Confessional Membership?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dearly Bought

Puritan Board Junior
I'm interested in understanding which North American confessional Reformed/Presbyterian denominations hold to a position of "confessional membership." I'll use the definition provided by PB member Daniel Hyde as a guide to what I'm talking about:
"the practice that all members of the church assent to its teachings when seeking access to the table of the Lord and entrance into the church"
"...And taught in this Christian Church" Christian Renewal (May 31, 2006): 24.

Here's what I have so far:


Yes
ARBCA
CanRC
FRCNA
PRCA (Prot. Ref.)
RCUS
URCNA

No
APC (Associated Pres.)
ARP
CRC
CREC
EPC
ERQ
FCS
FCS (Continuing)
FPCS
OPC
PCA


Yet to be classified

APC (American Pres.)
BPC
CARPC
CRPC
ERPC
FPC
HNRC
KAPC
PRC (Pres. Ref.)
RPCGA
RPCNA
RPCUS
RPC (Hanover Pres.)
WPCUS


Please offer additions, corrections, etc. If "No," then what are the standards for membership? Thanks all.

Please stick to membership practices rather than restricted/closed/close communion practices. That'll probably be another thread.
 
Last edited:
To get membership in the ABRCA you have to adhere to the LBC. At least that was the case at the one I attended.
 
Meaning, if the member does not adhere 100% to Westminster (or other applicable confession), then that one cannot partake in the Lord's Table?

A bit haughty and extra-biblical, eh? I hope I misunderstood. I think the PCA's approach to membership (broad subscription) and partaking (exclusive faith in Christ) is healthy.

If I am not misunderstood, then we are assuming that all members/common Christians can even comprehend all that is said in WCF. Frankly, I think that would be a bit optimistic. It would be nice, but I think many of us forget that understanding is also a gift...:confused:
 
The ARP uses the following as one of its membership questions:

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?

I'm not quite sure you would classify that as "assent." Anyone vying for church office must answer a modified form of the question:
Do you accept the doctrines of this Church, contained
in the Westminster
Confession of Faith and Catechisms,
as founded on the Word of God and as the expression of
your own faith and do you resolve
to adhere thereto?
With regard to the Lord's Supper, the ARP's new book of worship says the following:

The Table is none other than Christ’s Table. The words
of institution set forth the sacrament as originating
in Christ’s command. They make plain that those
worshipping have been invited and called by Christ
Himself, and therefore come in obedience to His will.
He calls to Himself all who labor and are heavy laden,
saying He will give them rest. He calls them to
repent, and turn again, that their sins might be blotted
out, and that times of refreshing might come from the
presence of the Lord. He calls them to taste and see
that the Lord is good, and that blessed are all who take
refuge in Him.

In the name of Christ, and by His mercy and love, the
minister shall call to partake in the sacrament all who
humbly place their trust in Christ, are truly sorry for
their sins, and by His help endeavor to lead a holy
life.

Hope that helps.
 
The ARP uses the following as one of its membership questions:

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?

Is this understood to require assent to "essentials" or the whole breadth of the doctrines? In other words, can a Predestinarian Baptist become part of your congregation or other ARP congregations while retaining his convictions?
 
My understanding is that confessional membership is a characteristic of the Continental tradition and historically has not been seen in the British (Presbyterian) tradition.
 
Meaning, if the member does not adhere 100% to Westminster (or other applicable confession), then that one cannot partake in the Lord's Table?

A bit haughty and extra-biblical, eh? I hope I misunderstood. I think the PCA's approach to membership (broad subscription) and partaking (exclusive faith in Christ) is healthy.

If I am not misunderstood, then we are assuming that all members/common Christians can even comprehend all that is said in WCF. Frankly, I think that would be a bit optimistic. It would be nice, but I think many of us forget that understanding is also a gift...:confused:

Yes, we're talking complete assent to confessions as far as the person is conscious of it. I don't think that most churches who maintain this practice require a person to be able to give a lengthy exposition of every sentence in the confessions. There would be an expectation of both the church and the new member that they have been properly catechized and do not harbor any opposition to what they learned as they were catechized. Thus, when we say "the church confesses," every member is speaking.

I'd rather this thread stick to the OP's question than debate confessional membership. Having said that, if you'd like to start another thread contesting the idea, I'd be willing to discuss (and defend) the view. I do believe there are biblical foundations for this practice.
 
If you are a Christian who is in good standing and not under church discipline yet believe that it is silly to announce that the Pope is the Antichrist, would one of these churches then bar that Christian in good standing from the Lord's Table for disagreement on this minor and secondary issue in the Confessions?
 
Dearly Bought
Puritanboard Freshman

Yes, we're talking complete assent to confessions as far as the person is conscious of it.

I take it you would prefer not to discuss whether this is a good practice, only where it is practiced and perhaps how it is implemented.

Your statement reflects part of the difficulty with the phrase, as far as the person is conscious of it. On the one hand subscription would require complete knowledge. On the other complete knowledge is not required or even expected.
 
Is this to say that all the believers at Corinth, believed the gospel? Or that they understood the Lord's Supper even?

Paul had to rebuke them for the use of the Supper it's self...and even expound a bit about what the Supper entails. He simply straightened out the use of it in the form of some kind of party. He did though, emphasize the importance of knowing what the bread and wine were for, and warned that those that partake of it unworthily, partake of it to their own comdemnation.

I would say, if one understands the Five Points, that that person would have every right to the table, plain and simple...yet it seems, the visible church at the time all partook of the Sacrament.

So, by what biblical criteria are these churches listed as YES to confessional membership holding to, or presenting as biblically essential?

