Pages Menu
TwitterRss
Categories Menu

Posted by on Apr 28, 2013 in Ecclesiology | 0 comments

Reflections on the Ordination Process One Year Later

It’s been just about one year since I finished my ordination exams. The year since then has seen quite a few changes for us, as we’ve traveled, moved several times, and begun to study another language in earnest. I’m sure my own thoughts on the ordination process will change and so on the more years I serve, there’s one thing that has come back to me several times: gratitude.

Don’t get me wrong. There were some aspects of the ordination process that were somewhat less than awesome.

E.g., whether I know the name of Jeremiah’s scribe or not seems to have little or no connection to life, ministry, theology, etc.

But one of the things that ordination forced me to do was to memorize where to find Scripture references that deal with a number of topics. With some of them, I had to memorize the content of the verses themselves, but for many, I just had to be able to summarize the content.

Even in this one, abnormal year of my life since finishing my exams, I have found the incredible value of knowing where to find those Scripture references.

Someone asked me just this past week some tough questions about spiritual warfare, wanting advice from Scripture, not experience, and so thankfully I was forced to know that Ephesians 6 speaks clearly and directly, as does 1 Peter 5, and we have Jesus’ example of resisting the devil with the word of God in Matthew 4. And similar examples regarding other topics have happened many times in the past year.

Of course, ordination also shows you how little you really know about so many topics, but it forces us to have a foundation of knowledge in Scripture. The main thing for those of us who have gone through the process is to continue to grow in our knowledge of Scripture, and more importantly, in our knowledge of our Savior.

But though the process was hard, I am grateful that our denomination deems it important for us to really know the Bible.

Read More

Posted by on Feb 24, 2013 in Ecclesiology | 2 comments

Liberty to Discern in Doctrinal Matters

The all-encompassing nature of full-time language study has kept me from writing on here in recent weeks, but as I was reading some of Calvin’s commentary in conjunction with my reading of 1 John, I came across a very helpful section regarding the private and public discerning of theological matters. 1 John 4:1 says to test the spirits, so Calvin anticipates the objection that if everyone has the liberty to judge doctrinal matters, then how will there not just be total chaos? This is, of course, one of the primary Roman Catholic objections to Protestantism. Here is Calvin’s answer:

But here a difficult question arises: If every one has the right and the liberty to judge, nothing can be settled as certain, but on the contrary the whole of religion will be uncertain. To this I answer, that there is a twofold trial of doctrine, private and public. The private trial is that by which every one settles his own faith, when he wholly acquiesces in that doctrine which he knows has come from God; for consciences will never find a safe and tranquil port otherwise than in God. Public trial refers to the common consent and polity of the Church; for as there is danger lest fanatics should rise up, who may presumptuously boast that they are endued with the Spirit of God, it is a necessary remedy, that the faithful meet together and seek a way by which they may agree in a holy and godly manner. But as the old proverb is too true, “So many heads, so many opinions,” it is doubtless a singular work of God, when he subdues our perverseness and makes us to think the same thing, and to agree in a holy unity of faith.

Essentially, he suggests that of course each person ought to privately and personally be convinced in his own mind, but that this is different than each person then determining what the church ought to confess as the truth. This is quite helpful in thinking through how to apply both Acts 17 (the Bereans searching the Scriptures) and yet also submitting to the leaders of the church (discussed in many passages). It also points out why the collective labor of elders in seeking to determine what the church confesses to be the teaching of Scripture (as for example, confessed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and other similar documents) is far better than a statement of faith prepared by a few key people for individual churches.

Read More

Posted by on Dec 21, 2012 in Ecclesiology |

Swain on Confessions and Scripture

trinity-reading-swainFollowing up on my posts on Trueman’s new book, The Creedal Imperative, I read back through portions of Scott Swain’s Trinity, Revelation, and Reading, and I came across this quote:

To the extent, therefore, that the church’s dogmatic deliverances are indeed faithful summaries of the scope, shape, and substance of scriptural teaching, their use in interpretation does not constitute the imposition of an external burden or alien standard upon the interpreter of Holy Scripture. Church dogmas provide instead a divinely authorized interpretive key for unlocking the treasures of God’s word, a blessed pathway into Holy Scripture. (p. 111)

Obviously, the key is that the “church’s dogmatic deliverances” must be “faithful summaries” of Scripture. But as Trueman clearly pointed out in The Creedal Imperative, we all have summaries of Scriptures’ teaching, but if we don’t write them down, we can’t critically examine them.

Read More

Posted by on Dec 18, 2012 in Ecclesiology |

Confessional Standards and Exegesis

D.A. Carson still has me thinking about all sorts of things:

Rightly deployed, confessional standards ought to guide, shape, and enrich our exegesis; wrongly deployed, they become cut off from the biblical texts that nurtured and developed them. (from Jesus the Son of God)

This reminds me of two dangers I see in my own neck of the Reformed woods:

(1) Forgetting our confessions completely (particularly the specific doctrinal standards to which I have vowed my affirmation, the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms). I don’t even mean necessarily that the doctrines taught in those documents are being forgotten (though in some places it seems that this may be a concern). I mean in terms of using these documents in discipling the people in our congregations.

I suspect that they aren’t being used for a number of reasons. One big one is that they are still in older English. That is something that can and should be changed in my opinion. I don’t mean changing justification to some newer, easier term, simply changing hath, thou, etc to normal contemporary equivalents. That would go a long way to increasing the use of the standards. Another reason is that we don’t necessarily have a lot of great models for how to use them well. I.e., I would love to see materials that utilize new media (video, mobile apps, etc) and also emphasize how the issues of daily life fit into the key matters taught in the standards, all in the light of Scripture.

(2) Turning to the standards more than Scripture itself. While I want to see increased use of the standards, I do find it disturbing when people suggest that memorizing the Catechism is more important than memorizing Scripture. When someone from outside of our own context asks for a defense of our views, and we turn to the Westminster Confession before Scripture, we may have a problem.

We can say that the Standards are subordinate, but if we know them better than our Bibles, we betray what is really going on in our heart beliefs. But because I believe that Scripture teaches the doctrines taught in the Westminster Standards, I want to see continuing rigid commitment to Scripture and further use of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms.

Read More

Posted by on Dec 7, 2012 in Ecclesiology, Sacraments |

Why Baptism and the Lord’s Supper Are So Important in Doctrinal Standards

I keep returning to The Creedal Imperative by Carl Trueman because I found it so helpful. In discussing why baptism and the Lord’s Supper are often (and should be) part of creeds and confessions, he says:

Minimally, an understanding of baptism is important because baptism is the means of entry into the visible church; and an understanding of the Lord’s Supper is important because, minimally, the admission to or banning from participation in the Supper is a basic part of church disciplinary procedure. Thus, churches that have membership and that exert pastoral oversight and exercise discipline must have a position on both baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

If we don’t take a position on the weight of the testimony of Scripture, we will have a hard time defining who is in the visible church and the process by which one leaves the church. This of course does not mean that charity should not exist between those who disagree. And it doesn’t preclude all possibility of ecclesiastical cooperation between those who disagree. But they are key to the life and shepherding of the church.

Read More

Posted by on Nov 16, 2012 in Book Reviews, Ecclesiology |

Review of the Creedal Imperative by Carl Trueman

creedalimperativeThe Creedal Imperative by Carl Trueman is vying for best book I’ve read in 2012. I found it compelling, engaging, and convincing, and I hope that many of those in the young, restless, and Reformed crowd reads it.

Trueman’s burden in the book is his “belief that creeds and confessions are vital to the present and future well-being of the church.” He makes a well-reasoned case for why we should have creeds and confessions, including the ongoing use of those from the past. Given that in my ordination vows I stated that I agreed the Westminster Standards contain the system of doctrine found in the Scriptures, I greatly appreciated his explanation of why it is important to have such creedal standards.

Perhaps the most important point that Trueman makes in the book is this: everyone has a creed or confession–but not all of them are written down. In his words:

I do want to make the point here that Christians are not divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who do not; rather, they are divided between those who have public creeds and confessions that are written down and exist as public documents, subject to public scrutiny, evaluation, and critique, and those who have private creeds and confessions that are often improvised, unwritten, and thus not open to public scrutiny, not susceptible to evaluation and, crucially and ironically, not, therefore, subject to testing by Scripture to see whether they are true.

In other words, when pastors say, “I just believe the Bible,” what they are really saying is that they hold a certain set of beliefs that cannot be publicly examined because they aren’t written down. This alone gives a pretty convincing case for why creeds and confessions should be written down: so that we can compare them carefully with Scripture to see if the doctrine contained in the confession is taught in Scripture.

The Creedal Imperative works systematically through the bases and arguments for confessionalism. In chapter one, Trueman analyzes why our contemporary culture (even evangelical culture) is skeptical about creeds and confessions, particularly older ones. His observations are insightful and instructive for the groundwork that may need to be laid in order for churches to begin to embrace creeds and confessions more today.

In chapter two, Trueman argues from Scripture itself that creeds and confessions are indeed a biblical idea anticipated by how Paul trained leaders in the early church. This is a powerful chapter, as Trueman anticipates arguments suggesting that creeds and confessions will reduce our commitment to sola Scriptura, arguing that instead creeds and confessions allow us to continually make sure that the “tradition” we pass down is in line with Scripture.

In chapter three, Trueman looks at the development of the earliest creeds in the church, such as the Apostles’ Creed and the creeds that came out of the early ecumenical councils. These are instructive as they represent the importance the early church attached to written summaries of Scripture’s teaching.

In chapter four, Trueman looks at classic Protestant confessions, such as the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession. I highly recommend this chapter, as it demonstrates not only the beauty of these confessions, but also the particular historical circumstances in which these confessions emerged. This is helpful as we consider the role of confessions in our own day and how they can continue to be used fruitfully.

In chapter five, Trueman tackles the relationship between confessions and praise. Contrary to the perhaps popular image of confessions as dry and dusty documents, he shows that they ought to lead to doxology. That is, while they teach truth, they are also meant to be used in leading us to worship, and so we ought not to present a bifurcated view of what we teach and how we praise our Savior.

In chapter six, Trueman explores further how creeds and confessions can be used profitably. The appendix is dedicated to discussing the writing of new creeds and amending of confessions.

Again, I highly recommend this work, as it is a much needed antidote to the common mindset that we “just believe the Bible” and so don’t care about what the church has produced in the past as summaries of Scriptural teaching.

Read More
%d bloggers like this: