Thread: Saint Andrews Chapel

I had a wonderful time visiting and worshipping with the folks at Saint Andrews Chapel in Sanford, FL this morning.

I've read some unpleasant things about Dr. Sproul's church in the past on the PB, but I can truly say I was thankful to be a part of their worship service this morning.

I hadn't read anything unpleasant about the congregation here but I'm glad you were blessed there.

I remember reading something about images of Christ and other naked men.

There have been some quite negative things posted here and elsewhere about those in leadership there and with their other ministries, mainly about a year ago IIRC.

I am glad you were blessed by their worship service this morning.

Originally Posted by Davidius

I remember reading something about images of Christ and other naked men.

Yes we had quite a 'healthy' discussion concerning R.C.'s view on the 2nd commandment about a month ago.

So, what about the décor we've heard about?

We visited this Church six months ago.

Wonderful Church. Thank God for His work there. Met some wonderful people also. God has extraordinarily gifted Dr Sproul. He has been tested and proven faithful through many trials and tribulations and we owe him a debt of gratitude. Also, the "double honor" worthy of those who serve well.

We are very blessed to have particular churches like Saint Andrews Chapel.

In our humble opinion, in line with the Ninth Commandment, Scripture regarding accusations against a teaching elder, and Scripture regarding going privately first to a brother who has offended you...

Get the facts first (not heresay from a blog), and go privately to your brothers with this kind of concern. It may not be what it seems as it is debated on a blog.

Protecting the Second Commadment is important... so is protecting the Ninth Commandment.

Blessings on us all.

I'm asking for first hand reports; why is that so difficult to obtain?

Originally Posted by AVT

Get the facts first (not heresay from a blog), and go privately to your brothers with this kind of concern. It may not be what it seems as it is debated on a blog.

Protecting the Second Commadment is important... so is protecting the Ninth Commandment.

Blessings on us all.

Respectfully, Ma'am, R.C.'s teaching on the matter is public, thus rendering him publicly accountable and available for rebuke/admonishment.

There were images. There were crosses. There was no pornography as it was described on an earlier thread. There was a picture of what looked to be Christ being scourged with a loin cloth wrapped around His thighs, and the prisoners in the background of the picture were dressed the same. I understand this is a point of contention, and it's not something that I like either. However, I also understand that the PCA allows for these images in their churches.

With all due respect, I focused more on the preached Word and the beautiful music than the images.

As far as the friendliness of the church, I received many hello's. I am a quiet guy myself, so I wasn't exactly looking to engage in any conversation.

As an aside, Dr. Sproul talked about their new sanctuary that they have broken ground for. He said that they will be able to house their whole congregation in the new building. He was extremely excited about this new project.

After worshipping in his congregation you'll find no rebukes of Dr. Sproul from this minister.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

However, I also understand that the PCA allows for these images in their churches.

Is his church now PCA?

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

I'm asking for first hand reports; why is that so difficult to obtain?

Hi Chris,

Two good friends of mine recently were there during the annual conference. They worshipped at St Andrew's for the first time and were appalled. Apparently you walk in and the first thing you see is a picture of "Jesus." They felt like the service was quasi-Papist, complete with a crucifer leading the way as the choir and clergy processed down the aisle. They were shocked, though, by the preaching. It was Palm Sunday and R.C. preached about the donkey Jesus rode in on, theorizing that it may have been related to a donkey in the manger; he then theorized that animals can think, using his dog as chief example, and then closing the sermon with Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer as another illustration. They showed me their notes because they knew I wouldn't believe it.

Anyways, they left after the conference and worship feeling like the whole thing was a Protestant pilgrimage, complete with spending over $100 for entrance, over $100 for a set of DVD's to watch it again, and endless infomercials to buy tapes, DVD's, etc.

Frankly, it's so hard to obtain first-hand info because people do not want to disparage one of the saints in their pantheon. We get the same thing when Horton preaches or lectures for us and the devotes from all over So Cal come out to pay homage.

He preached on Matthew 6:11, Our Daily Bread. He did use illustrations about white bread and how bad it is for us. He also gave an illustration about how when they lived in Holland when his daughter was young her first words she learned was asking the baker for bread. No Rudolph illustrations yesterday.

Danny,
Wow! That's truly appalling. I really don't understand Sproul's deal. I've profited so much from his teaching on the basics of Reformed theology, so little from his stuff on worship. His latest book on worship (Taste of Heaven?) was a complete waste of time. At one point in the book, he argued for the use of incense in the corporate worship setting, and had the nasty habit of talking about his love for "high liturgy" without even explaining what "high liturgy" is. Maybe Sproul's love for Luther has concluded in a more Lutheran/Anglican conception of the normative principle?

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Frankly, it's so hard to obtain first-hand info because people do not want to disparage one of the saints in their pantheon. We get the same thing when Horton preaches or lectures for us and the devotes from all over So Cal come out to pay homage.

Sounds like a rampaging case of respect of persons.

Originally Posted by joshua

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

However, I also understand that the PCA allows for these images in their churches.

Is his church now PCA?

Josh,

I've read that it is and I've read that it isn't.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Originally Posted by joshua

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

However, I also understand that the PCA allows for these images in their churches.

Is his church now PCA?

Josh,

I've read that it is and I've read that it isn't.

It's not in the PCA Church Directory, and his church's website doesn't say the church is in the PCA. But, you're right, it seems that even if the church were under the oversite of PCA, it wouldn't matter if he had images violating the Second Commandment or not.

Pastor Barnhart, you said:

After worshipping in his congregation you'll find no rebukes of Dr. Sproul from this minister.

Respectfully, Pastor, I hope that you wouldn't allow your affinity for Dr. Sproul to eclipse your zeal to see that God's Law being blatantly broken in such a perpetually overt manner should be rebuked.

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Frankly, it's so hard to obtain first-hand info because people do not want to disparage one of the saints in their pantheon. We get the same thing when Horton preaches or lectures for us and the devotes from all over So Cal come out to pay homage.

Interesting comments.

I don't consider myself a Sproul devotee who was paying homage yesterday morning.

I gave the first-hand info that I saw yesterday. There were images and crosses etc. But if you're looking for Rudolph or Santa illustrations there were none of those. And there were no life size RC Sproul paintings to greet us when we walked in the door.

Just to clarify; those comments were Danny's, but I do find them revealing and agree with others that Worship matters are not RCSR's strong suit (perhaps that suffers from understatement?).

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Frankly, it's so hard to obtain first-hand info because people do not want to disparage one of the saints in their pantheon. We get the same thing when Horton preaches or lectures for us and the devotes from all over So Cal come out to pay homage.

Interesting comments.

I don't consider myself a Sproul devotee who was paying homage yesterday morning.

I gave the first-hand info that I saw yesterday. There were images and crosses etc. But if you're looking for Rudolph or Santa illustrations there were none of those. And there were no life size RC Sproul paintings to greet us when we walked in the door.

Ah, I see you corrected it; thanks.

Originally Posted by joshua

Pastor Barnhart, you said:

After worshipping in his congregation you'll find no rebukes of Dr. Sproul from this minister.

Respectfully, Pastor, I hope that you wouldn't allow your affinity for Dr. Sproul to eclipse your zeal to see that God's Law being blatantly broken in such a perpetually overt manner should be rebuked.

Hi Josh, I agree. But, I think it goes both ways. How many times are we going to bring up the images? They are there. I didn't feel like they should keep me from worshipping in his church yesterday. Some would, and that's fine. But the rebukes have been endless already.And this isn't about how I feel about Sproul. Do I respect him as a man that has had a great impact on my life? Certainly, I do. It would have been no different had I been in Michigan and would have had a desire to go worship at Beeke's church, or Minnesota at Piper's church.But the rebukes have been endless, and I didn't start this thread to rebuke him.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Originally Posted by joshua

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

However, I also understand that the PCA allows for these images in their churches.

Is his church now PCA?

Josh,

I've read that it is and I've read that it isn't.

It is not listed in the current PCA directory.

This isn't about feelings as far as I can tell on anyone's part. "Bashing" is inappropriate to say the least. The fact of the matter is this was a question from earlier threads and there was no way it wasn't going to come up as an inquiry.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Originally Posted by joshua

Pastor Barnhart, you said:

After worshipping in his congregation you'll find no rebukes of Dr. Sproul from this minister.

Respectfully, Pastor, I hope that you wouldn't allow your affinity for Dr. Sproul to eclipse your zeal to see that God's Law being blatantly broken in such a perpetually overt manner should be rebuked.

Hi Josh,

I agree. However, I started a thread talking about the wonderful time of worship I had at the man's church and again it turned into a bash party by those who don't like the man. So, I think it goes both ways. How many times are we going to bring up the images? They are there. I didn't feel like they should keep me from worshipping in his church yesterday. Some would, and that's fine. But the rebukes have been endless already.

And this isn't about how I feel about Sproul. Do I respect him as a man that has had a great impact on my life? Certainly, I do. It would have been no different had I been in Michigan and would have had a desire to go worship at Beeke's church, or Minnesota at Piper's church.

But the rebukes have been endless, and I didn't start this thread to rebuke him.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Originally Posted by joshua

Pastor Barnhart, you said:

After worshipping in his congregation you'll find no rebukes of Dr. Sproul from this minister.

Respectfully, Pastor, I hope that you wouldn't allow your affinity for Dr. Sproul to eclipse your zeal to see that God's Law being blatantly broken in such a perpetually overt manner should be rebuked.

Hi Josh,

I agree. However, I started a thread talking about the wonderful time of worship I had at the man's church and again it turned into a bash party by those who don't like the man. So, I think it goes both ways.

Firstly, you made mention of some "unpleasant" things having been written about Dr. Sproul in the past on the PB. You seemed to be juxtaposing that with your pleasant experience, implying that the things written negatively about Sproul are unsubstantiated or unjustified. Thus, you did open up the thread to criticism.

Secondly, you've asserted about people not "[liking] the man," when, in fact, the things which have been asserted, at least in this thread, are not personally about the man; rather, the criticisms are about his poor teachings or practice.

How many times are we going to bring up the images? They are there.

Hopefully, as long as the images are in his church and he professes to be Reformed.

I didn't feel like they should keep me from worshipping in his church yesterday. Some would, and that's fine. But the rebukes have been endless already.

And this isn't about how I feel about Sproul. Do I respect him as a man that has had a great impact on my life? Certainly, I do. It would have been no different had I been in Michigan and would have had a desire to go worship at Beeke's church, or Minnesota at Piper's church.

But the rebukes have been endless, and I didn't start this thread to rebuke him.

For good reason, IMHO. If you think we're bad about it, I would pity Sproul if Knox, Calvin, et al were around to write about it. Talk about relentless.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

This isn't about feelings as far as I can tell on anyone's part. "Bashing" is inappropriate to say the least. The fact of the matter is this was a question from earlier threads and there was no way it wasn't going to come up as an inquiry.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Originally Posted by joshua

Pastor Barnhart, you said:
Respectfully, Pastor, I hope that you wouldn't allow your affinity for Dr. Sproul to eclipse your zeal to see that God's Law being blatantly broken in such a perpetually overt manner should be rebuked.

Hi Josh,

I agree. However, I started a thread talking about the wonderful time of worship I had at the man's church and again it turned into a bash party by those who don't like the man. So, I think it goes both ways. How many times are we going to bring up the images? They are there. I didn't feel like they should keep me from worshipping in his church yesterday. Some would, and that's fine. But the rebukes have been endless already.

And this isn't about how I feel about Sproul. Do I respect him as a man that has had a great impact on my life? Certainly, I do. It would have been no different had I been in Michigan and would have had a desire to go worship at Beeke's church, or Minnesota at Piper's church.

But the rebukes have been endless, and I didn't start this thread to rebuke him.

Chris,

Duly noted, and I edited my comments. In fact, you are completely right. I would be foolish to say I didn't think this would have gotten brought up when I started this thread.

Originally Posted by joshua

Secondly, you've asserted about people not "[liking] the man," when, in fact, the things which have been asserted, at least in this thread, are not personally about the man; rather, the criticisms are about his poor teachings or practice.

That's where my problem comes in. Criticize the man. Call him ugly. Tell me his breath smells. But don't talk to me about his "poor teachings" when there are few men who have had the teaching impact that Sproul has had. And with all due respect I believe that goes for all ministers on this board as well. Does he teach everything the way that everyone on this board would? Obviously, he doesn't. Does that make him wrong? He holds to the WCF, so you tell me?

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Originally Posted by joshua

Secondly, you've asserted about people not "[liking] the man," when, in fact, the things which have been asserted, at least in this thread, are not personally about the man; rather, the criticisms are about his poor teachings or practice.

That's where my problem comes in. Criticize the man. Call him ugly. Tell me his breath smells. But don't talk to me about his "poor teachings" when there are few men who have had the teaching impact that Sproul has had. And with all due respect I believe that goes for all ministers on this board as well. Does he teach everything the way that everyone on this board would? Obviously, he doesn't. Does that make him wrong? He holds to the WCF, so you tell me?

He clearly does not hold to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms when it comes to worship. So, if Westminster is right; he is certainly wrong, which I would agree with.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

But don't talk to me about his "poor teachings" when there are few men who have had the teaching impact that Sproul has had.

And with all due respect I believe that goes for all ministers on this board as well. Does he teach everything the way that everyone on this board would? Obviously, he doesn't. Does that make him wrong? He holds to the WCF, so you tell me?

Apparently, he doesn't hold to the WCF (at least not on this issue) when it comes to the Second Commandment, particularly because imports his own understanding to the text, instead of officially taking exception to the framers' original teaching on the matter.

And yes, it does make him wrong. I have nothing but respect for teachers of the Word, but even (and especially) they are subject to accountability. With great "status," comes great responsibility. A violation of God's Law is no small matter, but teaching that such a violation is okay is even worse!

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

I understand this is a point of contention, and it's not something that I like either. However, I also understand that the PCA allows for these images in their churches.

I'm not aware of any PCA decision that has formalized the allowance of images of Christ in their churches. In fact, for all my years on a presbytery credentials committee, men were examined for their views on images and always expected to state an exception when their response was positive.

The RPCES wrestled with the issue and you can read the results here.

Originally Posted by joshua

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

But don't talk to me about his "poor teachings" when there are few men who have had the teaching impact that Sproul has had.

You disagree with that statement? Does his not holding to the confessions teaching on the 2nd Commandment negate all the other impact he has had on Reformed confessionalism?

He also, let us not forget, is active against 4th Commandment issues as well.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Originally Posted by joshua

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

But don't talk to me about his "poor teachings" when there are few men who have had the teaching impact that Sproul has had.

You disagree with that statement? Does his not holding to the confessions teaching on the 2nd Commandment negate all the other impact he has had on Reformed confessionalism?

What I disagree with is the idea that we should refrain from calling some of his teachings to account simply because he has had impact elsewhere.

O.k., o.k. I concede.

I'm not arguing in favor of the images. You guys are right on that matter. I just don't think it would keep me from worshipping at his church again. Nor am I going to lay the whole ministry of R.C. Sproul on the altar of his views on images.

Seriously, these issues are all new to this minister. I did not come from a confessional background. I came from a Semi-Pelagian background to Calvinism and now to Reformed confessionalism. The trip isn't always an easy one, as I'm sure some of you could attest too.

As an aside, many of you have been very helpful to me concerning these issues and I thank you for that.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

I understand this is a point of contention, and it's not something that I like either. However, I also understand that the PCA allows for these images in their churches.

