Should lay members be required to affirm the confession of Faith?

[ADKing]

Speaking from the heart for a moment, is it Biblical to forbid a brother or sister in Christ, one who has truly repented of sin and trusted in Christ alone for salvation and is walking in a manner worthy of Him, to join with a local body of believers, submit to the local session and partake of the Lord's Supper? I don't see how such a position can be defended Biblically. I can see withholding the ability to hold church office for non-confessional believers from a Biblical position, but I can't see withholding membership into the body a sinner bought with the blood of Christ. Christ has received such into HIS kingdom, yet we cannot receive him into our churches?

In 2 Tessalonians 3.14-15 Paul says "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." The key to your question is "...and is walking in a manner worthy of him..." Who defines what that manner is? This is where divisions come from. If a brother is holding wrong doctrine and practice, even if he thinks he is right, it doesn't mean his wrong doctrine or practice are right.

---------- Post added at 10:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------

Are infants members of the church? WCF 25.2 answers, Yes. May infants partake of communion. WCF 29.8 answers, No, on the understanding that infants are included among the ignorant. So, from the outset, confessional churches have a twofold membership. Further, are all communicants placed in the same relation to the church? WCF 30.1-2, answers, No. The government of the church has been placed in the hand of church officers by the King and Head of the church, and to these are committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven. On this confessional basis, it is false to assert that the members of the church are the church. It is on the basis of this false assertion that "confessional membership" is maintained. There are clear distinctions within the membership of the church which establishes distinct requirements in each case.

Yes, there are distinctions in membership between non-communicant and communicant members. But all who are baptized are to be taught to observe whatsoever Christ has commanded us (Matthew 28.20). The question is not are all members of the church at the same level of understanding --surely they are not. But the issue is more focussed when one asks about a member (or a prospective member) who rejects the doctrinal position of the church. This is not the same situation as members at differing levels of ability to understand or articulate the confession. This strikes at what Paul commands the church for the sake of unity that they all speak the same things so that there be no divisions among them, being perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Corinthians 1.10).

I am not sure exactly where you are going by denying that not all members of the church are the church. Yes, there is a distinct government of the church. But the government of the church is not the church itself...?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

But the government of the church is not the church itself.

Rev. Winzer's point is that neither (especially?) is the membership of the church the church itself.

If we're going to pursue a "reductionist" description or definition of the church, we certainly don't reduce it in the last to simply the collection of members. The argument would probably go something like this: Christ is the King and Head of his church. You may reduce to the church to ONE, in the sense that absent the Head, there's nothing; the gathering of the body (so-called, in that case) would be meaningless. This is the top-down argument. At the end of the day, the church isn't fundamentally a "grass-roots" organization. It's a Head-first organization.

The point is, there is NO church (in fact) where there is no government of said church. There may be (in fact) some gathered Christians in a certain place, and nothing at all to see, because you can't see what is invisible. But you can't have something visible without at the same time having government of the same. In fact, you can also have very little of the body, save for those tasked with organizing and building up of the body--exhibit A: the Twelve, in the Upper Room post-resurrection--all (or nearly all) government. The Monarch's government will organize his kingdom. The kingdom will not organize itself into a government.

Anyway, I think that's the point.

 

[sastark]

I thought Presbyterian churches required affirmation to the WCF for membership. The EPC church I attend for Bible study requires a WCF course for anyone considering membership.

The OPC and the PCA do not. I was speaking in generalities. The principle is valid enough to ask a the question.

Anyone seeking to join an ARP congregation is supposed to answer in the affirmative to seven questions, one of which is:

(5) Do you accept the doctrines and principles of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, so far as you understand them, as agreeable to and founded on the Word of God?

But, to answer your question: I think the ARP question is sufficient.

Not to be critical of either you, your church, or your denomonation but how do you even enforce vow 5? I mean I can say yes to it without ever understanding a single line of it. As far as I understand can mean no conscience understanding at all. How does your denomonation enforce that?

James: You ask a fair question that has been asked by many ARP ministers and elders, as well. I can only speak for my own congregation, but when we interview potential members (that is, when the elders interview them prior to them making public vows of membership), we ask them the seven questions found in our Form of Government and we always try to probe a bit deeper on each of the seven questions, so we know that they know what they are being asked and what they are vowing to do. So, when it comes to question 5, and they say "Yes" my standard follow-up questions are: "Have you read the Westminster Confession of Faith? Do you own a copy of the Westminster Standards? Is there anything in those documents that you disagree with?"

It helps that right now in the adult Sunday School class, we are going over the WCF chapter by chapter to help familiarize the congregation with that document. If anyone has been attending the church for any amount of time and has come to Sunday School and now wants to join, they will at least have *some* knowledge of the Confession and what it is that we Presbyterians believe.

We also offer a New Members Class as the need arises.

 

[ADKing]

There's no need to go for a "reductionist" definition. The confessional description is in 25.2 "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation"

The visible church consists of professors of the true religion and their children. The next paragraph says "Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto."

 

[sastark]

how do you even enforce vow 5?

Sorry, I realized I never really answered how we would enforce that vow. Although we haven't had to do it at my church yet (praise God!), I suppose that if a member were going around teaching contrary to the Standards, that would be an issue. If someone started a Bible study in their home and was teaching dispensationalism, or non-Confessional views on the Sacraments, or Arminianism, then the elders would have to step in and tell them to stop and instruct them concerning their error. If they refused to stop or were unwilling to receive correction, it could proceed to church discipline.

However, if a member of the congregation held an opinion contrary to the Standards, but kept it private, or only shared that with the elders, I do not think it would be a cause for church discipline. It would be an opportunity for the elders to disciple that member further.

