Book Recommendations?

[Romans922]

my only objection to your most wise assertion is... after growing up in churches who skirted all my questions and didn't even fully teach their own views, I feel compelled to investigate the scriptures of my own accord! LOL!

That may be wise...Acts 17:11

 

[Dordts5]

my only objection to your most wise assertion is... after growing up in churches who skirted all my questions and didn't even fully teach their own views, I feel compelled to investigate the scriptures of my own accord! LOL!

That may be wise...Acts 17:11

This is very wise. In my own experience I have encountered, with great sadness, the IDEA that the creeds, confessions and catechisms can't be wrong because: 1.) they are historical 2.) they were written by very learned men, and 3.) should I "actually pretend like I know better."

All three of these points are well taken; however, just like those that enunciate the arguments holding steadfastly to the 3 C's, I too say that they are infallible. It's amazing what our presuppositions will do to the Scriptures when our thoughts aren't ready to be tried.

And, I should add how dangerous it is when the church tells us what we must believe in order to become a member, or to not come under discipline if we don't believe jot and tittle to the 3 C's. Boy, do I have stories!

 

[Scott1]

comment below.

my only objection to your most wise assertion is... after growing up in churches who skirted all my questions and didn't even fully teach their own views, I feel compelled to investigate the scriptures of my own accord! LOL!

That may be wise...Acts 17:11

This is very wise. In my own experience I have encountered, with great sadness, the IDEA that the creeds, confessions and catechisms can't be wrong because: 1.) they are historical 2.) they were written by very learned men, and 3.) should I "actually pretend like I know better."

Dallas,
If you are speaking of historic confessions, in confessional denominations, like the Westminster Standards in Presbyterianism-
they never have claimed to be infallible, and that is explicit, e.g. in the PCA preamble, which reflects historic Presbyterianism on that point.

And we don't want to discount the witness of church history lightly.

The definition of a confessional church is a confessed doctrine, one that is believed to be a faithful summary of what the Scriptures teach. It's not a matter of individual members, whether new "babes" in Christ learning doctrine for the first time, or more seasoned members to individually determine all doctrine. And, the covenantal nature of the church also involves peaceably studying the church's doctrine, not publicly challenging it (apart from amendment process).



All three of these points are well taken; however, just like those that enunciate the arguments holding steadfastly to the 3 C's, I too say that they are infallible.

I think you mean "fallible" (capable of fault) not "infallible." Who are you saying holds the "3 C's" infallible?

It's amazing what our presuppositions will do to the Scriptures when our thoughts aren't ready to be tried.

Tried by who?

And, I should add how dangerous it is when the church tells us what we must believe in order to become a member,

But the church exists to inform its members what the Scripture says. What other reason for it exists?
Occasionally, it may speak that truth to an unbelieving world.

Dallas,
In reformed theology, the church is much more than a loose association of consenting adults, each independently and authoritatively evaluating doctrine for themselves.

That's closer to what broad evangelicalism assumes, but not historic Christianity.



or to not come under discipline if we don't believe jot and tittle to the 3 C's. Boy, do I have stories!

 

[Scott1]

And, I should add how dangerous it is when the church tells us what we must believe in order to become a member,

I would submit, it is the opposite.

Far worse for a communion not to clearly communicate to its members, potential members (and the world) what it believes the Scriptures teach.

How on earth could there be any discipline, members or officers, without it?

 

[Dordts5]

Scott, I am responding below. Your response was difficult for me to follow, so if you choose to reply to anything that I have written would you be kind enough to copy and paste and reply. If you reply by copy/paste, as opposed to the "reply" icon, it would be less confusion for me to follow. Thanks.

comment below.

my only objection to your most wise assertion is... after growing up in churches who skirted all my questions and didn't even fully teach their own views, I feel compelled to investigate the scriptures of my own accord! LOL!

That may be wise...Acts 17:11

This is very wise. In my own experience I have encountered, with great sadness, the IDEA that the creeds, confessions and catechisms can't be wrong because: 1.) they are historical 2.) they were written by very learned men, and 3.) should I "actually pretend like I know better."

Dallas,
If you are speaking of historic confessions, in confessional denominations, like the Westminster Standards in Presbyterianism-
they never have claimed to be infallible, and that is explicit, e.g. in the PCA preamble, which reflects historic Presbyterianism on that point.

And we don't want to discount the witness of church history lightly.

The definition of a confessional church is a confessed doctrine, one that is believed to be a faithful summary of what the Scriptures teach. It's not a matter of individual members, whether new "babes" in Christ learning doctrine for the first time, or more seasoned members to individually determine all doctrine. And, the covenantal nature of the church also involves peaceably studying the church's doctrine, not publicly challenging it (apart from amendment process).


I understand your position quite clearly and the position of any confessional church, after all I am ordained by such a church. I also understand the position of members the Confessional take of ANY member not undermining the Scriptures, Confessions, Creeds and Catechisms. Is someone "publicly challenging it"? Is the "public challenge" in the BCO somewhere? If it is and a member is not aware of it, is it good to give caution to the member who may be challenging any part of the 3 C's, or better yet "being challenged?" I'm just wondering if this doesn't remind us of Roman Catholicism.

All three of these points are well taken; however, just like those that enunciate the arguments holding steadfastly to the 3 C's, I too say that they are infallible.

I think you mean "fallible" (capable of fault) not "infallible." Who are you saying holds the "3 C's" infallible?

Yes, I did mean fallible. I work 3rd shift and sometimes mind-to-finger coordination is off a little bit. I'm not saying that anyone "holds the 3C's infallible." If you replace the word "infallible" with the correct word, "fallible" you will see that what I meant to say is, "All three of these points are well taken; however, just like those that enunciate the arguments holding steadfastly to the '3 C's', I too say they are fallible."

It's amazing what our presuppositions will do to the Scriptures when our thoughts aren't ready to be tried.

Tried by who?

Tried by Scripture itself. Should the Scriptures determine what we are to believe, or the 3C's? What happens if the 3C's do not line completely square with Scripture? If the 3C's do not completely square with Scripture, are we to simply forget what Scripture is pointing towards and go with the 3C's? I know, I'm begging the question. My point is, dear friend, is even though any preamble may clearly deem the fallibility of men and the infallibility of Scripture, holding those 3C's, not only as doctrinal statements, but as highly as they are in any reformed, confessional church must not be done. Most Synods, Presbyteries, and Consistories will not ever admit that this is what is done, but I have witnessed otherwise. My own personal witness.

And, I should add how dangerous it is when the church tells us what we must believe in order to become a member,

But the church exists to inform its members what the Scripture says. What other reason for it exists?
Occasionally, it may speak that truth to an unbelieving world.

Dallas,
In reformed theology, the church is much more than a loose association of consenting adults, each independently and authoritatively evaluating doctrine for themselves.


That's closer to what broad evangelicalism assumes, but not historic Christianity.

Yes, I agree. I'm not going to spend my time splitting hairs with you in regards to this. Perhaps you don't know, because you don't know me, but you are preaching to choir in regards to what reformed theology is and the role of the church. Forgive me if I use too much candor, my intention is to not be impolite to you.

The Church is there to inform the entire population of what Scripture says, and there is no other reason for it because any other reason is plainly taught within Scripture itself. However, the lens through which Scripture is taught is not only that of the 3C's. The 3C's simply declare a systematic doctrine of confession.

Here is an example for you, a very simple one. Let's take the Apostle's Creed. In the back of every Red Hymnal in the PCA the Apostle's Creed is there for us to read, and to openly confess together as a congregation. The Teaching Elder asks, "Believers, what do you believe?" The believers respond by reciting the Creed. Within the Creed it says, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth." It goes on to declare what the Son and the Holy Ghost. To many the Creed is declaring the Economic Trinity. If this were the case, one could make a very good argument that the Creed needs amended, and could hold an exception to this Creed, because doesn't Scripture teach us that all things were created by, for, to, and through Christ (Rom. 11:36; Col. 1:16). Also, doesn't John 1:1-3 say "...All things came into being through Him, and apart form Him nothing came into being that has come into being"? According to what I understand you saying, if I do not "hold steadfastly" to what the Creed says, and publicly challenge it, like I am doing right now, I should be held accountable and be discipled for it. Is that correct?

or to not come under discipline if we don't believe jot and tittle to the 3 C's. Boy, do I have stories!

 

[Dordts5]

And, I should add how dangerous it is when the church tells us what we must believe in order to become a member,

I would submit, it is the opposite.

Far worse for a communion not to clearly communicate to its members, potential members (and the world) what it believes the Scriptures teach.

How on earth could there be any discipline, members or officers, without it?

Given the example above concerning the Apostle's Creed, if I hold the exception to believing that Christ is the Creator, in His Economic Function of the Trinity, along with Father and Holy Ghost, I should not be allowed to become a member of the communion. What if I hold different exception to the Apostle's Creed, namely the statement of "I believe in the resurrection of the body," should I be withheld from membership and communion? Maybe a person could give the blanket answer of "yes, he should be withheld."

Let's take the example of eschatology. If I hold to a different eschatology than that of my teaching elder, do you suppose it would be proper to deny a communing member marriage (what I mean is that Elder denying himself to the couple as the official of the ceremony)? It's a big can of worms, but let's take it a step further. Their pastor has denied them, however they go to the judge and get married. Should the Session now bring disciplinary charges against the couple because they broke their vow, as members, to keep themselves under the authority and teaching of the Session?

This isn't about what the local congregation believes the Scriptures teach. It is about denying a person membership because they do not believe the jot and tittle of the 3C's. Even if a person believes the 3C's to be wrong with a particular doctrine it is inherently wrong to deny one who professes, confesses, and trusts Christ as Lord and Savior, especially if it is not a salvific issue or doctrine that is in question. in my opinion the only reason why this would happen is if the Session believed there was risk of a public discourse of the issue by the petitioning member, and that there was risk of bringing contempt upon the 3C's. So why, in the first place, are the 3C's being held to a higher standard than Scripture. There is no such warrant for denying a person membership because they do not believe everything about the 3C's.

