# Church foundations



## Dekybo (Apr 26, 2016)

I would just like the boards opinion on the historical foundations of my church 

Our church covenant:
The actual covenant is from Pendelton's Manual

On matters of faith and practice it states that we are based upon the NT and the 1963 SBC Articles of Faith. 

On church parliament:
A Parliamentary Guide for Church Leaders (C. Barry McCarty)
Robert's rules of order (Henry M Robert)

I don't know much of these books and the 63 Articles of Faith, but I plan to thoroughly study them. In my opinion I would like for our church to have a solid statement of beliefs (rooted in Scripture) and all other matters also taken directly from the Word. What do you all think?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 26, 2016)

Dekybo said:


> Our church covenant:
> The actual covenant is from Pendelton's Manual
> 
> On matters of faith and practice it states that we are based upon the NT and the 1963 SBC Articles of Faith.



I hope the following is not too far off the topic of "your Church," for it deals with the concept of confessions of faith in general and not your Church specifically. Forgive me if you do not find this helpful.

Below is an excerpt from an article titled, THE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE CHURCH by John L. Girardeau

http://goo.gl/1gtv1Z

The article asks and answers the question in the affirmative, “Does a confession of faith have the power to bind the conscience?”

21
There is a specious and dangerous form of this theory of development of doctrine which threatens, at the present day, to invade the supremacy of the written Word. The ground is not openly taken that the doctrinal system of the Scriptures may be developed, but it is maintained that the creeds and confessions in which the church has logically arranged that system cannot bind the conscience or shackle thought. It is contended that they are human compositions—fruits of the human brain, and that they are consequently collections of the unauthoritative dogmas of men. To forbid the development of doctrine beyond their limits is represented as tyranny, and tyranny in its worst form, as inflicted upon the intellect itself. The precious and inalienable right of private judgment, consecrated to the Protestant heart by the struggles of the Reformation, is retrenched, and the dogmatic despotism of man again enthroned in the sacred domain of conscience. The free, progressive, advanced thought of the age must not be strapped down by old dogmas which have gone to sleep with the conflicts which gave them birth. Like the weapons of ancient warfare, they did good service in their time, but they must give way to the improved arms of the present. Theological schools are not to be repositories of these now useless engines. The demand of the times is for untrammeled development. The young, vigorous, exultant intellect of this era will be satisfied with nothing less; and if the church insists on clinging to antiquated dogmas and repressing this temper of development, she must consent to be left behind by the grand army of progress in its onward and triumphant march. This is eloquent. All that it needs to make it effective is—truth. Had it possessed that simple quality it would, ere this, have fired and roused the heart of the church.

22
If the preceding argument is worth anything, it has shown that in whatever way the doctrines of the divine Word may be expressed, they are characterized by completeness and ultimate authority, and are, therefore, incapable of substantial development. Whether enunciated in the Scriptures, or written upon the tablets of the human mind, or inscribed upon the pages of a church-formulary, they are possessed of the same immutable characteristics. The question, then, is simply one of fact,—do church-creeds faithfully reproduce the doctrines of the Scriptures? The question to us as a church is, Do our standards accurately state those doctrines? If they do not, the development required is to expunge the dogmas which do not express the mind of Christ in the written Word, and incorporate those that do. If they do, as they utter the word of Christ, they are clothed with Christ’s authority. The delivery of Christ’s doctrines and commandments by men does not make them the doctrines and commandments of men. The fact being settled that the doctrines of these standards are the very doctrines of Scripture, we meet the fundamental premise in which the opposition to them is grounded with a denial. They are not human compositions, except in so far as their form and arrangement are concerned—they are for substance the composition of the divine Spirit; they coincide with the inspired writings. Their dogmas are not man's, they are God’s dogmas. The cry for liberty to develop theological thought beyond their doctrines is the demand for license to develop it beyond God’s doctrines. This is the real secret of revolt against the binding authority of confessions. When men cry, Down with creeds! they mean, Down with the Bible! When they shout, We will not be tied down by confessions of faith! they mean, We will not submit to God’s authority—the human intelligence is too gloriously free to be led captive by God Himself! These are not Christian views; they are the children of rationalism brought to the font of the church and baptized under the attractive names of Broad-Churchism, Liberal Christianity, and Progressive Thought—the fair daughters of men with whom, when the sons of God consort, they generate the giant leaders of defection and apostasy.


----------



## Dekybo (Apr 26, 2016)

Ed Walsh said:


> I hope the following is not too far off the topic of "your Church," for it deals with the concept of confessions of faith in general and not your Church specifically. Forgive me if you do not find this helpful.



I know that my church is not confessional, but I see their benefits. Thank you for further material to consider. It can only help my pursuit of establishing a truly biblical church.


----------