 

[SRoper]

Speaking from the heart for a moment, is it Biblical to forbid a brother or sister in Christ, one who has truly repented of sin and trusted in Christ alone for salvation and is walking in a manner worthy of Him, to join with a local body of believers, submit to the local session and partake of the Lord's Supper? I don't see how such a position can be defended Biblically. I can see withholding the ability to hold church office for non-confessional believers from a Biblical position, but I can't see withholding membership into the body a sinner bought with the blood of Christ. Christ has received such into HIS kingdom, yet we cannot receive him into our churches?

While I don't necessarily agree with confessional membership, I think you are missing the idea of catechesis. It is not as if prospective members are told "oh you didn't instantly affirm all that scripture teaches about faith and life the instant you were converted? Well you can't be a member--come back when you are ready." Instead, prospective members ought to be instructed in the faith so that they can understand and affirm the doctrines of the church.

 

[MW]

But the issue is more focussed when one asks about a member (or a prospective member) who rejects the doctrinal position of the church.

Then it becomes a matter of discipline. Where there is no rejection there is no requirement for discipline. As Rutherford notes in his reply to the independents, participation in communion is an "implicit" subjection to the doctrine of the church. The Presbyterians rejected the Independent requirement of making "explicit" what was "implicit" because there is no warrant for it in the Word and it is separatist by nature.

I am not sure exactly where you are going by denying that not all members of the church are the church. Yes, there is a distinct government of the church. But the government of the church is not the church itself...?

As Rev. Buchanan noted, the point I made is that the members of the church are not the church itself. That is the point which needs to be rebutted if it is to be rejected.

I am surprised to see a Presbyterian declare that the government of the church is not the church itself. "Tell it to the church." The Congregationalist claims it refers to the congregation; the Presbyterian insists it refers to the body of professing believers as represented by lawfully constituted government. See James Bannerman, Church of Christ, 1:14: "The word Church is applied, in the New Testament, to the body of professing believers in any place, as represented by their rulers and office-bearers."

 

[jwright82]

how do you even enforce vow 5?

Sorry, I realized I never really answered how we would enforce that vow. Although we haven't had to do it at my church yet (praise God!), I suppose that if a member were going around teaching contrary to the Standards, that would be an issue. If someone started a Bible study in their home and was teaching dispensationalism, or non-Confessional views on the Sacraments, or Arminianism, then the elders would have to step in and tell them to stop and instruct them concerning their error. If they refused to stop or were unwilling to receive correction, it could proceed to church discipline.

However, if a member of the congregation held an opinion contrary to the Standards, but kept it private, or only shared that with the elders, I do not think it would be a cause for church discipline. It would be an opportunity for the elders to disciple that member further.

Thank you for the answer.

 

[ADKing]

As Rev. Buchanan noted, the point I made is that the members of the church are not the church itself. That is the point which needs to be rebutted if it is to be rejected.

I am surprised to see a Presbyterian declare that the government of the church is not the church itself. "Tell it to the church." The Congregationalist claims it refers to the congregation; the Presbyterian insists it refers to the body of professing believers as represented by lawfully constituted government. See James Bannerman, Church of Christ, 1:14: "The word Church is applied, in the New Testament, to the body of professing believers in any place, as represented by their rulers and office-bearers."

I don't deny that the usage in that passage refers to the government of the church. The leadership of the church may be referred to by the name of those they represent. How would you define the visible church?

 

[MW]

How would you define the visible church?

The catholic visible church is the kingdom of Christ, the house and family of God, consisting of all throughout the world that profess the true religion and their children. Particular visible churches, as members of the catholic visible church, includes the office-bearers, oracles, and ordinances of God, and is more or less pure according as these are properly and purely instituted, taught and embraced, administered and performed.

 

[jwithnell]

It is Christ's church, and it is His sheep that need to be nurtured and protected. When someone makes a clear profession of faith, some of that nurturing should include instruction in doctrine and practice. At what point is a young believer knowledgeable enough to truly affirm all of a confession?

For some, that could take years and if the person is coming out of an unchurched background, that could mean he is denied access to some of the means of grace for a long stretch of time. I'm not saying that everyone who walks in the door should be able to join the following Sunday; prudence demands taking the time to develop mutual personal knowledge between the believer and the church. But a full affirmation of a detail theological document?

Should we have to move, I think it would be difficult for me to join a church (though I would be found doctrinally sound) that puts impediments between Christ's people and the church.

 

[ADKing]

So it is false to assert that the members are the church but the church consists of those who profess true religion and their children (i.e. the members)? I am assuming what you mean is that the church does not consist exclusively of its members? This seems like a rather confusing way to state things.

 

[MW]

So it is false to assert that the members are the church but the church consists of those who profess true religion and their children (i.e. the members)? I am assuming what you mean is that the church does not consist exclusively of its members? This seems like a rather confusing way to state things.

First, please note the difference between IS and CONSISTS. The catholic visible church IS the kingdom of Christ, the house and family of God; it CONSISTS of all throughout the world that profess the true religion and their children. That is the definition of the Westminster Confession. Any problem with this definition is ultimately a problem with the Confession. I regard the terms as sound because Christ is given His rightful place as the King of the kingdom.

Secondly, this discussion relates to qualifications necessary for membership in a PARTICULAR church. A particular church consists of more than members. It requires officers, oracles, and ordinances to constitute it a particular church. So yes, in relation to a particular church, the church does not consist exclusively of its members. Confusion only arises if one fails to distinguish things that differ.

 

[ADKing]

Thank you for the clarification. That was helpful.

 

[Kaalvenist]

For those who claim to reject confessional church membership: Do you believe that applicants for church membership should be required to maintain any objective, propositional truths? Which ones (i.e., which truths)?

My experience has been that virtually everyone will admit some truths should be maintained (the "essentials" or "fundamentals"); but that everyone's list will differ.

