Who controls whom? The confessions or the churches
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
Didn't Matthew just mean they were not holding the Christian faith and life about that particular point?
Yes: "such a church or Christian must be in error at the point at which the WCF is rejected, and therefore cannot be regarded as holding the Christian faith and life at that point."
I don't support this point because I reject nominalism. The church's confession IS the truth as it is in Jesus, so far as that church is concerned. One cannot have a name -- Jesus -- without a real life referent. The church explains the referent because the name itself is understood differently by different people.
What you probably mean is, that in your experience churches don't achieve absolute subscription. In the Free Church tradition office-bearers subscribe the Westminster Confession as the confession of their faith.
One's experience should not prejudice his view of confession, but it is a scriptural view of confession which should judge one's experience. If the church has a confession which it does not truly believe then clearly what it subscribes to is not a confession. "We believe and therefore speak" is an apostolic maxim, not, We partially believe and therefore reservedly speak.
Last edited:
If it is driven "by God's sovereignly-directed heart conviction" then the church has no control over its confession but is controlled by it. Thankyou for your choice of words; you have made the point brilliantly.
vagabond
Puritan Board Freshman
It's getting late, so forgive me if any thoughts start to fog...
Then I'm not sure we're communicating well. Nominalism, a rejection of universal abstracts (or some variation on that theme), would perhaps agree with you in rejecting the point.
Bingo. There's the "dichotomy" I was making. I hope you understand why it was made, now.
One point remains biggest; your statement that (paraphrase) "the idea that a church controls / produces its confession is Romanist" now makes a little more sense to me, considering what you just said. But it still remains a statement which In my humble opinion to the average board observer reads something like:
"The idea that a church controls the form of its written Confession is Romanist."
Which, I'd hope you agree, is most definitely not the case. In fact, it's the church's job to make sure its written Confession is a statement of what it believes! In this sense, the church controls its written Confession.
Then I'm not sure we're communicating well. Nominalism, a rejection of universal abstracts (or some variation on that theme), would perhaps agree with you in rejecting the point.
Bingo. There's the "dichotomy" I was making. I hope you understand why it was made, now.
One point remains biggest; your statement that (paraphrase) "the idea that a church controls / produces its confession is Romanist" now makes a little more sense to me, considering what you just said. But it still remains a statement which In my humble opinion to the average board observer reads something like:
"The idea that a church controls the form of its written Confession is Romanist."
Which, I'd hope you agree, is most definitely not the case. In fact, it's the church's job to make sure its written Confession is a statement of what it believes! In this sense, the church controls its written Confession.
Last edited:
vagabond
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm sorry, you made your last reply after I had already started writing mine.
Basically, I think you're making my point and you think I'm making yours. Though we don't fully agree, I don't think we disagree as much as our posts make it seem. Our communication misunderstandings over what I defined as "Confession" (a written document stating beliefs, which I believe to be the initial topic of this forum) and a "confession" (the actual heart beliefs of a church / believer; the ideal definition and, I believe, your topic) were the main problem. Forgive the confusion on my part. Yes, ideally they should be the same...in reality, they're often not, thus the need arose for the dichotomy.
Final comment: If the writing of the Confession is driven by God's direction, sure, that means that the Confession, in that sense, controls the writer, at that time. It doesn't mean that it controls all those who adopt the Confession as theirs...later, they may detect a distinction between their confession (belief) and Confession (document) and thus change the document. If such change is effected, the distinction is gone and life continues. If it's not, the distinction remains.
This capital/lowercase distinction I made isn't nominalist. I didn't make the distinction, I'm just discussing it. It's merely a way I discussed the document (which doesn't control!) and the actual confession behind it (which does control!). If they line up, fine, but in many churches they don't, and I believe the topic of the forum is, in a sense, whether the Confession controls the confession or the confession controls the Confession
That is, whether the document controls the belief, or the belief the document. Of course, the belief controls the document...in the terms I understood, that is, the church controls the Confession.
Am I making sense? I think a misunderstanding was at the root of our discussion :\ Good night.It's getting late here.
Cheers.
Basically, I think you're making my point and you think I'm making yours. Though we don't fully agree, I don't think we disagree as much as our posts make it seem. Our communication misunderstandings over what I defined as "Confession" (a written document stating beliefs, which I believe to be the initial topic of this forum) and a "confession" (the actual heart beliefs of a church / believer; the ideal definition and, I believe, your topic) were the main problem. Forgive the confusion on my part. Yes, ideally they should be the same...in reality, they're often not, thus the need arose for the dichotomy.
Final comment: If the writing of the Confession is driven by God's direction, sure, that means that the Confession, in that sense, controls the writer, at that time. It doesn't mean that it controls all those who adopt the Confession as theirs...later, they may detect a distinction between their confession (belief) and Confession (document) and thus change the document. If such change is effected, the distinction is gone and life continues. If it's not, the distinction remains.
This capital/lowercase distinction I made isn't nominalist. I didn't make the distinction, I'm just discussing it. It's merely a way I discussed the document (which doesn't control!) and the actual confession behind it (which does control!). If they line up, fine, but in many churches they don't, and I believe the topic of the forum is, in a sense, whether the Confession controls the confession or the confession controls the Confession
That is, whether the document controls the belief, or the belief the document. Of course, the belief controls the document...in the terms I understood, that is, the church controls the Confession.Am I making sense? I think a misunderstanding was at the root of our discussion :\ Good night.It's getting late here.
Cheers.
ManleyBeasley
Puritan Board Junior
That's not really answering my question. The historicist view is clearly taught in the WCF and the LBC 1689 but not considered vital enough to bring warnings to those who don't adhere. My question is; what views taught in the confessions are treated with this level of seriousness and which aren't? I'm not asking to be rude but seeking to clarify the statements on the forum rules.
I agree that people shouldn't have to all subscribe to Historicism but that doesn't seem to fit with your warning. To be honest, I don't disagree with a single thing in the LBC 1689 but most in here seem to disagree with their confessions on at least the eschatological view (which is ok in my opinion).
A nominalist is a person content with the name of Christianity without any regard to whether or not he is really one. A nominalist, in the context of this discussion, is one who is content with the use of words without examining what the words mean, what is their real life referent. To be a church or a Christian one must believe something. The confession is merely the statement of that belief. If it is something else, then it is not really a confession of faith.
The church in its catholic element is its members, but in its particular expression it is first a ministry. Hence the apostles, as men set apart to preach, were the foundation of the true church. Please consult also WCF 25:3, 4. It is the particular church as a ministry which confesses its faith through preaching the Word and administering sacraments.
The church certainly has a duty and is obliged in all honesty to ensure that what it confesses is in fact what it believes (which is sadly becoming less common today); but the fact is that the faith of the church is not revealed by flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven. Its confession of faith should be nothing more and nothing less than what "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" has revealed. The church ministerially expresses this, but it does not exercise any control over its content, because this is magisterially determined by the Head of the Church alone.
You make good sense. The misunderstanding is not at the level of our discussion but of our experience. The dichotomy is a reality for some, perhaps even a majority, of reformed folk today, but it is not something which enters into my experience, nor one which I think is warranted by holy Scripture. I hope you have a good night's rest.
Ryan, I don't share Matthew's view that someone who departs from the WCF on a point of doctrine is not holding to the Christian faith at that point. For instance, as a credobaptist I would not be in agreement with the WCF. I am not a credobaptist today and not one tomorrow. Therefore, am I not holding to the Christian faith all the time I am a credobaptist? At worse I may not be holding to the TR position, but so what? There is only one faith and we are either of it or not.
Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
Hey Bill,
It took me a couple of times to understand what Matthew was saying in the post you are disputing. I'm not saying I completely understand it like he does, but I just didn't want you to read past what Matthew was writing and think that he was calling credo's non-believers. Do credo's hold to the Christian faith when it comes to baptism? According to the WCF the answer is no. That doesn't mean they are not believers.
It makes sense if you think about it. If credo's and paedo's thought the other groups were holding to the Christian faith in the matter of baptism then there wouldn't be any of these baptism threads.
Ryan, I may be reading Matthew wrong (Matthew, this is directed at you also.) If Matthew is saying, "In the area in which you are in disagreement with the WCF, you are not holding the Christian faith", I could understand that comment. Upon first read it seemed that Matthew was saying that a person who disagrees with the WCF is not holding the Christian faith. If that is the case then I stand corrected. It would be fitting terminology at that point because I consider those who are in disagreement with credo baptism to be in error, but not denying the faith that was once delivered.
Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
Bill,
I'm pretty sure that's what Matthew is saying. See post #34. I was like you the first time I read his post. But then I read it a couple of more times and it made sense to me.
And I certainly wasn't trying to correct you, brother. I just wanted to try and clarify what I thought Matthew was saying for sake of thread unity. That's the danger in writing things to people as opposed to talking to them. A lot of time what we are trying to say gets misunderstood when we type it.
I'm pretty sure that's what Matthew is saying. See post #34. I was like you the first time I read his post. But then I read it a couple of more times and it made sense to me.
And I certainly wasn't trying to correct you, brother. I just wanted to try and clarify what I thought Matthew was saying for sake of thread unity. That's the danger in writing things to people as opposed to talking to them. A lot of time what we are trying to say gets misunderstood when we type it.
ManleyBeasley
Puritan Board Junior
There's lots of room for misunderstanding! Forums like these show us how important non-verbal communication is in our day to day conversations. People are far more often unintentionally offended in forums then in face to face conversation.
Not real clean (kicked in the ground) served on the grass..and REALLY fatty. Had 100 pig-greasy hands grabbing for my son too trying to pinch his white cheeks. YUCK. It was enjoyable but not enjoyable like a US Barbecue. My son climbed trees all day with local kids and I met some more gov't officials who made more promises of help in my area.
We got a large hunk of meat in my fridge now (after washing the grass and fur off of it). I managed to get some fresh bacon from the coast too and I will cook both together tomorrow for Perin, the local woman that lives with my wife and I (show her how Americans eat pig.... mix it together and add salt and black pepper).
I've already come to think of ants as the seasoning....fur is the next level I guess.
Stage one: Look at ants in disgust, and throw away your food
Stage two: Look at ants, brush them off and eat your food,
Stage three: Eat the ants.
Sifting flour and sugar was a skill that seminary did not prepare me for.
Stage one: Look at ants in disgust, and throw away your food
Stage two: Look at ants, brush them off and eat your food,
Stage three: Eat the ants.
Sifting flour and sugar was a skill that seminary did not prepare me for.
ManleyBeasley
Puritan Board Junior
Dr. Bob Gonzales
Puritan Board Junior
Thanks, Charlie. Those are some of the very same suggestions I made on this board under the thread "The Danger of Reformed Confessionalism," which was actually started in response to a two-part post I submitted on RBS Tabletalk: The Weblog of Reformed Baptist Seminary. By the way, I'm not far away. Live in Greenville, and minister in Easley. Thanks again for your post.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Actually, there were some popular heresy's and doctrinal error then that the Westminster Divines were very carefully writing to avoid that are not common in this generation so I'm not sure this is the case.
As a layman, I take comfort in the fact that most sophisticated theological arguments (as in other spheres) boil down to very simple and basic matters. God has gifted people to help make the complex understandable to protect His church in each generation.
As Ecclesiastes 1:9:
Most are recycled, repackaged error that has been dealt with in the past.
Confessions are not intended to cover every doctrine and they are not intended to bind men's consciences except in most essential detail.
I think 350 years of surviving the testing from some of the greatest teachers in Christendom and some of her most ardent antagonists have born out the that the Confessions are reliable and trustworth summaries of the doctrine contained in Scripture.
They need to always be amendable, but only changed, added to, or revised only with the greatest of deliberation.
Don't forget, when the PCUSA began adopting modernism, the denomination began by adding (in their case Arminianism, in direct contradiction to the Standards) to the Confession. Study this historical example and see how it was done under pretense of being for the Gospel, by including the nonbiblical addition of a chapter on the Holy Spirit who, by the changes was represented as responding to man's choice. This meant moving away from limited atonement and toward Arminianism. The revised document became contradictory and a compromise document that descended into decentralized private interpretation and lost much of its meaning and authority.
About every Reformed denomination went back to the original formulations because they are trustworthy and faithful to Scripture, demonstrably so.
Last edited:
Manley,
I can't answer for each and every moderator, admins or the owners of the board. I do know that we have allowed a certain degree of latitude in discussions that are not lockstep with the confessions. It's not a black or white decision on whether a person is contra-confessional. The attitude of the person, the areas in which they question the confessions and their response to correction would be determinative as to our response. There are some matters such as the NPP or the FV which there is absolutely no tolerance for. If PB member has a general disdain for the confessions that will be opposed quickly and decisively.
I hope this explanation helps.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
