Church Memebership, Confessional Adherence, and fencing the table

[jogri17]

URCM,

No, I don't think that is an adequate fence. Again, we confess the gospel in the Reformed confessions. Confessional Lutheran churches confess the gospel. Confessional Baptist congregations confess the gospel.

There is a reason why the Synod of Dort said, "professes the Reformed religion."

I realize that it is painful in our culture to say to Lutherans (who have no trouble excluding us) and to Baptists (who don't or shouldn't recognize our baptism), "Hey, we love you and we may even have a personal opinion that you are a believer, but that isn't a sufficient basis for formal, ecclesiastical communion."

Allowing folk to the table who deny the validity of our baptism (for those of us who only have an infant baptism) who we regard us formally as "crafty sacramentarians," elevates and imposes upon the congregation personal preference in the same way that requiring the congregation to sing uninspired songs imposes on the congregation a personal preference. The one thing to which we've all agreed, in a Reformed congregation, is Word of God as confessed by the Reformed churches. We haven't agreed about the status of Baptist or Lutheran churches necessarily so a consistory isn't free to impose an opinion on the entire congregation just like it's not free to impose an opinion about hymns. We haven't agreed to that.

That depends on what you think happens at the Lord's supper and what the Church confesses at the Table.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Just in case I seem unduly narrow, I happened upon my copy of John Kromminga, The Christian Reformed Church (1949), where he says:

Calvin makes the proper administration of the sacraments the second mark of the true Church....

(quotes Calvin Inst 4.1.9)

He stressed the fact that the Lord's Supper could be truly received only by believers, and that great dangers attended careless participation

(quotes Inst 4.17.24, 40)

....This guarding of the sacraments is clearly reflected in the Heidelberg Catechism (cites Q. 81). The Christian Reformed Church Order circumscribes both the administration and the reception (my emphasis - rsc) of the sacraments:

Then he quotes the CO of the CRC, Art. 61:

None shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper except those who according to the usage of the Church with which they unite themselves have made a confession of the Reformed religion (emphasis added), besides being reputed to be of a godly walk, without which also those who come from other Churches shall not be admitted.

He defends this article by appealing to BC 29 and especially the third mark of the true church.

Howard B. Spaan, Christian Reformed Church Government (1968) quotes Art 59 of the Church Order thus:

Members by baptism shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper upon a public profession of Christ according to the Reformed creeds (emphasis added), with the use of the prescribed form.

There is nothing in Article 60, which specifically speaks to who may come to the table. Evidently, one supposes, the older language was removed.

It is surprising that it was not restored by the URCs in 1995-96. Did they consider the original language of the Dort Order?

Martin Monsma, The New Revised Church Order Commentary (1967) says:

Fundamentally the difference between those who advocate "open communion" and those who maintain "close communion" is a question of recognition of and non-recognition of authority of Christ vested in the officer-bearers....

Whether or not one shall approach unto the Lord's Table is not simply up to the individual. He must recognize the officers appointed for this work by Christ. Neither may any consistory delegate this charge to the individuals by announcing that all who are members of some other church in good and regular standing and desirous of observing the Lord's Supper are invited to partake. This is not as bad as an unconditional invitation, but it is a form of open communion for the question of attendance or non-attendance at the Lord's Table is after all left solely to the judgment of the individuals concerned. One altogether unworthy may thus be given permission to partake. This would be a desecration of the Lord's Table which might have been avoided, and an opening of an avenue of sin by the office bearers to the unworthy participant.

He goes on to describe a procedure whereby a visitor should make a request of the consistory, preferably the week before but at least before communion, to participate.

-----Added 12/23/2009 at 01:59:52 EST-----

That depends on what you think happens at the Lord's supper and what the Church confesses at the Table.

Is there any question as what the Reformed churches confess about the nature of the Supper?

There is a range of language yes, but the doctrine is consistent.

That many no longer believe what we confess doesn't change the confession.

 

[Scott1]

Thanks much, Dr. Clark. I have a great deal of respect for you.

Some interaction is below.

R. Scott Clark
I understand the modern, American Presbyterian approach to church membership: the doors of the church should be as wide as the doors of the kingdom.

The difficulty I have with this is that it entails a low view of the function and authority of the confession. It creates two tiers, those who actually confess the faith (e.g., elders and pastors) and those who may or may not actually confess the Reformed faith.

It creates a high view in that officers are held to evaluate and solemnly vow comprehensive knowledge and agreement with every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the standards. That seems in line with the higher standards for leadership generally and with the explicit biblical qualifications for office.

In a sense, having members and those whom God has appointed as officers is already “two tier.”

It seems consistent to me that “to whom much is given, much is required” that more would be required of leaders (e.g. minister, deacons and elders).

It is not a formal requirement in many Am Presbyterian congregations to confess the Reformed faith as condition of membership or table communion. I've seen Baptists join Am Presbyterian congregations.

Yes, all sorts of people join.

But in the membership vows of all the biblical reformed Presbyterian denominations I’m aware of, they are agreeing to peaceably study the church’s doctrine, and to submit to her governance and discipline.

The membership process is designed to encourage people who are at least “trending” toward reformed theology, and the distinctives of Presbyterianism.

This is what I mean by "two-tier."

Originally, even in the Presbyterian churches, there was no "two-tiered" membership policy. I haven't determined when exactly it became possible to join an Am Presbyterian congregation without actually holding the standards but I suspect it happened in the 19th century as part of the Old School/New School reunion. That's just a guess. It might have happened earlier.

Perhaps someone will have some research on this. While I can’t speak definitively on the history, it seems denominations like ARP reflect that this has long been Presbyterian practice- to require a much more exacting understanding and adherence of doctrine for officers than for members generally.

I understand that some Am Presbyterian congregations do catechize their children but they are in the minority. I suspect that few Reformed (distinguish polity here, not theology) still require their children to memorize the HC.

I wholly agree on the need to study the doctrinal standards of the church, and especially the summaries in the confession and catechisms.

Most biblical Presbyterians, as you are aware, do not admit children to the Lord’s Supper before communicant training and an examined, credible profession of faith. That training will vary in rigor and use of, for example, the Shorter Catechism but I think the training itself is standard operating procedure in biblical Presbyterian denominations.

In any event it's essentially an optional exercise. I doubt that a session to require it on pain of discipline.

Not church discipline perhaps for children not learning the catechisms or for parents not requiring their children to learn them, but there is the real discipline of examination for admission as a communicant member.

Honestly, maybe I’m wrong in this, but while I think this might be an aspect of qualification for an officer, I do not see it as an ordinary cause of formal discipline for members.

And, as I step back and put this in the context of Scripture, where do we see a command, explicit or implicit that would require this, particularly as a bar for entry into the (visible) church?

Your own post is an example of what I mean by "two-tired." You say that the practice is to require confessional instruction but then you defend, as a matter of principle, the notion that confessing the Reformed faith is essentially optional. This is the schizophrenia to which I was referring.

Hopefully you see the rationalization of requiring more of those appointed as leaders to high office than of ordinary members.

Reformed folk don't talk about salvation in isolation from the church. Remember that both the Belgic and the WCF teach that, ordinarily, (that is by divine ordination), there is no salvation outside the visible church.

Yes, 'ordinarily'... that is what the Westminster Confession says. God is not limited by anything in the means by which He redeems people- not limited by anything.

But I would be hard pressed to say that someone is excluded because he has not fully understood the “five points.”

It is because the church is ordinarily where one would hear the Gospel, and the Word of God fully taught.

While we hold our doctrinal confession and standards in high regard, we do not put them on a par with Scripture, nor supplant Scripture with them.

Put another way, God redeeming a sinner makes him a Christian, and a member of the Body of Christ- not whether he fully understands the "five points."

Is it possible for one to be saved outside the visible church? Yes, God is free to save a man on an island but then, I suppose, he becomes a congregation of one.

It might be more accurate to say he becomes regenerated, given faith, and adopted into the Body of Christ, a universal Body.

The Belgic is particularly pointed in Art 28 about the necessity of believers uniting themselves to a true church and in 29 it explains what constitutes a true church.

Thus we have to talk about church membership and about the nature of the church as the Christ-confessing covenant community. What does it mean to confess the faith? Is reciting the Apostles' Creed, without explaining what the articles mean, a "confession of faith?" Which faith? Rome confesses the Creed. Lutherans confess the Creed.

No biblical reformed person is going to argue for a minimalist statement of belief.

The Reformed confessions were adopted by the churches to say: it's not enough simply to believe in Jesus.

But saving faith IS enough for salvation.

Let’s not confuse that with confessional membership.

The issue is who is Jesus and what did he accomplish? Who is God? How are we right with God? What is the nature of the church? Is it a voluntary (considered theologically, not relative to civil polity) association of independent contractors who may or may not associate with it, a union of sorts or is it the divinely constituted assembly of God's people?

You’re right, Scripture teaches a high view of His Body, the church and of the covenant community. That’s why church discipline is very important.

Mr. Calvin implied, at least, church discipline is one of the three essential marks of a true church. I agree with this, and the more I grow in the faith, the more I understand why this is an essential part of church life.

The Belgic and the Westminster don't envision the sort of "two-tier" approach your post exemplifies. Yes, there higher spiritual and theological standards for ministers and elders but you assume that confessing the Heidelberg and the WSC constitutes such a high barrier. When they were written, they were FOR CHILDREN. They were not regarded as the high standard your post assumes but rather as the BASELINE (caps for emphasis not shouting).

Yes, the Westminster Shorter Catechism was written for children.

The Larger Catechism was written for adults.

People may well and often are brought to faith before they receive proper, basic instruction in the faith. God is free and sovereign. I can't put limits on what he can or will do!

Exactly.

That’s why I would not want to unduly limit membership of the church by setting a long list of qualifications and conditions before one can be recognized for what our Sovereign God choose to do in their life.

He takes pitiful, ignorant, rebellious creatures, and somehow, for reasons know only to Himself chooses to forgive their sin and reward them with eternal life.

We can, however, limit, by God's Word, what the church does. There is no evidence that the various confessional formulae found in Scripture itself (e.g., Deut 6:4, Col 1, 1 Tim 3:16 -- for that fact all the "faithful sayings of 1-2 Tim) were restricted to special officers.

I'll have to differ on this.

It seems very clear I Timothy 3 and Titus I are explicit qualifications for church officers, not general qualifications for church membership. (My goodness, how many can exemplify standards this high?)

It is a fact that in many places in the early post-apostolic church membership standards in the visible community were very high. Catechumens were taught for 3 years BEFORE they were admitted to the table. Indeed, people were physically excluded from even watching communion until they were admitted to the table! BTW, that seems to have been a pretty good church-growth strategy.

Okay,

But where is the biblical warrant for this?

Is it a tradition of men or a command of scripture to prevent non admitted persons from watching Communion?

Finally, I've been reminded lately to what degree we are all the products of the Jacksonian democratic-egalitarian revolution. Much of your post, if I may say, simply assumes a sort of egalitarianism that is the product of our modern (post 1789, post-revolutionary) culture. We need to be critical (not negative but aware and with some distance and perspective) of the influence of the broader culture upon our reading of Scripture so that we don't read our democratic civil assumptions back into Scripture or into the confession of faith.

While I must confess a bit of admiration for Mr. Jackson, what little I know of him, I sure don’t see things from the point of view you reference.

Having officers set apart by high standards is the opposite of that.

But whatever we call it, I only pray it is more the biblical principle, and more pleasing to our God that we obey His revealed will.

 

[Wayne]

Scott1 and Scott2 (aka, RSC):

You had written:

Scott1:
The membership process is designed to encourage people who are at least “trending” toward reformed theology, and the distinctives of Presbyterianism.

R.S. Clark:
This is what I mean by "two-tier."

Originally, even in the Presbyterian churches, there was no "two-tiered" membership policy. I haven't determined when exactly it became possible to join an Am Presbyterian congregation without actually holding the standards but I suspect it happened in the 19th century as part of the Old School/New School reunion. That's just a guess. It might have happened earlier.

Perhaps someone will have some research on this. While I can’t speak definitively on the history, it seems denominations like ARP reflect that this has long been Presbyterian practice- to require a much more exacting understanding and adherence of doctrine for officers than for members generally.

My initial research indicates that the PCUSA has "always" allowed members to hold views that might differ from the confessional standards. In evidence, consider this example from 1798:

Assembly's Digest (Phila.: M'Culloh, 1820), p. 98:
Sect. 7. A person having scruples about infant Baptism may be admitted to Communion.
A Letter also came, through the committee of overtures, from Bethuel Church Esq. inquiring whether he may be admitted to occasional communion, whilst he has scruples concerning infant baptism.
The letter from Bethuel Church Esq. as overtured, was read, and the motion formerly made, thus amended--"That the sessions of the Church of Cambridge be permitted to receive Mr. Church upon satisfactory evidence of his good character, his scruples notwithstanding," was taken up and agreed to.--1798. Vol. I, p. 167, 170.

 

[urcmember]

Scott1, is it the view of the PCA that it is the responsibility of the church to “approve”, “vet”, or “validate” a person’s profession of faith? Or is that considered to be up to the individual?

If it is the role of the church, what is considered to be a valid profession of faith?

Is denial of certain fundamental doctrines considered to be sin; in the same sense drunkenness or adultery is sin?

You said: “That’s why I would not want to unduly limit membership of the church by setting a long list of qualifications and conditions before one can be recognized for what our Sovereign God choose to do in their life.

He takes pitiful, ignorant, rebellious creatures, and somehow, for reasons know only to Himself chooses to forgive their sin and reward them with eternal life.”

While this is absolutely true it is also true that a drunkard or adulterer who persists in their sin would not be allowed to become a member of a true church or would be barred from the table if they were already a member until they repented of their sin. So if denying certain doctrines is sin, say perhaps denying the trinity or the virgin birth, then why would someone be allowed into membership or communion as long as they persist in these sins, which also demonstrate a lack of submission to the authority of the church as well as great spiritual pride?

Also if the PCA believes baptism is the new covenant equivalent of circumcision, and God was going to kill Moses for his slowness in circumcising his son, why is baptism considered to be so unimportant? It seems to me if God is going to kill someone for refusal to obey a particular command that perhaps the church would want to discipline an individual for the same refusal, after all doesn’t he who hates his son spare the rod?

 

[Scott1]

urcmemeber
Scott1, is it the view of the PCA that it is the responsibility of the church to “approve”, “vet”, or “validate” a person’s profession of faith? Or is that considered to be up to the individual?

Our local church practice has always required a new member’s class which details the gospel, a meeting with two elders, and a vote of the session (plurality of elders) before admission.

It has often required a written or oral testimony of faith given to the congregation.

In all cases, it is an "examined" (for credibility) profession of faith.

If it is the role of the church, what is considered to be a valid profession of faith?

In a sense, it is the vows taken:

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?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and
work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline
of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

Is denial of certain fundamental doctrines considered to be sin; in the same sense drunkenness or adultery is sin?

A summary of what is being taught, (this is not written officially, only my own words) evaluated by the elders, and vowed to by new members is:

1) an examined, credible profession of faith
2) vow to walk an obedient Christian life
3) vow to support the church
4) vow to submit to her governance and discipline
5) vow to study her doctrine peaceably

You said: “That’s why I would not want to unduly limit membership of the church by setting a long list of qualifications and conditions before one can be recognized for what our Sovereign God choose to do in their life.

He takes pitiful, ignorant, rebellious creatures, and somehow, for reasons know only to Himself chooses to forgive their sin and reward them with eternal life.”

While this is absolutely true it is also true that a drunkard or adulterer who persists in their sin would not be allowed to become a member of a true church or would be barred from the table if they were already a member until they repented of their sin. So if denying certain doctrines is sin, say perhaps denying the trinity or the virgin birth, then why would someone be allowed into membership or communion as long as they persist in these sins, which also demonstrate a lack of submission to the authority of the church as well as great spiritual pride?

Several things here.

One of the reasons for the meeting with the elders and vote of session for membership is to make sure one has a credible profession. Someone in “open, scandalous sin” would not be admitted. Their application for membership would at least be deferred, and of course, the elders would know about it.

We do church discipline, which includes suspension from the Lord’s Supper. So, a member could be prevented from participating in the Lord's Supper under known situations of the kind you describe.

Non-members are verbally charged (warned), and reliance is made on their home church discipline. (Granted, in many communions that is rare or nonexistent).

Also if the PCA believes baptism is the new covenant equivalent of circumcision, and God was going to kill Moses for his slowness in circumcising his son, why is baptism considered to be so unimportant? It seems to me if God is going to kill someone for refusal to obey a particular command that perhaps the church would want to discipline an individual for the same refusal, after all doesn’t he who hates his son spare the rod?

I’m not sure about the situation with Moses you reference.

I’m not at all sure where you are getting your ideas about baptism (of infants?) not being important in the PCA.

New members must be baptized before they are admitted as members. This is a matter of our constitution.

In accordance with the Westminster Standards, unduly delaying baptism of an infant child is great sin, and treated as such.

Our local practice is to require a public Christian testimony at the time of baptism.

If for an infant, the testimony of the believing parent is public, usually oral, but a few times I have seen a written one disseminated to the congregation.

 

[Kaalvenist]

I should remind my Presbyterian brethren that, historically, the dissenting Presbyterian churches—in this country, the Reformed Presbyterian, Associate Presbyterian, Associate Reformed Presbyterian, and United Presbyterian; and the churches to which they bore affinity in other nations—maintained that the subordinate standards of the church ought to be that church’s terms of communion, or that they ought to be believed in order to adult, communicant church membership. They also believed that, when the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is observed in a congregation, only members of the denomination (or sister denominations in other countries) with which that congregation is affiliated ought to be admitted to the Table. These are two distinct but related principles. I will briefly set forth some of the reasons why I am persuaded of the historic principle of my church (RPCNA) regarding terms of communion (saving close communion for another day), which we unfortunately abandoned in the late 1970s.

1. Presbyterian churches require our subordinate standards to be held, maintained, and believed by the church officers, on professedly biblical grounds. However, biblical grounds may be offered to show that the faith of the church, in its entirety, is to be maintained by lay church members, as well.

a. Church members ought to maintain the truth professed by the church, in its entirety. Matthew 28:20: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." 1 Corinthians 11:2: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." Galatians 6:16: "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 (cf. vs. 10-12): "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." Hebrews 13:9: "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." 2 Peter 1:12: "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." Jude 3: "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." Revelation 2:25: "But that which ye have already hold fast till I come."

b. The unity professed by and exhorted to church members is a unity in the truth as it is professed by the church, in its entirety. Amos 3:3: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Acts 2:42: "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." 1 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." Ephesians 4:13-15: "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." Philippians 1:27: "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." Philippians 2:1, 2: "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." Philippians 3:16: "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing."

c. Church discipline is to be exercised against church members who break this unity in the entirety of the truth, and believe or practice contrary to the profession of the church. Romans 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15: "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." Titus 3:10: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject." 2 John 9-11: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." Revelation 2:14-16: "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 thing sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."

d. The claim (not argument) that we ought to receive those into Christ’s kingdom on earth, who may be received into Christ’s kingdom in heaven, is without biblical warrant.

2. The harmony which ought to be maintained between the ordinances of the church requires that church members profess the subordinate standards of the church.

a. Presbyterian churches require that the preaching from their pulpits be "sound" (WCF 21.5); that is, in harmony with our subordinate standards. However, that portion of the Confession of Faith reads more fully: "the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, reverence." Not only the preaching of the Word, but the hearing of the Word by the church members, is an ordinance of worship as well. It is inconsistent to require that the Word be preached in harmony with our subordinate standards, and not require (at least on the part of church members) that it be also received and believed when heard.

b. Presbyterian churches have not only committed unto them the preaching of the Word, but also the keys of the kingdom. If the preaching of the Word is required to be in harmony with the subordinate standards of the church, that ought to be no less required of the discipline of the church, in either receiving or disciplining church members. It is inconsistent to maintain the doctrine and practices set forth in the subordinate standards in the teaching of the church, and not in the discipline of the church; or rather, it is a refusal to employ this ordinance as another occasion of teaching the same doctrines and practices.

3. Presbyterian churches, by having subordinate standards, have declared that all contrary doctrine and practice is sin. “Unbelief, heresy, (and) misbelief” are identified in our Larger Catechism as sins against the first commandment (Q. 105); and "misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the Word, or any part of it, to...the maintaining of false doctrines," and "maligning, scorning, reviling, or anywise opposing of God's truth," are identified as sins against the third commandment (Q. 113). The church does not have authority from Christ, in administering the government of His church, to tolerate any known sin, even the least. If a man was living in known, open, and impenitent violation of the seventh commandment, he would not be admitted into the membership of the church. Likewise, if a man continues in decided opposition to the teachings of the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms, he ought not to be admitted into the membership of the church, because such opposition is sin.

4. Presbyterian churches affirm that, "The visible church...consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children" (WCF 25.2). By not requiring members of the church to adhere to the subordinate standards of the church, this makes “the church” into an entity other than its members.

5. Presbyterian churches have subordinate standards, and do not have a list of doctrines essential to salvation—if any person or church is asked, you will invariably get differing lists. It is only rational that churches understand a credible profession of faith to include a profession of the church’s subordinate standards, and not a profession of a non-existent list of doctrines essential to salvation.

6. Presbyterian churches have found it necessary to require certain things of their members which most agree are not essential to salvation, including infant baptism and submission to their church courts. My church requires that communicant members “keep the Lord’s Day” (vow 5), although most do not doubt the salvation of non-Sabbatarian or anti-Sabbatarian Christians or ministers. It is impossible to maintain the view that only those things absolutely essential to salvation ought to be required for church membership, since other things not essential to salvation must be required for church order.

7. Presbyterian churches which require members to adhere to the subordinate standards of the church are more likely to continue for generations to come.

a. Because they adhere to the subordinate standards of the church, church members will be more likely to continue in the membership of the church, and less likely to join another church which maintains contrary doctrines or principles.

b. Because they adhere to the subordinate standards of the church, church members will be more likely to be careful and diligent in only electing men to be church officers who also adhere to these things.

c. Because they adhere to the subordinate standards of the church, church members will be more likely to instruct their children in the doctrines and practices contained therein.

 

[Scott1]

Excellent presentation of that point of view, Sean, and particularly from a Presbyterian standpoint.

To be clear, are we speaking of church membership or admission to the Lord's Supper or both?

Any idea of the reasoning the RPCNA changed position on this?

Also, are we saying this was the original position of the ARP, the oldest continuing Presbyterian body in our country? If so, when did they change?

 

[Wayne]

Good point, Sean. I thought about adding something about the Reformed Presbyterians last evening, but time got the better of me.

But I am curious and would like clarification regarding your statement:

...the historic principle of my church (RPCNA) regarding terms of communion (saving close communion for another day), which we unfortunately abandoned in the late 1970s.

First, what does the RPCNA now require for membership? Are they now similar to the PCA and OPC [as Scott has so competently explained above]? Or do they still require some level of subscription to the Westminster Standards and or some portion of what used to be required?

The requirements for ecclesiastical communion in the RPCNA in 1876, [see Book of Government and Discipline of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, pp. 113-115] are listed as [please pardon my condensed summaries]:
1. Acknowledgment of the Scriptures as the Word of God.
2. Acknowledgment that the Westminster Standards are agreeable w/Scripture.
3. Acknowledgment of jure divino Presbyterianism.
4. Acknowledgment of public covenanting as an ordinance of God and that the vows of the Solemn League and Covenant are still binding.
5. Approbation (formal approval) of the RP stand against immoral civil constitutions.
6. Approbation of the Declaration and Testimony of the RPCNA.
"These together with due subordination in the Lord to the authority of the Synod of the RPCNA, and a regular life and conversation [i.e., behavior], form the bonds of our ecclesiastical union.

Just to be clear, and not to argue any of these points here, is that what you would like to return to, or was the pre-1970's requirement something other than the above? I'm seeking to learn here.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Excellent presentation of that point of view, Sean, and particularly from a Presbyterian standpoint.

To be clear, are we speaking of church membership or admission to the Lord's Supper or both?

We would be speaking of both. Since the historic practice of churches of this tradition is close communion, they only allowed communicant members of the church to partake of the Lord's Supper. Fundamentally, though, the question is more concerned with church membership.

Any idea of the reasoning the RPCNA changed position on this?

I'm actually wanting time to work my way through the debates of Synod at that time (ca. 1968-1979), with papers presented at a conference on church fellowship which kind of kicked off the discussions. So, no, I'm not totally sure why Synod changed its position on this subject.

Also, are we saying this was the original position of the ARP, the oldest continuing Presbyterian body in our country? If so, when did they change?

I would challenge that claim. The Reformed Presbytery was established in America in the year 1774. All of the ministers abandoned the church in 1782 in order to form, with some ministers from the Associate Presbytery, the Associate Reformed Synod. But most lay members continued faithful to the church. Our presbytery was reconstituted in 1798, after ministers were sent from overseas.

Regardless, the Associate Reformed Synod declared the following in 1799.

The SYNOD having judicially ratified the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Catechisms Larger and Shorter, with a modification of the doctrine concerning the power of the civil magistrate in matters of religion; and having also ratified the Overture for the Government and Discipline of the Church, and the Directories for Worship, Public and Private, DO HEREBY DECLARE,

That they consider the said Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Form of Church-government, and Directories for Worship, as their FIXED TESTIMONY, by which their principles are to be tried; or as the Judicial expression of the sense in which they understand the Holy Scriptures in their relation to the Doctrine, Government, and Worship of the Christian Church: And it is their resolution to emit occasional testimonies, in particular acts, against errors and delusions.

Agreeably hereunto, the terms on which any person or persons shall be admitted as a member or members of this church, are, A profession of faith in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as the perfect and only rule of faith and practice; together with an approbation of the Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Form of Church-government, and Directories for Worship, as therein received; a holy life and conversation, and subjection to the Order and Discipline of the Church.

They moreover declare the aforesaid Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, together with the Government and Discipline of the Church, and the Directories for Public and Private Worship, to be the Constitution and Standards of the ASSOCIATE-REFORMED CHURCH, in all matters relating to Doctrine, Government, Discipline, and Worship:--Provided that nothing in this declaration shall be construed to extend to the appendices thereunto annexed, so as to comprise the same within the terms of communion. Of all which the Judicatories and members of the Church are required to take notice, that they may govern themselves accordingly.

Internet Archive: Free Download: The constitution and standards of the Associate-Reformed Church in North America

Hope this helps.

 

[Wayne]

Sean:

So the ARP from 1799 simply required of members adherence to the Westminster Standards, and not to any other documents?

This is interesting to compare the ARP with the RP's, and now I'll have to study up on what prompted the realignment in the 1782.

[We have a lot of RP General Synod records here at the Historical Center, and thus part of my interest]

Also, since you are in Philadelphia, you might be interested in taking a day trip over to the University of Delaware sometime. The archives there holds the papers of Alexander McLeod and his son John Niel. The collection consists largely of diaries that both men kept during their ministry.

 

[Scott1]

Wayne
The requirements for ecclesiastical communion in the RPCNA in 1876, [see Book of Government and Discipline of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, pp. 113-115] are listed as [please pardon my condensed summaries]:
....

3. Acknowledgment of jure divino Presbyterianism.
4. Acknowledgment of public covenanting as an ordinance of God and that the vows of the Solemn League and Covenant are still binding.
5. Approbation (formal approval) of the RP stand against immoral civil constitutions.
6. Approbation of the Declaration and Testimony of the RPCNA.

Wayne or Sean,

So, by the 1876 Standards, in addition to "acknowledgment" of Scripture and the Westminster standards, how do we understand the following:

3. Acknowledgment of jure divino Presbyterianism.

Confess only the presbyterian form of government?

Any idea if this was the 2 or 3 office form?


4. Acknowledgment of public covenanting as an ordinance of God and that the vows of the Solemn League and Covenant are still binding.

I know this had something to do with the monarchy in Scotland, originally.

What exactly did this mean post Monarch?



5. Approbation (formal approval) of the RP stand against immoral civil constitutions.

Were these all national constitutions, or only the immoral ones?

6. Approbation of the Declaration and Testimony of the RPCNA.

My understanding, could be wrong, that this does not have the same standing as the Westminster Standards. Is that correct?

How many of these have changed now for this denomination?

 

[Wayne]

Scott:

I was providing a very condensed summary in the interest of not typing it all out. Perhaps a full rendition will answer some of your questions. Again, this is not the place to argue any of these points held by the RPCNA in 1876 or otherwise. I'm just seeking historical clarification, and also asking Sean's input as to his views. Here is the full text of those sections:

3. An acknowledgment of the divine right of one unalterable form of Church Government and manner of worship--and that these are, for substance, justly exhibited in that Form of Church Government and the Directory for Worship agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, as they were received by the Church of Scotland.
4. An acknowledgment that public covenanting is an ordinance of God, to be observed by churches and nations under the New Testament Dispensation--and that those vows, namely, that which was entered into by the Church and kingdom of Scotland, called the NATIONAL COVENANT, and that which was afterward entered into by the three kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland, and by the Reformed Churches in those kingdoms, usually called the Solemn League and Covenant, were entered into in the true spirit of that Institution--and that the obligation of these covenants extends to those who were represented in the taking of them, although removed to this or any other part of the world, in so far as they bind to duties not peculiar to the Church in the British Isles, but applicable in all lands.
5. An approbation of the faith contendings of the martyrs of Jesus, and of the present Reformed Covenanted Churches in Britain and Ireland, against Paganism, Popery and Prelacy, and against immoral constitutions of civil government, together with all Erastian tolerations and persecutions whihc flow therefrom, as containing a noble example for us and our posterity to follow, in contending for all divine truth, and testifying against all contrary evils, which may exist in the corrupt constitutions of either Church or State.
6. An approbation of the doctrines contained in the Declaration and Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America; in defense of truth, and in opposition to error.

My understanding of the Declaration and Testimony as an additional secondary standard of the RPCNA, was that in practice, because it was briefer, it tended to take precedence over the Westminster Standards, at least as a guide for ecclesiastical practice.

 

[Scott1]

The RPC web site and Constitution is well laid out, easy to find information.

Here are the present vows:
(Quite similar to other presbyterian denominations)

http://reformedpresbyterian.org/assets/pdf/Constitution04.pdf

The CONSTITUTION
of the Reformed Presbyterian Church
of North America

Vows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G-1

Covenant of Communicant Membership

1. Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to
be the Word of God, the only infallible rule for faith and life?

2. Do you believe in the one living and true God—Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, as revealed in the Scriptures?

3. Do you repent of your sin; confess your guilt and helplessness as
a sinner against God; profess Jesus Christ, Son of God, as your Saviour
and Lord; and dedicate yourself to His service: Do you promise that
you will endeavor to forsake all sin, and to conform your life to His
teaching and example?

4. Do you promise to submit in the Lord to the teaching and government
of this church as being based upon the Scriptures and described
in substance in the Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church
of North America? Do you recognize your responsibility to work with
others in the church and do you promise to support and encourage
them in their service to the Lord? In case you should need correction in
doctrine or life, do you promise to respect the authority and discipline
of the church?

5. To the end that you may grow in the Christian life, do you promise
that you will diligently read the Bible, engage in private prayer, keep the
Lord’s Day, regularly attend the worship services, observe the appointed
sacraments, and give to the Lord’s work as He shall prosper you?

6. Do you purpose to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness
in all the relationships of life, faithfully to perform your whole
duty as a true servant of Jesus Christ, and seek to win others to Him?

7. Do you make this profession of faith and purpose in the presence
of God, in humble reliance upon His grace, as you desire to give
your account with joy at the Last Great Day?

 

[Kaalvenist]

Scott and Wayne,

I would prefer some similar declaration to what we formerly maintained -- Bible, Westminster Standards, divine right Presbyterianism, covenanting and Covenants, RP Testimony, etc. My main principle at this point is that the subordinate standards of the church ought to be believed and maintained by its members, and not merely its officers; the particular edition(s) of these standards which ought to be maintained is not germane to this discussion.

The Covenant of Communicant Membership was added in the 1930s, long before we abandoned the Terms of Communion. Up until that time (late 1970s), the Covenant embraced the Terms of Communion as well. After the Terms were dropped, the Covenant became the only requirement for membership.

Also, Wayne, I'm in Philadelphia, New York; not Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It's only about a five hour difference.

 

[Wayne]

Sean:

I see that New York thing now. I tend to scan read and it causes a problem like that every now and then.

You are quite right that the particular standards to be maintained would be outside the purview of this thread. I will ask however, if you care to address it, what is to be done with young Christians who know next to nothing, let alone the doctrinal standards of the Church? I would argue it is categorically wrong to hold them in limbo outside membership, but I also don't suspect that is what you are proposing.

 

[Scott1]

Does anyone know if any North American Presbyterian denomination presently requires strict confessional subscription by members?

 

[Wayne]

I think the RCUS does, and maybe the RPCGS. Not really sure though.

EDIT: On the RCUS, it looks like I was wrong. From their web site, article 3 of Part 1 of their Constitution:

ARTICLE 3. Those baptized in infancy shall be received into full communion with the Church by confirmation, and unbaptized adults by baptism and profession of faith. In both cases they shall first receive proper instruction in the truths of the Gospel and give satisfactory evidence of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

EDIT2: The RPCGS practices head of household voting, but I could not find anything as to membership requirements.

 

[Scott1]

Please feel free to delete if not germane to this thread.


I especially appreciate making the case for confessional membership from Scripture.

A bit of friendly engagement on this proposition, with some questions:

Kaalvenist
My main principle at this point is that the subordinate standards of the church ought to be believed maintained by its members, and not merely its officers;

a. Church members ought to maintain the truth professed by the church, in its entirety. Matthew 28:20: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Doesn’t this Scripture imply the teaching (of members) is a process?

Bible teachers are appointed to do this because the members of His Body do not know His teachings, and God has called out teachers, qualified and equipped them to do that.

It doesn’t say all must already fully understand (far less agree) before they can be recognized as disciples. Else, why teach, govern, example or discipline at all?

1 Corinthians 11:2: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

Isn’t this an exhortation to obey the (moral) law? This seems to make the case again for Mr. Calvin’s third use of the law as a “mirror” of what the Christian ought look like?

Galatians 6:16: "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God."

Looking at the context here,

Galatians 6

12As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
13For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
14But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
15For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
Isn’t the “rule” about not priding oneself over circumcision (of the flesh)?


Isn't the "rule" being referred to here really an exhortation not to have confidence in circumcision (of the flesh)?

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 (cf. vs. 10-12):
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." Hebrews 13:9: "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." 2 Peter 1:12: "Wherefore I will not be negligent of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth." Jude 3: "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." Revelation 2:25: "But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

In the main, these verses seem to exhort us to learn, follow and obey the truth revealed through Scripture and as taught to us by Scripture and being taught by the Apostles. It is about being obedient to what you have been taught, more than already knowing all the right doctrine.

It doesn’t seem these make a case for needing to know all the doctrine in the first place in order to recognized as a disciple, a member of the Body of Christ.

They do seem to require us to learn, obey, and follow what we know is the revealed will of God.

Here's the analogy I'm thinking of:

If we require comprehensive understanding of doctrinal standards and vowed agreement with every statement and proposition of them before one can be a church member, isn't it like...

Requiring that a college student, (who was qualified in advance for being able to do college work) must have already graduated before we recognize him as a student.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Wayne,

If someone cannot consent to the beliefs and practices of the church, as set forth in her subordinate standards, I do not believe that they are ready for church membership. A profession of faith is, among other things, a profession of the truth; and if the church to which one is joining has judicially declared x to be truth, and y to be error, it would be inconsistent to receive someone as a member of that church, who believes x to be error, and y to be truth.

Scott,

I believe that there are insurmountable difficulties with your interpretation of these passages.

1. It is inconsistent with the verses presented in sections (b) and (c), regarding church unity and church discipline on the basis of this same standard of profession.

2. It presumes that the "more difficult truths" of our subordinate standards are negotiable concerning the admission of church members; whereas they, like the Scriptures upon which they are founded, present them as an indissoluble whole.

3. The historic paedobaptist understanding of Matthew 28:19, 20 is: "Go ye therefore, and
(1.) Teach (disciple, matheteusate) all nations, (by)
(a.) Baptizing (baptizontes) them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (and by)
(b.) Teaching (didaskontes) them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;"
with the order of baptizing and teaching or instructing being irrelevant--infants are baptized, then taught; adults are taught, then baptized. But the content of the teaching is the same in both instances; and if the church receives a baptized child of church members into communicant membership, or an adult into membership by baptism, without instruction in all things that Christ has taught and commanded us (particularly what the church has judicially declared in her subordinate standards that Christ has taught in His Word), they are unfaithful to their commission.

4. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, "ordinances" is elsewhere rendered "traditions" (2 Thess. 2:15); it is the noun form of "to deliver" (in the same verse, 1 Cor. 11:2), and might better be rendered "deliverances" ("keep the deliverances, as I delivered them to you"). This term is capable of being understood of either doctrine or practice.

5. I will admit that the context of Galatians 6 lends more to a narrower interpretation of "this rule" in verse 16, and not to the entire rule of faith and practice. However, the apostle seems to be giving a "summary statement" in this verse, at least capable of a wider application, if not particularly intended for such.

6. Concerning the last set of passages, I should point out that I misquoted 2 Peter 1:12. I quoted it as, "Wherefore I will not be negligent of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth." It ought to read, "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be estabished in the present truth" (I will edit my original statement accordingly). These passages set forth the duty of holding and maintaining the truth in its entirety, as it is professed and maintained by the church. It cannot be presumed that these are exhortations to adhere to, maintain, and remain steadfast in a few particular truths (those deemed "essential"), and not "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). I might particularly mention 2 Peter 1:12, as properly quoted: Peter's teaching of the church members is merely to put them in remembrance of the truth, and not an attempt to instruct them in things of which they are entirely unaware. They already know them, and are established in them.

 

[Scott1]

Kaalvenist
1. It is inconsistent with the verses presented in sections (b) and (c), regarding church unity and church discipline on the basis of this same standard of profession.

You're quite right that wrong doctrine can bring disunity. In reformed theology, the unity of the church must be grounded on doctrinal agreement.

Also, that wrong doctrine is a ground for church discipline.

The scenario I'm imagining though is a brand new Christian, forever changed by the grace of our God, who does not understand yet the "L" in TULIP.

I'm thinking of a situation where the brand new Christian is not teaching in the church, so his belief is personal, born of lack of knowledge or misunderstanding.

2. It presumes that the "more difficult truths" of our subordinate standards are negotiable concerning the admission of church members; whereas they, like the Scriptures upon which they are founded, present them as an indissoluble whole.

I'm not sure that admiting new believers as members, with their vow to peaceably study the doctrines of the church, and to submit to the governance and discipline of the church implies negotiability of the church's doctrine.

Hopefully, it implies humility, teachableness, which in another context, our Lord greatly commends.

Matthew 5
5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

(I understand "meek" in the sense of teachable, not a haughty attitude)

(b.) Teaching (didaskontes) them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;"
with the order of baptizing and teaching or instructing being irrelevant--infants are baptized, then taught; adults are taught, then baptized. But the content of the teaching is the same in both instances; and if the church receives a baptized child of church members into communicant membership, or an adult into membership by baptism, without instruction in all things that Christ has taught and commanded us (particularly what the church has judicially declared in her subordinate standards that Christ has taught in His Word), they are unfaithful to their commission.

The part that's difficult is the "all the things Christ has taught."

We of course know our Westminster Standards do not summarize every aspect of everything Christ taught, or every single doctrine in Scripture, but that it (magnificently) summarizes most important doctrines and those historically contended for in the church.

So, logically, what we would be saying is that every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Standards is 100%:

1) absolutely, objectively clear to all at all times
2) new Christians must comprehensively understand and assent to every one of them, at all times, unless granted a "scruple"
3) these are the only doctrines (the ones summarized in the Standards) that one need "confess" with regard to membership- not really "all things Christ has taught."

4. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, "ordinances" is elsewhere rendered "traditions" (2 Thess. 2:15); it is the noun form of "to deliver" (in the same verse, 1 Cor. 11:2), and might better be rendered "deliverances" ("keep the deliverances, as I delivered them to you"). This term is capable of being understood of either doctrine or practice.

Of course, at the time this was written there not the historic written confessions.

It was referring to teaching of the Apostles, being revealed as the Word of God. The Word not having quite been completed at that time.

These passages set forth the duty of holding and maintaining the truth in its entirety, as it is professed and maintained by the church.

I would certainly say believing, teaching false doctrine is sin, particularly so for those who would presume to teach God's people.

But I would say that goes more to the entirety of the Scripture, believing all that truth, not only the parts professed and maintained in the church's doctrinal statement.

After all, our confessions tell us the (visible) church was, is, and will be a mixture of pure and impure (until we reach glory).

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XXV
Of the Church

....

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]

....

 

[Wayne]

Sean:

You've obviously given this some thought, and in that, have me at some disadvantage, because I had not previously applied myself to study this topic.

Additionally, I think every conscientious Reformed believer wants to see well-informed, studied congregations in our churches. In that respect, this approach is compelling, but still I think it unsupported by Scripture and therefore ultimately unworkable in practice. As you've pointed out, there are Presbyterian bodies that have followed this approach, though I think you would also have to agree that nearly all of them have laid that approach to membership aside. Why is that?

The most fundamental problem that I see with this approach is the way in which those who have come to faith in Christ are left in some sort of limbo as non-members awaiting reception into the Church, waiting on such a time as they come to adhere to an admittedly long list of doctrines embodied in a set of documents other than Scripture.

But as Jesus receives all who come to Him by faith, so all those who come to Him by faith are members of His body. How can we hold them off from participation in the Church? I don't see a secondary class of participation taught in Scripture.

Approaching this from the vantage point of church discipline, how would the Session exercise discipline on those who have not been received into membership? Or conversely, how would members enjoy the privilege of church membership that discipline entails? Also, does this approach prompt people to leave the church, and if so, where do they go? Do we presume that all of the elect stay and see the process through?

In both the PCA & the OPC, one form of censure is suspension from the sacraments. Yet by this system proposed, every catechumen [member-in-waiting] is necessarily suspended from the sacraments and in effect has been charged with sin, yet without charges brought, trial rendered, or sentence pronounced.

Lastly, this approach ultimately seems highly divisive. Logically (at least it seems to me), this approach ends up declaring its adherents the only true Church, and all others mere pretenders. I presume the RPCNA never fell to that, though I know other groups did. So how would adherents of this system view other churches not holding to the same set of documents?

 

[Kaalvenist]

You're quite right that wrong doctrine can bring disunity. In reformed theology, the unity of the church must be grounded on doctrinal agreement.

Also, that wrong doctrine is a ground for church discipline.

The scenario I'm imagining though is a brand new Christian, forever changed by the grace of our God, who does not understand yet the "L" in TULIP.

I'm thinking of a situation where the brand new Christian is not teaching in the church, so his belief is personal, born of lack of knowledge or misunderstanding.

Actually, my father-in-law, before he attended Trinity Ministerial Academy, was asked if he adhered to the Second London Baptist Confession. The only point of which he was not entirely convinced was limited atonement (he did not yet know how to explain 1 Tim. 2:4-6 and 2 Pet. 2:1). He was not corrected in his opinions until his last year there; he thinks they should have done so much sooner.

My point, though, was that ours is to be a united profession. If a church member cannot confess a doctrine of the church's confession, the profession is not a united one, because not united in that contested point. Although individuals are received into the church individually, they are not received to be individuals, with their own individual "take" on the subordinate standards. They are received into the visible unity of the church, which is to be maintained in a united profession of faith.

I'm not sure that admiting new believers as members, with their vow to peaceably study the doctrines of the church, and to submit to the governance and discipline of the church implies negotiability of the church's doctrine.

In the RPCNA, we don't have such a vow "to peaceably study the doctrines of the church." I would agree that such a vow would be better than not having it; but the issue I raised was "negotiable concerning the admission of church members," and not just a bare "negotiability." Certain doctrines are essential to the receiving of church members; others are not, and are therefore negotiable in that regard. Again, it produces an artificial division in the doctrines and practices maintained by the church, not present in the subordinate standards themselves, or the Scriptures upon which they are founded.

The part that's difficult is the "all the things Christ has taught."

We of course know our Westminster Standards do not summarize every aspect of everything Christ taught, or every single doctrine in Scripture, but that it (magnificently) summarizes most important doctrines and those historically contended for in the church.

So, logically, what we would be saying is that every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Standards is 100%:

1) absolutely, objectively clear to all at all times
2) new Christians must comprehensively understand and assent to every one of them, at all times, unless granted a "scruple"
3) these are the only doctrines (the ones summarized in the Standards) that one need "confess" with regard to membership- not really "all things Christ has taught."

I don't believe that your "conclusions" logically proceed from the premises.

1. The subordinate standards attempt to summarize, clarify, and explain the Scriptures; but "All things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all" (WCF 1.7). Therefore, it would make sense that the standards themselves are not always plain or clear.

2. I might quibble over the term "comprehensively." I remember when I became a five-point Calvinist, simply after reading through the Canons of Dordt. I read through the Second Head of Doctrine, concerning Redemption, and realized that it was all true and Scriptural -- Christ died to save, to redeem, to actually accomplish salvation, and not to make people merely savable; therefore He only died to save those who are actually saved, the elect. I didn't understand everything about it, and couldn't explain how every passage of the people was in harmony with that doctrine; but I knew what I believed, and did not have any doubts concerning that central affirmation. I could therefore envision people that do not have a "comprehensive" understanding of the subordinate standards, but still know what they believe.

3. Our churches have judicially declared certain subordinate standards to set forth "all the counsel of God." The church ought to require adherence to whatever it has declared to be derived from and founded upon the Scriptures; and cannot require adherence to anything it has not judicially declared to serve in such capacity. (This is where our ecclesiology tends to "make practical" the general principle of adherence to all of Christ's teaching. It is not only not feasible, it is ecclesiastical tyranny to require of church members something never judicially declared by the church.)

Of course, at the time this was written there not the historic written confessions.

It was referring to teaching of the Apostles, being revealed as the Word of God. The Word not having quite been completed at that time.

Why are certain writings referred to as our "subordinate standards?" They are subordinate to the Word of God, to which all must pledge their assent and submission. But they are not merely subordinate; they are also standards. Their authority, their truth, derives from the Scriptures upon which they are founded.

If a church has declared the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms to be its subordinate standards, it cannot without inconsistency fail to require members to adhere to those standards, if it will have its members adhere to the Scriptures. Otherwise, they are thereby declared either to be not subordinate to Scripture, or not a standard of faith and practice.

I would certainly say believing, teaching false doctrine is sin, particularly so for those who would presume to teach God's people.

But I would say that goes more to the entirety of the Scripture, believing all that truth, not only the parts professed and maintained in the church's doctrinal statement.

If it is sin to believe false doctrine, then it is sin on the part of a church to receive those persisting in false doctrine. Again, a church cannot (ecclesiastically speaking) require of its members more than what is judicially received by that church's judicatories -- what that church has declared to be "all the counsel of God."

-----Added 12/29/2009 at 09:50:45 EST-----

Sean:

You've obviously given this some thought, and in that, have me at some disadvantage, because I had not previously applied myself to study this topic.

Additionally, I think every conscientious Reformed believer wants to see well-informed, studied congregations in our churches. In that respect, this approach is compelling, but still I think it unsupported by Scripture and therefore ultimately unworkable in practice. As you've pointed out, there are Presbyterian bodies that have followed this approach, though I think you would also have to agree that nearly all of them have laid that approach to membership aside. Why is that?

1. I would argue that it is supported by the Scriptures I've quoted, and the reasons I've presented; whereas there is not the least bit of Scriptural or reasonable proof for the contrary position.

2. As I've said, I have not been able to find the reasons why my own denomination abandoned that position. I know that the UPCNA seemingly abandoned this position, before they merged with the Northern Presbyterians (now the PCUSA); and that the New Light RPs eventually abandoned this position before merging with the Bible Presbyterians (eventually making it into the PCA) -- you might be in a better position to research that one.

The most fundamental problem that I see with this approach is the way in which those who have come to faith in Christ are left in some sort of limbo as non-members awaiting reception into the Church, waiting on such a time as they come to adhere to an admittedly long list of doctrines embodied in a set of documents other than Scripture.

But as Jesus receives all who come to Him by faith, so all those who come to Him by faith are members of His body. How can we hold them off from participation in the Church? I don't see a secondary class of participation taught in Scripture.

Easy. Presbyterians don't receive people into church membership because we think people are regenerate; we receive them on a credible profession of faith. That profession has to have some content. I'm simply arguing that the subordinate standards of the church ought to provide that content; and that it is contrary to Scriptural order to receive people whose profession is contrary to or inconsistent with the subordinate standards.

Approaching this from the vantage point of church discipline, how would the Session exercise discipline on those who have not been received into membership? Or conversely, how would members enjoy the privilege of church membership that discipline entails? Also, does this approach prompt people to leave the church, and if so, where do they go? Do we presume that all of the elect stay and see the process through?

In both the PCA & the OPC, one form of censure is suspension from the sacraments. Yet by this system proposed, every catechumen [member-in-waiting] is necessarily suspended from the sacraments and in effect has been charged with sin, yet without charges brought, trial rendered, or sentence pronounced.

Individuals ought not enjoy the privileges of church membership (including discipline) until such time as they are received as members of the church. I know that our church has "adherents" who regularly attend without bothering to become church members, even though we no longer require members to adhere to the subordinate standards of the church. I don't imagine this to be a situation peculiar to our congregations. I don't believe that such individuals ought to receive the privileges of the church (the sacraments, voting, church discipline) until they are received as members. Adherents are not "suspended from the sacraments," since they were never admitted to them in the first place. Until they profess the faith and practice of the church, and submission to its discipline, they cannot come under its discipline.

Lastly, this approach ultimately seems highly divisive. Logically (at least it seems to me), this approach ends up declaring its adherents the only true Church, and all others mere pretenders. I presume the RPCNA never fell to that, though I know other groups did. So how would adherents of this system view other churches not holding to the same set of documents?

You could probably ask several of the churches that are in NAPARC, how they hold such a divisive position. I know that, historically, our church maintained this position in a rather "divisive" way, forbidding members to attend services or hear ministers of other denominations; but we were also one of the founding members of NAPARC, back when we still maintained this position (I think). It is not necessary to hold this position in such a way as to be divisive with other church bodies.

 

[Scott1]

Thanks, Sean.

We agree on many, many things.

I have responded on a few points below only for purpose of clarity for those following and considering these points perhaps for the first time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1
You're quite right that wrong doctrine can bring disunity. In reformed theology, the unity of the church must be grounded on doctrinal agreement.

Also, that wrong doctrine is a ground for church discipline.

The scenario I'm imagining though is a brand new Christian, forever changed by the grace of our God, who does not understand yet the "L" in TULIP.

I'm thinking of a situation where the brand new Christian is not teaching in the church, so his belief is personal, born of lack of knowledge or misunderstanding.

Kaalvenist
Actually, my father-in-law, before he attended Trinity Ministerial Academy, was asked if he adhered to the Second London Baptist Confession. The only point of which he was not entirely convinced was limited atonement (he did not yet know how to explain 1 Tim. 2:4-6 and 2 Pet. 2:1). He was not corrected in his opinions until his last year there; he thinks they should have done so much sooner.

My point, though, was that ours is to be a united profession. If a church member cannot confess a doctrine of the church's confession, the profession is not a united one, because not united in that contested point. Although individuals are received into the church individually, they are not received to be individuals, with their own individual "take" on the subordinate standards. They are received into the visible unity of the church, which is to be maintained in a united profession of faith.

It seems that the biblical model is that one is "received into the church" on the basis of the sovereign act of God, and the perfect life and shed blood of Jesus.

Though they may be ignorant, freshly reclaimed from the power of sin and death, they are judicially in fact members of the Body of Christ by the will of God.

To the extent possible, knowing it can only do so imperfectly, it would seem the visible church ought reflect that reality. Guarding of course the peace and purity of the church, through discipline of biblical morals and doctrine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1
I'm not sure that admiting new believers as members, with their vow to peaceably study the doctrines of the church, and to submit to the governance and discipline of the church implies negotiability of the church's doctrine.
In the RPCNA, we don't have such a vow "to peaceably study the doctrines of the church." I would agree that such a vow would be better than not having it; but the issue I raised was "negotiable concerning the admission of church members," and not just a bare "negotiability." Certain doctrines are essential to the receiving of church members; others are not, and are therefore negotiable in that regard. Again, it produces an artificial division in the doctrines and practices maintained by the church,

Isn’t part of being a member to learn those (profound) doctrines, under the nurture and admonition of the Lord, through His church?

not present in the subordinate standards themselves, or the Scriptures upon which they are founded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1
The part that's difficult is the "all the things Christ has taught."

We of course know our Westminster Standards do not summarize every aspect of everything Christ taught, or every single doctrine in Scripture, but that it (magnificently) summarizes most important doctrines and those historically contended for in the church.

So, logically, what we would be saying is that every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Standards is 100%:

1) absolutely, objectively clear to all at all times
2) new Christians must comprehensively understand and assent to every one of them, at all times, unless granted a "scruple"
3) these are the only doctrines (the ones summarized in the Standards) that one need "confess" with regard to membership- not really "all things Christ has taught."
I don't believe that your "conclusions" logically proceed from the premises.

1. The subordinate standards attempt to summarize, clarify, and explain the Scriptures; but "All things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all" (WCF 1.7). Therefore, it would make sense that the standards themselves are not always plain or clear.

How then can a new member, required for membership, vow that he does understand, receive and will follow them?

2. I might quibble over the term "comprehensively." I remember when I became a five-point Calvinist, simply after reading through the Canons of Dordt. I read through the Second Head of Doctrine, concerning Redemption, and realized that it was all true and Scriptural -- Christ died to save, to redeem, to actually accomplish salvation, and not to make people merely savable; therefore He only died to save those who are actually saved, the elect. I didn't understand everything about it, and couldn't explain how every passage of the people was in harmony with that doctrine; but I knew what I believed, and did not have any doubts concerning that central affirmation. I could therefore envision people that do not have a "comprehensive" understanding of the subordinate standards, but still know what they believe.

I completely agree- God was gracious to us both in giving us illumination by which to understand this profound truth early on.

But what of other brothers, for whom it takes time?

It would seem receiving and obeying presupposes understanding what it is.

3. Our churches have judicially declared certain subordinate standards to set forth "all the counsel of God." The church ought to require adherence to whatever it has declared to be derived from and founded upon the Scriptures; and cannot require adherence to anything it has not judicially declared to serve in such capacity. (This is where our ecclesiology tends to "make practical" the general principle of adherence to all of Christ's teaching. It is not only not feasible, it is ecclesiastical tyranny to require of church members something never judicially declared by the church.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott1
Of course, at the time this was written there not the historic written confessions.

It was referring to teaching of the Apostles, being revealed as the Word of God. The Word not having quite been completed at that time.

Why are certain writings referred to as our "subordinate standards?" They are subordinate to the Word of God, to which all must pledge their assent and submission. But they are not merely subordinate; they are also standards. Their authority, their truth, derives from the Scriptures upon which they are founded.

If a church has declared the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms to be its subordinate standards, it cannot without inconsistency fail to require members to adhere to those standards, if it will have its members adhere to the Scriptures. Otherwise, they are thereby declared either to be not subordinate to Scripture, or not a standard of faith and practice.

I think all Presbyterian denominations have and have had historically a process by which to amend their standards. Rightfully, that is a very deliberative process. But they can and have been changed slightly.

How could a standard ever be changed under such a scenario? No one could believe or, receive anything contrary, ever.

(And I won’t distract the point here with the ‘scruples’ exceptions us Presbyterians have always, very carefully allowed for)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott1
I would certainly say believing, teaching false doctrine is sin, particularly so for those who would presume to teach God's people.

But I would say that goes more to the entirety of the Scripture, believing all that truth, not only the parts professed and maintained in the church's doctrinal statement.

If it is sin to believe false doctrine, then it is sin on the part of a church to receive those persisting in false doctrine. Again, a church cannot (ecclesiastically speaking) require of its members more than what is judicially received by that church's judicatories -- what that church has declared to be "all the counsel of God."

In one sense, the church could not receive anyone under such a standard.

Thankfully, though, Christ has received unworthy, pitiful, rebellious sinners into His Kingdom, adopted them into His Body and given His church for their nurture, discipline and protection.

 

[Wayne]

Quick note on a busy day:

but we were also one of the founding members of NAPARC, back when we still maintained this position (I think).

Correction: No, as NAPARC was formed in 1975, three years after the RPCNA had relinquished that system of requirement in 1972 (wasn't that was the date you had said earlier?).

 

[Kaalvenist]

Quick note on a busy day:

but we were also one of the founding members of NAPARC, back when we still maintained this position (I think).

Correction: No, as NAPARC was formed in 1975, three years after the RPCNA had relinquished that system of requirement in 1972 (wasn't that was the date you had said earlier?).

