# Church polity and Confessions



## Christopher88 (Mar 12, 2013)

Under the reformed confessions: London Baptist, Westminster and the Three Forms of unity; do any of these confessions confront the issue of church polity? I am not seeing anything in the confessions by my eye which would declare a statement of whose polity is correct accept for the denial of the office of Pope. 

There is nothing states on congregationalism or Presbyterian government. Why is this? Are there reformed confessions that touches on this matter?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 12, 2013)

The Westminster Assembly's greatest contention was between the Presbyterians and the Independents (i.e. Congregationalists) but over the latter's objections they did produce a sister document to the Confession, Catechisms, directory for worship and psalter, a directory for church government which was Presbyterian in nature.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Mar 12, 2013)

Chapter 31.3 (original numbering) of the Confession of Faith speaks of synods which authoritatively determine controversies of faith, etc. and those issues of worship and government (relating back to 1.6). Note that these deliverances are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word of God, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed in His Word. This means that the divines taught an authority beyond the local, congregational, or independent assembly. Couple that with what Mr. Coldwell said above and you have a very robust statement on Presbyterian Government. See also paragraph 2 of the 1646 edition.


----------



## Christopher88 (Mar 12, 2013)

Is it fair to say that the Westminster confession can only held by those who declare Presbyterian belief?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Mar 13, 2013)

Dear sir, your question is worded in such a way that I am hesitant to answer without qualification. If one describes himself as Independent, Episcopal, or Congregational, and yet claims the Westminster Confession as the confession of his faith, a fair question to him would be something along the lines of how he reconciles his profession regarding church polity and these direct statements of the Confession in chapter 32. Also, which Confession does he confess? The original (1646) of the later revisions? 

Then there is the matter of intent. Is one allowed to "interpret" the Confession of Faith according to his own desire, or is there a way to determine a context into wich we may read the confessional statement on polity? As we have said above, the Directory of Presbyterial Church Government, issued as a part of the whole along with the Confession, Catechisms, and Directory for Worship, show a consistent context regarding church polity, such that chapter 32, while not expressing every particular of presbyterianism, certainly intends to show some of its Scriptural warrant and requirement. The difficulty in our age is that there are many who desire to be identified with Westminster for its historical venerable-ness but do not desire the hard work of study required to subscribe. When an minister vows, as in some denominations, that the Westminster Confession of Faith is the confession of *his* faith, such only ought to be done after a studied reading of that confession, questions asked and answered, doubts or apparent disagreement, cleared. We ought not to turn the Confession into a nose of wax, subscribing to "our interpretation" of the Confession--it ought to be more objective than that. 

I suppose I have left your original question here, and gone into the matter of how we subscribe. But that matter is also implied in your question, I believe. With that as a background, and I mean no offense to my independent or congregational brethren, the question remains: "Can your professed church polity be reconciled with chapter 32? If so, can you please show how?"


----------



## Christopher88 (Mar 13, 2013)

Thank Rev. Todd Ruddell,
Your post has been very helpful to me. I can see I have much to study regarding this confession.

It does appear though The Three Forms of Unity do not touch the issue of Polity as does the Westminster. I do say I am still very young in the reformed faith in regards to my confessional education and even more in-depth theological education. 

Would you kind sir please direct me to a helpful study of the Confession?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Mar 13, 2013)

Thank you for your kind reply. I would recommend Robert Shaw as a good place to start. 

An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith

Study well, dear friend!


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 13, 2013)

Chris,
A lot of the nooks and crannies are spelled out more clearly in the Book of Church Order for each Presbyterian group....take a look there.....


----------



## Poimen (Mar 13, 2013)

Sonny said:


> It does appear though The Three Forms of Unity do not touch the issue of Polity as does the Westminster.



The Belgic Confession deals with church polity in Articles 30-32. The focus is mainly on the offices, functions of those offices and the authority delegated to those offices in the local manifestations of Christ's church. 

As you noted, it does not deal with polity in terms of the general role and place of regional and synodical courts. I suspect that the relative silence about these matters has to do with the fact that the Belgic was formed in a time and place of heavy persecution which made the matter of higher or broader courts of the church superfluous if not unworkable. It is no surprise, then, that such matters are addressed more fully in a time of relative peace and security for the church (as evidenced by the Church Order adopted at Dort).


----------

