Disagreement with AOF
In a recent discussion I was asked, “If someone disagrees with your church’s articles of faith (AOF), can you say then they also disagree with the scripture?” There's a lot to ponder in that interesting question and it requires some unpacking to do it justice. Consider the following…
Establishing the Standard
Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) is the world standard for timekeeping. For the sake of this example, let’s pretend it is both inspired and inerrant. If your Apple Watch is synced to GMT then it should be in full agreement with the standard. If at midday you declare, “It’s noon. Time to eat!” and someone responds, “Slow down, Catfish, it’s only 11:55,” you might say, “It isn’t according to my watch.” This declaration does not establish your Apple Watch as the authoritative standard for keeping time. It merely expresses the belief that your Apple Watch is an accurate representation of the time. GMT is the standard; the Apple Watch is not. Using your watch as a proxy for GMT does not alter that fact, but it does demonstrate your confidence in the presuppositions that lead you to believe that your watch is an accurate representation of GMT. Those presuppositions include things like…
My watch is running properly.
It is in sync with the GMT database.
It has not been hacked.
I have not misread it.
Each of these presuppositions reveal an opportunity for variance between your Apple Watch and the GMT standard. They explain precisely why the Apple Watch can never be the standard.
CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT
Moving to the cited example, someone might say, “They disagree with our articles of faith, so they disagree with scripture.” But what do they mean by that?
If they mean, “I believe that our articles of faith (AOF) are a faithful representation of the bible’s teaching, therefore disagreeing with them is disagreeing with the bible,” then it seems they are casually using AOF as a proxy for the bible. This is sloppy language, but it is likely the sort of slop we often serve in casual speech. If we are to be technical, clear, and correct about it, then we should rather say, “They do not agree with the bible’s statement <verse here>” and consider any disagreement with the AOF as secondary.
If they mean, “I believe that our extra-biblical AOF are the standard by which truth is measured,” then they have any overly exalted view of the role and utility of their AOF.
If they mean, “Our AOF are infallible and all members must believe them prior to joining with the Lord’s church,” then they have an inflated view of their AOF and of the doctrinal orthodoxy possessed by the garden variety gospel convert.
Those non-controversial affirmations are supplied here for the sake of clarity and to demonstrate that the statement under consideration might be reasonably interpreted in different ways by different folks.
Clarifying Questions Regarding AOF Authority
A few questions might help us consider the matter of AOF “authority” further:
1. What is the minimal AOF standard that must be adhered to for church membership?
2. Where is this minimal standard defined in the AOF?
3. Where is this minimal standard invoked in the scriptures as a gate to membership?
4. What is the minimal AOF agreement standard for church fellowship?
5. Where is this standard invoked in the scriptures?
6. How many gospel converts are orthodox Trinitarians at the time of their baptism?
7. How many of them understand eternal sonship?
Troublesome questions of this sort could be multiplied. The implication seems clear: extra-biblical AOF’s cannot bear the weight that some place upon them. Where the matter of church membership is involved, I believe ministers make judgment calls based on varied circumstances such as age and state of mind. Moreover, we are accountable for the calls we make. We should approach the matter prayerfully and with reverential fear, acknowledging that the alternative of using AOF as an unyielding standard for membership and fellowship will find us hoisted on our own petard as demonstrated by the difficulty in consistently navigating the aforementioned questions.
More Vexing Questions
Stated another way, those who believe that Primitive Baptist Articles of Faith are a non-negotiable, minimum standard for membership and inter-church fellowship must confront their allegiance to that principle as it relates to navigating several additional troublesome questions:
1. Have you explicitly examined membership candidates regarding their knowledge and understanding of every article of your church’s AOF as a prerequisite to baptism?
2. If so, what is the scriptural warrant for that practice?
3. How many church members could explain your AOF?
4. Should those who cannot be excluded?
5. Must two churches have precisely the same AOF to be in fellowship?
6. What degree of variance between AOF is permissible to maintain fellowship?
7. Who is the arbiter of the permissible degree of variance and where is it defined in scripture?
Some might dismiss those questions as ridiculous but if we insist that our AOFs are a required minimum standard for baptism, church membership, and church fellowship, then those questions become unavoidable. To ignore them is to tacitly admit that the matter is inconveniently knotty. At a minimum it seems inevitable that to answer them in a manner consistent with the “AOF Minimum Standard” position would likewise reveal a disturbing lack of conformity to that standard among our people.
At the end of the day, God-called shepherds of the flock are making, managing, and are accountable for judgment calls with respect to baptismal candidates and church membership, irrespective of our views on the utility of AOFs.
May God grant us wisdom in such matters, even as he promised he shall (James 1:5).
- Elder Daniel Samons