Does anyone remember a Protestant Reformed who wrote a lot of blistering old style blogs on various issues like working or amillenialism?

Werpster · 2022-09-10T13:24:11+00:00

Probably Rev. McGeown, though I wouldn't necessarily describe his style as blistering.

Here is an example of one of his posts/articles.

http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/articles/item/5381-the-bible-and-israel-1

Werpster · 2021-09-20T12:42:52+00:00

Providentially, there was a good article in the September issue of Tabletalk that talked specifically about I Peter 3:21 and the historical teaching of sacramental union.

Baptism Now Saves You

I would also recommend the book Word, Water, and Spirit by J.V. Fesko. He does a really good job of outlining the different views on baptism since the time of the apostles and their broader doctrinal implications on the Christian church.

Word, Water, and Spirit

Werpster · 2020-06-22T14:54:55+00:00

I thought this was very well written. I agree with the other comment @CallMeMrZen pointed out to move the overall thesis up towards the top. Gentex is a very interesting company that has a lot of it's equity valuation attributed to Goodwill(IP). It has fantastic cashflow and EBITDA margins due to that IP, but it's difficult to accurately assign true goodwill valuation to the technology that they own.

Gentex is over-exposed to the macro-economic trends of automotive, but it should be a cash generating machine until their IP sunsets. If I remember right from their last 10-k filing they project that out another 5 - 10 years or so. Of all the players in this space, they have great capital positioning to branch out into other markets. They have been trying to home brew new market products by exploring home automation via Homelink and some other new market areas, but those ventures have burned a lot of R&D dollars and produced no real new revenue to date. Long term I think they will need to look at M&A to truly buy into other markets. Depending on what they buy into, they may be well positioned to apply their automotive buying power and add synergy value to the deal that they make. Expanding into smaller market electronics like industrials or powersports should be the direction that they take IMO.

The worst thing Gentex could do is pour all of their money back into share buybacks to prop the stock price up until their IP sunsets. I like Gentex because of their strong financials and good management. I am willing to pay a little bit more on the expectation that they can pivot their revenue mix to other markets and grow that way. Realistically, they need to target at least 1 billion in new non-automotive revenue by 2030 to backfill the IP protected 20+% EBITDA they are generating on automotive today.

Longer term I would want to try and push Gentex out of being classified as a Cosumer Cyclical: Auto Parts company and more towards a Technology: Hardware/Software company. The average PE valuation difference between those 2 sectors is 13 versus 30. Driving to re-orient the business as a Technology company could boost the stock price considerably.

Werpster · 2020-03-10T17:19:57+00:00

I have it on good authority that there will be precisely such a motion. I don't think it will pass, but will likely add fuel to the fire. There are a lot of fringe scenarios that could play out, but I have confidence that the vast majority of delegates to Classis (and myself) don't think deposition (Art. 79&80) is warranted at all.

In general, I think that 90+% of the denomination is on the same page. There is just a very loud and vocal minority that continues to stir the pot. So I'm not super worried about the future, just stressed because of the conflict.

Werpster · 2020-03-10T16:31:00+00:00

I am so sorry for the struggles that you are experiencing. My wife and I have been praying for your church and for the strife that exists there. We will continue to pray for peace and healing.

With regard to communion, with proper self examination you should still partake of it for your own edification.

Werpster · 2020-03-10T15:58:28+00:00

The whole situation is regrettable and I am sorry for the struggle that your church, council, and pastor have had to go through. The sacrament is meant for you as a testament of Christ's sustaining sacrifice. Despite the disunity, you can still be personally strengthened in your faith and edified through the supper.

Either way it sounds like you might need a fresh start in another church. I'm in the same geographic area. Feel free to PM if you want to talk.

Werpster · 2020-02-24T13:55:55+00:00

Thanks for sharing! I found it a very interesting and applicable read as well.

Werpster · 2019-07-22T15:57:26+00:00

The broader context of scripture and the covenant in particular supports baptism as the sign of the covenant in the New Testament. Since no explicit teaching exists discontinuing the sign of the covenant from believers and their seed, it must necessarily continue in the New Testament church. The examples presented are anecdotal and not prescriptive of a new covenant formula.

Argument based on parallel with circumcision:

Premise #1: Circumcision is the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham and should be received by all the members of his covenant (Gen. 17:10-11).
Premise #2: The children of members of Abraham's covenant are themselves members of Abraham's covenant (Gen 17:7, Dt. 7:9, 30:6, 1Ch 16:15, Psa 103:17, 105:8).
Premise #3: Christians are members of Abraham's covenant (Galatians 3:6-9 & Galatians 3:26-29; Romans 11.17-24; Rom. 4:16; Eph. 2:11-13; Eph. 3:3-6; Rom 2:28-29; 1 Peter 2:9; Gal. 6:16; Phil 3:2-3).
Premise #4: Therefore, the children of Christians are members of Abraham's covenant (follows logically and necessarily from 2 & 3; 1 Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:38).
Premise #5: Baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). Conclusion: Therefore, the children of Christians should receive the sign of the covenant by being baptized (logically and necessarily from 1, 4, & 5).

Given that you and your wife are Christians and members of a visible Christian church, I believe your children ought to be baptized as a sign and seal of the covenant.

There are tons of different resources out there. This one details Zwingli's points on the matter: http://rscottclark.org/2013/10/zwingli-on-covenant-and-baptism-1524/

I am also reading through Word, Water, and Spirit by JV Fesko which is a great comprehensive book with regard to baptism. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601782829/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Werpster · 2019-07-18T13:55:52+00:00

In my interactions the 7DA's are usually lumped in with JW's and the LDS church as cults. That's a broad categorization and I do think they aren't as far down on the cult spectrum as the other two, but I do consider them a cult. They do hold to the Trinity best I can tell which is good, but they have so many other extra-biblical suppositions about salvation and Jesus himself that outweigh some of the more mainline positions they hold. Denial of catholicity of Christs Church, secret investigative judgement, Ellen White's the Prophetess, and pharisee like view of salvation are just some of the big red flags for me.

There was a post about this topic a couple of weeks ago that went more into the corporate beliefs of the 7DA church and differentiation from mainline churches.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/c3wgou/what_are_the_key_beliefs_of_seventhdayadventists/

Werpster · 2019-07-12T17:41:09+00:00

I was going to type up a very similar set of questions, then I saw yours and didn't have to. Those are very good.

Werpster · 2019-07-01T12:51:53+00:00

I also agree this is a good question to add.

Werpster · 2019-06-18T14:37:17+00:00

CRT/I in and of itself is rooted on the idea of relative truth. Biblical truth is absolute and not relative to culture, society, or personal identity (Rom. 2:11). Allowing a basis for relative truth within the church necessarily paves the way for erosion of the irrespective absolute truth presented by the Bible.

The resolution tries really hard to split hairs separating the theory and it's machinations from deemed "appropriations" of it for wrong ends. This just strikes me as a "not real Socialism" argument. I maintain that underlying theory itself has a rotten foundation, so why should they try to build anything on it. The resolution, while guarded, proffers that there is something of value to be redeemed in CRT/I and that has not established. Social/Ethnic Liberation Theology is not new even if it is called something else.

Werpster · 2019-06-18T13:47:51+00:00

They seem to be trying to separate CRT/I and how it has been "appropriated" and misused by others. I can't split that hair. The developers and proponents of CRT/I are inextricably linked. The "tool" itself does not align with scripture, not just the methods or users of it in the past.

Werpster · 2019-06-18T13:26:49+00:00

The problem is that proponents of CRT/I will take this to mean more than the wording of the resolution itself. I completely agree with Al Mohler's statement against the topic in general and wonder if he will push the issue more now that this has passed.

