Jus Divinum: The discussion

[JohnV]

Here is my first question from the book Jus Divinum: the Divine Right of Authority:

The Church is defined as the society of God's people. In that community there must be rulers and the ruled. Christ is the head, and He delegates His authority to the offices in the church. Original authority belongs with Christ alone. Here is the question: Is that original authority directed from Christ only to the offices, or is it direct from Christ but by election through the community? Does a church have some originally delegated authority? For the officers are put into the office by Christ, but through the agency of election by the people; so would it follow that these officers receive dual authority, one kind from Christ, and another kind from the society of God's people?

Note, I am not questioning the right of authority of the offices to rule directly from Scripture as if from Christ Himself, without the consent of the people; the must have that right, for they are obliged by their offices. I am here questioning whether the people also have a right of authority as the assembly of God's people to personally reject authority when it has ruled erroneously, dividing the loyalty of the people between God and man. That is, rulers without proper subjects are not rulers, and rulers that subject the people to wrongful laws are not just rulers, and rulers that serve themselves are tyrants; even so it follows that rulers who do not represent Christ's authority are not to be recognized by the Church body.

What I am concerned about is that too strong a demarcation is made between the offices and the church itself, so as to almost obliterate the vestiges of office resident in each believer, whether or not he is an officer of the Church. Jus Divinum does answer this in passing, but I thought it would make for a discussion here. I can see the tendency in our modern churches toward congregationalism, and the alarm this raises; but I also see a tendency toward a kind of loose episcopal prelacy in the Reformed churches at the same time, taking advantage of the gaping hole left in the authority structure of the churches, weakened by schisms and polarizations.

Also note, I am not questioning the necessity and obligation of the ruled to obey the rulers. What good is having rulers if anarchy or autonomous authority is the order of the day?

I am more concerned about teaching or ruling elders who take advantage of the ignorance of the people to inculcate their opinions, or to position their theories, or to alienate or violate the freedoms of conscience of the members of the churches through the use of their offices and/or by adding their official titles to polemical articles in church publications, instead of carefully guarding the offices to keep them free from all possible rebuff, criticism or blame.

As well, I am concerned about non-officers who assert much more than is rightful, according to Scripture. I am here thinking of either teachers in places of higher learning, as well as younger students who, following them, also make too bold in their understandings, instead of recognizing the authority the Church represents, or studious and learned men within the congregation who take up a semi-office role of leadership on their own. This too is a result of the gaping hole left in the proper authority in the churches, left by the open-ended questions raised in certain fields of thought, by virtue of liberty of conscience and of scholarly investigation.

In short, with rulers mishandling their offices, and the ruled being a law unto themselves, how do we re-establish the divine right of authority in the churches when we are in such dissarray in the body and in the offices? I see this as a monumental task, if we are to rescue and reclaim our denominations from our present spiritual decay from within.

Where do we start? Any comments?

 

[CalsFarmer]

All Church leaders are subject to the rule of Christ...but as we see every day, abuses take place. After all we are human and sinful...

In my humble opinion the best FIRST quality of a man or woman of God is humility, he second gratefulness for what God has done. I do not believe that church pastors and elders rule by divine right as gods unto themselves.

You are speaking somehow of this big purification process that we need to start getting on with. I can tell you from experience that the church split is alive and well and you will be seeing more of them as friction between the humble and the proud becomes even more pervasive than it is now.

Remember the wheat and the tares........the first duty of each of us as individuals is to follow God..not our leaders. When the leadership becomes delinquent then it is incumbent on godly members to assert their right to demand leadership that conforms to the godly and proper biblical standard.

I learned the hard way.....God FIRST.

 

[JohnV]

Grace:

While I generally agree with your assessment of the state of the churches, and I echo your concern, I think we can also agree that this is not the way we would like it to be. Are we in the end times, where this will be the order of the day, and things will only get worse? Well, though I am an Amillennialist of that type, what some like to call pessimistic, I am certainly not glad to see this state of affairs; nor am I convinced that this is necessarily the end. I may be wrong about my millennial view, and this could be the catalyst that sets off a surge toward a Postmillennial end. Even as an Amillennialist, I still work for this latter end, in the certainty of Christ's victory.

