There is one thing about this 2024 Synod that impressed me far beyond anything else, and that is the tremendous clarity that was brought about in regards to a great many things, but the SSM issue in particular. They did a top notch job in that regard, and are to be thoroughly congratulated for it. I know Wagenmaker and Parsels mentioned this new clarity of purpose too, and they were correct to do so. The last thing anyone on this planet needs, Christians or otherwise, is more prevarication and deception in regards to the the critical issues of our age. The spinelessness, waffling, and vindictive practices of so many in church leadership, especially in the West, has been forcing folks to flee for the exits like never before. Just ask the Catholic Church, and those few Catholics who are left within it. They would gladly trade the entire Vatican for what was done in Grand Rapids in just a few days. People need to know exactly where boundaries are located, and what happens when you cross them. If you allow the precedent of boundaries to be crossed without any repercussions, you will only foster chaos and confusion. Any _good_ parent or animal trainer knows this full well. It scales all the way up, and all the way down, without exception. More importantly, if you haven't figured it out by now, SSM is biggest, stinkiest dead albatross in all of Christendom. If you want your church or congregation to die a slow death, make that the centerpiece of your church and see what happens. An overwhelming majority of those in the west want nothing to do with it, and in the developing world it has no traction whatsoever. Most progressives don't want to have anything to do with organized religion anyway (let alone children, families, God, etc., etc...) so to think that an affirming church is going to sway the masses is a delusion worthy of the Great Pumpkin. If you want to win progressives to your cause, go throw a big party in the desert, and make sure you build some idols for the people to worship. Just ask Aaron and Moses....or those who sponsor Burning Man. One trend is painfully clear: all over the world, religion is becoming more conservative, no matter what kind of religion it is. Even the new-agers seem to be toning things down lately. The only exception to this: the neo-pagans, who are entirely progressive in their politics, to the surprise of absolutely no one. They are turning things up to 11, and beyond. If you think Christianity can compete with the materialistic hedonism of the neo-pagans, you've not been paying attention. Even died-in-the-wool atheists are seeing this trend, and reporting on it fairly accurately. Even they are getting scared, especially the smarter ones, because they know what sort of _hell on earth_ is going to result from the unbridled appetites of the neo-pagans and the continual recession of all forms of Christianity. We've seen that movie many times during the 20th century, but just wait for the sequels, they will be a real doozy. So the only smart play in Christianity right now is to get back to the roots, the traditions, and core doctrines, and provide a clear path and clear identity for those starving for meaning can find. Anything less than that, and you might as well turn the church into a brewery. You want to know why the Orthodox are seeing unprecedented growth? Just read everything I just said, and take it seriously. So again, hats off to CRC Synod 2024 and to all those who made it incredibly successful. Keep clarity of mission and purpose as a priority always, and you will, at least, have a fighting chance in a world that is quickly headed for a rather unfortunate rendezvous with a very painful destiny.

Thanks for harvesting the clips of Jacob’s stream. There was worthwhile discussion taking place.

Intersting to hear Jacob and Fr. De Young at about 39 minute mark. I'm a CRC minister and I was scandalized by the way the CD were being used in opposition to repentance for sin and perseverance in faith. Election was being used to nullify all the teaching of scripture and confession that insists on our need to repent of sin and rest in the mercy of God. Our church does not believe in "eternal security," we believer in the "perseverance of the saints." - Michael Saville

I'm grateful for your videos on the CRC, Paul. They have helped me make sense of the Denver CRC circus in which I grew up. When I was taught the "house on rock, house on sand" message by the CRC as a child, I didn't envision myself in my thirties having left the denomination and looking over at the sandy vestiges of a "house" with everyone starving for clarity on the Word of God and a Calvin Sem Prof still obfuscating it.

Three significant internet influences for these last 3 synods and the changing shape of the CRC: 1. Returning Church and Abide formation 2. The Network Article about the All One Body Meeting 3. Paul's KZfaq Channel and Expanding Engagement from CRC members Not the only influences but I think these each played an important and unique role in shaping the conversation and direction. Now we see where it goes from here. I also think Mary Vanden Berg's comments were very influential in that vote. I much appreciated how she spoke to it.

Father Stephen saying that the RCA Dutch Progressives acted the same way the CRC Dutch Progressives are acting now with that story was kind of a smoking gun moment for me.

I am disturbed by the assertion that children are "safe" and healthy in the homes of homosexual couples. Not nearly enough time to assess this. As Dr. Peterson told Dave Rubin this is an experiment that will take a long time to run. And more and more children are un-consenting subjects.

"I opened the CRC up to my channel's audience -- which is really a very small portion of the Internet" Yes, but as you point out, there are a lot of serious autodidacts here, who follow theological disputes for _fun._ We also tend to follow some of the more resonant thinkers of the age (such as Peterson), and are aware of how The Meaning Crisis is playing out in other popular media. We may not be CRC, but we (or rather, the points we bring up) are hard to dismiss.

It should be pointed out Cedric was very, very tired.

Thanks for this Paul. I didn't leave the CRC because one of my children is gay. He came out afterwards. But it is one of the reasons our family became distant from the denomination, something we have not yet recovered from fully. I am a pastor and evangelist, but not with the CRC. Blessings friend.

Freedom to do whatever you want isnt really freedom

Feel the same way Paul. Despite these arguments against them, the confessions hold out

Cedric put on a winsome clinic.

In Reform theology, they go thru all sorts of technical distinctions ;-)

Hopefully in 2025 the CRC can have a Synod to take of their Penal Substitutionary Atonement problem.

I got the last word. I'm happy.

The female theology teacher says some wrong things about God and about sin. The idea that God has our works "made known" to Him "at the end" seems to imply a heretical view of God being presently ignorant of them, and is dependent on having them "made known" to Him. That is seriously careless language for a theology teacher, or for any Christian to use. Also, to suggest that one could be welcomed into God's presence with "unrepentant sin" is contrary to all that Scripture teaches us. Lastly, to suggest that it is not clear what sins exclude from the Kingdom of God is to totally disregard the witness of both Scripture and conscience. In the face of Scripture's witness, if anyone professes not to know that something it condemns as sin is actually sinful, that is evidence of their defiance of God and suppression of the truth, a deadening of their conscience. God is emphatically against complacency about sin, but I know that, sadly, there is a strong strain in much Protestant tradition which encourages that. We are never accepted by God while continuing unrepentant in sin. Never.

Excellent clipping and a great demonstration of how conversations are very different from sound bites

If we could only find an Orthodox IFS therapist...

"You can't know who's in and who's out" I know I'm arguing against Calvinists here, but I can't help but think that if King David hadn't repented of what he did you Uriah, he would have been out. Was Nathan wrong to call him out? Should Nathan have been more careful and circumspect about calling him out? Would Nathan even have been doing his _job_ if he didn't call David out?

Shoutout to Mary Vandenberg! She’s an amazing professor and mentor. She’s a great example of one of the best things the CRC has to offer.

Love the vid. Great intro. Great clips. Great convo.

I am *so* glad you addressed Stephen and Jacob's wild comments.

Do Jacob and Fr. Stephen prove Mary Vandenberg’s main point in their response to her? Her main point was that umbrella terms are imprecise and lead to misunderstanding and equivocation. She was discussing the umbrella term "salvation" and used another umbrella term "repentance" to demonstrate that the question of "what level of unrepented sin affects salvation?" is not a clear matter -- it depends on what you mean by salvation. It also means what you mean by repentance. Jacob and Fr. Stephen took her to be saying the repentance writ large is unnecessary, which I really don't think is what she was saying, but shows how easily umbrella terms lead to, well, misunderstanding and equivocation! (So maybe she fell into the very trap she was warning about, but she also had limited time and was speaking to the audience in the room, not everyone in TLC. Which was the right thing for her to do.)

There was an article two weeks ago on the free press website by Douglas Murray about a speech by hannah Arendt about the absolute need for forgiveness. Well worth reading.

Glorious doxology cadence this year. ‘Praise God, from Whom All Blessings Flow’

Seems that at least some of the poo-pooing over Mary Vandenberg’s speech has to do with not understanding-or perhaps disagreeing but leaving unstated-that in reform circles God has to enable you to want to repent first before you can and do.

How many times was the message of elect used ?

Father Stephen argues like RC Sproul and they do not resonate with my zillenial sensibilities

Jacob is correct and reasons well with regard to the opening statement of CoD. :)

To all those who were commenting that the CRC synod looked and felt overly feminine, I completely agree. But when you start allowing women into leadership, what did you expect??? Every single married man knows what's going on here in this CRC synod, let's not pretend we don't.

Wow…

That meme, “Being saved means you go to Heaven or Hell when you die”, isn’t scriptural.

Will Abide disband?

hold up she's not worried *at all* about "unrepentant sin"? i get being covered by the blood of Christ but surely she remembers David's heart of repentance that asked God to search and reveal any sin within him so he could be led in the way everlasting. Sure the punitive judgement is a dicey issue *but that isn't our calling* The specific acts that are obvious are called out in this world/life but heaven/hell is Christ's domain. That line of argument confuses the two domains and realms of authority & discipline.

My speech early in the salvation debate was a 2 fold uno reverse card: 1) you are unrolling the reformation, and 2) you are hypocrites (porn)

Those curious about EO church, I would recommend Coptic, just because it is Middle Eastern.

She was wrong to say if we didn't sin we wouldn't need Christ

the heaven/hell determination issue is one that falsely/inproperly asserts in the question that we (as mere humans) have the right/ability/authority to make such a determination that is Christ's alone. We are called to be obdient (like Christ) to The Father's will. So much of the confusion over issues is largely obfuscation of domains of authority. As you used to talk about a lot more, the framing of things is quite crucial and shapes understanding for better and worse.

The other thing that stood out in Fr. Stephen's discussion was his mocking of the Reformed emphasis on conscience. He should look at himself in the mirror. He left the church of his parent's and grandparents--presumably because his conscience no longer allowed him to submit himself to the faith of his ancestors. He can pretend to despise the emphasis on conscience. He himself is living example of its application. The lack of self-awareness is stunning.

Paul you gotta add annotations

First! 😊

Your conversation with Jacob in the car heading to Grand Rapids had to be very interesting since he believes Calvinists are heretics ?

Fr. Stephen's exasperated objections are pretty thin. He's fixated on the relationship between words in the text. He doesn't bother to step back and ask, If I say that my salvation is grounded in my repentance, I am saying that I must earn my salvation and God is powerless to act UNTIL a mere mortal like myself takes the first step? Because that is exactly where Fr. Stephen's exasperation leads him: to the conclusion that God's offer of salvation is contingent open our human act--which, if taken to its logical conclusion, entails that God's act of divine creation is contingent open our willingness to be created. Fr. Stephen's exasperation is remarkably short sighted. Frankly, it betrays a lack of theological depth. Obviously he hasn't read Augustine--which makes sense, since he's Orthodox. The basic issues are these: Did you call yourself into existence? The answer must be no. If the answer to the first question is no, the answer to the subsequent question, Did you restore your existence in Christ? must also be no. No, you, by your own power, did not restore your existence in Christ. Since both of the answers to those questions are no, Fr. Stephen exasperation is in grave error. Methinks the basic issue is that the sovereignty of God is a big issue for Fr. Stephen. He will probably place more emphasis on a mystical participation in the life of God through the person of Jesus Christ. That's fine. It's a different emphases. But it's still stupid to insist, as he does, that Calvinism is outside the bounds of small "o" orthodox Christianity.

