# When does the idea of Christian Liberty apply?



## Jonathan95 (Feb 21, 2020)

I get really hung up on this kind of stuff. How do believers keep each other accountable when Christian Liberty is a thing.

Tattoos, smoking, drinking, Credobaptism vs Paedobaptism, RPW vs NPW, female deacons, head coverings, &c.

Some would view these as sin, some would leave it up to the individual believer/congregation.

How far do we go in pushing one way or the other when these issues pop up.

I get the idea of letting every person be convinced in their own mind but how does accountability play in when these things become unclear. If one person views a thing as sin and another doesn't, what's the best way to handle the situation.

I'd love any thoughts on the matter, thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 21, 2020)

I think the best way to understand Christian Liberty is to go to the Westminster Confession where it is defined. In the first paragraph we get an excellent explanation of what Christian Liberty is:

_1. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;a and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin;b from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation;c as also, in their free access to God,d and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.e All which were common also to believers under the law.f But, under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected;g and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace,h and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.i

aTit 2:14; 1 Thess 1:10; Gal 3:13. bGal 1:4; Col 1:13; Acts 26:18; Rom 6:14. cRom 8:28; Ps 119:71; 1 Cor 15:54-57; Rom 8:1. dRom 5:1-2. eRom 8:14-15; 1 John 4:18. fGal 3:9,14. gGal 4:1-3,6-7; Gal 5:1; Acts 15:10-11. hHeb 4:14,16; Heb 10:19-22. iJohn 7:38-39; 2 Cor 3:13,17-18.
_
So it is clear from this paragraph that when the doctrine of Christian Liberty was formulated what was in view was the Christian's liberty from sin and their freedom in Christ. It is a liberty from the enslavement of sin and subjection to Satan to brought into the freedom of life in Christ. When this is understood it will be seen how very far today's notion of Christian liberty- which we hear as a constant refrain whenever any issue of morality or personal conduct is brought up- has veered away from how the divines originally understood it.

For what we often hear today is that issues such as the ones mentioned in the OP are left for Christians to make up their own minds about and the church cannot command believers in these areas. The only part of the chapter on Christian Liberty which they could possibly appeal to for such an understanding would be the second where the conscience is spoken of:

_2. God alone is Lord of the conscience,k and hath 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.l So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:m and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.n

kJames 4:12; Rom 14:4. lActs 4:19; Acts 5:29; 1 Cor 7:23; Matt 23:8-10; 2 Cor 1:24; Matt 15:9. mCol 2:20,22-23; Gal 1:10; Gal 2:4-5; Gal 5:1. nRom 10:17; Rom 14:23; Isa 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Hos 5:11; Rev 13:12,16-17; Jer 8:9.
_
But even here it is plainly stated that this liberty is a liberty from those doctrines and commandments of men which are *contrary* to the Word of God, which contradict commandments found in Scripture. This is similar to when we say that Christians should obey the law of the land in so far as the law of the land does not contradict God's law. But what has happened today is this has been flipped to say that Christian liberty consists of freedom to do as one pleases unless there is a specific commandment in Scripture otherwise (and even when there is an explicit command in Scripture ways are found around this by saying things like "that command is cultural" or "times have changed, practices have changed" &c.)

As we see in the third paragraph the idea that this liberty is, essentially, libertarianism was not what was in view at all by the divines:

_3. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practise any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord, without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life.o

oGal 5:13; 1 Pet 2:16; 2 Pet 2:19; John 8:34; Luke 1:74-75.
_
Again we see that what is primarily in view is freedom from Satan and liberty to live a holy and righteous life in Christ.

And then we come to the last paragraph:

_4. 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

pMatt 12:25; 1 Pet 2:13-14,16; Rom 13:1-8; Heb 13:17. qRom 1:32 with 1 Cor 5:1,5,11,13; 2 John 10-11 and 2 Thess 3:14 and 1 Tim 6:3-5 and Tit 1:10-11,13 and Tit 3:10 with Matt 18:15-17; 1 Tim 1:19-20; Rev 2:2,14-15,20; Rev 3:9. rDeut 13:6-12; Rom 13:3-4 with 2 John 10-11; Ezra 7:23,25-28; Rev 17:12,16-17; Nehemiah 13:15,17,21-22,25,30; 2 Kings 23:5-6,9,20-21; 2 Chron 34:33; 2 Chron 15:12-13,16; Dan 3:29; 1 Tim 2:2; Isa 49:23; Zech 13:2-3.
_
Here the divines are quite clear that the church has the right to make laws in regards to personal conduct (or conversation) and to resist these laws is destructive to the peace of the church (this is clearly seen in how these issues have divided the church because the libertarians have done exactly what is being described in this paragraph) and the church has the power- indeed the duty- to discipline and silence these people.

