The Rulings

When we left the URCNA we did so because it ruled that those who "held" to the teachings of paedo communion [covenant communion] were not eligible to properly hold office.

Some have been led to believe that a person can "hold to" or "believe" this doctrine and still be allowed to be an elder or deacon in the URCNA...BUT THIS IS NOT SO!


When we stated that we believed that in Synod 2007 the Covenant Reformed Church would NOT be allowed to sustain its membership in the URCNA we did so with the following evidence. Were we the elders of the Covenant Reformed Church infallible in our knowledge? Of course not, this is for God alone. But our predictions were based upon the past history and rulings of the federation.

Some people are making very bold statements about what would have happened in 2007...that the Covenant Reformed Church would indeed be allowed to sustain its membership within the URCNA.

Below is from the Acts of the Fifth Synod of the United Reformed Churches in North America [June 15-18, 2004].

And also an email from individuals from the consistory of the Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton, in response to a question from myself.

I have added "bold" to certain areas to add emphasis.

Look for yourself and decide...can a man hold to paedo communion and properly hold office in the URCNA? I think NOT!!


Overture #1: Edmonton

Background: Classis 2000 (Lynden) ruled that “The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper.”

Overture: The consistory of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton requests Classis Western Canada 2003 (Salem) to clarify the status and function of the decision of Classis 2000 (Lynden) that “The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper.”

Grounds:

1. The unity of our churches in the faith requires agreement as to the proper recipients of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
2. The meaning of subscription to our Confessions may be jeopardized if differing interpretations of those Confessions are allowable on such important matters.
3. Adhering to our Church Order regarding the settled and binding nature of the decisions of broader assemblies (Article 29) is also at issue here.
4. Christian integrity and fairness requires consistency in the application of the Classis 2000 decision as it relates to currently serving and retired office-bearers as well as to candidates to the ministry.

Motion: to adopt the Overture of The Orthodox Reformed Church of Edmonton
Motion: call for the question- PASSED
Motion: to adopt PASSED
Motion: that the following statement be received as a response of clarification.

• This decision [The Confessions exclude non-professing members from participating in the Lord’s Supper] is not an ‘extra-confessional’ statement that somehow has special status along side of our Confessions. It is rather an affirmation of the Confessions themselves on a specific point of their teaching. Therefore, agreement with this teaching of our Confessions as recognized and affirmed by classis has a direct bearing on Confessional Subscription. Any candidates or office-bearers who cannot affirm what classis has affirmed regarding the Confessions on this point cannot properly subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity.

Motion: to table that copies of this statement be made available for further review DEFEATED
Motion: to adopt this statement PASSED

NOTE: the Right of Protest was exercised by the following delegates:
Rev. John Barach, Mr. Dick Barendregt, Rev. Tim Kolkman, Mr. Henry Klooster

Also an email I wrote to Wayne Tinga and Rev. Pols of the ORC, and the response.

Original Message -----
From: Dale Callahan
To: tinga@ece.ualberta.ca ; bpols@interbaun.com
Cc: jamie@solmusic.ca
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: Reading Schedule-Grande Prairie


Dear Wayne and Rev Pols,

Were the people told by you[ Edmonton Consistory] that they could hold to paedo-communion or lean towards it AS LONG As they didn't preach or teach about it?

Did you tell our members with this information?

We have heard that there is movement going on behind the scenes [within our congregation] about people wanting to have members here brought in as elders [instead of having Edmonton], the reason for this is that they are saying that you guys said that men could be elders as long as they didn't teach this doctrine [paedo-communion]. Thats funny...I was led to believe that "holding" to this belief [paedocommunion] was enough to disqualify a man from office.

Please educate us on this matter. What was the ruling of Synod 2004, can a man "believe" and "hold" to paedo communion and still sign the form of subscription...AND PRACTICE BEING AN ELDER IN THE URCNA.

I would appreciate a written response [before the Apr 10th meeting] for future use. We will put your response in this weeks bulletin. We need bulletin info in by Thursday evening,

Thanks, in Christ, dale



From : Bill Pols
Sent : April 5, 2006 10:56:44 PM
To : "Dale Callahan"
CC : "Wayne Tinga"
Subject : Re: Reading Schedule-Grande Prairie

| | | Church Thi... | Inbox


Dear Dale,

We have given no indication to anyone in Grande Prairie that men can hold to paedocommunion and yet serve in office as long as they do not teach it. If any thing was said by one of us at our last visit which gave this impression, it was a mistake or it was misunderstood. This would be contrary to our own convictions and practice here in Edmonton and at odds with decisions of classes and synod on this issue.

brotherly regards,

Rev. Pols
-----