Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis  Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer Anthony, As you have noted, the difference in interpretation is really a matter of different ecclesiology. From the regenerate church membership POV, Perkins' statement would be unacceptable. But even from this POV there are those who profess faith and are baptised who are regarded as "elect," but who afterwards demonstrate signs of reprobation. The Presbyterian mixed congregation POV consistently maintains that we cannot know the hearts of men, but treat them according to what they profess. Blessings! | 
This is the false dilemna posed by many Baptists who face the same problem as the Presbyterians.
I think the fundamental difference going forward is that Presbyterians acknowledge the obvious distinction between visible and invisible up front in their theology. They don't pretend as if the Church has knowledge of the invisible in the administration of means.
Seriously, all Baptists do is move the ball down the field a bit and try to convince themselves that, by profession, they have somehow avoided the dilemna of a mixed Body. I think the fact that they view their process as "tighter" than the Presbyterians allows them to focus too much on criticizing another's view of the visible/invisible distinction rather than realistically assessing whether or not they've gained what they believe they have gained by making profession the gold standard.
In my estimation, if a perfectly regenerate visible Church is the goal in the administration of the CoG then both Baptists and Presbyterians fail. Presbyterians don't set that goal and I don't believe the Scriptures do either. We can agree all day long on the necessity of God's election before the foundation of the world that a man would receive Evangelical faith but that still doesn't get us beyond the fact that the Church acts in history and doesn't act according to the hidden things of God.
When push comes to shove, every Baptist ends up agreeing with and acting exactly like Perkins' quote above except they make the basis of that judgement of charity the profession of a man. Ishmael wasn't an infant when he was circumcised. |
Rich,
Of course there is agreement to some extent that the problem of unregenerate persons who assemble among the true church, is a problem that any congregation must deal with. All acknowledge that the language of scripture forces each congregation and the elders to seek to warn,and if need be exercise some form of church discipline.
Our confessions also speak to this issue.
You said this;
Quote:
|
In my estimation, if a perfectly regenerate visible Church is the goal in the administration of the CoG then both Baptists and Presbyterians fail.
|
I do not know that perfection is the goal, as much as a faithful proclamation of the gospel and the eternal purpose of God in calling His elect out out the world . God adds the members to the body.This fact is revealed , not secret. The certain reprobation of covenant breakers is also a revealed truth, not secret.
You also made this statement;
Quote:
|
I think the fundamental difference going forward is that Presbyterians acknowledge the obvious distinction between visible and invisible up front in their theology.
|
Clearly the historically reformed churches use this man made distinction.I say man made because I see the language of scripture addressing this whole problem with much clearer language than you will be comfortable with,for example-
4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men,
8Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
12These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
This description in Jude is given in contrast to verse one which says this-
Quote:
|
1Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
|
These ungodly reprobates are not;
1] sanctified by God the Father
2]preserved in Jesus Christ
3]and called
The new testament makes a much clearer distinction because of the nature of the New Covenant. The Elect church is addressed. Reprobates, false brethren, are warned on this we agree. Only the elect church can welcome the scripture savingly. False brethren are sometimes removed by discipline,and others by the reaping angels on the last day.
Also this last part of your post said;
Quote:
|
that still doesn't get us beyond the fact that the Church acts in history and doesn't act according to the hidden things of God
|
The church does act in history- as God works in and through it. The plowing of the wicked is sin however, whether they assemble among the church,or not and they like Alexander the coppersmith will be judged according to his evil works.
Although I have over time come to see how you seek to maintain the logic of the system as it has been taught- external administration/external and temporary benefits- I think it is much more difficult to square all the elements of systematic theology with that view of Who, and What constitutes the church.
It seems as if this view of a major distinction in the CoR, CoG opens the door for the Fv,and NPP people to draw away people from your assemblies. It does not seem to be as sharp a distinction made in your circles.
I am just saying this as an observation.I do not in anyway suggest or say this , as if I take any comfort or pleasure in any person being led away from truth. Obviously most all the persons in here see the danger and turn from it . In Reformed Baptist circles I am concerned that some do not even know really what is at issue , or why it is even a danger which I find even more disturbing
Is this also an issue in most Presbyterian churches also? Does the average member struggle with these issues, or because they are given more instruction on the covenant's that they more readily see the danger?