I can understand that they do so, but, at the same time, how MUCH is enough to KNOW and recite, to gain access?

With that, I see you have a list. So, I'm not actually getting the gist of your question. But I will mention that I believe the Independent Reformed Baptists I have decided to fellowship with (for lack of anything else at the moment), tend to hold to the 5 Points as the very foundation of their Confessional Standard. In other words, if you show by the confession your mouth, the Biblical gospel, you are Confessional, and may partake of the Lord's Supper. This is the Church Visible, and adding more to the list of things to Confess might be a bit too much, I think.

Sorry, I didn't have much to add toward your list...but, with ALL those Orginisations/Denominations...I can SEE why they might feel the NEED to have people hold to EVERY point of THEIR confession.
 
I take it you would prefer not to discuss whether this is a good practice, only where it is practiced and perhaps how it is implemented.
Yeah, let's try to keep these conversations in this thread so that the present thread can focus on the OP's question. I've answered a few of your questions there. I'd like to keep this thread on the topic of which denominations actually practice confessional membership rather than the validity of the practice.
 

Yet to be classified

APC (Associated Pres.)
FCS
FCS (Continuing)
FPCS[/INDENT]

The churches in the Free Church (Disruption) tradition do not hold to confessional membership, according to the definition provided in the OP.
 
We are currently in an ARP church plant, and it is exciting to see new people coming to our church who are either new Christians or who have not been to church in years. If these people have a credible profession of faith, they are allowed to join the church. They are not required to have years of instruction in reformed theology before being allowed to join. Our pastor teaches reformed doctrine as he goes through scripture. Those who attend Sunday School would be studying the Westminster Confession. Other than those of us who have been in reformed churches previously, I doubt most of them would even know who Calvin was, much less be able to name the 5 points!
 
The ARP uses the following as one of its membership questions:

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?

We are currently in an ARP church plant, and it is exciting to see new people coming to our church who are either new Christians or who have not been to church in years. If these people have a credible profession of faith, they are allowed to join the church. They are not required to have years of instruction in reformed theology before being allowed to join. Our pastor teaches reformed doctrine as he goes through scripture. Those who attend Sunday School would be studying the Westminster Confession. Other than those of us who have been in reformed churches previously, I doubt most of them would even know who Calvin was, much less be able to name the 5 points!

Do you know how the aforementioned membership vow is understood? Are families required to baptize their children or face discipline?
 
I honestly do not remember being asked that particular question when we joined. I'll have to check on that. But I am sure no one would be forced to baptize their children unless they were elder candidates. In that case, they need to agree to the doctrine. We did have some former baptists in our last church (PCA) who waited awhile before they decided to have their children baptized. And we had another man who would have been nominated as elder except for his view regarding baptism. I would think ARP would fall into the same category as PCA in your original post.
 
The ARP uses the following as one of its membership questions:

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?

Is this understood to require assent to "essentials" or the whole breadth of the doctrines? In other words, can a Predestinarian Baptist become part of your congregation or other ARP congregations while retaining his convictions?

It would be possible for a Reformed Baptist to join an ARP if he were approved for membership by the Session. He would have to agree that the ARP's position was indeed founded on the word of God (even if he disagreed with it). He would need to register the exception as well. He would be a member, but he would not be able to hold a position as an elder or deacon.
 
I know we have members/former members of at least Presbyterian Reformed, Free Presbyterian, RPCGA, RPCNA, and WPCUS churches. Anyone want to enlighten us? :detective:
 
Originally Posted by Marrow Man The ARP uses the following as one of its membership questions:


Quote:
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?


Is this understood to require assent to "essentials" or the whole breadth of the doctrines? In other words, can a Predestinarian Baptist become part of your congregation or other ARP congregations while retaining his convictions?

It would be possible for a Reformed Baptist to join an ARP if he were approved for membership by the Session. He would have to agree that the ARP's position was indeed founded on the word of God (even if he disagreed with it). He would need to register the exception as well. He would be a member, but he would not be able to hold a position as an elder or deacon

A few questions here, regarding the ARP:

1) Is this member vow understood to allow for a member to not be acquainted with the doctrinal standards at all? (E.g. someone became a Christian recently and knows nothing of doctrine save the Gospel, nothing about the Westminster Standards)

2) If the member does have to have some knowledge of the Standards how is this enforced?

3) Are you saying there can be no exceptions for an officer?

4) Any idea how this is interpreted "no exceptions"- no semantic differences, no different intepretations of a statement or proposition, does this mean no provision for any kind of scruple (e.g. light recreation on the sabbath)?

5) Also, is this system what we might call strict subscriptionism or is there some other term?

Thanks.
 
Meaning, if the member does not adhere 100% to Westminster (or other applicable confession), then that one cannot partake in the Lord's Table?

A bit haughty and extra-biblical, eh? I hope I misunderstood. I think the PCA's approach to membership (broad subscription) and partaking (exclusive faith in Christ) is healthy.

If I am not misunderstood, then we are assuming that all members/common Christians can even comprehend all that is said in WCF. Frankly, I think that would be a bit optimistic. It would be nice, but I think many of us forget that understanding is also a gift...:confused:

Moderator's Voice On

This post borders on disrespect to such denoms that hold to confessional membership, such as the RCUS. If this is your approach to church membership, then do you think the pastors of the church ought not to have to hold to the confessions?

To say that people cannot understand the confession is simply not true. With patient explanation of terms, anyone can understand the confession.

I know you said you hope you misunderstood. But then you defined away confessional membership churches as arrogant and haughty if they hold people to confessional subscription. There is no need for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top