I understand how things are in the church, I think, but that can't be a reflection of what we really believe concerning proper church authority. If schism is the only answer, we might as well deny that the church has any authority at all, that it is only representative like the civil government, or that it is only consultative and advisory.

Government in the church, it is true, means nothing if the churches are not preaching the gospel, and administering the sacraments and discipline, so that the Spirit works in the church through these ordinary means. Many of us may be expecting that, if the Spirit works at all, He works mostly through extraordinary means, as a mark that it is the Spirit working. But what then of the ordinary means which the Bible speaks much more explicitly of, namely the preaching and administration of the Word? Is it true in our time that every one is following after the teaching that best tickles his own ears, and so schism follows after schism? Is it true that the higher assemblies are using procedural regulation to keep from hearing appeals and petitions that are raised against movements in the churches toward schisms, instead of subjecting the regulations so that they are sure to hear them and to faithfully apply the Word to each?

If our motto is "God first", then it should be clear that His regulation for proper government falls within that motto. If it means that we are a rule unto ourselves, then what keeps each one from going his own way? Many are using the Bible to justify their own slant on it. Whose rule are we subject to anymore then? If Jesus commissioned officers in the church, it must mean something to have them there to rule and teach us. So if God is first, then certainly we ought to subject ourselves to Biblical government as a sure sign that God is indeed first for us. And if the officers in the church are found to be unfaithful, it is not enough just to break from them, for it needs to be clear that betraying that trust of Christ's authority is a most heinous crime upon the church. So serious is it that the early Reformers did not shrink from naming the Pope as an antichrist for his usurpation of authority over and above the Biblical mandate, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men.

This cycle of schisms has to stop. It isn't helping; it exacerbates the problem the way it is done these days: it just divides, it does not answer with authority. Every individual group claiming jus divinum only means there exists no real jus divinum in practice. If everyone is a captain, then where is the army? If every group has its own divine right, then divine right means nothing.

 

[Scott Bushey]

John,
I'm hearing you loud and clear. What do you practically suggest? Seriously, you know my heart; you know I can totally relate. 75% of the churches here in America have abandoned the devine right. As I have mentioned, the PCA, even though they are a collection of churches that function under the guise of the WCF, have a major level of autonomy. Liberalism is the trend of the day. If you are strict, you are wrongly labeled 'legalistic'.

Schsim begins at the top. The problem, at least as I see it, is the leadership. As far as the PCA goes, if they functioned more like the RPCGA, and how the RPCGA requires a more strict adherence to the confession, as well as thier book of church order, there would be more like mindedness and less of a chance of schism.

The FV issue is a prime example (between you and I, I see this secondary to the Arminianism that has infested the PCA); if these guys were in the RPCGA, they would already be on the outside looking in! Tolerance has crept in, and like the virus it is, proliferating and mutating to the point where even the pastors are brainwashed into believing that everything is well.

1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

[Edited on 9-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Let me jump in here and make some recommendations before we are set off on several different paths of thought.

I use to meet with a group of brothers to discuss books. The group (Reformed Dogmatics) was formed by some guys from a PCA in Richmond, Indiana called Christ's Presbyterian Church. Mark Herzer was the leader. I only got to meet with the group at the end of it's existence, but I learned a lot from these guys concerning a method of book discussion.

One thing they did was stick to the text. It helped keep focus. We were assigned a portion to read and when we met we discussed sections in order. The discussion went from page to page with points discussed as pointed out by the readers.

So it would be beneficial if we decided which portion should we start with. Should we start with the beginning summary or the first section of the book. By doing this the thought and flow of what the authors were leading to can be discovered in harmony with whole of the text. I am certain that the understanding of the divines will come into better focus if we do this in the order the book is written. Points of understanding are usually built up one upon another. Biblical text is also done in this way. Revelation is also. So why not start at the beginning and discuss the authors thoughts in succession. We will have a better understanding and be able to critique it more fairly. We will also understand the intent and applications that the divines wanted to illumine with more exactness.