I'm not aware of any PCA decision that has formalized the allowance of images of Christ in their churches. In fact, for all my years on a presbytery credentials committee, men were examined for their views on images and always expected to state an exception when their response was positive.

The RPCES wrestled with the issue and you can read the results here.

At a recent PCA presbytery meeting a man stated exceptions to the standards on this because he thought images were ok. There was little discussion on this issue, probably because there was so much on the other exceptions he took.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

O.k., o.k. I concede.

I'm not arguing in favor of the images. You guys are right on that matter.

For what it's worth, Pastor, I'm not trying to be "right," but I do desire that people be wary of unReformed unConfessional teaching that comes from those who profess to be Reformed, Confessional and Puritanesque. I have no desire to be right in and of myself. I just think that the perpescuity of Scripture puts the onus on us (no pun intended) all to be faithful to and defend rightly the Scriptures (with which I think you'd agree).

Seriously, these issues are all new to this minister. I did not come from a confessional background. I came from a Semi-Pelagian background to Calvinism and now to Reformed confessionalism. The trip isn't always an easy one, as I'm sure some of you could attest too.

Indeed.

Thank you guys for all your posts on these matters. They are thought provoking and very helpful as I move more and more toward an understanding of the Reformed faith.

BTW, the name "Saint Andrews Chapel" should have been the first tip that something fishy was going on -- too RC/Anglican to taken as seriously reformed.

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

BTW, the name "Saint Andrews Chapel" should have been the first tip that something fishy was going on -- too RC/Anglican to taken as seriously reformed.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????

Where I live every other Presbyterian church is named Saint Andrews. Of course we are all Scots & worship in the chuches our pioneer fathers built with their own two hands...

I would welcome you to visit any one of these congregations on a Sunday morning & declare in an audible voice that the name was a "fishy" affinity with "RC/Anglican"(ism).

If you made it out in one piece, I would gladly buy you a beer to celebrate your survival.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

O.k., o.k. I concede.

I'm not arguing in favor of the images. You guys are right on that matter. I just don't think it would keep me from worshipping at his church again. Nor am I going to lay the whole ministry of R.C. Sproul on the altar of his views on images.

Seriously, these issues are all new to this minister. I did not come from a confessional background. I came from a Semi-Pelagian background to Calvinism and now to Reformed confessionalism. The trip isn't always an easy one, as I'm sure some of you could attest too.

As an aside, many of you have been very helpful to me concerning these issues and I thank you for that.

Amen. My experience too. For me, the issue is painful because R.C. has been SO helpful to me in my own life. While not a Sproul lapdog, I get pretty choked up over his impact for the cause of the Gospel in this Semi-Pelagian evangelical environment.

One of my beefs with R.C., however, relates to the fact that he calls himself a PCA Presbyterian and has not affiliated with a presbytery! He recounts the reasons in one of his messages as follows (to the best of my memory): I am a PCA man, wanted my people to be a PCA church, and kept pushing for it. Then, it hit me. They could care less. I asked them if they were becoming PCA out of conviction or merely to honor/humor me. They answered that it was mainly to humor me. So I pulled the plug on the process. I would rather have no affiliation than a phony meaningless one.

Reading between the "preacher talk," it sounds as if R.C. got some political pushback from his leaders and opted for the Star Trek strategy: "Let the Wookie win." However, how does a committed, confessional Presbyterian guy NOT join a Presbyterian denomination??? If he wants to be a Baptist, come on over. We desperately need the doctrines of grace among the Baptists. Besides, R.C. already preaches like a Baptist.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

And this isn't about how I feel about Sproul. Do I respect him as a man that has had a great impact on my life? Certainly, I do. It would have been no different had I been in Michigan and would have had a desire to go worship at Beeke's church, or Minnesota at Piper's church.But the rebukes have been endless, and I didn't start this thread to rebuke him.

Amen. Sproul, Beeke, and Piper have all been a blessing to me too. My mother always taught me to eat the chicken and not the bones, not skip the chicken because of the bones.