# Presbyterian Churches, WCF and WCC



## Ken (Jul 30, 2015)

In my profile I do profess the WFC, as I was raised Scottish Presbyterian; though, I have been an active member of a small Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, for years. We also have a whole slew of confessional, we have been studying these in our small group for the past couple of months: A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles

Though, we are not member to the World Council of Churches, we do send delegates to their meetings, I am not sure what this will lead to; considering, It is not obvious that what this body of Churches believe is consistent with the WCF nor the Lutheran Missouri Synod Confessionals.

What I am wondering is how the 34 WCC member Presbyterian Churches justify membership given the WCF?

Note: I could ask my Church representatives a similar question concerning non-membership representation at meetings and events.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## Jake (Jul 30, 2015)

The US churches involved from a quick look at that list all look to be more on the liberal side. For example, out of (historically) Reformed bodies, this includes the PC(USA) and RCA, both of which have departed significantly as bodies from the truth of Scripture (though there yet exist more faithful churches within them). 

That said, there are associations of differing beliefs that exist that some more confessional and evangelical bodies are part of, but these are not without controversy. NAE comes to mind, which includes the PCA, EPC, and CRC alongside Pentecostals, Methodists, etc. 

Are you asking about being a part of a less tight group doctrinally and confessionally as opposed to a group like NAPARC which has a higher degree of like-mindedness?


----------



## Ken (Jul 30, 2015)

Jake said:


> Are you asking about being a part of a less tight group doctrinally and confessionally as opposed to a group like NAPARC which has a higher degree of like-mindedness?



To a certain extent, yes. 

For those who are not familiar, the Lutheran Missouri Synod split from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 1988 based on a difference of conservatism versus more liberal interpretations of scripture. 

This is where I get confused on the issue of these uniting bodies that do not have like-mindedness, assuming they will eventually compromise into a vague statement of faith.

My concern is what happens to the lay person as their Church keeps changing into something it never was?

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe (Jul 30, 2015)

Ken said:


> This is where I get confused on the issue of these uniting bodies that do not have like-mindedness, assuming they will eventually compromise into a vague statement of faith.



This was the big problem with "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" document that states that all of these various Protestant denominations stand united with the Roman Catholic church in the public arena. While standing united against various atrocities in the world is commendable, what this document attempted to do is unite Catholics and Protestants in the gospel:

"That we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ."

That phrase made some Protestants happy and made all Catholics happy, but most of the Reformed persuasion saw this as an affront. They wanted it to read, "We are justified by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone" or they wouldn't sign it. In any case, you're right. People will compromise into a vague statement of faith even to the point of blurring justification. While joining Protestant bodies together probably wouldn't conjure up compromises about the doctrine of justification, they could easily compromise on other things.

Off the subject, I had a question on:



Ken said:


> In my profile I do profess the WFC, as I was raised Scottish Presbyterian; though, I have been an active member of a small Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, for years



When you say you've been an active member, does that mean you've become a confessional member of an LCMS church? I'm just curious how you can reconcile the Book of Concord with the Westminster Standards that you affirm? I grew up and was actually confirmed in the LCMS, but found it absolutely necessary to return home and have a discussion with the pastor that confirmed me about my change in confessional affirmation (while also trying to convert him to Calvinism in the process  ). I don't think I could, in good conscience affirm the Westminster Standards and then participate in the Lord's Supper where consubstantiation or sacramental union or Real Presence or whatever they want to call it  is taught (just one example). I was just curious how you're able to reconcile the differences in theology between Lutheranism and Presbyterianism.

Thanks!


----------



## Ken (Jul 30, 2015)

GraceOverwhelmsMe said:


> Ken said:
> 
> 
> > This is where I get confused on the issue of these uniting bodies that do not have like-mindedness, assuming they will eventually compromise into a vague statement of faith.
> ...



I am a confessional member of the LCMS, the idea of "consubstantiation" is interesting and commonly rejected by Lutherans. As I understand it, Martin Luther and Calvin agreed more than being divided. One of my heroes in the Church is Wycliffe the other is Tyndale, to me these are the reformers I admire the most. I believe we both know Wycliffe's position on "transubstantiation", I agree with Wycliffe. My brothers and sisters in Christ at the Church I attend are more about being a blessing to the world than worrying about the small stuff, that is what keeps me there.

If you notice the link on my signature, it has the Koinonia Institute, their teaching is very Baptist like, my fellow Lutheran's do not hold that against me  I think it is interesting when Christians chose Study Bibles and commentaries and have no idea what denominational bent the author has, it is mind blowing. Based on all this, you probably think I am pretty messed up theologically 

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## GraceOverwhelmsMe (Jul 30, 2015)

Ken said:


> the idea of "consubstantiation" is interesting and commonly rejected by Lutherans.



But if the shoe fits, right? lol

I actually edited my original post, but you must have quoted mine before I got a chance to update it:

"... where consubstantiation or sacramental union or Real Presence or whatever they want to call it  is taught (just one example)"



Ken said:


> As I understand it, Martin Luther and Calvin agreed more than being divided.