This is what I posted concerning David Halls intro on 'The Original Intent of the Westminster'.

What a great beginning. I am and have been persuaded that the Presbyterian's got it correct in the Westminster understanding of Ecclesiology. I have been foggy on the details though. This is clearing up some of my suspicions.

John Owen and Thomas Goodwin were, in my estimation, trying to avoid Erastianism but helping it along with their friendship of Cromwell. While seeking autonomy for the church they were destroying it. The evidence I see in this is the fact when Cromwell died so did what they were fighting for. The center of authority was still placed in the Civil Magistrate who claimed authority over the Church and it's divine right of government under Christ. The Divines had it correct in their understanding of the two Kingdoms.

Let's start a discussion thread in Ecclesiolgy. And set up some points of discussion. While I still contend that Acts 15 was a reaction instead of an ordered form of Government, it's implications and illumination on what Church government ought to be is still important. (additional thought....At the same time it recognized the biblical structure of Church Authority) Authority is more than just declarative or recommended policy. It is much more and I do believe independency is something Christ never intended. A congregation is not and should not be autonomous in rule. There are foundational truths to be gleaned.

 

[JohnV]

Scott:

I do have some practical suggestions. But it all depends on commitment to the same thing that our leaders are to be committed to. In our day it seems that we assume that our leaders are committed to the service of our Lord, and that we obey without question; assuming that they are the ones in the know and we are not. I think this is wrong: both the leaders and the congregations need to be committed to the service of our Lord, and it should be recognized that gifts of faith are also given to non-office-bearers.

For one thing, something that I've noticed over many years, ever since my early days in the CRC, was that Classes or Presbyteries, and also Synods or General Assemblies, believe themselves to have the authority to toss out petitions or appeals that they do not want to confront, simply by citing impropriety or improper procedure. And it really surprises me that, in all those years, I have never heard of anyone telling these assemblies that such rulings are indictments against themselves, not against petitioners or appellants. The respective books of Order put the onus on them to be sure that impropriety and improper procudure does not stand in the way. If a petition or appeal is not before them properly then the blame rests fully upon their own committee whose duty it was to put it before the assembly properly.

As it is now, it seems to me, committees are struck to summarize and recommend to the assembly. They do present the entire petition or appeal, but whether the commissioners read it or not is up to them. And an objection to procedure at any time could quash the whole thing. Some legitimate appeals are not heard at all at the whim of these assemblies. You just don't throw stones at their holy cows.

And they call that ecclesiastical leadership.

The answer to this, from our end as non-officers, is to flood the floors of these assemblies with overtures, petitions and appeals just on that matter alone. If it turns into scandal, well, by rights it is scandalous that such things are going on in our assemblies. We should pay especial attention to each and every time an assembly appeals to procedure, whether or not we agree with what is being petitioned or appealed. Things must be answered by Scripture, not by men.

This is just one thing. There are many more.

I went to a Presbytery meeting once and I was completely deflated by what I saw there. There were so many things that come to mind now as I read Jus Divinum.

 

[crhoades]

I've read through the front matter and am on Chapter 3. John, Scott, Randy - lead away...

 

[JohnV]

R. Martin:

I would love to go through this book paragraph by paragraph even. I am entranced by it more and more as I read on. But I am also deeply concerned by how far we've strayed from the government that was originally meant as the basic structure of the church.

But not everyone has the book. And I think that the ideas can be discussed without obligating everyone to read it. We have to work instead from general to more specific tenets, so as to convince, but more so as to raise the general knowledge of Christ and His church for everyone on this Board who reads this, as well as our multitude of non-subscribing readers.

It is our place to discuss, not to accuse or draw lines in the sand. This Board is careful about its standards. The status quo is the status quo, and we have to honour that to the degree that it is the agreed position we're starting from. Whatever we can gain from that point onwards is recovered ground at best, but we would still need to respect those who do not yet understand. We are not a formal church, and we cannot expect what the people's churches do not expect; but we are of the Church, and we can call the standards of the Scriptures to the fore.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by crhoades
I've read through the front matter and am on Chapter 3. John, Scott, Randy - lead away...

