What are the limits of theology discussion for the laity?

[raderag]

It seems to me that there are theological positions that would be off limits for the laity to assert, that may be acceptable for the Church to debate. In other words,, it seems to me that theology that seems to go against the confessions, and that which is bound to cause contraversy, should be discussed at the academic and eccelssiological level first. In other words,, it doesn't seem that grass-roots theological movements are a good idea.

Do any reformed folks have any thoughts on this matter? What are the limits, and are they set by the confession, the current scope of debate, or something else. What are the limits for acadmia?

I guess 2 issues that I have in mind are the New Perspective, which is already out of the bag because of the proponents. Of course, now they would like it to be a academic only debate.
Theistic evolution would be another interesting topic.

 

[Calvibaptist]

I understand the concern of this question, but it raises another question in my mind. Doesn't this sound a lot like the problem with Roman catholicism where only the church and church councils are allowed to decide matters of theology?

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist
I understand the concern of this question, but it raises another question in my mind. Doesn't this sound a lot like the problem with Roman catholicism where only the church and church councils are allowed to decide matters of theology?

Well, Church polity is very important here. I am not sure how this would fit in with the Baptists view of the Church, but Presbyterians do believe that councils and synods are what the Church uses to decide theology.

Westminster Confession of Faith
CHAPTER XXXI.
Of Synods and Councils.
I. For the better government and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils.

II. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers and other fit persons to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies of the Church, the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies.

III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word.

IV. All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.

V. Synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or by way of advice for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by raderag
It seems to me that there are theological positions that would be off limits for the laity to assert, that may be acceptable for the Church to debate. In other words,, it seems to me that theology that seems to go against the confessions, and that which is bound to cause contraversy, should be discussed at the academic and eccelssiological level first. In other words,, it doesn't seem that grass-roots theological movements are a good idea.

Do any reformed folks have any thoughts on this matter? What are the limits, and are they set by the confession, the current scope of debate, or something else. What are the limits for acadmia?

I guess 2 issues that I have in mind are the New Perspective, which is already out of the bag because of the proponents. Of course, now they would like it to be a academic only debate.
Theistic evolution would be another interesting topic.

This is a pretty tough question because invariably controversial issues will, in one way or the other, make their way to the folks in the pews. With the proliferation of the internet and its ability to spread controversial issues like NPP/FV, it would be very hard not to have these issues discussed within the Church.

What the church has to keep in mind is the admonition of Scripture to be of "one mind" (1 Cor 1:10, Eph 4). For Reformed churches that would be the Westminster Standards, LBCF or the 3 Forms of Unity. It would be best that controversial issues be hashed out within the courts of the church, but this is not the case in the vast majority of the situations that crop up.

In my humble opinion the question is how should the church handle controversies that spread like wildfire within the church? I think that the officers of the church need to stay on top of theses issues by (1) understanding the issues, (2) being able to articulate what the church teaches on these issues and defend them per a particular churches standards, (3) remind the church that we are all responsible to Christ to preserve the peace, unity and purity of His Church and (4) deal swiftly with those who wish to propagate error within the church.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I ditto the last two posts. Theological abberations always arise when those who are berift of historical theology and systematic/biblical theology attempt to forumulate doctrine. The FV guys are a great example of this, as is NT Wright (and HE is SUPPOSE to be an academician!).

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

So are you saying that FV proponents and N.T. Wright are poor students of theology? Not smart? I'm not sure I follow.

 

[Calvibaptist]

The 1689 Confession drops sections XXX and XXXI about church polity.

I believe that Baptists would point to section XX in the WCF and section XXI in the 1689 as the governing principle in this question

Chapter XX
II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13]

 

[Calvibaptist]

That being said, I agree that it is dangerous when unlearned men (and women) start making claims about what is and isn't orthodox Christian belief.

 

[JohnV]

This is something that I feel strongly about. If you'll let me, I'd like to say what I think, not as an office-bearer which I am not, but as what I am, an ordinary member. Keep that in mind as I say these things, because it may at first appear contradictory in that I disobey my own beliefs. But I don't think it is contradictory, but a trying to live by it.

Each one of us, whether office-bearer or pew-sitter, we all have the command from Scripture to guard our faith, not to be led astray. I think these things belong out in the open.

But that's not the same as saying that the resolution of them belongs to the grass roots members. At least not the official resolution of them as constroversies. There is a reason that we have church leaders who rule, and they must be allowed to rule, and not be over-ruled by us ordinary folk.