You are talking about salvation issues you are talking about living in sin. There is temptation and there is living in sin. Do not fool yourself, those living in sexual immorality will be rejected by Christ. You do not seem to talk about scripture much. If you did, you would not fall into the same sex attraction stuff. That is worldly stuff.

As far as I can tell, we are called to bio-logically repent and to do so in such a way that respects the Christ in order to be saved into the brotherhood/familyhood of Christ as a consequence of a memorialisation of human responsibility that condemns sin through a regard of Christ's respinsible bio-logical, healing care which involved a condemnation of sin; whilst salvation depends on Christ's performance (which affirms the Genesis commission to learn to heal through logical relationship and condemns sin as a result of a life that uniquely qualified Him to have a memorial death that condemned other people's sin), a performance of life and uniquely qualified death that we are to respect for what they were, the respect is characterised as a bio-logical repentance and the respect is the logical prerequisite for Christ's logical relation to the respect in relation to a judgement of God; Evidently the too young and too simpleminded adult do not need to repent as they have not appreciated the theistic implications of our general revelation and are subsequently not accountable whereas everyone else needs to memorially repent through a living respect of what Christ did for us by offering Himself as a memorial to be memorialised through a person's prayerful engagement that obeys Christ specifically -- which whollistically demonstrates a re-acceptance of our responsibility and subsequently we are given more responsibility in Christ's Kingdom on earth now. In the time of the New Covenant, Christ ask the Father to send the Spirit to those who have obeyed Him (Christ) to inspire the prompts of His Kingdom Christ and what He memorialises, specifically, the human responsibility to learn to steward a healing through a logical engagement with the healing process which involves the help of another - which was the case before and after decay. The ancient Paul's nuanced notion of the natural (sensual) man who doesn't want to repent evidently related to man's own ideas which if indulged would not be a repentance and subsequently that man would not understand the the Spiritual prompts of those who had been sent the Spirit on the basis of their repentance; he was evidently not claiming that people cannot naturally repent in relation to their education. Likewise Paul was concerned that people weigh what a speaker says to see if it coheres with Christ's Lordship; messages that cohere are evidence that a person has the Spirit whereas those who advise people to sin on the basis of their supposed (mistaken) idea that they can curse Christ into absorbing deliberate, unrepentant sin will not have been sent the Spirit; his summary statement was evidently not claiming that a person can only say "Jesus is Lord" if the have the Holy Spirit.

I'm struck by your phrase (meme?) "internet formation." One of the things that saddened me most about Synod 2024 is the confusion between discipleship and indoctrination. As Dallas Willard points out in "The Great Omission" (a book-- I'm a Boomer), discipleship is learning to live life from a master, rabbi. Rabbi Jesus' call to "follow me" is a call to discipleship, an invitation to become His apprentice and learn a new way of life. This gets confused with indoctrination, which is coming to believe like I believe. Those who disagree with Synod have 3 years to be indoctrinated, to change their thinking, and this is equated with discipleship. "Internet formation" lacks the relationship (with Jesus) essential to discipleship, a different kind of formation.

Mary's reading of Matthew 25 may be good theology, but it'd be flat wrong on an objective evaluation of reading comprehension (as the SAT for instance once was). There's no way you read that chapter and conclude that the things you did brought before Christ are not judged by their own merits. You're introducing a load of things that are not in that text, and that's not how you should ever read anything. Dealing with the complexity of the Bible is something to live with, not a puzzle to theologize your way out of.

42:50 Jacob F., thinks the Cannons of Dort is blasphemy, and his first response is a violent desire to break things. He is tiresome and juvenile. 57:10 not more nuanced, more juvenile.

45:29 I get you disagree with the tradition guy, but show some humility. I don’t know anything about Jacob besides what you’ve said Paul, but this is insufferable to listen to…

"Systematic theology" is an oxymoron. It borders on blasphemy.

If you're under 50 and are doing 4 hour livestreams, have some kids, or pay attention to the kids that you do have.