Calvin Synod Herald, 2006 (107. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

2006-03-01 / 3-4. szám

10

CALVIN SYNOD HERALD

The Church of Rome has not changed anything, yet today we find all manner of denominations entering into fellowship with her. It is difficult in the Western world for most to understand how the Roman Church is not just another church with some minor beliefs that differ from others. Buliinger and the first reformers saw the great whore of Babylon for what she was in their day, and did not hesitate to call her what she was. Today we seem to scream unity at all costs, and appeal for union even. No way should this be even discussed, much less seriously considered. Either Rome was the whore the reformers called her, or there was no justification for any reformation. We all know better than that, even the Roman Church sees some of the validity of Luther’s thesis. Yet, The Church of Rome has not repented and still teaches the same gross heresies and practices the same idolatry she did in the day of Calvin, Luther, and Buliinger. Until she repents, she should not be accepted at the table of God’s people in fellowship. The age of the traditions carry no weight whatsoever. The Bible alone is to be taken with unquestioned obedience.

Traditions of Men. Likewise we reject human traditions, even if they be adorned with high-sounding titles, as though they were divine and apostolical, delivered to the Church by the living voice of the apostles, and, as it were, through the hands of apostolical men to succeeding bishops which, when compared with the Scriptures, disagree with them; and by their disagreement show that they are not apostolic at all. For as the apostles did not contradict themselves in doctrine, so the apostolic men did not set forth things contrary to the apostles. On the contrary, it would be wicked to assert that the apostles by a living voice delivered anything contrary to their writings. Paul affirms expressly that he taught the same things in all churches (I Cor. 4:17). And, again, For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand. (II Cor. 1:13). Also, in another place, he testifies that he and his disciples - that is, apostolic men - walked in the same way, and jointly by the same Spirit did all things (II Cor. 12:18). Moreover, the Jews in former times had the traditions of their elders; but these traditions were severely rejected by the Lord, indicating that the keeping of them hinders God’s law, and that God is worshipped in vain by such traditions (Matt. 15:Iff.; Mark 7:1 ffi).

This one the whole church pays lip service to and would most readily agree that tradition will never take precedence over Scripture. However no one is around any of the older Reformed churches very long before they hear the answer to their question of A why? answered, A That is the way we have always done it around here. Though more properly in the previous paragraph, we find the same thing with the creeds of the church. The church resists change to her confessions, even if they can be proven out of step with the Scriptures or unclear at best. Should the A majority prevail and the confession be revised, it will cause a division with many who refuse to embrace this Anew confession. Then we have those who would in effect bind the conscience of men by holding such a strict view of subscription to the confession it places the confession on par with the Bible. Turn and twist as they will, the fact is by an oath that God frowns upon, they bind their elders, and in some places the congregation to the interpretation of one

A council and man, not God’s Holy Word. Nothing outside of Scripture is its equal and there is nothing outside this Revealed Word that should bind the conscience of God’s people as a whole, much less the office bearers God has foreordained to serve in the body of Christ on earth. This very specifically applies to councils and traditions, then finally the private revelation (interpretation) of any one man or group of men.

[1] WCF 1.5

[2] Matthew 23:1-36

The Institute on Religion and Democracy Ecumenical News

An Open Letter from Association for Church Renewal Leaders

And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he [Christ] has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. (Colossians 1:21-23, RSV)

Sisters and Brothers in the Lord:

We, renewal leaders in various North American Protestant denominations, write you with thanksgiving for Christ’s great work of reconciliation and sanctification. It is our only hope in life and death.

We encourage you to remain steadfast in your faith in Christ’s work, looking to him as the sole source of unity and purity within his church. There are constantly shifting alternatives that offer a false, cheap peace. But we urge you not to let go of the true and costly peace won by Jesus Christ.

As many of us gathered October 17-18 in Arlington, Virginia, we noted a shifting situation in several denominations. This letter is our attempt to alert you to these new developments.

The debate within our churches over biblical standards for human sexuality may be entering a new phase. For decades, revisionists have argued that the Scriptures, properly understood, do not prohibit homosexuality as it is practiced today. Indeed, they have insisted that biblical values of “justice” require the acceptance of homosexual relationships.

Increasingly, however, the arguments have shifted. We now see, in several denominations, a new strategy to win the church’s affirmation of homosexual acts. This new strategy is less direct. It is offered as a “compromise,” a “third way.” Yet the effect would be the same: to undermine and ultimately to set aside the historic Christian teaching that affirms God’s good gift of sexual intimacy solely within the marriage of man and woman.

We stand opposed to this false “third way,” with the same firmness with which we opposed the earlier attempts to re