Dutch Camping

I fell asleep last night watching this live feed from a Campingite. I woke up around 7:00 AM, and he was still going, taking live calls. At around 1 AM he was very certain about time zones and earthquakes, at 7 AM he was not. Now he says we're on "Jerusalem time." This guy is very weak on Camping Mathematics, by the way.  He appears to simply have accepted that Camping's crypto-math is correct. Now they simply have pointed their live camera at one of their videos. Break time? Well, he was on all night.

Here are some psychological musings I found interesting, particularly since I know a little bit about the Dutch:

"Camping describes his father as a good church man with whom he got along fine. Discipline was very strict and legalistic. He had a strict Dutch upbringing. When Camping was asked if his father ever told him "I love You" he responded by saying his family did not readily show their emotions, was completely aware of his parent's love for their children. He describes his childhood as happy."


"After personally interviewing Camping, listening to his teachings, and reading his books, I have come to the following conclusions.


Camping's very strict and legalistic Dutch upbringing has had a profound affect on his life. This strictness, which lacked outward loving affection, has produced a vacuum of love that was filled with legalism where love is based on works, and on how well one performs. Perfection is the goal that is set forth, and Camping has worked hard to achieve it. A proof of one's election is his successful godly works. Being the second born there was a great need to prove himself to his father and mother and to out do his older brother. At age five he was in the first grade. At age 16 he graduated from High School. At age 20 he graduated with a Bachelor of Science from the University of California at Berkeley This driving compulsion to achieve was carried over into his construction business that he started, which later became very successful. Finally, at age 35 this compulsion was applied to the study of the Bible which led to a very successful religious broadcasting network, Family Stations Inc. with over 39 stations, and 14 short wave stations."

The Hermeneutic system of heretics is very old

Irenaeus around 200 AD described the Gnostic system, which is very similar to the system of modern heretics

I have been watching the latest Harold Camping videos over the last few days at the Ezekiel thirty three 3 You Tube site. [Added: May 24, 2011 - It turns out the guy who did this filming infiltrated into Harold Camping's ministry and this guy does not even believe the Bible at all; much less Camping's false teachings and predictions. wow.] I also also listened again to Dr. White's debates with Harold Camping that are from almost a year ago. At the time I first heard about this guy back around 1988, another guy was also predicting the rapture. I dismissed them easily as nuts, citing in my mind Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32 and Acts 1:6-8. I have been amazed at all the followers that Camping has, I had no idea that this “movement” was that widespread. I am amazed at all the money that people have wasted on billboards and artwork and cars with professional signs. Truly amazing.

In his debates with Dr. White, Camping just ignored everything that Dr. White said and went on with his own interpretive system, allegory, numerology, subjectivism and connecting different passages together that have nothing to do with each other.

Irenaeus around 200 AD wrote of the Gnostics that did that, grabbing a verse here and connecting it with a verse somewhere else.

Sound Hermeneutics and theology and reading whole chapters and whole books of the Scriptures at a time for context are the great need in local churches.

It is obvious that all those large crowds of people that go to Joel Osteen or Kenneth Copeland or Benny Hinn meetings do not read their Bibles in large sections in context (chapters, paragraphs, books).

What is really ironic is that Camping told everyone years ago that the church age had ended, and that everyone should flee the churches, and yet he has, what appears to be a "church service" there, shown in the videos. (pulpit, audience, etc.)

It is incredible to watch him, and his followers, and to think that they really believe this stuff.


"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Matthew 24:36 (see also Mark 13:32)

So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"
He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

Acts 1:6-8

www.aomin.org (for Dr. White's debates with Harold Camping and other messages on his heresies.)

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:8:1

In this passage, Irenaeus tells us the Gnostics do 2 things -

1. They gather information from sources other than the Scriptures.


Camping keeps claiming he does not do that (as other heretics also claim); but the way he connects numbers in different passages and "breaking down" the numbers is really outside from Scripture and also from his own mind. He is an outside source, using his strange system of how to connect verses and allegorical and mystical interpretations of numbers.

Chapter VIII.-How the Valentinians Pervert the Scriptures to Support Their Own Pious Opinions.

1. Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavor to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. . . .

2. They Connect different passages together without following the context or argument of either passage.

". . .
In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skillful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skillful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog, and by thus exhibiting the jewels, should deceive the ignorant who had no conception what a king's form was like, and persuade them that that miserable likeness of the fox was, in fact, the beautiful image of the king. In like manner do these persons patch together old wives' fables, and then endeavor, by violently drawing away from their proper connection, words, expressions, and parables whenever found, to adapt the oracles of God to their baseless fictions. We have already stated how far they proceed in this way with respect to the interior of the Pleroma."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:8:1

I was amazed again listening to Harold Camping connect "the book" in Daniel 12 with Mark 4:33-34, I Cor. 2:13, and 2 Peter 3:8 and a verse from Genesis 41 and then add his thoughts and connections and "breaking down the numbers" and the repetition of "we know" and "its very clear" and "this means that" and "that number means that" and "only the Bible", etc.

These are the same methods that other heretical groups do, having sources outside of the Scriptures and connecting individual passages that have nothing to do with each other, and ignoring the context of verses.

The Word of Faith (Financial Prosperity and Healing/ Name it Claim it) movement and many on TBN does this. Just some of these false teachers: the late Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Paula White, Joyce Meyer, T. D. Jakes, John Hagee, Joel Osteen, Paul and Jan Crouch, Jesse Duplantis, Marilyn Hickey and Eddie Long. Their other sources came from the "New Thought" of E. W. Kenyon and other positive thinking mind over matter cults; and are their assumptions about positive thinking and the innate power of saying words and formulas; and their wrong ideas about God, that they get from their own greedy desires for money and wealth and success. Not only that, their messages lack citing verses in their context and they just jump from one verse on healing or God's blessing or prosperity or answered prayer in one passage, and jump to another completely different verse and connect them together wrongly. For example, they take a phrase from Romans 4:17, that God "calls into being that which does not exist" and connect it with Ephesians 5:1, "be imitators of God", and then say that we can create our own money, wealth, success, healing by imitating God the same way as God created things out of nothing in Genesis 1, "be, and it became"; and they even say things like "speak words to your wallet; you big fat wallet full of money"; and "body, I take authority over you and speak healing to you right now", etc. They, like Mormons, another cult and false religion, also take Psalm 82:6 and John 10 out of context and say "you are little gods" and you can call things into being which do not exist. It is amazing that so many people actually think that is good teaching.

Same thing that Roman Catholics do about Mary (and other issues), using sources other than the Scriptures (human oral traditions), and seeing her in the arc of the covenant, and connecting her to obscure verses in Ezekiel, etc. as others have pointed out.

Yes, the hermeneutical method of heretics is very old.

Luther's Battle at the End of the World

Here are two excerpts from older blog entries.


Well, for those of you at least as old as me, you remember Hal Lindsey’s book, The Late Great Planet Earth. Hey it was the 1970’s, and it was so obviously going to be the end of the world at any moment- well of course not quite the end- there were still 7 years for those not raptured to struggle through plagues and war, and the mark of the beast. I’ll never forget the jaws dropped down a few years ago when some non-Reformed Christian friends were telling me about how we’re all going to have computer chip implants in our hands or foreheads, and I was willing to get one if it would make my life easier. Well, it was no surprise to them that I would take “the mark of the beast” from Intel or Microsoft- I was already a Calvinist.

Interestingly though, for Luther it was also the end of the world in the 16th Century. As early in his career as 1522, Luther preached that his generation was living in the last days:

"I do not wish to force any one to believe as I do; neither will I permit anyone to deny me the right to believe that the last day is near at hand. These words and signs of Christ compel me to believe that such is the case. For the history of the centuries that have passed since the birth of Christ nowhere reveals conditions like those of the present. There has never been such building and planting in the world. There has never been such gluttonous and varied eating and drinking as now. Wearing apparel has reached its limit in costliness. Who has ever heard of such commerce as now encircles the earth? There have arisen all kinds of art and sculpture, embroidery and engraving, the like of which has not been seen during the whole Christian era".

Source: Martin Luther, The Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 62.

In 1542, Luther said, “I hold that Judgment day is not far away. I say this because the drive of the gospel is now at its height.” (Source: Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says: An Anthology Volume Two (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 696).

In a Table Talk Luther says also,

“It is my firm belief that the angels are getting ready, putting on their armor and girding their swords about them, for the last day is already breaking, and the angels are preparing for the battle, when they will overthrow the Turks and hurl them along with the pope to the bottom of hell. The world will perish shortly. Among us there is the greatest ingratitude and contempt for the Word…As things are beginning to go, the last day is at the door, and I believe that the world will not endure a hundred years. For the light of the gospel is now dawning. That day will follow with thunder and lightning, for the voice of the Lord and of the trumpet are conveyed in the thunder. It will come from the east, and the earth will be severely shaken by the crash with such horror, that men will die of fear. I believe that the last day is not far off, for this reason: the gospel is now making its last effort, and it is just the same as with a light which, when it is about to go out, gives forth a great flash at the end as if it is intended to burn a long time yet, and then it is gone. So it appears to be in the case of the gospel, which seems on the point of widely extending itself, but I fear that it also will go out in a flash, and that the last day will then be at hand. It is just so with a sick man: when he is about to die he often appears most refreshed, and in a trice he has departed.”

Source:Hugh Kerr, A Compend of Luther’s Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), 244-245. (cf. LW 54:427; Table Talk online, entry: Of Angels: DLXIX).

Thus, the entirety of his Reformation career embraced an impending consummation of history. Mark Edwards points out:

“In general Luther viewed the history of his own time as the realization of the apocalyptic predictions of Daniel and Revelation. The events of his age, he was convinced, were certain signs that the End Time was at hand. The 1530 foreword to his translation of Daniel makes clear how firmly set this conviction was. Following traditional exegesis, Luther identified Daniels ‘kingdom of iron’ with the Roman Empire, which, through its transference to the Germans, had survived into Luther’s own time and would persist until the last day. The papacy was the antichrist alluded to in the eleventh chapter of Daniel, and the Turk was the small horn that replaced three horns of the beast in the seventh chapter. The appearance of the papal antichrist and the success of the Turk left no doubt in Luther’s mind that the apocalyptic drama was in its final act” [Mark U Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 97].

Lutheran scholar Paul Althaus notes that the “Middle Ages feared the Day of Wrath but Luther desires the coming of Jesus, because he will bring an end to the antichrist and bring about redemption. Luther can call it ‘the most happy Last Day.’”( Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 420-421).

Luther’s Apocalyptic Expectation & the Jews

Essential to understanding Luther’s attitude toward the Jews is the eschatological framework of his theology. As early as 1522, Luther preached that his generation was living in the last days: “I do not wish to force any one to believe as I do; neither will I permit anyone to deny me the right to believe that the last day is near at hand. These words and signs of Christ compel me to believe that such is the case. For the history of the centuries that have passed since the birth of Christ nowhere reveals conditions like those of the present.” In 1542, Luther said, “I hold that Judgment day is not far away. I say this because the drive of the gospel is now at its height.” Thus, the entirety of his Reformation career embraced an impending consummation of history. Lutheran scholar Paul Althaus notes that the “Middle Ages feared the Day of Wrath but Luther desires the coming of Jesus, because he will bring an end to the antichrist and bring about redemption. Luther can call it ‘the most happy Last Day.’”
Toward the end of his life, this expectation gained in momentum. Luther spoke out strongly against those groups who went against the Gospel: the Papacy, Turks, radicals, and the Jews. These groups were led by the devil, used for continued opposition of the gospel. Early in his career, his treatise That Jesus Christ Was born a Jew kindly appealed to the Jews to embrace the Gospel. Later in his career, the impending Judgment Day compelled Luther to appeal to the authorities to protect Christendom against those groups that continually chose not to convert and opposed to the Gospel. Those that did not embrace the Gospel were not indifferent to it, but rather were opposed to it. Heiko Oberman explains,

“[Luther] spoke to the Christian authorities: the Last Judgment is fast approaching, so woe to those temporal rulers who have neglected their duty to protect Christendom! Now is the time for defense against the storm troopers of the Antichrist, whether they descend upon Christendom from the outside in the form of the Turks, subvert the preaching of the Gospel and order in the empire from inside the Church like the pope and clerics beholden to him, or, like the Jews, undermine the public welfare from the inside. Luther had discovered this concatenation of Jews, pope, and Turks as the unholy coalition of the enemies of God long before he began leveling his massive assaults on the Jews. Now that the terrors of the Last Days had been unleashed, the Church and temporal authorities were forced into their own defensive battle, one without the promise of victory but with the prospects of survival. Christian rulers, you should “not participate in the sins of others, you must pray humbly to God that he should be merciful to you and allow your rule to survive.”

There are those who misunderstand Luther’s Eschatology. For instance, Roman Catholic writer Erik R. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn misunderstands the relationship of the Jews and Luther’s belief he lived during the last days. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn says,

“Of course, there are some dark aspects to Martin Luther, for instance, his inordinate non-racist but religious hatred for the Jews, whom he wanted to put into labor-battalions to let them work "in the sweat of their nostrils." Why? They had rejected his outstretched hand and his call for conversion. Since Luther was convinced that the Pope is Antichrist and because, according to tradition, the conversion of the Jews heralded the Day of Judgment, he published a pamphlet inviting the Jews to the baptismal font. Had they accepted his offer, he would have proved his point against the Papacy, but the Jews failed to react and this infuriated him enormously. Thus he became even more anti-Jewish than Marx or Engels.”

For this explanation to be coherent, von Kuehnelt-Leddihn needs to explain why Luther still believed it was ‘last days’ despite the non-conversion of the Jews. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn can’t do this because early in Luther’s Reformation career, Luther already affirmed that the Jews would not convert in mass. In a sermon on Luke 21:25-36 Luther said, “[Jesus] calls the Jews ‘this generation.’ And this verse clearly obliges us to believe that the common talk that the Jews are all to become Christians is not true.” Later in his career, Luther still held this position: “Of the great mass of Jews he who will may harbor hope. I have no hope for them, nor do I know any passages of Scripture that does.” Gordon Rupp also has pointed out,

“In his lectures on Romans (1515-6) Luther had to treat Paul's hopes for the Jews in chapters 9-11. About a final conversion of the Jewish people Luther is skeptical and though he admits there is patristic support for this, he continued to affirm that he could find no clear word in Holy Scripture that more than a few individuals might be saved. It is true that in his second course of lectures on the Psalms (1519-21) Lewin thought that at Psalm 14 Luther struck a more optimistic note when he prays that, at the very last, divine mercy will intervene. For such an intervention, Luther prayed in one of his very last writings, but it is clear that as far as the Jews are concerned he had no theology of hope.”

Documentation available here.

I Remember Harold: Memories of Family Radio

Camping Countdown clock:


I've been following the Harold Camping situation closely. In my area, Family Radio has had a large presence, it always has, at least in my short life.

My parents were fond of Family Radio music so I suffered through years of it as kid (until the invention of the Walkman). My father though couldn't tolerate Mr. Camping, so he would change the channel when he came on.  The only fun part of listening to Family Radio back then was waiting for one of their records to skip or get caught in a perpetual skip.  It seemed to me the station was on auto-pilot, so a "stuck" record could go on indefinitely.

I can never recall a time when there was no Family Radio. It's always been there, same spot on the dial, the same barber-shop-quartet-type music, the same Mr. Camping. Over the years I'd tune into to Open Forum from time to time. No matter where my theology (or  even unbelief) was at, I could either never follow his explanation, become easily bored, or find a quick chuckle over some one calling in a goof question. At one point in the early 1990's I used Camping's voice on my answering machine simply saying, "And shall we take our next call please...hello..."

I've met various Campingites through the years. There is one in particular who stands out. My friend Kenny is an incredible musician. He's a larger than life guy, a true "personality." meet him once, you'll never forget him. He's always been a Pentecostal, with tongues, minus the "God wants you to be rich and healthy stuff." He married this quiet conservative non-Pentecostal girl. Her mother was a militant Campingite. This woman appeared to despise Kenny, as well as his friends (like me). She poured tons of money into Family Radio, and advertising Family Radio. It got her a seat every year at Camping's table for the yearly Family Radio banquet at the Wayne Manor. Listening to Kenny describe his interactions with this woman were often humorous and often sad. The tension between a Pentecostal and a militant Campingite was like a rag in a bottle of gasoline.

Then I eventually embraced Reformed theology. Now listening to Mr. Camping got a bit more interesting because I was told he was a Calvinist. I'd listen in with different ears. Sure, he'd say some Reformed-type of things, but  the hermanuetic was... wacky. If Camping was Reformed, it certainly sounded a lot different than R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur. We had some Camping-lite folks in my Reformed church. They would LOVE to quote Mr. Camping on divorce & remarriage, and other various issues. I would cringe. Here we have a rich and robust Reformed theology, and these little old ladies were quoting... Harold Camping.

So here I am now, listening almost exclusively to Family Radio. It's an unbelievable irony when I stop and think about it. I'm suffering through the barber shop quartets and Harold Camping. Since I'm not certain if Family Radio will continue after this week, the thought of not having Family Radio has produced a slightly melancholic feeling. It's kind of like a store that's always been on the highway, and then one day it's gone. It's not like you cared for the store, but it's something you've always known. Those of you who've moved away from your hometown know what I mean. When you come back, you see the passage of time by what isn't there.

Of course, the other irony is that while Mr. Camping says God is judging the apostate church, the truth is that Mr. Camping will be exposed of heresy to all of his followers on May 22.  Take a look at this pro-Camping website. Will it be there next week? What will become of these people? Hopefully repentance.

That Family Radio may disappear off the dial is also a tremendous blessing. When I think of all the lives Camping has ruined, I'm sickened. He ruined lives even before 1994. The Reformed community should have tried to pull his plug years ago. But since he spewed out all sorts of conservative old fashioned religion, the Reformed tolerated him. Even churches that I love and respect tolerated Camping, and broadcasted their church services on Family Radio. His hermeneutic alone should have provoked Reformed congregations to not associate with him. But, Camping was "conservative" and conservative people sometimes embrace being conservative more than they do proper Biblical hermeneutics. It's more important that Camping spoke against divorce, homosexuality, and worldliness. How does he interpret the Bible? Who cares? This sort of free pass from serious Reformed people always bothered me.

So now I'm about to embark on my morning commute. I'll be tuned in to Family Radio.

Music for the End of the World (Updated!)

We all know the hymn O Come O Come Emmanuel. A few weeks back I mentioned Family Radio is now playing a version with different lyrics about judgment day. The familiar chorus has been altered in this way:

"Rejoice, Rejoice, Emmanuel" is now: "May twenty, first, two thousand eleven"

Here is an mp3: O Come May 21

Song Lyrics

The Lord will come to judge the Bible tells.
Prepare to meet thy God, Oh, Israel.
The time has been disclosed, the Book unsealed.
The date of Christ's return has been revealed.

[Chorus]
May 21, 2011, the saints will be caught up to heaven.

Listen to the watchman sounding.
Warning of a judgment at hand.
This dying world with sin is abounding
From wanton pride of fallen man.
Christ will come to earth to judge the world of sin.
Salvation will have come to an end.

The earth will quake as nations fall.
Too late for those who would not heed the call.
The trump has blown but grace remains today.
Cry out for mercy on your knees and pray.

[Chorus]

He Used to be a Christan...

I've known quite a number of people in my life who I've embraced as Christians, but now they walk a far distance from the Christan faith. What do we make of those people? Some of them were quite zealous. They were witnessing, reading the Bible, actively involved in a Christan worldview. Some could even pray fancy heartfelt prayers at a prayer meeting. They could tell profound conversion stories.

Are they non-believers, and always were? Even now, I don't know if they're in a deep period of rebellion against the faith, or are simply examples of seeds that fell on rocky soil.

As a member of The United Reformed Churches of North America, I'm at least part of a body that has a set of guidelines set up to deal with such people who "fall away."

Ecclesiastical Discipline

Article 51
Since Christian discipline is spiritual in nature and exempts no one from trial or punishment by the civil authorities, so also besides civil punishment there is need of ecclesiastical censure, that God may be glorified, that the sinner may be reconciled with God, the church and his neighbor, and that offense may be removed from the church of Christ.


Article 52
In case anyone errs in doctrine or offends in conduct, as long as the sin is of a private character and does not give public offense, the rule clearly prescribed by Christ in Matthew 18 shall be followed.


Article 53
Secret sins from which the sinner repents after being admonished by one person in private or in the presence of two or three witnesses, shall not be made known to the Consistory.


Article 54
If anyone has been admonished in love by two or three persons concerning a secret sin and does not repent, or if he has committed a public sin, the matter shall be brought to the Consistory.


Article 55
Anyone whose sin is properly made known to the Consistory, and who then obstinately rejects the Scriptural admonitions of the Consistory, shall be suspended from all privileges of church membership, including the use of the sacraments. After such suspension and subsequent admonitions, and before proceeding to excommunication, the impenitence of the sinner shall be publicly made known to the congregation, the offense explained, together with the care bestowed upon him and repeated admonitions, so that the congregation may speak to him and pray for him. This shall be done in three steps. In the first, the name of the sinner need not be mentioned, that he be somewhat spared. In the second, the Consistory shall seek the advice of classis before proceeding, whereupon his name shall be mentioned. In the third, the congregation shall be informed that, unless he repents, he will be excluded from the fellowship of the church, so that his excommunication, if he remains impenitent, may take place with the full knowledge of the church. The interval between the steps shall be left to the discretion of the Consistory.


Article 56
If these steps of discipline, having been carried out in a loving manner, do not bring about repentance, but rather harden the sinner in his ways, the Consistory shall proceed to the extreme remedy, namely, excommunication, in agreement with the Word of God and with the use of the appropriate liturgical form.


Article 57
The restoration of a sinner whose sins are public, or have become public because the admonition of the church was despised, shall take place upon sufficient evidence of repentance, in such manner as the Consistory shall deem conducive to the edification of the church. Whether in particular cases this should take place in public shall, when there is a difference of opinion about it within the Consistory, be decided with the advice of two neighboring churches of the classis.


Article 58
Whenever anyone who has been excommunicated desires to become reconciled to the church by way of penitence, it shall be announced to the congregation in order that, insofar as no one can allege anything against him to the contrary, he may, with profession of his repentance, be publicly reinstated with the use of the appropriate liturgical form.


Article 59
Mature members by baptism who are delinquent in doctrine or life shall be admonished and, if they persist, shall be excluded from the church of Christ. The advice of classis must be sought before proceeding to such exclusion.


Article 60
Members by baptism who have been excluded from the church and who later repent of their sin shall be received again into the church only upon public profession of faith.

The URC church order at least sets up a helpful structure to restore those who go through a period of rebellion. Church discipline, while some question the notion or think the word is prone to trouble, is actually... a helpful practice. Church discipline is far more than giving people a hard time, it's a way for a church to be responsible for those God has entrusted to them.

NPR Picks up on Harold Camping

The liberal media picks up on the end of the world. Take a few minutes to listen to the stories:

NPR: Is The End Nigh? We'll Know Soon Enough

Listen to NPR's story on Harold Camping.

And also: Divining Doomsday: An Old Practice With New Tricks

Listen to the Audio Version

Both of the listen links are worth your time to hear how the liberal media is reacting to Camping.

Harold Camping is not the first person to fix a date for the end of the world. There have been dozens of such prophets and so far, they've all been wrong. Camping himself has had to do some recalculation. He first predicted the end would come September 6, 1994. He now explains that he had not completed his biblical research.

Mr. CAMPING: For example, I at that time had not gone through the book of Jeremiah, which is a big book in the Bible that has a whole lot to say about the whole matter of the end of the world.

HAGERTY: So you're not planning for May 22?

Mr. CAMPING: Oh, absolutely not. It is going to happen. There is no plan B.

HAGERTY: I've asked a dozen of Camping's followers the same question. Everyone said even entertaining the possibility that May 21 would come and go, without event, is an offense to God. They all hope they'll be raptured. Some, like Kevin Brown, worry about being left behind.

Mr. BROWN: If I'm here on May 22 and I wake up, I'm going to be in hell. And that's where I don't want to be. So there is going to be a May 22d, and we don't want to be here.

HAGERTY: On the other hand he will, presumably, have lots of company.

Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR News.

Camping Countdown clock:

Sungenis Strikes Again

Robert Sungenis recently posted his review of Pope Benedict XVI's book Jesus of Nazareth (JON):

All in all I have been rather critical of JON, but I make no apologies since the material covered by JON deals with some of the most important issues in both theology and society today. There are a few other theological points I could delve into that I believe JON has mishandled. All I can say is, if JON wishes to perpetuate the idea that the Gospels contain mistakes and he promotes Protestant and Jewish theological ideas in place of Catholic tradition, then it forces us to show that he himself has erred. The only way JON can match the infallibility of the Scriptures is when JON speaks infallibly from his papal chair. Everything else, as JON said himself, is open to criticism. We can only pray that whether its Joseph Ratzinger or Pope Benedict XVI, neither will fall prey to the errors and heresies that are so prevalent today, especially regarding the place of the Jewish people in the plan of God.

If Robert keeps this sort of thing up, he's going to end up as a co-contributor either here or on Triablogue.

Faithful Roman Catholics?

TurretinFan posted this video clip a few days ago:


Will Faithful Roman Catholics go to heaven from Canon Wired on Vimeo.

I would concur with TurretinFan's comments, particularly his statements about sanctification. I too question why someone who rejects Romanism and embraces Christ by faith alone would choose to continue to attend a Roman Catholic Church. From my sparse interaction with such people, most often I've been told it has to do with family related matters.

Doug Wilson makes a distinction between faithful Roman Catholics and faithful Roman Catholics. How does one determine what a faithful Roman Catholic is? Wilson is correct that those who knowingly espouse Romanism in its fullness are embracing a different Gospel. There are those of course who may be in Romanism, despite Romanism, and do embrace Christ by faith alone. Wilson says of these folks, they may have some "various inconsistencies."

That reminded me of R.C. Sproul's answer to whether or not Arminains are Christians. Sproul jokingly says something like, "Yes, barely." That is, a full-fledged Arminian in effect, turns faith into a work, but doesn't even realize it. They're Christians by what I think Sproul said was a "happy inconsistency" (those of you who study Sproul's writings Talmudicly can correct me with the actual words).

I've been badgered at least a few times by Roman Catholics asking me if I think they're Christians. I've replied similarly to Doug Wilson. I'm in no place to rule on the state of someones soul.

Addendum
This post disappeared and came back due to Blogger, and for whatever reason they did maintenance on their system.

As I thought about this quick entry, I didn't want to leave any sort of false impression. Even though I can't look into anyones heart, I do not hold out  ecumenical open arms to those espousing Roman Catholicism. This doesn't mean that I despise Roman Catholics. I think we believe two different Gospels, and one of us is eternally wrong. I do have Roman Catholic relatives and friends. There are also some Roman Catholic bloggers that I like- Scott Windsor comes to mind.

Blogger Causes Families to Bond

I'm sure many of you had some wonderful time with your families... once you realized Blogger had gone AWOL.

Blogger zapped my last post, and also zapped something I had in draft.

Addendum:
I use this Blogger back up program every one in a while. It works well.

Saint Pilate and Mrs. Saint Pilate?

Here's an odd factoid I came across:

The tendency, already discernible in the canonical Gospels, to lay stress on the efforts of Pilate to acquit Christ, and thus pass as lenient a judgment as possible upon his crime, goes further in the apocryphal Gospels and led in later years to the claim that he actually became a Christian. The Abyssinian Church reckons him as a saint, and assigns 25 June to him and to Claudia Procula, his wife. The belief that she became a Christian goes back to the second century, and may be found in Origen (Hom., in Mat., xxxv). The Greek Church assigns her a feast on 27 October. Tertullian and Justin Martyr both speak of a report on the Crucifixion (not extant) sent in by Pilate to Tiberius, from which idea a large amount of apocryphal literature originated. Some of these were Christian in origin (Gospel of Nicodemus), others came from the heathen, but these have all perished. [source]

Addendum: I've yet to locate Origen (Hom., in Mat., xxxv). I have though noticed, after about 45 minutes of searching, that no one else appears to have it either.  There are plentiful references to Origen (Hom., in Mat., xxxv), but not any pay-off. I'm open to suggestions... I'm tempted to say... it doesn't exist, or is some sort of typo. This document  is numbered "35" by Migne, but doesn't appear to be the source.

How does Mary Hear Prayers?

On Catholic Answers Live, Jimmy Akin explains how Mary is aware of prayers:


Jimmy Akin: How does Mary Hear Prayer? (mp3)

If doctrine doesn't need to be grounded in Scripture, anything goes! Actually, Jimmy doesn't even bother to offer a Scripture, which in a way, is rather honest.

Luther: Christ was "born of a woman without sin"

Here's another odd piece to the Luther's Mariology puzzle. The title of this current blog post is purposefully deceptive: "Luther: Christ was "born of a woman without sin." Ask yourself, who is being described as "without sin" according to this sentence, Mary, or Jesus?

To answer this question, let's put the sentence back in context. The following excerpt comes from The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000) p. 312-313. It's from a New Year's Day sermon on Luke 2:21, "The Circumcision and Naming of Jesus" [found in WA 10 (1) 509-510, also in LW 52:152].

In explaining the spiritual reason for circumcision, Luther first explains why circumcision was chosen, rather than a hand being cut off or an eye plucked out. If the later were used, the false impression would be given that God was merely displeased with the works carried out by these body parts. Circumcision though demonstrates God is displeased with the very sinful nature inherent in man (that is passed on with each new birth). He then makes the following comment, explaining why only males are required to be circumcised:

[W]hy does he command to circumcise males only, when nature and birth involve the woman also? The prophet also complains more of the mother than of the father, when he says, Psalm 51:5: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” It was surely done on account of Christ and his mother, because he was to come, and because it was possible that a natural man and person could be born of a woman without sin and natural intercourse. But in all conception from a man, the man sins as well as the woman, and sin on either side cannot be avoided. Therefore Christ willed not to be conceived of a man, in order that his mother also might not be under the necessity of sinning and of conceiving him in sin. Therefore he made use of her womanly flesh and body for natural birth, but not for natural conception, and was conceived and born a true man without sin. Since, therefore, it is possible that a pure, innocent birth, nature, and person may be derived from a woman; but from a man only a sinful birth, nature, and person; therefore circumcision was imposed upon males only, in order to signify that all birth from man is sinful and condemned, requiring circumcision and change: but that a birth derived only from a woman without a man, is innocent and uncondemned, requiring no circumcision or change. And here one may apply what John writes, in John 1:12-18: “To them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”—with the understanding that “the will of man” refers to birth from man. If it were possible now that more women could bear without men, these births would be altogether pure and holy; but this has been reserved for this one mother alone.

Who is "Without Sin"?
In context, that being referred to as "without sin" is Jesus: "It was surely done on account of Christ and his mother, because he was to come, and because it was possible that a natural man and person could be born of a woman without sin and natural intercourse." That is, the natural man (Jesus) is born without sin and natural intercourse. This sentiment is harmonious with Luther's later view of Mary.


Any Woman could Have a Sinless Child?
There's more than the subject of "who is without sin" according to this context that interests me. Luther's last comment, "If it were possible now that more women could bear without men, these births would be altogether pure and holy; but this has been reserved for this one mother alone" is an interesting statement.

Luther says first that in a typical human birth, "the man sins as well as the woman, and sin on either side cannot be avoided." According to Luther, procreation is no longer a pure act because it has lost its primeval purity through lustful desire (See Paul Althaus, The Theology of Luther, p. 160). In explaining Psalm 51:5, Luther says elsewhere, "Marriage is something good and permitted, instituted by God. This is not to deny that father and mother have corrupt flesh and that the seed itself is full not only of evil lust, but of hate against God; nor is it to deny the sin there is in procreation. For in this respect how is our nature better than that of the beasts? In this action there is no knowledge of God and no faith, but we proceed in procreation on the basis of reason, which tells us that this is our wife, and on the basis of lust. God puts up with this sinful begetting for the sake of His creation" [LW 12:348].

In Luther's sermon Am tage der Empfengknus Marie der mutter Gottes (1527), he states:

And this is the reason for this whole tragedy: the flesh of human beings in this life can never become completely pure, so that it is without lust and sinful desire; that is why the parents cannot conceive and bear children without this lust and this desire. Therefor David in the 51. Psalm (vers 7) says: 'Lo, I am created in adultery and my mother has conceived me in sin'. And this is, what Augustin says: 'It is not because of descent or birth, but because of the lust, that hereditary sin is created'. As if he would say: If the parents could conceive and bear without lust and desire, no child would be born with hereditary sin. But the Lord God tolerates such a lust and such a desire in the parents, because of the marriage of mankind and especially because of baptism and the Christian faith. For in this life such a lust cannot be completely destroyed; and mankind must be bred and must be multiplied in this way. [source]

In the sermon in question, Luther says, "Therefore Christ willed not to be conceived of a man, in order that his mother also might not be under the necessity of sinning and of conceiving him in sin." This entire section could be read in two ways: first, assuming Mary is sinless, and second- she isn't. The text doesn't say either way.

Assume Luther wasn't considering a sinless Mary, but was speaking of women in general. The argument appears to be: man causes woman to sin in conception by necessity, but if conception occurs without a man, the woman is not caused to sin. From there it follows that "all birth from man is sinful and condemned... a birth derived only from a woman without a man, is innocent and uncondemned." Therefore, a pure and innocent birth could come from a woman. Luther ends by applying this generally across the board to all woman: "If it were possible now that more women could bear without men, these births would be altogether pure and holy; but this has been reserved for this one mother alone." That is, only Mary was chosen to conceive by Holy Spirit, but if the Holy Spirit chose to, more women could conceive holy and sinless children.

The Date of this Sermon?
Had this comment from Luther been from one of his later sermons, I would have no hesitation is saying he doesn't have any notion of Mary's being sinless from birth in mind. The sermon though appears to be from 1522. I say this statement appears to come from 1522. During this early period, Luther wrote out sermons and delivered them to the printer (they were written out by Luther during this period for others to preach). As the years went by, the sermons were edited or revised, even during Luther's life, and often under his supervision. From the WA text and LW editor's comments, I can't tell for sure if this sermon went through revisions, or if the text reflects exactly what was written in 1522.

Conclusion
There's nothing in this text in question that would directly contradict Luther believing Mary was sinless, nor is there anything that would contradict Mary not being sinless. What I find curious though is Luther's absence of any clear indication of Mary's sinlessness in this context, as well as the curious nature of the text. This is just one more piece of the puzzle to Luther's Mariology.

To Think About

In their objections to the atonement, the cross, the sacrifice and death of Christ, and the need for atonement; indeed the necessity of the atonement,

Muslims say:

“God is not hurt or harmed or His power or glory or holiness is not lessened by Him being able to forgive without a sacrifice of blood-shed (death). Allah just chooses to forgive. Allah does not need blood atonement or sacrifice.”

Analyze and discuss!

Luther Goes to the Cartoon Network

First Look Inside at Martin Luther Graphic Novel

I've heard Concordia has a Luther & Spiderman vs. Dr. Doom & the Pope cartoon in the works.

Catholic Answers Forum Tidbit

Re: What to think of Karl Rahner?

He died in 1984. He was involved in Vat II council. He was not dependably faithful to Church teaching. . [source]

Take the Free Will Challenge

1. Find an Arminian.
2. Ask him/her if they have free will.
3. Make him/her cry.
4. Ask him/her to stop crying.
5. Remind him/her about the power of free will.

PBS Luther Videos

I've not watched either of these yet:

Martin Luther: Driven to Defiance

Watch the full episode. See more Empires.

Martin Luther: Reluctant Revolutionary

Watch the full episode. See more Empires.

PBS though, doesn't always get things right: PBS Presents “Facts” That Luther Advocated Drunkenness and Promiscuity

1.5 Million Roman Catholics Ignore Robert Sungenis

1.5 million pilgrims celebrate Pope John Paul II.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Music and Testimonies for the End of the World

Camping Countdown clock:



While driving back from North Carolina on Sunday, I listened to a lot of Family Radio. I know a lot of people simply love the music on Family Radio, and still listen, every day, despite Harold Camping. The broadcasting format as I listened in, appeared to be an hour or so of teaching or discussion followed by a half hour to an an hour of music.

One particular discussion I heard was simply interviews with Camping's followers, on how they converted to Family Radio (for lack of a better description), and how they're spreading the word about May 21, 2011.  They were the emotional testimonies on how the Lord called them to Family Radio, complete with tears, new found purpose, certainty, and blessing. Of course, I also listened to a crackling AM radio signal of Catholic Answers for a bit, and heard sort of the same thing. I also listened to a plethora of other religious stations, and again heard a number of testimonies. I was reminded again of how much people love to talk about themselves. Well for Campings's folks, I guess they need to be encouraged to hang in there by hearing about other followers who are giving their all in these final weeks.

As far as I could tell, all the broadcasted discussion or teaching was fixated on May 21, 2011. But so is Family Radio music. We all know the hymn O Come O Come Emmanuel.  Family Radio is now playing a version with different lyrics about judgment day. The familiar chorus has been altered in this way:

"Rejoice, Rejoice, Emmanuel" is now: "May twenty, first, two thousand eleven"


I searched all over the Internet to see if anyone has pulled this song off their airwaves. Apparently, only myself and a few others have heard it. For instance,

Anyone know where the song with "May 21" lyrics to "O Come Emmanuel" can be found? May Twenty One? Anyone know where I can find it to download? Or even who performed it? It has "May Twenty One" lyrics to the music from O Come Emmanuel...it sends chills! It pertains to Judgment Day in a few weeks! I want a copy to share with a friend, I heard it on the live familyradio audio feed but I'm not set up to record. I'm sure it will be a free song to have but it's just finding it!?!?!

I couldn't find it, so I wrote Family Radio about it. So far, no response. If anyone tracks it down, please let me know.

Update: The following link was left in a blog comment:

Divorce and Remarriage in the United Reformed Church?

If you're not a regular blog reader, chances are you arrived here by trying to find out what the United Reformed Churches of North America  position on divorce and remarriage is. Some will say that since the URC has never issued a synodical statement, the church has no position. On the other hand, one needs to strongly consider the fact that many (if not most) of the URC churches were formally Christian Reformed Churches. The CRC indeed worked through divorce and remarriage for over one hundred years.  It's true that the URC doesn't have an explicit statement outlining her view. I would argue though that this doesn't mean collectively the URC doesn't have strong remnants of her former CRC doctrinal statements influencing her. If you want to understand the URC on divorce and remarriage, you need to familiarize yourself with the CRC on divorce and remarriage.






DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE IN THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH, 1860 - 1983
by James Swan [URC, Pompton Plains New Jersey]


I. Introduction
Article 48 of the Church Order of the United Reformed Churches in North America states,

Scripture teaches that marriage is designed to be a lifelong, monogamous covenantal union between one man and one woman. Consistories shall instruct and admonish those under their spiritual care who are considering marriage to marry in the Lord. Christian marriages shall be solemnized with appropriate admonitions, promises, and prayers, under the regulation of the Consistory, with the use of the appropriate liturgical form. Ministers shall not solemnize marriages that conflict with the Word of God.

Article 69 of the Church Order of The Christian Reformed Church states,

Consistories shall instruct and admonish those under their spiritual care to marry only in the Lord. Christian marriages should be solemnized with appropriate admonitions, promises, and prayers, as provided for in the official form. Marriages may be solemnized either in a worship service, or in private gatherings of relatives and friends. Ministers shall not solemnize marriages which would be in conflict with the Word of God.

The similarities of these two declarations are more than coincidence. Their relationship can be attributed to the historical connection the United Reformed Churches have to the Christian Reformed Church. The following is a brief historical picture of the issues surrounding divorce and remarriage in the Christian Reformed Church [1]. While the seemingly youthful United Reformed Church lacks the rich historical denominational heritage of her predecessor, the battles waged over these issues nevertheless still hold a place in her formative history. By familiarizing herself with the history of divorce and remarriage in the Christian Reformed Church, the United Reformed Church stands to benefit in any future synodical declarations.

II. 1860 - 1890
The records of the early assemblies of the Christian Reformed Church touch sparsely on issues related to marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The Classical Assembly held February 1860 considered the length of time a person should wait after the death of their spouse before marrying again. After much discussion it was decided that it was “not prudent to give further regulations concerning the waiting period, since Scripture says nothing concerning this” [2].

The Assembly of 1866 considered the more controversial issue of a man marrying his deceased brother’s wife (with subsequent children of that union). This particular couple had been forbidden membership to the Dutch Reformed Church, but were accepted by the Scotch [Presbyterian] Church, “under the condition that they live separated by bed and board, as brother and sister.” The couple requested the same dispensation in the Graafschap congregation. “The Classis decides that these people must separate from each other regarding cohabitation before they can be accepted as members of the congregation; they must also publicly demonstrate that they truly are separated” [3]. The Grand Rapids church raised a similar concern about a couple in which the same situation occurred. A minister within the denomination had remarried this couple. The church council had already accepted the second wife as a member of the congregation. “This is a matter of too close a blood relationship, as well as being against civil law.” “The Classis decides that these members must be instructed about their error and admonished, and after lengthy effort they should be placed outside the community of the church, however, this is to be done outside the normal rules of excommunication” [4] The General Assembly of 1876 revisited these issues declaring,

[T]hat such people are not to be admitted into the congregation, but if they are already in the congregation we should deal with them in this delicate matter and according to the circumstances, and if offence should arise, they should not be allowed to participate in Holy Communion and in no case should they be elected to church offices. In one area, a concern is raised in this matter, to wit that under the same circumstances, one must remain outside the congregation and others being [already] inside, will not be expelled [5].

The General Assembly of 1877 briefly revisited these concerns again, but decided to remain with that decided by the Assembly of 1876 [6]. The General Assembly of 1878 referred to a case in Rochester, New York in which “a man married to the sister of his first wife, [wished] to join the congregation.” The council of that church asked for advice and was instructed, “The assembly decides to leave this to their own judgment” [7]

The Acts of the Synod of 1890 issued the first meaningful declaration about divorce and remarriage: “A man who, because he committed adultery, is divorced legitimately by his wife, may not remain a member of the church if he remarries while his first wife is living” [8] Further, “The question is raised whether or not a man who has married another woman on the grounds that his first wife has deserted him can be either a full member or a baptized member of the church. The answer of Synod is: ‘No, for no other reason than adultery’” [9]. The Acts of Synod 1908 issued the second specific declaration: “Such a person by his act of adultery freed his wife but not himself; before God he is still bound to his first wife, and his second marriage is, moreover, a living in adultery” [10]. These statements would play significant roles in determining church decisions over the next decades.

Except for a period of two years (1894-1896) the early Christian Reformed Church recognized adultery as the only ground for a biblical divorce. In 1894 Synod allowed divorce for the willful desertion of a spouse based on 1 Corinthians 7:15. This lasted until 1896 when Synod declared, “Willful desertion cannot be a ground for divorce, since the Committee finds no basis for it in the Holy Scriptures” [11] Synod 1898 reconfirmed the decision of 1896. In 1906, Synod declared that 1 Corinthians 7:15 “can only be to what we call ‘separation of bed and board’… It is the judgment of this Committee: that 1 Cor. 7:15 cannot serve as Biblical proof for the legality of divorce” [12].

III. Acts of Synod 1936 - 1945
The Synod of 1936 brought to light the inherent difficulties of such rigid statements as those put forth in 1890 and 1908. An unconverted man had been divorced by his wife. He remarried another divorcée. He was “subsequently converted and declared and manifested sincere repentance as to his sins pertaining to this divorce and his adulterous marriage” [13]. The decisions of 1890 and 1908 could not adequately be applied to such a situation. The Synod advised that this man be deemed admissible to church membership. But the reports issued as part of the Synod presented conflicting conclusions on several issues, including whether a guilty party in a legitimate or illegitimate divorce had the right to remarry, and whether the second marriage of a divorced person always remains adultery.

The 1944 Synod evaluated a divorce case in which adultery was clearly involved and if such guilty people should be allowed church membership. They decided, “in this concrete case the parties guilty of divorce and adulterous remarriage may not be admitted as members of one of our churches” [14]. The Synod of 1946 noted this confusion between 1944 and 1945. A committee had already been formed by a declaration of the 1945 Synod to investigate these issues.

IV. Acts of Synod 1947
The findings of that committee were reported to the Synod of 1947 in a document entitled Supplement 21, “Report of the Committee to Re-examine the Decisions of 1890 and 1908 Dealing with Church-membership of Unbiblically Divorced and Remarried Persons Who Come to Repentance of Their Sins.” When this report was presented “a lively discussion followed” [15]. The report found that the statements of 1890 and 1908 were too inflexible and failed to incorporate satisfactory scriptural evidence. Supplement 21 concluded those partaking in unbiblical divorce and remarriage could be admitted (or readmitted) to church membership by confessing their sin and being subsequently placed in a probationary period to show the church manifest godliness. Those who fall into divorce and remarriage while unconverted and in ignorance should be treated leniently. The question of abrogating a second marriage or abstinence for remarried divorced persons could not be settled decisively. The Synod adhered to some of the findings of the report, but determined that an unbiblically divorced and remarried person cannot be a member of the church while the former spouse lives. To obtain membership, one must repent and return to the former spouse. If this is not possible, one must cease to live “in the ordinary marriage-relationship” with his present spouse [16]. Those who were divorced and remarried in ignorance of the teaching of the word of God are not obliged to abrogate either their present marriage or marital relations.

V. Acts of Synod 1952 - 1956
These decisions were challenged. The majority opinion included in the Acts of Synod of 1952 determined that the church had no legal jurisdiction to dissolve second marriages, or force a return to a former spouse. The state was set up by God to regulate such things. Scriptural support for the loophole allowing those “completely ignorant” in their divorce and remarriage to obtain church membership was lacking. The Synod therefore amended the 1947 ruling to reflect marriage as regulated by the state, but that marriage and divorce also fall under the jurisdiction of the church. The article pertaining to the “complete ignorance” of a remarried divorced person was removed. As it stood in 1952, people remarried after an unbiblical divorce were still viewed as living in continual adultery by the Christian Reformed Church. A committee on divorce and remarriage was again set in motion.

The Study Committee on Divorce and Remarriage included its finding in the Acts of Synod 1956. It maintained “the marriage of any person who has obtained an unbiblical divorce (or who was divorced as the result of his own adultery) is a living in continual adultery” [17]. Another committee entitled the Ecumenical Synod on Marital Relations concluded “No substantial and conclusive Scriptural evidence has been produced to establish the thesis that parties remarried after being divorced on the ground of their own adultery, or divorced on non-Biblical grounds, are living in continuous adultery” [18]. They also concluded no biblical evidence supports that a divorced person must cease living with a second spouse to prove repentance. Clearly, the Synod was divided, and discussion included the notion that perhaps the issue could not be decided biblically one way or the other. The synod eventually rejected the following recommendation, “Those who have been divorced and remarried contrary to Scriptural requirements have entered an adulterous relationship which is sinful in its continuation as well as its inception” [19]. Synod affirmed that no conclusive scriptural evidence was produced to prove remarried divorced persons must cease living with their presentral evidence was produced to prove remarried divorced persons must cease living with their present spouse to prove repentance, or that they are currently living in adultery. It thus simply stated,

The consistories are advised that people who are guilty of unbiblical divorce, or who are divorced as the result of their own adultery and having remarried, seek entrance or reentrance into the Church, shall be expected to show their sorrow and genuine repentance during an adequate period of probation. Such cases shall not be settled without the advice of Classis [20].


VI. Acts of Synod 1957
In 1957, requests were made that Synod rescind the declaration of 1956 [21]. Arguments suggested the decisions of the previous year failed to furnish Scriptural support, that “no conclusive evidence is given by any Study Committee of Synod that our old stand, the stand prior to 1956, was not Scriptural,” and Synod had acted too hastily in its ruling. The detractors further argued that according to Article 31 of the Church Order, decisions are binding unless they are proved to conflict with Scripture. In essence, the Synod of 1952 reversed this by placing the burden of proof on a study committee in regard to the church’s previous position. Rather, the burden of Scriptural proof should fall on those who protest it [22]. A new study committee was requested. Others asked that Synod clarify the 1956 decision with particular attention to the following questions: First, is the remarriage of a party unbiblically divorced merely a sinful act or does it constitute a sinful relationship? Second, if it constitutes a sinful relationship, just when and how can this sinful relationship be terminated? [23]

The 1957 Synod decided to not accede to requests to rescind or reverse the 1956 decision [24]. They stated they were “merely asked to judge whether substantial and conclusive Scriptural evidence had been produced to support the then existing decisions and therefore Art. 31 of the Church Order was not directly applicable in 1956” [25]. “Substantial and conclusive evidence for the former position had not been produced” so “marital problems in question fell under the general Scriptural instructions regarding repentance and forgiveness, and deemed it unnecessary to cite specific passages” [26]. They rejected the motion to clarify the Church’s position and the two clarifying questions. The Synod then appointed a committee of three men “as to further procedure in this matter” [27].

A report was also included as to whether desertion by a spouse is a second ground for a biblical divorce (according to 1 Corinthians 7). The report denied a “general” desertion, but allowed for “a special kind of desertion.” 1 Corinthians 7:15 only applies to Christians whose unbelieving marriage partner departs for deeply-seated religious reasons [28]. It does not provide the Christian with a second ground for divorce, generally. “On no account does Paul… permit divorce in all cases of desertion” [29]. “It absolves the Christian from the obligation to preserve a marriage broken or about to be broken by the divorce-proceedings of an unbelieving spouse acting from deeply-seated religious motives” [30]. This committee advised “That if a Christian husband or wife is deserted by his or her spouse for such a length of time as indicates an irrevocable decision not to resume married relations, the deserted party should not be regarded as transgressing the law of Christ in seeking divorce” [31].

VII. Acts of Synod 1968 - 1973
The 1956 decision on admitting unbiblically divorced persons into church membership stated, “Such cases shall not be settled without the advice of Classis.” This was challenged in 1968. Church order held that a consistory has jurisdiction of matters of discipline. It was therefore adopted that synod “declare that admitting or readmitting to membership in the church persons who have been divorced on unbiblical grounds, and have remarried, or who are divorced as the result of their own adultery and have remarried, is the task of the consistory and is the responsibility of classis only in case of appeal” [32].

In 1971 Classis Toronto requested a new study committee be drawn up to study marriage, divorce, remarriage, and marital difficulties. They objected to the terms “biblical” and “non-biblical” for grounds of divorce, and further argued marriage may end in divorce as the result of living in a sinful world and “remarriage of divorce persons need not be wrong” [33]. Acts of Synod 1971 granted this request and stated, “it would be difficult to establish a universally acceptable statement on marriage” like that put forth in 1956. It decided studies on this topic “should first deal with such a question itself, and then report its findings to the Reformed Ecumenical Synod” [34]. The goal of the committee was to establish guidelines for pastors and consistories on these issues.

That report was submitted to Synod 1973. It argued “adultery” had a broad meaning of “marital infidelity,” and that marriage was a “relationship of fidelity” rather than contractual and covenantal. It isn’t simply adultery that breaks the marriage bond. The word “porneia” has a general meaning, covering “all the ways in which infidelity in marriage can take place” [35]. Since we live in a “broken world,” divorce is a result of the complete breakdown of a marriage relationship. Divorced and remarried people should not be barred from church membership. The terms “biblical” and “unbiblical” divorce should be dropped. These guidelines were rejected because Synod was not convinced it “was entirely in accord with the biblical teaching on marriage” [36]. Marriage as a “relationship to fidelity” amounts to an undefined personal commitment to each marriage partner. The disputed terms “biblical and “non-biblical” were reaffirmed.

VII. Acts of Synod 1975 - 1979
Another study was thus authorized by Synod 1973. Its contents were included as supplement 38 of Synod 1975. That report argued “Marriage at its heart is the bond of fidelity to which a man and a woman commit themselves before God. But it is not a purely private matter between two individuals” [37]. Porneia refers primarily to adultery, but includes “such sexual infidelity as incest and homosexualism” [38]. The term “biblical ground” for divorce should be avoided, as it fosters the false impression that the Bible “encourages unchastity as the approved means to that end” [39]. As to a second ground for divorce, “Willful desertion, while not in itself a so-called second ground for divorce, may be judged to be tantamount to physical infidelity and therefore also indicates that the marriage relationship cannot function in any meaningful way” [40]. “If the consistory judges that it is prolonged and unrepentant adultery or a situation equivalent to it (such as prolonged and unrepentant willful desertion), then one may, albeit with mourning and repentance, legitimately seek a divorce” [41]. These people are permitted to remarry. Those divorced for unbiblical reasons, the church should exhibit “a true forgiving spirit after the fashion of Jesus’ treatment of the woman taken in adultery” [42].

This report was revised, and included as Supplement 35 in Acts of Synod 1976. That report added that an innocent party in a divorce is free to marry without thereby committing adultery after there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation with the former spouse. For those involved in an unbiblical divorce, a sincerely repentant individual should be forgiven, restored to full fellowship of the church, and may legitimately consider remarriage [43].

1977’s Synod adopted aspects of Supplement 35. It adopted the positive section on “Biblical Teachings Regarding Marriage.” It rejected though its exegesis on porneia, and also stated, “The so-called exceptive clauses serve only as a qualification of Jesus’ emphatic and well-attested teaching that a remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery.” “Jesus does not address himself to the question of a possible legitimate reason for divorce.” “Believers who are separated are instructed to be reconciled or remain single.” “The believing partner is said to be bound and not free to remarry as long as her husband lives.” “Remarriage after divorce is not clearly sanctioned in Scripture” [44]. In summary, the synodical advisory committee decided the Bible provides guidelines for marriage, not provisions for divorce and remarriage. Therefore, divorce cannot be given general sanction. Forgiveness and restoration occur when a guilty party recognizes their sin, after the instances of sin, not in anticipation of a failed marriage ending in divorce.

Another study committee was then appointed “to reexamine and set forth the biblical teachings on divorce and remarriage, evaluating critically the traditional exegesis of the relevant passages.” And “to formulate pastoral guidelines with respect to the problems of divorce and remarriage as they appear in our society…” [45]. That committee reported to Synod in 1979 it needed more time to complete its work [46].


VIII. Acts of Synod 1980 - 1983
Report 29 entitled “Marriage Guidelines” was presented to Synod in 1980. In the first section, it argued marriage is an institution created by God, and covenantal relationship between a man and a woman. God is party to the covenant and unites husband and wife. It is a permanent relationship. The second section addressed divorce and remarriage. The exceptive clause from Jesus allowing for divorce is not a ground for divorce. Rather, Jesus is “acknowledging the effect of sin in breaking norms established by God.” “It does indicate that it is possible for such persistent sinful conduct to dissolve a marriage established by God.” “Marriage should not be dissolved, for that is contrary to God’s will; but by persistent and unrepentant unchastity people can put asunder what God has joined together” [47]. In regard to desertion as another ground for divorce and remarriage (1 Cor. 7) the report noted differences in interpretation, and took no definite stance. Part three presented guidelines for the ministry of the church, including counseling and sensitivity to those going through a divorce. Included are guidelines “to those contemplating remarriage.” Stressing permanence, “the basic declaration of Scripture is that divorce and remarriage while one’s spouse is alive constitutes adultery” [48]. However, “The Bible also indicates that there can be circumstances involving unchastity (porneia) where the judgment of adultery does not fall upon a person who remarries after a divorce” [49]. “1 Corinthians 7:12-16 allows for divorce under certain circumstances.” However, “it is impossible to prove conclusively that remarriage is either forbidden or permitted under the circumstances mentioned” [50]. This three-section report was adopted by Synod.

Acts of Synod 1981 records a protest from the Sussex Consistory over the third section of Report 28, but was dismissed [51]. Acts of Synod 1983 includes a rejected personal appeal as well [52].

IX. Conclusion
This historical inquiry demonstrates the emotion, care, and passion surrounding the issues of marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the Christian Reformed Church that ensued for over one hundred years. Each historical chapter demonstrates a struggle to interpret the Scriptures and understand their relevance and relation to the church and the world. The United Reformed Church would benefit from a fresh look into these documents. As she develops her own exegetical positions in the future, these documents can be used to avoid the pitfalls the Christian Reformed Church succumbed to at times, and also to glean insight from their struggles.

NOTES
1. The official website of the Christian Reformed Church presents two specific entries pertaining to this topic, Beliefs on Marriage available from: http://www.crcna.org/pages/positions_marriage.cfm and Beliefs on Divorce available from: http://www.crcna.org/pages/positions_divorce.cfm. Each entry ends with an almost identical set of references to CRC synodical statements, documenting their position extensively from 1908 - 1983. The Agenda and Acts of Synod 1994 are referenced, but provide no significant information to this topic.

The Agenda and Acts of Synod 2000 are referenced in Beliefs on Marriage. Synod 2000 was asked to endorse the Resolution of the Southern Baptist Convention on Marriage and Family, which Synod denied. They referred to the very reports covered in this paper but also stated, “The CRC has already adequately stated its position on marriage and family as well as on singles in Our World Belongs to God, paragraphs 45- 49, approved by Synod 1986” (Acts of Synod, 2000 [Grand rapids: Christian Reformed Church in North America], 711). This document likewise presents no pertinent content to that which ensued in the CRC from 1860 – 1983.

Synod 2006 likewise refers back to the documents addressed in this paper: “Over the years, our denomination has produced a number of reports to guide our churches as they address the subject of marriage. Synod 1980 adopted a number of guidelines for the ministry of the church in matters of marriage, divorce, and remarriage that have been reproduced on pages 383-87 of the 2001 edition of the Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government (Acts of Synod, 2006 [Grand rapids: Christian Reformed Church in North America], 643).”

2. Classis 1860 of the Christian Reformed Church, available from: http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4895.

3. Classis 1866 of the Christian Reformed Church, available from: http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4903.

4. Ibid.

5. General Assembly of 1876 of the Christian Reformed Church, available from: http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4916.

6. General Assembly of 1877 of the Christian Reformed Church, available from: http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4919.

7. General Assembly of 1878 of the Christian Reformed Church, available from: http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4917.

8. Acts of Synod 1947 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1947). 239, referencing Acts of Synod 1890.

9. Acts of Synod 1957 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1957), 336, referencing Acts of Synod 1890, Art. 65, 24.

10. Acts of Synod 1947 of the Christian Reformed Church, 240, referencing Acts of Synod 1908.

11. Acts of Synod 1957 of the Christian Reformed Church, 337, referencing Acts of Synod 1896, Art. 62, 37.

12. Acts of Synod 1957 of the Christian Reformed Church , 338, referencing Acts of Synod 1906, Bijlage X, 111.

13. Acts of Synod 1936 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1936), 145.

14. Acts of Synod 1944 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1944), 59.

15. Acts of Synod 1947 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1947), 17.

16. Ibid., 66.

17. Acts of Synod 1956 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1956), 56.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid., 58.

20. Ibid., 118.

21. Acts of Synod 1957 of the Christian Reformed Church), 87.

22. Ibid., 87, 95.

23. Ibid., 89.

24. Ibid., 94-95.

25. Ibid., 94.

26. Ibid., 95.

27. Ibid., 90.

28. Ibid., 106.

29. Ibid., 335.

30. Ibid., 106.

31. Ibid., 335-336.

32. Acts of Synod 1968 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1968), 61.

33. Acts of Synod 1971 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1971), 638-639.

34. Ibid., 112.

35. Acts of Synod 1973 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1973), 598.

36. Ibid., 59.

37. Acts of Synod 1975 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1975), 497.

38. Ibid., 502.

39. Ibid., 505.

40. Ibid., 506.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid., 508.

43. Acts of Synod 1976 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1976), 480.

44. Acts of Synod 1977 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1977), 136.

45. Ibid., 135.

46. Acts of Synod 1979 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1979), 467.

47. Acts of Synod 1980 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1980), 477.

48. Ibid., 483.

49. Ibid., 483-484.

50. Ibid., 484.

51. Acts of Synod 1981 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1981), 62, 614-617.

52. Acts of Synod 1983 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1983), 671-672.

Dei Verbum Strikes Again

Dei Verbum states:

107. The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore ALL that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." [Vatican II DV 11]

This statement itself is prone to multiple interpretations with the Roman community. Conservative Roman Catholic apologists see this as a clear statement that the entirety of Scripture is without error. Some Roman Catholic scholars though (like R.A.F. MacKenzie and Raymond Brown) see the phrase “for the sake of our salvation” as limiting inerrency to only those sections of Scripture that teach about salvation.

Eric Svendsen notes, “No one can tell us what the ‘official’ Roman Catholic teaching is on this issue, and Rome’s ‘infallible interpreter’ is of absolutely no advantage to the Roman Catholic apologist, for he has remained silent on the matter. [Source: Eric Svendsen, Upon This Slippery Rock, 24]. Thus, the actual teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are prone to interpretation. The Catholic apologist must use his own private interpretation to determine what the meaning of Roman Catholic teaching is. The conservative and liberal Roman Catholic can read the same document and come to two differing opinions.

So on a fundamental issue- what are, or are not, the very Words of God, Catholics are not unified.

Jimmy Akin has an update here: Biblical Inerrancy Under Discussion! Your Prayers Needed! On the statement from Dei Verbum, Akin states, "the bottom line is that it is not as clear as it should be and is basically a compromise text worked out at the council between parties on different sides of the debate."

-snip-

"When the 2008 synod of bishops came around, I was quite concerned how this topic would be handled, because while the synod is a function of the magisterium and thus is guided by the Holy Spirit, we do not have a guarantee of its infallibility. Consequently, though human weakness, the synod could conceivably have muddled the waters on this question even further or, God forbid, said something false regarding biblical inerrancy."

But Akin says things look good that the Bible may actually be finally clearly declared inerrant. According to Akin, another chunk of the big showdown on this topic will be May 2-6. He covets your prayers for Rome as they try to continue to determine if the Bible is inerrant. Akin states,

"It may be some time—years even—before we see what the PBC comes up with (if we ever see it), but the issue of biblical inerrancy is an important one."

Yeah, it's much easier to declare John Paul II a saint than to figure out if the Bible is inerrant.