Conservative evangelicalism

[The Singular Observer]

I've visted a CRC congregation once. Not fundy at all, but appears to be in the broader "conservative evangelical" camp.

[LearningFreedom]

(06-16-2011 09:04 AM)Tony Mel Wrote:  

(06-16-2011 08:07 AM)LearningFreedom Wrote:  I am a believer in the fundamentals of the Bible and the "church" as exemplified in the New Testament by Jesus and the apostles.... but I'm now in the CRC (Christian Reformed Church) and wonder, is that "fundy" too?!

Tell us what you know about the CRC.

(06-16-2011 09:41 AM)The Singular Observer Wrote:  I've visted a CRC congregation once. Not fundy at all, but appears to be in the broader "conservative evangelical" camp.

Well, I would agree with TSO... CRC is pretty much conservative evangelical. They make no issues of music/dress/separation standards. They hold to the fundamentals of the Bible and its authority. They DO have accountability and various levels of governing bodies. They recite, believe, and attempt their best to practice the "Apostle's Creed". Overall, they are Biblical but not controlling or "fundy". I do have some issues with the church authority and church discipline and how it is being played out in OUR church.... but not with the denomination as a whole.

Of course, the CRC is also struggling with how to deal with modernism that includes women ministers/deacons, etc. But from what I've seen and experienced so far, they tend to approach any issues very Biblically and democratically. For the most part, they declare a Biblical stance (as a denomination) on any given issue, and then allow the different synods, councils, and churches to decide for themselves how they will let it play out in individual churches and communities. From my perspective (and very limited experience) it is much more Biblical and Apostolic than any Indepedenet Baptist Church I've ever been to or heard about.

[Tony Mel]

(06-16-2011 10:04 AM)LearningFreedom Wrote:  Of course, the CRC is also struggling with how to deal with modernism that includes women ministers/deacons, etc. But from what I've seen and experienced so far, they tend to approach any issues very Biblically and democratically. For the most part, they declare a Biblical stance (as a denomination) on any given issue, and then allow the different synods, councils, and churches to decide for themselves how they will let it play out in individual churches and communities. From my perspective (and very limited experience) it is much more Biblical and Apostolic than any Indepedenet Baptist Church I've ever been to or heard about.

This sounds very different from one of its stricter offshoots (Protestant Reformed Church). Those seem to be fundies in their own right! From your description of the CRC, however, it sounds like a good church.

[Josh]

(06-16-2011 10:20 AM)Tony Mel Wrote:  This sounds very different from one of its stricter offshoots (Protestant Reformed Church). Those seem to be fundies in their own right! From your description of the CRC, however, it sounds like a good church.

Wow, that's one heck of a website!

</scoffing>

[The Singular Observer]

(06-16-2011 10:34 AM)Donb123 Wrote:  I knew a guy in the PRC. He was about a millimeter away from believing the original Westminster Confession was inspired. He was very legalistic.. just like an IFB only a Reformed variant.

There are a fair amount of fundy-like Calvinsts as well. Many of those take the Regulative Principle, as they called it, to the extreme. The RP says that whatever is not commanded in Scripture, is Forbidden (referring to worship, liturgy, etc). They refused to celebrate or acknowledge Christmas etc. They tended towards patriarchalism. And their prophets were Calvin and especially, Rushdoony. They were always presuppositionalists, which, if you were not one of them, meant that you could not argue with them at all! The worse subset of this lot was the Reformed Baptist fundy's. I had been more stabbed in the back by RB than any other group outside of the sect I grew up in.

Of course, most Calvinists are not like that at all.

[paul]

(06-16-2011 11:38 AM)The Singular Observer Wrote:  ...the Regulative Principle...

I always like to ask folks who claim this concept in a legalistic sense whether their worship services include dance? Ever? After all, if the Bible prescribes it, it must be included. I'll grant that doesn't mean every time, but most will never have participated in dance during a worship service.

I hold to the Regulative Principle. God has Regulated that we use all our talents to worship him, but He does allow for a fairly wide variety of talents. I recognize that different styles of worship will be less distracting for different people, and I accept that (after all, were I to dance, it would NOT allow for those around me to worship in any other form than belly-laughing). But to say that my son and daughter cannot be worshipping when they are listening to music that I cannot comprehend and that gives me a headache is not accurate.

[Tony Mel]

(06-16-2011 11:52 AM)paul Wrote:  I hold to the Regulative Principle. God has Regulated that we use all our talents to worship him, but He does allow for a fairly wide variety of talents. I recognize that different styles of worship will be less distracting for different people, and I accept that (after all, were I to dance, it would NOT allow for those around me to worship in any other form than belly-laughing).

Ok, I just had a worshipful experience.

[Tony Mel]

One of my issues with the Regulative Principle is the concept of the synagogue. It was not prescribed by the OT, and yet Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with it.

[Tony Mel]

Do you think it would be a good idea for those of us who still believe in the "Fundamentals" to call ourselves Essentialists?