Is a (credo) Baptist Church a false church, because of the t

[Me Died Blue]

[quote:cd48aa780b][i:cd48aa780b]Originally posted by Craig[/i:cd48aa780b]
I thinkly only some Reformed churches actually hold to Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper...I think we'd be left with only Dutch Reformed churches and certain Presbyterian churches as "true" churches if that's the conclusion. BTW- my church holds to a Zwinglian view of the Lord's Supper.

Don't worry Pastorway, I'm in a false church too [/quote:cd48aa780b]

Craig, in the case of this discussion, the grounds Matt is using for determining the "validity" of a church is not the issue of the sacraments, but that of ecclesiology. Actually, he didn't even make the distinction based on paedo- or credo-baptism, but rather on Presbyterian or Independent church polity. It has to do with whether or not ministers and elders have biblical warrant to consider their ordination valid, and whether the Bible really gives them "permission" to be ordained as they were. Go here for a full discussion of that issue: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4894.

[quote:cd48aa780b][i:cd48aa780b]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:cd48aa780b]
I find this thread almost unbearably sad. Surely it should be possible for Christians to debate vigorously with one another without calling one another a false church. As one who began his Christian life in the Brethren, this sounds to me much too much like the Exclusives![/quote:cd48aa780b]

Labeling a church a false church need not be made a personally offensive issue, for it is purely doctrinal. The Bible sets certain standards for the external, institutional church in terms of representing the invisible, eternal church, and it is perfectly valid (indeed, necessary) to discuss whether or not certain church forms and doctrines today fulfill those standards. I get annoyed when people on this Board take statements that are [i:cd48aa780b]purely doctrinal[/i:cd48aa780b] in nature and try to personalize them.

[quote:cd48aa780b][i:cd48aa780b]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:cd48aa780b]
Obviously, it would be possible for Baptists to throw the charge right back at the Presbyterians. From our point of view Paedo-baptists do not administer the ordinances correctly. But what is the value of this sort of abuse? How does it advance the cause of the Church?
[/quote:cd48aa780b]

Indeed, Baptists can (and I would say [i:cd48aa780b]should[/i:cd48aa780b]) rightly put us Presbyterians to the same test that we put them, and discuss whether or not our order and doctrine fulfill the biblical requirements for a true church as they see it. We should not compromise our beliefs for the sake of theological "political correctness," but should take our beliefs with their necessary implications. And in terms of church form and doctrine, this includes the analysis of the "validity" of other churches based on our paradigm of biblical standards.

In Christ,

 

[Dan....]

[quote:41e84168c2]
What does "true branches" mean?
[/quote:41e84168c2]


It does not define the term "true branch". However, considering the structure of the sentence, the definition would necessarily be inclusive of "[i:41e84168c2]all of these which maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity[/i:41e84168c2]"


[quote:41e84168c2]
Do they mean those lawfully called?
Do they mean those lawfully ordained?
[/quote:41e84168c2]

First, could you point me to where the BCO (or Westminster Standards) defines "lawfully called" and "lawfully ordained"?

Second, if we were to presume your definition of "lawfully called and lawfully ordained", (so far as I have correctly understood your use of the terms) then, "true branches" would be inclusive of those "lawfully called" and "lawfully ordained", but would not be exclusive to those alone.


[quote:41e84168c2]
Its sounds to me, though, that they are advocating tolerance, and independency by the statement.
[/quote:41e84168c2]

So you admit that your view of what constitutes a true church may indeed be in opposition to the established position of your denomination?


[quote:41e84168c2]
Dan, quote for us out of the BCO the section on what it takes to constitute a particular church and then we can compare that with you quoted above.
[/quote:41e84168c2]

4-1 : [i:41e84168c2]A particular church consists of a number of professing Christians, with their children, associated together for divine worship and godly living, agreeable to the Scriptures, and submitting to the lawful government of Christ's kingdom.[/i:41e84168c2]

 

[Reena Wilms]

Dear Math,

You wrote :
"Ralph, with what you understand thus far, why don't you come up with a definition of "false church." I think that would be helpful all around. How would you, in the context of this thread, define the word "false?"


Math you have to know that iam just new with the reformed doctrine, and when this friend was saying that a baptist church is a false church, i ask him the same question, if he meant that i would than be a synagoge of satan. And he said ; " Yes it is synagoge of satan, but in that synagoge of satan are true believers ". So that is why i was asking that, so he make the relationship of false church with synagoge of satan.

Iam sorry if i ask questions out of context, but iam very confused about this, and i hope that through you and other memebers of the baord i might learn more about this.

Regards,

Ralph

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Ralph, I hope my post did not come off too hard to you, I was merely asking you to help us in defining the term. In the course of the conversation a good definition of what we might all gree on would be most helpful.

Dan -

I agree with you, considering the nature of the sentence, it seem to make that implication. But then, when we read the other part I asked you to post, it says, "and submitting to the lawful government of Christ's kingdom." That is contradictory if they is what they meant in the first section.

[quote:40001eb613]So you admit that your view of what constitutes a true church may indeed be in opposition to the established position of your denomination? [/quote:40001eb613]

Yes Dan, I am disagreeing with the PCA's BCO if that is what they mean.


[quote:40001eb613]
if we were to presume your definition of "lawfully called and lawfully ordained", (so far as I have correctly understood your use of the terms) then, "true branches" would be inclusive of those "lawfully called" and "lawfully ordained", but would not be exclusive to those alone.
[/quote:40001eb613]

Yes, that would be right.


[quote:40001eb613]
could you point me to where the BCO (or Westminster Standards) defines "lawfully called" and "lawfully ordained"?
[/quote:40001eb613]

Westminster Standards: The Form of Presbyterian Chruch Government

Of Ordination of Ministers.
UNDER the head of Ordination of Ministers is to be considered, either the doctrine of ordination, or the power of it.

Touching the Doctrine of Ordination.

NO man ought to take upon him the office of a minister of the word without a [b:40001eb613]lawful calling.[/b:40001eb613]

Ordination is always to be continued in the church.

Ordination is the solemn setting apart of a person to some publick church office.

[b:40001eb613]Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong.[/b:40001eb613]

It is agreeable to the word of God, and very expedient, that such as are to be ordained ministers, be designed to some particular church, or other ministerial charge.

He that is to be ordained minister, must be duly qualified, both for life and ministerial abilities, according to the rules of the apostle.

He is to be examined and approved by those by whom he is to be ordained.

No man is to be ordained a minister for a particular congregation, if they of that congregation can shew just cause of exception against him.


Touching the Power of Ordination.
ORDINATION is the act of a presbytery.

The power of ordering the whole work of ordination is in the whole presbytery, which, when it is over more congregations than one, whether these congregations be fixed or not fixed, in regard of officers or members, it is indifferent as to the point of ordination.

[b:40001eb613]It is very requisite, that no single congregation, that can conveniently associate, do assume to itself all and sole power in ordination:[/b:40001eb613]

1. Because there is no example in scripture that any single congregation, which might conveniently associate, did assume to itself all and sole power in ordination; neither is there any rule which may warrant such a practice.

2. Because there is in scripture example of an ordination in a presbytery over divers congregations; as in the church of Jerusalem, where were many congregations: these many congregations were under one presbytery , and this presbytery did ordain.

The preaching presbyters orderly associated, either in cities or neighbouring villages, are those to whom the imposition of hands doth appertain, for those congregations within their bounds respectively.

Concerning the Doctrinal Part of Ordination of Ministers.
1. No man ought to take upon him the office of a minister of the word without [b:40001eb613]a lawful calling.[/b:40001eb613]

2. Ordination is always to be continued in the church.

3. Ordination is the solemn setting apart of a person to some publick church office.

[b:40001eb613]4. Every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by these preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong.[/b:40001eb613]

5. The power of ordering the whole work of ordination is in the whole presbytery, which, when it is over more congregations than one, whether those congregations be fixed or not fixed, in regard of officers or members, it is indifferent as to the point of ordination.

6. It is agreeable to the word, and very expedient, that such as are to be ordained ministers be designed to some particular church, or other ministerial charge.

7. He that is to be ordained minister, must be duly qualified, both for life and ministerial abilities, according to the rules of the apostle.

8. He is to be examined and approved by those by whom he is to be ordained.

9. No man is to be ordained a minister for a particular congregation, if they of that congregation can shew just cause of exception against him.

10. Preaching presbyters orderly associated, either in cities or neighbouring villages, are those to whom the imposition of hands doth appertain, for those congregations within their bounds respectively.

11. [b:40001eb613]In extraordinary cases[/b:40001eb613], something extraordinary may be done, until a settled order may be had, yet keeping as near as possibly may be to the rule.

12. There is at this time (as we humbly conceive) an extraordinary occasion for a way of ordination for the present supply of ministers.

Of Church-Government, and the several sorts of Assemblies for the same.

Christ hath instituted a government, and governors ecclesiastical in the church: to that purpose, the apostles did immediately receive the keys from the hand of Jesus Christ, and did use and exercise them in all the churches of the world upon all occasions.

And Christ hath since continually furnished some in his church with gifts of government, and with commission to execute the same, when called thereunto.

It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that the church be governed by several sorts of assemblies, which are congregational, classical, and synodical.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[quote:1653237355]
Math you have to know that iam just new with the reformed doctrine, and when this friend was saying that a baptist church is a false church, i ask him the same question, if he meant that i would than be a synagoge of satan. And he said ; " Yes it is synagoge of satan, but in that synagoge of satan are true believers ". So that is why i was asking that, so he make the relationship of false church with synagoge of satan.
[/quote:1653237355]

Ralph, your friend is making an error between schism and heresy - he is thinking about the two as exactly the same, and that in itself is an error.

You cannot call a visible professing body of "disciples" a synagogue of Satan unless they are denying the cardinal doctrines of the faith (i.e. deity of Christ, Trinity, etc).

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Dan, for the BCO, some ideas that may be of help:

17-2. Ordination is the authoritative admission of one duly called to an office in the Church of God, accompanied with prayer and the laying on of hands, to which it is proper to add the giving of the right hand of fellowship.

18-2. Every applicant for the ministry must put himself under the care of Presbytery, which should ordinarily be the Presbytery that has jurisdiction of the church of which he is a member. The endorsement of his Session must be given to the Presbytery, consisting of testimonials regarding his Christian character and promise of usefulness in the ministry. The endorsement should also describe the activities of ministry the applicant has participated in with brief evaluation.

18-4. The candidate continues to be a private member of the church and subject to the jurisdiction of the Session, but as respects his preparatory training for the ministry he is under the oversight of the Presbytery.

8-4. As the Lord has given different gifts to men and has committed to some special gifts and callings, [b:8fed2abb1a]the Church[/b:8fed2abb1a] is authorized to call and appoint some to labor as teaching elders in such works as may be needful to the Church.

 

[Reena Wilms]

Dear Math,

Can you please explain me the difference between schism and heresy ? And you also give me some advise how to go in coversion with him ?

Your help would be apreciatte!

Ralph

 

[Saiph]

Fred:

[quote:684bb92fb4]
I would like to hear from someone who acknowledges Roman baptism as valid. (I don't remember if Matthew does) I would be shocked if Rome was considered more of a true church than a baptist church.
[/quote:684bb92fb4]

I acknowledge Roman Baptism as valid.

All that is necessary is The name of the Trinity, and water.

It is the ritual alone, lest we fall into donatism.

I do NOT consider Rome MORE of a true church than a baptist congregation.

I consider an Orthodox Church more valid than both though.

When it comes to understanding the sacraments, that is . . .

