Hi, I am new to PB.
Just a brief background to what I am struggling with.
The Canadian Reformed and FRCNA covenant view were born in the Netherlands out of a desire to distance themselves from the theology of baptism controlled by election. Schilder and the Canadian Reformed are particularly strong in this area maintaining the idea that the congregation in the Lord is in the covenant "Head for Head." This does not mean that all are saved but that sureness of the promise is stressed so strongly that it the norm is for the children to never know a time when Christ is not theirs by faith and regeneration. When they come to the age of understanding the youth are expected to have faith in Jesus Christ which is manifest by faithful obedience. If faith and faithful obedience are not evident then the individual has broken the covenant (though not always permanently). This covenant view dominates the church, and the preaching and functionally acts the same as the covenant view in the Protestant Reformed Church. (They tend to read the HC through the lense of the third part - thankfulness) Coincidentally, the Protestant Reformed blame the FV on what they see as conditionality in the Canadian Reformed view of the covenant. Though I have not found it. I suspect that the Canadian Reformed would see the problem in the FV as a comgining of a conditional covenant with the conflation of covenant and election.
The FRCNA (Free Reformed), while in principle holding to a similar covenant view, is not historically dominated by it. Instead, the FRCNA is closely related historically and practically to the experiential view of the Netherlands Reformed. We teach our children that they need to have a new heart, that they need to be born again. The need to be drawn to Christ by a Spirit wrought knowledge of our sins and miseries. Though not necessary, a conversion experience is also desirable. The emphasis is not on our call to believe but on the need of the Spirit's work. The preaching never uses inclusivie language because we must assume that many in the congregation, even sometimes the majority, are not converted. (We tend to read the HC through the lens of the first part - misery)
As a younger man I found myself drawn to the preaching of Lloyd Jones and Al Martin with their clear call to repentance and faith. As a young Father I have come to appreciate some of the preaching from the Canadian Reformed.
My question is: is it possible to combine the clear call to faith and repentance and the accompanying view of our children as concieved in iniquity with the warmth of the covenantal claim of God on all our children and that in a sense they are the covenant children of God and are called to make God's promises their own. I am convinced that this is confessionally possible (3FU and WCF) but in the FRCNA we sometimes seem to muddle through with our preaching afraid of presumptive regeneration on the one side and a baptistic view of the church on the other. (This criticism is made out of deep love and concern for the FRCNA).
Sorry for the length. I though I needed to put the question in perspective.
Marcus DeJong - Free Reformed Churches of North America
Just a brief background to what I am struggling with.
The Canadian Reformed and FRCNA covenant view were born in the Netherlands out of a desire to distance themselves from the theology of baptism controlled by election. Schilder and the Canadian Reformed are particularly strong in this area maintaining the idea that the congregation in the Lord is in the covenant "Head for Head." This does not mean that all are saved but that sureness of the promise is stressed so strongly that it the norm is for the children to never know a time when Christ is not theirs by faith and regeneration. When they come to the age of understanding the youth are expected to have faith in Jesus Christ which is manifest by faithful obedience. If faith and faithful obedience are not evident then the individual has broken the covenant (though not always permanently). This covenant view dominates the church, and the preaching and functionally acts the same as the covenant view in the Protestant Reformed Church. (They tend to read the HC through the lense of the third part - thankfulness) Coincidentally, the Protestant Reformed blame the FV on what they see as conditionality in the Canadian Reformed view of the covenant. Though I have not found it. I suspect that the Canadian Reformed would see the problem in the FV as a comgining of a conditional covenant with the conflation of covenant and election.
The FRCNA (Free Reformed), while in principle holding to a similar covenant view, is not historically dominated by it. Instead, the FRCNA is closely related historically and practically to the experiential view of the Netherlands Reformed. We teach our children that they need to have a new heart, that they need to be born again. The need to be drawn to Christ by a Spirit wrought knowledge of our sins and miseries. Though not necessary, a conversion experience is also desirable. The emphasis is not on our call to believe but on the need of the Spirit's work. The preaching never uses inclusivie language because we must assume that many in the congregation, even sometimes the majority, are not converted. (We tend to read the HC through the lens of the first part - misery)
As a younger man I found myself drawn to the preaching of Lloyd Jones and Al Martin with their clear call to repentance and faith. As a young Father I have come to appreciate some of the preaching from the Canadian Reformed.
My question is: is it possible to combine the clear call to faith and repentance and the accompanying view of our children as concieved in iniquity with the warmth of the covenantal claim of God on all our children and that in a sense they are the covenant children of God and are called to make God's promises their own. I am convinced that this is confessionally possible (3FU and WCF) but in the FRCNA we sometimes seem to muddle through with our preaching afraid of presumptive regeneration on the one side and a baptistic view of the church on the other. (This criticism is made out of deep love and concern for the FRCNA).
Sorry for the length. I though I needed to put the question in perspective.
Marcus DeJong - Free Reformed Churches of North America