Theological Views

These are my (Joe’s) theological views. You might say they are my theological persuasion. This is not a statement of faith as most websites have. If you want to know what I believe as the basic theology of the Bible, read the Westminster Confession of Faith, Westminster Larger Catechism, and Westminster Shorter Catechism. These are my views that flow out of my theology.

Many godly people have differing opinions on the following topics. Some things I would consider major and others minor. I offer them for three reasons. One, I let most anyone who wants to comment at this site. Just because someone comments here does not mean that they are on the same theological page as I am. In fact, we may be quite different. Two, I list on this site the other blogs I read. I use the word ‘read’ very intentionally. They are not blogs I have reviewed and recommend without reservation. I read them because I find some facet of them to encourage good thought along biblical lines. Third, this site is not my attempt to advocate some minority opinion. Nor is it my attempt to lobby against some minority opinion. This site is set up to bring honor and glory to Jesus Christ by considering the doctrines of grace, clearly expressed in the historic Reformed faith. Nothing about me, my theology, or this site is progressive. I am as theologically vanilla as you get. For these three reasons I’m offering my views that anyone who wishes may know where I stand on various and sundry theological issues that have faced and are facing Christ’s church.

Lastly, I offer these views that you might know about me. They are not offered to spur or ignite debate. The discussion of them on this site is solely up to my subjective whim.

Historically speaking my theology flows from the early church through Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, the Westminster Assembly, Scottish Presbyterianism, American Southern Presbyterianism, finding its terminus in my membership in the PCA.

My Theological Views (in no particular order)

  • I love the Westminster Confession of Faith and consider it to be the clearest expression of Biblical doctrine
  • I am a cessationist in terms of Biblical revelation and in terms the extraordinary gifts/offices of the early church
  • I believe in the regulative principle of worship
  • I do not believe that a woman may serve in the office of elder or deacon
  • I believe and practice inclusive hymnody (psalms and hymns in worship)
  • I am complimentarian in terms of gender roles within the family
  • I believe in 6, 24 hour days of creation (and hold a degree in biochemistry from the University of Virginia)
  • I am amillenial
  • I am Covenantal (not Dispensational)
  • I am a five point Calvinist
  • I believe Presbyterian church government to be the most biblical (not just the most practical)
  • I believe that justification in Christ alone is by double imputation
  • I am a paedo-baptist
  • I do not believe the Bible to teach paedo-communion
  • I am not a Theonomist nor do I believe in Christian reconstructionism
  • I have no sympathies with advocates of the New Perspective(s) on Paul
  • I have no sympathies with advocates of the Federal Vision

These are what describe me off the top of my head. I will add more as they come to mind.
I offer no apologies for any of it.

Responses

[...] Theological Views   [...]

By: A Note On Open Discussion « The Reformed Virginian on December 9, 2006
at 2:09 pm

Looks good! I’m credobaptist and premillenia, but otherwise I’m with you. I have a question, if you don’t mind, about Presbyterian church government. How does that compare to “elder rule”? Is it the same thing?

By: ThirstyDavid on December 9, 2006
at 3:28 pm

David,
I’ll admit as you did when I commented on your site, that I might not quite know what you mean by “elder rule”. If it is simple as, elders teach/preach and make the decisions for the church, then yes that is what I mean. Presbyterianism believes that Christ has entrusted individual believers with the responsibility to choose/elect elders to be their spiritual shepherds according to the requirements of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1. Then those elders function much like the political system of a representative democracy (rather than a pure democracy or a monarchy). Hope that helps. Maybe I’ll write a more complete post on it in the future.

By: The Reformed Virginian on December 9, 2006
at 9:50 pm

Yes, that’s basically what I mean. Thanks.

By: ThirstyDavid on December 9, 2006
at 10:26 pm

I will first add my $0.02 onThirsty David’s question. I am not in a presbyterian church, but I see “elder rule” as part of presbyterianism. The difference you may be after is the idea of a hierarchy over the local church which Prebyterianism adds and Baptists deride. When I see elements of the PCA (for example) called to account and rebuked for something like the Federal Vision, I see a definite strength to the Presbyterian form of governement that Babtists and Bible churches are sadly without.

Secondly, thanks Joe, for the open expression of your theological stance.

Thirdly, and of no real consequence, I will be adding your Blog to my blogroll.

By: Gomarus on December 11, 2006
at 2:43 pm

Jim,
Thanks for the elaboration. I did fail to leave that part out of “elder rule” and am somewhat embarrassed about it. The usual definition of Presbyterianism is congregation elected elders who serve in and are accountable to a system of graded courts (session, presbytery, General Assembly/Synod). Being an ordained PCA pastor, I love and need the accountability provided in the Presbyterian system.

Thanks for adding me to your blog roll. I happily send people your way as well.

By: The Reformed Virginian on December 11, 2006
at 2:58 pm

A Question withe regard to the WCF (and the LBCF for that matter). Can PCA pastors take exception to elements of the WCF as a matter of personal conviction?

For instance, I have seen some Reformed Baptist congregations take exception to identity of the Pope as the AntiChrist (WCF XXV.6) and the necessary election/salvation of mentally incompetent (WCF X.3), but then they are not under a church government hierarchy like presbyterians.

By: Gomarus on December 14, 2006
at 11:54 am

I can only speak for the PCA. We’ve adopted a system known as “good faith subscription.” A man coming for ordination is required to state any scruples/disagreements he has with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. It is then up to the specific Presbytery to decide if (1) his scruples actually are exceptions and (2) if they are exceptions that are tolerable. Below is the quote from our Book of Church Order on how specifically it is handled:
While our Constitution does not require the candidate’s affirmation of every statement and/or proposition of doctrine in our Confession of Faith and Catechisms, it is the right and responsibility of the Presbytery to determine if the candidate is out of accord with any of the fundamentals of these doctrinal standards and, as a consequence, may not be able in good faith sincerely to receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures (cf. BCO 21-5, Q.2; 24-5, Q.2). Therefore, in examining a candidate for ordination, the Presbytery shall inquire not only into the candidate’s knowledge and views in the areas specified above, but also shall require the candidate to state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their statements and/or propositions. The court may grant an exception to any difference of doctrine only if in the court’s judgment the candidate’s declared difference is not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine because the difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion.

By: The Reformed Virginian on December 14, 2006
at 2:02 pm

Thanks Joe. You’ve answered my question perfectly.

By: Gomarus on December 14, 2006
at 2:20 pm

Leave a response






Your response: