Another implication or inference from all of our foregoing arguments is this:
Subscribing to a creed or
confession is not a mere formality. It is a very solemn transaction, full of
meaning, and inferring the most serious obligation. It ought to be entered upon
the deep deliberation on prayer. Is there any sin more egregious than lying to
the Holy Spirit? In other words, it is dishonesty and insincerity in the
highest degree to seek membership in the church, or admission to her ministry,
by knowingly harboring doctrines which are diametrically opposed to the
doctrine to the church which is admitting you to membership ordaining you to
ministry.
In all the forms of
subscription used by churches that require it of their ministers, there are two parts. There is an affirmation that the minister will believe and affirm the
doctrines contained in that church's confession of faith. But there is also a second part. The minister must also affirm that he will not oppose the doctrines
contained in the church's confession of faith. In many cases, it seems that
only the second part of the subscription has any force. I think it is
clear though, that if we were to take this principle to the test of reason, to
the test of Scripture, and the test of the original design of the confessions,
it is horribly deficient. How can it be adequate to simply not teach error?
How can it be acceptable and sufficient to simply not oppose one's own creed
and confession of faith? If that minister were to practice this form of
reasoning in a court of law, he would be deemed guilty of perjury. It is not
enough to simply not speak against truth; a minister must proclaim the truth of
the gospel as he sees it. In a minister must have the decency to relinquish his
position of leadership in the church when the attaining and maintaining of that
leadership hinges upon subscription to that church's articles of faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment