Thanks for your response. You are a model of gentleness yourself, and show amazing patience with me. You and your wife’s comment on my gentleness is really more of a reflection of both of your patience with me — because I assure you, I get a lot of people justifiably angry with me.

With respect to accountability, thank you for your link. That was most helpful. That can be a whole other discussion. The point I was trying to make was that I am such a sufficient oddity compared to you’re environment, that I would probably be disruptive as a leader, and hence might not be a good fit as your wouldn’t be a good fit for being a leader at my church. However, God has made us a hand-in-glove fit for our repsective churches. One cookie cutter doesn’t fit all circumstances in God’s richly diverse church.

You raise some very good points in your comments, and I do not wish to just brush them off. However, we have been “off the mountain” (as we say up here) all day visiting friends, and I’m a little too worn out from the day to respond to your points tonight. Lord willing, I will comment tomorrow, and perhaps even post again in response to some of this.

I will say one very brief thing, however, just to answer one point you have made. I think your assumption that our fellowship here in Boone is unaccountable requires some discussion regarding accountability and how you define it. I assure you, however, that we are neither unaccountable, nor do we seek to be unaccountable. I’m curious how you came to that understanding of our fellowship here in Boone. Perhaps you make an assumption based on your own thoughts about simple/house churches in the past? I would like to discuss that further. In the meantime, if you have not seen it before, I would suggest that you read my Myths About Simple Church post from this past May. One of those myths especially addresses the aspect of accountability.

Be blessed, brother, as you worship Him tomorrow!
steve

It’s quite true I over simplify other people’s views. That’s why dialog is so useful.

If you were to come to my Presbyterian church and wanted to join, you’d be most welcome to join. The criterion for membership is a credible profession of faith, which you meet with spades. Members don’t have to know anything about the WCF.

It is true that if you wanted to become an elder in our church, at this stage of your stated beliefs, that wouldn’t happen. But what would happen if I joined your church? I’m sure I’d be accepted. What about being a leader at your church? I think it is very unscriptural to not have local bodies so unaccountable to the larger body of Christ. I would strongly encourage your church to move in that direction. I would see that your church is missing out on the wonderful doctrines of grace (as I see how it is taught in the Bible), I would teach those. Just as you would be a square wheel in being a leader at my church, so I would be a triangle wheel at your church. I would cause division and strife. You and I would tear at the peace of our respective churches while trying to put into practice pure doctrine. This is where I think you’ve might have oversimplified. It isn’t a one-way street.

This is where I also see how the diverse body of the universal church works. I praise God for his work at your church and in your life. Sure, you don’t believe the way I do. I think you’re missing out from a lot of God’s blessing in your life and in your church’s life as a result. But God is blessing you with his overflowing goodness in different ways than my church and me. And while I could not be a leader in your church, I rejoice and thank God in Christ for his work there. I also think you’re indirectly reaping the benefits of God’s work with the Presbyterians, just as I am reaping benefits of God’s work in the simple church, and God’s work with Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. Did you know that the idea of federalism in the US government was originally shaped by Presbyterian church government (in fact the British sometimes referred to the American Revolution as the Presbyterian rebellion)? And while you and I cannot literally take communion at conservative Lutheran churches (because we don’t view the body of Christ in the elements they way they do), the Lutheran ideas of looking to Christ alone for salvation is historically where we got how we look to Christ, and their continued work in this area trickles over into the rest of the Church Universal in very refreshing ways.

I don’t think one particular church structure and confession is ideal (including my own). I see the multi-strand beautiful cord of universal church is how God is working in extending his kingdom. So, if I were to come to your church, I’d think after a while, you’d recommend I seek out fellowship with a more like-minded church in your area. It isn’t that we’d break fellowship because of this, it is because we are each more effective in our respective environments where people passionately agree on similar things as we do, yet we can work beyond our local churches in extending God’s kingdom. For instance, if I lived in Boone and went to a Presbyterian church there, it would be very possible we’d go to your musical concerts, and in seeing how God works through your ministry, I could even imagine how our church could work with you in a community Christmas program, Easter, or other kinds of things.