So basically the doctrine of Christian Liberty has been grossly abused in our day- and over the last few generations- to allow the world to come flooding into the church and to allow many things which were once and for a very long time considered unthinkable for a Christian. And to silence all those who would raise an objection as a "legalist".

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jonathan95 (Feb 21, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> I think the best way to understand Christian Liberty is to go to the Westminster Confession where it is defined. In the first paragraph we get an excellent explanation of what Christian Liberty is:
> 
> _1. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;a and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin;b from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation;c as also, in their free access to God,d and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.e All which were common also to believers under the law.f But, under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected;g and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace,h and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.i
> 
> ...



Thank you brother. This really does make a ton of sense to me and I agree with you.

My question would then shift. It seems that it would be unrealistic to expect to find a church that agrees with every theological conviction that a particular believe has.

I remember in my old church I voiced serious concerns I had with the elders allowing women to preach from the pulpit occasionally.

Asking mentors in my church on their thoughts, they would accuse me of legalism and of trying to cause division and of being too focused on making everyone else just like me. And they said that I would never find a church where every member was 100 percent unified in doctrine.

With all of this said, how does one handle these differences? If I come out and say that female preachers and pastors are a serious issue, while having a fellow believer say that he believes it is more of a secondary, maybe even tertiary, issue, how do we discern who is correct and incorrect in this matter.

I hope what I'm asking makes sense. This issue with female pastors that I've proposed could also be substituted with drinking, smoking, what have you.

Yes, I hope this makes sense. Thank you again.


----------



## Jonathco (Feb 21, 2020)

I was planning to post Chapter 21 from the London Baptist Confession, but @alexandermsmith nailed it in his excellent post.



Jonathan95 said:


> My question would then shift. It seems that it would be unrealistic to expect to find a church that agrees with every theological conviction that a particular believe has.
> 
> I remember in my old church I voiced serious concerns I had with the elders allowing women to preach from the pulpit occasionally.





Jonathan95 said:


> I hope what I'm asking makes sense. This issue with female pastors that I've proposed could also be substituted with drinking, smoking, what have you.



I think there is a difference in the fact that female ordination is not an area of liberty; women not being permitted to teach or hold authority in the church is covered expressly. Drinking and smoking _could be_ considered more of grey areas that _may _fall into Christian liberty, although many brothers would argue that the numerous scriptures that warn against drunkenness and not being led astray by wine would point out clarity on this as well.

Not saying I agree or disagree on the drinking, but merely that one is expressly forbidden in scripture, while the other is warned against gluttony and excess of (leading to drunkenness).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ADKing (Feb 21, 2020)

Jonathan95 said:


> Thank you brother. This really does make a ton of sense to me and I agree with you.
> 
> My question would then shift. It seems that it would be unrealistic to expect to find a church that agrees with every theological conviction that a particular believe has.
> 
> ...



How do you discern who is correct or incorrect when people disagree about a whole host of issues? The Word of God which is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy God. (I find that even getting two sides to agree to this foundational starting point is a big victory). The problem of course arises that even true Christians often understand what the Bible requires differently. Sometimes it may be possible through prayer and study to come to one mind. Sometimes we cannot and peaceably agree to differ. Sometimes our disagreements necessitate separation of church connections with people. This all requires so much wisdom, doesn't it? To another point you raised, though. While it may be unrealistic to expect every member of a church to agree on every doctrine and practice 100%, I do not believe it is unrealistic to have an agreed upon set of standards that everyone should agree to. What the agreed upon standards set out, everyone should hold and practice together. What they do not address should be those areas where there is a greater latitude to disagree.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CathH (Feb 21, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> *Here the divines are quite clear that the church has the right to make laws in regards to personal conduct (or conversation) *and to resist these laws is destructive to the peace of the church



Could you explain why you think this is the teaching of the WCF here in this section?


