From a Protestant perspective, I think you are misusing the term 'doctrine'. You seem to be using this term not in its proper sense (a teaching), but as a 'dogma' (official church teaching).
If you were to modify your position to state that an individual does not have the authority to establish what is 'dogma', I would be in agreement with you and this is where early on I thought we might have been on the same page.
In regards to the current thread, no one should hold up any one millennial position as 'dogma', that is 'the official teaching of the church', because, as you have noted, the church has no such official teaching. This is not that same thing as to say an elder cannot teach his understanding of his doctrinal views on subjects like the millennial issue, just that he ought not to make it an issue of dogma. This is no subtle difference.
This is the heart of the problem in much of the disunity in Reformed churches. People want to make 'dogma' out of doctrines that ought not bear that weight. And thus the reason for the subject line of this thread, "Fed Up With Eschatological & Apologetical DOGMATISM".
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnV  Westminster was the last Great Assembly of a unified Reformed Church. There were representatives there from all over the Reformed world at the time. From their great confessional documents we derive the understanding that none of the three views, in their basic form, violate the teachings of Scripture. That's as far as any denomination has gone.
|
This is not true. Just because the confession does not make any of the 3 millennial positions a confessional issue, does not by default result in its teaching that none of the three views violate Scripture. You are making the confession say something it simply isn't saying (by pointing out what it is not saying
).
Finally, some denominations have indeed gone much further than the confession on this. The RPCUS, for example, requires the Post-Mil, Presup, & Theonomic views to be held by all of its officers and these views are the official doctrine of that denomination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnV Quote:
Originally Posted by prespastor Exactly 'what church' are we to seek the witness of the Spirit through the plurality of elders? Would that be my denomination (of which I am an ordained minister because "I" believe our overall understanding and practice to be the most biblical)? Another? The consensus of all elders cross-denominationally? If the later, than why are we not all Arminians because that is the overwhelming consensus among Protestants today.
Perhaps it is the historical consensus we should seek? Even here there is no uniformity on many matters but you have differing confessions teaching in places contrary positions.
Your particular solution to the problem of autonomy (which seems to be the real issue here) can only be consistently held of one is with Rome (and is willing to buy their recasting of church history--since Rome has indeed progressed along a series of innovations over the centuries).
Finally, if you want to hold a position that is consistent with Protestantism (and the consensus of our elders both historically and contemporaneously), you must start and end with the scriptures. I do not hold to the Westminster Confession because it is anyone else's view. I hold to it because, I see it a faithful summation of the doctrines in the Scriptures that it addresses (and I do not believe it addresses all of the doctrine in the Scriptures and neither did it's framers).
| So there are other doctrines? Like, for example, three mutually exclusive millennial views? Whether it's your denomination or mine, they allow all three. Are all three doctrine, then?
You don't solve the problem, Robert. And misrepresenting the argument doesn't change that.
Westminster was the last Great Assembly of a unified Reformed Church. There were representatives there from all over the Reformed world at the time. From their great confessional documents we derive the understanding that none of the three views, in their basic form, violate the teachings of Scripture. That's as far as any denomination has gone.
You still have to justify the fact that a single individual has a right to declare something as doctrinal. That's never been the case in Reformed ecclesiology. You say you have the right to declare Amillennialism as doctrine, and Ken Gentry has the right to declare Postmillennialism as doctrine. How do you explain that? One of you has no right to declare it; or neither of you has a right if Jacob is right; but it can't be that all three have that right. At least two of you would be declaring something that God does not agree with. Which one is it? And who says so? |