1. Would it not then make more sense to use the Confession and Catechisms (and Testimony, for those of us who have one) as the uniform standard of those propositional truths which ought to be embraced, seeing as all of the congregations within a particular denomination have agreed to that same standard (rather than a list of "essentials" that tends to differ from person to person)?

2. Should our receiving or believing a certain truth depend upon its relative importance for our personal salvation, or upon the authority of God (which we as a denomination say lies behind every truth in our subordinate standards)?

 

[jwright82]

For those who claim to reject confessional church membership: Do you believe that applicants for church membership should be required to maintain any objective, propositional truths? Which ones (i.e., which truths)?

My experience has been that virtually everyone will admit some truths should be maintained (the "essentials" or "fundamentals"); but that everyone's list will differ.

1. Would it not then make more sense to use the Confession and Catechisms (and Testimony, for those of us who have one) as the uniform standard of those propositional truths which ought to be embraced, seeing as all of the congregations within a particular denomination have agreed to that same standard (rather than a list of "essentials" that tends to differ from person to person)?

2. Should our receiving or believing a certain truth depend upon its relative importance for our personal salvation, or upon the authority of God (which we as a denomination say lies behind every truth in our subordinate standards)?

I would say that the average person in church is not going to understand everything in the confession. Is it or is it not a fair standered to place on an average person? Now we should be teaching through the confession and catechisms to educate the laity but asking them to affirm something they probably don't understand is not In my humble opinion the fairest way to go about things. If they learn that the confession teaches something that they absolutly abhor than they should either remain silent or join another church. They should affirm certian propositions (like inerrency and the truths of the gospel) and submit to the authority of the church but beyond that may be asking too much. I don't know I am open to changing my view here but right now it seems the best way.

 

[Kaalvenist]

I would say that the average person in church is not going to understand everything in the confession. Is it or is it not a fair standered to place on an average person? Now we should be teaching through the confession and catechisms to educate the laity but asking them to affirm something they probably don't understand is not In my humble opinion the fairest way to go about things. If they learn that the confession teaches something that they absolutly abhor than they should either remain silent or join another church. They should affirm certian propositions (like inerrency and the truths of the gospel) and submit to the authority of the church but beyond that may be asking too much. I don't know I am open to changing my view here but right now it seems the best way.

I would question whether the average deacon (or even many ruling elders) understand everything in the Confession; but that apparently doesn't keep them from taking ordination vows. --- To clarify, I'm not saying that it's a good thing (deacons and ruling elders should understand the content of the subordinate standards to which they take vows before God and His church); but communicant church members have about the same means available to them to understand the Confession of Faith and Catechisms as most ruling elders and deacons.

Personally, I would envision membership classes which would be rather extensive; but I could imagine an easier way:

1. An individual applies for communicant membership in the church to the church session.
2. The session asks the individual if he has read the Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
3. If he has not, they ask him to read through them carefully, then come back to apply for communicant membership.
4. The individual comes back, saying that he has read carefully through the Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
5. The church session asks if there was anything he did not understand, is not sure whether he believes, rejects outright, etc.
6. If he says yes, the minister could meet with him privately to explain the language, to resolve difficulties, to convince him of those truths, etc.; or he could be supplied with a helpful commentary on the Standards (Hodge, Shaw, or Williamson on the Confession of Faith, Vos on the Larger Catechism, and any one of a number of commentaries or helps on the Shorter Catechism).
7. If he still disbelieves things found in the Standards, the session could judge whether the points of disagreement concern the system of doctrine. If they do strike at the system, they would not admit him to membership until his difficulties are resolved. If they do not strike at the system, they receive him, cautioning him not to spread views contrary to the Confession and Catechisms.

In this process, the church session could also test his knowledge and reception of certain truths of the Confession, especially those that are less popular or which are controverted by sincere Christians (the five points of Calvinism, the regulative principle of worship, the Christian Sabbath, the subjects and mode of baptism, the nature of the Lord's Supper, Presbyterian church government, etc.).

I would also point out the inconsistency in saying that average church members will not or cannot understand everything in the Confession, on the one hand; and saying that we should teach through the Confession and Catechisms to educate them, on the other hand. If they can be educated in those points, they can likewise affirm those points.

I'm reminded of discussions on musical instruments in worship, in which some have suggested or outright declared that it is not possible to have a large congregation of Christians sing without instrumental accompaniment. Such assertions ignore the facts: for the majority of Christian history, churches have used no musical accompaniment; and many continue so to this day. --- Likewise, saying that lay church members can't understand the Confession and Catechisms ignores the fact that, in dissenting Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed churches, requiring church members to assent to the subordinate standards of the church has been the norm; and this has been the case, even when the majority of our members were largely lower class and undereducated.

 

[jwright82]

I would also point out the inconsistency in saying that average church members will not or cannot understand everything in the Confession, on the one hand; and saying that we should teach through the Confession and Catechisms to educate them, on the other hand. If they can be educated in those points, they can likewise affirm those points.

I see your point but I don't really think that it is inconsistant. On the one hand when we ask what must someone have to be a member of a church, I would affirm that minimal list above. When we ask what the church should teach, than it should teach the whole counsel of God as found in the confession and catechisms. There are members of my church, my church is very big, who I know believe that women should be allowed to be pastors. But they like the church so they keep their mouths shut about it.

Personally, I would envision membership classes which would be rather extensive; but I could imagine an easier way:

1. An individual applies for communicant membership in the church to the church session.
2. The session asks the individual if he has read the Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
3. If he has not, they ask him to read through them carefully, then come back to apply for communicant membership.
4. The individual comes back, saying that he has read carefully through the Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
5. The church session asks if there was anything he did not understand, is not sure whether he believes, rejects outright, etc.
6. If he says yes, the minister could meet with him privately to explain the language, to resolve difficulties, to convince him of those truths, etc.; or he could be supplied with a helpful commentary on the Standards (Hodge, Shaw, or Williamson on the Confession of Faith, Vos on the Larger Catechism, and any one of a number of commentaries or helps on the Shorter Catechism).
7. If he still disbelieves things found in the Standards, the session could judge whether the points of disagreement concern the system of doctrine. If they do strike at the system, they would not admit him to membership until his difficulties are resolved. If they do not strike at the system, they receive him, cautioning him not to spread views contrary to the Confession and Catechisms.