It seems I presented my view of the WCF as cheesecloth, full of holes. Actually, I take only a few exceptions. I view the WCF as helpful in many ways. I came my church 14 years ago as a visitor with your kind of background. My denomination had many affinities with the Moravians, and their closest creedal statement was the Moravian one. I visited this Presbyterian church knowing nothing about Presbyterians. I was in for a rude awakening. My wife liked them, I hated them. I was trying to start a house church. We’d visit the Presbyterian church. They were very friendly, but I deeply disagreed with them. I’d argue in Bible studies they held in homes. I was blown away by the WCF – how could anyone be so arrogant and stupid to write their beliefs in this way. I started reading, interacting with others on the infant Internet. I studied each area. The WCF became a teaching document to me. Where I disagreed (and it seemed to be most of it), I’d systematically study it. I was out to prove these guys wrong. In the end, I became convinced. In this way, the WCF became a tool for the Holy Spirit to teach me, to motivate me to learn the Bible more. The Holy Spirit in my antagonism to the WCF, opened a whole new world I never saw before.

So, confessions can have different roles. They can be a short summary of the absolute minimum of beliefs. That is very useful. The Apostle’s Creed is like that. It can also be a teaching tool. The WCF and the Lutheran Book of Concorde are like that. I think God uses both kinds. As a teaching document, these confessions can help make disciples of Christ in different ways than a simple minimalist confession. But also, minimalist confessions allow other types of Christians to band together to also make disciples in ways that the holy Spirit uses differently. I don’t see the superiority or negativity, overall, to any particular approach, as long as God is using it.

You wrote: The difference with your confession versus the WCF is that it is shorter, it is informal (not put into a standard form), you wrote it – and of course you think your confession is Biblical where in your opinion the WCF isn’t Biblical.

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification of the issue at hand. Let me turn it around and put the issue in a different light. Do you disagree with anything on my short list of absolutes? If not, you must understand that from my perspective, there would be nothing hindering you and I from fellowshiping together, partaking of the Lord’s Supper together, worshiping together, etc. However, I think you would have to admit that, were I to attempt to join your Presbyterian church, and ultimately seek to be a leader in said church, there would be resistance from your church and denomination because I would take so many exceptions to the WCF. How does one defend that from Scripture? What elements are absolutely essential for fellowship? What does Scripture have to say about this?

You described the “checks and balances” with regard to your denomination’s use of the WCF in the following: If an elder or any church member thinks that the Session (the body of active elders in the church) have abused the WCF in an unscriptural way, they can take their case to the Presbytery (the region of the Presbyterian churches). If they think that the church and Presbytery are wrong, they can take their case to the General Assembly that meets once a year. If a Presbytery (or church) thinks that the denomination is going wrong, they can leave the denomination.

The problem that I have with this is that it just simply goes way beyond Scripture, Earl. I believe that ultimately, this type of heirarchy (taken to this many levels) accomplishes little in the overall task of making disciples. Why the need for such a lengthy and complicated process? Why the need for accountability to people who rarely interact or even know each other?

Many believe that my views on church are “idealistic” in the sense of “Get real, man, that could never happen.” But my question is, “Why not?” If Jesus Christ is head of His Body, and the Holy Spirit has been given to us as believers, must we impose an entire “system” of government on that to “protect” it?

I think, in this current discussion, what really confuses me is how you say that the WCF is a summary of what is taught in Scripture, and say that it is something you basically subscribe to, but then you end up putting all kinds of asterisks on it and whiting out the parts you don’t really agree with. So what’s the point, then? You can’t really use it as any kind of representation of what you believe without constantly re-explaining what it is you agree with and don’t agree with. That’s surfaced already in just a few short dialogues you and I have already had.

And so this is where there is a huge difference between your approach to the WCF. I don’t have all kinds of asterisks in my doctrinal statement. This is why I believe it is important to have such a short list. It does not hinder the Body from getting together and being the Body or doing what the Body has been called to do (i.e., make disciples).

Do I believe my statement is biblical? Yes. Else I wouldn’t hold to it. But do you really believe the WCF is biblical? Apparently, only the parts you agree with. So what’s the point of referring to it as any kind of defining document? Just state what you believe, and be done with it. Can the Holy Spirit speak through thoughts of those in centuries past? Yes, but that does not mean that we should then point to that thought as the representation of our belief.

I don’t know if I’m making any sense, or just causing you to be frustrated with me. I certainly hope it’s the former and not the latter. But at any rate, I don’t want to go any further with this than you want to. So at any point, feel free to tell me to shut up and we’ll move on to something else!

Thanks for being such a patient participant in this, Earl. I do value your challenges to my thinking, and do take what you say into great consideration. Thanks for helping to sharpen my iron!

steve

I think you also recognize I follow the historical sense of sola scriptura, while you follow a more “literal” sola scriptura, which is not how it has been used historically in the past. However, I think you have the elements of a confession or creed in your beliefs. Here is what I observe:

You have a list of absolutes:
1. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh
2. Jesus Christ died for the sins of all mankind, was buried, and literally rose from the dead to live forever.
3. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father, and there is salvation in no other person, doctrine, or belief.
4. Each individual’s eternal destiny will be determined by their relationship (or lack, thereof) to Jesus Christ.

