JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Richard:
Thanks for reposting Rich's post.
I disagree with you, however. Yes, I understand the idea you're conveying, how we do not have that central authority stucture that the RCC had before the Reformation, and how this lack has allowed fragmentation within the churches and denominations. But this is because the Reformed churches recognize also the authority and responsibility of the individual in matters of doctrine.
The entire denomination may be embroiled in some doctrine or practice which is not wholly Biblical, or even be on the road to apostasy. In this case the individual bears responsibility to himself not to follow, even if the authority in the denomination compels him to. The individual denominations are not infallible either.
It is from this that we have derived the Western sense of demoncracy: the individual's responsibility to conform to the truth as revealed by God both in general revelation and in special revelation.
The Confessions do reflect the doctrines of the Word, but their scope is temporal. That is, men have formulated these statements within the context of their limitedness, their finite nature. This is in contrast with the unlimited and infinite wisdom of the Word of God. The Confessions are an ecclesiastical covenant that defines the historic development of coming to understand the Word of God; and in that way is binding upon all who submit to that covenant. The terms of the covenant are such that it keeps all those who sign on within the historic and Biblical creeds of the Church.
What we are seeing, and what I think Anne is pointing to, is that some have still found a way to make the doctrines of the Word of God subjective and personal instead of objective and universal. The Confessions do not represent that kind of loose covenant; it does not represent a kind of Christianity within Christianity as a whole, but represents what Christianity as a whole believes.
We all have an office to fulfill in that respect. We are all called to stand fast, even if the churches around us are falling from this high doctrinal standard. The churches' authority structure does not trump the individual's responsibility, but rather calls him to it. The churches have no right remove what the Word imposes, or to impose what the Word does not impose; and when they breach that wall, then the individual must stand in defence against it. And yet the individual may not use his position to undermine the legitimate authority of the Church.
The two, the corporate and the individual responsibilities, are never at odds, really. When they do appear to be at odds, then that is an indication to us that we are not understanding some element as we could or should. This lack can be in the corporate or individual level, but usual is in the individual level. But a group of individuals can grow into a larger group, and eventually into a majority. Or it could be a minority who are very influential or persuasive, or even politically advantaged by savvy lobbying. We've seen it before, and we'll see it again. But in the same way, orthodoxy is not merely a corporate necessity, but also an individual necessity.
The Reformed Confessional system recognizes both, and calls us to both. I don't think that a central authority stucture is the answer, for we all know the weakness of men. The great democratic systems of government are based upon this "balance of power", as they call it. It isn't a balance so much as it is a recognition of the limitedness of men and the sovereignty of God.
Thanks for reposting Rich's post.
I disagree with you, however. Yes, I understand the idea you're conveying, how we do not have that central authority stucture that the RCC had before the Reformation, and how this lack has allowed fragmentation within the churches and denominations. But this is because the Reformed churches recognize also the authority and responsibility of the individual in matters of doctrine.
The entire denomination may be embroiled in some doctrine or practice which is not wholly Biblical, or even be on the road to apostasy. In this case the individual bears responsibility to himself not to follow, even if the authority in the denomination compels him to. The individual denominations are not infallible either.
It is from this that we have derived the Western sense of demoncracy: the individual's responsibility to conform to the truth as revealed by God both in general revelation and in special revelation.
The Confessions do reflect the doctrines of the Word, but their scope is temporal. That is, men have formulated these statements within the context of their limitedness, their finite nature. This is in contrast with the unlimited and infinite wisdom of the Word of God. The Confessions are an ecclesiastical covenant that defines the historic development of coming to understand the Word of God; and in that way is binding upon all who submit to that covenant. The terms of the covenant are such that it keeps all those who sign on within the historic and Biblical creeds of the Church.
What we are seeing, and what I think Anne is pointing to, is that some have still found a way to make the doctrines of the Word of God subjective and personal instead of objective and universal. The Confessions do not represent that kind of loose covenant; it does not represent a kind of Christianity within Christianity as a whole, but represents what Christianity as a whole believes.
We all have an office to fulfill in that respect. We are all called to stand fast, even if the churches around us are falling from this high doctrinal standard. The churches' authority structure does not trump the individual's responsibility, but rather calls him to it. The churches have no right remove what the Word imposes, or to impose what the Word does not impose; and when they breach that wall, then the individual must stand in defence against it. And yet the individual may not use his position to undermine the legitimate authority of the Church.
The two, the corporate and the individual responsibilities, are never at odds, really. When they do appear to be at odds, then that is an indication to us that we are not understanding some element as we could or should. This lack can be in the corporate or individual level, but usual is in the individual level. But a group of individuals can grow into a larger group, and eventually into a majority. Or it could be a minority who are very influential or persuasive, or even politically advantaged by savvy lobbying. We've seen it before, and we'll see it again. But in the same way, orthodoxy is not merely a corporate necessity, but also an individual necessity.
The Reformed Confessional system recognizes both, and calls us to both. I don't think that a central authority stucture is the answer, for we all know the weakness of men. The great democratic systems of government are based upon this "balance of power", as they call it. It isn't a balance so much as it is a recognition of the limitedness of men and the sovereignty of God.
