# Establishment Principle / Confessional Church Membership



## Kaalvenist (Jun 11, 2010)

I was discussing this already on a different forum; but would be quite open to comments and/or discussion here.

-----

I thought of an argument today for Confessional Church Membership, employing an argument frequently used for the Establishment Principle. 

I remember the argument being used for the Establishment Principle by John Brown of Haddington, in his "The Absurdity and Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration," etc. (recently republished as "A Refutation of Religious Pluralism," A Refutation of Religious Pluralism - Reformation Heritage Books). From that work, pp. 5-6 (from the 1803 edition): 

"1. God alone is the necessarily existent, and absolutely independent Creator and preserver, and therefore original and supreme proprietor and governor of all things in heaven or earth, Exod. 3:4; Gen. 1; Ps. 104; 24:1, 2; 33:6; 83:18; 67:2, 7, 9; Ezek. 1:11; Col. 1:16-18; Dan. 4:34, 35. 

"2. All right, civil, natural, or spiritual, whether of conscience, or of persons, or of husbands, parents, masters, magistrates, ministers, or even of Christ as mediator, must therefore wholly originate from God alone, Ps. 115:16; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10; Acts 10:25, 28; 2 Cor. 5:18; Ps. 75:7; Dan. 2:21; 4:32, 35; Matt. 28:18; 11:27; John 5:35. To suppose any real right or being whatsoever, unoriginating from him, is to give up with the necessary existence of God, and to plunge into the very depths of Atheism. 

"3. All right and authority of conscience, persons, husbands, parents, magistrates, ministers, or even of Christ as mediator, being wholly derived from God, ought, necessarily ought, wholly to be improved, or exercised in his name, in conformity and subordination to his law, as the supreme rule, and in order to promote his declarative glory as the chief end of it, Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36; 1 Pet. 4:11; 1 Cor. 10:31; John 5:30; 8:29; 7:18; Eph. 3:21. 

"4. No right or authority derived from God can therefore be lawfully improven or exercised, in protecting, encouraging, allowing or commanding any thing which God himself, on account of his infinite perfection in holiness, justice, goodness and truth, cannot command; -- or in discouraging, disallowing, or prohibiting any thing which God in his law requires. It is absurd to suppose it, that God can give men a power which he hath not himself; and shocking blasphemy to suppose him capable of giving men a right and authority to contemn or counteract his own law as their rule, or his own glory as their chief end, in every thing they do, 2 Tim. 2:13; Hab. 1:12, 13; Exod. 15:11; Deut. 32:4; Zeph. 3:5; Jas. 1:13." 

He continues on making distinctions, and then applies it particularly to magistracy, p. 28: 

"1. If magistracy, conscience, and human rights, natural and civil, be all derived from God, as all but Atheists must allow, magistrates can have no more power, authoritatively to tolerate sin, than God himself can command it. If God, by virtue of the infinite perfection of his nature, have no will, no power, authoritatively to proclaim liberty to commit sin, he cannot communicate any such power to the magistrate. Nor can the magistrate account to God for exceeding his power in licensing that which is infinitely injurious to him, more than the British king's Lion-keeper hath power, or could be accountable for loosing and hunting out the lions in the tower upon His Majesty. If conscience derive all its power from God, it can have no more power to enjoin any thing sinful, than Lord North hath to hire ruffians to assassinate his Sovereign. If all human rights be derived from God, the primary and supreme proprietor of all things, it is impossible they can authorize men to contrive or commit any thing sinful, or can protect them in it." 

As he particularly applied this principle to the magistracy, I will apply it to the church and her courts. 

From the Larger Catechism: 
Q. 105. What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment? 
A. The sins forbidden in the first commandment, are, ... ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions, unworthy and wicked thoughts of him (God)... vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, misbelief... 

Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment? 
A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, ... misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it, to ... the maintaining of false doctrine... the maligning, scorning, reviling, or any wise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways... 

1. Churches that have subordinate standards affirm that certain doctrines and practices are God's truth, and the result of truly interpreting and applying the Word of God. 

2. Admitting individuals to church membership, while not requiring that they affirm the truth of that church's subordinate standards, is an authoritative toleration of these sins against the first and third commandments. 

3. According to Brown of Haddington, such authoritative toleration of sin is technically impossible, since the authority or power of the church (as with every other created or ordained thing) derives said authority from God, who cannot Himself grant an authoritative toleration of sin, and therefore cannot grant such authority or power to any derived creature or institution. 

4. Therefore, it is necessary for individuals being received into church membership to accept the subordinate standards of that church, as their own confession or profession.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 11, 2010)

A few thoughts on the propositions, specifically:



> *Kaalvenist*
> 1. Churches that have subordinate standards affirm that certain doctrines and practices are God's truth, and the result of truly interpreting and applying the Word of God.



The subordinate standards are not quite "God's truth" in same sense as Scripture, though.



> 2. Admitting individuals to church membership, while not requiring that they affirm the truth of that church's subordinate standards, is an authoritative toleration of these sins against the first and third commandments.



A new Christian is not likely to know the profound doctrinal summary of the standards immediately, far less be able to evaluate each one immediately.

A baptized infant, or mentally disabled person would not likely be able to articulate this either.

Could the thief on the cross be admitted to a visible communion under this criteria?



> 3. According to Brown of Haddington, such authoritative toleration of sin is technically impossible, since the authority or power of the church (as with every other created or ordained thing) derives said authority from God, who cannot Himself grant an authoritative toleration of sin, and therefore cannot grant such authority or power to any derived creature or institution.



Yes, God hates sin, commands we abhor it, and repent of it. Yet, as imperfect creatures with a remaining portion of the Fall in our "old nature" we would have to rid the church of all people if we were to get rid of all sin. 



> 4. Therefore, it is necessary for individuals being received into church membership to accept the subordinate standards of that church, as their own confession or profession.



I would say accept the governance and discipline of the church, yes. And that is important.

But to say that each person must comprehensively understand, far less assent to every statement or proposition of doctrine in those standards, does not seem to comport with any normative biblical model.

It would seem the better analogy would be "to whom much is given, much is required," and to require with maturity fuller understanding and acceptance- and a biblically high standard for those who would lead (e.g. officers).


----------



## MW (Jun 11, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> As he particularly applied this principle to the magistracy, I will apply it to the church and her courts.



That is one way of turning the Church into another State and thereby destroy its distinctive characteristic as an institution of grace.

The magistrate has power over men's bodies, not over their souls. As the Secession theologians often pointed out, the establishment principle never gives the magistrate power to punish beliefs in and of themselves; it is only when those beliefs manifest themselves in a disturbance of the public peace that they come under the notice of the magistrate.



Kaalvenist said:


> 2. Admitting individuals to church membership, while not requiring that they affirm the truth of that church's subordinate standards, is an authoritative toleration of these sins against the first and third commandments.


 
That is a non sequitur. Giving believers the opportunity to be taught is an acknowledgment that "the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned." The reformed principle of faith and reason is that "faith seeks understanding." The ministry of Word and sacraments serves the soul in developing that understanding.

You might profit from reading Samuel Rutherford's Due Right of Presbyteries, where the establishmentarian takes the Independents to task for requiring explicit bonds of church membership. Traditional (catholic) Presbyterians maintain implicit bonds of church membership in the two sacraments of Christ's appointment; they do not advocate raising church membership to the status of a third sacrament.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 12, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> The subordinate standards are not quite "God's truth" in same sense as Scripture, though.


Churches that have subordinate standards acknowledge them to be true, founded upon the Word of God. Calling them "not quite 'God's truth' in the same sense as Scripture" seems to be a way of getting around the fact that they are received by the church as true.


Scott1 said:


> A new Christian is not likely to know the profound doctrinal summary of the standards immediately, far less be able to evaluate each one immediately.
> 
> A baptized infant, or mentally disabled person would not likely be able to articulate this either.
> 
> Could the thief on the cross be admitted to a visible communion under this criteria?


1. I'm simply saying that, whatever church there is, if it has received subordinate standards, it acknowledges those to be true; it is on the individual church which standards it decides to receive. If it receives the Westminster Standards, it is not consistent with its profession of those as truth, its witness or testimony to those truths, to receive individuals to membership who reject those truths -- it is contrary to its testimony. The same goes for a church that receives the Three Forms of Unity, or the Savoy Declaration, or the Twelve Articles of the Evangelical Free Church in America. It is contrary to its profession for a church to receive members who reject the principles that the church maintains.