Then there is a list of other beliefs:
5. The list of required doctrines is short.
6. There is no one preferred Bible translation.
7. End times views are not crucial.
8. Style of music is not crucial.
9. The Moravian motto: essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In everything, love.

This is a confession. I think it is a good confession. The difference with your confession versus the WCF is that it is shorter, it is informal (not put into a standard form), you wrote it – and of course you think your confession is Biblical where in your opinion the WCF isn’t Biblical.

You ask several questions:

1. Given my discussion on communion versus the WCF, do I take exception to it? The answer is yes. The other elders asked me, and the other elder taking the same position, to defend our views Biblically. The other elders, by and large, were convinced and by implication, also now take exception to this part of the WCF.

2. Where do I draw the line on exceptions on the WCF? It’s a fuzzy line. The concept is that we elders adhere to the system of teaching to the WCF as being a summary of what is taught in Scripture. This leaves room for variation of belief and taking exceptions. It can be abused, as what happened in the main-line Presbyterian Church, USA. There are checks and balances in how this works with exceptions taken on the WCF. If an elder or any church member thinks that the Session (the body of active elders in the church) have abused the WCF in an unscriptural way, they can take their case to the Presbytery (the region of the Presbyterian churches). If they think that the church and Presbytery are wrong, they can take their case to the General Assembly that meets once a year. If a Presbytery (or church) thinks that the denomination is going wrong, they can leave the denomination.

You speak about how the average Joe Christian is able to read the Bible with the guidence of the Holy Spirit. I think that is true too. This indicates you follow the dogma (which means doctrine, which is a good word, but our culture frowns on any absolutes) of Martin Luther of the perspicuity of Scripture, which is also another part of your informal confession. But guidence of the Holy Spirit raises the question of just how does the Holy Spirit guide? Is the Holy Spirit’s guidience only through reading an English Bible and getting direct implanted thoughts by the Holy Spirit? Can other people’s insights and reading and studying be used by the Holy Spirit in understanding the Bible? If not, you and I better stop blogging right now. Is it limited to thoughts of the past few years? Can the Holy Spirit use the thoughts of Christians in the past centuries to help provide illumination? I don’t see you ruling that out in your confession.

The people who I’ve seen take sola scriptura to its logical absurdity have been some Church of Christ people. They would be very critical of your short list of absolutes. When I’ve asked these individuals what was wrong with some of those things in your short list, all they do would be to quote some scripture. I’d scratch my head and say how does that contradict what I’ve said? They’d quote another scripture without explanation. My point is that very few people actually live without confessions or creeds of some sort, and those that do are unintelligable (and not even those Church of Christ people — they followed their “informal” confession of don’t word doctrine the way most evangelical Christians do).

Wow, are you serious? Took a vow? (I know you’re serious because I read the link you gave me, and saw his comment there.) That kind of stuff makes me shudder. How far does this go?

Earl, I got to thinking a bit more about this statement you made: But there are some advantages [to things like creeds and confessions], given we live in a post-Christian age, where things in previous times were assumed by all evangelical Christians, but no longer.

You are correct when you use the word “assumed” in this context. What I perceive is actually happening is that we have moved beyond a point where people are willing to just take others’ word for something. If you read some of the theological books from the past century (just as an example, read the “standard” dispensational books by Walvoord, Ryrie, etc.), you will find that often times, authors just quoted each other in a rather circular fashion, without strongly supporting their arguments from Scripture. Then, pastors trained under such teaching would just swallow what was given them, turn around and preach it as fact to their people, who in turn swallowed what was given them.

I think that the idea that the average Joe Christian could read his Bible and come to understanding of the Scriptures through the guidance of the Holy Spirit was never actually lived out in times past. In that sense, the Reformation of Luther’s day only took us so far, and is now starting to see some further growth in this area. I believe this is a very good thing, but it causes a lot of consternation in some circles!

As a young man in Bible college, I remember having some questions about things that I was taught, but finally just punting to the fact that my professors were older, more learned than I, and therefore, it had to be me that was wrong. That was a huge mistake on my part (and theirs for encouraging that mindset, even if it was a subtle and subliminal encouragement), and I didn’t give myself permission to rethink some things from Scripture for many years after that.

