# Taking New or Changed Doctrine to the Courts for Examination



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 12, 2005)

How far does such a policy extend and how does it apply to the FV/NPP/AA controversy?

What are your thoughts on this article which states that the FV/NPP/AA proponents are not violating anything by publishing and teaching their views on the matter?

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by ChristopherPaul]

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 12, 2005)

I think the fact that some guy is writing an article on a blog in order to defend one's self against accusations of undermining Church polity is a perfect example of a self-refuting irony


----------



## JohnV (Dec 12, 2005)

> In any case, periodically I'm am sent emails demanding that I cannot say these things without first going through the church courts. I don't even understand what they want me to do. Nobody does this. Books and essays are constantly written and published that challenge us to think in new ways about old doctrines and that use new language and categories to describe and apply traditional teachings. Lectures are regularly given in seminaries and at conferences that do the same. Should all these men submit their lectures and essays to their presbytery for approval?





> The courts of the church are not the place to begin discussions like this.



From these quotes out of the article we see a confusing of the facts: having the church courts settle a matter before it is popularized is not the same as having these discussion begin at the church courts. Bypassing the authority of Christ's rulership through the elders, _Jure Divino_, by acting upon one's own opinion with the authority of office is distinctly a Roman Catholic practice, not a Reformed one. His own authority goes as far as the plurality of the elders allows, not further; but he allows ruling on his views only after he has aired them publicly.

Notice that the author does two things very clearly: he justifies putting modern spins on old teachings; and he confesses to being under the influence of a perspectival thrust, namely John Frame's. He is attributing the difference to terminology only, but then adds that there is an overarching point of depature under which he uses that terminology, and it isn't just the Bible. It is the Bible *under* the paradigm of a certain approach. That is the problem, not the terminology, or of being relevant to our present age. The Bible seems to need help, and he is willing to do so. Notice that he is the judge on whether the theologians of the past were up to snuff. If he thinks Paedocommunion is Biblical, then that is good enough. If he thinks so, that is equal to and prior to the rulership of the church by the ruling elders denominationally. In other words, individualism in the authoritative offices takes precedence; rulership by the elders comes last, and then only for ratification ( because if the elders decide that Paedocommunion is not Biblical, then he has the right, or perhaps the obligation in his view, to secede from those authorities. ) You can't have unity with so may pilots at the wheel, each wanting to go his own direction.

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by JohnV]


----------

