Individual freedom excommunicated organized doctrine

Dear BB:

The title of this thread are the words of Dr. Thomas Nettles from his online article "The Health of Confessional Christianity." His article is about confessional Christianity. For those not familiar with it, it refers to that form of practice in a local church that adopts or creates a confession of their faith which members in good standard are expected to be in agreement with.

Being familiar with Reformed Baptists, I can say confidently that Reformed Baptist churches, including my own, are confessional churches. Typically we adhere to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. This confession is exhaustive. There is not an area of doctrine that isn't covered in it. The only thing the confession may need is an update concerning pressing modern issues.

I am starting this thread to submit to the readers the benefits of churches being confessional. I will also share what I believe are the dangers that exist when both individuals and churches reject confessional Christianity.

1. Let it first be said, because it is so often charge brought either against confessions/creeds or in denfense of no confession/creed, that a confession or creed does not take the place of the Bible. It is an expression or exposition of biblical truth.

2. A written confession of faith in a church serves to test error in others. A heretic may well say "I believe in the Bible." and at the same time reject innerancy.

3. It can serve the local church to organize (or systematize) biblical truth. Dr. Nettles wrote, "All that the Bible has to say about God's dealing with sinners in a gracious way to restore them to Himself may be organized into the biblical doctrine of salvation. Texts from Genesis to Revelation would be included in this doctrine; the organized presentation of it would not detract from biblical truth but would give powerful expression to it."

4. Confessions are not a final authority for the church. They may be ammended, changed, or altered by consent of the local congregation.

5. A creed works to keep a bay those who "creep in unawares" to local congregations. In Dr. Nettles article, he quotes William Stokes, "William Stokes wrote an essay on creeds that the Midland Association published in its two-hundredth anniversary history. Stokes, from Birmingham, argued that "it is not enough, therefore, that a man declares that he believes the Bible." Christian communities have not only a right, but an obligation, to ask in what sense he believes the Bible--as a Socinian, an Arian, or a Pelagian? Creeds not only have declared the faith of Christian communities but have served "to test and expose the character of dishonest men, who, under the plea of believers, entered the church to pollute its doctrine and to divide and scatter its members." Creeds then, as they should be now, were used against "the agents of the wicked one" who had crept into the church. "The orthodox creed was employed by the Church to correct the mischief by excluding the men."

6. A creed/confession does not take away individual liberty of conscience. As long as the creed is not part of a church-state and being imposed on the masses, a Christian is free with regard to join or not join such churches.

In close, the words of B.H. Carroll:

The modern cry: "Less creed and more liberty," is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy--it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly."

"Very solemnly I would warn the reader against any teaching that decries doctrines, or which would reduce the creed of the church into two or three articles."

http://www.founders.org/journal/fj49/article1_fr.html

 

No, not every tenant. But substantial agreement at least to be a member, and nearly complete agreement on all matter by elders, deacons, and teachers.

 

The issue with Peter Enns was with Westminster Theological Seminary, not Westchester. Also, Mr. Enns's errors dealt with his views with inerrancy contrary to what is declared in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The confession, in this case, was instrumental in showing Mr. Enns' his error. Enns wanted to redefine the doctrine of innerancy. Therefore, he would still be able to say he believed in inerrancy, but not as defiend by the seminary's own confession. In my opinion, the moment Enns changed his view, he should have resigned from the seminary. That doesn't appear to be the case.

Enn's progressive theological study is at odd's the doctrine of Scripture. And in our day it is important that we clearly define what we mean when we say, "I believe the Bible." I am finding that those who move into heresy often move away from an established, thorough, written confession of faith.

 

First, it wasn't me who said your post was pure bunk. But I understand what he was driving at. Friend, your post missed the mark in my opinion. Your reply failed to actually recognize what was happening at WTS. I am not intimately familiar with the issue, but spent enough time on the WTS website to know that Mr. Enns departed from an orthodox position on inerrancy. At the very least he should have resigned, long before the seminary called for it. When he took the position to teach in the seminary he agreed to the Westminster. If his views changed over the course of time he should have left.

