Do Opinions Equal Doctrines?

[OneOfHisElect]

I have always been a Baptist. I believe in Baptist distinctives. However I do hold strongly to the Covenant view point when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture. With all of that said I will pick on the denomination to which I belong. I have always believed that the Bible is the final authority and always will. I do not, however, find anywhere in the Scriptures that tells me that the opinion of the church is the final authority. The more I speak to the lost around me the more I have realized their problems with the church and to be specific, the Baptist denomination. I do not know how it is in other churches but to me it is a sad thing when the lost around us can walk into a church building and be instantly written off as less than the standard. It is even worse when those in the church cause their own members to feel this way. Time and again I have seen the opinions of the church become the doctrines of the church. I realize that there will never be a perfect church congregation but why is it that so many churches, especially here in the south, seem to think that they, and only they, have the correct opinion on things? It is to the point where I am about to give up going to the judgment house all together and have family church in my own home on Sundays. It is getting out of control. Does anyone else see this trend increasing? Please do not comment back to this post with how much better one church denomination is than another. I did not start this thread with that intention. I simply want to see if I am alone in my frustrations.

 

[KMK]

It is to the point where I am about to give up going to the judgment house all together and have family church in my own home on Sundays.

I have been there, brother. The problem is, when we take our ball and go home because "many churches...seem to think that they, and only they, have the correct opinions on things," we end up being guilty of the same thing. They think their opinions are correct and you think your opinions are correct but that is part of living in this world where "For now we see through a glass, darkly." The glory of God is not in schism but in watching how we "as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house."

As one who spent a couple years in the house church movement, I would encourage you to humble yourself enough to stick with a local church despite all of its many flaws. Christ is its head and husband after all.

 

[Edward]

it is a sad thing when the lost around us can walk into a church building and be instantly written off as less than the standard. It is even worse when those in the church cause their own members to feel this way.

Have you ever stopped to consider whether the other folks might be right? Someone walks into an established church convinced that they have it right and the other folks in the building have it wrong. If the person with the outlying views is disruptive, the church needs to do something about him. Some humility might be in order.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

This may be a case where confessional churches have an advantage. Be it Presbyterian with the WCF or Baptist with the LBCF. These Confessions limit the variance of teaching and opinions in the Local Church to a large extent. The problem with totally autonomous non-confessional local churces, such as the Baptists in the south, is that their leadership determines their understanding of Scripture and thus their doctrine. There are many who remain faithful to the Scripture to a large degree, but there are many who become eccentric and skewed in some important areas. Just my $0.02.

 

[timfost]

If you feel comfortable, could you please explain what kind of "opinions of the church" to which you are referring? That might help this discussion.

Also, something that I think is really helpful to reformed Christians is going back to basics and looking at the doctrine of justification by faith alone. If the lost are "instantly written off as less than the standard," it could be because we think that we are the standard of Christianity and we forget that we are justified, not by the extent of our sanctification or the reservoir of our knowledge, but by that simple faith in Christ. Christ is our standard, and we've all fallen short of His example.

Don't do the independent thing. It is a recipe to become lopsided in your theology and have no oversight. No one should tempt themselves in that regard when they can be a part of a church body.

 

[Jake]

Perhaps it would be possible to try to find a church whose elders and deacons hold to the same confession as you (the Westminster Standards according to your profile) so there is a greater degree of unity and fellowship possible, rather than simply leaving the visible church altogether.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Even in churches where the difference between doctrine /and/ everything-else is pretty clear, one still has to deal with two issues.

1) Discipline. There are various levels of application, and various intensity of application. Ideally, there is mature understanding among the elders of the difference between ordinary and extraordinary circumstances, and what leaders should call for, and what compliance should follow. In this church discipline mirrors family discipline or the like. Also, particular and deliberate impositions of discipline cannot fail (without great harm) to invoke a specific biblical prescription or prohibition. It should be the Law of God that defines all sin. And a well-ordered church should have a healthy arena for "freedom of conscience."

2) But there's still going to be differences in churches. Which brings up the second issue: Culture. The wider culture or society around the church has an impact; and the narrower, internal culture, the literal "growth medium" constituting the church environment. On the one hand, a man may encounter a church that looks and feels to him like its a bit too much like an army base. The people there seem happy and all, but boy are they in "lockstep." How things are there has nothing to do with whether this uniformity is a blessing or a curse. The irony is, if one of those people visited the first man's church, he would probably find a curious mixture of "laxity" (e.g. lotta people there smoke! no one does that at my church!) and "rigidity" (all the ladies wear scarfs! even the girls!).

These are examples of culture. And because of the mobile society in the USA, and because of the heavy premium put on "democratic" taste, 1) too many people refuse to make any attempt to "fit in" to a place, or find fault with the alien culture; and 2) too many churches raise their culture to the level of discipline, or even doctrine. To be fair, most people and churches don't do much thinking about the environment in their company. Try describing what "wet" means to a fish. First you need a concept of "dry."

