# Submission to Church Authority



## py3ak (Oct 4, 2006)

I don't wish to derail this thread, but I do think this quote is a bit of a problem:


> Stop worring about being convinced of evey fine point of argument about this doctrine!
> 
> Trust God that the fathers who wrote the WCF know more than we do and simply accept it. Make your attitude one of humbly saying "I believe that this is a faithful summery of what the scriptures teach, and even the parts I don't understand fully I trust God will make clear to me in time".
> 
> ...



1. Why the WCF? Why not the 1689? Why not the Baltimore Catechism?
2. How do you determine who is a holy man? How do you determine who has served the church well?
3. I have no doubt this was the Bereans' attitude: this is why Luke calls them noble. Because, even though they didn't understand it, they submitted to the teaching of Paul without any sort of scrutiny whatsoever. Isn't that what Acts 17 says?
4. Once you have made a decision to accept a certain position, of course you will rationalize it (whether accurately or not).


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> I don't wish to derail this thread, but I do think this quote is a bit of a problem:
> 
> 
> ...



Ruben,

I believe Kevin supports investigating doctrines and searching scriptures and a Berean attitude. However, I read his point as we can certainly submit to our church’s leadership on such matters without being “convinced of every fine point of argument about this doctrine.” I for one do not understand the full scope of Arius’ argument against Nicaea, but I submit and trust that my church is orthodox with the doctrine of the Trinity. That is why we have confessions and creeds. It is good to study such details, but we are not all full time theologians either. So while we are studying the details part time, we still need to submit to our leaders. If we wait until we become as smart as the entire Westminster Assembly and all those who contributed to the various councils and synods we trust as orthodox, then we would never be a full supporting member of any confessional church. Which if I waited to be as versed on these matters as the likes of the Jonathan Edwards’ and Herman Witsius’ of the world, I might, maybe be able to become a full supporting member of a church by the time I reach 120 – maybe. 

No doubt we check everything to the word of God. That is why we are here at the Puritan Board right? We checked the reformed vs the non-reformed hermeneutics and trust that which aligns with Holy Writ. No one is promoting blind submission, but we can’t expect the entire congregation to be as educated as our pastors before we subscribe to our confessions either.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 4, 2006)

No, Christopher, one doesn't have to be as educated as say, Samuel Rutherford --and I am not stating that Kevin doesn't investigate: merely quoting what he said.

However, you do have to answer some basic questions: Why Westminster? Why not the 1644? Why not the 39 Articles? Why not Trent? The men at Trent were also much more educated than I am. In other words, there has to be a point where submission and trust stops: if not before, at the point where we ask ourselves who is godly and who has served the church well. There is quite a spread of opinions on that point.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2006)

Chris, thanks thats better than I would have put it.

Ruben, I believe you missed my point. I do investigate, and study, and debate, and question, etc. I only mean that we have a (slight) tendency in the reformed world toward a form of scholasticism i.e. "I understand, therfore I believe". I believe that every spirit of inquiry should be joined to a spirit of submision to authority.

Who am I to judge the conclusions of the entire church just because I can't understand it? When I began to (try) to impliment this policy in my own life I found that doctrines that I "just couldn't get" suddenly seemed clear! I had read all the books, I had consulted the journals, I had seached the scripture and still I was confused. Just trusting that Gods truth was safely contained in the creeds and confessions seemed to make these teachings come clear.

I believe in order that I may understand.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2006)

Ruben, in response to your question "why westminister?" 

Is because I'm Scotch a good enough reason?:bigsmile:


----------



## JohnV (Oct 4, 2006)

Ruben:

I understand your concern, and I share it to the degree that I too have seen Presbyterians leave behind all common sense just to submit to Confessionalism instead of Scripture. It is almost as if Scripture cannot stand by itself unless it has the Confession pasted all over it. I admit that this does exist in Presbyterianism and in the Continental Reformed expression. But rest assured that this misrepresents the Reformed approach to Scripture. They (the Confessions) are the *result* of Scripture interpreting Scripture, *not the pretext* for Scripture interpreting Scripture. I share your concern for the exclusive views of some, who claim a right to make judgments of others based upon views of baptism. We know that election is unconditional, and that sanctification is a process. One's view of baptism is not necessarily or intrinsically at the beginning of the work of sanctification, since the goal of sanctification is obedience of the heart. 