----------



## Jake (Feb 21, 2020)

I'm actually listening to a series of podcasts done by RP pastors on the chapter on Christianity Liberty in the WCF. So far I can recommend it as quite helpful: https://jerusalemchamber.com/2019/10/29/episode-20-1-christian-freedom/

The first three sections of WCF Chapter 20 are almost identical to LBCF Chapter 21. Section 4 is not in the LBCF.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jonathan95 (Feb 21, 2020)

Jonathco said:


> women not being permitted to teach or hold authority in the church is covered expressly



Right! That's kind of what I'm saying. My old pastor for instance would point out how in the Greek of 1 Tim 2 the text forbids teaching _with _authority, therefore they could have a woman teach whilst at the same time not having her own authority because she was under theirs.

I might not know Greek but there are pastors I trust who do and they say that's an incorrect reading of text.

So my point is that a text can seem clear to teach one thing to one person but something completely different to another.

Take baptism as an example. We Presbyterians and Baptists see each other as brethren in Christ despite our differences.

Is this because we see mode of baptism as being a secondary issue?

How do we tell the difference between primary issues to fight hard for, and secondary issues where we can still be considered believers in each others' eyes?

When is it time to break fellowship because of a disagreement and when should we overlook an offense?

I ask these things because I am in agreement with the LBCF but my church does not subscribe to the same thing. Therefore, things crop up that I become uncomfortable with due to my convictions.

I'm asking all of these questions with the heart behind them being my desire to both exercise charity to my brethren while still holding fast to my convictions and to being holy for the Lord and living life according to how I see the Scriptures instructing me.

I don't want to die on a hill and become a stumbling block over something that I should be willing to overlook. And I don't want to turn a blind eye and keep my mouth shut on issues that I should speak up against 

Hope I'm making sense. Thank you!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jonathan95 (Feb 21, 2020)

ADKing said:


> Sometimes it may be possible through prayer and study to come to one mind. Sometimes we cannot and peaceably agree to differ. Sometimes our disagreements necessitate separation of church connections with people. This all requires so much wisdom, doesn't it?



Yes sir. It's hard and I just wish it was easier to decide what to do. It's especially difficult when the closest people in your life are the ones you disagree with the most. And it's hard to seek counsel when all of those you reach out to hold the conviction that you've expressed concerns with.


----------



## Jonathan95 (Feb 21, 2020)

CathH said:


> Could you explain why you think this is the teaching of the WCF here in this section?



I'll take a swing at it. The WCF section he quoted was:

_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's 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._

Emphasis mine.

The Church is supposed to enforce New Testament commands and restrictions. Those who willingly go against what is deemed to be against Scripture face discipline.

The Church cannot make a law where there is no law in Scripture. But I assume, for example, that because the Scriptures speak against adultery and fornication that the Church has the right to exercise discipline on couples who cohabitate. There is no law in Scripture that specifically mentions that particular activity by name but because of the way it can be viewed and become a stumbling block, along with the temptations that lie therein, the church can forbid its members from taking part.

Perhaps that's one way to view this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 21, 2020)

Read the Chapter on Christian Freedom in Calvin's Institutes. Calvin is very wise and balanced here. He emphasises Christian freedom is a spiritual thing; a freedom to glory God, strengthen the conscience, and edify others.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jonathan95 (Feb 22, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Read the Chapter on Christian Freedom in Calvin's Institutes. Calvin is very wise and balanced here. He emphasises Christian freedom is a spiritual thing; a freedom to glory God, strengthen the conscience, and edify others.



I'll definitely check it out, thank you!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Feb 22, 2020)

ADKing said:


> What the agreed upon standards set out, everyone should hold and practice together. What they do not address should be those areas where there is a greater latitude to disagree.





The more precise a church's standards, the less these problems occur. 

What does your church standards say about those who may preach?


----------



## Jonathan95 (Feb 22, 2020)

KMK said:


> The more precise a church's standards, the less these problems occur.
> 
> What does your church standards say about those who may preach?



Men only. This includes the Elders and Deacons along with occasional guest speakers.


----------



## KMK (Feb 22, 2020)

Jonathan95 said:


> Men only. This includes the Elders and Deacons along with occasional guest speakers.