Any thoughts?

steve

First of all, I hope you understand that the bulk of this post was not aimed at you in particular. I only brought up our discussion on Rose’s blog from the standpoint that I found it ironic that two separate discussions involved the WCF. With regard to the reason you state that you brought up the WCF, I think I understand that. I still find it symptomatic, however, of a knee-jerk response from a lot of Christians to point to a document other than Scripture in order to show what they believe.

To be honest, the fact that you would ask me to compare what you are saying to the WCF in order to show whether or not your position was inconsistent with Calvinism is a fair request on your part. However, with regard to the topic we had discussed there, the point wasn’t so much that I felt you were misrepresenting Calvinism. It was that I thought your position went beyond Scripture.

Your pointing to the WCF seemed to indicate that you agree with the WCF on that issue (foreordaining), and I disagree with you on the idea that the WCF accurately represents Scripture on that point.

Personally (and I realize this is spoken as an outsider to any Presby denomination), I do think that the usage of the WCF, even as you outlined, is outside the scope of sola scriptura, which is kind of the point in this post. I have similar issues with the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, and would give the same response.

Please understand, however, that the larger response here in this post was to the other discussion I had. The only correlation is that you both mentioned WCF.

Given that, how would you respond to issue of communion and baptism in the WCF? Is that one that you take exception with?

Also, I would be curious as to where you draw the line in your church. How many “exceptions” can a potential elder take before being prohibited from serving? And, in a sense, doesn’t the whole idea of having them agree to the WCF (even with exceptions) take the qualifications for eldership beyond what Scripture itself warrants? In that sense, as well, I think the practice of your denomination goes beyond sola scriptura.

steve

A little clarification on my usage of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) in our discussion on Rose’s blog. I had the mistaken impression that you didn’t think I was expressing a Calvinist position, so I pulled out the ol’ WCF, a Calvinist document, to point to what it said about something and how it corresponded to what I was saying. It turns out I had misunderstood you, otherwise I would have not mentioned the WCF. That’s because the Bible does trump the WCF.

This brings me to my second item. While the denomination I belong to “requires” its officers (elders and deacons) to subscribe to the WCF, it does no under these rules:

(1) The officer must be convinced the doctrines conveyed in the WCF are taught in Scripture. The officer candidate, as well as the active officer, needs to be honest.

(2) It is expected that officers will usually take “exceptions” to the WCF. This is where the officer states what specific parts he disagrees with the WCF as being unscriptural. When I interview and examine an officer candidate, and especially a teaching elder who will be a pastor, I expect there will be exceptions — otherwise I don’t think they really have read the WCF and they are not ready for the office. I took several exceptions, one of which was the Sabbath portion of the WCF. The examining group of elders will ask for evidence from Scripture why the exception was taken, and if sufficient reason is given that the elders find reasonable, that exception is granted to that individual and the candidate is accepted into service.

(3) In deliberations on doctrine and practice in the church, the Bible trumps the WCF. For instance, we had the issue brought before us of whether retarded and other mentally disabled people could partake of communion. The WCF was clear that incompetent people could not partake communion. However, the body of elders, after much study of Scripture, believed that Scripture taught otherwise, and decided to allow retarded and other mentally disabled people come to the Table on a case by case basis.

I’m open to you all’s thoughts on this. Am I violating Sola Scriptura seeing how we use the WCF? What do you think Steve? Does this change your thoughts about what we’re doing? Coming from outside the conservative Presbyterian denominations, I can see how this all looks. I’ll be happy to answer any questions and give further thought. I’m not advocating other Christians to use the WCF. There are some useful things to having official catechisms and confessions. It was a culture shook to me when I first encountered this 13 years ago. There are definitely strong advantages to not having confessions. But there are some advantages too, given we live in a post-Christian age, where things in previous times were assumed by all evangelical Christians, but no longer. For instance, what do you all think of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy? Google it and see what you think. Is it a good document. Would you agree with most of it. Suppose we said we wanted call pastors that agreed with inerrancy, using the concepts described in the document? Is that helpful? If you find it so, you are in a way using the Chicago Statement in a similar fashion we are using the WCF.

What do you all think? I’m really interested.

I seem to have an extraneous “be” in the original. That’s what happens when you try to comment while dealing with insomnia.

I find the allegiance to the WCF more troubling that the specific issues you raised. I had a discussion with a pastor at Alastair’s site http://alastair.adversaria.co.uk/?p=309#comments who said that he took a vow that the WCF contains the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scriptures. Doesn’t sound like sola scriptura to me.

Rod