# How are differing Confesional views resolved?



## sotzo (Sep 8, 2007)

(Over from another post...)

Thanks for the clarification.

BTW, do you know of any good sources that have explored the extent to which a common confession should result in common lives? For example, two people can hold to the WCF and disagree on something like the presence of instruments in worship...does this indicate a need for more exegeting of the confession and, more importantly, its Scriptural foundation? Or should both sides see their differing views on instruments as two ways of upholding the confession?

I won't post here again on this as I don't want to hijack the admin purpose of your OP...but I'd be thankful for any resources you or others can provide.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 8, 2007)

Joel,

I didn't mind the question at all. In fact, I liked it so much I started a new thread so we could discuss....


----------



## ADKing (Sep 8, 2007)

Excellent question. One of the great motivating factors behind the Westminster Assembly was not only a unity but a _uniformity_ of doctrine, worship, government and discipline. This is what the Solemn League and Covenant, which they had taken, obliged them to. But they understood uniformity to be something that was biblically correct. For example: 

_I Corinthians 1.10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment._

_Philippians 3.15-16 15Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. 16Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing._

The Westminster Standards were composed (in part) to be the expression of this covenanted uniformity on the conviction that they best expressed the doctrines, worship, government and discipline required by the Bible. 

Part of our difficulty today, in my humble opinion, is that there is quite a bit of ignorance about the history and intention of Westminster Assembly. What was the intention of the divines with regard to musical instruments (not that I want to debate this particular question but I bring it up as an illustration since it was part of your original question)? Can those who agitate for use of instruments in worship really claim that they are promoting the same uniformity of worship that the Westminster divines did? I believe that many Presbyterians today (and probably from days gone by as well) have abandoned the concept of a uniformity in religion that made the Westminster Assembly so unique. As a result many pick and choose what parts of the Westminster standards to which they will adhere while rejecting others. This hodge-podge approach, in my opinion, undermines what the divines were doing. And once churches (and especially individuals!) begin to do this there is no clear place to stop. This has added to the fragmentation and plurality among Presbyterianism that was alien to the minds of the Westminster divines, and in my opinion, the New Testament. 

The following article by Thomas Houston is superb on this topic: http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/HoustonThomasUnionUniformity.htm


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 8, 2007)

To bind a mans conscience to a creed or confession against his will is wrong. But if a man disagrees with it he should not seek to undermine a confession or cause disunity between those who hold to it. Our confessions differ but we still are under the sovereign care of a God who holds all things in His hands. As the wheat and tares share this world in difficulty together so must the church have the same difficulties. We see through a glass darkly.  We should strive for what unity we can obtain on this side. The Lord prayed for our oneness.


----------



## sotzo (Sep 8, 2007)

ADKing said:


> Excellent question. One of the great motivating factors behind the Westminster Assembly was not only a unity but a _uniformity_ of doctrine, worship, government and discipline. This is what the Solemn League and Covenant, which they had taken, obliged them to. But they understood uniformity to be something that was biblically correct. For example:
> 
> _I Corinthians 1.10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment._
> 
> ...




Rev King:

Many, many thanks for your post and the link to Houston's work. This seems to be a complex issue that would be best discussed in person over a pint than on a thread! 

However, I do have some questions and observations...I'll ask for your forgiveness up front if I have misunderstood your post:

Can the passages in I Cor and Philippians, that you cite, really be used to justify the desire to see precise uniformity in every element of worship? I'm not seeing that as a reasonable exegesis. For example, is the "anything" in the Philippians passage getting at whether instruments are in worship or not? If so, then the "anything" has to apply to just that - anything...and everything. Which hymns we sing, order of worship, whether the kids can play on the Sabbath, whether we immerse, ad infinitum. Let me know if my own exegesis needs correction.

As for I Corinthians, the context is divisions within the church where the Gospel is at stake. Some in Corinth are claiming allegiance to Paul, some Apollos, some Peter...I understand Paul in ch1 v10 to mean there should not be divisions which replaces the rightful place of Christ as head of the Church. He does say "be no divisions", but again, I don't see how we can take that to apply to whether instruments can be used in public worship. 

My second question is: aren't there genuine differences in biblical interpretation (and therefore, practice) that can't be chalked up to what Houston chalks them up to?:

"The real causes of sects and strifes and divisions in the church, are the same as those which lead to physical and civil strife and division. "Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?" 

But this would mean that when we disagree about baptism with our Baptist brothers, we believe we are right and we should also believe that James 4 applies to them - that they are really holding to credo-baptistic views because they are trying to promote strife and division. I'm not saying that unity on baptism (for example) should not be strived for...but, there is a real, genuine, human sense in which there are different interpretations of Scripture. Furthermore, there are also differences between believers that are not subject to clear commands in Scripture, matters of conscience....hence Romans 14. (BTW, I don't believe that baptism is a matter of conscience...yet I don't believe non-paedos are necessarily trying to stir up strife.)

In summary, I agree with the striving and eschatological hope/turth of unity. What I'm not sure I agree with is that the Bible gives us a mandate to ensure unity to the extent some (including Houston) may think possible in this life. If it does, then I'm not sure we shouldn't be fencing the table from, not only unbelievers, but believers who are not adhereing to our confession and all of its applications. Not fencing it in this manner would mean we think our differences not too much, after all, to avoid communing together in the name of our great Saviour...but this seems absurd and much more unbiblical than any belief on the role of instruments in worship.


----------



## sotzo (Sep 8, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> To bind a mans conscience to a creed or confession against his will is wrong. But if a man disagrees with it he should not seek to undermine a confession or cause disunity between those who hold to it. Our confessions differ but we still are under the sovereign care of a God who holds all things in His hands. As the wheat and tares share this world in difficulty together so must the church have the same difficulties. We see through a glass darkly.  We should strive for what unity we can obtain on this side. The Lord prayed for our oneness.



I think you just said, much more succinctly and clearly, what I just spent more than 5 paragraphs on!


----------