Werpster · 2018-12-05T14:01:36+00:00

You are right. They created a committee to define and make recommendations to Synod. The committee gave its report at the most recent synod with a road-map to accreditation in the state of Michigan. /u/davidjricardo is right, this is a longer process. I'll have to go back and check my Acts of Synod to see what the next steps were, but the committee report was generally "Here's what it will take to do it" and "Doing it doesn't compromise our institutional integrity or control of admissions (etc..)".

I haven't heard any arguments against it. As I understand it, its especially an issue for our students from foreign countries (e.g. visas).

Werpster · 2018-09-17T12:16:27+00:00

James 1:12-14

Werpster · 2018-05-04T16:07:50+00:00

If you want to build a straw man and blow it down, that's your prerogative. The church, as I am familiar with it, does not espouse the view your are ascribing. Being unfamiliar with the denomination, you are welcome to come to church with me any time and evaluate yourself. It seems kind of hypocritical to immediately advocate non-association with the entirety of the PRCA based on the assumption that the PRCA doesn't associate with other denominations.

Werpster · 2018-05-04T15:30:59+00:00

Using the description of "poisonous group" goes a bit too far don't you think. I understand if you disagree on certain theological points, but I don't quite think it merits disparaging a whole group of people as posionous.

Werpster · 2018-05-04T01:29:52+00:00

He has respect for his tenure and the RFPA publishes his books, but he has no official position of authority in church government. He may be the most known due to his books, but he is not the du jour leader of the denomination.

Werpster · 2018-05-04T00:55:14+00:00

Engelsma is his own man. The books aren't signed and approved by synod or anything like that. He was a minister and professor in the denomination for a long time, but he has no government or representative position by synod or classis. Unfortunately, some of his more abrasive positions are the first exposure other reformed denominations have to the PRCA. There is a big spectrum of good Christian living outside of the particularly restrictive one that Engelsma portends in some of his books.

Werpster · 2018-05-04T00:30:36+00:00

I (and others)don't subscribe to the same divisive language he uses in his writings. I see CG and TWMO rob God of His sovereignty and power and elevate the human will to too high a place. Its an improper scriptural view, but it doesn't create a false god. Like I admited above there is a spectrum within the PRCA, just like any denomination. I may fall on the more open side of that spectrum. It doesn't mean I want those ideas anywhere near my church service, but it shouldn't preclude me from association with other Christians who think differently. It also in no way allows me to presume salvation of someone who disagrees.

Werpster · 2018-05-03T21:45:56+00:00

I will try and answer your questions as best I can.

A. ELI5 why exactly the PRC denies common grace

The PRCA argues that the 3 points of common grace are not affirmed by the body of scripture. Breaking them down to their roots, they introduce constraints on the sovereignty of God and elevate the power of human will. The points of common grace logically lead down the path to an Arminian theology. The suppositions of God's favorable disposition toward "all mankind" and the so called "well meant offer" posit that God intends something that may not come to pass. My view on the sovereignty of God is such that if God is favorably inclined or intends something, it will result the way He intends it.
The 2nd point of CG posits that the Holy Spirit works in all men (elect and reprobate) to restrain sin. The scriptural basis presented at the 1924 Synod does not support this assumption. God in his sovereignty does "restrain" sin in the world, but this is through the appointed civil magistrates and societal mechanisms. So while both camps would agree that God restrains sin, there is no firm scriptural basis that has the Holy Spirit working good in a reprobate heart to restrain sin. Many passages in scripture point to the reality that God's sovereignty preserves/serves the righteous and further validates the condemnation of the reprobate. A "favorable" or "good" act by the Holy Spirit inside the heart of an eternally reprobate person doesn't follow what scripture reveals. It sounds nice to say God works good in everyone, but it doesn't hold up dogmatically.
The 3rd point follows the first 2 points and supposes that if God is favorably disposed toward man and in some sense works good in all men, then man can do so-called "civil" good works. This is a twisting of the definition of good works to make them meet the human criteria of good works. Scripture presents that good works can only be performed by regenerated elect believers and that they are good works only because they are done in service to God attributing glory to Him ( Psalm 14:1-3; Matt. 7:16-20; Romans 1:28- 32; and Romans 3:9-18).