Chris:
You mean Hall's intro? It disappointed me somewhat. But wait 'til you read the actual text of the book itself. I'm having trouble taking it all in. This is definitely a book that is going to take a number of readings before I can say I've read it.

I'll bring out a particular paragraph, try to give the meaning I take from it, some application maybe if we all have our seatbelts on.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by crhoades
I've read through the front matter and am on Chapter 3. John, Scott, Randy - lead away...

Chris:
You mean Hall's intro? It disappointed me somewhat. But wait 'til you read the actual text of the book itself. I'm having trouble taking it all in. This is definitely a book that is going to take a number of readings before I can say I've read it.

I'll bring out a particular paragraph, try to give the meaning I take from it, some application maybe if we all have our seatbelts on.

Seatbelt is on. Hall's intro was ok...one thing that I'm wanting to do this week is compile a verse document. When I go to really dig into a book, I'll start at the first and compile a list of verses that is used in the book in the order that they appear. That way as you are reading along, you can reference the list and see things that they reference. I'm guilty of skipping over the verses to get to the next argument when most times the most valuable thing I could do is look up Scripture. For this book, I'll post scripture out of the Geneva Translation unless people think it would be better to use the King Jimmy. Did not the divines reference the Geneva?

When I'm done with it, I'll load it up here. Is Microsoft Word Ok with everyone or would PDF work better?

 

[JohnV]

PDF would be safest. I know that I have an older computer, and I can't download some stuff because of that. I'm going to put my XP on line sometime, but I have to save up for it: the computer, a back-up vehicle for my job, and Jus Divinum has exhausted my expense account for now. (By the way, the new computer is supposed to be specially for a certain job I have in mind, so internet access on it is not vital to me as yet. I can get these keychain things that can store an incredible amount of info, and this old computer can handle that.) So for me PDF works best. I have the read-only free version.

 

[JohnV]

The definition, as I understand it, is the same thing I've been harping on for quite a while. It's the same thing as Biblical necessity or divine warrant. The book states it as "by divine right", or "by divine institute". That is to say, then, that the form of church government that this book defends is the one grounded by sound reason from Scripture. It lists both the light of nature and the light of Scripture as jure divino, revelation by God.

 

[JohnV]

Well, I'm almost done. I'm going at this really slow because its just blowing me away. I have to reread a lot of sections because it says so much to our day. I'm thinking that this should be required reading for older catechism students, or post-profession follow-up. At the very least it should be a must for anyone being ordained to office any office in the church. The book itself could possibly be a two-year course in seminary; there's that much packed in that little book. The student may not catch it all at first reading, but a professor could point out the many different ramifications of each point brought up. And knowing the church situation the way it is now, you just know that they haven't been teaching this stuff for a while.

All I can say is "Wow!" If you can, contact Chris at Naphtali Press (on this Board) and see if you can swing a deal with him. It's worth your effort, and the worth every cent that it would cost, even at top dollar.

I do have some questions that come out of this, though. Remember, I'm reading it for the Biblical arguments presented, and the case that is made; not because I'm agog over some current human theory. For the most part, this is what the Reformed meant when they reformed the church by Sola Scriptura, not according to someone's agenda, but with complete submission to the Word in mind, even at the cost of their own opinions. You have to take it seriously or you don't really understand what they were writing. That deep submission comes through. I do have the odd problem with one or two of the logical sequences; not significant, but problems nontheless. I took a peak toward the end, and there is promise that these may be resolved, so I'll hold my questions for when I'm done.

I will ask my questions not in direct reference to the book, but I'll try to reference them to the Confessions. I don't want to make this book everyone's homework in order to contribute to the discussion. Most everyone on this Board who knows the confessional standards of this Board should and would be able to participate. After all, this book is not the standard for this Board, the respective Confessions are. But if you can get a hold of this book, I would recommend you do so. And if not, you will still reap a lot from discussions that come out of this book. I would like it if everyone who has also read the book also try to reference the Confessions as much as possible. Quotes from the book would be fine, but just remember that some of us have not read the book, and the context is not available to all. And this book has a lot of context.

