Insubordinate submission

Having lost the argument with David Houston and me, Drake Shelton tries to change the subject:

They have no complete theory of philosophy, they have no explanation of God, no explanation with reference to participation in God, no explanation of the Trinity, and no explanation of how humanity and divinity unite in Christ.

Given Drake’s negligible knowledge of my extensive blogging over the years, he’s in no position to make that sweeping statement. But he’s not the kind of guy to let ignorance get in the way of conviction.

BTW, isn’t it a tad egotistical for a young seminary dropout to brag about his “complete theory of philosophy”, and so on and  so forth?

If that was not enough they do not even acknowledge the authority of the Church in history to interpret the Scripture and bind men’s conscience to it.

i) Since I don’t subscribe to the infallibility of “the Church,” I don’t issue “the Church” a blank check to bind the conscience of Christians. As C. S. Lewis put it, “to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but also to what he is going to say.”

ii) But does Drake practice his own advice? For instance, Drake is vehemently opposed to double procession. Yet double procession is certainly the way the Western church traditionally interpreted Scripture.  So why doesn’t Drake submit to the authority of the church in history when it interprets the Bible to teach double procession?

iii) And, of course, this goes to a fatal equivocation in Drake’s statement. What church is he referring to?

The whole idea of Church discipline is that we are answerable to fallible men. If he’s not answerable to the Nicene Fathers what keeps him from saying the same thing about his current church authorities? I have argued that I am in a separated state because I acknowledge the lawful authority of the Nicene Creed and the authority of a number of Scottish Church courts and the contemporary churches in my area refuse to submit to them. That’s not independency. I am answerable to those Church courts as being lawful before God.

That claim is peculiar on several grounds:

i) What’s the lawful authority of the Nicene creed? Doesn’t that include the lawful authority of Emperor Constantine?

ii) Drake artificially excerpts the Nicene creed from the Nicene council. But can you detach the authority of the Nicene creed from the authority of the council which produced it? What about the canons of the Nicene council. Does Drake acknowledge the lawful authority of the Nicene canons? For instance:

CANON XII.

As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them. But those who take [the matter] with indifference, and who think the form of [not] entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfil the whole time.

CANON XIII.

CONCERNING the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But, if any one should be restored to health again who has received the communion when his life was despaired of, let him remain among those who communicate in prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist, let the Bishop, after examination made, give it him.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

And what about conciliar canons of other ecumenical councils like, say, Chalcedon. Does Drake aknowledge the authority of this conciliar canon?

CANON XVI.

It is not lawful for a virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord God, nor for monks, to marry; and if they are found to have done this, let them be excommunicated.

http://www.reformation.org/chalcedon_complete_text.html

iii) If Drake acknowledges the lawful authority of the Nicene Fathers, does he also acknowledge the lawful authority of Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople? Why does he acknowledge the lawful authority of the Nicene Fathers, but refuse to acknowledge the lawful authority of the Westminster Divines?

By whose authority does he distinguish one claimant from another?

iv) Drake used to belong to the Free Church of Scotland. What make it a free church? That stands in contrast to the established Church of Scotland. By Drake’s yardstick, wasn’t he a member of a schismatic denomination? Was the Free Church of Scotland in submission to the lawful authority of the established church?

v) As far as church discipline is concerned, don’t you have to belong to some local church or denomination for their elders to be your elders? Are elders freelance agents? Are Christian laymen under the lawful authority of elders from every denomination under the sun?

If the Nicene Fathers are Drake’s elders, what about Innocent III, Boniface VIII, Alexander VI, Leo X, Pius IX, or Benedict XVI?

What about Archbishop Rowan Williams? Or the president of the SBC?

vi) Is Drake really in submission to Scottish church courts? Consider his recent letter of resignation, where he said:

What I am saying is that the Westminster Confession of Faith’s doctrines of Simplicity, the Filioque, and its view of Epistemology and Metaphysics are not Christian and that I cannot come into communion or sustain a communion with those who hold to these doctrines unless I am convinced otherwise.

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/my-letter-of-separation-from-the-free-church-of-scotland-cont-by-drake/

vii) Does it sound to you like he’s answerable to his then-current church authorities? Sounds to me like he thinks his then-current church elders are answerable to him. Isn’t he issuing an ultimatum? Take it or leave it? Is that submissive? Is he holding himself accountable to his elders?

viii) Moreover, he accuses the American affiliate (of the Free Church of Scotland) of refusing to submit to the mother church because the American affiliate adheres to the Westminster Standards on divine simplicity, the Filioque, as well as metaphysics and epistemology. In other words, the American affiliate is not in lawful submission to the mother church because the American affiliate is too Confessional.

But I thought the Westminster Confession was the doctrinal standard for the Free Church of Scotland. So how can the American affiliate be insubordinate if it subscribes to the doctrinal standard of the parent denomination?

ix) Furthermore, in what sense is Drake in lawful submission to Scottish church courts when, by his own admission, his position on a whole host of issues is explicitly contra-Confessional? Do the Scottish church courts share his repudiation of the Westminster Standards?

If this is his notion of lawful submission, I’d hate to see his notion of insubordination.

Drake is one confused puppy.