The same would hold true for a Christian in a church. If that person rejects the church's confession of their faith, and that Christian changes their view, they should leave. If not, they should be disfellowshiped.

Concerning progressive revelation I agree. Yet those former ways in which God spoke are now finished being summed up in the Son of God. This revelation is now inscripturated and is final and complete, nothing more being added.

Concerning our understanding it must be conformed to the Scripture. A confession of faith or creed is (should be) an exposition of the Scripture. Certainly a church may amend the confession if they believe it does not conform to the Scriptures. However, if the church is agreed that the confession is a confession of their faith as it conforms to the Scripture, then it is good and right to use and serves the church well.

"one" does not need to remember, in this case, that the creed/confession is not Scripture. It was already stated so in the OP and I do not know if any Protestant or evangelical church that thinks otherwise. So your point is moot and redundant and makes one wonder why you stated it.

 

The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses could join your church on your simple confession.

 

That misses the point TC. If someone came to your church and asked, "What is your confession of faith." and you answer "Jesus is Lord." and the person, great..I believe that too...and joins...and hold the Jesus Only doctrine, denies the Trinity, believes in extra-biblical revelation, and that baptism is required for salvation and its ok to pray to saints.

Methinks you need to expand your confession of faith.

 

Dr. Robert Paul Martin, professor of Biblical Theology in Trinity Ministerial Academy, and pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, Montiville, NJ outlined four uses of confessions. They are:

1. A confession is a useful means for the public affirmation and defense of truth.

2. A confession serves as a public standard of fellowship and discipline.

3. A creed (confession) serves as a concise standard by which to evaluate ministers of the Word.

4. Confessions contribute to a sense of historical continuity.

One of the strongest points I have seens Dr. Martin make is that it is a lawful (and likely necessary in my opinion) means for a church to function and fulfill its duty as 'the pillar and ground of the truth' by publishing a confession of its faith.

God has entrusted the revelation of the redemption of man to His church. The church of the Living God is to proclaim this special revelation to the world in word and deed. We are also to defend the truth against error. Consider a few other points:

1. Men use the very words of Scripture to promote heresy.
2. Men deny biblical truth while at the same time swearing loyalty and fidelity to the Bible.
3. "Modern Christianity is awash in a flood of doctrinal relativity. Satan and his forces love the imprecision of ambiguity which are rampant in our day."

As the Lord moved me several years ago out of the charismatic movement my desire to know exactly what the church beleived that I joined became increasingly important. Of course, I hit my head a few times before I learned that I really needed to understand what a church believed on a multitude of subjects before committing my family to them.

In addition, any church that I expressed an interest in joining had an equal responsiblity to examine me concerning my faith. Do you suppose I was questioned in regard to my faith and beliefs? Rarely. Most of the time if I wanted to be a member, I was welcome to be one. Of course, this was not the case with our present church. When I expressed interest in joining I was expected to have read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and the church distinctives. I was expected to have substantial agreement with them. The pastor visited me in my home before I was allowed to join. I was asked about my conversion to Christ. It took a few weeks to join this church!

We have been with them now for almost 2 years. There has not come up but maybe one or two things I have disagreed upon and they are minor. I have seen no strife or division in this church at all. I am not suggesting that the church is immune to such things because of their public creed. But I have seen what others are saying are purposes of the use of a creed.

I used to say that unless a preacher preached for at least 30-45min he probably did not preach the Gospel as he ought. I am beginning to think that unless it takes me at least an hour or more to read a man's or church's creed, they need to keep writing...

RB

 

You missed the mark again. I am talking about church membership brother. A thorough creed will ferrett out many heretics before they enter the fold.

 

Well, at least your representing what I am standing against and what this thread is against. But you ought to back off on this rhetoric "force some confessional on someone"

No one is forcing anything. People are free not to join. We are making, at least in our church, the public stand that no one but believers should be members of the congregation. Does your church allow unbelievers to be members of the church??? Do you not warn unbelievers in your midst from partaking of the Lord's Table?

I fear the next thing I will learn of you is that you let unbaptized persons become members.