How long will this take? And practically speaking it would yeild no better results than what I'm talking about. The person may think they understand everything and say yes but they don't so the end result is the same. They would need a class that went through the entire confession and than our presbyterian form of goverment. But you still have to distill it down to make it more understandable and I would think that the average person would need just as much help understanding the commentaries you mentioned as the confession. I say that because the language is dated but neccessary for doctrinal precision.

I am also concerned about this yeilding very sectarian style churchs where you are not just asked to affirm the confession but the church's interpretation of the confession. This would inhibit growth and become a bad form of theological precision. If you don't say things thr right way than you in theory have violated your vows. How would you avoid that in your view?

 

[ac7k]

As I read all of this I am greatly saddened that I am not part of a confessional Presbyterian church. I have come to realize that I support the WCF over the LBCF... it has been quite a journey.

My current church, a non reformed baptist church is far from confessional and highly dispensational. I am among 2 or 3 people in the church of 500+ that consider themselves of the mindset of reformed theology. We are heavily intertwined in the church, very active - my wife is co-head of Children's ministry, and they have been instrumental in aiding us spiritually and financially during all of my medical issues.

I am at a loss to what to do. Please pray for us.

 

[Tim]

As I read all of this I am greatly saddened that I am not part of a confessional Presbyterian church. I have come to realize that I support the WCF over the LBCF... it has been quite a journey.

My current church, a non reformed baptist church is far from confessional and highly dispensational. I am among 2 or 3 people in the church of 500+ that consider themselves of the mindset of reformed theology. We are heavily intertwined in the church, very active - my wife is co-head of Children's ministry, and they have been instrumental in aiding us spiritually and financially during all of my medical issues.

I am at a loss to what to do. Please pray for us.

Brother, I just prayed for you and your wife. It is indeed difficult for those who have no good options in their present geographical location. I had to remind myself of the location of Bremerton, and I am guessing that if you wanted to go to Seattle, you would have to take "the long way around".

 

[mvdm]

For clarification, the issue of the level of doctrinal commitment is not an entirely settled or uniform matter in the URCNA. The following is a committee report presented to Synod 2010, and as you will see, it was a divided committee report:

http://urcnasynodreports.files.word..._of_doctrinal_commitment_committee_report.pdf

Synod 2010 referred the matter for further study and report to Synod 2012.

 

[Kaalvenist]

I see your point but I don't really think that it is inconsistant. On the one hand when we ask what must someone have to be a member of a church, I would affirm that minimal list above. When we ask what the church should teach, than it should teach the whole counsel of God as found in the confession and catechisms.

Just as the church (through its officers) is to teach the whole counsel of God; so also the church (in its members) is to receive the whole counsel of God. The one is pointless without the other.

There are members of my church, my church is very big, who I know believe that women should be allowed to be pastors. But they like the church so they keep their mouths shut about it.

I think it is destructive to the future of your church to allow someone holding such a view to continue in good standing. Are they allowed to teach those views to their children? or to convince others of their position? If the standard of membership is a supposed list of essentials, I doubt that issue would make the cut. But a church that allows women to be ministers or ruling elders, in my view, has ceased to be a true church --- their ministry (Word and sacraments) and government are invalid. If some members could hold that view, then all members could hold that view, and your church could then call a female pastor.

How long will this take? And practically speaking it would yeild no better results than what I'm talking about. The person may think they understand everything and say yes but they don't so the end result is the same. They would need a class that went through the entire confession and than our presbyterian form of goverment. But you still have to distill it down to make it more understandable and I would think that the average person would need just as much help understanding the commentaries you mentioned as the confession. I say that because the language is dated but neccessary for doctrinal precision.

I'm not saying it's perfect (neither are examinations for church officers); but something like this would be light-years ahead of what many Presbyterian churches are currently doing. (And Williamson and Vos were written in the 20th century, and explain some of the less-clear language). --- Remember, too, my preference is for lengthy, extensive membership classes. But if you would prefer a shorter, simpler method, this might be workable.

I am also concerned about this yeilding very sectarian style churchs where you are not just asked to affirm the confession but the church's interpretation of the confession. This would inhibit growth and become a bad form of theological precision. If you don't say things thr right way than you in theory have violated your vows. How would you avoid that in your view?

I'm a member in the RPCNA, which has a Testimony giving our own interpretation of the Confession of Faith in many places. I don't really have a problem with that. If churches have a distinct understanding of the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, that understanding should probably be clearly set forth in something like what we use.

Might I also suggest caution in employing the term "sectarian"? I might prefer "in accordance with the judgment of the church's supreme judicatory."

 

[jwright82]

As I read all of this I am greatly saddened that I am not part of a confessional Presbyterian church. I have come to realize that I support the WCF over the LBCF... it has been quite a journey.

My current church, a non reformed baptist church is far from confessional and highly dispensational. I am among 2 or 3 people in the church of 500+ that consider themselves of the mindset of reformed theology. We are heavily intertwined in the church, very active - my wife is co-head of Children's ministry, and they have been instrumental in aiding us spiritually and financially during all of my medical issues.

I am at a loss to what to do. Please pray for us.

I'll pray for to brother. Hang in their. Holding yourself accountable to the confession is better than nothing.

Just as the church (through its officers) is to teach the whole counsel of God; so also the church (in its members) is to receive the whole counsel of God. The one is pointless without the other.

No its not pointless. You are are it seems confusing what a person should affirm to be a member of a church and what a church teaches its members. That it seems , if I understand you correctly, is where we disagree. Where I see a distinction you do not at least on this issue.

I think it is destructive to the future of your church to allow someone holding such a view to continue in good standing. Are they allowed to teach those views to their children? or to convince others of their position? If the standard of membership is a supposed list of essentials, I doubt that issue would make the cut. But a church that allows women to be ministers or ruling elders, in my view, has ceased to be a true church --- their ministry (Word and sacraments) and government are invalid. If some members could hold that view, then all members could hold that view, and your church could then call a female pastor.

To be fair to my church I plainly stated that these people keep it generally to themselves. One person mentioned it in a sunday school class and was lovingly "corrected" by the elder teaching the class. This hypothetical scenerio of the church coming somehow to hold this beleif and start ordaining women is unfounded. No one is teaching this view to the church. The official teaching of the church is that women are not to be ordained.

Are they allowed to teach those views to their children?

I am not accusing of holding to this view but this statment seems to be a very slippery slope. We could recast it another way. Should the church allow a parent to teach their children that theonomy is wrong (if that church interprets the confession that way)? Should a parent be allowed to send their child to public school if the church thinks that that is a violation of their membership vows? Should a church allow a parent to teach their child infralapsarianism as opposed to supralapsarianism if that is how the church interprets the confession? Again we are talking about parents teaching their children in private, not publicly trying to change the way people think.

Do I agree with teaching your child that women should be ordained? No, but there is a huge area of things in which the church out to keep its nose out of. My church affirms the WCF with the LC and SC but I am taking my 9 year old daughter through the HC. If my church were to come to me and say that I needed to take her through the SC instead because that is the official catechism of our church I would tell them to mind their own buissness, they would never do that though. Publically affirming that women ought to be ordained should and must be disciplined by the church but privatly where a person disagrees with the church is none of their buissness.

I'm not saying it's perfect (neither are examinations for church officers); but something like this would be light-years ahead of what many Presbyterian churches are currently doing. (And Williamson and Vos were written in the 20th century, and explain some of the less-clear language). --- Remember, too, my preference is for lengthy, extensive membership classes. But if you would prefer a shorter, simpler method, this might be workable.

I could agree here but where I see the strength of my view is here. We all believe that the reformed faith is the most biblical tradition out there. If we had simpler classes to get members than we have the privalage of teaching them as members the reformed faith. This isn't a seeker sensitve aproach at all, it is saying that this is what you are going to be taught if it bothers you that much than go to the church down the street. If you disagree with it but want to stay than fine but conduct yourself in good order and remain quit about your majorly dissenting views.

I'm a member in the RPCNA, which has a Testimony giving our own interpretation of the Confession of Faith in many places. I don't really have a problem with that. If churches have a distinct understanding of the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, that understanding should probably be clearly set forth in something like what we use.

That is o.k. but what if someone sees the confession differently? Should we have that level of precision so as to to have no disagreements? I think Paul in 1Cor. forbids that by condeming such divisions in the church. We should have doctrinal unity as much as possible but we should allow for some disagreement. R2K and Theonomists disagree but are both reformed and thats o.k. In my humble opinion.

Might I also suggest caution in employing the term "sectarian"? I might prefer "in accordance with the judgment of the church's supreme judicatory."

I meant no offense by it. But I think it depends on what we are talking about. The church affirming infant baptism as confessional is "in accordance with the judgment of the church's supreme judicatry". A church affirming theonomy as the only interpratation of the confession is sectarian In my humble opinion.

 

[Kaalvenist]

No its not pointless. You are are it seems confusing what a person should affirm to be a member of a church and what a church teaches its members. That it seems , if I understand you correctly, is where we disagree. Where I see a distinction you do not at least on this issue.

The inconsistency lies in saying that the officers of the church ought to teach all the principles of the subordinate standards, but members do not have to believe them. Essentially, it would reduce the truths of the Confession and Catechisms to whatever is explicitly identified in the PCA's membership vows, and people could safely reject everything else. What point would there be in the pastor delivering any other truth of Scripture in his course of preaching, if members do not have to believe it, and cannot be held accountable for rejecting it?

If you could point me to a truth or principle of Scripture or the subordinate standards of the church which are too unimportant for either officers to teach or members to affirm, that would be helpful.

To be fair to my church I plainly stated that these people keep it generally to themselves. One person mentioned it in a sunday school class and was lovingly "corrected" by the elder teaching the class. This hypothetical scenerio of the church coming somehow to hold this beleif and start ordaining women is unfounded. No one is teaching this view to the church. The official teaching of the church is that women are not to be ordained.

My apologies. I didn't intend to attack your church at all, or suppose that "the liberals are taking over," or anything like that. I would prefer to deal with hypotheticals, rather than make it personal.

Are they allowed to teach those views to their children?

I am not accusing of holding to this view but this statment seems to be a very slippery slope. We could recast it another way. Should the church allow a parent to teach their children that theonomy is wrong (if that church interprets the confession that way)? Should a parent be allowed to send their child to public school if the church thinks that that is a violation of their membership vows? Should a church allow a parent to teach their child infralapsarianism as opposed to supralapsarianism if that is how the church interprets the confession? Again we are talking about parents teaching their children in private, not publicly trying to change the way people think.

Do I agree with teaching your child that women should be ordained? No, but there is a huge area of things in which the church out to keep its nose out of. My church affirms the WCF with the LC and SC but I am taking my 9 year old daughter through the HC. If my church were to come to me and say that I needed to take her through the SC instead because that is the official catechism of our church I would tell them to mind their own buissness, they would never do that though. Publically affirming that women ought to be ordained should and must be disciplined by the church but privatly where a person disagrees with the church is none of their buissness.

I do think that my initial question may be put in a negative light; but I think that your answer is far more problematic. If the church declares a view or position to be in error, what right (from Scripture) do private members have to promulgate that error, even in their own families, contrary to the doctrine and order of the church? If a church officer declares an exception to the Westminster Standards, do they have a right publicly to teach that exception? If not, why should they be allowed to teach it privately? Why should the case be any different with private members? --- This is part of the reason why private members who maintain doctrines contrary to the approved standards of the church should be disciplined: not only are they, in the eyes of the church, "misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it, to ... the maintaining of false doctrines" (Larger Catechism, Q. 113); but they are in a position to spread their errors to those who are most susceptible to imbibe those errors --- their own children.

I could agree here but where I see the strength of my view is here. We all believe that the reformed faith is the most biblical tradition out there. If we had simpler classes to get members than we have the privalage of teaching them as members the reformed faith. This isn't a seeker sensitve aproach at all, it is saying that this is what you are going to be taught if it bothers you that much than go to the church down the street. If you disagree with it but want to stay than fine but conduct yourself in good order and remain quit about your majorly dissenting views.

The problem that I see is the fact that church members have requirements, in Scripture, of receiving and believing, not only Christ, but His doctrine; maintaining the same faith as the church, etc.

From a previous thread (http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/establishment-principle-confessional-church-membership-61272/)

If church members are required...

(1.) to continue steadfastly in apostolic doctrine,
(2.) to speak the same thing,
(3.) to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and judgment,
(4.) to be united in faith,
(5.) to not be carried about by strange doctrines,
(6.) to speak the truth in love,
(7.) to strive together for the faith of the gospel,
(8.) to be likeminded,
(9.) to be of one accord,
(10.) to walk by and be likeminded with what has already been attained,
(11.) to be established in the present truth,
(12.) to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered,
(13.) to hold fast what we already have;

but an individual, by his adherence to false principles of doctrine, worship, government, and discipline, refuses (whether or not it is intended) to do any of these things; it is contrary to all good order and discipline to receive him to church membership, while in such a state.

I'm a member in the RPCNA, which has a Testimony giving our own interpretation of the Confession of Faith in many places. I don't really have a problem with that. If churches have a distinct understanding of the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, that understanding should probably be clearly set forth in something like what we use.

That is o.k. but what if someone sees the confession differently? Should we have that level of precision so as to to have no disagreements? I think Paul in 1Cor. forbids that by condeming such divisions in the church. We should have doctrinal unity as much as possible but we should allow for some disagreement. R2K and Theonomists disagree but are both reformed and thats o.k. In my humble opinion.

1. Paul's words were, "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" (1 Cor. 1:10). If you can explain how "speak the same thing," and "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" are consistent with your views of NOT having church members do any of these things, I would be interested.

2. Again, I am in the RPCNA. By our Testimony, R2K is not confessional. We believe in exclusive psalmody, no musical instruments, no secret societies, restricted communion, Christ's universal Mediatorial kingship, and some other things which continue to distinguish us from others.

 

[jwright82]

What point would there be in the pastor delivering any other truth of Scripture in his course of preaching, if members do not have to believe it, and cannot be held accountable for rejecting it?

Because it his duty as a minister of the Word and Sacraments. Publicly regecting to the point of sturing up division can and must be dealt with by discipline.

If you could point me to a truth or principle of Scripture or the subordinate standards of the church which are too unimportant for either officers to teach or members to affirm, that would be helpful.

There are none that are unimportant for either group. What does that have to do with this question?

The inconsistency lies in saying that the officers of the church ought to teach all the principles of the subordinate standards, but members do not have to believe them. Essentially, it would reduce the truths of the Confession and Catechisms to whatever is explicitly identified in the PCA's membership vows, and people could safely reject everything else.

I don't see where it reduce anything. The pastor preaches this is the truth of God. Remember I am making a distinction between the officers and the lay members.

My apologies. I didn't intend to attack your church at all, or suppose that "the liberals are taking over," or anything like that. I would prefer to deal with hypotheticals, rather than make it personal.

No problem. I understand now your use of hypotheticals.

I do think that my initial question may be put in a negative light; but I think that your answer is far more problematic. If the church declares a view or position to be in error, what right (from Scripture) do private members have to promulgate that error, even in their own families, contrary to the doctrine and order of the church? If a church officer declares an exception to the Westminster Standards, do they have a right publicly to teach that exception? If not, why should they be allowed to teach it privately? Why should the case be any different with private members? --- This is part of the reason why private members who maintain doctrines contrary to the approved standards of the church should be disciplined: not only are they, in the eyes of the church, "misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it, to ... the maintaining of false doctrines" (Larger Catechism, Q. 113); but they are in a position to spread their errors to those who are most susceptible to imbibe those errors --- their own children.

Why stop at doctrine. Why not discipline them for not homeschooling their children? Or if a man has upset his wife and she has no desire at the moment to be intimate with, so the husband goes to church so that she will be ordered to sleep with him or face discipline (because she violated a clear teaching of Scripture)? The only to protect such pharaseism in the church and avoid Roman Catholic moral practice to make a clear distinction between what is public and what is private. That includes a person's beleifs. If they deny Jesus' divinity than they have violated their vows. If it comes to light that someone has commited a grevous sin even in private that is again a violation of their vows. So I am not saying that the church has no place in the private lives of their members only a very limited one.

The problem that I see is the fact that church members have requirements, in Scripture, of receiving and believing, not only Christ, but His doctrine; maintaining the same faith as the church, etc.

I think this is true in theory but in practice it requires members to be technical theologians to make sure they get every jot and tittle correct.

1. Paul's words were, "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" (1 Cor. 1:10). If you can explain how "speak the same thing," and "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" are consistent with your views of NOT having church members do any of these things, I would be interested.

2. Again, I am in the RPCNA. By our Testimony, R2K is not confessional. We believe in exclusive psalmody, no musical instruments, no secret societies, restricted communion, Christ's universal Mediatorial kingship, and some other things which continue to distinguish us from others.

Yes and in verse 17 and 18 he implies that it is the Gospel that is in view here. Since no one can say that Paul saved them vs. 13. It doesn't seem to be every jot and tittle of doctrine.

 

[Soonerborn]

I personally believe that the PCA not requiring all her members to subscribe to the confessions is a large reason of what is splintering the denomination. One practical way this plays itself out is when the church calls a new pastor. The PCA BCO does not require members of prospective search committees to subscribe to any confession.

According to PCA BCO 20.2, the search committee make up is determined as follows: "A church shall proceed to elect a pastor in the following manner: The Session shall call a congregational meeting to elect a pulpit committee which may be composed of members from the congregation at large or the Session, as designated by the congregation (see BCO 25).

That's basically the only guidance given. As a result, elections to nominate a search committee tend to become popularity contests and people end up getting on the committee who have no business being on the committee. Hypothetically, you could have people on the committee who actually deny infant baptism because they are members of the church.

In my opinion, this structure for nominating pastors will gradually continue to weaken and splinter the PCA denomination as a whole as each church seeks to meet their own preferences and styles rather than seeking to conform to the confessions.

At a minimum, the PCA should amend the BCO to require search committee members to uphold the confessions, similar to how officers must.

 

[VictorBravo]

As I read all of this I am greatly saddened that I am not part of a confessional Presbyterian church. I have come to realize that I support the WCF over the LBCF... it has been quite a journey.

My current church, a non reformed baptist church is far from confessional and highly dispensational. I am among 2 or 3 people in the church of 500+ that consider themselves of the mindset of reformed theology. We are heavily intertwined in the church, very active - my wife is co-head of Children's ministry, and they have been instrumental in aiding us spiritually and financially during all of my medical issues.

I am at a loss to what to do. Please pray for us.

Brother, I pray for you too. I can understand the connection you have with the people you worship with, and I believe you are blessed to have such support.

And I understand your developing preference for the WCF, but in case you didn't know, there are 2 solid confessional Reformed Baptist churches near you: Providence in University Place (my old church) and the new ARBCA church plant in Bremerton, Free Grace Baptist Church, meeting at 3840 Ambleside Lane.

I'm not suggesting you cut long-standing ties, but it might be a blessing for you to reach out to like-minded folks not too far away.

 

[Edward]

In my opinion, this structure for nominating pastors will gradually continue to weaken and splinter the PCA denomination as a whole as each church seeks to meet their own preferences and styles rather than seeking to conform to the confessions.

If the Session and Presbytery do their jobs, it wouldn't be a problem. The nominating committee doesn't work in a vacuum.

 

[dudley]

Although not required to I affirmed the Westminster Confession of faith before being accepted into membership in my Presbyterian congregation and becoming a Presbyterian. I even went further than affirming the Confession of faith. I believe however we should require lay members to affirm the Confession of faith.

My personal statement of my Reformed faith as a Presbyterian

I renounced roman Catholicism, her pope and its false teachings and became a Presbyterian in 2010.

I wrote the following to the elders and the Presbyterian minister and brought it to a meeting I had to be examined by them before making a Public confession of faith a few Sundays later in the Sunday service. It was not required but I wanted to do it.

I have encouraged the other roman catholic converts to do something similar and they have. I do because I believe that a roman catholic needs to reject openly roman catholicism and her pope to be truly free and experience a true Protestant conversion after being born again by Gods amazing grace. I renounced my roman catholic faith"and it's doctrine because it has a "Christian" appearance while not being Christian at all."

I Dudley Davis reject all the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic church and as a Protestant I accept, embrace and believe the following as part of my Christian Reformed Protestant faith

I believe in the God of the Bible
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God
I believe God is trinity, one God in three persons
I believe Jesus Christ is very God of very God
I believe that the Christ has come in the flesh
I believe in the resurrection of the dead
I believe in eternal judgment

I believe in a heaven and a hell and that all who are elected by the saving grace of God and accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and thus are born again in Jesus Christ as believers of His Gospel and live the life of evangelizing his good news will be with his Father in Gods Kingdom of Heaven for all eternity.

I believe in justification by faith alone.

I sincerely receive and adopt the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Presbyterian church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and I submit to the teachings of the Presbyterian Protestant tenets and doctrine.

I believe the Bible as the word of God and the only and final authority and path to salvation I submit in discipline to the doctrines of John Calvin and the teachings of the Presbyterian Church in doctrine and life.

It is Christ alone who is salvation to our souls, not the Church of Rome or the Pope"

I believe in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

I believe now as the Reformers who realized as they studied the Scriptures that the great central doctrine of the gospel was expressed in the comprehensive sentence, “Christ died for our sins.” The death of Christ was the great center from which the doctrine of salvation sprung.

In grace,
Dudley

 

[Kaalvenist]

What point would there be in the pastor delivering any other truth of Scripture in his course of preaching, if members do not have to believe it, and cannot be held accountable for rejecting it?

Because it his duty as a minister of the Word and Sacraments. Publicly regecting to the point of sturing up division can and must be dealt with by discipline.

I would suggest that discipline is both positive and negative: positive in admitting individuals to membership, and negative in censures; and that discipline should "work" hand in hand with the Word and Sacraments. It contradicts the truth of the doctrine preached to admit individuals to membership while they hold opinions contrary to that doctrine preached.

If you could point me to a truth or principle of Scripture or the subordinate standards of the church which are too unimportant for either officers to teach or members to affirm, that would be helpful.

There are none that are unimportant for either group. What does that have to do with this question?

You are arguing that there is a whole host of doctrines and practices of your Confession of Faith and Catechisms which are not necessary for individuals to believe, in order to be received to membership. The consequence of this is that those are doctrines and practices which are likewise not necessary for church officers to teach (since individuals can safely affirm or not affirm them, while received to or continued in membership). I would simply ask, Which doctrines or practices are not necessary?

The inconsistency lies in saying that the officers of the church ought to teach all the principles of the subordinate standards, but members do not have to believe them. Essentially, it would reduce the truths of the Confession and Catechisms to whatever is explicitly identified in the PCA's membership vows, and people could safely reject everything else.

I don't see where it reduce anything. The pastor preaches this is the truth of God. Remember I am making a distinction between the officers and the lay members.

1. Please see above.

2. If the only individuals in a Presbyterian church required to hold to its subordinate standards are the minister(s), ruling elder(s), and deacon(s), it seems a bit contrary to the facts of the case to say that the Westminster Standards are "the subordinate standards of the church," or that "the church" adheres to such and such doctrines. It would be more consistent to say that you have Presbyterian church officers over an Evangelical congregation.

I do think that my initial question may be put in a negative light; but I think that your answer is far more problematic. If the church declares a view or position to be in error, what right (from Scripture) do private members have to promulgate that error, even in their own families, contrary to the doctrine and order of the church? If a church officer declares an exception to the Westminster Standards, do they have a right publicly to teach that exception? If not, why should they be allowed to teach it privately? Why should the case be any different with private members? --- This is part of the reason why private members who maintain doctrines contrary to the approved standards of the church should be disciplined: not only are they, in the eyes of the church, "misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it, to ... the maintaining of false doctrines" (Larger Catechism, Q. 113); but they are in a position to spread their errors to those who are most susceptible to imbibe those errors --- their own children.

Why stop at doctrine. Why not discipline them for not homeschooling their children? Or if a man has upset his wife and she has no desire at the moment to be intimate with, so the husband goes to church so that she will be ordered to sleep with him or face discipline (because she violated a clear teaching of Scripture)? The only to protect such pharaseism in the church and avoid Roman Catholic moral practice to make a clear distinction between what is public and what is private. That includes a person's beleifs. If they deny Jesus' divinity than they have violated their vows. If it comes to light that someone has commited a grevous sin even in private that is again a violation of their vows. So I am not saying that the church has no place in the private lives of their members only a very limited one.

If a church decides judicially that one cannot attend upon public schools without sin, they would certainly be inconsistent not to apply the discipline of the church (both positively and negatively) in that case. For most of my denomination's history, we maintained that it was not possible to take an unqualified oath to the Constitution without sin, or to vote for someone who by virtue of their office would be required to take such an oath. The discipline of the church (both positively and negatively) was applied. You may disagree with the position we took; but if a church determines that an action is sinful, it should likewise determine that it is censurable. Otherwise, the position is all bark and no bite; without the position being enforced by discipline, the doctrine can be rejected by all with no consequences. --- This should not be interpreted as a license for church members to spy on each other. Churches should discipline for adultery, which many consider to be a private matter. How is church discipline applied to adulterers? Probably if they admit it, or if one party admits it; or if there is a huge amount of public evidence to indicate this. --- Obviously, no one can be disciplined for a privately-held opinion, unless they vent those opinions, or unless they are specifically asked if they still adhere to the doctrine of the church; and if not, where do they disagree? Unless they lie; but that's a whole other issue.

The problem that I see is the fact that church members have requirements, in Scripture, of receiving and believing, not only Christ, but His doctrine; maintaining the same faith as the church, etc.

I think this is true in theory but in practice it requires members to be technical theologians to make sure they get every jot and tittle correct.

I would ask that you examine again (and perhaps try to deal with) the specifics I enumerated. --- But to clarify: "in practice" this does not require "members to be technical theologians." Again, this has been the historic and universal practice in several branches of the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, and the "practice" is a lower understanding than that required by deacons... which is in turn lower than that required by ruling elders, which is lower than that required by ministers, which is lower than that required by seminary professors. They should all maintain the same system of faith and practice; but I'm not aware of any session or consistory that has held church members to those higher standards (deacon, ruling elder, etc.). But since you said, "in practice it requires," etc., it sounds as though you are familiar with specific examples in real life. Is that the case?

1. Paul's words were, "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" (1 Cor. 1:10). If you can explain how "speak the same thing," and "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" are consistent with your views of NOT having church members do any of these things, I would be interested.

2. Again, I am in the RPCNA. By our Testimony, R2K is not confessional. We believe in exclusive psalmody, no musical instruments, no secret societies, restricted communion, Christ's universal Mediatorial kingship, and some other things which continue to distinguish us from others.

Yes and in verse 17 and 18 he implies that it is the Gospel that is in view here. Since no one can say that Paul saved them vs. 13. It doesn't seem to be every jot and tittle of doctrine.

1. It would be contrary to the Apostle's logic to say that he was requiring unanimity on "the gospel" (as you seem to be defining it), while allowing for divergent beliefs and practices for every other conceivable question.

2. It could be (and has been) demonstrated that virtually every belief of the Christian faith is connected to the gospel --- not to the point that a denial of these other truths forfeits one's salvation; but that the entire is an entire and harmonious whole, and that even one truth of the system cannot be forfeited without damaging other truths (including the gospel itself). Baptism, for example, rests upon the gospel which it depicts; infant baptism rests upon the covenant of grace (which we certainly cannot conceive as somehow extricable from the gospel); Presbyterian church government is tied explicitly to Christ's kingship (as well as His priesthood, by which He purchased the church), etc. etc. It seems to be this more comprehensive understanding of "the faith of the gospel" (Phil. 1:27) that Paul is referring to when he speaks of "the gospel."