EcclesiologyDiscussion of Church Government, Polity and the like that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15)
__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology
"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor Oceanside URC The Heidelblog
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to R. Scott Clark For This Useful Post:
Excellent article. What do we make of those who refuse to submit to local church authority by not joining in membership? I wouldn't be so quick to jump on Cyprian's statement of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" as indicative of every situation, but it certainly has ramifications for those who are more militant in their position against the church. One thing that wasn't brought up in the article are those who have been harmed, spiritually and emotionally, within a church. Sometimes people are hurting and find refusing church membership a means of protecting themselves. Perhaps that is a minority. I certainly have met my share of individuals who hop from church to church, replete with opinions, but no desire to submit to the leadership of the church and the clear teaching of scripture. About these Cyprian's statement may ring true.
__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
1. If someone has been abused they should complain to a higher/broader assembly. If their polity doesn't include that, then they should go somewhere it does it exist. If a congregation is abusive the question arises: is it really a true church? I've seen cases where people were in a sect and were abused.
2. People are obligated to join a true church. There is no excuse for not joining a true church. If a sect or congregation is impenitently abusive that is no ground for not uniting with a true church; one doesn't quit breathing because of air pollution. One finds a filter or clean air or some way to adapt.
3. We ought to be pastorally sensitive to and patient those who have been abused just as we would be so with a person who was in an abusive personal relationship. That person needs shelter, protection, care etc. It takes time to recover from such abuse. I understand that, but, at some point one has to unite with a congregation. One cannot be endlessly wandering. That would almost as bad for their souls as the abusive congregation was.
4. I'm trying to figure out Deo valente. Did you mean Deo volente?
rsc
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist
Scott,
Excellent article. What do we make of those who refuse to submit to local church authority by not joining in membership? I wouldn't be so quick to jump on Cyprian's statement of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" as indicative of every situation, but it certainly has ramifications for those who are more militant in their position against the church. One thing that wasn't brought up in the article are those who have been harmed, spiritually and emotionally, within a church. Sometimes people are hurting and find refusing church membership a means of protecting themselves. Perhaps that is a minority. I certainly have met my share of individuals who hop from church to church, replete with opinions, but no desire to submit to the leadership of the church and the clear teaching of scripture. About these Cyprian's statement may ring true.
1. If someone has been abused they should complain to a higher/broader assembly. If their polity doesn't include that, then they should go somewhere it does it exist. If a congregation is abusive the question arises: is it really a true church? I've seen cases where people were in a sect and were abused.
2. People are obligated to join a true church. There is no excuse for not joining a true church. If a sect or congregation is impenitently abusive that is no ground for not uniting with a true church; one doesn't quit breathing because of air pollution. One finds a filter or clean air or some way to adapt.
3. We ought to be pastorally sensitive to and patient those who have been abused just as we would be so with a person who was in an abusive personal relationship. That person needs shelter, protection, care etc. It takes time to recover from such abuse. I understand that, but, at some point one has to unite with a congregation. One cannot be endlessly wandering. That would almost as bad for their souls as the abusive congregation was.
4. I'm trying to figure out Deo valente. Did you mean Deo volente?
rsc
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist
Scott,
Excellent article. What do we make of those who refuse to submit to local church authority by not joining in membership? I wouldn't be so quick to jump on Cyprian's statement of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" as indicative of every situation, but it certainly has ramifications for those who are more militant in their position against the church. One thing that wasn't brought up in the article are those who have been harmed, spiritually and emotionally, within a church. Sometimes people are hurting and find refusing church membership a means of protecting themselves. Perhaps that is a minority. I certainly have met my share of individuals who hop from church to church, replete with opinions, but no desire to submit to the leadership of the church and the clear teaching of scripture. About these Cyprian's statement may ring true.
Scott,
Thank you for pointing out the typo at the bottom of my signature. I had cut and paste it months ago from an article and assumed it was spelled correctly. It should be deo volente, "God willing." I shall correct it.
I don't disagree with the three points you listed above. I'm glad you added your third point. While there is no good reason not to join with a true church, we must be sensitive to those who have been abused. Of course abuse is the opinion of those hold to it. For every individual who has been genuinely abused there is one who refuses to submit to the teachings of the church, and therefore Christ. My only caution is that we don't paint with too wide a brush. Other than that I think we are agreed.
One side note: this instruction places a great burden on church officers wrt the regulative principle of church oversight. Because church members are not “free agents” the officers are duty bound to see that all they do is strictly in conformity to the Word of God.
We typically think of this in worship, but the principle extends to all ecclesiastical functions. The officers have no right to abuse the conscience of an individual member in the name of their authority, for it is, in fact, a derived authority from King Jesus. If they cannot say with all certainty "thus saith the Lord" then they ought not to speak or act.
__________________
Tom Albrecht
Member, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.
"I'm not a famous man. I'm just a simple country doctor with horse sense."
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to tcalbrecht For This Useful Post:
My answer is that prior to joining a Reformed congregation there is a good likelihood that you were not in a “true church” as confessed in Belgic Confession Art 29. In other words, what you left may have been congregations but, if they lacked the marks of a true church (the pure administration of the sacraments, the pure preaching of the gospel, the use of church discipline) then they were something other than a true church.
How would you recognize a true vs. a false non-reformed church? What constitutes pure administration of the sacraments and pure preaching of the gospel?
__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA
A reoccurring thought:
Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
From The Blog: If Cyprian and the Belgic Confession are correct, and “outside of the church there is no salvation” then these floating, nominal Christians are placing themselves in spiritual jeopardy."
First of all, let's be clear. The Belgic Confession of Faith does NOT teach that one has to be a member of a local particular church or they are in danger of going to hell. Justification is NOT based upon membership in a local church. This is Roman Catholicism, not Calvinism.
Justification is ONLY based upon the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed to the elect. The fact that we do not read about the necessity of local church membership in Article 23 of the Belgic Confession Of Faith only demonstrates that R. Scott Clark has misunderstood Articles 27-29.
You might hear the pope make such an absurd claim when he visits the U.S., but you will not find this view in Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Monty, Scott is NOT saying that justification depends on church membership. I don't want to speak for Scott, but what he seems to be saying is that those who are elect will be part of a local church. Refusal to submit to local church authority is not the hallmark of a believer. I was careful to bring up times when an individual may balk at being a member of a church. Scott concured.
The Following User Says Thank You to North Jersey Baptist For This Useful Post:
Actually Luther often submitted to church authority by appearing at various trials to answer the allegations against him. He also sought the opinion and advice of his advisor (Johann von Staupitz) and even respected the pope's judgment for a time.
Luther like many of the other reformers only cast off the authority of Rome when it was clear that they rejected Christ's authority speaking through the word.
On another note, Luther rejected groups such as the Anabaptists who themselves rejected all authority in favor of libertarian independency.
__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA Church Blog
"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ" Belgic Confession, Article 26
Speaking of the Westminster Confession of Faith, it has this to say about membership in the visible church:
WCF 25.2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;b and of their children:c and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,d the house and family of God,e out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.f
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Beetle
From The Blog: If Cyprian and the Belgic Confession are correct, and “outside of the church there is no salvation” then these floating, nominal Christians are placing themselves in spiritual jeopardy."
First of all, let's be clear. The Belgic Confession of Faith does NOT teach that one has to be a member of a local particular church or they are in danger of going to hell. Justification is NOT based upon membership in a local church. This is Roman Catholicism, not Calvinism.
Justification is ONLY based upon the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed to the elect. The fact that we do not read about the necessity of local church membership in Article 23 of the Belgic Confession Of Faith only demonstrates that R. Scott Clark has misunderstood Articles 27-29.
You might hear the pope make such an absurd claim when he visits the U.S., but you will not find this view in Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the ‘old dead orthodoxy,’ and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they ‘differ from it only in words.’ This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. Samuel Miller, Introductory essay, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (1841).
From The Blog: If Cyprian and the Belgic Confession are correct, and “outside of the church there is no salvation” then these floating, nominal Christians are placing themselves in spiritual jeopardy."
First of all, let's be clear. The Belgic Confession of Faith does NOT teach that one has to be a member of a local particular church or they are in danger of going to hell. Justification is NOT based upon membership in a local church. This is Roman Catholicism, not Calvinism.
Be careful what you accuse Prof. Clark of, RB. He did not claim that justification is by local church membership. Neither he, nor the Belgic, nor the Westminster Confession teaches those things. They all speak, however, with one voice - saying that it is EXTREMELY ABNORMAL for a person who is in Christ to be outside the membership of a local congregation and submitting (a la 1 Peter) to the eldership of that congregation for their spiritual edification and care. If you carefully read these documents, you'll see that they state merely that there is no "ORDINARY" possibility of salvation. Obviously there will be extreme cases, which these confessional documents allow for - but if one is a professing Christian, it is expected that membership in a local body will be sought out. To steadfastly refuse to join a church is problematic, and is a dangerous road to take.
Quote:
Justification is ONLY based upon the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed to the elect. The fact that we do not read about the necessity of local church membership in Article 23 of the Belgic Confession Of Faith only demonstrates that R. Scott Clark has misunderstood Articles 27-29.
You might hear the pope make such an absurd claim when he visits the U.S., but you will not find this view in Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
As has already been pointed out, the Westminster Confession and the Belgic are univocal on the issue of local membership.
__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA http://semperubi.rtrc.net
"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)
"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to fredtgreco For This Useful Post:
Which perfectly compliments the Great Commission which plainly implies that a disciple is one who is:
a) Baptized
b) Taught everything that Christ has commanded
__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan
WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site. SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion
Gordon H. Clark correctly states, "Then too, the universal church is invisible because it does not coincide with the membership rolls of the several visible churches. Some people whose names are on the rolls are not Christians; and some Christians are not members of any visible church. The word church itself (ecclesia) is derived from the verb to call or to call out. It refers to the called, the chosen, the elect. The catholic Church then is the aggregate of all whom God has predestined to eternal life."
(What Do Presbyterians Believe, Chapter 25, page 219)
Clark continues, "The invisible Church, or more accurately a part of it, becomes the visible church as those who confess Christ, together with their children, are organized into congregations."
(Ibid., page 220)
Let the invisible Church be (A)
Let the visible church be (B)
Notice,
some (A) is not (B)
and
some (B) is not (A)
Also,
All (A) who profess the true faith is (B) (regardless if they have joined a local church or not)
However,
Some (B) is not (A) (regardless if they have joined a local church or not)
A person's assurance should not be based upon being a member of (B), but one can know if they are a member of (A)--if they believe the Gospel (Acts 13:48).
So again, our Justification is not based upon being a member of (B). Judas was a member of (B) and it did him no good. Because (B) is not part of our basis for Justification, we can refuse to join, or even depart from, local congregations, presbyteries, or even entire denominiations claiming to be part of (B), but actually are not. Luther is the example I used above, but one could easily leave or refuse to join any OPC/PCA church which supports Federal Vision as well. Finally, no one has to submit to local church authority when it departs from Scripture Alone. One can even be excommunicated and still be a member of (A). Luther is also an example of this.
Last edited by Red Beetle; 04-09-2008 at 12:17 PM.
Gordon H. Clark correctly states, "Then too, the universal church is invisible because it does not coincide with the membership rolls of the several visible churches. Some people whose names are on the rolls are not Christians; and some Christians are not members of any visible church. The word church itself (ecclesia) is derived from the verb to call or to call out. It refers to the called, the chosen, the elect. The catholic Church then is the aggregate of all whom God has predestined to eternal life."
(What Do Presbyterians Believe, Chapter 25, page 219)
Clark continues, "The invisible Church, or more accurately a part of it, becomes the visible church as those who confess Christ, together with their children, are organized into congregations."
(Ibid., page 220)
Let the invisible Church be (A)
Let the visible church be (B)
Notice,
some (A) is not (B)
and
some (B) is not (A)
Also,
All (A) who profess the true faith is (B) (regardless if they have joined a local church or not)
However,
Some (B) is not (A) (regardless if they have joined a local church or not)
A person's assurance should not be based upon being a member of (B), but one can know if they are a member of (A)--if they believe the Gospel (Acts 13:48).
So again, our Justification is not based upon being a member of (B). Judas was a member of (B) and it did him no good. Because (B) is not part of our basis for Justification, we can refuse to join, or even depart from, local congregations, presbyteries, or even entire denominiations claiming to be part of (B), but actually are not. Luther is the example I used above, but one could easily leave or refuse to join any OPC/PCA church which supports Federal Vision as well. Finally, no one has to submit to local church authority when it departs from Scripture Alone. One can even be excommunicated and still be a member of (A). Luther is also the an example of this.
You've apparently misinterpreted everything that's been said in this thread. Nobody claims that one has to submit to authority when authority commands you to sin. Nobody has said you have to submit to authority when they teach false doctrine. Nobody has said that you can't be saved if you're not a member of a local church. Nobody has said that your justification rests on that membership. Nobody has said, in fact, any of the strange things you have put in their mouths (or into their keyboards, rather). You're fighting imaginary foes. Your hyperbole isn't needed. I'd suggest you take another look at what people actually wrote rather than complain about the strawmen you've been assembling.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to toddpedlar For This Useful Post:
