Limits to the Church Offices

[JohnV]

Being brought up in the Dutch Reformed tradition, I've taken the limits of office for granted. It was taught us in Catechism classes. What I mean is that when a man holds an office in the church, he has limits on voicing his opinions on matters that are not binding, so that he does not mix his opinions in with Biblical teachings or church declarations.

The church I greew up in had this Form of Subscription, which every office-bearer had to sign:

Form of Subscription
We, the undersigned, Professors of the [name of denomination], Ministers of the Gospel, Elders, and Deacons of the [name of denomination] congregation of [name of local church], of the Classis of [name of Classis], do hereby sincerely and in good conscience before the Lord, declare by this our subscription that we heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine cntained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches, toghether with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the National Syod of Dordrect, 1618-'19, do fully agree with the Word of God.

We promise therefore diligently to teach and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine, without either directly or indirectly contradicting the same by our public preaching or writing.

We declare, moreover, that we not only reject all errors that militate against this doctrine and particularly those which were condemned by the above mentioned Synod, but that we are disposed to refute and contradict these and to exert ourselves in keeping the Church free from such errors. And if hereafter any difficulties or different sentiments respecting the aforesaid doctrines should arise in our minds, we promise that we will neither publicly nor privately propose, teach, or defend the same, either by preaching or writing, until we have first revealed such sentiments to the Consistory, Classis, or Synod, that the same may there be examined, being ready always cheerfully to submit to the judgment of the Consistory, Classis, or Synod, under the penalty, in case of refusal, of being by that very fact suspended from our office.

And further, if at any time the Consistory, Classis, or Synod, upon sufficient grounds of suspicion and to preseve the uniformity and purity of doctrine, may deem it proper to require of us a further explanation of our sentiments respecting any particular article of the Confession of Faith, the Catechism, or the explanation of the National Synod, we do hereby promise to be always willing and ready to comply with such requisition, under the penalty above mentioned, reserving for ourselves, however, the right of appeal in case we should believe ourselves aggrieved by the sentence of the Consistory or the Classis; and until a decision is made upon such an appeal, we will acquiesce in the determination and judgment already passed.

I believe that it is still in effect in most Dutch Reformed churches, though I can't vouch for that.

Do the Presbyterians and Baptists have a similar form that binds the office-bearers to represent the Word and the Church only as they represent the offices they hold? I know that if there is, it is not universally kept or acknowledged. But is there an oath or vow taken upon being ordained that equals this form in some manner?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Here's some links to the OPC Book of Church Order which contains the related info. They are not as strict as the Dutch Standards regarding subscription though.

http://www.opc.org/BOCO/FOG_I-XI.html#Chapter_VIII
http://www.opc.org/BOCO/FOG_XXI-XXIII.html#Chapter_XXIII

 

[JohnV]

The processes seem to be quite involved, yet don't seem to have the same restrictions. Is there not something in the original Westminster documents that reflects a subscription-like binding?

Be that as it may, I am not taking issue with Presbyterianism on that score. It is worth some thought though, especially since subscriptionism is the desire of some Presbyterians.

I didn't want to put everything in one post, so I took a break for a while to think things through again. I think this is instructional for all of us. This refers to my posts in many threads, but I am thinking of two in particular, namely the Exclusive Psalmody thread, and the one on Dr. Bahnsen.

Notice the strictures placed upon office-bearers in the Form of Subscription. It is not really that extraordinary. They are ordained to the ministry of the Word, whether teaching, ruling, or ministering in mercy. They are not licenced to be Apostles, as if they are inspired in their opinions on matters the Word is not clear on. For example, a Consistory that is unanimously Amillennial, may not on that account claim that Amillennialism is the God-ordained interpretation of the One Thousand Years in Rev. 20. Just because they are ordained, their authority goes no further than the denominational parameters set in the Standards of Faith.

That does not mean that a minister who has expertise in that area may not speak of it at all. Indeed he may. But he is confined by two things mainly: first that he fairly represents the other views in critiquing them, without disparaging the persons who hold to those views (unless it is a view which the denomination also rejects; ) and second, that as he represents his view he speaks not as an official of the church, but as a man of learning apart from his office. Yet even so, he may, as a preacher, speak in favour of his view from the pulpit, but it must be clear that he is representing his own personal view only, and that he binds no one to it; he gives his view for instruction purposes, according to his knowledge of it. Again, this assumes the views are all acceptable views in the denomination.

The point is, he is misrepresenting the office, the church, and the Word if he presents an unofficial view as if the Word was binding it upon the people. He is not called to represent his opinions, but the Word. His office gives him no more licence to bind one view upon others than another believer who does not hold office.

The next thing to point out is that in discussing such issues with an office-bearer personally, one is to be mindful that an office-bearer binds no one to his opinions, but only to the teachings of the Word. An office-bearer is a good person to have these discussions with. But one misrepresents the office-bearer if in subsequent discussions with others, this office-bearer is quoted as an authority on the subject by virtue of his office, as if to bind someone else to his views. That too misrepresents the office. Only this time the office-bearer is not the offender.

I have been assuming this to be common among us all along. Of course there would be exceptions to this. The fact that many of us are new to the Reformed faith accounts for most of this.

But am I right in making this assumption? Am I even right in how I understand the offices? It seems that some take offense at these assumptions at times. Should we try our best to keep separate those matters that are binding and those that are not? Should we also try to keep separate the opinions of office-bearers from the office itself, assuming that they mean to bind no one by their opinions on such matters? Though they may be deeply convicted, shouldn't we always assume that office-bearers mean to bind no one beyond what the Word and the Church require, unless they make direct overtures to that end? Is this a right attitude to take? Is this within the intentions of the Churches' respective Orders? I mean, regardless of whether or not they have the same Form of Subscription?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Part of the problem is that the majesty of God has been lost in the minds of both preacher and congregant. A preacher is speaking on behalf of God. He is delivering God's Word to His people. And the congregation should be receiving the preached Word as from God. If a preacher is mentioning his own personal view because of uncertainty then he should not be preaching that view. He must preach only that which he knows for certain to be the correct teaching of the passage in question. If he's not certain, then he should not preach on it until he is certain, through much study and prayer. He is not allowed the liberty to speak his own mind. He must speak the mind of Christ in all he says from the pulpit with all authority and conviction. If a minister is convinced that Amil is the correct view, then when he expounds those related passages he must do so with authority and confidence that it is the Word of God. If's he unsure, then he must not speak, because Christ's sheep need to hear their Shepards voice, not the words of men. Is this along the lines that you're thinking?

 

[JohnV]

Patrick:

If he's not certain, then he should not preach on it until he is certain, through much study and prayer. He is not allowed the liberty to speak his own mind. He must speak the mind of Christ in all he says from the pulpit with all authority and conviction. If a minister is convinced that Amil is the correct view, then when he expounds those related passages he must do so with authority and confidence that it is the Word of God.

That's just the point. He may come to a conviction about the Amil position. Yet he may not present it as the gospel truth. He has no authority to do that. Just because he is convinced, that doesn't make it so. Someone else, another studious and erudite pastor, may become just as convinced about the Postmil or Premil position. Do we then have two gospel truths in conflict? No denomination mandates that a personal view on the millennium takes precedence over another. They have only allowed that the three basic ones do not compromise the WCF. So if he is convinced, that is his business, and he ought not to take that to the pulpit. If he does, he must be fair in the presentation of it, and not disparage anything against anyone who may hold to one of the other views which are equally recognized by the church.

The question to ask is, what makes for Biblical necessity? What about this:

Belgic Confession, art VII
We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.
Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by JohnV
That's just the point. He may come to a conviction about the Amil position. Yet he may not present it as the gospel truth. He has no authority to do that.

I guess I'm not sure I'm following you yet. His authority comes from the Word of God, not the WCF. The WCF doesn't cover everything. If the Scriptures teach something, then the minister must teach it. He is bound to teach it and nothing else.

Just because he is convinced, that doesn't make it so. Someone else, another studious and erudite pastor, may become just as convinced about the Postmil or Premil position. Do we then have two gospel truths in conflict? No denomination mandates that a personal view on the millennium takes precedence over another. They have only allowed that the three basic ones do not compromise the WCF.

If he cannot present something from the pulpit as gospel truth, then he should not be presenting it at all. The minister must preach God's Word period. Obviously this still involves some interpretation. If he is uncertain about a subject or passage, then perhaps a Sunday school or bible study setting is more appropriate where views can be compared and discussed. But a sermon is not a discussion, it's the delivery of God's message that Sabbath Day to His people.

So if he is convinced, that is his business, and he ought not to take that to the pulpit. If he does, he must be fair in the presentation of it, and not disparage anything against anyone who may hold to one of the other views which are equally recognized by the church.

It would seem to me that the latitude provided by the WCF is not that the Confession equally recognizes different views, but sets forth what everyone agrees upon that is clear about the subject. It's not that we don't teach something (i.e. a millenial position) as God's Word, but that we are allowed to teach particular views as God's Word, while graciously acknowledging that there are still disagreements about it. It is an agreed creedal parameter of fellowship. But, the minister must still remain absolutely convinced in his conscience that what he preaches is in fact the Word of God. If not, then he should keep his mouth shut about the subject or passage in the pulpit. He is God's minister and must speak only that which he understands God to be speaking to His people. The pulpit is not suppose to be an opinion sharing platform but the sacred delivery of the oracles of God.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by JohnV
That's just the point. He may come to a conviction about the Amil position. Yet he may not present it as the gospel truth. He has no authority to do that.

I guess I'm not sure I'm following you yet. His authority comes from the Word of God, not the WCF. The WCF doesn't cover everything. If the Scriptures teach something, then the minister must teach it. He is bound to teach it and nothing else.

I boldened the part that I think is important. The question is: Does the Scripture teach X-millennial position, or does the minister? I say the Scripture doesn't teach any one particular position, but that the three views the church recognizes are speculative, but not outside the boundaries of the WCF. In other words, they're not heretical, but they aren't imposed by Scripture either. Who is any man that he may impose what the Scripture does not, no matter how holy we think he may be? Doesn't the Apostle Paul warn us against that in Galations 1; not even to trust an angel if he teaches something extra-biblical, anything more than what has been revealed?

If he cannot present something from the pulpit as gospel truth, then he should not be presenting it at all. The minister must preach God's Word period. Obviously this still involves some interpretation. If he is uncertain about a subject or passage, then perhaps a Sunday school or bible study setting is more appropriate where views can be compared and discussed. But a sermon is not a discussion, it's the delivery of God's message that Sabbath Day to His people.


It would seem to me that the latitude provided by the WCF is not that the Confession equally recognizes different views, but sets forth what everyone agrees upon that is clear about the subject. It's not that we don't teach something (i.e. a millenial position) as God's Word, but that we are allowed to teach particular views as God's Word, while graciously acknowledging that there are still disagreements about it. It is an agreed creedal parameter of fellowship. But, the minister must still remain absolutely convinced in his conscience that what he preaches is in fact the Word of God. If not, then he should keep his mouth shut about the subject or passage in the pulpit. He is God's minister and must speak only that which he understands God to be speaking to His people. The pulpit is not suppose to be an opinion sharing platform but the sacred delivery of the oracles of God.

OK, Patrick, this is how it would work out in the tradition that I come from:

A pastor is convinced of millennial position X. He presents it first to the Council of the church, because he does not have the authority to decide unilaterally which millennial position the Bible does in fact teach. If the Council is convinced, then they still need the approval of the Classis, which is roughly equal to Presbytery. Now Classis won't approve, because the denomination does not mandate that one particular view is solely representing what the Bible teaches. But they may be convinced of it. So the next step is for the Classis, if it is convinced, and the Council, if they are convinced, each to overture Synod. Synod will do a study, but they will deal mostly with the Biblical evidence, as it constitutes a change in doctrinal stand. It must be clear and necessarily true. This will take some years. And if Synod approves of it, it still must wait for the succeeding Synod to ratify it, and that has to be by a clear majority both times, like 66% or 75%, I believe.

All this takes years, and this is a best-case scenario, taking for granted that X position can be proven to be the sole millennial view the Bible allows. Meanwhile, the minister may not take upon himself to preach as Biblically necessary what the denomination does not put into the Confessions.

The difference is: any one of the three millennial positions are allowable for opinion, and not be contrary to faith. But that is a long, long way from saying that the Bible does not allow the other two, but only X. And what the Bible teaches, that is what he is called preach. If he adds his opinion that position X is demanded by the Bible, even if its an opinion which the denomination says is within the Confessions, then he has overstepped his authority, and the Council should take him to task on that.

That has always been the way. That doesn't mean that the denomination I come from stuck to it with might and mein. They opened the doors to different views on creation in spite of this tradition and Church Order. But that was wrong, clearly so, and the tradition tells you why it was wrong. The six-day account was taken down a peg and equated to man-made theories, without Scriptural warrant.

But that's another story. I hold to this tradition. I think it is solid. Three millennial views are seen as being Biblical, but none can be proven as the only Biblically necessary one. I take especially the millennial views as an example, because this is one subject that cannot be narrowed down until after the fact. It is predictive, and until all comes to pass, it will not be known what the true position is to take. God always has surprises for us in how he fulfills His Word. There is always something we never thought of. And besides, the changing historical settings makes it impossible to predict how the things the Bible does teach about the millennium relate to the setting in which it will take place, (assuming the Pre- and some Post- views. )

The whole point of this is to say that the office of pastor, elder, deacon, and whatever other office the church recognizes, is limited to what the Bible teaches necessarily. If any office-bearer takes it upon himself to demand position X he does that on his own authority, not the church's, or the Bible's. And not even the Apostles had that kind of authority.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by JohnV
The whole point of this is to say that the office of pastor, elder, deacon, and whatever other office the church recognizes, is limited to what the Bible teaches necessarily. If any office-bearer takes it upon himself to demand position X he does that on his own authority, not the church's, or the Bible's. And not even the Apostles had that kind of authority.

But isn't every text of Scripture to be taught as necessary, regardless of whether the brethren have agreed to disagree over some minor points? It's still God's Word whether or not there is some disagreement over the interpretation. The disputed text still bears the full authority of God and must be taught and submitted to in that manner. Only one interpretation can be "biblical" not several. There may be some which don't contradict the gospel as far as we can tell, but that doesn't mean they are biblical. Only the right interpretation is biblical. But maybe we are just getting hung up on words.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by puritansailor

But isn't every text of Scripture to be taught as necessary, regardless of whether the brethren have agreed to disagree over some minor points? It's still God's Word whether or not there is some disagreement over the interpretation. The disputed text still bears the full authority of God and must be taught and submitted to in that manner. Only one interpretation can be "biblical" not several. There may be some which don't contradict the gospel as far as we can tell, but that doesn't mean they are biblical. Only the right interpretation is biblical. But maybe we are just getting hung up on words.

I think we are saying the same things, but seem to be seeing different ramifications.

Yes, every word of the Bible is Scripture. Not every interpretation is what the Bible teaches explicitly or necessarily. If a text is in dispute, that does nothing to the full authority of the text itself. As a matter of fact, that would be the reason is would be in dispute, to determine precisely what is being taught. Only one may be called 'true' to the Word.

We can't have three differing 'true' interpretations of the millennium. The very fact that the churches allow three views, as being not contrary to faith (that's what "within" the limits of the WCF means) shows that the Bible does not specify one particular millennial view. If it is to be proven, it must be from Scripture. We agree so far.

What I am saying is that an office-bearer in the church may not say that his opinion is more authoritative than someone else's who is not an office-bearer. A minister may not impose his own views on matters which the Bible does not teach for faith. That falls under adding to Scripture. The pulpit is no place for arguing for disputed views. And the Bible does not specify which millennial view is right. If it did, the denominations would recognize that. But they can't, because they have to wait for fulfillment before they know for sure, when it comes to the millennial views.

The millennial views are theories, not Biblical teachings. That's a big difference. Man may not make his theories equal to Scripture. That would be putting trust in man's writings. All the texts may be from Scripture alone, but that doesn't mean that all the reasoning is purely Biblical.

I don't think that this at all impinges on a ministers freedom to express himself of matters that he thinks is important to the congregation. Things like a particular missions project, or even the call to evangelize in neighbourhood, or another part of the world; things like this can freely be mentioned from the pulpit, because it doesn't obligate anyone to go beyond what the Bible teaches. These would be expressions of obeying the Bible's teachings on missions as applied to particular settings.

If I am a member of a congregation, and the minister thinks he has a right to teach the X millennial position, because he believes in it, and he is an office-bearer so his opinion is higher than mine, or because his arguments are better than mine, then I am, according BC, art VII, to regard him as an imposter (taking into consideration that everything has been done to settle the dispute. ) And if the church backs him up, then that church is also an imposter. It is simple: the Bible does not impose view X as being THE Biblical teaching. He is adding to Scripture by making conclusions not even the denomination has made, let alone the Confessions or the Bible. He has unilaterally taken upon himself authority not granted by the denimination which licensed him.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I guess I'm having trouble figuring out what standard you are using to decide if something is clearly taught in Scripture or not. A millenial view is in fact taught in Scripture. We may not agree what it is, but it's still there, fully taught by God himself. If a pastor is to preach on Revelation 20, he must preach what is clearly taught there. What Rev 20 teaches, he must teach, and nothing else. I think we would agree so far. I guess the trouble is identifying what is essential to saving faith and what we can leave room for in maturing faith. All Scripture teaching is binding. I guess some would be more binding than others just because we acknowledge difficulties in understanding some issues. But what standard are we going to use to decide what is the "important" stuff? What we would consider essential in reformed churches (i.e. WCF or the Creeds perhaps), is widely disputed everywhere else in the visible church. We can't limit what doctrines Scripture specifies as binding, because by it's very nature of being the inspired Word of God, all it's teachings are binding. I agree with you that a minister should not lord over an interpretation over a member who cannot agree in his conscience. But if that interpretation is the right interpretation, then that member is missing out and in effect sinnign because he has rejected teh Word of God. Of course teh flip side, if the minister is teaching the wrong interpretation, then it would be sin to submit to it. I guess that's where it get's sticky.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by puritansailor
I guess I'm having trouble figuring out what standard you are using to decide if something is clearly taught in Scripture or not. A millenial view is in fact taught in Scripture. We may not agree what it is, but it's still there, fully taught by God himself. If a pastor is to preach on Revelation 20, he must preach what is clearly taught there. What Rev 20 teaches, he must teach, and nothing else. I think we would agree so far.

Yes, I think we agree so far. Well, almost. The Bible does indeed say something about the millennium. However, the possibility is that, of the three possible Biblical views, we have only enough from Scripture to teach that there will be or is a millennium, but not enough to say the the Bible actually teaches the one we think it does. What I am pointing at is called 'Biblical necessity'. The Bible has to be saying it directly, or it has to directly inferred from Scripture so that it leaves no other choice. No other choice! Not according to your opinion, or mine, or even the brightest and best of the theologians, or even group of theologians; if it is not directly taught in Scripture, or necessarily inferred from Scripture, it cannot be said to be taught by Scripture.

So, we may safely say that the Bible does not teach any of the three millennial views, because we cannot get a direct inference from Scripture for any of them. All we have is that these three are the only possibilities logically. We may wish to think that we know that one is better than the others, and even have some great theologian on our side, or even a group of great theologians, but it still cannot be said that the Bible teaches that view. It's an educated guess at best.

I guess the trouble is identifying what is essential to saving faith and what we can leave room for in maturing faith. All Scripture teaching is binding. I guess some would be more binding than others just because we acknowledge difficulties in understanding some issues. But what standard are we going to use to decide what is the "important" stuff? What we would consider essential in reformed churches (i.e. WCF or the Creeds perhaps), is widely disputed everywhere else in the visible church. We can't limit what doctrines Scripture specifies as binding, because by it's very nature of being the inspired Word of God, all it's teachings are binding. I agree with you that a minister should not lord over an interpretation over a member who cannot agree in his conscience. But if that interpretation is the right interpretation, then that member is missing out and in effect sinnign because he has rejected the Word of God. Of course the flip side, if the minister is teaching the wrong interpretation, then it would be sin to submit to it. I guess that's where it get's sticky.

So who's going to say that that minister is right? Do we trust the writings of man, even the holiest of men? That's putting something alongside Scripture as of equal authority. Who's going to say he's wrong? That opens the same door. His mistake is not choosing one of the millennial views, but in thinking that it can be put in the category of necessary doctrine upon the word of a man, and not God.

Holding any one of the views is OK. Talking about it is OK. Mentioning it from the pulpit is OK. All this is within the faith. But taking upon oneself the authority to say "this one is the right one", while the church has not said so, because the Bible has not said so, is abusing the office in thinking that his office licences him to make that decision. It doesn't. That's often where divisions come from, when leaders think they do have licence to do things like that. Women-in-office, various creation views other than the six day view, that some teachings are culturally oriented, that the OT is not binding, anti-nomianism, and a host of other teachings that have divided the church; these all come from people taking upon themselves the notion that they have somehow been gifted to know what they think the Church hasn't figured out yet. Most every time it is because the Church knows the limits, and does not go beyond them. But some people go beyond those limits quite freely, thinking all the time that they have the freedom to teach what they think is right, as long as they stick to the Bible texts. That completely undermines why the Church has doctrinal standards. They are not the minimum of what the believers are to believe, they represent the limits of what may be imposed from Scripture.

So if the WCF doesn't impose Postmillennialism, (the Assembly reportedly was predominantly Postmillennial), then it is clear that it may not be imposed by any man, because the Bible does not teach it. Nor does it teach Amil or Premil. That's what may safely be gathered from the Assembly by their omitting that from the Confessions.

Sure, one of them has to be right. But we can't make that decision. If it were there in Scripture, it has to be shown as necessarily there. Not the best argument for it, but necessary.

That's how we know false teachers, when they take authority upon themselves which they cannot have. They think themselves more gifted than they really are. If God wants us to know, then He would have made it known. But the actual truth of how the millennium will work out remains a mystery that only God knows for now.

Do you see where this is headed? Our church periodicals have been filled with juicy debates over differences of opinion over secondary matters, and everyone wants to be their own theologian and make the final decision. This spells trouble for the church, if not right away then down the road. Someone thinks he knows all about free will, and pronounces "the truth about free will", and heads up a new movement called Palagianism. Another thinks he knows the final answer to another question and proclaims "the truth about..." whatever it may be, and begins another sect. Some are looking down the noses at others with different views, on matters which the Bible does not teach. Then it goes into things that the Bible does teach, but taking a different road.

We have been sowing the seeds to our own splintering groups, and we wonder why the churches are splitting apart. We are going back to the days of the Judges, everyone doing "what is right in their own eyes." And its all because we don't know the limits to office.

For the most part, I think, this Board has recognized the limitations of Biblical teaching. I really marvel at the baptism debates sometimes, how they can be hitting us right in the heart, and yet we maintain a pretty good perspective on our limits. On other issues maybe we could do better. But still, order is kept quite well, considering that this is a discussion board, and issues are flying every which way. We discuss, but mostly we don't do it to champion our own views, but to learn, to have iron sharpening iron.

What I mean to point at is that sometimes, such as in the Auburn Avenue situation, office-bearers take upon themselves more authority than they really have, leading to unrest in the church. The seminars were supposed to be open discussions, but became a forum for inculcating ideas that are supra- or extra-Biblical as far as teaching goes. They are separating themselves on differing opinions about things, asserting what they have no authority to assert. They are office-bearers, shouldered with a responsibility to the gospel, and to the people they minister to.

But someone, a minister or elder, proclaiming the final answer to the millennium question is just as much at fault as these men. The fact that these men teach something away from the regular WCF declarations is an after-the-fact effect. The error came when they decided to go their own way without declaring the Church to be in error. In other words, there were avenues open for them to make their views known within their official capacities without rocking the churches. But they chose to work outside their offices, or actually over the heads of their offices. So it is also in error to make a decision about the millennium without first taking it up with the church authorities, and showing that the church erred in allowing three views. Its working against the church instead of with it.

I'm only using the millennium as an example. Its a good one to use because the Church is clear on it, and it obviously is a subject that we will debate and discuss untill everything is done, and we have the final answers from God Himself when He fulfills that prophecy completely. Its one of those subjects where when someone says he knows the right answer you know that he hasn't thought it through enough.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I see your points. I think I agree with you. By any chance does this topic have to do with your difficult "situation" this year?

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by puritansailor
I see your points. I think I agree with you. By any chance does this topic have to do with your difficult "situation" this year?

Well, yes it does. That's not the whole of it, but this does have a lot to do with my 'situation'.

But I had something in mind when I started this. And it is still my aim. In another discussion we ran into a problem about what was meant by "Biblical nessecity". Remember that? I kept on that issue, and would not waver. And we got kind of deadlocked there. So I thought this would be a good way to give my idea of what I thought it meant, and how important it was to subjects like the one we were talking about, but others also.

For the most part, I think, I would say that one doesn't really need to know a lot about such topics themselves (I mean, you don't have to delve into deep studies of them) to know that someone who makes claims obviously out of his reach really doesn't know what he's talking about. That's where it comes to my 'situation'. First it was Postmillennialism, then Presuppositionalism, then Theonomy, then Dominion Theology, then anti-Historic/Redemptive preaching, and so on. First these were "Biblically necessary", and later when it became public, outside the confines of the local church (that is, when a cursory investigation was done), they became "Adiaphora" again.

I would have been more upset if I held to any of those positions, because that is a gross representation of them.