 

[Scott1]

understand your position quite clearly and the position of any confessional church, after all I am ordained by such a church. I also understand the position of members the Confessional take of ANY member not undermining the Scriptures, Confessions, Creeds and Catechisms. Is someone "publicly challenging it"? Is the "public challenge" in the BCO somewhere? If it is and a member is not aware of it, is it good to give caution to the member who may be challenging any part of the 3 C's, or better yet "being challenged?" I'm just wondering if this doesn't remind us of Roman Catholicism.

Not sure I'm following your points.
A confessional church is what it is, with its confession being the basis of its unity, and what it confesses as faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture.

Roman Catholicism teaches that church tradition ultimately is above Scripture, no church that holds the "3 C's" does that, none I'm aware of, so not sure what point you are making.

Your premise was,

In my own experience I have encountered, with great sadness, the IDEA that the creeds, confessions and catechisms can't be wrong because: 1.) they are historical 2.) they were written by very learned men, and 3.) should I "actually pretend like I know better."

What church was that?
(No church I'm aware of holds the "3 C's," as you call them, infallible.

 

[Scott1]

ried by Scripture itself. Should the Scriptures determine what we are to believe, or the 3C's? What happens if the 3C's do not line completely square with Scripture? If the 3C's do not completely square with Scripture, are we to simply forget what Scripture is pointing towards and go with the 3C's? I know, I'm begging the question. My point is, dear friend, is even though any preamble may clearly deem the fallibility of men and the infallibility of Scripture, holding those 3C's, not only as doctrinal statements, but as highly as they are in any reformed, confessional church must not be done. Most Synods, Presbyteries, and Consistories will not ever admit that this is what is done, but I have witnessed otherwise. My own personal witness.

The question was, tried by who, one church member, maybe a baby Christian?

The "3 C's" can be amended, I think in any denomination. The Westminster Standards can be in Presbyterian standards. It's not a simple thing one member can do unilaterally, it takes a lot of deliberation and agreement, but it can be done.

So, if, as you say, "the 3C's do not completely square with Scripture," you have two choices:

1) join a communion that confesses what you do believe the scripture teaches
2) propose amendment of that statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Confession

Vaguely asserting they are not biblical to the public is harmful.

 

[Scott1]

Here is an example for you, a very simple one. Let's take the Apostle's Creed. In the back of every Red Hymnal in the PCA the Apostle's Creed is there for us to read,

Dallas,
The Apostle's Creed does not hold Confessional status in the PCA.
It does no purport to be a comprehensive summary of the Trinity.

 

[Scott1]

Let's take the example of eschatology. If I hold to a different eschatology than that of my teaching elder, do you suppose it would be proper to deny a communing member marriage

Dallas,
What do you mean?
How would your eschatology differ from your elder? It's not so much differing from your elder as differing from the Westminster Standards summary of the doctrine of Scripture on that point.

What on earth does that have to do with "denying a communing member marriage." Denying marriage is not a (formal) means of discipline.

in my opinion the only reason why this would happen is if the Session believed there was risk of a public discourse of the issue by the petitioning member, and that there was risk of bringing contempt upon the 3C's.

I don't think what is sometimes called "confessional membership," i.e. requiring a new member to vow they agree with every statement and/or proposition of doctrine, far less even understand it, is required by Scripture, but for the few churches that do practice that for members, I can understand the risk to unity, which is based on doctrinal agreement.

I'm not sure what you mean by "petitioning member." The member would not appeal "to the public," he would appeal to the church, through the authority God has ordained there. He would not around them while a member and make a case to strangers.

We don't want to distract from this thread-
If what you are getting at is confessional membership, it would be helpful to start a thread on that topic to discuss that.

 

[Dordts5]

We don't want to distract from this thread-
If what you are getting at is confessional membership, it would be helpful to start a thread on that topic to discuss that.

Yes, let's do that. However, because I am not familiar with the board and the different topics I will have to search for the appropriate place to start a thread.

 

[Dordts5]

Scott, I was simply responding to the statement of the idea of studying more by the gentle lady above. I then responded to what you wrote.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

In reformed theology, the church is much more than a loose association of consenting adults, each independently and authoritatively evaluating doctrine for themselves.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what we are in the PCA! Constitutionally, we don't really have to hold to our constitution.

 

[Dordts5]

you may go to this thread if you want to discuss any of the topic of which Scott and I are discussing. http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/membership-role-confessions-catechisms-creeds-therein-76238/#post970302

Scott, I was simply responding to the statement of the idea of studying more by the gentle lady above. I then responded to what you wrote.

 

[Mephibosheth]

Amill: "The Promise of the Future" by Cornelius Venema

Postmill: "Christ's Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial?" by David Brown, and "He Shall Have Dominion" by Gentry (it's well over 600 pages and pretty exhaustive)

 

[KaphLamedh]

Just wonder is there something between dispensationalism and covenant theology?

Well, there's "leaky dispensationalism".

See the summary at the end of this bio sketch of MacArthur:
John MacArthur

And this:
John MacArthur and Dispensationalism

AMR

Thanks AMR.