 

[JohnV]

I hit the hardest part of the book, and I am slogging through it now. It doesn't help that I haven't been able to devote much time to reading lately.

But I can't wait. It hit me today that I have to pose these two propositions on the Board. It will likely help me, as a side effect, in understanding this section of the book. I thought it would be the easiest part, but its giving me the most trouble. The trouble begins at chapter 11, for those who are reading it too.

I should insert that I believe that the book deals with the problem of who is to govern the church, in contrast specifically to two competing views at the time, and not in reference to today's milieu. Its teachings, however, are pertinent to today in that they are a calling to government in the church, and to govern according to the calling.

Here are the two propositions:

1. If the rulership of the church is given to the elders, and to no others, and their rulership is a calling of Christ to minister His authority, then it must needs follow that there is a subscription defined into the offices.

That is:

1. - it is not an option, it is a must.
2. it is a limitation to what is commanded, or it breaks the RPW
   [/list=1]
   
   2. That the people of the congregation also have an office by which they adjudge of the leadership, whether they ought to submit or not.
   
   That is:
   1. people are to recognize and submit to the elders who lead well, whether ruling or teaching
   2. God's people are to watch out for and not submit to false teachings
      [/list=1]
      
      I am not going to defend them in this post, but just put them out for discussion. I have a longer dissertation on it in my files, but I want reaction, give and take, on these first.
      
      References: (partial listing)
      
      1 John 4:1,
      Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
      
      Belgic Confession, art. 31:
      We believe that the ministers of God's Word, the elders, and the deacons ought to be chosen to their respective offices by a lawful election by the Church, with calling upon the name of the Lord, and in that order which the Word of God teaches. Therefore every one must take heed not to intrude himself by improper means, but is bound to wait till it shall please God to call him; that he may have testimony of his calling, and be certain and assured that it is of the Lord.
      As for the ministers of God's Word, they have equally the same power and authority wheresoever they are, as they are all ministers of Christ, the only universal Bishop and the only Head of the Church.
      Moreover, in order that this holy ordinance of God may not be violated or slighted, we say that every one ought to esteem the ministers of God's Word and the elders of the Church very highly for their work's sake, and be at peace with them without murmuring, strife, or contention, as much as possible.
      
      Larger Catechism:
      Q158: By whom is the word of God to be preached?
      A158: The word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted,[1] and also duly approved and called to that office.[2]
      
      1. I Tim. 3:2, 6; Eph. 4:8-11; Hosea 4:6; Mal. 2:7; II Cor. 3:6
      2. Jer. 14:15; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4; I Cor. 12:28-29; I Tim. 3:10; 4:14; 5:22
      
      Q159: How is the word of God to be preached by those that are called thereunto?
      A159: They that are called to labor in the ministry of the word, are to preach sound doctrine,[1] diligently,[2] in season and out of season;[3] plainly,[4] not in the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power;[5] faithfully,[6] making known the whole counsel of God;[7] wisely,[8] applying themselves to the necessities and capacities of the hearers;[9] zealously,[10] with fervent love to God [11] and the souls of his people;[12] sincerely,[13] aiming at his glory,[14] and their conversion,[15] edification,[16] and salvation.[17]
      
      1. Titus 2:1, 8
      2. Acts 18:25
      3. II Tim. 4:2
      4. I Cor. 14:19
      5. I Cor. 2:4
      6. Jer. 23:28; I Cor. 4:1-2
      7. Acts 20:27
      8. Col. 1:28; II Tim. 2:15
      9. I Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14; Luke 12:42
      10. Acts 18:25
      11. II Cor. 5:13-14; Phil. 1:15-17
      12. Col. 4:12; II Cor. 12:15
      13. II Cor. 2:17; 4:2
      14. I Thess. 2:4-6; John 7:18
      15. I Cor. 9:19-22
      16. II Cor. 12:19; Eph. 4:12
      17. I Tim. 4:16; Acts 26:16-18
      
      Q80: Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
      
      A80: Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him,[1] may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made,[2] and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God,[3] be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.[4]
      