Jeremiah,
I don't know what exactly you are dealing with. It sound from your side that your difficulties dealing with this church or that, or this person or that, have to do with disciplinary manner and culture. Has there been anything attempted your direction other than social pressure? How have you been accommodating to the preexisting culture you found yourself in?

What is the policy/procedure of discipline in your churches? Is it spelled out anywhere (like a Book of Church Order)? Where is the matter of "Christian liberty" and "binding the conscience" dealt with? What is the church's doctrine concerning membership and discipline? Is this spelled out in a membership class? Do folks know what they are getting into when they join? For all that a church says, "we just follow the Bible here," there are benefits to having a go-to explanation for how that translates into week-to-week Christianity rubbing shoulders with the flock. Where it's not spelled out, liberty quickly can morph into tyranny. It may still become tyranny where it is spelled out; but at least one can see it coming, and call it.

Hope this is helpful. And don't become a lone-ranger crew.

 

[Edward]

Even in churches where the difference between doctrine /and/ everything-else is pretty clear, one still has to deal with two issues.

Once again, you have given ordered voice to my scattered thoughts.

 

[GraceOverwhelmsMe]

This may be a case where confessional churches have an advantage. Be it Presbyterian with the WCF or Baptist with the LBCF. These Confessions limit the variance of teaching and opinions in the Local Church to a large extent. The problem with totally autonomous non-confessional local churces, such as the Baptists in the south, is that their leadership determines their understanding of Scripture and thus their doctrine. There are many who remain faithful to the Scripture to a large degree, but there are many who become eccentric and skewed in some important areas. Just my $0.02.

This was my thought exactly, and the exact same reason I began seriously reading various confessions of different church bodies, finally landing on the Westminster Standards.

My wife and I never seemed to find a church that we "fit into" when going to autonomous and non-confessional non-denon churches. I found myself more often than not hearing mixed messages about various doctrines because I wasn't really sure what the pastor up on the stage believed. When you question various pastors on things like the order of salvation, you might here something completely different. This always bothered me. There wasn't any uniformity between the pastors, so how can we expect uniformity among the members of the church.

Having decided on a confessional church, I can now go to worship knowing exactly what the pastors all affirm and can know that if I hear something that strikes me as strange or in conflict with the Westminster Standards, I may just have heard it wrong. If I didn't hear it wrong, I can take it to the session and they can do something about it.

In autonomous churches, all you can do is go to the pastor who said it and hope he hears you.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Interestingly, it is unfortunate to see Churches depart from Confessions because the Confession is intended to express what the Church believes is a "standard exposition" on Scripture regarding the most important theological topics.

If I say to a man: "Repent of your sins and turn to Christ as the only hope of salvation..." this statement (insofar as I qualify it) is true Biblically. It is not my "opinion". If a Church puts this idea into a Confession for all to read then it is still not an opinion insofar as it reflects the Scriptures.

I think Edward rightly noted that the problem that most men have is that they really want their opinions to be sacrosanct and so Churches tend to accommodate not offending people by strongly expressing what the Church confesses. As Chesterson noted a century ago, however, it is not "humble" to lack conviction. Modern man places confidence in himself instead of external truth by which he may form a conviction. Romanticism and the trust of "my feelings" has dislodged trust in an external authority.

I just examined two men last night at our Presbytery meeting. They submitted themselves to other elders who examined their doctrine and life. Why? Because we need other elders. We only have authority insofar as we submit to it - the Roman Centurion understood that and Christ marveled at his faith.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Interestingly, it is unfortunate to see Churches depart from Confessions because the Confession is intended to express what the Church believes is a "standard exposition" on Scripture regarding the most important theological topics.

Just a word on confessionalism: (I hope this is not too far off the subject)
I think any church that claims it relies on the bible alone is, first of all, dishonest. Dishonest in the fact that they really DO have confessions, albeit not written ones. Just mention a doctrine (opinion) of yours that is a little different and you quickly will see how confessional they really are. So ALL churches are "confessional" to some point. It's just part of their confession to claim that they are not.

 

[OneOfHisElect]

Edward-"Have you ever stopped to consider whether the other folks might be right?"

I was not speaking of arrogant outsiders. I agree that the church is to deal with those who are antagonistic but I was referring to those who simply want to come in and see what is going on. I think you missed the point. And if I may be so bold, you telling someone that they need humility, as if you are the end all be all, is a bit prideful to me.

 

[KMK]

As Chesterson noted a century ago, however, it is not "humble" to lack conviction.

Do you have a citation for this, Rich. I would like to read more. Is it from "Orthodoxy"?

 

[JoannaV]

As Chesterson noted a century ago, however, it is not "humble" to lack conviction.

Do you have a citation for this, Rich. I would like to read more. Is it from "Orthodoxy"?

Chapter 3. "A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

To quote it more fully:

But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert--himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt--the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.