The relationship between personal understanding & the church

[Casey]

I have been thinking about this, but don't exactly know how to ask the question, so please bear with me.

Scenario 1: Suppose a layman is generally well-versed in Reformed theology and believes it, is a member in good standing of a Reformed church, but cannot understand why __(insert random non-perspicuous doctrine here; I am supplying an example) the Sabbath has moved from the 7th to 1st day of the week__ is biblically correct. Is it wrong for him to believe as true what he cannot exegetically derive from Scripture, knowing that those things which are necessary for salvation are perspicuous, and deferring to the wisdom of the church in this case?

Scenario 2: Suppose a layman is generally well-versed in Reformed theology and believes it, is a member in good standing of a Reformed church, but disagrees with why the church believes __(insert random non-perspicuous doctrine here; I am supplying an example) the Sabbath has moved from the 7th to 1st day of the week__. Is it wrong for him to believe as true what he considers, according to his own individual understanding, is contrary to Scripture, knowing that those things which are necessary for salvation are perspicuous, but wanting to defer to the wisdom of the church in this case?

This idea sounds similar to Rome's doctrine of implicit faith. I ask the question because when I first became convinced of the doctrines of grace, I started attending a Presbyterian church, and though I was a Baptist in belief, and there was so much that was new to me, I just thought to myself: "this church believes the doctrines of grace, which are biblical, so I suppose the church has a good reason for practicing infant baptism even though I don't understand why right now." So, for a time, I "implicitly" believed in infant baptism until I figured out why because I held the doctrines of grace to be more significant than the doctrine of infant baptism. It wasn't that I wanted to just sit there complacent in my ignorance -- rather, there were so many new things to me because I was newly Reformed that I put infant baptism on the back burner and just let it sit there until I had time to study it further. But during that time of waiting, I can honestly say I believed in infant baptism.

Thoughts?

 

[JohnV]

Casey:

I think one should always defer to the wisdom of the church. There are exceptions to this rule, but they would refer to unusual circumstances. When all things are going well, the ministry of the Word, the oversight of the people, the cummunion and gathering of the congregations, the studies in the Word, etc., then one should defer to the wisdom of the church. Not because the men leading the church are so wise in and of themselves, but because they are being led by the Spirit, which makes them wise, though not in and of themselves.

Even in those things where one has studied very well, and knows a great deal, the overriding thing is that the Spirit is leading the church, and will lead that church. To be in one's proper station in the church is the best thing to do.

It is very, very rare that anyone who joins a church also knows all the doctrines and every Biblical justification for each doctrine. They usually know the basics, and learn the rest as they go along. And then only a few go deeper into the doctrines so as to know them all only just fairly well; fewer still go further than that. But each one, from least to greatest, defers to the church, or to the leading of the Spirit to be more exact. The Spirit has said that he will lead through the church, for that is what the Reformed have taken Jesus' commission to the Apostles to mean when he empowers them with the keys of the kingdom.

Deferring to the church is not necessarily saying that you are agreeing with a church leadership which is wrong on some things. In fact it is the opposite. When you do not defer to your elders it has to be that it is not because you know so much better but because you are deferring to the church, whose witness has come down to us through the centuries.

That's my initial thoughts on this, Casey.

 

[mvdm]

I think John's response is a good one to your scenario #1.

Scenario #2 is more troublesome, because it presupposes that the person has gained some understanding of a particular doctrine and finds that teaching to be contrary to scripture. Your question then is whether it is wrong for that person to hold to that doctrine as being "true" when in fact, he has already concluded it not to be so. That would verge on hypocrisy. So in the case you describe, he should seek counsel from the elders. Hopefully his conscience will come to agreement with the church's teaching, or if not, then he and the church will have to wrestle with the significance of his continuing to honestly hold a position contrary to the church's teaching.

As R.C. Sproul said in the context of infant baptism, sincere people can hold differing positions, but one of them is wrong.

 

[pm]

It is what I believe

We each are going to give an account to God, I don't want to be in the position of saying I did or said this because it is my Churches belief but
personally not my own.

If I am going to give an account to God, I want it to be for what I believe,
say and do, be it right or wrong.

 

[CharlieJ]

I think one should always defer to the wisdom of the church. There are exceptions to this rule, but they would refer to unusual circumstances. When all things are going well, the ministry of the Word, the oversight of the people, the cummunion and gathering of the congregations, the studies in the Word, etc., then one should defer to the wisdom of the church. Not because the men leading the church are so wise in and of themselves, but because they are being led by the Spirit, which makes them wise, though not in and of themselves.

Casey, as you said, you implicitly accepted infant baptism for a time, but your intention was to move to understanding. We do have to prioritize our faith, and we can't learn everything at once.

John, I think I agree with what you're saying, but from the perspective of the pew, it can be very hard to know "when all things are going well," because your perception of what church is supposed to be like is conditioned by the church you attend. My parents church, which I broke fellowship with, is Arminian, easy-believistic, anti-RPW, non-expository, speculatively Dispensational, pugnaciously KJVO, etc. However, the majority of the people who attend there really believe the church is one of the best churches in the world because of their extensive outreach programs.

To them, the several thousand salvation "decisions" (and few dozen baptisms) each year prove that the church is great. Many of them "do devotions" but almost none seriously study Bible doctrine. Their faith is implicit in the church/pastor. Unlike Casey, they are not moving toward understanding.

 

[pm]

Interesting Church

Posted by CharlieJ: My parents church, which I broke fellowship with, is Arminian, easy-believistic, anti-RPW, non-expository, speculatively Dispensational, pugnaciously KJVO, etc. However, the majority of the people who attend there really believe the church is one of the best churches in the world because of their extensive outreach programs.

Wow! Sounds like an interesting Church!

 

[JohnV]

John, I think I agree with what you're saying, but from the perspective of the pew, it can be very hard to know "when all things are going well," because your perception of what church is supposed to be like is conditioned by the church you attend. My parents church, which I broke fellowship with, is Arminian, easy-believistic, anti-RPW, non-expository, speculatively Dispensational, pugnaciously KJVO, etc. However, the majority of the people who attend there really believe the church is one of the best churches in the world because of their extensive outreach programs.

To them, the several thousand salvation "decisions" (and few dozen baptisms) each year prove that the church is great. Many of them "do devotions" but almost none seriously study Bible doctrine. Their faith is implicit in the church/pastor. Unlike Casey, they are not moving toward understanding.

I was assuming quite a few things, Charlie, and I guess your former church wouldn't fit very well into those things. Yet at every level of understanding of the doctrines of salvation there will be some struggle with the teachings of the local church. It could be elementary or it could be profound. In each case, from one extreme to the other and everything in between, the struggle is one person in contrast to a type of consensus setting. I think we need to start with the idea that the Spirit support the consensus, until we find out differently.

Most often you will find difficulties in any church which you can point to and say that the Spirit isn't behind what's going on. Every church has difficulties, and the more doctrinal and more careful churches are no exception, I would think.

The point I was trying to make was that when one person stands alone against the status quo of his church he can't be defending his own views, he he has to stand with the "great congregation". It's not his truth, not his points of view, not his own system of beliefs that should win out. Every time he should expect that the truth of God's Word should win out, even if it means the defeat of his own views and beliefs. That's what he should hope for, that's what he should fight for. Fighting for one's own views is self-defeating. It's not fighting the good fight. That's what I was trying to get at.

 

[JohnV]

I saw this quote somewhere, I can't remember where:

"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are"