      1. John 2:3
      2. I Cor. 2:12; I John 3:14, 18-19, 21, 24; 4:13, 16; Heb. 6:11-12
      3. Rom. 8:16
      4. I John 5:13
      Q160: What is required of those that hear the word preached?
      A160: It is required of those that hear the word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence,[1] preparation,[2] and prayer;[3] examine: What they hear by the scriptures;[4] receive the truth with faith,[5] love,[6] meekness,[7] and readiness of mind,[8] as the word of God;[9] meditate,[10] and confer of it;[11] hide it in their hearts,[12] and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.[13]
      
      1. Prov. 8:34
      2. I Peter 2:1-2; Luke 8:18
      3. Psa. 119:18; Eph. 6:18-19
      4. Acts 17:11
      5. Heb. 4:2
      6. II Thess 2:10
      7. James 1:21
      8. Acts 17:11
      9. I Thess 2:13
      10. Luke 9:44; Heb. 2:1
      11. Luke 24:14; Deut 6:6-7
      12. Prov. 2:1; Psa. 119:11
      
      13. Luke 8:15; James 1:25
      
      Q157: How is the word of God to be read?
      
      A157: The holy scriptures are to be read with an high and reverent esteem of them;[1] with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God,[2] and that he only can enable us to understand them;[3] with desire to know, believe, and obey the will of God revealed in them;[4] with diligence,[5] and attention to the matter and scope of them;[6] with meditation,[7] application,[8] self-denial,[9] and prayer.[10]
      
      1. Psa. 19:10; Neh. 8:3-10; Exod. 24:7; II Chr. 34:27; Isa. 66:2
      2. II Peter 1:19-21
      3. Luke 24:45; II Cor. 3:13-16
      4. Deut. 17:10, 20
      5. Acts 17:11
      6. Acts 8:30, 34; Luke 10:26-28
      7. Psa. 1:2, 119:97
      8. II Chr. 24:21
      9. Prov. 3:5; Deut 33:3
      10. Prov. 2:1-6; Psa. 119:18; Neh. 7:6, 8

 

[JohnV]

I want to bump this up again, to see if there is any discussion. What I'm going to do is explain these a little. What I am saying is that there is not just a necessary subscriptionism defined into the offices by the nature of juro divino, but that it goes one step further in that it is the strict subscription of the old Dutch Reformed churches, still practiced in principle by some denominations, such as Daniel's denomination. I want to go into that difference a bit.

 

[JohnV]

The difference, as I see it, is that Subscriptionism itself does not tie the men holding positions of rulership in the church any more than non-subscriptionism. This is so because adherence to the Standards of Faith, being relative, would render Subscriptionism relative as well. If the standard is that, "Whatever the WCF does not forbid is allowed" remains in place, as it is in some denominations, then Subscriptionism doesn't really mean much if anything at all. If a minister, say, may preach the Framework Hypothesis because it is his view, and because the GA has ruled that it does not oppose the WCF, and no other warrant is given, then Subscriptionism is a fools errand. Subscriptionism does not hold any ruling member of the church at any level to anything concrete. There is still room for personal opinions within the office because officers are licenced, so to speak, to have personal views as part of their office.

But if it is defined into the office, rather than imposed upon persons, then it is a different matter. Then it would be that even the suggestion of a personal view bearing upon the office or the ministry of the Word would be grounds for questioning. Imposing man's will upon God's gospel would be anathema. Men, even those who hold office, are allowed liberty of conscience, but not to impose that upon the duties of office. In that sense, a subscription upon the office, defined right in it, has some meaningful place in the church.

I'm not suggesting that advocates of Subscriptionism don't have this in mind. I think they likely do. But it has to go further, in that it is not only a Subscriptionism, but a definition of office itself.

 

[JohnV]

Just a clarification: RE rule in two respects, namely as to doctrine and as to life. That is, they have lattitude in ruling for the peace and order of the church. They must apply their wisdom and discretion in that area. But in the above I'm talking about the ruling of elders in the area of doctrine. That's where subscription applies.

 

[Saiph]

Originally posted by JohnV
I want to bump this up again, to see if there is any discussion. What I'm going to do is explain these a little. What I am saying is that there is not just a necessary subscriptionism defined into the offices by the nature of juro divino, but that it goes one step further in that it is the strict subscription of the old Dutch Reformed churches, still practiced in principle by some denominations, such as Daniel's denomination. I want to go into that difference a bit.

