When does the idea of Christian Liberty apply?

[alexandermsmith]

So this section says the church has the right to discipline those who maintain practices which are:
* contrary to the light of nature
* contrary to the known principles of Christianity
* contrary to the power of godliness
or which are or become
* destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established.

Christian liberty is not a good enough excuse to argue for or practice things like these. I think we are agreed on this.

I'm just not sure what you mean by 'legitimate' laws, and things 'considered' to violate Scripture. If this legitimacy and these considerations are governed by WCF 20.2 (i.e., the church has no right to contradict the Word in any thing, and no right to add to the Word in matters of faith or worship), then we're all good.

My slight concern with what you have written is that in the haste to flee from libertinism, you risk opening the door to legalism, by leaving it up to the church to set boundaries and determine the legitimacy of its laws. It doesn't really matter whether the church acts pre-emptively or retrospectively in its rulings. The important thing is whether it is constrained by the Word.

I'm not sure what our disagreement is. Does the church have the right to discipline its members? Yes. What is the standard for that discipline? Scripture. It is therefore for the courts of the church to determine if a member has violated Scriptural precept. A very helpful tool in this is the Larger Catechism's exposition of the ten commandments. But of course that section of the catechism forbids things which are not, by name, mentioned in Scripture. So obviously church courts have to apply Biblical principles to specific situations which are not, by name, mentioned in Scripture. That is what I am referring to.

When a church refuses access to the sacraments to someone for being a member of a golf club which operates on the Sabbath (and thus is in violation of the Fourth Commandment), the church is applying a Biblical principle to a situation that does not occur in Scripture (the running of gold clubs). When a church disciplines a member for holding dances in his living room the church is applying Biblical principles to a situation which does not occur in Scripture (dances in living rooms). In such cases the church is setting boundaries. (One can argue that these boundaries were already there and should have been known, but alas that doesn't stop certain people from pushing those boundaries and trying to remove them altogether.)

Clearly there is no longer a consensus in the church at large over what is and isn't permissable in a number of areas. This is a result of the agitation which paragraph four is addressing, it is not a result of any vagueness in Scripture on these matters. Strictness in discipline is not legalism.

 

[CathH]

When a church refuses access to the sacraments to someone for being a member of a golf club which operates on the Sabbath (and thus is in violation of the Fourth Commandment), the church is applying a Biblical principle to a situation that does not occur in Scripture (the running of gold clubs). When a church disciplines a member for holding dances in his living room the church is applying Biblical principles to a situation which does not occur in Scripture (dances in living rooms). In such cases the church is setting boundaries. (One can argue that these boundaries were already there and should have been known, but alas that doesn't stop certain people from pushing those boundaries and trying to remove them altogether.)

Clearly there is no longer a consensus in the church at large over what is and isn't permissable in a number of areas. This is a result of the agitation which paragraph four is addressing, it is not a result of any vagueness in Scripture on these matters. Strictness in discipline is not legalism.

Thanks Alexander.

Your examples are pretty confusing though.

The church has no jurisdiction over golf clubs, so it seems odd to discipline a member as a proxy for golf club management. Presumably you mean that the member would be disciplined for (guilt by association with?) sabbath breaking. And living rooms are an incidental circumstance.

So in these hypothetical (or semi fictionalised) examples, the church would not be setting new boundaries but simply applying existing, known scriptural principles on, presumably, the sabbath and dancing.

Strictness in discipline need not equate to legalism, but it may. Inventing new boundaries would contravene WCF 20.2, and strictness in enforcing those boundaries would be legalism.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Thanks Alexander.

Your examples are pretty confusing though.

The church has no jurisdiction over golf clubs, so it seems odd to discipline a member as a proxy for golf club management. Presumably you mean that the member would be disciplined for (guilt by association with?) sabbath breaking. And living rooms are an incidental circumstance.

So in these hypothetical (or semi fictionalised) examples, the church would not be setting new boundaries but simply applying existing, known scriptural principles on, presumably, the sabbath and dancing.

Strictness in discipline need not equate to legalism, but it may. Inventing new boundaries would contravene WCF 20.2, and strictness in enforcing those boundaries would be legalism.

My point was that golf clubs are not mentioned in Scripture and therefore the specific circumstance of a Christian being a member of a golf club which operated on Sabbath- thus breaking the Sabbath- is not to be found in Scripture. Therefore the church must apply Biblical teaching on the Sabbath to this particular circumstance. The same is true when it comes to the theatre, the cinema &c.

And by the by the church may have no direct jurisdiction over golf clubs but that does not mean it must remain silent on them, or anything which breaks the Sabbath. And in a properly functioning society the church's warning against such things would be heeded by the state which would require the closing of such establishments on the Sabbath.