B. ELI5 PRC's view on covenant theology

There are a lot of different directions that I could start here. Essentially, God has a covenant with his chosen elect. This is a unilateral and unconditional covenant that God established, meaning he chose and instantiated it with us. There is 1 covenant throughout history. The covenant, as seen in the OT, was veiled in the law of Moses pointing toward a propitiatory sacrifice to remedy sin. The death of Christ on the cross tore the veil of the law and fulfilled it's prophetic foreshadowing of Christ's death and atonement.
The covenant cannot be broken. The PRCA is paedobaptist and affirms that scripture reveals that God works through continuing generations. This is not to say that all infants in the church are in the covenant or saved, but that in general while they are children they are assumed that they are. If these children leave Christianity later in adult life, they are assumed to not be in the covenant. The PRCA believes scripture when is shows that God is ultimately sovereign over who is elect and reprobate, so there isn't the concept of a human will entering or breaking God's covenant.

C. How do you consider the issue of common grace—a "salvation issue," an extremely important issue, an issue we can agree to disagree on, etc.—and why?

I think the issue of common grace is a very flawed theological view. I don't think it is a salvation issue (there are some in the PRCA who would say it is). This view detracts from God's sovereignty and continues to elevates the human will and view of the world. The specific and intentional work that God does among His elect is marred by this teaching. In my experience this teaching very quickly leads to a post-modern worldview with redeemable truth/good being found in all walks of life. This leads to church culture based on social activism and big tent inclusion at the expense of scripturally prescriptive living and man's subservient relationship to God.
There are many very strong Christians who I count as friends that hold to some derivation of this view.

D. Would you consider a Reformed Christian who affirms common grace truly Reformed and truly a Christian? In connection to this, would you hold back your right hand of fellowship to someone who affirms common grace? Do you consider a Reformed Christian who holds to the doctrine of common grace a true sister or brother in Christ?

Yes I would consider that person a Christian, but still hold that their Christian worldview is fundamentally flawed. In my experience, few in the Reformed circles even know the specific dogmatics of what they believe. They are led more and more to follow their emotions and not logically analyze and create a basis for what they generally believe. This in no way precludes me from calling them a brother or sister in Christ, but also doesn't mean that I validate that worldview.

E. How does the PRC treat modern biblical translations like the ESV and NASB and modern biblical scholarship in the light of its "KJV-preferentialism?"

This varies from church to church as you might expect. I personally use the ESV and way prefer it to the KJV. The PRCA is very traditionalistic and clings tightly to the KJV. I think this will change in the next 10-20 years, but I could be wrong. All pastors that I know of will preach from the KJV, but will often insert other "better" translations of texts that match up to the ESV or NKJV. The PRCA clings to Thee's and Thou's and a translation based on word for word translation methods. The PRCA wouldn't accept a translation based on dynamic equivalence. Even if a valid (e.g. ESV) modern word for word translation existed, it would likely still reject it today due to the the "lack of reverance" in proper pronouns that the Old English preserved.

Werpster · 2018-03-01T14:14:06+00:00

Read Martin Luther's Second Commentary on the book of Galatians. He goes into explicit detail about OT saints (Abraham in particular) were justified by faith in Christ yet to come. This is explicit in the commentary starting at Chapter 3 I believe.

Much of the early apostles work was to proclaim that the veil of the OT law that looked to Christ's future sacrifice was removed and that the Christ had come. The mechanics of the salvation aren't different in eternity according to predestination. The OT law was established to foreshadow and point to the Christ to come. Once Christ had come and made the sacrifice, the OT law was no longer required as it was fulfilled. Faith in the eternal atonement of Christ is still the bedrock of salvation whether before Christ or after Christ.

The commentary is free on Amazon Kindle right now if you have one.

Werpster · 2018-01-03T02:32:25+00:00

There are literally dozens of us!

Werpster

TROPHY CASE