Submission to Church Authority

[JohnV]

The Confessions represent the struggles and conclusions of the Spirit-led Church throughout her history since the time of the writing of the NT. They don't contain anything new, but only reflect a deeper and more mature understanding of what the Bible teaches, a maturity gained through much pain and suffering while going through those struggles.

So why the WCF, TFU, LBC, etc.? Because they reflect to the churches holding to them the continuity of the Church throughout history to that same standard of faith that their fathers, who handed it down to them, held to. At no point does it reflect a "Bible PLUS Confessions" mentality, but always a Sola Scriptura one. We may disagree on some things that are different between them, but those differences reflect the differences in in us, not in Scripture. If the Confessions don't point us to Scripture and Scripture alone, then they aren't the Confessions our fathers handed down to us. We may disagree on matters of faith contained in them, but we do not rely on the witness of men for the Bible's authority. We do rely on the fellowship of all believers, the mutual admonition of not only our contemporaries, but also of all those who have been before us in Church history.

We have to understand that having the Bible as the only rule of faith is not at all in discontinuity with submission to the confessional standard of the Church. Read those Confesssions and you will find that the central point of all doctrinal assertions is that they too are completely submissive to the Bible as the only rule of faith and life.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by beej6
Bill,

Of course a confession isn't the entire teaching of Scripture (see eschatology; on the other hand... ;-)). But as you say, it may be the best summary of biblical doctrine.

I say may because you say 1689 LBC, I say WCF, and we're back to baptism as usual! ;-) Would that every confessional church for both of those and the 3FU be at the highest level of church fellowship.

BJ - oh boy...now you're getting closer to the core issue. To what degree are WCF and LBC adherents willing to exercise charity over differences in order to have fellowship with one another? Of course that question presupposes that we should have fellowship with each other. Is the "B" word so contentious that it trumps all that we agree on?

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by JohnV
The Confessions represent the struggles and conclusions of the Spirit-led Church throughout her history since the time of the writing of the NT. They don't contain anything new, but only reflect a deeper and more mature understanding of what the Bible teaches, a maturity gained through much pain and suffering while going through those struggles.

So why the WCF, TFU, LBC, etc.? Because they reflect to the churches holding to them the continuity of the Church throughout history to that same standard of faith that their fathers, who handed it down to them, held to. At no point does it reflect a "Bible PLUS Confessions" mentality, but always a Sola Scriptura one. We may disagree on some things that are different between them, but those differences reflect the differences in in us, not in Scripture. If the Confessions don't point us to Scripture and Scripture alone, then they aren't the Confessions our fathers handed down to us. We may disagree on matters of faith contained in them, but we do not rely on the witness of men for the Bible's authority. We do rely on the fellowship of all believers, the mutual admonition of not only our contemporaries, but also of all those who have been before us in Church history.

We have to understand that having the Bible as the only rule of faith is not at all in discontinuity with submission to the confessional standard of the Church. Read those Confesssions and you will find that the central point of all doctrinal assertions is that they too are completely submissive to the Bible as the only rule of faith and life.

John - well articulated post. Kudos and Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by JohnV
The Confessions represent the struggles and conclusions of the Spirit-led Church throughout her history since the time of the writing of the NT. They don't contain anything new, but only reflect a deeper and more mature understanding of what the Bible teaches, a maturity gained through much pain and suffering while going through those struggles.

So why the WCF, TFU, LBC, etc.? Because they reflect to the churches holding to them the continuity of the Church throughout history to that same standard of faith that their fathers, who handed it down to them, held to. At no point does it reflect a "Bible PLUS Confessions" mentality, but always a Sola Scriptura one. We may disagree on some things that are different between them, but those differences reflect the differences in in us, not in Scripture. If the Confessions don't point us to Scripture and Scripture alone, then they aren't the Confessions our fathers handed down to us. We may disagree on matters of faith contained in them, but we do not rely on the witness of men for the Bible's authority. We do rely on the fellowship of all believers, the mutual admonition of not only our contemporaries, but also of all those who have been before us in Church history.

We have to understand that having the Bible as the only rule of faith is not at all in discontinuity with submission to the confessional standard of the Church. Read those Confesssions and you will find that the central point of all doctrinal assertions is that they too are completely submissive to the Bible as the only rule of faith and life.

John - well articulated post. Kudos and Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[JohnV]

Thanks, brothers.

 

[weinhold]

"But would a society of pastors, perhaps a church
assembly or venerable presbytery (as those among the
Dutch call themselves), not be justified in binding
itself by oath to a certain unalterable symbol in
order to secure a constant guardianship over each of
its members and through them over the people, and this
for all time: I say that this is wholly impossible.
Such a contract, whose intention is to preclude
forever all further enlightenment of the human race,
is absolutely null and void, even if it should be
ratified by the supreme power, by parliaments, and by
the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot bind
itself, and thus conspire, to place a succeeding one
in a condition whereby it would be impossible for the
later age to expand its knowledge (particularly where
it is so very important), to rid itself of errors, and
generally to increase its enlightenment. That would
be a crime against human nature, whose essential
destiny lies precisely in such progress; subsequent
generations are thus completely justified in
dismissing such agreements as unauthorized and
criminal."

- Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? (1784)

 

[beej6]

I echo the thanks to JohnV.

Bill, I phrased it "highest level of church fellowship" for a reason. Baptism, a sacrament, is important enough to separate over, though I admire one of the "Free Churches" who explicitly state that both infant and believers' baptism are acceptable. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't fellowship (and worship occasionally!) over everything else, and build each other up in love.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by beej6
I echo the thanks to JohnV.

Bill, I phrased it "highest level of church fellowship" for a reason. Baptism, a sacrament, is important enough to separate over, though I admire one of the "Free Churches" who explicitly state that both infant and believers' baptism are acceptable. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't fellowship (and worship occasionally!) over everything else, and build each other up in love.

B.J. - no, I understand. I realize that there is going to be separation over baptism. That is why I find the PB such an aberration of reality (that is not a criticism). In this venue, Christians who differ on the baptism issue are able to "fellowship." It is possible to discuss a specific topic without baptism dividing. Of course that is not always the case. The PB has had its share of donnybrooks over baptism. But most of the threads are on other topics. For this baptist, they have been quite edifying. But if it were not for the PB, most of us would have few occasions to dialog with brethren from the other side of the tracks. There are always exceptions, but I believe the rule persists.

[Edited on 10-6-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[BobVigneault]

Very well said Bill, I like the cut of your gib brother.

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Very well said Bill, I like the cut of your gib brother.

:Owen:

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Very well said Bill, I like the cut of your gib brother.

Bob, what I wrote actually made sense? Cool!

Seriously, being able to swallow an industrial size helping of pride has allowed me to learn. The pride part comes into play when the following throught crosses my mind:

"Why is that I (a baptist) am the one who has to change and my Presbyterian brethren do not? It seems like a one way street."

I've battled that one numerous times. There does seem to be an inequity as to whom is moving closer to whom, theologically speaking. But then I realize that I am a neophyte in the arena of C.T. and Reformation thinking in general. My baptist roots are not from the Spurgeon ilk, rather they are from the Finney and Darby persuasion. Seeing as that is the case, I do not have the benefit of an early Reformation theology that I can call upon. I am experiencing C.T. for the first time as an adult. I'm not there on every point, but then again, six years ago I wasn't even there at all. I can honestly say that the Lord has used my participation on the PB to help shape my theological understanding.

[Edited on 10-6-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]