On confessional independency

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Don, can we start another thread about this. I don't want to hijack Bill's points (like I did earlier). The issue is not a one-man-show versus the wisdom of the whole church..., let's discuss this elsewhere.

You can use the thread of mine on Pres v. Cong

 

[Herald]

Folks, I am on the road and posting via my iPhone, so it's taking me out of real time in the discussion.

The purpose of the OP was not to compare the two systems of governance, but to discuss how confessional subscription in independent churches can strenthen independency, especially if a church is a member of an association such as ARBCA.

Bill, speaking as a congregationalist confessional Baptist, I think confessional subscription makes for a strong church, and only a strong church can function at all as an independent. Independent churches need internal cohesion far more than a Presbyterian or Erastian church would. Because an independent church's ecclessiology is congregational, it requires not only the elders to subscibe, but the members themselves to understand and subscribe.

Following your lead in not discussing the merits of either (and I'm staunch in my adherence to the congregational approach), I think teaching and holding to the Confession is even more important for an independent church--simply because it is the members of that church that will ultimately determine whether the preaching, teaching, and form of worship is sound.

Vic,

Thank you for your input.

We are recommending to the church that any pastoral or staff position must subscribe fully to the 1689 LBC. I am am recommending that there be no exceptions to this requirement. Members need not subscribe fully, but they must agree that the 1689 LBC will be considered an accurate commentary on doctrine. Of course scripture is the finally arbiter on all matters of faith an practice, but unless the confession can be shown to be lacking in it's interpretation of scripture (the burden of proof being on the one challenging the confession) it will be accepted as authoritative. The elders do not feel it is necessary to bind the conscience of an individual who may struggle with certain parts of the confession; thus full subscription will be required only of pastoral and staff positions.

Now, you said:

it requires not only the elders to subscibe, but the members themselves to understand and subscribe.

How far does your church carry confessional subscription with your membership? Must they fully subscribe, as full subscription is defined by ARBCA? If they have a pang of conscience on one or two areas would that preclude them from membership?

I agree that Congregational churches may bear a stronger burden in holding to and teaching the confession. I believe vigilance is paramount. It's easy for men to drift into liberal doctrine even in the most Reformed churches. Our Presbyterian brethren have been battling that with the NPP and FV. The Doug Wilson thread certainly brought out passions on both sides.

 

[Herald]

Don, can we start another thread about this. I don't want to hijack Bill's points (like I did earlier). The issue is not a one-man-show versus the wisdom of the whole church..., let's discuss this elsewhere.

Pergy, you're a gentleman and a scholar.

 

[Pergamum]

Ha Bill, I'm not much of either sometimes....


Here's a question. Will your pastor and members then have to be certain that the Pope is THE Antichrist?

 

[VictorBravo]

Folks, I am on the road and posting via my iPhone, so it's taking me out of real time in the discussion.

The purpose of the OP was not to compare the two systems of governance, but to discuss how confessional subscription in independent churches can strenthen independency, especially if a church is a member of an association such as ARBCA.

Bill, speaking as a congregationalist confessional Baptist, I think confessional subscription makes for a strong church, and only a strong church can function at all as an independent. Independent churches need internal cohesion far more than a Presbyterian or Erastian church would. Because an independent church's ecclessiology is congregational, it requires not only the elders to subscibe, but the members themselves to understand and subscribe.

Following your lead in not discussing the merits of either (and I'm staunch in my adherence to the congregational approach), I think teaching and holding to the Confession is even more important for an independent church--simply because it is the members of that church that will ultimately determine whether the preaching, teaching, and form of worship is sound.

Vic,

Thank you for your input.

We are recommending to the church that any pastoral or staff position must subscribe fully to the 1689 LBC. I am am recommending that there be no exceptions to this requirement. Members need not subscribe fully, but they must agree that the 1689 LBC will be considered an accurate commentary on doctrine. Of course scripture is the finally arbiter on all matters of faith an practice, but unless the confession can be shown to be lacking in it's interpretation of scripture (the burden of proof being on the one challenging the confession) it will be accepted as authoritative. The elders do not feel it is necessary to bind the conscience of an individual who may struggle with certain parts of the confession; thus full subscription will be required only of pastoral and staff positions.

Now, you said:

it requires not only the elders to subscibe, but the members themselves to understand and subscribe.

How far does your church carry confessional subscription with your membership? Must they fully subscribe, as full subscription is defined by ARBCA? If they have a pang of conscience on one or two areas would that preclude them from membership?

I agree that Congregational churches may bear a stronger burden in holding to and teaching the confession. I believe vigilance is paramount. It's easy for men to drift into liberal doctrine even in the most Reformed churches. Our Presbyterian brethren have been battling that with the NPP and FV. The Doug Wilson thread certainly brought out passions on both sides.

We require substantial subscription with exceptions allowed in particular sections. It's an interesting approach: Before we were accepted as members, we discussed the Confession with the Elders and with many other church members, challenging some of them. Our pastor was doing a long series on the LBCF and himself admitted that, in some places, he preferred how the Westminster had put it than the LBCF. Nevertheless, we reached a consensus that in certain minor areas, reservation was allowed, but in the areas of justification, church governance, sacraments, etc., strict subscription was demanded.

Nevertheless, we had to agree that we subscribed to the confession in good faith--meaning that we would defer to sound teaching. On the other hand, because of how we are made up, any member can protest against teaching that is clearly unconfessional--although that is done in decent order by bringing it up with the elders first. (Which is a reason for a plurality of elders as opposed to only one).

Granted, it may sound a bit fuzzy, but in practice it turns out to be pretty well defined. The reason for it all, of course, is that if you have a congregation that does not understand the basics of the confession, it can be carried away by the latest fad, fire its elders, and bring in Benny Hinn. A well grounded (not expert by any means) congregation, much like what you'd expect from a reasonably well catechized farm kid in 17th century Scotland, is a good foundation for stability.

 

[KMK]

We require substantial subscription with exceptions allowed in particular sections. It's an interesting approach: Before we were accepted as members, we discussed the Confession with the Elders and with many other church members, challenging some of them. Our pastor was doing a long series on the LBCF and himself admitted that, in some places, he preferred how the Westminster had put it than the LBCF. Nevertheless, we reached a consensus that in certain minor areas, reservation was allowed, but in the areas of justification, church governance, sacraments, etc., strict subscription was demanded.

The way Bob Selph explained it to me was that there had to be strict subscription on all points, but not all points had to be of equal importance. For example, the LBC says 'wine' and that must be subscribed to, but it is not emphasized equally in all churches. I took that to mean that all must agree that the Bible teaches wine, but some don't think it is important enough to exclude the use of grape juice. Maybe my understanding is wrong.

Personally, I don't see a great difference between confessional independence and confessional hierarchy. Both have some independence and some hierarchy. The OPC is independent from the PCA. And in congregational churches there is hierarchy in that the congregants submit to the elders, the elders submit to each other, and everyone submits to the men who wrote the confession. The difference between confessional hierarchy and confessional independence seems to be, not a matter of essence, but a matter of degree.

 

[KMK]

I, for one, would highy recommend FIRE. I have tasted sweet fellowship there and would love to include you in that fellowship and get a chance to see you at their meetings.

From what I understand, FIRE will also allow you to join as an individual, whereas ARBCA is strictly an association of churches.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I, for one, would highy recommend FIRE. I have tasted sweet fellowship there and would love to include you in that fellowship and get a chance to see you at their meetings.

From what I understand, FIRE will also allow you to join as an individual, whereas ARBCA is strictly an association of churches.

As an individual member or as a minister?

 

[reformedminister]

 

[Pergamum]

can be member or minister