2. I'm not talking about infants; they are not received into communicant membership until they profess their faith. I will not at this time address the mentally handicapped; I'm inclined to believe that they cannot produce a credible profession of faith, and so should not be received to communicant membership... but I don't think I will be ultra-dogmatic about that one, since that would probably make for an even touchier discussion. 

3. The thief on the cross was not received into the membership of the visible church, and so provides a non sequitur to this discussion.


Scott1 said:


> Yes, God hates sin, commands we abhor it, and repent of it. Yet, as imperfect creatures with a remaining portion of the Fall in our "old nature" we would have to rid the church of all people if we were to get rid of all sin.


Fair enough, Scott. I would say that by "sin" would here be meant sins knowable to others. An individual falling into sin may come under discipline, unless they repent of it; but continuing in unrepentant sin is the primary thing that falls under the purview of church discipline. And having a settled opinion in opposition to the standards of the church, or steadfastly refusing to assent to the standards of the church when called to do so, is continuing in unrepentant sin.


Scott1 said:


> I would say accept the governance and discipline of the church, yes. And that is important.
> 
> But to say that each person must comprehensively understand, far less assent to every statement or proposition of doctrine in those standards, does not seem to comport with any normative biblical model.
> 
> It would seem the better analogy would be "to whom much is given, much is required," and to require with maturity fuller understanding and acceptance- and a biblically high standard for those who would lead (e.g. officers).


There is no place of Scripture to indicate that there are beliefs or practices which ought to be affirmed by the officers of the church, which do not need likewise to be affirmed by the members of the church.

"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" (1 Cor. 1:10).


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 12, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> That is one way of turning the Church into another State and thereby destroy its distinctive characteristic as an institution of grace.
> 
> The magistrate has power over men's bodies, not over their souls. As the Secession theologians often pointed out, the establishment principle never gives the magistrate power to punish beliefs in and of themselves; it is only when those beliefs manifest themselves in a disturbance of the public peace that they come under the notice of the magistrate.


That was an unnecessary slam. Obviously I hold that magistracy and ministry are different, distinct institutions, with their own realms of authority and discipline. Brown's own propositions were easily capable of descending to the particular of church authority, rather than state authority; the propositions depend upon their being instituted by God (and the church and the state are both such institutions).

And here, I am not even speaking principally of an act of discipline (unless by discipline we mean the larger concept of any act of church government); I am speaking of receiving an individual to membership. Church membership requires a public profession of faith; I am simply arguing that it is inconsistent with its testimony for a church to make the content of that profession of faith (concerning doctrine and practice) anything else than the subordinate standards of the church.


armourbearer said:


> That is a non sequitur. Giving believers the opportunity to be taught is an acknowledgment that "the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned." The reformed principle of faith and reason is that "faith seeks understanding." The ministry of Word and sacraments serves the soul in developing that understanding.


I do not deny that believers should be given the opportunity to be taught, and to deepen their understanding... but that does not mean that individuals are to be received into the church without charity, without a good conscience, without faith, without understanding. They should grow more and more in these things; but to say that "faith seeks understanding," and therefore we receive people who don't know what the church believes or why, much less assent to it, sounds more like the popish doctrine of ignorance being the mother of devotion.

"Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth" (2 Pet. 1:12).


armourbearer said:


> You might profit from reading Samuel Rutherford's Due Right of Presbyteries, where the establishmentarian takes the Independents to task for requiring explicit bonds of church membership. Traditional (catholic) Presbyterians maintain implicit bonds of church membership in the two sacraments of Christ's appointment; they do not advocate raising church membership to the status of a third sacrament.


For which reason Rutherford also advocated baptizing the children of people who had been baptized in their infancy, who had never made profession of faith. I've read Rutherford on this subject; I hope I will be given the liberty to disagree with him, as most of us do. My position is much nearer that of the Covenanters and Seceders, as you can probably tell. And I would argue that it is not "raising church membership to the status of a third sacrament," but recognizing the place and importance of faith -- explicit, professed faith -- in the life of a church member.

In the ordinary life of the church, individuals are received to membership by baptism as infants. They cannot experience the full privileges of that membership (in the Supper, having their children baptized, voting, holding office) until they profess their faith. In the case of adults being received into the membership of the church by baptism, and thereby having immediate access to all the privileges of the church, they must profess their faith. I am simply arguing that the faith they profess ought to be the same faith which the church professes.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 12, 2010)

Comments below, to keep the flow of our thoughts. 



Kaalvenist said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > The subordinate standards are not quite "God's truth" in same sense as Scripture, though.
> ...


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 12, 2010)

I'm with Brown re: civil magistracy. However I am not in favor of confessional church membership in the sense you present. To be defined as a sheep, it is not required that one has reached perfection. It is only required that one bears the minimum evidence of being in fact a sheep, and not disturbing the order of the sheep-pen.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 12, 2010)

Sean, thanks for the application of Brown's argument to this issue. I think you have a legitimate link there.

As for the ongoing discussion, I cannot see how "faith seeking understanding" properly describes the situation of church members who consciously hold convictions or practices contrary to the doctrines of Scripture as confessed by their church. A faith that seeks understanding embraces these doctrines while exploring them in fuller detail. My understanding of "confessional membership" does not demand that every member immediately possess the ability to comprehensively articulate the doctrines confessed by their church. Rather, it is my view that confessional membership demands that church members do not consciously reject any doctrine which their church confesses to be taught in the Scriptures. Church officers are held to a higher standard in the sense that they must have sufficient comprehension of their confession to publicly defend and proclaim it, but it is _not_ a greater body of doctrine which they are required to affirm. As our Heidelberg Catechism teaches, true faith affirms "all that God has revealed to us in His Word." While all true believers will sinfully doubt God at times, it is nevertheless the case that obstinate, unrepentant rejection of God's truth at any point cannot be tolerated in the Church. There is one Law and one Truth which is the standard for officers and unordained members alike.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 13, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Yes, but every confessional communion I'm aware of receives them as "subordinate to" the Scriptures.
> 
> Nowhere are doctrinal standards received as having the same authority as Scripture, which says of itself that "man shall live... by every single word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4).
> 
> Receiving the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12) as truth is not the same as receiving a doctrinal summary of it- as time-tested, authoritative and valuable as the latter might be.


I realize that confessional standards are not of the same authority as the Word of God; I recognize them to be subordinate to Scripture. But that is a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the argument. If a church says an article of doctrine or practice is true, based upon Scripture, etc. you could say that it is only on that church's say-so, even if it is a doctrine we ordinarily regard as essential to salvation; but I am saying that *that same church* would be violating their testimony to the truth of that article, if they received someone to membership who denied the truth of that article.

Besides, there is nowhere in Scripture where a simple belief that the Bible is the Word of God is deemed as sufficient for church membership; otherwise the Jews that rejected Christ would have been immediately eligible for such.


Scott1 said:


> Yes, but are you also saying that seven or eight year old must understand all his church's doctrinal standards before he can be a member?


Yes. That is what I am saying. I don't see a lot of examples of children being received into the communicant membership of the church in the New Testament; that's about the only way that this objection could be of any force. I know that our churches, historically, would receive individuals based upon agreement with the Terms of Communion when they were in their early teens or older. Some Reformed Baptist churches (the more conservative ones, it seems), won't receive persons for membership before they are 18.


Scott1 said:


> I realize this is an isolated instance, but it would seem if the Lord Himself tells someone, "this day you will be with me in Paradise," that person really is in the visible (and invisible) church.


I would say invisible church, not visible church. Or, perhaps he would have admitted the truth of the entire, original Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms; we don't actually know. Christ alone knew. I don't think anyone would argue that, upon a confession of faith as minimal as that offered by the thief, an individual should be regarded as either a true believer, or eligible for visible church membership; but our omniscient Lord knew the heart beneath the confession. It is therefore a non sequitur to this discussion.


Scott1 said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> > There is no place of Scripture to indicate that there are beliefs or practices which ought to be affirmed by the officers of the church, which do not need likewise to be affirmed by the members of the church.
> ...


That's not what I said, Scott. I realize that there are "exemplary life qualifications," etc. (some of which are to be maintained by church members as well) that are specifically to be found in church officers. But are there any beliefs or practices which ought to be affirmed by the officers of the church, which do not need likewise to be affirmed by the members of the church?


Scott1 said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> > "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" (1 Cor. 1:10).
> ...


What does he mean there? Expound the actual teaching of the verse, without attempting to avoid the verse. And particularly,

1. What does "speak the same thing" mean?
2. What does "no divisions among you" mean?
3. What does "perfectly joined together" mean?
4. What does "in the same mind" mean?
5. What does "in the same judgment" mean?

