most to the cultic character of PRC
|
|
rodney
Nursery Attendant
Posts: 31
|
Post by rodney on May 21, 2018 17:59:28 GMT
Appreciate the article by GI Williamson, which serves to dispel the stereotypical perception by the Reformed (as myself) of the Presbyterian church polity as more hierarchical. As far as the matter of excessive creedalism, I recall how once in my personal email correspondence with prof. Engelsma the question of the authority of the [Reformed]creeds was raised in relation to Engelsma's constant appeals to the Canons as "an end of all strife". He and I had a round of discussion of the proper authority and place of the creeds in the life of Christ's church. It was my contention that the sole authority of the creeds was derivative and secondary, that we follow the creeds in as much and insofar as they faithfully summarize and reflect the teachings of the Bible. Professor Engelsma objected and insisted that we follow the creeds BECAUSE they faithfully reflect and set forth the teachings of the Bible. He did say something to this effect. My next question to him was how one can know whether the creeds do in fact faithfully represent Scripture doctrines, If one is from the outset, from the get-go is required to receive them as fully authoritative BECAUSE they faithfully summarize and represent the teachings of the Bible. Sort of a Romish "implicit faith" in the 'Mother church' which all of the faithful are expected to exercise without question... I personally hold that full subscriptionism in Reformed and Presbyterian circles is an idolatrous practice, for it implies inerrancy of some uninspired documents, or it implies their inspiration, IF indeed they are so infallible... But to be fair, Presbyterians oftentimes treat their Westminster Standards as though they were inerrant too.
|
|
rodney
Nursery Attendant
Posts: 31
|
Post by rodney on May 23, 2018 9:08:25 GMT
Engelsma was not in the least moved by my objections to the apriori axiomatic, unquestioned faith in the veracity of the creeds. I have also noticed that sometimes when their pastors / theologians / professors disagree with you on anything in an electronic exchange, they will just play a deaf ear, or ignore completely what you say as though it were complete nonsense unworthy of their valuable attention. Another thing that frankly bothers me about the established practice of majority of Presbyterian and Reformed churches (not only PRC) is the tradition of addressing teaching elders as "Reverends". To me this is Romish idolatrous practice of elevating "clergy" above the "laity". In Scriptures, only God's name is holy and reverend (Ps. 111:9).
|
|
|
Post by freefromprc on May 23, 2018 15:17:00 GMT
Engelsma was not in the least moved by my objections to the apriori axiomatic, unquestioned faith in the veracity of the creeds. I have also noticed that sometimes when their pastors / theologians / professors disagree with you on anything in an electronic exchange, they will just play a deaf ear, or ignore completely what you say as though it were complete nonsense unworthy of their valuable attention. Another thing that frankly bothers me about the established practice of majority of Presbyterian and Reformed churches (not only PRC) is the tradition of addressing teaching elders as "Reverends". To me this is Romish idolatrous practice of elevating "clergy" above the "laity". In Scriptures, only God's name is holy and reverend (Ps. 111:9). So I didn’t grow up in the PRC and I think I can offer another perspective. No other church that I have attended refers to their ministers exclusively as “Reverend”. Adults call the minister by his first name, or Pastor. John, Pastor John, or Pastor Smith are all perfectly acceptable. Reverend is actually an adjective that modifies your title. So an ordained minister’s title would be “The Reverend Mr. John Smith”. He is not reverend, his office he serves in is reverend. You would only see this title on a wedding invitation or some other formal correspondence, and always preceded by “the” and followed by “Mr.” or “Dr”. It’s incredibly formal and rarely used. So not only is Rev and Proff grammatically incorrect, it misses the whole point of what his job is: ministering to the flock, and pastoring the members. It is part of getting the people to be so overwhelmed with respect for these guys that they live their lives with eyes glazed over.
|
|
rodney
Nursery Attendant
Posts: 31
|
Post by rodney on May 23, 2018 16:05:04 GMT
In fact I once asked one of their professors if it would be ok if I addressed them by their first name (this was in the context of our being together on a trip). He said that in their environment "people would be offended but whatever is convenient for you is fine". Naturally I felt constrained to continue to call the man by "Prof. So and so"...
|
|
|
Post by gratefullyfree on May 25, 2018 2:09:33 GMT
I think it is indirectly and directly tied to putting the creeds above scripture. You go from there to having the minister and elders above Christ, tradition above the word, pomp and circumstance above love. Here is an interesting article by G.I. Williamson on why the OPC and CRC never ended up joining together in the early 60s. It basically came down to scripture being the sole authority for everything we do. I think we are still seeing the effects of creedalism in all the dutch reformed denominations. You must start all arguments from the creeds, and cherry pick bible verses to support your position instead of the other way around. The minister and catechism classes must not be questioned. The council must shake the minister's hand on the way out to show agreement with the sermon, EVEN IF they don't agree. I could go on about special services, drama, "unity", all the weeknight events you must attend, not being allowed to visit other denominations. Most of these things are not wrong in and of themselves. But they aren't about honoring and serving Jesus Christ. They are all power plays. While I'm not calling PRC a cult, the behaviors that are cultic are: their sheltering of their members from hearing any other viewpoints, discouraging of women getting an education or employment to keep them dependent, repetitive mind-numbing sermons designed to indoctrinate at a young age, shaming, shunning, and convincing members to fear that they will go to hell if they leave.
|
|
|
Post by maggie on May 25, 2018 16:26:22 GMT
A poll on what contributes most to the cultic character of PRC Shunning
|
|
|
Post by freefromprc on May 26, 2018 13:55:41 GMT
I think it is indirectly and directly tied to putting the creeds above scripture. You go from there to having the minister and elders above Christ, tradition above the word, pomp and circumstance above love. Here is an interesting article by G.I. Williamson on why the OPC and CRC never ended up joining together in the early 60s. It basically came down to scripture being the sole authority for everything we do. I think we are still seeing the effects of creedalism in all the dutch reformed denominations. You must start all arguments from the creeds, and cherry pick bible verses to support your position instead of the other way around. The minister and catechism classes must not be questioned. The council must shake the minister's hand on the way out to show agreement with the sermon, EVEN IF they don't agree. I could go on about special services, drama, "unity", all the weeknight events you must attend, not being allowed to visit other denominations. Most of these things are not wrong in and of themselves. But they aren't about honoring and serving Jesus Christ. They are all power plays. While I'm not calling PRC a cult, the behaviors that are cultic are: their sheltering of their members from hearing any other viewpoints, discouraging of women getting an education or employment to keep them dependent, repetitive mind-numbing sermons designed to indoctrinate at a young age, shaming, shunning, and convincing members to fear that they will go to hell if they leave. Pretty much a cult then.
|
|
|
Post by maggie on Jun 5, 2018 16:21:17 GMT
Engelsma was not in the least moved by my objections to the apriori axiomatic, unquestioned faith in the veracity of the creeds. I have also noticed that sometimes when their pastors / theologians / professors disagree with you on anything in an electronic exchange, they will just play a deaf ear, or ignore completely what you say as though it were complete nonsense unworthy of their valuable attention. Another thing that frankly bothers me about the established practice of majority of Presbyterian and Reformed churches (not only PRC) is the tradition of addressing teaching elders as "Reverends". To me this is Romish idolatrous practice of elevating "clergy" above the "laity". In Scriptures, only God's name is holy and reverend (Ps. 111:9). Which is why our church calls our minister 'pastor'
|
|