Church Memebership, Confessional Adherence, and fencing the table

[Scott1]

Kaalvenist
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?

But we are talking about the visible and invisible church.

If I'm understanding this logic, we are saying that God sovereignly redeems a sinner and admits him into His Body (the invisible church) but then that fact is denied until he knows enough other doctrine and can meet the maturity requirements of a particular denomination to be acknowledged as such visibly.

I'm using the term "maturity requirements" in contrast to salvific ones.

Yes, we know and believe that salvation begins with God's eternal decree.

And the process of redemption involves a point in time where the Holy Spirit effectually calls (with an inner calling) that person unto faith in Christ alone.

The visible church can't recognize the person as a believer until that happens (a credible profession of faith from it).

So, if a person is saved on their "death bed," the church has no basis for determining that person a member of either the visible or invisible church until that time.

But here, it is as if we are saying, even though that has happened, until they vow to a series of things, perhaps even to a specific of a 2 elder or 3 elder view, we will not even attempt to recognize them as brothers.

I'm thinking of all kinds of limitations to that here- maybe an 8 year old not having the maturity to articulate this, someone where there is a language barrier, someone with a handicap of some sort, etc.

That means they are outside the covenant community and its benefits, responsibilities and privileges, including church discipline.



Where is that pattern in Scripture?

 

[Scott1]

Bryan,

I realize you are not necessarily contending for every point discussed here, but could you help us understand this?

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.

Can you elaborate on this?



Understand, that many of us are envisioning the Presbyterian standard which often requires adherence to every statement or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster Standards. This is partly because each statement, and each proposition with a statement (phrase), is footnooted with a Scripture proof.

So, for example Westminster Confession of Faith,

Chapter II
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity

I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions;[7] immutable,[8] immense,[9]...

An officer would need to be saying they agree with, and will defend that God is

1) one only
2) living and true
3) infinite
etc.

If he did not (somehow) believe that God was immutable (unchangeable), then He could not subscribe to the standard.

This is how particularized the Westminster Standards are, every statement and proposition carefully and concisely stated as a point of doctrine.

The idea being that each is an element of the doctrine which must be understood, before an officer vows they believe and receive them, unless granted an exception (scruple) that is peer-reviewed.


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.

My experience has been that even some mature Christians have never considered all these implications, let alone learned them to the extent of being able to say they agree with them.

 

[Kaalvenist]

But we are talking about the visible and invisible church.

If I'm understanding this logic, we are saying that God sovereignly redeems a sinner and admits him into His Body (the invisible church) but then that fact is denied until he knows enough other doctrine and can meet the maturity requirements of a particular denomination to be acknowledged as such visibly.

I'm using the term "maturity requirements" in contrast to salvific ones.

Yes, we know and believe that salvation begins with God's eternal decree.

And the process of redemption involves a point in time where the Holy Spirit effectually calls (with an inner calling) that person unto faith in Christ alone.

The visible church can't recognize the person as a believer until that happens (a credible profession of faith from it).

So, if a person is saved on their "death bed," the church has no basis for determining that person a member of either the visible or invisible church until that time.

But here, it is as if we are saying, even though that has happened, until they vow to a series of things, perhaps even to a specific of a 2 elder or 3 elder view, we will not even attempt to recognize them as brothers.

I'm thinking of all kinds of limitations to that here- maybe an 8 year old not having the maturity to articulate this, someone where there is a language barrier, someone with a handicap of some sort, etc.

That means they are outside the covenant community and its benefits, responsibilities and privileges, including church discipline.



Where is that pattern in Scripture?

1. It is not actual salvation which qualifies someone for entry into the visible church. It is a profession of faith. You confuse the issue by raising queries assuming the ability to know a person's election and regeneracy. It is an illegitimate argument, to attempt to speak of those whom God has elected, redeemed, and effectually called as being brought into the invisible church, who ought therefore to be received into the visible church; but because of our man-made rule of adherence to an impossibly long set of complicated doctrines, they are kept back from what is their right and privilege. If we cannot infallibly know who they are, one cannot argue that we are restraining anyone from church membership who ought to be received as such.

2. It is possible for someone to be a true believer, and yet not a suitable candidate for church membership, because of failure to adhere to the church's doctrine and practice. To clarify this, consider the case of a man called of God to be a minister of the Word and sacraments. His is a divine calling, which he ought to obey. But if he does not adhere to the faith and practice of the church to which he applies, they are not bound to receive him as a minister; rather, if their faith and practice is true, he is unfaithful to his calling in not adhering to their faith and practice. Likewise, if the faith and practice of a church is true, it is the duty of a true believer to adhere to such, in order to be received as a member; their failure or refusal to adhere to that faith and practice is not the fault of the church, but of that believer.

3. I don't know of a pattern set forth in Scripture of receiving people into the communion of the church who continue ignorant of the church's faith and practice.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Bryan,

I realize you are not necessarily contending for every point discussed here, but could you help us understand this?

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.

Can you elaborate on this?



Understand, that many of us are envisioning the Presbyterian standard which often requires adherence to every statement or proposition of doctrine in the Westminster Standards. This is partly because each statement, and each proposition with a statement (phrase), is footnooted with a Scripture proof.

So, for example Westminster Confession of Faith,

Chapter II
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity

I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions;[7] immutable,[8] immense,[9]...

An officer would need to be saying they agree with, and will defend that God is

1) one only
2) living and true
3) infinite
etc.

If he did not (somehow) believe that God was immutable (unchangeable), then He could not subscribe to the standard.

This is how particularized the Westminster Standards are, every statement and proposition carefully and concisely stated as a point of doctrine.

The idea being that each is an element of the doctrine which must be understood, before an officer vows they believe and receive them, unless granted an exception (scruple) that is peer-reviewed.


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.

My experience has been that even some mature Christians have never considered all these implications, let alone learned them to the extent of being able to say they agree with them.

This strict subscription to the confession is certainly the Continental Reformed standard as well. I do not mean to argue for a confessional membership akin to "system" subscription. I am rather stating that a position of confessional membership does not in itself exclude provisions for varying levels of theological understanding.

As an example, I have a family member who has never had any contact with Reformed Christianity in her life prior to the discussions that my wife and I have had with her. She has also been deprived of strong teaching in theology of any kind. After completing a church membership course through a Reformed confession, she wouldn't immediately be able to stand up and defend every doctrine taught therein with a bevy of Bible verses. Yet if a minister reviewed the entire confession with her in this course and she expressed assent to everything that she was taught, with no opposition to any of the Biblical doctrines confessed therein, I see no reason to refuse her membership. Entering the membership of the church, she would need to understand that the confession of the church lays down the understanding of Biblical doctrine by which she would judged and held to account as a church member.

Bringing it back to your example, an officer should be ready to defend the immutability of God from Scripture, but a "baby" Christian should simply affirm that God does not change. I'm ready to provide for varying levels of knowledge but not for varying degrees of commitment to the church's confession. I don't believe that I have to conduct exhaustive research on every doctrine of the Belgic Confession in order to fully confess its doctrine as my own. We should surely test every church's teachings by the light of Scripture, but I think we must be careful not to let an unBiblical individualism create a synagogue of one.

I do believe that the church is not infallible and that the faith of the church must be appropriated as one's own. Yet I also feel that our present church culture unBiblically pushes us to refrain from affirming any doctrine without comprehensive and exhaustive study prior to such affirmation, as if there were a theologically neutral ground from which to consider and evaluate doctrine. I'm comfortable with having "baby" Christians in church membership who may not be ready to step into the midst of a conversation about the relationship of the covenant of Grace to the Mosaic Law in the Westminster Confession, as long as they have no conscious opposition to the doctrine of the confession. I'm not comfortable extending church membership to an Arminian.

I hope these ramblings explain to some degree the distinction that I envision between varying levels of knowledge and varying theological convictions. Catechumens should be introduced to all of the confession's teaching prior to membership and should affirm it without opposition insofar as they are able to intellectually grasp it. You shouldn't have to have a college degree to be part of a confessionally Reformed church, but that doesn't mean that our congregations should tolerate Arminianism, charismaticism, or antinomianism.

 

[Scott1]

Sean,

Thanks very much for the interaction.

I'll interact with your last reasoning here and you can feel free to respond to that if you like.

After that, I think the differences will be clear enough, helpful to those following, so further interaction on these particular points points will not be needed.

I greatly appreciate you taking the time to do this- it has been helpful to me to understand.

Kaalvenist
1. It is not actual salvation which qualifies someone for entry into the visible church.
Right,
actual salvation qualifies them for entry into the invisible church, the Body of Christ.

It is a profession of faith.
Yes, and we would agree there needs to be an examined, credible profession of faith, based on the gospel for church membership.

You confuse the issue by raising queries assuming the ability to know a person's election and regeneracy.
No,
Those in church authority make an imperfect judgment based on its credibility to protect our Lord and His Church.

We both agree that judgment is necessary for church membership.

It is an illegitimate argument, to attempt to speak of those whom God has elected, redeemed, and effectually called as being brought into the invisible church, who ought therefore to be received into the visible church; but because of our man-made rule of adherence to an impossibly long set of complicated doctrines, they are kept back from what is their right and privilege. If we cannot infallibly know who they are, one cannot argue that we are restraining anyone from church membership who ought to be received as such.
Similarly, we cannot infallibly know if they "believe and receive" all the churches stated doctrine.

It would seem to be easier to determine the credibility of the former than the latter.

But we are called to make imperfect, fallible judgments judgments all the time.

2. It is possible for someone to be a true believer, and yet not a suitable candidate for church membership, because of failure to adhere to the church's doctrine and practice.

I would understand unsuitability to be a lack of understanding of the basis of their salvation or a disorderly life pattern given wholly over to unrepentant sin, not as the inability to comprehensively understand and agree with every proposition of doctrine in the church's written standards.

To clarify this, consider the case of a man called of God to be a minister of the Word and sacraments. His is a divine calling, which he ought to obey. But if he does not adhere to the faith and practice of the church to which he applies, they are not bound to receive him as a minister; rather, if their faith and practice is true, he is unfaithful to his calling in not adhering to their faith and practice.

Yes, but we would not ordinarily treat the minister as if he was an unbeliever either.

It would seem we would not deny him fellowship, the sacraments and discipline somewhere in Christ's Body.

3. I don't know of a pattern set forth in Scripture of receiving people into the communion of the church who continue ignorant of the church's faith and practice.
But we still have to admit, we have not found one single instance in Scripture of requiring adherence to an extended written statement of doctrine, other than a general acceptance to the teaching of the prophets and apostles in order to be member of a local church.

Likewise, if the faith and practice of a church is true, it is the duty of a true believer to adhere to such, in order to be received as a member; their failure or refusal to adhere to that faith and practice is not the fault of the church, but of that believer.

Once a member, it can become a part of church discipline. It is certainly part of submitting to the governance of the church.

But if someone is absolutely convinced of believer's baptism obviously that true believer cannot in good conscience submit to infant baptism as you and I believe in. And if he joins a confessional church that adheres to that, he still ought be presumed a 'true believer,' a brother in the Lord, and a vital part of the Body of Christ.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Sean,

Thanks very much for the interaction.

I'll interact with your last reasoning here and you can feel free to respond to that if you like.

After that, I think the differences will be clear enough, helpful to those following, so further interaction on these particular points points will not be needed.

I greatly appreciate you taking the time to do this- it has been helpful to me to understand.

I have appreciated the opportunity to set forth and clarify my position on this subject. Although I have occasionally felt that you were avoiding or ignoring the force of some of my arguments, I thank you for your charitable responses, and am glad that we were able to keep the discussion in perspective, without getting too heated.

1. It is not actual salvation which qualifies someone for entry into the visible church.

Right,
actual salvation qualifies them for entry into the invisible church, the Body of Christ.

It is a profession of faith.

Yes, and we would agree there needs to be an examined, credible profession of faith, based on the gospel for church membership.

You confuse the issue by raising queries assuming the ability to know a person's election and regeneracy.

No,
Those in church authority make an imperfect judgment based on its credibility to protect our Lord and His Church.

We both agree that judgment is necessary for church membership.

Scott, you said,

If I'm understanding this logic, we are saying that God sovereignly redeems a sinner and admits him into His Body (the invisible church) but then that fact is denied until he knows enough other doctrine and can meet the maturity requirements of a particular denomination to be acknowledged as such visibly.

This statement implies what I said. You are arguing from the "fact" that a person is truly and sovereignly redeemed by God (and therefore received into the invisible church), and therefore has an automatic right to membership and privileges of the visible church. Such cannot be determined; and such is not in the purview of the minister(s) and elder(s) of the church when examining an individual for membership.

It is an illegitimate argument, to attempt to speak of those whom God has elected, redeemed, and effectually called as being brought into the invisible church, who ought therefore to be received into the visible church; but because of our man-made rule of adherence to an impossibly long set of complicated doctrines, they are kept back from what is their right and privilege. If we cannot infallibly know who they are, one cannot argue that we are restraining anyone from church membership who ought to be received as such.

Similarly, we cannot infallibly know if they "believe and receive" all the churches stated doctrine.

It would seem to be easier to determine the credibility of the former than the latter.

But we are called to make imperfect, infallible judgments judgments all the time.

1. You have avoided the force of my reasoning. You spoke of us wronging elect, regenerated individuals who cannot adhere to our subordinate standards, by not admitting them to the membership of the visible church. I argued that, until you can prove any given individual to be such, your reasoning is illegitimate; because perhaps we have not wronged a single individual who is such.

2. It sounds as though you are saying it is easier to know that a person is in a state of grace, than to know that they adhere to the faith and practice of the church. I submit the question to any unbiased individual, which is easier.

3. You probably meant "imperfect, fallible judgments," not "imperfect, infallible judgments."

2. It is possible for someone to be a true believer, and yet not a suitable candidate for church membership, because of failure to adhere to the church's doctrine and practice.

I would understand unsuitability to be a lack of understanding of the basis of their salvation or a disorderly life pattern given wholly over to unrepentant sin, not as the inability to comprehensively understand and agree with every proposition of doctrine in the church's written standards.

To clarify this, consider the case of a man called of God to be a minister of the Word and sacraments. His is a divine calling, which he ought to obey. But if he does not adhere to the faith and practice of the church to which he applies, they are not bound to receive him as a minister; rather, if their faith and practice is true, he is unfaithful to his calling in not adhering to their faith and practice.

Yes, but we would not ordinarily treat the minister as if he was an unbeliever either.

It would seem we would not deny him fellowship, the sacraments and discipline somewhere in Christ's Body.

1. Again, you miss the force of my argument. My reason for structuring my point as such was to evidence the following (perhaps I should have been more clear).
a. An individual may be divinely called to salvation, just as a saved man may be divinely called to be a minister.
b. Church members ought to be required to receive the subordinate standards of the church (assume the principle for a moment), just as church officers ought to be required to receive the subordinate standards of the church.
c. The refusal of an effectually called individual to receive the subordinate standards, and the church's subsequent refusal to admit him to membership, does not bring his salvation in question; any more than the refusal of a man divinely called to the ministry to receive the subordinate standards of the church, and the church's subsequent refusal to admit him to the ministry, brings his calling in question.
d. However, the church is right to refuse the one as a member, and the other as a minister, on the same ground.
e. And both individuals are rather demonstrating unfaithfulness in their respective callings, than any unfairness or unscripturalness on the part of the church.

2. Such a minister would be excluded from the membership of the church, just as surely as the aforementioned individual. If your phrase "somewhere in Christ's body" means that he gets to minister in a church adopting positions contrary to our subordinate standards; so also the individual could be received as a member in a church that does not maintain Scriptural order and discipline. But I thought our question revolved around what IS Scriptural order and discipline, not giving an allowance for unscriptural order and discipline.

3. I don't know of a pattern set forth in Scripture of receiving people into the communion of the church who continue ignorant of the church's faith and practice.

But we still have to admit, we have not found one single instance in Scripture of requiring adherence to an extended written statement of doctrine, other than a general acceptance to the teaching of the prophets and apostles in order to be member of a local church.

1. I have never argued that, in the Scripture times, anyone was ever required to adhere "to an extended written statement of doctrine." I would argue, rather, that with the gradual arising of different heresies, heterodoxies, and errors in the progress of church history, the confession of the church has necessarily been lengthened and particularized. As heretics and errorists have opposed different teachings or practices of Scripture, or have argued for their own unscriptural teachings or practices, the church has necessarily decided against them, and made its confession a little bit longer. This can be seen if one examines many of the confessions of faith found in Acts, with statements found in the later epistles (particularly those of John, dealing with the Gnostic heretics). While a simple confession like that found in Acts 8:37 may have sufficed in that particular time of church history, it would not have sufficed by the time the Gnostics were on the scene; and therefore particular statements concerning the person of Christ are deemed as necessary. At one point of time, the Apostles' Creed was deemed sufficient as a profession of faith; but it is well known that Mormons and other heretics have no problem with any of the articles of the Creed, and could recite it just as readily. If the sins of heresy and error did not exist, there would be no need for a church to have a confession of faith at all; but because of such things, confessions of faith are necessary; and because of the amount of church history we have had (with all manner of errors and heresies going before), it is necessary for a church to have a lengthy confession of faith, to distinguish from said errors and heresies.

2. Scott, as a deacon in a PCA congregation, you vowed to "sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures." The deacon is a Scriptural office, with Scriptural qualifications. Where is there "one single instance in Scripture of requiring adherence to an extended written statement of doctrine, other than a general acceptance to the teaching of the prophets and apostles in order to be" a deacon in a local church? I submit that it cannot be found. But the requirement that deacons be "holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience" (1 Timothy 3:9) demonstrates that deacons (as other church officers) ought to adhere to the church's subordinate standards. That is the only text of Scripture of which I am aware which says anything even remotely on this subject for deacons; and yet this is deemed a sufficient proof for the order of every Presbyterian and Reformed church. But when literally dozens of such statements may be found requiring the same of church members, in the three different categories I originally laid out, it is not deemed a sufficient proof, and it continues to be questioned and opposed to this day.

Likewise, if the faith and practice of a church is true, it is the duty of a true believer to adhere to such, in order to be received as a member; their failure or refusal to adhere to that faith and practice is not the fault of the church, but of that believer.

Once a member, it can become a part of church discipline. It is certainly part of submitting to the governance of the church.

But if someone is absolutely convinced of believer's baptism obviously that true believer cannot in good conscience submit to infant baptism as you and I believe in. And if he joins a confessional church that adheres to that, he still ought be presumed a 'true believer,' a brother in the Lord, and a vital part of the Body of Christ.

1. It is unbiblical and illogical to receive a person into membership while he is in such a state or condition as would place him immediately under church discipline, and (if he continues unchanging and impenitent) serve as grounds for being cast right back out of the church. The discipline of the church, in its most general consideration, refers to the order of the church, and not merely the imposing of church censures. Receiving of individuals to membership who continue opposed to the subordinate standards is contrary to the order and discipline of Christ's church.

2. The order and discipline of every Reformed and Presbyterian church is against you on this point. It is a matter of fact that virtually every such denomination has ruled that those who refuse to baptize their infants are to be censured by the church. It is probably hoped that most Baptists in a Presbyterian church would quietly leave the church, asking for a letter of transfer, rather than wait for the church to discipline them. I would not, in any ordinary circumstance, question the piety of those with scruples against infant baptism; but that does not determine whether or not they ought to be disciplined by the church.

 

[jogri17]

The practice of the Canadian Reformed Churches is generally similar to the United Reformed Churches, although you will find differences with regards to visitors to the Lord's Supper. Some of our churches insist on written attestations (and this is the normal practice) and only admit members of sister churches. Others accept other forms of testimony and some are more inclusive when it comes to visitors. However, generally speaking, I think it's fair to say that we would never commune a visitor who would not become a member if he lived in our region.

Historically speaking, the Church Order of Dort (upon which the CanRC and URC COs are based) stated that only those were to be admitted to membership and as visitors to the Supper who had made profession of the "Reformed religion." The "Reformed religion" was understood to include only those who were in full agreement with the Three Forms of Unity. Anabaptists and the Lutherans were excluded. There is a good article that outlines all this history, but unfortunately it's in Dutch and hasn't been translated, so I doubt it would be of much help.

So does this mean that I could not partake in the Sacrament because I am some issues with the Belgic Confession though I fully embrace the Canons of Dort, the Westminster Standards, and the Heidleberg Catechism.

 

[Amazing Grace]

At least one is not required to give a grueling conversion narrative. It is certainly improper to demand a "confession" of the state of a person's soul in front of an ecclesiastical tribunal.