Nope, it was 1979 as I understand it. In 1975, the subject was under close discussion in Synod; but the law and order of the church still required profession of the subordinate standards of the church.

-----Added 12/29/2009 at 01:15:57 EST-----

It seems that the biblical model is that one is "received into the church" on the basis of the sovereign act of God, and the perfect life and shed blood of Jesus.

Though they may be ignorant, freshly reclaimed from the power of sin and death, they are judicially in fact members of the Body of Christ by the will of God.

To the extent possible, knowing it can only do so imperfectly, it would seem the visible church ought reflect that reality. Guarding of course the peace and purity of the church, through discipline of biblical morals and doctrine.

1. One is received into the church on the basis of a profession of faith, not on the basis of their actual salvation, which cannot be certainly known.

2. Communicant members of the church may and ought to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; but the "ignorant and ungodly" ought to be debarred from the Lord's Supper (WCF 29.8); therefore the ignorant and ungodly ought not to be received into the membership of the church, because thereby they are admitted to the Lord's Supper. And it is not up to the individual to determine what makes someone ignorant (deficient in doctrine) or ungodly (deficient in practice); that is up to the church, which has declared its doctrine and practice in its subordinate standards.

Isn’t part of being a member to learn those (profound) doctrines, under the nurture and admonition of the Lord, through His church?

As said before, 2 Peter 1:12 seems to argue against that idea.

How then can a new member, required for membership, vow that he does understand, receive and will follow them?

You stated that this position requires that "every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Standards is 100%... absolutely, objectively clear to all at all times." I simply said that my position, and the standards themselves, say no such thing. Scripture itself is not always easy to understand (2 Peter 3:16); but that does not make it any less our duty to believe and obey them. If an individual persists in his refusal or inability to understand something in the subordinate standards, no matter how clearly it is explained to him, it would probably manifest a decided opposition to the doctrine or practice itself, and not merely the language within which it is couched. Saying that "some people" have difficulty understanding "certain statements" of the subordinate standards is not identical to saying that all people have a decided impossiblity understanding any portion of the standards.

I completely agree- God was gracious to us both in giving us illumination by which to understand this profound truth early on.

But what of other brothers, for whom it takes time?

It would seem receiving and obeying presupposes understanding what it is.

Then it takes time.

I think all Presbyterian denominations have and have had historically a process by which to amend their standards. Rightfully, that is a very deliberative process. But they can and have been changed slightly.

How could a standard ever be changed under such a scenario? No one could believe or, receive anything contrary, ever.

(And I won’t distract the point here with the ‘scruples’ exceptions us Presbyterians have always, very carefully allowed for)

1. Standards get changed by church officers, even when they have sworn to uphold, believe, and teach those standards, and nothing contrary thereto; and not by lay church members.

2. Churches have not always allowed for exceptions or scruples; and I'm not quite sure they ought to be allowed.

In one sense, the church could not receive anyone under such a standard.

Thankfully, though, Christ has received unworthy, pitiful, rebellious sinners into His Kingdom, adopted them into His Body and given His church for their nurture, discipline and protection.

Churches of the Reformed tradition have historically received individuals under such a standard; and many still do so to this day.

 

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Scott1
It seems that the biblical model is that one is "received into the church" on the basis of the sovereign act of God, and the perfect life and shed blood of Jesus.

Though they may be ignorant, freshly reclaimed from the power of sin and death, they are judicially in fact members of the Body of Christ by the will of God.

To the extent possible, knowing it can only do so imperfectly, it would seem the visible church ought reflect that reality. Guarding of course the peace and purity of the church, through discipline of biblical morals and doctrine.

Kaalvenist
1. One is received into the church on the basis of a profession of faith, not on the basis of their actual salvation, which cannot be certainly known.

I think we are describing two different things here.

I'm referring to a sinner's entrance into the invisible church.

You are referring to their entrance into the visible church by ordinance of membership.

They, of course, are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Scott1
Isn’t part of being a member to learn those (profound) doctrines, under the nurture and admonition of the Lord, through His church?

As said before, 2 Peter 1:12 seems to argue against that idea.

Of course we know there was no written confession of faith to adhere to when 2 Peter 1:12 was written. Even the Scripture was not quite complete.

Are we saying that one has to know all the non-salvific doctrine the visible church denomination holds before one can be recognized as a member of the (invisible) church?

Is there any clear precedence in Scripture to require that?

 

[dudley]

My experience indicates ther are differences

My own experience indicates that there are different standards among differrent Protestant denominations. I left the roman catholic church in January 2006 and began worshipping at an Episcopalian church at the invitation of friends who were Episcopalian.

I was welcomed to the Lords Supper at the first service I went to even though still a roman catholic and not yet a Episcopalian or a Protestant.

I was received into full communion at the Episcopal church at Easter week services 2006. However I began to study Protestantism and the Reformation and my first exploration took me to the Methodist church for a few weeks and I studied Wesley and Methodism. They had an open Lords Table and I communed at the Methodist church while still and Episcopalian. I was very influenced however studying John Calvin. I explored all 3 Presbyterian churches in early 2007. The PC usa, PCA and the OPC. I was welcomed to the Lords Supper at the PC usa congregation as an Episcopalian. However the PCA and OPC required confession of faith to the Westminster standards and membership in a bible believing Reformed church. I joined the inquirers class at the OPC cognation and was received into membership as Presbyterian in the OPC in the spring of 2007. I was examined by the elders a few weeks earlier and I made my public confession of faith on the first Sunday of the month which is also the Sunday we celebrate the Lords Supper. I was received at the Lords Supper for the first time as a confessed Presbyterian later in the service the same day.

 

[Dearly Bought]

I'm in general agreement with Sean's comments and just want to add a word or two.

I have generally found that opponents of "confessional membership" attempt to argue that such a position requires that church members demonstrate exhaustive knowledge of the church's entire confessional standards. However, I have also found that advocates of confessional membership rarely, if ever, present such a standard for church membership. From my perspective, the real issue has more to do with conscious objection to the doctrine of the confessions rather than exhaustive knowledge of their content.

 

[Kaalvenist]

I think we are describing two different things here.

I'm referring to a sinner's entrance into the invisible church.

You are referring to their entrance into the visible church by ordinance of membership.

They, of course, are not the same thing.

There is no such thing as "entrance into the invisible church."

"The catholic or universal church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all" (WCF 25.1).

People were received into the invisible church in eternity past by election. They are not received into the invisible church now, by regeneration, justification, or any other such salvific act occurring in time.

But why are we talking about the invisible church, since it is the visible church and its membership (and the requirements thereof) which is under discussion? Why claim that one is "received into the church on the basis of the sovereign act of God, and the perfect life and shed blood of Jesus," when we are discussing the profession of faith which an individual must make before the visible church in order to be received as a member? It is not God and His action in saving His people which is under question, but men and their duty in order to be counted among His visible people.

Originally Posted by Scott1
Isn’t part of being a member to learn those (profound) doctrines, under the nurture and admonition of the Lord, through His church?

As said before, 2 Peter 1:12 seems to argue against that idea.

Of course we know there was no written confession of faith to adhere to when 2 Peter 1:12 was written. Even the Scripture was not quite complete.

Are we saying that one has to know all the non-salvific doctrine the visible church denomination holds before one can be recognized as a member of the (invisible) church?

Is there any clear precedence in Scripture to require that?

That was not what you were originally asking. My previous remarks on 2 Peter 1:12 were,

These passages set forth the duty of holding and maintaining the truth in its entirety, as it is professed and maintained by the church. It cannot be presumed that these are exhortations to adhere to, maintain, and remain steadfast in a few particular truths (those deemed "essential"), and not "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). I might particularly mention 2 Peter 1:12, as properly quoted ("Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be estabished in the present truth"). Peter's teaching of the church members is merely to put them in remembrance of the truth, and not an attempt to instruct them in things of which they are entirely unaware. They already know them, and are established in them.

I am quite aware that there was not yet a written statement of faith, as you have frequently observed. Many use this fact to argue against confessions of faith in general, or against church officers being required to adhere to such. Why does this fact argue against church members to adhere to the faith and practice of the church; but not against the denomination as a whole, or church officers in particular, maintaining the subordinate standards of the church?

And, as was already stated, there is no requirement for any to be received into the invisible church, since they were received into the invisible church by God's decree of election in eternity past.