If so, this is not a matter of Christian liberty, but Church Order.


----------



## CathH (Feb 22, 2020)

CathH said:


> alexandermsmith said: ↑
> *Here the divines are quite clear that the church has the right to make laws in regards to personal conduct (or conversation) *and to resist these laws is destructive to the peace of the church
> Could you explain why you think this is the teaching of the WCF here in this section?





Jonathan95 said:


> I'll take a swing at it. The WCF section he quoted was:
> 
> _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's 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._
> 
> ...


Thanks, Jonathan.

My concern with this comment was that WCF 20.4 does not say that the church has the right to make laws in regards to personal conduct. This section only affirms that we should obey any lawful power acting lawfully.

The right of the church (or any authority) to make laws in regards to personal conduct is defined in WCF 20.2. This section says that (a) the church has no right to contradict the Word and (b) additionally, in matters of faith and worship, the church has no right to add to the Word.

Although the church has the right to take action against opinions and practices which are destructive of external peace and order, this is not the same thing as the right to make and then enforce its own laws about personal conduct.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 24, 2020)

CathH said:


> Could you explain why you think this is the teaching of the WCF here in this section?





CathH said:


> Thanks, Jonathan.
> 
> My concern with this comment was that WCF 20.4 does not say that the church has the right to make laws in regards to personal conduct. This section only affirms that we should obey any lawful power acting lawfully.
> 
> ...



In paragraph 4 of chapter 20 it says:

"_4. *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*; t*hey 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"_

I would take that as saying that those who, under the cloak of Christian Liberty, agitate or speak against legitimate laws of the church in the area of morality are to be disciplined and silenced by the church. Of course this requires us to ask what are legitimate laws, and maybe the word "law" is a distraction.

The church has the right to discipline people for doing things which are considered a violation of Scripture. I'm not suggesting denominations should be making law after law but when, for example, a member is disciplined for something they have done that establishes a boundary which that church believes Christians should not cross. This usually only happens when a particular issue is brought up, rather than pre-emptively by the church courts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CathH (Feb 25, 2020)

So this section says the church has the right to discipline those who maintain practices which are:
* contrary to the light of nature
* contrary to the known principles of Christianity
* contrary to the power of godliness
or which are or become
* destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established.

Christian liberty is not a good enough excuse to argue for or practice things like these. I think we are agreed on this.

I'm just not sure what you mean by 'legitimate' laws, and things 'considered' to violate Scripture. If this legitimacy and these considerations are governed by WCF 20.2 (i.e., the church has no right to contradict the Word in any thing, and no right to add to the Word in matters of faith or worship), then we're all good.

My slight concern with what you have written is that in the haste to flee from libertinism, you risk opening the door to legalism, by leaving it up to the church to set boundaries and determine the legitimacy of its laws. It doesn't really matter whether the church acts pre-emptively or retrospectively in its rulings. The important thing is whether it is constrained by the Word.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 25, 2020)

I'd advise separating ecclesiastical issues and personal ones.

Carefully examine how a church functions before becoming involved. A confessional church that has joined itself to like-minded congregations will give you the greatest opportunity to examine its beliefs and practices. Hint: a church with women as elders or preachers likely has an insufficient view regarding scripture's authority.

When it comes to individual practices where the Bible gives no clear command -- drinking, tats, hair length, whatever, enjoy your liberty and seek to remain at peace with others around you.


----------



## Jonathan95 (Feb 25, 2020)

CathH said:


> So this section says the church has the right to discipline those who maintain practices which are:
> * contrary to the light of nature
> * contrary to the known principles of Christianity
> * contrary to the power of godliness
> ...



I do agree that risk is there so let's just make sure that we recognize that's the case and be careful to always go back to the Bible in all that we decide.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 25, 2020)

As already noted, the WCF is a good summary of a Reformed principle over against a Roman Catholic principle of the conscience of a believer. To summarize:

1. The conscience of a believer belongs to God through His Word. The believer's conscience is not implicitly bound to any Church. That is to say that the believer is not bound to believe something that the Church teaches him simply because the Church has stated it. A Church's authority over the conscience of a believer is declarative and ministerial - it declares and explains to believers what the Word of God requires of us.

