# Two Confessions or One?



## JohnV (Oct 6, 2008)

I've been a member in both Continental Reformed and Presbyterian churches. I made my profession of faith in a Continental Reformed church, and many years later moved to a Presbyterian church, and then back to a Continental Reformed church. 

So I've been under promise to two sets of standards: the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards. In both moves, though, my faith was regarded by the churches as the same. 

Am I still obliged to both? 

I know that legally I'm obliged only to the one my church holds me to. But I did make vows to both. Both sides regarded the other standard as representing a true Christian confession. 

To what extent, if at all, am I still under vows to the Westminster Strandards in my church?


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 6, 2008)

Do I understand correctly you vowed that you received the standards completely (every statement and/or proposition) or did you vow only to study the church's doctrine in peace and be under her discipline?

Also, you say the two churches view this as the same theology. I have heard it said this is "the same theology" also. If that is the case, what would be the issue?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Oct 6, 2008)

I don't really understand the issue either, but would comment as follows: You are forever under the authority of Christ and the Scriptures, you are under authority of only one local church at a time. If there were a theological sticking point, wouldn't you be under the authority of your current elders rather than a former vow of subscription?


----------



## JohnV (Oct 6, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Do I understand correctly you vowed that you received the standards completely (every statement and/or proposition) or did you vow only to study the church's doctrine in peace and be under her discipline?
> 
> Also, you say the two churches view this as the same theology. I have heard it said this is "the same theology" also. If that is the case, what would be the issue?



Second part first: I said the "same faith". I've found out that there's quite a difference between the two, in the way they express that faith. But they're considered equally representative of the one true faith. Or so it would seem. 

First part of your response: I learned the Three Forms of Unity pretty thoroughly. When I joined the Presbyterian church I was given the Westminster documents and asked if I agreed with them. I in turn asked the elders if they agreed with the Three Forms. I found nothing in them that I disagreed with. I took them at face value, and did not disagree with anything.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 6, 2008)

Based on your response, and my understanding of what is concerning you, I don't think you are under any "obligation" based on your earlier church membership. If you were an officer subscribing to the system, taking "scruples" (exceptions) it might be different but even then you are allowed (required) to inform the session of a change of beliefs and to be freed from them.

I would not burden your conscience with this.

Praise God, and thank you for your care and faithfulness.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 6, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> I don't really understand the issue either, but would comment as follows: You are forever under the authority of Christ and the Scriptures, you are under authority of only one local church at a time. If there were a theological sticking point, wouldn't you be under the authority of your current elders rather than a former vow of subscription?



I don't think there will be any issues. I try to understand one truth, but have the privilege of doing that through two heritages instead of one. I don't see them as conflicting at all. 

I guess where the sticky point comes in is where certain accepted traditions have creeped in as standard interpretations of the one. 

I guess my question is more about vows I once took than it is about the set of Confessions. But the sticky point, I think, comes in with the variation in the two traditions under those two different standards.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Oct 6, 2008)

JohnV said:


> . . .
> I guess my question is more about vows I once took than it is about the set of Confessions. But the sticky point, I think, comes in with the variation in the two traditions under those two different standards.



This may only be an issue if your former vows included the phrase "'til death do us part"?


----------



## JohnV (Oct 6, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Based on your response, and my understanding of what is concerning you, I don't think you are under any "obligation" based on your earlier church membership. If you were an officer subscribing to the system, taking "scruples" (exceptions) it might be different but even then you are allowed (required) to inform the session of a change of beliefs and to be freed from them.
> 
> I would not burden your conscience with this.
> 
> Praise God, and thank you for your care and faithfulness.



Its not so much a burden on my conscience as it is a question that keeps coming up in my mind. In my church its not a problem, except that I do love the Westminster way of saying some things. I do want to stay faithful to something I believed in, and still do. 

It's my Three Forms background that shapes my understanding of Westminster. But its the Westminster that helps me understand the Three Forms better. I don't want it to be one or the other. But there are tensions between the two traditions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 6, 2008)

JohnV said:


> I've been a member in both Continental Reformed and Presbyterian churches. I made my profession of faith in a Continental Reformed church, and many years later moved to a Presbyterian church, and then back to a Continental Reformed church.
> 
> So I've been under promise to two sets of standards: the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards. In both moves, though, my faith was regarded by the churches as the same.
> 
> ...


At least in the Presbyterian Churches I've been in, my vows consisted of the following:


Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation? 
Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone? 
Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, to mortify your old nature, and to lead a godly life? 
Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?

If your session has transferred your membership then your vows are to submit to the government and discipline of your local Church.

