# Confession of Faith



## default (May 17, 2005)

I'm curious. The rules here seem to be strict about adhering to the westminster or baptist confession of faith. I have a few people interested in the forums and for the most part are in agreement. However, they find one or more issues where they don't agree with. Are these people welcome here?


----------



## wsw201 (May 17, 2005)

Lori,

We do require that posters hold to the Westminster Standards, LBCF or the 3 Forms of Unity. As the rules state, we are trying to be "like minded". What do they have problems with?


----------



## default (May 17, 2005)

WAYNE,

I'm not sure which points they don't agree with. I do know that one of them does not attend an organized church as he is under the belief that WE are the church. But as far as doctrine goes, he's in agreement. 

Can we disagree on a few issues and still be "like minded"?


----------



## wsw201 (May 17, 2005)

Lori,

We sure can disagree on a few issues, but not accepting the doctrine of the Church is a big one.


----------



## default (May 17, 2005)

WAYNE, 

by "The doctrine of the Church" do you mean "the doctrine of the church ORGANIZATION"?


----------



## wsw201 (May 17, 2005)

All of the Reformed Confessions have a Doctrine of the Church, which includes the various offices, ie; Elders & Deacons. All groups of Christians that meet together are "organized" to some extent, whether they call it an organized church or not. Remember, God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor 14). Your friend may just not like the idea of "denominations" (that's why we have so many "non-denominational" denominational churches) but that has nothing to do with the Doctrine of the Church. We have folks on this board who are members of non-denominational churches.

Have your friend read the chapters on the Church in the WCF and LBCF. They shouldn't have a problem with it.

What does your friend not like about organized churches?


----------



## The Lamb (May 18, 2005)

And if this does not work. There is always the "magic kool aid" they can drink to be a clone.


----------



## Me Died Blue (May 18, 2005)

Not believing the organized church to be the true visible Church of Scripture has serious implications for countless things, such as how preaching and teaching is to be ensured sound and helpful, the doctrines of baptism and the Lord's Supper, what constitutes both heresy and credible faith, and how issues of conflict or sin are to be disciplined or resolved, just to list a few. People literally _cannot_ separate their doctrine of the organized church from the rest of their doctrinal beliefs, or from their Christian life. It inevitably has massive theological implications for essentially each individual doctrine one holds as well as their collective system of doctrine, and thus creates massive practical issues for the Christian life one lives.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 18, 2005)

The visible or "œorganizational" church is the kingdom of Christ outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation; so it is pretty important. Westminster Confession of Faith 25:2 says: 


> The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;<b> and of their children:[c] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[d] the house and family of God,[e] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[f]





> [size=-1]B 1CO 1:2. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: 1CO 12:12-13. For as the body is one, and hath many memÂ¬bers, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. PSA 2:8. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritÂ¬ance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. REV 7:9. After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and peoÂ¬ple, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; ROM 15:9-12. And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye GenÂ¬tiles, with his people. 11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye peoÂ¬ple. 12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
> C 1CO 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. ACT 2:39. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. EZE 16:20-21. Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, 21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? ROM 11:16. For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. GEN 3:15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. GEN 17:7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
> D MAT 13:47. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: ISA 9:7. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
> E EPH 2:19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitiÂ¬zens with the saints, and of the household of God; EPH 3:15. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
> F ACT 2:47. Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.


[/size]

[Edited on 5-18-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## Scott (May 18, 2005)

Loriann: I am sympathetic with your friend, as I held this belief for quite awhile. However, I would urge you to encourage him to explore this issue in-depth. It is one of the most important issues today. Just to whet your appetite, consider 1 Tim. 3:15: "15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." This concerns the visible/organized church, as is clear from the context, which concerns the procedures for electing church officers (you can't elect people to the invisible church). Also, you can't conduct yourself in the invisible church.

Reformed has classically held that one cannot have God as his father without having the (visible/organized) Church as his mother. I would be happy to discuss this at more length if you have an interest.

Thanks


----------



## The Lamb (May 18, 2005)

They should be allowed here.

Where is the charity and love if not....

THis article may help you understand.

1. All repeatedly cite our complete agreement with WCF.
2. All repeatedly cite our constant debt to ________________ (name reformed bigwig.) Then buy and love all his books. Every paragraph.
3. All agree to tell our Catholic friends they are going to hell because they worship a different Christ.
4. All agree that postmoderns are not Christians.
5. All agree that Brian McLaren and N.T. Wright are heretics. Cite the Reformed bigwigs who said so.
6. All agree that TULIP is important enough to talk about all day, every day.
7. Trash Arminians as often as possible for their inability to read what the Bible is plainly teaching.
8. Be uncharitable to all non-Calvinists in the name of "truth-telling."
9. Endorse the political agenda of GOP, and tie it to the Christian Worldview. Question the salvation of those who don't agree with our interpretation of that worldview.
10. Forgive the errors of all Puritans. Be outraged at the errors of anyone else.
11. State openly that some people need to "watch" what they blog, and women don't need to blog at all.
12. Question the mental stability of those who persistently criticize Calvinists.

Anyone ready to take the pill and wash it down with the Kool-Aid?



I loved this list!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 18, 2005)

Heb 10:24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 18, 2005)

Joseph, that is the best and most concise list of all the straw men that are set up by those critical of this board. There is a wide variety of convictions represented here, the confessions are presented right from the start as the principles that set the boundaries for discussion. They are not set up to keep people out but they do let everyone know the things that will be discussed and disuade those who might be offended by reformed christianity and it's teachings. 

I have found the board to be tolerant of open discussion but pot stirring doesn't do anyone anygood. Pot stirring just gets folks mad and then fellowship is broken down. There are boards for discussing house churches and no-churches and purpose driven churches. Like those boards this board offers a unique community and this community hopes at edifying others of reformed leanings. In all due respect brother, methinks thou doth protest too much.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> In all due respect brother, methinks thou doth protest too much.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 18, 2005)

Joseph,
You have a u2u


----------



## RamistThomist (May 18, 2005)

> Anyone ready to take the pill and wash it down with the Kool-Aid?



I was accused of being a cultist the other day


----------



## Poimen (May 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > Anyone ready to take the pill and wash it down with the Kool-Aid?
> ...



 Could you be anymore blunt? (BTW, I'm not laughing at you, I just think your statement is humorous in light of Joseph's statement).


----------



## Poimen (May 18, 2005)

On a more serious note, I just want to say that I am thankful that this board is limited to Reformed believers who take the confessions seriously. It is truly a spiritual oasis for me! 

Thanks to Matt, Scott and all the other moderators for creating and maintaining this excellent forum! 

[Edited on 5-18-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Robin (May 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Loriann_
> WAYNE,
> 
> by "The doctrine of the Church" do you mean "the doctrine of the church ORGANIZATION"?



Loriann,

In the NT, there is a clear, orderly structure defining Christ's church has having a presbyterian style government - pastors; teachers; elders; deacons - with Christ as Head. There is a system of checks and balances under the authority of ordained leaders in church government. In the OT, there was the "covenant people" in the "assembly". Throughout all of the Bible, God's people are always in an "organization" (if you will) --- we never see a "lone Christian" or a "lone Jew" out there, in their individual relationship with God.

There's a lot to this...but for now, this might be something gone unnoticed to you before? Or, perhaps to your friends? 

If so, I'm sure Matt, Scott and Fred would welcome them to dialog - if they care to learn what the Scriptures say about church government. (So would the rest of us, too.) 

We live in strange times...so much of the invisible Church is scattered abroad.

Thoughts?

Robin


----------



## default (May 18, 2005)

AS I read these comments my heart is heavy. Robin, I am not, nor is my friend, ignorant of what scripture says. Daniel, Limited to people that agree on everything, how does this place plan to reach out and share truth with others? Sure, like mindedness does mean a lot and division is not of God, but we are to love another, and show one another truth in Love. Scott, I and my friend have explored this in-depth, Thank you for your concern.

I guess I have my answer. It's sad too, as I was enjoying getting to know you all through your posts, and was enjoying the conversations, and watching you all discuss things without attacking one another. It's sad too that if someone agrees with most of the doctrine, yet doesn't agree on the church being a building, that you don't wish they fellowship with you all. 

I didn't wish to cause division on this sight. and I appreciate all your prayers for me recently. I will miss you all.


----------



## default (May 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> I have found the board to be tolerant of open discussion but pot stirring doesn't do anyone anygood. Pot stirring just gets folks mad and then fellowship is broken down. There are boards for discussing house churches and no-churches and purpose driven churches. Like those boards this board offers a unique community and this community hopes at edifying others of reformed leanings. .



I do agree with the reformed line of thinking... but because I and my friend disagree on one issue, that neither of us would, or have, had a problem with in discussions here on the boards nor have we caused division, we are not welcome?

Please don't take this statement as harsh, cold, judgemental, just simply asking question here.

[Edited on 5-19-2005 by Loriann]


----------



## alwaysreforming (May 18, 2005)

Loriann,
I would not venture to say that views like the one you or your friend(s) may hold would NECESSARILY keep you from posting here. But I think the lines of respect have to be adhered to regarding discussions/opinions on matters having to do with Ecclesiology. For instance, the poster must submit (for lack of a better word) to one of the reformed confessions in matters concerning the Church. There is so much to discuss in regards to our faith, that to have to re-hash out the same issues that are "already agreed on" creates needless confusion and strife. Its not that "You're not welcome here!" Its more of a "please don't post views in disagreement with the Confessions." I

I can not speak "officially" for the PuritanBoard. But as a member for some time, this is how I sense the tenor to the Board to be.

I have appreciated many of your previous posts. I hope that you will stick around and invite others who want to learn.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 18, 2005)

Loriann,
I can't imagine anyone who would want you to go. I sure don't. If you or your friend sincerely believe that the visible church is not a biblical doctrine then I wish you would be convinced by those of us who care for you deeply and who have prayed for you earnestly. Your virtual friendship is very important but more important is the defense of the faith and the scriptures. "Let God be true and everyman a liar."

I, like Christopher, cannot speak for the board but I do know that I came here with one of the most exotic spiritual pedigrees around. I have felt very confident in knowing I could trust the well thought out teaching and exhortation of the men and women on this board. I have been challenged to change where I differed from scripture and I have made those changes. I was surprised at some of the changes I made but it was the truth of scripture that compelled me.

Christopher was so right to point out that it we shouldn't have to rehash the entire confession of faith when there are so many areas in the faith that need to be illuminated. The confessions are a great starting point. They are not filters or litmus tests, they are a proven foundation for efficacious chat.


----------



## pastorway (May 18, 2005)

nobody stated that the church is a building, but according to Scripture it is a visible local gathering with specific form and structure that we submit ourselves under in the worship of God. And the doctrine of the church is a very serious issue indeed.

Let me state for the record that no one here expects 100% agreement with the confession of faith. But claiming to hold a confession means being in substantial agreement with it. Most denominations that hold to our confessions allow their ministers to have certain reservations about them, exceptions, or "scrupples". But each must be examined carefully and strong Biblical warrant must be given to defend a position that deviates from the confessions we hold. And they are not allowed to openly teach or defend their exceptions for the sake of unity and submission.

Further, we do not all agree on EVERYTHING as is evidenced by the fact that we allow 2 confessions - one presbyterian and the other baptist. That is where most of our debate comes from too if you look at the board. But there are areas - many many areas - where both the WCF and LBCF agree. Where they do we should be careful about taking exceptions.

I would say this in closing - if your friends want to join here, and belive that they have *substantial* agreement (even with a few exceptions) to one of our confessions, then have them email one of the admins and explain their exceptions to the confession. We will review it and decide where to go from there. Nobody but the admins can or will have a say in who and who does not join here anyway!

And as for you, please do not leave or be discouraged!! That would be our loss. 

Phillip


----------



## pastorway (May 18, 2005)

you know, even if we all did hold 100% to the same confession there would still be material for debate - I mean look at the number of denominations that all hold the same confession but disagree in their interpretation of it!

Nothing like debating your interpretation of another interpretation of Scripture.....

HAHA

PW


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 19, 2005)

Lori,
I am the one whom is responsible for approving memberships. What is your friends name, if I can ask? The finer points to our requirements for membership have been illuminated by Pastor Way, Bob and others. We are not unreasonable. These lines have been drawn for good reason; it keeps harmony! However, there is much difference between not agreeing with the confession and not _knowing_ about the confessions at all. It sounds to me like your friend is not familiar w/ confessionalism. Is this more the case? If so, we have no problem with allowing them on to learn about what we believe and why. People whom join and intentionally go against the flow for the sake of controversy will be on the outside looking in (as has been evidenced most recently in this thread). 

As for yourself, stay! We have had no issues w/ you. In fact, we want to minister to you. We see you as the Body of Christ. We know you have specific needs and we want to apply the balm. It would in fact sadden us if you went; especially at this time.....


----------



## default (May 19, 2005)

Thank you all for the encouragement. Though it did sound like you were stringent on the issue. 

Scott, if my friend decides to join he will do so on his own, and at that point decide to reveal himself as this person. I know from discussions with him that he and I agree on most things and if he has a problem with the confessions, chances are so do I. As I browse through the confessions there are some I disagree with. I am not one, however, to cause strife (at least not intentionally.) And I am not one to debate much. I will hold discussions, but if I discern someone's meaning is to cause me or other's strife I will drop the matter rather than continue to "win" the argument. As for disagreeing, if I see it in a thread, and the Lord so leads, perhaps I'll throw a question, or even a statement, inquiring of such, but you will not see me be disrespectful to the rules of the boards nor to the members here. It's been rather refreshing. I was a member of another site, of which not only is there contentions but bashings. Out and out war, and mostly nonsense. I tried being an encouragement there, and discussing matters, but they tended to want goofiness threads. Sure, they have their place, but when it came to theology it was ALL war! Mostly arminiasts there trying to shut anyone up who disagreed with them.


----------



## pastorway (May 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> I have heard of churches splitting over serious issues like the charismatic "gifts", modern and irreverant worship, or the fall of a pastor into grevious sin... but to split over the definition of "church" and "churches" (or the finer points of the WCF/BCF) is in my opinion, sad.



please understand that a church cannot split over the issue of defining "the church" because the people who do not believe in the local visible church don't attend or join a local visible church!!

No one is suggetsing witholding fellowship from a Christian who holds a wrong view of the church, but one should warn such a person about how they are misrepresenting the Scriptures and seek to help them understand what the Bible says and how we are to obey (apply) it by joining an participating actively in a local church.

Phillip


----------



## default (May 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by jenson75_
> Actually I am thinking more in terms of those who deny the universal, invisible church...


----------



## Scott (May 20, 2005)

Remember, the Bible was not written to the invisible church, but to the visible. Also, all the passage about the election of officers by necessity concerned election of officers to the visible church, not the invisible.


----------

