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

[jwright82]

It contradicts the truth of the doctrine preached to admit individuals to membership while they hold opinions contrary to that doctrine preached.

Only the truth of "your" doctrine. I am not trying to make this discussion personal so please don't take offense. What I mean is this, there is a huge difference between the Truth and my interpretation of the truth. That is presupposed by the fact that the confession does not speak on every matter.

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?

I am making a logical distinction. What is true of one relationship to the confession is not neccessaraly true of another relationship to the confession. The officers of the church have one relationship to the confession and the lay members have another relationship. You cannot take what is true of one relationship to something and apply it, without good reason, to another, different, relationship to that same thing. I am arguing at the level of theoretical foundation, that is what is our presuppositions with regards to this subject. I aproach it from one perspective and you seem to be, if I understand you right, aproaching from another. It is those presuppitions that I am arguing against.

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.

It is not the case that they are "officers over an Evangelical congregation", that is assuming too much. They are the standards of the "church", that is what is officially taught by the the church. If someone cannot publically "keep their mouth shut" than they are disciplined. Again a logical distinction is being made here between what a church officially teaches and what their members are required to affirm publically. Two different relationships.

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.

We don't disagree in theory. Where the church decides to discipline it should discipline. We disagree with where it should draw the line. It seems a false distinction is being made here between no discipline verses absolute discipline.

This should not be interpreted as a license for church members to spy on each other.

Yes but how could you logically argue for a distinction here? If not than this is an arbritrary standered.

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.

Agreed, but I did make a distinction between public and private sin. And how would a church deal with the wife I mentioned? Should the church be involved in such matters? It seems, and correct me if I am wrong, that one could apply the same logic you are using to the only possible conclusion that she should be censured by the church. Or if she feels that her husband is not loving her enough he should be censured by her subjective standered of what "loving her as Christ loved the church".

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?

What I meant was that if a theory is only consistant in theory and not in practice than it doesn't make sense at all. In theory sure every christian is required to believe every doctrine perfectly. But who understands every doctrine perfectly? Only God. So if no person can than is it fair to hold anyone, in theory, to this standered? No, it is isn't. Obviously you are not saying this but your logic seems to presuppose this idea. Which menas that it can never be realized consistantly in practice, which means logically that you are forced to make an abritrary disnticnction (we discipline this but not this for no good reason).

I undertsand that you want me to deal with specifics here but please understand that I am dealing with theory not practice. Our theory should consistantly work out in our practice. I can deal with any specifics you want me to, to be fair to you, but it will just go back to these more foundational issues.

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.

How would it be contrary to his logic? He mentions quite plainly that it is the gospel in view here.

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."

Not so. Paul calls them to unity in the gospel. He never disciplines them for holding contrary views only being publicly divisive about it. Also, it is curious, he is not speaking to the leadership of this church. He is speaking to members of this church being publicly divisive. It can be argued that every doctrine can be connected to the gospel. But that does not mean that we must hold every member accountable to that. We are humans after all. Our human interpretations can be wrong.