2. A believer's conscience is to be bound to the Word of God and our "liberty" (in Biblical terms) is our freedom to do what God commands of us. It is not liberty to do what we desire. That is what marks us as slaves to sin - that we do whatever we desire. It is our freedom (purchased by Christ) to do what God commands as we are bond servants of Christ.

3. Because our consciences belong to God, a Church must explain why something is sinful if an individual is going to resist God's command on some matter. It cannot merely be "because the Church says so."

4. The believer's conscience is free with respect to Worship insofar as nothing in worship can be commanded or enjoined unless it is Scriptural. A Church cannot break the RPW and then tell the believer to worship in a way that violates his conscience. He is to worship God as He commanded.

5. Our liberty is not a license for anarchy or licentiousness. This would be contrary to the Word of God.

As just one example, if the Word teaches that the children of believers are to be baptized then "Christian liberty" does not over-ride the teaching of Scripture. A Church can tell a man that he is sinning by contemning the Sacrament.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jonathan95 (Feb 25, 2020)

Semper Fidelis said:


> As just one example, if the Word teaches that the children of believers are to be baptized then "Christian liberty" does not over-ride the teaching of Scripture. A Church can tell a man that he is sinning by contemning the Sacrament.



Thank you! So another question.

How can we call each other brethren in Christ when we see the other side as consistently living in sin the more they reject what we believe to be the correct teaching of the Word?


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 25, 2020)

Jonathan95 said:


> How can we call each other brethren in Christ when we see the other side as consistently living in sin the more they reject what we believe to be the correct teaching of the Word?


Because I know of no brothers or sisters, this side of the grave, that do not still sin daily. That brings in charity and mercy and the fact that the quantity/rate of Sanctification belongs to the Holy Spirit.

After-all, which of us has not the Lord been patient with in our failings? Let us try and extend that example to fellow Christians.

P.S. In other words @Pergamum will get there one day

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jonathan95 (Feb 25, 2020)

G said:


> Because I know of no brothers or sisters, this side of the grave, that do not still sin daily. That brings in charity and mercy and the fact that the quantity/rate of Sanctification belongs to the Holy Spirit.
> 
> P.S. In other words @Pergamum will get there one day



Hahaha, I hear you. With that said, most people here would break fellowship with a church for practicing(or not) infant baptism.

How do we tell the difference between issues which are primary, where a discontinuation of fellowship is ideal, and issues which are secondary/tertiary that we should more or less overlook?


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 25, 2020)

Jonathan95 said:


> Hahaha, I hear you. With that said, most people here would break fellowship with a church for practicing(or not) infant baptism.
> 
> How do we tell the difference between issues which are primary, where a discontinuation of fellowship is ideal, and issues which are secondary/tertiary that we should more or less overlook?


I may not be the best person to ask currently, but that is a tough question to wade through my brother. Mostly it can be very complex and a case by case matter.

The big 4 for me are:

Faithful Preaching
Faithful Sacraments
Faithful Church Discipline
Faithful Worship

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 25, 2020)

G said:


> P.S. In other words @Pergamum will get there one day


Have you read Matthew 7 about the 'speck' and the 'log'? Mr Jones, you are not good at gaining the high moral ground.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jonathan95 (Feb 25, 2020)

G said:


> I may not be the best person to ask currently, but that is a tough question to wade through my brother. Mostly it can be very complex and a case by case matter.
> 
> The big 4 for me are:
> 
> ...




I understand, it definitely is a tough one. Thank you for your answer brother. I appreciate you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 25, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Have you read Matthew 7 about the 'speck' and the 'log'? Mr Jones, you are not good at gaining the high moral ground.


Do you see anything in them?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 25, 2020)

Jonathan95 said:


> How can we call each other brethren in Christ when we see the other side as consistently living in sin the more they reject what we believe to be the correct teaching of the Word?



For one thing, it is because not every error in matters of religion is tantamount to damnable heresy. Some disparage the distinction between errors in lesser and greater matters, but such an approach is foolish and contrary even to common sense. One has only to take into account the difference in Paul's tone when he confronted the Galatians for flirting with heresy and when he admonished the Corinthians for their disorder to see the distinction.

While it is not always easy to determine whether or not something is a greater or a lesser error (and no error is completely safe), nonetheless, it does not take a lot of gumption to figure out that an error regarding psalm-singing is not as serious as denying the Trinity. You may find this post helpful on the general subject: William Perkins on distinguishing among theological errors.