But it taught me what "Biblical necessity" really meant. And I was applying that to another discussion on this Board. That really was my point. And the reason this concerns me so much is that I have been through four denominations since 1988, and none of them wanted to be held to their Confessions. I never picked a fight with any of them. I just wanted to stick to the Word of God, and they wouldn't let me. This last time I decided to stand firm, and not just for myself this time.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by JohnV
But it taught me what "Biblical necessity" really meant. And I was applying that to another discussion on this Board. That really was my point. And the reason this concerns me so much is that I have been through four denominations since 1988, and none of them wanted to be held to their Confessions. I never picked a fight with any of them. I just wanted to stick to the Word of God, and they wouldn't let me. This last time I decided to stand firm, and not just for myself this time.

Confessional subscription does seem to be on the downgrade. You are right, alot of these abuses of power would be kept in check by confessional subscription. That way you could not be excommunicated or forced to resign or leave because of differing with the pastors "vision" for the church. Difficult times we live in....

 

[JohnV]

This is the first half of the dillemma. There is a second half.

In my particular situation the office was used also to protect the person as well as the argument from criticism. That is to say, discussions were not carried out on a level playing field. He who was a pastor, because he was a pastor who was arguing for his position while acting as a pastor, also became irreproachable in his argument. Put simply, it is very, very hard to argue against a minister and not at the same time call his position into question in front of others.

Let me give you an example of this from the world, just so you know what I'm talking about:

A High School teacher wished to inculcate in his class the notion of equality of life practices; that is, in his class homosexuals were going to respected as decent alternative-life-style classmates. It didn't matter that it was a Math class, there was to be a lecture on tolerance in his class. He based it on the fact that these are personal choices on an a-moral issue, and that no one has the right to pass judgment on another. But one girl asked to be excused from this lecture, because her religion condemns homosexuality, and she should not be forced to listen to this lecture. For this she was singled out as an example of what intolerance is.

No argument could disuade this teacher from his purpose. The father tried all he could to deal with this. Finally, the only thing that persuaded the teacher, and which resulted in a public apology (before the class) was that the teacher was made to understand that he himself had undone that supposed equality by using his position of delgated authority as a teacher to impose on someone else a belief that he claimed ought to be free from persecution. (This is a true story, by the way. )

The point is that the position of authority was used to tip the balance in an otherwise insoluble stand-off. The 'position' was used to make one view more conclusive than the other, not by argument but by taking advatage of the fear of adding to the disfavour by also disagreeing or disobeying the due proper authority, a teacher.

That same kind of thing happened to me numerous times. The discussion would often go into corners in which to disagree or to still argue the case was tantamount to disrespect of office, thus tipping the balance of the weight of the arguments in favour of one over the other; not on the basis of valid argument, but on the basis of position of the arguer. In a public forum it is tricky business to disagree with someone who mixes his position of authority with his argument. And that was frequently done. (I did recognize this at the time, and as often as I did I refrained from argument. )

I would contend that this too falls under the limits of office. The offices were not meant for that purpose, but solely for the administration of the Word for and to God's people. When a position considered 'Adiaphora' is presented by an office-bearer of the church as "Biblically necessary", and it is protected by his position, then that too is an abuse of office, as much as presenting such things. It goes against what the Confessions allows for ministers and elders.

Don't we get the same effect when ministers and professors put their 'credentials' on some of the things they write about, things to which the Church has not made conclusive statements? For example, one minister may do a write-up on his view of the creation, which is different than the six-day teaching. He was authorized by no one to defend that view as a minister of the Word, for the Church has not made it authoritative. But he puts the weight of his office behind what he says, making disagreement with him equal to not recognizing his office. Or he may write about the "Biblical necessity" of his millennial view. His office can be used to underline that view, as an attempt to tip the balance, or it can be used to impel others to champion him, or even follow him. Either way, in a public forum it is very difficult for a non-office-holder to discuss on an equal basis: it comes down to credentials vs. non-credentials. And that leaves the oridinary parishioner in the lurch in matters such as these. It leaves it in the hands of the intelligentsia alone. And I think that that is an abuse of office too. It goes back to the previous point, in that the office-bearers are commissioned with the Word of God, and that anything beyond that is not authorized by the Church, but also that the place of position is used to pry the ordinary person out of the discussions, in which he may just as versed as the office-bearer. Not everyone who has studied has a degree, not every person who could/should be is an office-bearer.

So two errors are contained in the same cage, so to speak. And we are not being careful enough with the offices to curtail this. Men of position and renown are using their position to champion causes the Church does not authorize; and these men are often given podiums that raises their arguments above others' on the basis of position or office.