If you're a member of Christ's body, I'm willing to wait a long time, as long as it takes, for you to understand the continuations and discontinuities of the signs of the covenant, but whether you do or not does not make for a mark of the Christian. At least in the venue of a public discussion board, such as this one, I have to take your word for it that you are a man of faith, even if we don't see eye to eye on the baptism issue. I can't take for granted that "enough has been said, if you are not convinced now then you reject God's sign of the covenant", because I don't believe for one second that any discussion board will say enough. The Bible says enough all on its own. And I rejoice that there are Baptists here who have called Paedos to account for their misconceptions and proud arrogance on these matters. 

As someone who is Reformed, I have come to the point where I find the Confessions trustworthy. Where I find fault with them is that they are limited in scope or perspective, as witnessed by the many rulings by Synods since the time they were written to fill out what was not clear. And this is still ongoing. But the Scriptures are always the basis for any decision of the Church, for the Bible is full and clear. If the Confessions don't point us to Scripture, but instead to some human theory or conclusion, then they are being misrepresented by those who use them to point us to human authority instead of Christ's authority. In this latter sense, one may put his trust in the leaders of the Church, as expressed by the Confessions, inasmuch as these leaders put their trust solely in Christ, His Word, and the leading of the Spirit.

[Edited on 10-4-2006 by JohnV]


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> No, Christopher, one doesn't have to be as educated as say, Samuel Rutherford --and I am not stating that Kevin doesn't investigate: merely quoting what he said.
> 
> However, you do have to answer some basic questions: Why Westminster? Why not the 1644? Why not the 39 Articles? Why not Trent? The men at Trent were also much more educated than I am. In other words, there has to be a point where submission and trust stops: if not before, at the point where we ask ourselves who is godly and who has served the church well. There is quite a spread of opinions on that point.



Yep, and Biblical investigation gets us to Westminster instead of Trent or LBC, etc. But one can support the confession and submit to those who uphold it before "Worring about being convinced of evey fine point of argument about this doctrine.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 4, 2006)

Perhaps if it is a question of fine points. But what those are is also a matter of debate. You are confident that Biblical investigation gets you to Westminster: fine. There are those who are confident of just the opposite. The point is that in order to pick a group, document, etc., to submit to you have develop your own convictions: and those convictions ought to be developed from Scripture --including the conviction of how far one may submit to authority and at what point that would be compromise.
Even Kevin's criteria about 'the whole church' falls short. Which church? The church that includes confessing 1689ers, or the one that excludes them? To take just one example. And not even being Scotch is good enough: even some Scotch people inherit vain traditions from their fathers --think of Scotland before Knox, for instance.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 4, 2006)

Ruben's question may be a bit off topic, but it is a valid point and a discussion I would appreciate in more detail.

There is a line between Solo Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia which is Sola Scriptura – properly understood. Should individual Christians approach scripture in an individualistic way, i.e.: let the Spirit lead, ‘what does the passage mean to you?’ approach which is like Solo Scriptura? Or do they approach scripture with a blind trust in the Holy Catholic church, i.e. what does the church say the passage means?’ - which is sola Ecclesia. Sola Scriptura properly understood is a balanced combination of both. The Westminster divines believed, “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” (The Directory for Family-Worship Article III.)

I don’t know Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Greek, so right away a blind submission is in place when I search the English translation of the Bible to see if what various teachers say is true. As a common layman, I am free to read and interpret scripture, but it must be in light of what our lawfully ordained and approved forefathers have concluded unless I think I am an uneducated lay person who received some special illumination that no one in the previous 2000 years has received (which ultimately errs with the likes of Joseph Smith and co.).

There are extremes both directions which we must be aware of. The fact of the matter is, not all of us will learn the languages of the Holy autograph, nor are we called to dedicate full time study to the interpretation of scripture in order to simply subscribe to a confession and submit to those who are called to uphold it. It is good to keep each other accountable and a good question to ask.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 4, 2006)

And I would agree with you Chris: but I would be careful to add that in subscribing to a confession we do have a responsibility to search the Scripture to see whether these things are so. As far as I know, the Spirit does not bear witness to the Confession, but to the Word.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> Ruben's question may be a bit off topic, but it is a valid point and a discussion I would appreciate in more detail.
> 
> There is a line between Solo Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia which is Sola Scriptura – properly understood. Should individual Christians approach scripture in an individualistic way, i.e.: let the Spirit lead, ‘what does the passage mean to you?’ approach which is like Solo Scriptura? Or do they approach scripture with a blind trust in the Holy Catholic church, i.e. what does the church say the passage means?’ - which is sola Ecclesia. Sola Scriptura properly understood is a balanced combination of both. The Westminster divines believed, “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” (The Directory for Family-Worship Article III.)
> ...



Chris:

Being individually submissive to Scripture is, of course, important. But what I do when I see something in Scripture that I don't remember anyone teaching before, then I look for it, to see if renowned leaders in the Church have expressed the same thing before me. If its entirely new, then I take my own thoughts as being suspect. I have to see things confirmed by men before me. Not that the Bible needs the witness of men, but that I need the witness of other believers, ones who are respected for their own submissiveness to Scripture, to let me know whether I'm on the right track in understanding Scripture. Any of us can get caught in justifications that sound very logical and/or convincing; but unity of confession throughout the history of the Church is more important. 

There is a time that one seemingly stands alone against all the witnesses of the church. But that is only outwardly so, for in fact one who stands against the local church may in fact be standing in complete compliance to the rulings of the Church, the local church being the one out of compliance. 

The Bible is plain in all that is necessary for life and faith.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2006)

Ruben I guess what I meant was that the church is not a self-serve buffet. 

I don't walk down the line saying ok I am convinced in MY mind that this is right so I'll have a helping of Geveva salad, but I am not so sure I like the look of that baptism calarole so I'll skip it and have some fully imersed chicken instead.

I do not select the doctrines that I believe in & then look for a church that matches my peculiarities. 

I might end up at the "First Theonomy, St Andrews, Post-mil, Holy Trinity Calvinistic, Covenented Reformed, Van Tillian Westminister, Dabney Memorial, Southern Presbyterian Church of Kevin (and maybe 2 or 3 others).

Instead what I do is stand in the place I am in (now face north:bigsmile. When I left the Baptist Church (over baptism) I 'looked/shopped' for a church. I really did find myself drawn to the Church of my grandparents. My parents were baptised by nominal parents in the presbyterian church but came to faith in Christ though the ministry of a baptist church. For me it was a way of coming home.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> I might end up at the "First Theonomy, St Andrews, Post-mil, Holy Trinity Calvinistic, Covenented Reformed, Van Tillian Westminister, Dabney Memorial, Southern Presbyterian Church of Kevin (and maybe 2 or 3 others).



Hey, don't be knockin' my _former_ church! 

Good discussion -- carry on!


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Remember that beleaving is prior to understanding.
> 
> Be willing to submit to the authority of holy men of God who have served the chuch well. Don't be guilty of saying "I will submit AFTER I am convinced". For that is no true submission.



This is simply not true. Faith requires understanding prior to it. If you don't understand a proposition, you cannot believe it. That does not mean one must comprehend every logical conclusion of that proposition, but one must understand that proposition, in order to believe.

Also, this is not "submitting" to the Westminster/Holy men etc. Submission is acting in accordance with westminster when you DON'T believe it. 

Your beliefs should be bound to your conscience, and your conscience to the word of God...ALONE.

Now...that being said, I do believe that the Westminster Standards to represent biblical theology accurately, but it was no easy feat to be convinced.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2006)

Jeff, understanding then faith is thomism.

I would ask you when you have children will you prsent them with the full variety of theological opinion in the world then give them a bible & say " OK kids let us know what you think about all of these doctrines when God Alone, uses his Word Alone, by Faith Alone to show you what to believe. BTW your mother and I are trusting that you end up on 'our side'. "

Just wondering.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Jeff, understanding then faith is thomism.



I'm pretty sure that Augustine was speaking of reason apart from scripture (understanding) vs. believing scripture. Augustine's quote has more to do with presuppositions than the application you have derived from it.

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

By faith in what? In the word of God. This was Augustine's meaning.

With that presupposition (i.e. that the Bible is the Word of God) in mind, we must understand what the Bible says, before we can believe that the bible teaches such and such doctrine.

Now surely one believes the bible to be true, and gains understanding from faith in the proposition "The bible is true." However, by suggesting that one must presuppose the Westminster confession of faith, and therefore gains understanding is to put the confession on par with the scriptures themselves. Only God's word has the authority to say "presuppose this to be true..."

The Confession is only as good as it aligns with scripture.



> The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXXI
> Of Synods and Councils
> III. 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.[5]
> 
> 5. Eph. 2:20; Acts 17:11; I Cor. 2:5; II Cor. 1:24; cf. Isa. 8:19-20; Matt. 15:9



To suggest what you have, is to make the confession the rule (or at least A rule), not a help. Since the confession itself contradicts you in this, it seems to be fallacious to argue thus.



> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> I would ask you when you have children will you prsent them with the full variety of theological opinion in the world then give them a bible & say " OK kids let us know what you think about all of these doctrines when God Alone, uses his Word Alone, by Faith Alone to show you what to believe. BTW your mother and I are trusting that you end up on 'our side'. "
> 
> Just wondering.



Abosolutely not. But this example is not representative of what you are asking of Meg in regards to the Westminster Confession. I will teach my children the catechism, and the scriptures to be sure, but I will also teach them WHY *insert any particular doctrine here* is true. 

Now obviously, some doctrines are more plain from scripture than others, and therefore do not require as much study to understand them, but to ask that one not worry "about being convinced of evey fine point of argument about this doctrine", that is to say that one must have implicit faith in infant baptism. Sounds romish if you ask me.

Rather, the scriptures tie "convincing" with faith:

Rom 4:20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,
Rom 4:21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform.

I will teach them the confession, but I will never make it a rule, only a help.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 4, 2006)

Ruben: I love you brother, but this issue really did de-rail the thread. If you would like me to re-name the topic I will but I think this discussion rates it's own thread.

[Edited on 10-5-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## ReederKidsMom (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



I completely agree.

If I come to an interpretation that seems to be unique and not shared by the appointed within the last 2000 years, then I hold my interpretation as suspect and rethink my exegesis. I will not "teach" or share my interpretations unless those who are approved within the confessional church support it.


----------



## ReederKidsMom (Oct 4, 2006)

(woops posted under wife's screen name --chris)


----------



## py3ak (Oct 4, 2006)

Rich, why do you hate me?

Kevin, I can understand that the church is not a self-serve buffet. But you do see that left the Baptist church over baptism, instead of trusting that godlier and wiser men than you knew more than you did....


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 4, 2006)

No, No Ruben.

Te quiero como hermano

[Edited on 10-5-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## satz (Oct 4, 2006)

I think this is an interesting issue.

I understand the danger of the lone ranger christian mentality and that great christians of ages past probably exceed us in learning and devotion by a large measure. However, to my mind, some of the comments on this thread seem to elevate the fathers far beyond what is reasonable.

What do people think of Ruben's comment regarding the Bereans in Acts 17? Even when the inspired Apostle Paul who raised men from the dead by the spirit of God was preaching to them, they still went back to check the scriptures to see if what was being taught was true. And God called them noble for it. They _didn't_ say 'well he's the Apostle Paul and he knows more than us anyway, so lets just trust him.'

I surely submit i can't hold a candle to the puritans, reformers and divines when it comes to godliness and the study of the word. But I think _in principle_, we must still admit the possibility that they might have been wrong on one or more points, since they were only men. All because the confession is right on 99% of the doctrine it addresses does not mean _necessarily_ that it is right on that last 1%. 

Also, I think there is a difference between being a full subscriptionist because one has studied the Confession and believes everything it teaches is in fact true from the bible, and still being unsure on certain points but saying 'since its the confession it must be right'.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 4, 2006)

Rich, I hope we're not getting ready to do Brokeback Puritanboard....


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Rich, I hope we're not getting ready to do Brokeback Puritanboard....



My Spanish is limited. I was afraid, after I wrote that, that it might express something that is inappropriate in Spanish even if one Christian brother is saying it to another.

What is the appropriate word. I'm editing out my response until I know what the correct Spanish verb is for filial affection.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 4, 2006)

The correct word is "querer". Yo quiero, tu quieres, el quiere, etc. 
"Te quiero como hermano" would be the right way to say that.
It's a good thing I'm secure in my manhood.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 5, 2006)

Good points Mark & Kara/Chris.