Cionsidering Theistic Evolution as an example: as an opinion it is one thing, but as a pervasive teaching in the church it is quite another. It may be ruled by the denomination that one may have such an opinion, but at the same time it must be clear that it cannot be imposed upon the offices either by suggestion or by exposition. It is most important that the church first deal with the issue that, if Theistic Evolutiion is true, then she has been teaching falsehood if she has not been teaching it. There is no room for something being true and other mutually exclusive teachings also being true. First the church must confess and repent of her error; I believe it is completely illigitimate to introduce this or any teaching as side-by-side teaching with the received doctrines, because of the mutually exclusive nature of it. If they are esteemed as only views, matters of conscience, then it is obvious that these things do not belong to the offices to propound, and especially not for preaching. I would suggest that it belongs outside the church.

For the ordinary membership, I don't think these things can escape our attention. They become published one way or another. It is our duty as members not to taken in by strange teachings. So we ought to be very careful in dealing with such issues, being patient for the elders to deal with it Scripturally. If there is soundness to the ideas, then that will be found out. Truth may take its time to become known, but it is unstoppable once it gets so much as a toe in the door. That is true for the faithful. For the unfaithful, error works that way, and truth is pushed aside. We have to guard our own hearts for that, not resolve the theological problems for the eldership.

The problems arise, I believe, when the eldership does not do its job. It then falls on individuals to deal with the fact that non-Scriptural teachings are standing side-by-side with true doctrine without discerned differentiation made, and even preached from the pulpit based upon the liberty taken by office-bearers to add thier opinions to doctrine. Fathers have to deal with this in their families, some of which can be torn apart by such issues. They have children going to schools and colleges where such things are propagated, many time this being know only afterward. My parents were completely taken off guard by these overwhelming new arguments, because they were of a farm community, of a rural congregation, an immigrant people still acclimatizing to a new land of strange culture and language, in a cultural setting that was exploding with a "new morality." If the elders were not going to handle it, then it would still be up to the fathers to protect and lead their families.

In our day I believe we see a lot of the fact that young people are coming out of colleges not intent upon preaching the gospel so much, but intent upon proselytizing their opinions, opinions that puportedly settle age-old questions that the church has not been able to answer; things such as a particular millennial view, or lapsarian view, or epistemological resolutions, etc. Though no church has given them any commission, they take it upon themselves to change the church to their views. This is Congregationalism at its sneakiest, and it is happening in our Presbyterian circles. It belongs to us, as ordinary members to guard ourselves not to be taken captive by these, not to resolve them. It is up to the elders, now that this is in the church, to resolve these things Biblically.

Notice that the elders do not have to answer the age-old questions that the church could not answer before. These "issues" are not the issue; it is that the doctrine of the Word and the offices of governorship are not respected, that opinion is sneaking its way into the offices and onto the pulpit. That is what must be resolved. They should let opinions be opinions, and they need to wrestle these things back out of the church, back onto the academic discussion boards. And then they need to rule well on such things, keeping a firm hand on the teaching of the perspicuity of Scripture, and the Scripture as the sole authority for teaching.

Theistic Evolution is a good example to work with in order to explain. The idea of it does not come out of Scripture, but is imported into the text. The Bible no where advocates, teaches, or suggests a theistic evolution; it must be wrung from the words, forced into the translation. There is no person on this earth that has been commissioned either by Christ or by His church to teach it. As a teaching, it is out of bounds, and strictly so, for any who hold an office commissioned them by Christ through His church. Doctrine does not come by the whim of man. So this is an issue belonging outside the authoritative structures of the church originally.

However, it has made its way in somewhere, and now needs to be dealt with. Now it is an issue for the elders to decide, because it is their office to guard the teaching of the Word, to open and shut doors, and to pastor and nurture the membership in true faith. Something not given to the church to teach or defend is now presented not only as an addition to doctrine, but even more so as a grid for understanding doctrine. That's what things like this are: templates for interpretation. This is in the realm of every believer, not to believe everything but to test everything, but it is in the realm of the elders to rule on this.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Another quote from the 1646 WCF, Chap. XX:

IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.(p) And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church,(q) and by the power of the civil magistrate.(r)

(p) Matt. 12:25; I Pet. 2:13, 14, 16; Rom. 13:1 to 8; Heb. 13:17.
(q) Rom. 1:32 with I Cor. 5:1, 5, 11, 13; II John ver. 10, 11, and II Thess. 3:14, and I Tim. 6:3, 4, 5, and Tit. 1:10, 11, 13, and Tit. 3:10 with Matt. 18:15, 16, 17; I Tim. 1:19, 20; Rev. 2:2, 14, 15, 20; Rev. 3:9.
(r) Deut. 13:6 to 12; Rom. 13:3, 4 with II John ver. 10, 11; Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28; Rev. 17:12, 16, 17; Neh. 13:15, 17, 21, 22, 25, 30; II Kings 23:5, 6, 9, 20, 21; II Chron. 34:33; II Chron. 15:12, 13, 16; Dan. 3:29; I Tim. 2:2; Isa. 49:23; Zech. 13:2, 3.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by JohnV
This is something that I feel strongly about. If you'll let me, I'd like to say what I think, not as an office-bearer which I am not, but as what I am, an ordinary member. Keep that in mind as I say these things, because it may at first appear contradictory in that I disobey my own beliefs. But I don't think it is contradictory, but a trying to live by it.

Each one of us, whether office-bearer or pew-sitter, we all have the command from Scripture to guard our faith, not to be led astray. I think these things belong out in the open.

But that's not the same as saying that the resolution of them belongs to the grass roots members. At least not the official resolution of them as constroversies. There is a reason that we have church leaders who rule, and they must be allowed to rule, and not be over-ruled by us ordinary folk.

Cionsidering Theistic Evolution as an example: as an opinion it is one thing, but as a pervasive teaching in the church it is quite another. It may be ruled by the denomination that one may have such an opinion, but at the same time it must be clear that it cannot be imposed upon the offices either by suggestion or by exposition. It is most important that the church first deal with the issue that, if Theistic Evolutiion is true, then she has been teaching falsehood if she has not been teaching it. There is no room for something being true and other mutually exclusive teachings also being true. First the church must confess and repent of her error; I believe it is completely illigitimate to introduce this or any teaching as side-by-side teaching with the received doctrines, because of the mutually exclusive nature of it. If they are esteemed as only views, matters of conscience, then it is obvious that these things do not belong to the offices to propound, and especially not for preaching. I would suggest that it belongs outside the church.

For the ordinary membership, I don't think these things can escape our attention. They become published one way or another. It is our duty as members not to taken in by strange teachings. So we ought to be very careful in dealing with such issues, being patient for the elders to deal with it Scripturally. If there is soundness to the ideas, then that will be found out. Truth may take its time to become known, but it is unstoppable once it gets so much as a toe in the door. That is true for the faithful. For the unfaithful, error works that way, and truth is pushed aside. We have to guard our own hearts for that, not resolve the theological problems for the eldership.

The problems arise, I believe, when the eldership does not do its job. It then falls on individuals to deal with the fact that non-Scriptural teachings are standing side-by-side with true doctrine without discerned differentiation made, and even preached from the pulpit based upon the liberty taken by office-bearers to add thier opinions to doctrine. Fathers have to deal with this in their families, some of which can be torn apart by such issues. They have children going to schools and colleges where such things are propagated, many time this being know only afterward. My parents were completely taken off guard by these overwhelming new arguments, because they were of a farm community, of a rural congregation, an immigrant people still acclimatizing to a new land of strange culture and language, in a cultural setting that was exploding with a "new morality." If the elders were not going to handle it, then it would still be up to the fathers to protect and lead their families.

In our day I believe we see a lot of the fact that young people are coming out of colleges not intent upon preaching the gospel so much, but intent upon proselytizing their opinions, opinions that puportedly settle age-old questions that the church has not been able to answer; things such as a particular millennial view, or lapsarian view, or epistemological resolutions, etc. Though no church has given them any commission, they take it upon themselves to change the church to their views. This is Congregationalism at its sneakiest, and it is happening in our Presbyterian circles. It belongs to us, as ordinary members to guard ourselves not to be taken captive by these, not to resolve them. It is up to the elders, now that this is in the church, to resolve these things Biblically.

Notice that the elders do not have to answer the age-old questions that the church could not answer before. These "issues" are not the issue; it is that the doctrine of the Word and the offices of governorship are not respected, that opinion is sneaking its way into the offices and onto the pulpit. That is what must be resolved. They should let opinions be opinions, and they need to wrestle these things back out of the church, back onto the academic discussion boards. And then they need to rule well on such things, keeping a firm hand on the teaching of the perspicuity of Scripture, and the Scripture as the sole authority for teaching.

Theistic Evolution is a good example to work with in order to explain. The idea of it does not come out of Scripture, but is imported into the text. The Bible no where advocates, teaches, or suggests a theistic evolution; it must be wrung from the words, forced into the translation. There is no person on this earth that has been commissioned either by Christ or by His church to teach it. As a teaching, it is out of bounds, and strictly so, for any who hold an office commissioned them by Christ through His church. Doctrine does not come by the whim of man. So this is an issue belonging outside the authoritative structures of the church originally.

However, it has made its way in somewhere, and now needs to be dealt with. Now it is an issue for the elders to decide, because it is their office to guard the teaching of the Word, to open and shut doors, and to pastor and nurture the membership in true faith. Something not given to the church to teach or defend is now presented not only as an addition to doctrine, but even more so as a grid for understanding doctrine. That's what things like this are: templates for interpretation. This is in the realm of every believer, not to believe everything but to test everything, but it is in the realm of the elders to rule on this.

Great thoughts.

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by webmaster
I ditto the last two posts. Theological abberations always arise when those who are bereft of historical theology and systematic/biblical theology attempt to formulate doctrine. The FV guys are a great example of this, as is NT Wright (and HE is SUPPOSED to be an academician!).

Whatever Wright's faults may be (and they are many!) lack of theological education, historic or otherwise, is not one of them.

That is by no means to decry education and the study of historical theology. However, Church history shows in my opinion that education is no defense against apostasy. Within two generations of the writing of the WCF, the English Presbyterian Church was almost totally apostate. The terrible drift of the Free Church of Scotland, barely a generation after the time of Smeaton, Buchanon, Fairbairn et al, is another case in point.

If you educate an unconverted man, what you get is a clever heretic.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[crhoades]

Here is what the Directory for Family/Private Worship says about these matters:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/DirectoryOfFamilyWorship.htm

THE General Assembly, after mature deliberation, doth approve the following Rules and Directions for cherishing piety, and preventing division and schism; and doth appoint ministers and ruling elders in each congregation to take special care that these Directions be observed and followed; as likewise, that presbyteries and provincial synods enquire and make trial whether the said Directions be duly observed in their bounds; and to reprove or censure (according to the quality of the offence), such as shall be found to be reprovable or censurable therein...

III. As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, which none (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk; so in every family where there is any that can read, the holy scriptures should be read ordinarily to the family; and it is commendable, that thereafter they confer, and by way of conference make some good use of what hath been read and heard. As, for example, if any sin be reproved in the word read, use may be made thereof to make all the family circumspect and watchful against the same; or if any judgment be threatened, or mentioned to have been inflicted, in that portion of scripture which is read, use may be made to make all the family fear lest the same or a worse judgment befall them, unless they beware of the sin that procured it: and, finally, if any duty be required, or comfort held forth in a promise, use may be made to stir up themselves to employ Christ for strength to enable them for doing the commanded duty, and to apply the offered comfort. In all which the master of the family is to have the chief hand; and any member of the family may propone a question or doubt for resolution.

V. Let no idler, who hath no particular calling, or vagrant person under pretence of a calling, be suffered to perform worship in families, to or for the same; seeing persons tainted with errors, or aiming at division, may be ready (after that manner) to creep into houses, and lead captive silly and unstable souls.

VII. Whatsoever have been the effects and fruits of meetings of persons of divers families in the times of corruption or trouble, (in which cases many things are commendable, which otherwise are not tolerable,) yet, when God hath blessed us with peace and purity of the gospel, such meetings of persons of divers families (except in cases mentioned in these Directions) are to be disapproved, as tending to the hinderance of the religious exercise of each family by itself, to the prejudice of the publick ministry, to the rending of the families of particular congregations, and (in progress of time) of the whole kirk. Besides many offences which may come thereby, to the hardening of the hearts of carnal men, and grief of the godly.

...The drift and scope of all these Directions is no other, but that, upon the one part, the power and practice of godliness, amongst all the ministers and members of this kirk, according to their several places and vocations, may be cherished and advanced, and all impiety and mocking of religious exercises suppressed: and, upon the other part, that, under the name and pretext of religious exercises, no such meetings or practices be allowed, as are apt to breed error, scandal, schism, contempt, or misregard of the publick ordinances and ministers, or neglect of the duties of particular callings, or such other evils as are the works, not of the Spirit, but of the flesh, and are contrary to truth and peace.

This is good stuff...definitely read the whole thing. Better yet - Order Matt's Westminster Standards CD on mp3 and listen to this stuff everyday...

 

[BrianBowman]

Friends,

After having spent the past 32 years of my life dealing with D&R issues in one way or another, I offer the following in the spirit of this current thread:

It has become my conviction that doctrines, issues, and settling of cases related to Divorce and Remarriage should be administered by the Ordained Minister and Elders of a local congregation according to the Scriptures and subsidiarily by the confessions the congregation adheres to. In the Presbyterian form of government these by need may also be addressed by Presbyteries and finally the General Assembly of the particular Denomination.

These matters are far too delicate to the constitution of the individuals and families involved to have them subject to the "open scrutiny" of women and non-officed men in the congregation. When such "body members" have knowledge of situations of marital strife and/or failure, it is best that they practice encouragement, exhortation, and comfort *without* interposing to interpret the "nature of the case". There are many avenues and ways such non-officed individuals can work to heal and sustain those who have been injured and even help restore those who may be sinning grievously. However, this work does not include attempting to adjuicate or even comment on the fairness of matters that belong under the care of Church officers.

In closing, I write this as one who as non-officed Church member is now convicted to leave these mattes in the hands of those so chosen by God to shepherd His Church.

 

[Bryan]

If you educate an unconverted man, what you get is a clever heretic.

I may have to quote that one day!

Bryan
SDG