Keep your opinions to yourself
When it formed in 1901, the Presbyterian Church of Australia decided that her supreme standard would be the "Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments," and that the subordinate standard would be the Westminster Confession of Faith, read in the light of a declaratory statement. It's an interesting statement, that has been the cause of some consternation over the years.
For example, it says that in accepting the subordinate standard, you are not required to believe that any who die in infancy are lost. But the key thing is that it allows liberty of opinion "on matters in the subordinate standard not essential to the doctrine therein taught." Just what those matters are is hard to say.
But what is often forgotten is that the declaratory statement allows for liberty of opinion, not liberty of expression. In other words, you can disagree with the Confession on minor matters, but you need to keep your opinions to yourself. For all presbyterian ministers and elders have sworn that the WCF (as read in the light of this declaratory statement) is an expression of the way they understand the Bible, and a confession of their own faith. Every minister and elder has vowed to "maintain and defend" this Confession.
There is no excuse, therefore, for any elder to voice disagreement with the WCF. (Much less any Session, for the liberty of opinion clause applies only to individuals, and not to Sessions or Presbyteries.) Not under the cover of the declaratory statement - not even under the pretext of wondering how your opinions relate to the declaratory statement.
If you're a presbyterian elder, and find that you disagree with the Westminster Confession, either shut up or resign. It doesn't matter if you're right or not - if you express a contrary opinion, you are in breach of your ordination vows.
(Post a new comment)
 | Ecclesia Reforma, Semper Reformanda?
(Anonymous)
2005-04-27 09:44
(link) |
Big fat disclaimer: when you can't maintain a vow you've made, that is a big fat problem. Integrity is a huge issue, as is authenticity, so none of what I'm about to say should be read as 'it is ok to make a vow that you willingly intend to not keep.'
Statement's like this one: "If you're a presbyterian elder, and find that you disagree with the Westminster Confession, either shut up or resign. It doesn't matter if you're right or not - if you express a contrary opinion, you are in breach of your ordination vows" are not uncommon, no matter where you look. Substitute 'presbyterian elder' with 'anglican minister' and 'westminster confession' with 'prayerbook' and you've got the most recent Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne right there. You've got two choices: either shut up, or move on. So I'm not having a go at John, and I don't think this is just a Presbyterian phenomenon.
What I want to know is, though, where is the room for Semper Reformanda, for reforming from within? If one IS a presbyterian elder, and one discovers one DOES have issue with the Westminster Confession, and ESPECIALLY if one is right - where does one go with that? How does one, in love of God, the scriptures, and one's denomination, move forward? How is it possible to be always reforming when the line is already in the sand - publicly agree, or leave?
These things trouble me. We've discovered so much in the last hundred years - the dead sea scrolls and the nag hammadi library, which have complemented our understanding of the new testament scriptures immensely. And if we need to revisit scripture from time to time because we've discovered something new - we've updated our lexicons and suddenly the emphasis on a certain word isn't quite what we thought it was - then how much more so do we need to revisit the Westminster Confession, or the 39 articles? If not, are we happy to surrender that aspect of what it once meant to be reformed - to be continually reforming?
I think integrity to commitments we have made is essential. No doubt about it. But so too is reform, particularly reform from within. I believe that the church in Australia is going to change dramatically in the next 20 years, and an awful lot of mainline churches are going to discover that they don't have anyone under the age of 50 in them anymore, and that spells death in any ecclesial language. One of the many factors needed to deal with that is internal reform - reform from within - where godly people of integrity and faith actually give their tradition and denomination a health check, and try to separate what is the gospel from what is their particular dressing of it. Now I'm not talking about liberalising it or watering things down - I'm simply saying that the gospel needs to challenge every generation in every culture, and it can only do that if it is expressed and lived in a way that every generation and culture can understand. So like it or not, it's change or die for a lot of churches, and that is probably going to bring down one or two denominations with it (probably not the continuing pressies, though, you're a stubborn mob!).
But how are we reformed 21st century denominations going to face this challenge, going to rediscover the challenging, confronting gospel which we may have locked up in our confessions or articles, when everyone who has a divergent opinion has either shut up or moved on?
the_blacke(Reply to this) (Thread) |
|
(Anonymous)
2005-04-27 14:33
(link) |
Is it even right for an elder to shut up? Why not just resign?
---Kara(Reply to this) (Thread) |
| 
(Anonymous)
2005-04-27 20:28
(link) |
Firstly, I'd be suprised if anyone has a problem with the 39 articles. They were worded vaguely enough to allow both full-on anglo-catholics and strict puritans to live together under the one tent. I suspect most RCs could happily affirm about 35 of the 39...
I agree with John though. If you are going to have a confessional church, then have a confessional church. I think Kara is right - if you dont accept the confession, then leave. Join the Anglican church - you can pretty much believe anything then... ;-)
But I have one question for John - by what authority did the church adopt the Declatory statement? I have a friend whose father ministers in the "Westminster Presbyterian church" - I believe they reject the Declatory statement. Are they more faithful to Westminster than you guys? (Reply to this) (Thread) |
|
(Anonymous)
2005-04-28 18:51
(link) |
Yeah, I just read your Declatory Statement for the first time. It appears to be something of a reaction against hyper-calvinism (so there are moderating statements about Total Depravity and Limited Atonement). I also detect a desire to accomodate pietism (which was running white-hot through the world at about the time your DS was written, I think).
The infant salvation clause is interesting. It basically says "even though our confession teaches x, you are free to believe y anyway." There is no sense in which that clause is explaining or refining the original confession.(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
|
(Anonymous)
2005-04-28 00:38
(link) |
"If you're a presbyterian elder, and find that you disagree with the Westminster Confession, either shut up or resign. It doesn't matter if you're right or not - if you express a contrary opinion, you are in breach of your ordination vows."
Is the authority of the WCF on par with the Holy Scriptures? Furthermore, is the WCF ever open for revision or for further chapters to be added.
As an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church I do have a few minor issues with the WCF. Now when I come to exegete a given passage of the Scriptures, and then preach on that passage, am I to declare the truth of Scripture or do I declare the position of the WCF.
Regards,
One confused Presbyter.(Reply to this) (Thread) |
|
(Anonymous)
2005-04-28 03:43
(link) |
Mate,
Just Preach the Word of God. For those who may be confused the Word of God is the Holy Bible and not the Westminster Confession of Fait, or any other Confession/Creed.
I have the highest regard for the Westminster Confession and I will both 'maintain and defend it', HOWEVER it is neither Inspired, Inerrant or Infallible.
Warm Reformed Calvinist(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible
(Anonymous)
2005-04-29 19:06
(link) |
And upon what basis do you make those claims for the bible?
the_blacke
PS - I'm not trolling for a fight, honest!(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| Re: Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible
(Anonymous)
2005-04-30 03:56
(link) |
Brother,
I don't mind a fight, but lets not have one anyway.
The basis on which I make those claims is the self attestation of the Bible. If you desire further evidence then we could go to the early Church fathers and the like. But, for everyone I cite I am sure my opponent will raise another.
Just for the sake of clarity when it comes to apologetics I am somewhere between a Presuppositionalist (C. Van Til) and an Evidentialist (R.C. Sproul). Now I know that some would argue that those two are not incompatible. Having said that, I know that I can't convince anyone by mere argument of any one of the three: Inspiration, Inerrancy and Infallibility. Ultimately, we either believe in the One True God of the Holy Scriptures or we don't. Secondly, we either accept the Bible to be His Holy, Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word or we don't.
Without sounding condescending my prayer is that you do believe in the Verbal and Plenary Inspiration of the Bible and not in some Barthian, Neo-Liberal, sub-Christian view. The reason I say that is because a lot of Christians have sold their inheritance (a fully orbed belief in the Bible as God's own Word) for the Stew Pottage of Neo-Orthodoxy.
Regards,
WRC
(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| Re: Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible
(Anonymous)
2005-04-30 03:59
(link) | |
Sorry that should have been compatible and not incompatible. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread) |
| WCF + declaratory statement
(Anonymous)
2005-05-12 07:04
(link) | |
The WCF is a great sub-ordinate standard. But whatever we do we must not treat it as a de-facto "ORDINATE" standard. Our only rule of faith and practice, as the WCF itself clearly says, is the Word of God, the Old and New Testament. WCF is a human document, not a divine one. One of the fundamental ideas that Calvin himself re-discovered was that theology (as opposed to the Bible itself) is a human, not a divine exercise. Theological formulations do not come down from on high from God as pronouncements of Popes and Councils and the Teaching Office of the Church, but rather they are the reasonable products of Spirit-illumined believers, and as such are capable of being in error at various points. If we insist that the WCF is necessarily inerrant, then we are placing it on the same level as scripture and are no better than the Catholics, because we are saying that the Westminister divines wrote infallible pronouncements of the same kind as Papal encyclicals. (Reply to this) (Thread) |
| Longines replica watches
(Anonymous)
2008-12-30 01:52
(link) |
we don't think it is reasonable to spend hundreds thousands dollars to buy a decorating watch. you can use those money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit.
here you just need to spend 100-200 dollars to buy a replica rolex watches.
Longines replica watches are made by the rating 1:1 according to the original watches, and you can't distinguish the original and the fake watches when you look at the surface of the watches.(Reply to this) (Thread) |
(Post a new comment)
|