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every *brother* that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us... And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. *Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother*" (2 Thess. 3:6, 14, 15).

Regarding someone as a Christian brother does not negate the fact that we sometimes must "withdraw ourselves from them," and "have no company with them." I would especially recommend a form more approximating this text if disciplining someone for a principle or practice not deemed essential to the Christian faith, by an individual who in a judgment of charity is probably a regenerate Christian; rather than "delivering them over to Satan," as we frequently voice in excommunications.

---------- Post added at 05:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 AM ----------




Willem van Oranje said:


> I'm with Brown re: civil magistracy. However I am not in favor of confessional church membership in the sense you present. To be defined as a sheep, it is not required that one has reached perfection. It is only required that one bears the minimum evidence of being in fact a sheep, and not disturbing the order of the sheep-pen.


1. One is received to communicant church membership based upon a profession of faith. A church is opposing its testimony in favor of truth, and in opposition to error, if it receives individuals who deny the truth it affirms, and embrace the error it opposes. A church that thus practically opposes its own testimony falls under the error which Paul exposed in Peter: "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor" (Gal. 2:18).

2. There is nowhere in Scripture where "bearing the minimum evidence of being in fact a sheep, and not disturbing the order of the sheep-pen," is regarded as the sole qualifier for communicant membership in the visible church.

3. We do not say that men must be perfect to be received to church membership, but only that they affirm what the church affirms, and reject what the church rejects. If the church in its public profession has already come to a fuller understanding of Scripture, we cannot retract from such, but must "walk by the same rule," and "mind the same thing." "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let 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. *Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing*" (Phil. 3:12-16).

---------- Post added at 05:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 AM ----------




Dearly Bought said:


> Sean, thanks for the application of Brown's argument to this issue. I think you have a legitimate link there.
> 
> As for the ongoing discussion, I cannot see how "faith seeking understanding" properly describes the situation of church members who consciously hold convictions or practices contrary to the doctrines of Scripture as confessed by their church. A faith that seeks understanding embraces these doctrines while exploring them in fuller detail. My understanding of "confessional membership" does not demand that every member immediately possess the ability to comprehensively articulate the doctrines confessed by their church. Rather, it is my view that confessional membership demands that church members do not consciously reject any doctrine which their church confesses to be taught in the Scriptures. Church officers are held to a higher standard in the sense that they must have sufficient comprehension of their confession to publicly defend and proclaim it, but it is _not_ a greater body of doctrine which they are required to affirm. As our Heidelberg Catechism teaches, true faith affirms "all that God has revealed to us in His Word." While all true believers will sinfully doubt God at times, it is nevertheless the case that obstinate, unrepentant rejection of God's truth at any point cannot be tolerated in the Church. There is one Law and one Truth which is the standard for officers and unordained members alike.


The only place where I might quibble is, "Rather, it is my view that confessional membership demands that church members do not consciously reject any doctrine which their church confesses to be taught in the Scriptures." I would tend to express it slightly more positively, that they should affirm what is affirmed by the church, and reject what is rejected by the church (while certainly not rejecting what is affirmed, or affirming what is rejected). But I would totally agree that the level of comprehension on the part of a novice, or a young church member, does not need to be anywhere close to where it ought to be for church officers -- and even there, I would say that ruling elders should have a fuller understanding of the standards than deacons, and ministers should have a fuller understanding than ruling elders, and doctors (I'm a four office guy  ) should have a fuller understanding than ministers.

And I agree completely: "faith seeking understanding" only makes sense when the faith confessed is that same faith the church confesses. We do not receive Papists to church membership (even though most would say that it is possible for Papists to be saved), citing "faith seeking understanding" as to why people affirming the Apocrypha, unwritten tradition, and a host of other unscriptural principles and practices, should be received. "Faith seeking understanding" indicates a growing in that same faith, not a rejection of that faith for something else (as receiving Socinians hoping they become Trinitarians, Papists hoping they become Protestants, Arminians hoping they become Calvinists, or Baptists hoping they become Paedobaptists, etc.).


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 13, 2010)

A few comments below.



Kaalvenist said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but every confessional communion I'm aware of receives them as "subordinate to" the Scriptures.
> ...


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 15, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> Saying for example, that you believe in the "three office" verses the "two office" (or even the "four(!) office" view you mention below) might be one practice where a member would agree to follow the church on it's "two office" view, but be more persuaded Scripture teaches "three office."
> 
> This would not seem to be a basis though for saying that person is not a member of (any) visible church.


I would recommend to you the inestimable research of Andrew Myers on this one: Virginia is for Huguenots: Office of Doctor

I would also add that the question of two vs. three (vs. four) offices is not insignificant, for either government or worship; and if a church has adopted a certain position, it is inconsistent for it not to require that position of its members and officers.


Scott1 said:


> How about a brand new believer who knows very little of the doctrine of predestination, which the Confession calls a "high mystery"?
> 
> It would much more often be the case of receiving ones who are "babes" in Christ, rather than intelligibly deny certain doctrines (far less comprehensively understand them).


It is not calling it a "high mystery" to indicate that it should not be believed by even children or novices in the faith (else, we would not have Shorter Catechism, Q. 7, 20); but because the divine decree is known only to God, and the rule of our obedience is not His secret will, but His revealed will; as indicated more fully in that section, WCF 3.8: "The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election."


Scott1 said:


> Where, specifically, in Scripture are the criteria (other than faith in Christ) for church membership you mention?


These are some of the passages which are most persuasive to me:

1. "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:41, 42).

2. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).

3. "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" (1 Cor. 1:10).

4. "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ" (Eph. 4:13-15).

5. "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel" (Phil. 1:27).

6. "If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" (Phil. 2:1, 2).

7. "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing" (Phil. 3:16).

8. "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us... And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (2 Thess. 3:6, 14, 15).

9. "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" (Tit. 3:10).

10. "Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein" (Heb. 13:9).

11. "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth" (2 Pet. 1:12).

12. "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).

13. "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth" (Rev. 2:14-16).

14. "But that which ye have already hold fast till I come" (Rev. 2:25).

15. "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown" (Rev. 3:10, 11).


Scott1 said:


> How about our Lord asking that the little ones not be hindered to come unto Him? -- Surely, you are not differing with the Westminster Standards on this point- that the visible church consists of believing parents and their children?


That is why I said, "I don't see a lot of examples of children being received into the *communicant* membership of the church in the New Testament" -- I have full belief and confidence in infant church membership and baptism; but that does not admit them to all the privileges of the church (unless you've become an advocate of paedocommunion).


Scott1 said:


> When the Lord Himself tells you you're in- you're in!


1. Yes, but "in" what? Telling someone that they are going to heaven is not identical to saying that they ought to be a full member of the church -- otherwise, we could never discipline someone for even acting contrary to the dictates of Scripture (like David or Peter), if we thought that they were truly regenerate.

2. Even if this was an admission of the man to visible church membership as well (which it was not), it was not being done by church officers, but by the Head of the Church Himself, who also searches the hearts and tries the reigns. The man did not give Him a credible profession of faith -- if a church officer or session of today admitted a man to the membership of the church based on the thief's declarations, they would be culpable. But Christ knew not only the reality of his faith, but the extent of his faith -- is there anything in the man's declared sentiments that demonstrated him to be unintelligent or undecided, to have no knowledge of true doctrine, worship, etc.?


Scott1 said:


> Look at the qualifications in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Some apply to doctrinal knowledge as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think I would lump in 1 Timothy 3:16 with the rest of it; most orthodox churches would say it is necessary to believe in the incarnation of Christ. Again, there is nothing here to indicate that church officers need to make sure they know and understand the five points of Calvinism, infant baptism, Presbyterian church government, etc., but that individual church members do not.


Scott1 said:


> Yes, but up to the point of ex-communication, we DO treat them as a brother. That is we DO acknowledge them as a member of the church.


I am suggesting that 2 Thessalonians 3 might present a slightly different "take" on it, that there are those whom we are still to regard as brethren, even when we can no longer have company with him. The admonishment of verse 15 is being equated with the not companying with him of verse 14. I don't know that "excommunication" or "delivering over to Satan" would be quite the right terminology to use in that occasion.


Scott1 said:


> This is getting much closer to the understanding I am articulating. Not every Presbyterian or reformed denomination is exactly alike on this, but my understanding is that, in membership vows, the member does vow to peaceably study the church's doctrine, and submit in a general sense to the government and discipline of the church.
> 
> That would preclude active opposition to clearly stated church doctrines. It likely would prevent teaching of any differing doctrine, and even most forms of influence in the church on that differing doctrine.
> 
> But I don't think not understanding (at all) a certain confessed doctrine is the same thing.


I don't know of any Presbyterian or Reformed churches that require members to vow "to peaceably study the church's doctrine."


> *PCA (BCO 57-5)*
> 1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?
> 2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
> 3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
> ...





> *OPC (Directory for the Public Worship of God, Chapter 5.5)*
> 1. Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
> 2. Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
> 3. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, to mortify your old nature, and to lead a godly life?
> 4. Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?





Scott1 said:


> Wow, Sean!
> A "four office" view, that could be a topic for another thread.
> 
> But to avoid distracting, will not comment on that, and specifically your proposition that ruling elders, scripturally "should have a fuller understanding of the standards than deacons,..."
> ...


Yes, they do. But I am trying to avoid particular instances or examples at this point, and discuss the principle itself.

I think that every Presbyterian denomination (even "two office" ones) would agree generally with what I said, even if they don't express it quite so explicitly, or make such a demarcation in offices.

1. Deacons are officers of the church, so they should be expected to have a greater comprehension of the faith than ordinary church members; but they do not rule or teach, so their comprehension does not have to be quite so high as others.

2. Ruling elders (or elders that only rule, if you prefer) do rule in the church, and must decide on matters of doctrine or practice, when in session, presbytery, synod, etc., so their comprehension of the faith should be higher than that of ordinary deacons; but they do not teach, so their comprehension does not have to be quite so high as others.

3. Ministers (or elders that both rule and teach) obviously both rule and teach, which means that they must decide on doctrinal and practical matters in constituted court, AND teach the congregation from the Word of God, therefore their comprehension of the faith should be greater than that of deacons or ruling elders (and we expect this, when we take men of any vocation from the congregation for deacons or ruling elders, but insist on seminary training for our ministers); but they do not teach other ministers, so their comprehension does not have to be quite so high as doctors.

4. Doctors or teachers (today we would call them seminary professors) have the duty, not only of ruling and teaching in the church, but teaching the men who will both rule and teach in the church. They are not expected only to learn Greek, Hebrew, biblical and systematic theology, church history, etc., but to teach other men these things. Therefore, they should have a greater comprehension of the faith than even ordinary ministers.

But in all of these instances, it is the same faith which they are professing, though with varying degrees of comprehension. I simply argue that church members, in professing the faith, are to follow the same course, and are to profess the same faith, though with an even lesser requirement of comprehension. As officers or members of the same church, which already has a public profession of faith, they must profess that same faith of the church -- unless we will, contrary to the place in the Confession of Faith which you already quoted, describe the church as something other than its members.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 15, 2010)

Due to the volume of response here, this will be my final comment in this format.

Please see below.



Kaalvenist said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Saying for example, that you believe in the "three office" verses the "two office" (or even the "four(!) office" view you mention below) might be one practice where a member would agree to follow the church on it's "two office" view, but be more persuaded Scripture teaches "three office."
> ...


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jun 19, 2010)

Scott,

1. The original Westminster Standards (particularly the Directory for the Publick Worship of God) are four office. Although there aren't many anymore, some churches still adhere to these Standards.

2. WCF 3.8 did not refer to predestination as a "high mystery" to indicate that it is difficult to comprehend. You failed to respond to the fact that the Shorter Catechism (Q. 7, 20), designed for children and novices before being received to communion, refers to the same doctrine. And some doctrines (the Trinity; the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, and future return of Christ; original sin; justification by imputed righteousness, etc.) are difficult to understand, while also essential to salvation; so you would require them for church membership anyways; so that the relative difficulty of a doctrine does not make it less capable of being a term of church membership.

3. Out of my list of fifteen passages, you failed to attempt to respond to nine of them. Most of your responses did not interact with the passages at all -- the remarks on Acts 2:41, 42 actually seemed as though you were attempting to be sarcastic (I hope not, I only speak of the appearance).

On Ephesians 4:13-15, you said, "Until... but that's not yet. This is an exhortation, not a condition for confession- based membership." I would remark that the implication is that such is required of church members (compare, for example, v. 14 with Heb. 13:9); and that if something is required of church members, one cannot receive an individual to church membership who cannot or will not obey or keep such a requirement. If church members are required...

(1.) to continue steadfastly in apostolic doctrine,
(2.) to speak the same thing,
(3.) to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and judgment,
(4.) to be united in faith,
(5.) to not be carried about by strange doctrines,
(6.) to speak the truth in love,
(7.) to strive together for the faith of the gospel,
(8.) to be likeminded,
(9.) to be of one accord,
(10.) to walk by and be likeminded with what has already been attained,
(11.) to be established in the present truth,
(12.) to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered,
(13.) to hold fast what we already have;

but an individual, by his adherence to false principles of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline, refuses (whether or not it is intended) to do any of these things; it is contrary to all good order and discipline to receive him to church membership, while in such a state.

4. You said, "Communicant membership would be another topic for another thread." Communicant membership is exactly what we are speaking of -- the membership into which one enters upon profession of faith. I am simply arguing that the faith an individual professes before the church in order to membership be the same faith professed by the church. Obviously, infants who are baptized members of the church are not being contemplated.

5. Concerning the thief on the cross, I will lay down, in a few concise sentences, my opinion. You may comment upon them as you will.

(1.) The thief on the cross was saved.

(2.) Christ's answer to the thief, "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise," was an affirmation that he would be in heaven that day, and not that he was thereby immediately inducted into the visible church.

(a.) One is admitted to the visible church by an external rite (baptism), which he did not receive.

(b.) The visible church reveals, and brings men to, God in Christ, mediately; whereas the import of Christ's declaration was that he should shortly enjoy God in Christ immediately.

(3.) Even if he was received to the visible church, his case would provide no example for us, in the way it is being argued.

(a.) "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom," is not a sufficient declaration of faith, according to any conservative Presbyterian.

(b.) Christ therefore did not operate according to the man's profession, but according to His infallible knowledge of the man's heart, mind, and intention.

(c.) Because of this, the brevity of the thief's statement does not indicate anything (since Christ did not declare him the heir of paradise based upon his statement); for all we know, the thief held to the original Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.

6. You have not shown one single example of a principle of doctrine, worship, government, or discipline which church officers must hold, but church members do not have to hold -- unless you are going to say that 1 Timothy 3:16 (which mentions doctrines essential to salvation) is not necessary for church members to hold.

7. Scott, *I* am not defining "who we ought not have company with... to include anyone" *I* "have any sort of doctrinal disagreement with." *The church* has received standards of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline. Who or what is "the church?" Is "the church" its members?


> "The visible church... consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children" (Confession of Faith, 25.2).
> "The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children" (Larger Catechism, Q. 62).
> "We believe and profess, one catholic or universal church, which is an holy congregation, of true Christian believers..." (Belgic Confession, Article 27).
> "Q. What believest thou concerning the 'holy catholic church' of Christ? A. That the Son of God from the beginning to the end of the world, gathers, defends, and preserves to himself by his Spirit and word, out of the whole human race, a church chosen to everlasting life, agreeing in true faith; and that I am and for ever shall remain, a living member thereof" (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 54).
> "The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men..." (Article 19 of the 39 Articles).


If "the church" has subordinate standards, and "the church" is its professing members (together with their children), then the professing members must profess the subordinate standards. Otherwise, "the church" is no longer essentially the members thereof, but merely an organization.

8. I will not presume to tell an officer of the PCA the meaning of his own church's membership vows; but I would question whether your understanding of Vow 5 is maintained across the PCA, in every church court -- or even by one single church court (namely, the GA). Knowing that the PCA does not require members to affirm the subordinate standards, I cannot bring myself to put such a construction on the words. In the RPCNA, officers vow "to study and promote the purity, peace, unity and progress of the church" (Vow 8); this does not mean "study" (in the sense of learn) the doctrine of the church, since they have already vowed their acceptance of the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Testimony (Vow 4). I would say that it is being used in the sense of seeking out ways that promote such things; so that, in the PCA membership vow, it has no reference to doctrine, but to avoiding schism (peace) and gross sin (purity).

9. When I speak of professing the "same faith," with "varying degrees of comprehension," I am not referring to an individual's saving faith, whereby they lay hold of Christ for eternal salvation (_fiducia_). I am speaking of the principles of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline that they maintain (_assensus_). Individuals being received church membership are not expected to hold to such things the same way, to the same degree, with the same conviction, or supported by such proofs as may be given by a professor of theology. But they still ought to hold to such things. They still ought to "profess the true reformed religion" (WCF 24.3), summarized in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms.


----------