Lutheran doctrine insofar as it following the teaching of Luther is very much not Luther-an. At least not anymore. It very well could have been. The majority of the doctrine and confession was penned my Philipp Melanchthon who, I suppose, spent entirely too much time debating with Zwingli on the Lord's Supper and took up some of his teaching in other matters that conflict with what Luther taught. 

I don't suspect that Melanchthon and Calvin would get along quite as well as Luther and Calvin did.



Ken said:


> Based on all this, you probably think I am pretty messed up theologically



Not at all. I go to an EPC church, so there are plenty people here that would charge me with liberalism simply based on my denominational allegiance. At least you don't have to worry about those kinds of charges being in the LCMS. Either way, I'm actually impressed that you're able to rectify in your mind the glaring differences between the Book of Concord and WCF where I absolutely could not.


----------



## Jake (Jul 30, 2015)

Ken said:


> Jake said:
> 
> 
> > Are you asking about being a part of a less tight group doctrinally and confessionally as opposed to a group like NAPARC which has a higher degree of like-mindedness?
> ...



Well, with caution in not knowing all that much about the WCC, I would be greatly concerned about being part of a church that was wishing to be a part of it. It seems dangerous to try to have unity with those who deny fundamentals of the faith and the authority of Scripture. While acknowledging the big differences in doctrine, there is a time and a place for working together with those who might not hold the exact the same confession as we do. For example, you are able to worship with Lutherans despite there being some quite large distinctions in doctrine from the Westminster Standards in many important issues (though similarities in important areas as well; I'm not trying to insult Lutherans). I would likewise still worship as far as I was able with a congregation of different convictions in the absence of a more solid church before not being a part of the visible church at all. However, the WCC seems to be a whole different beast. 

Regarding changing churches, that is a difficult thing. There is a history of faithfulness in where denominations like the FCC, PCA, and OPC came from. The Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church (USA) scarcely resemble what the bodies/predecessor bodies were like at their founding.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 30, 2015)

Ken,

Some of your comments perplex me.



> For those who are not familiar, the Lutheran Missouri Synod split from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 1988 based on a difference of conservatism versus more liberal interpretations of scripture.



WHAT?!? The LCMS did NOT split from the ELCA in 1988. It started in 1847 as the Deutsche evangelisch-lutherische Synode von Missouri, Ohio, und anderen Staaten, by a group of Saxon immigrants from Germany to Perry County (MO) who came over in 1839. After the Prussian Union of 1817 compelled the 90% of Lutherans and 10% of Reformed to form union churches, 700 nearby confessional Lutherans in Saxony formed an emigration society (Auswanderungs Gesellschaft). They came to America and risked death at sea (one of the five ships actually sank with all souls on board) rather than change their confessional commitments. You might say (with a bit of cheekiness) that they would rather die at sea than share communion with Reformed Christians. To this day, LCMS clergy are forbidden to receive communion in a Reformed church (or even a Lutheran church not in confessional fellowship with the LCMS).

The so-called Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a largely liberal mainline denomination, formed out of a merger of three groups: The American Lutheran Church (ALC), the Lutheran Church in America (LCA), and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC). They agreed in 1982 to merge and became one on January 1, 1988.

Brian is correct that the WCF and the Book of Concord are incapable of being reconciled with any meaningful sense of "subscription." The christology, soteriology, and sacramentology are different, and often at odds. Both represent confessional, Reformational monergism. But, one simply cannot say that he "subscribes" to both. That would be like saying that one holds to a limited atonement and a universal atonement at the same time and in the same respect. And, unlike ELCA which holds to quatenus subscription (I believe it "insofar as" it is biblical), the LCMS has always held to quia subscription (I believe it "because" it is biblical). The ordination vows of the LCMS leave no wiggle room on this point. C.F.W. Walther, a founder of the LCMS, once mused that if you only say "I subscribe to the confessions 'insofar as' they agree with [my views of] the Bible," you could just as easily say "I subscribe to the Koran 'insofar as' its teachings agree with the Bible."


----------



## Ken (Jul 30, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> Ken,
> 
> Some of your comments perplex me.
> 
> ...



If I misrepresented what happened in 1988 and down played it, I do apologize.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 30, 2015)

Ken said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Ken,
> ...



No problem with the getting of the history wrong (I'm doing a doctoral dissertation on it and am a bit of a nerd about the history). But, I would challenge you to consider my last paragraph about "subscription." One simply cannot say that he "subscribes" to the WCF and the Lutheran Confessions. One teaches limited atonement, the other a universal atonement; one teaches a real spiritual presence in communion and the other a real material presence in communion. There are MANY other points of difference that make subscribing to both . . . impossible.


----------



## Ken (Jul 30, 2015)

GraceOverwhelmsMe said:


> Not at all. I go to an EPC church, so there are plenty people here that would charge me with liberalism simply based on my denominational allegiance. At least you don't have to worry about those kinds of charges being in the LCMS. Either way, I'm actually impressed that you're able to rectify in your mind the glaring differences between the Book of Concord and WCF where I absolutely could not.



It's not that difficult if you insist on using scripture to interpret scripture, I always go to the Bible for clarification:

WCF: Of the Holy Scripture
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------