Jeff what I am trying to say is that it seems (to me ) that it is a lot more likely that I am wrong then the fathers are on any given issue. Of course no Presbyterian would maintain, contra the WCF, that synods are without error & that is not what I believe. 

I am only saying that in the church even the smartest of us are as children, and as such aught to defer to our 'fathers' unless we are VERY sure of ourselves.

So yes I do think Meg is in this position, she is a member of a confessional church and in my opinion it would be "safer" for her to defer to the standards in matters of confusion (in her own mind) then to set herself up as the standard against which the stanards are judged.

I know nothing of Meg other than this very open and honest question she ask that started this. I commend her for her spirit of 'teachability' and I only meant to warn her that she should be careful not to set herself up as the judge of all things.

I made this point to her because I have seen over the years that among us (the Presbyterian/reformed) there is a tendancy among the uber-reformed types to be so devoted to "seeing if these things are so" that we make ourselves the judge of our superiors.

[Edited on 10-5-2006 by Kevin]


----------



## Herald (Oct 5, 2006)

Rueben,

You're touching on a topic that has concerned me ever since I have moved further from my dispensationalist roots and close to C.T. Why the WCF? Why the LBC? I've yet to come to a full conclusion, but I feel comfortable with the confessions (particularly the 1689 LBC) to the degree that they accurately summarize scripture on important doctrines. But are the confessions objective documents or subjective? Do they reflect the enitire teaching of scripture? I believe they don't. They are falliable documents, albeit built on infalliable truths. 

I suppose I should revel in my baptistic bliss. 




[Edited on 10-5-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Kevin (Oct 5, 2006)

Bill, Because they are right & correct, n'est pas?


----------



## beej6 (Oct 5, 2006)

Bill,

Of course a confession isn't the entire teaching of Scripture (see eschatology; on the other hand... ;-)). But as you say, it may be the best summary of biblical doctrine. 

I say may because you say 1689 LBC, I say WCF, and we're back to baptism as usual! ;-) Would that every confessional church for both of those and the 3FU be at the highest level of church fellowship.


----------



## BertMulder (Oct 5, 2006)

yes, the Bible is our only rule of faith. 

That being said, as members of a local church, we vow (swear) to uphold the confessions of said church. What this means is, that if we have Biblical proof that the confessions of our local church are wrong, we appeal first to the local consistory, then to classis, then to synod.

And we don't agitate privately, in making schism in the church.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 5, 2006)

The Confessions represent the struggles and conclusions of the Spirit-led Church throughout her history since the time of the writing of the NT. They don't contain anything new, but only reflect a deeper and more mature understanding of what the Bible teaches, a maturity gained through much pain and suffering while going through those struggles. 

So why the WCF, TFU, LBC, etc.? Because they reflect to the churches holding to them the continuity of the Church throughout history to that same standard of faith that their fathers, who handed it down to them, held to. At no point does it reflect a "Bible PLUS Confessions" mentality, but always a _Sola Scriptura_ one. We may disagree on some things that are different between them, but those differences reflect the differences in in us, not in Scripture. If the Confessions don't point us to Scripture and Scripture alone, then they aren't the Confessions our fathers handed down to us. We may disagree on matters of faith contained in them, but we do not rely on the witness of men for the Bible's authority. We do rely on the fellowship of all believers, the mutual admonition of not only our contemporaries, but also of all those who have been before us in Church history. 

We have to understand that having the Bible as the only rule of faith is not at all in discontinuity with submission to the confessional standard of the Church. Read those Confesssions and you will find that the central point of all doctrinal assertions is that they too are completely submissive to the Bible as the only rule of faith and life.


----------



## Herald (Oct 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by beej6_
> Bill,
> 
> Of course a confession isn't the entire teaching of Scripture (see eschatology; on the other hand... ;-)). But as you say, it may be the best summary of biblical doctrine.
> ...



BJ - oh boy...now you're getting closer to the core issue. To what degree are WCF and LBC adherents willing to exercise charity over differences in order to have fellowship with one another? Of course that question presupposes that we should have fellowship with each other. Is the "B" word so contentious that it trumps all that we agree on?


----------



## Herald (Oct 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> The Confessions represent the struggles and conclusions of the Spirit-led Church throughout her history since the time of the writing of the NT. They don't contain anything new, but only reflect a deeper and more mature understanding of what the Bible teaches, a maturity gained through much pain and suffering while going through those struggles.
> 
> So why the WCF, TFU, LBC, etc.? Because they reflect to the churches holding to them the continuity of the Church throughout history to that same standard of faith that their fathers, who handed it down to them, held to. At no point does it reflect a "Bible PLUS Confessions" mentality, but always a _Sola Scriptura_ one. We may disagree on some things that are different between them, but those differences reflect the differences in in us, not in Scripture. If the Confessions don't point us to Scripture and Scripture alone, then they aren't the Confessions our fathers handed down to us. We may disagree on matters of faith contained in them, but we do not rely on the witness of men for the Bible's authority. We do rely on the fellowship of all believers, the mutual admonition of not only our contemporaries, but also of all those who have been before us in Church history.
> ...



John - well articulated post. Kudos and Soli Deo Gloria!


----------



## Ivan (Oct 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...


----------



## JohnV (Oct 5, 2006)

Thanks, brothers.


----------



## weinhold (Oct 5, 2006)

"But would a society of pastors, perhaps a church
assembly or venerable presbytery (as those among the
Dutch call themselves), not be justified in binding
itself by oath to a certain unalterable symbol in
order to secure a constant guardianship over each of
its members and through them over the people, and this
for all time: I say that this is wholly impossible.
Such a contract, whose intention is to preclude
forever all further enlightenment of the human race,
is absolutely null and void, even if it should be
ratified by the supreme power, by parliaments, and by
the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot bind
itself, and thus conspire, to place a succeeding one
in a condition whereby it would be impossible for the
later age to expand its knowledge (particularly where
it is so very important), to rid itself of errors, and
generally to increase its enlightenment. That would
be a crime against human nature, whose essential
destiny lies precisely in such progress; subsequent
generations are thus completely justified in
dismissing such agreements as unauthorized and
criminal."

- Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (1784)


----------



## beej6 (Oct 6, 2006)

I echo the thanks to JohnV.

Bill, I phrased it "highest level of church fellowship" for a reason. Baptism, a sacrament, is important enough to separate over, though I admire one of the "Free Churches" who explicitly state that both infant and believers' baptism are acceptable. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't fellowship (and worship occasionally!) over everything else, and build each other up in love.


----------



## Herald (Oct 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by beej6_
> I echo the thanks to JohnV.
> 
> Bill, I phrased it "highest level of church fellowship" for a reason. Baptism, a sacrament, is important enough to separate over, though I admire one of the "Free Churches" who explicitly state that both infant and believers' baptism are acceptable. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't fellowship (and worship occasionally!) over everything else, and build each other up in love.



B.J. - no, I understand. I realize that there is going to be separation over baptism. That is why I find the PB such an aberration of reality (that is not a criticism). In this venue, Christians who differ on the baptism issue are able to "fellowship." It is possible to discuss a specific topic _without_ baptism dividing. Of course that is not always the case. The PB has had its share of donnybrooks over baptism. But most of the threads are on other topics. For this baptist, they have been quite edifying. But if it were not for the PB, most of us would have few occasions to dialog with brethren from the other side of the tracks. There are always exceptions, but I believe the rule persists.

[Edited on 10-6-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 6, 2006)

Very well said Bill, I like the cut of your gib brother.


----------



## Ivan (Oct 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Very well said Bill, I like the cut of your gib brother.



 :Owen:


----------



## Herald (Oct 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Very well said Bill, I like the cut of your gib brother.



Bob, what I wrote _actually_ made sense? Cool! 

Seriously, being able to swallow an industrial size helping of pride has allowed me to learn. The pride part comes into play when the following throught crosses my mind:

_"Why is that I (a baptist) am the one who has to change and my Presbyterian brethren do not? It seems like a one way street."_

I've battled that one numerous times. There does seem to be an inequity as to whom is moving closer to whom, theologically speaking. But then I realize that I am a neophyte in the arena of C.T. and Reformation thinking in general. My baptist roots are not from the Spurgeon ilk, rather they are from the Finney and Darby persuasion. Seeing as that is the case, I do not have the benefit of an early Reformation theology that I can call upon. I am experiencing C.T. for the first time as an adult. I'm not there on every point, but then again, six years ago I wasn't even there at all. I can honestly say that the Lord has used my participation on the PB to help shape my theological understanding.

[Edited on 10-6-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------

