Amend the Confessions?
- Thread starter Christopher
- Start date
- Status
FrozenChosen
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:9221cc350a][i:9221cc350a]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:9221cc350a]
And God depends on...oh, sorry, still recovering from my Arminian upbringing
. [/quote:9221cc350a]
+2 points for hilarity.
And God depends on...oh, sorry, still recovering from my Arminian upbringing
. [/quote:9221cc350a]+2 points for hilarity.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Here is my rant on this subject:
In my circle of Reformed churches, which are mostly from Dutch origin, there has been a great deal of lattitudinarianism. Especially in the churches where I was member has there been a practice of recognizing as faithful those who were members in good standing. This "good standing" was defined by being members. This may seem inoccuous enough, but this developed from an equality of membership to an equality of faith to an equality of the content of faith. I remember being told one time, "What does it matter, as long as we all have Jesus as our Saviour?" Eventually this leads to having the offices filled with men who not only differ among themselves as to doctrine, but also are free to differ with the Confessions as they will. There is no one to say that their faith is not equal to, or sufficient for, any other ordained officer.
So we have disputes, not only in local churches, but in denominations. One side wants to open the offices to women, and the other not. But there is no one to officially say that the one side or the other is being unfaithful in doctrine, for they are both equal. It may not be full-blown, but faithfulness has in part become equal to unfaithfulness, and there is a despairing of resolution from out of the teachings of Scripture, as summarized in the Confesssions.
We tend too easily to define Covenant faithfulness as sufficient maturity for the offices. And we too easily lower the standards of Covenant faithfulness so as not to exclude those who are less mature. So there is a watering down of the teachings of the Confessions as requirements for office.
But salvation is by grace, not by standards. Salvation will lead to conformity, but it is not automatically there upon the instituting of saving grace. Sanctification follows salvation. Understanding and wisdom grow in a person, and are not automatically assumed upon salvation. A person increases in his knowledge of the Word and of God his Saviour as he continues to submit to the authority of the Word and of the Spirit's leading. He has many hills yet to climb. But he is nonetheless already saved no less than the most mature Christian.
But this is not the requirement that the Bible states for the qualification for the offices. The leadership of the church is not up to man. It is in man's hands to take up responsibilities of the offices, but it is in no way up to him how he may lead, or what direction the church may take. It is Christ's church, and He alone is the head.
Therefore the Church institutes standards for doctrine. These standards need to be attained to, not made artificial. Though we may fail in attaining to a true and complete doctrine of salvation, yet we confess the church to hold them within the standards she upholds. If she fails to uphold that standard she confessess, then she also fails in upholding a true and complete doctrine of salvation.
Notice that the novice or new convert is not required to be fully knowledgable of the Confessions, but only to accept them. This is far different than a prospective elder. He may not be able to attain to a full knowledge either, but there has to be a standard much higher than a novice. He must be mature enough, at least, to know that he may not put forth his own beliefs as standards of faith for others, no matter how mature he may be. He is called to lead as best he can as an elder, according to Christ's will, not his own. There has to be, then, a fuller knowledge of the Bible's teachings of salvation, a knowledge both of the historical church's rulings, and knowledge of contemporary influences. He must, in fact, be able to reason adequately from Scripture to defend the faith of those over who he has been given responsibility.
If an elder raises himself above the Confessions, then he stands alone, and not in unity with the church. If he is right in his assertions, then it will eventually stand, not because he asserted it, but because of the weight of truth itself. Meanwhile, he does no harm either to himself or to the church by patiently waiting for the Spirit to so lead the church.
This is far different than an elder, or even an ordinary member, standing alone against the local church or denomination. He may do so if he clearly has the Confessions on his side. In this way he is united with the church while he may be at odds with his own church or denomination. But here too, he must patiently wait for the Spirit to lead as He will.
When the church remains adamant in its apostacy or heresy, then there is a time for patience to run out. When exactly that is, I suppose, is up to each individual situation. But a person is not to think himself alienated from the Body of Christ if he remains faithful to the Confessions, even though his local church may rule otherwise. He may not subject these standards to his own particular slant to justify himself; he must be clearly in line with faithful teachings.
The question, though, is about churches that are faithful to the Standards, and yet there being some kind of percieved fault in the Standards themselves. It has been noted that there have been no ecumenical councils like that of the Westminster Assembly or the Synod of Dordt to resolve present or contemporary controversies. In the same way it has also been suggested that the present controversies can be resolved within the confines of the Confessional standards we already have; that we don't need another Synod to do again what a previous Synod has already done.
I think that we have divided over too many small things, or made too many big things appear to be only small, and yet divided. There are too many equated understandings of the Confessions. This does not need to be so. Nor do we need to convene another Assembly to resolve them. I think that we need to raise the level of maturity for the offices, and lower the level of maturity for membership. We need men who accept the Standards of Faith as their standards to lead us according to the will of the true leader and head of the Church, namely Christ; and we ought not to judge too harshly those who differ with us in matters of the Confessions, so as to think that they are not of the body of Christ. We can have unity of fellowship, and a better leadership.
After many years of disappointing church affiliations, and of trying to apply these Reformed doctrines to myself, this is where I come out. I love my brethren; but I have a lot of problems with belligerant laxness, of putting the lines in arbitrary places instead of where the Bible puts them. I may be guilty of this myself; but that is why I have friends like you.
In my circle of Reformed churches, which are mostly from Dutch origin, there has been a great deal of lattitudinarianism. Especially in the churches where I was member has there been a practice of recognizing as faithful those who were members in good standing. This "good standing" was defined by being members. This may seem inoccuous enough, but this developed from an equality of membership to an equality of faith to an equality of the content of faith. I remember being told one time, "What does it matter, as long as we all have Jesus as our Saviour?" Eventually this leads to having the offices filled with men who not only differ among themselves as to doctrine, but also are free to differ with the Confessions as they will. There is no one to say that their faith is not equal to, or sufficient for, any other ordained officer.
So we have disputes, not only in local churches, but in denominations. One side wants to open the offices to women, and the other not. But there is no one to officially say that the one side or the other is being unfaithful in doctrine, for they are both equal. It may not be full-blown, but faithfulness has in part become equal to unfaithfulness, and there is a despairing of resolution from out of the teachings of Scripture, as summarized in the Confesssions.
We tend too easily to define Covenant faithfulness as sufficient maturity for the offices. And we too easily lower the standards of Covenant faithfulness so as not to exclude those who are less mature. So there is a watering down of the teachings of the Confessions as requirements for office.
But salvation is by grace, not by standards. Salvation will lead to conformity, but it is not automatically there upon the instituting of saving grace. Sanctification follows salvation. Understanding and wisdom grow in a person, and are not automatically assumed upon salvation. A person increases in his knowledge of the Word and of God his Saviour as he continues to submit to the authority of the Word and of the Spirit's leading. He has many hills yet to climb. But he is nonetheless already saved no less than the most mature Christian.
But this is not the requirement that the Bible states for the qualification for the offices. The leadership of the church is not up to man. It is in man's hands to take up responsibilities of the offices, but it is in no way up to him how he may lead, or what direction the church may take. It is Christ's church, and He alone is the head.
Therefore the Church institutes standards for doctrine. These standards need to be attained to, not made artificial. Though we may fail in attaining to a true and complete doctrine of salvation, yet we confess the church to hold them within the standards she upholds. If she fails to uphold that standard she confessess, then she also fails in upholding a true and complete doctrine of salvation.