When I get the book I will join the discussion.

What is subscriptionism ? ?

 

[JohnV]

Subscriptionism is a rule says that every office-bearer must subscribe to the Westminster Standards, or whatever the standards of faith the denomination holds to.

 

[Saiph]

Originally posted by JohnV
Subscriptionism is a rule says that every office-bearer must subscribe to the Westminster Standards, or whatever the standards of faith the denomination holds to.

How much do they need to agree with the standards would be the question right ?

In my opinion, if you are a minister of the PCA, and you disagree with the WCF in several non-essential points, then why are you in the PCA ? ?

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Saiph

Originally posted by JohnV
Subscriptionism is a rule says that every office-bearer must subscribe to the Westminster Standards, or whatever the standards of faith the denomination holds to.

How much do they need to agree with the standards would be the question right ?

In my opinion, if you are a minister of the PCA, and you disagree with the WCF in several non-essential points, then why are you in the PCA ? ?

I think the point is what would be deemed "essential". For example, I was at an examination of a candidate for the ministry, and he was doing OK until he mentioned his favour towards the Framework Hypothesis; then he ran into trouble, and lots of it. As much as some opposed his view, they did not have denominational sanction for not sustaining his examination on that ground, because the denomination had not ruled it as an obsctruction to office. So, in effect, views on the creation are not deemed essential. But more than that, I would contend, they have inadvertantly also ruled that using the office for personal opinion in this regard is also not an obstruction to office, that it is also not essential to keep the matter of doctrine clear of human liberty of opinion.

 

[Saiph]

Good question, how much of the WCF is essential. And what is missing ?

One obviously cannot differ on soteriology or the doctrines of the Trinity, etc . .

What is "Framework Hypothesis" ?

 

[JohnV]

But they are differing on soteriology. That's what the controversy about Federal Vision is about. Justification is in the category of soteriology. I thought it was essential too, as do many of us. But denominations aren't ruling that way. They seem to be not so concerned with the definition of office as they are about liberties within the WCF. And I think that FV represents even soteriological doctrines as uncertain, and therefore open to discretionary personal interpretation, not a matter of subscription or definition ( read: limitation ) of office.

 

[JohnV]

The Framework Hypothesis is an alternative representation of the days of creation. Instead of six separate days, it views the creation account as three days, being repeated in greater detail. In this way, for example, they claim to justify the creation of the sun on the fourth day, while reference to days goes back to the first day.

 

[Saiph]

JohnV, I agree with you, I just did not know that "Framework Hypothesis" was the same as FV.

I have never heard of Framework Hypothesis.

 

[JohnV]

I'm not saying that the FH is the same as FV. It isn't. I am saying it is in the same category of being added, without sufficient Scriptural warrant, to the teachings coming from the pulpit and defended by the offices. They are not, ideally, related; they just have this commonality. And this is the thing that is too easily overlooked.

 

[Saiph]

JohnV, third time now, what is "Framework Hypothesis" ?

 

[JohnV]

You missed it Mark. I got stuck in between out posts on the first page.

 

[Saiph]

Originally posted by JohnV
The Framework Hypothesis is an alternative representation of the days of creation. Instead of six separate days, it views the creation account as three days, being repeated in greater detail. In this way, for example, they claim to justify the creation of the sun on the fourth day, while reference to days goes back to the first day.

Sorry. I got it now.

I woul not disqualify an elder for believing this, but I would demand that they share whatever it is they are smoking with me.

 

[JohnV]

So you would disqualify him; but on what grounds? If it is because of the RPW, applying the definition of office upon the office, then I would agree. But if we're going to dispute opinions then we could go on forever and never resolve it. Maybe I disagree with that view, but that's all it would be. But if he has no Scriptural warrant for it, a command from God, then we must view it as forbidden for him as representing to us Christ's gospel and office. The plain fact is that it isn't Christ's gospel, but his personal view; and it muddies the office rather than keeping it clear of human innovation.