 

[JohnV]

I should add that there is a flip side to this. I have run into this a number of times, and I am even guilty of it in my younger days. And that is talking ill of an office-bearer behind his back to others in the congregation. I don't mean talking about things legitimately open for discussion; I mean carelessly and loosely using ad hominem on office-bearers when talking of church affairs to others in the church. We might think that we are talking behind their backs, but we aren't talking behind the back of Him who sent them. He hears every word; He is the silent third person in every conversation. It is disrespect not just for the person, or the office, but for Him who sent them.

This should not be confused with duly warning others in the congregation of dangers and false teachings. Office-bearers who mix themselves into these things are not beyond reproach. They hold an office, and must be accountable, even if the eldership or denomination won't hold them to accountability. That is a different thing altogether.

Office-bearers are to be held in high esteem by virtue of the office they hold. That also make them more responsible and accountable to the duties assigned by the offices. They are not perfect men. They do make mistakes. But that should not diminish the respect due them. It is very same respect for the offices and the officers that mandates the high standard that the Form of Subscription represents.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I agree so far John. It is interesting. I know in some of the recent church trials in the OPC lately, the accused will try to grab some of the big theological guns from the seminaries to support them in their trial as if to say "all these learned men agree with me, what's your problem?!" It kinds distracts from the real issue of their doctrinal orthodoxy or behavior which is really on trial.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by puritansailor
I agree so far John. It is interesting. I know in some of the recent church trials in the OPC lately, the accused will try to grab some of the big theological guns from the seminaries to support them in their trial as if to say "all these learned men agree with me, what's your problem?!" It kinds distracts from the real issue of their doctrinal orthodoxy or behavior which is really on trial.

And even a long list of such men does not mean that this is what God says. Even quoting men of distinction in the faith is no justification for speaking overtop of the Church; they would never have done that themselves. Calvin placed himself under the eldership, under scrutiny, under accountability, that is; under the church.

 

[JohnV]

So, I have a lot of questions. But the first one is this: does the RPW represent or is it equal to the Form of Subscription? Does it just as much limit the offices?

I think it does. Taking up the office is the same as taking up the RPW. Its a subscription to the Standards.

What do you think? Is Presbyterianism subscriptionist by default because of the RPW?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by JohnV
So, I have a lot of questions. But the first one is this: does the RPW represent or is it equal to the Form of Subscription? Does it just as much limit the offices?

I think it does. Taking up the office is the same as taking up the RPW. Its a subscription to the Standards.

I agree. The offices derive their authority in some part from the RPW too. God has specifically ordained them to lead his Church in worship in their varying capacities. And since our standards expressly teach the RPW, and we accept our standards to be what the Scriptures clearly teach as "biblical necessity" then it's a no brainer. It biblical mandates and limits what the church can do in worship, and office bearers must be on the frontlines defending and enforcing this truth.

What do you think? Is Presbyterianism subscriptionist by default because of the RPW?

They should be subscriptionist. Otherwise the Confession has no meaning or bearing upon theological decisions. It has become simply a "guide" that may be discarded at will (as has been done with creation, the Sabbath, psalmody, etc.)

 

[wsw201]

I would argue that the Reformed Churches (not only the Presbyterians) are subscriptionists because of the authority of Scripture as the rule for life and faith of the Church and the Gospel message, which was "once for all delivered to the saints". The RPW is only a link in the chain. In a nutshell, subscription to a creed or confession (whether the Standards or 3FU) provides unity for the Church.

 

[JohnV]

Wouldn't you even say that any church that has a basis of the Word of God would of necessity also be subscriptionist by default? I don't mean what they do, but, even if they were consistent with their own lax policies and standards, they still have some notion of the Word of God being above the word of man? Even if they don't think the Bible is infallible, yet they try to base that on the Bible itself.

But at least we agree that a Presbyterian church, holding to the WSF must be subscriptionist, even if they don't have a subscription form that is signed, like the Dutch Reformed have. The fact that they don't have one, or don't profess to be subscriptionist doesn't let them off the hook.

But how do you separate the man and his opinions from the office he holds? Not how do we do that, but how does he do that? Shouldn't it be that someone who holds office should toe the Church line, and leave his opinions at home? Even if they are the best educated surmisings of the present day, yet they are without authority. Does Presbyterianism not demand this?