Notice that the novice or new convert is not required to be fully knowledgable of the Confessions, but only to accept them. This is far different than a prospective elder. He may not be able to attain to a full knowledge either, but there has to be a standard much higher than a novice. He must be mature enough, at least, to know that he may not put forth his own beliefs as standards of faith for others, no matter how mature he may be. He is called to lead as best he can as an elder, according to Christ's will, not his own. There has to be, then, a fuller knowledge of the Bible's teachings of salvation, a knowledge both of the historical church's rulings, and knowledge of contemporary influences. He must, in fact, be able to reason adequately from Scripture to defend the faith of those over who he has been given responsibility.
If an elder raises himself above the Confessions, then he stands alone, and not in unity with the church. If he is right in his assertions, then it will eventually stand, not because he asserted it, but because of the weight of truth itself. Meanwhile, he does no harm either to himself or to the church by patiently waiting for the Spirit to so lead the church.
This is far different than an elder, or even an ordinary member, standing alone against the local church or denomination. He may do so if he clearly has the Confessions on his side. In this way he is united with the church while he may be at odds with his own church or denomination. But here too, he must patiently wait for the Spirit to lead as He will.
When the church remains adamant in its apostacy or heresy, then there is a time for patience to run out. When exactly that is, I suppose, is up to each individual situation. But a person is not to think himself alienated from the Body of Christ if he remains faithful to the Confessions, even though his local church may rule otherwise. He may not subject these standards to his own particular slant to justify himself; he must be clearly in line with faithful teachings.
The question, though, is about churches that are faithful to the Standards, and yet there being some kind of percieved fault in the Standards themselves. It has been noted that there have been no ecumenical councils like that of the Westminster Assembly or the Synod of Dordt to resolve present or contemporary controversies. In the same way it has also been suggested that the present controversies can be resolved within the confines of the Confessional standards we already have; that we don't need another Synod to do again what a previous Synod has already done.
I think that we have divided over too many small things, or made too many big things appear to be only small, and yet divided. There are too many equated understandings of the Confessions. This does not need to be so. Nor do we need to convene another Assembly to resolve them. I think that we need to raise the level of maturity for the offices, and lower the level of maturity for membership. We need men who accept the Standards of Faith as their standards to lead us according to the will of the true leader and head of the Church, namely Christ; and we ought not to judge too harshly those who differ with us in matters of the Confessions, so as to think that they are not of the body of Christ. We can have unity of fellowship, and a better leadership.
After many years of disappointing church affiliations, and of trying to apply these Reformed doctrines to myself, this is where I come out. I love my brethren; but I have a lot of problems with belligerant laxness, of putting the lines in arbitrary places instead of where the Bible puts them. I may be guilty of this myself; but that is why I have friends like you.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Before I get a lot of questions about lowering the standard, I should clarify. I'm just saying that we should not exclude from the faith those who have a mere beginning of understanding, but who will submit to the Word when the Word directs them in ways that they have not yet acknowledged.
At the same time, we should be much more careful about who we ordain to the offices. Some office-bearers will excuse themselves from subjection by equivocating, making unsure the sure teachings of Scripture, as outlined in the Confessions. Just because they may have a disagreement, that does not excuse them. They are still to be counted as faithful Christians, but as office-bearers they have to uphold the church's standards or be counted as unfaithful in the administration of the office.
I'm not trying to suggest that we can accept anyone and everyone who says they are believers, just on their sayso. I just want to avoid situations like what I have found myself in, where "good standing" meant submission to Reconsructionism, or fitting in culturally as well.
At the same time, we should be much more careful about who we ordain to the offices. Some office-bearers will excuse themselves from subjection by equivocating, making unsure the sure teachings of Scripture, as outlined in the Confessions. Just because they may have a disagreement, that does not excuse them. They are still to be counted as faithful Christians, but as office-bearers they have to uphold the church's standards or be counted as unfaithful in the administration of the office.
I'm not trying to suggest that we can accept anyone and everyone who says they are believers, just on their sayso. I just want to avoid situations like what I have found myself in, where "good standing" meant submission to Reconsructionism, or fitting in culturally as well.
- Status