Ministerial vows, on the other hand, are more direct in this manner as in these questions that the OPC asks:


Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice? 
Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures? 
Do you approve of the government, discipline, and worship of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? 
Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord? 
Have you been induced, as far as you know your own heart, to seek the office of the holy ministry from love to God and a sincere desire to promote his glory in the gospel of his Son? 
Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the gospel and the purity, the peace, and the unity of the church, whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account? 
Do you promise to be faithful and diligent in the exercise of all private and personal duties which become you as a Christian and a minister of the gospel, as well as in all the duties of your office, endeavoring to adorn the profession of the gospel by your life, and walking with exemplary piety before the flock over which God shall make you overseer? 
Are you now willing to take the charge of this congregation, in agreement with your declaration when you accepted their call? And do you promise to discharge the duties of a pastor to them as God shall give you strength


----------



## JohnV (Oct 6, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> > . . .
> ...



Yes, I know, but..., Don't they? Isn't that implied?


----------



## JohnV (Oct 6, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> If your session has transferred your membership then your vows are to submit to the government and discipline of your local Church.



I took those same vows. Not the ministerial ones, though. But that's a good point, Rich. I think that if I take the standards seriously then I should be willing to take the ministerial vows to heart just as much. At least, it should be a test for me whether I hold them as seriously as I should or could. Not that I'm eligible to take those vows, but rather that I would aspire to hold to the faith that firmly.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 6, 2008)

JohnV said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > If your session has transferred your membership then your vows are to submit to the government and discipline of your local Church.
> ...



The point is, though, that you didn't take ministerial vows.

I don't mean to imply that we can be flippant and be non-commital but Church membership doesn't bind each man to the same vows that a minister vows to.

Honestly, I really don't see a conflict between the two. I don't think there is a real "Calvin vs. the Calvinists" problem. For instance, I tend to view the BC and HC as sort of devotional expressions of the same things expressed in the Westminster standards. They lack some of the precision but they say the same thing.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 6, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...


If you take out the parts that refer to specifically the office of minister then I think I would consider myself as being under those vows even though I didn't take them. I would think that they're implied. Isn't it so that each member should strive to attain to that one true faith to the utmost of his ability? Shouldn't that be an aim in his life? 

I'm not trying to play the one up against the other. And I too use the other as source to better understand the one. I'm not asking a legal question, and also not a conscience question. Its more a practical one, any maybe a personal one. How do I regard that set of vows I took which aren't attached to a church anymore?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 6, 2008)

Hello John,

I would say your _promise_ to hold to the Westminster Standards was contingent on your membership in the church under that standard. When you transfered membership your promise to hold to the former church's standard was transfered to the new church's. Although you may _honor_ and _confess adherence to_ the WS, your _promise_ pertains to your current church's confession.

Or so it would seem to me.

Steve


----------



## JohnV (Oct 6, 2008)

Steve:

I can understand what you're saying. If it had been a change from the Baptist confession to the Westminster, then that's how it would have been. So the way you're putting it, its the same for changing from the TFU to the WS, or vice versa. The confusion would come in because both standards make claim to the same faith, and don't disagree in substance. 

So you're saying that my vows cease to exist as vows when I am transferred out; is that right? 

I wonder how many others on this Board have taken two vows? 

I used to think positively about having been under two vows. But there's a few glitches that have crept in. I take my vows very seriously. Once I've vowed I don't back out. So I guess I'm asking about my relationship to the WS in respect to my determination never to back out of what I vowed. I didn't change my mind at all, so I don't feel like I've reneged on a promise. I still don't.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 7, 2008)

Thanks to you who responded. It helped some. I think I've figured it out, but would like your reaction. 

It's not two vows, but one. The same vow, but expressed under two sets of standards of the same faith. Only the Presbyterian church requested a _renewal_ of that vow, none of the others did. That's up to each denomination, whether to request a renewal. It should not be seen as a capitulation of the original vows. 

So I think that I had my eyes on the wrong thing. I should not have seen this as two vows to two sets of standards, but as one vow to one Church, one Word, one baptism, finding expression of the same faith in two temporal churches which each reflect the one true Church. One vow, one faith, one God, one church; undivided by the fact that they are separate standards. 

Would you agree with this?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 7, 2008)

- one vow to the same profession of faith with a specific vow to submit to local Church rule.


----------



## MW (Oct 7, 2008)

I haven't heard of members explicitly vowing to maintain the Westminster Standards. Usually there is a commitment (not sure "vow" is the correct word) to submit to the oversight of the church and contained therein is the implication to respect the church's adherence to the Westminster Standards.


----------