Reactions: Edifying 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 25, 2020)

Jonathan95 said:


> Thank you! So another question.
> 
> How can we call each other brethren in Christ when we see the other side as consistently living in sin the more they reject what we believe to be the correct teaching of the Word?


Well, with charity. It's the reality of the fallen world we live in. We have a few families who are members of our Church who have not baptized their children. Admonition is a form of Church discipline. Our members hear what we believe concerning the sacraments every time a child is baptized. We've had several families who have changed their views and presented their children for baptism. We love all our Church members. We recognize that God has to change their minds and consciences and we simply continue to labor to teach faithfully and let the Lord do His work.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2020)

CathH said:


> So this section says the church has the right to discipline those who maintain practices which are:
> * contrary to the light of nature
> * contrary to the known principles of Christianity
> * contrary to the power of godliness
> ...



I'm not sure what our disagreement is. Does the church have the right to discipline its members? Yes. What is the standard for that discipline? Scripture. It is therefore for the courts of the church to determine if a member has violated Scriptural precept. A very helpful tool in this is the Larger Catechism's exposition of the ten commandments. But of course that section of the catechism forbids things which are not, by name, mentioned in Scripture. So obviously church courts have to apply Biblical principles to specific situations which are not, by name, mentioned in Scripture. That is what I am referring to.

When a church refuses access to the sacraments to someone for being a member of a golf club which operates on the Sabbath (and thus is in violation of the Fourth Commandment), the church is applying a Biblical principle to a situation that does not occur in Scripture (the running of gold clubs). When a church disciplines a member for holding dances in his living room the church is applying Biblical principles to a situation which does not occur in Scripture (dances in living rooms). In such cases the church is setting boundaries. (One can argue that these boundaries were already there and should have been known, but alas that doesn't stop certain people from pushing those boundaries and trying to remove them altogether.)

Clearly there is no longer a consensus in the church at large over what is and isn't permissable in a number of areas. This is a result of the agitation which paragraph four is addressing, it is not a result of any vagueness in Scripture on these matters. Strictness in discipline is not legalism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CathH (Feb 26, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> When a church refuses access to the sacraments to someone for being a member of a golf club which operates on the Sabbath (and thus is in violation of the Fourth Commandment), the church is applying a Biblical principle to a situation that does not occur in Scripture (the running of gold clubs). When a church disciplines a member for holding dances in his living room the church is applying Biblical principles to a situation which does not occur in Scripture (dances in living rooms). In such cases the church is setting boundaries. (One can argue that these boundaries were already there and should have been known, but alas that doesn't stop certain people from pushing those boundaries and trying to remove them altogether.)
> 
> Clearly there is no longer a consensus in the church at large over what is and isn't permissable in a number of areas. This is a result of the agitation which paragraph four is addressing, it is not a result of any vagueness in Scripture on these matters. Strictness in discipline is not legalism.



Thanks Alexander. 

Your examples are pretty confusing though. 

The church has no jurisdiction over golf clubs, so it seems odd to discipline a member as a proxy for golf club management. Presumably you mean that the member would be disciplined for (guilt by association with?) sabbath breaking. And living rooms are an incidental circumstance. 

So in these hypothetical (or semi fictionalised) examples, the church would not be setting new boundaries but simply applying existing, known scriptural principles on, presumably, the sabbath and dancing. 

Strictness in discipline need not equate to legalism, but it may. Inventing new boundaries would contravene WCF 20.2, and strictness in enforcing those boundaries would be legalism.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 27, 2020)

CathH said:


> Thanks Alexander.
> 
> Your examples are pretty confusing though.
> 
> ...



My point was that golf clubs are not mentioned in Scripture and therefore the specific circumstance of a Christian being a member of a golf club which operated on Sabbath- thus breaking the Sabbath- is not to be found in Scripture. Therefore the church must apply Biblical teaching on the Sabbath to this particular circumstance. The same is true when it comes to the theatre, the cinema &c.

And by the by the church may have no direct jurisdiction over golf clubs but that does not mean it must remain silent on them, or anything which breaks the Sabbath. And in a properly functioning society the church's warning against such things would be heeded by the state which would require the closing of such establishments on the Sabbath.


----------