 

[Me Died Blue]

Mark,

Out of curiosity, I want to understand your perspective, so here's a hypothetical situation: A man and wife don't believe in church, but think that it's up to each family to grow in God and raise their children to do the same. But they also happen to believe in paedobaptism, and so in the hospital the day the baby is born, the father sprinkles water on the baby, verbally proclaiming that he is baptizing that he is baptizing the baby in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Would you consider that baptism valid?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Schism basically means "separation." Schism can happen in this case for two reasons:

1) The viewpoint someone believes is heretical. so they leave the orthodox camp based on a heretical notion (i.e. the Montanists believed "X" so they depart from the Christian church to continue propagating "X&quot.

2) The viewpoint someone has is in error, but is not heretical (damning). In this instance, it is about church polity and government. An independent goes his own way, starts a new "Church" (capital "C&quot, and differs on a non-essential for salvation (i.e. he believes that ordination is not part of a presbyterial government.)

Your friend needs to see the difference between these two things: Schism that leads to damnation (heresy) and schism that divides the body of Christ unnecessarily (error).

 

[Scott Bushey]

Chris,
If you and Mark want to further this portion of your discussion, let me know and I will split the thread so that the topic does not get derailed........

Thanks,
Scott

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Scot,

Here is a partial bibliography of things on the CD collection that talk about this topic, which I have been pouring over:

________________

Gangreana: or a Catalogue and Discovery of many of the Errors, Heresies, Blasphemies and pernicious practices of the Sectaries of this time, vented and acted in England in these four last years. By Thomas Edwards

Antapologia, or a full answer of the Apologetical Narration of Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Sympson, Mr. Burroughs, Mr. Bridge, members of the Assembly of Divines, by Thomas Edwards

The Casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan, or a Treatise against Toleration and pretended Liberty of Conscience, by Thomas Edwards

Reasons Against the Independent Government of Particular congregations, by Thomas Edwards

The Review of some Reflections made by the Nameless Author Upon Dr. Crisp's Sermons, by Thomas Edwards

A copy of Remonstrance, The Answer of the Assembly of Divines by Authority of Parliament Now Sitting At Westminster Unto the Reasons given in to this Assembly by the Dissenting Brethren, London, Printed by John Field, 1645.

Certain Consideration to Dissuade Men form further gathering of Churches in this present juncture of time subscribed by the diverse Divines of the Assembly, hereafter mentioned. Imprimature pro Radulpho Smith, December 23, 1643, John White, London.

A letter form the Assembly of Divines in England and the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland. Written by the house of Commons, Printed Richard Cotts, London, 1644

Toleration and Liberty of Conscience Considered and Proved Impractible, Impossible, and, even in the Opinion of the Dissenters, Sinful and Unlawful. London, printed by Thomas Dring, 1685

Toleration Disapproved and Condemned. Faithfully Collected by William Assheton, Oxford, Printed by William Hall, 1670.

A Seasonable Discourse Against Toleration, by William Assheton, Printed for Richard Rumbold, 1685

Helps for Discovery of the Truth in Point of Toleration, by Thomas Cartwright, London, Printed for Thomas Banks, 1648.

An Extract of the Acts of the national Synod of the Reformed Churches of France Touching Independency, Charatoun, December 26, 1644

A Solemn Testimony Against Toleration and The Present Proceedings of Sectaries and their Abettors in England, Edinburgh, Printed by Evan Taylor, 1649.

The Scots Declaration Against the Toleration of Sects and Sectaries and the Liberty of Conscience, London, printed for R.B. 1647

A brief discourse Proving independency in Church Government Destructive to the Positive Laws of the Kingdom and inconsistent therewith. By Robert Derham, London, 1646

A Dissvasive from the Errors of the time, Wherein the Tenets of the principal sects, especially the Independents, are drawn together in one Map. By Robert Ballie, London, 1645.

Anabaptism, the True Fountain of Independency, Antinomy, Brownism, Familism, and the most of the other errors, which for the time do trouble the Church of England, unsealed. By Robert Ballie, London, 1646.

A Short Treatise Describing the True Church of Christ and the Evils of Schism, Anabaptism, and Libertinism. By Richard Byfield, London, 1653.

The Utter Routing of the Whole Army of all the Independents and Sectaries, by John Bastwick, Captain in the Presbyterian Army, London, 1646.

The Duty of Such as would walk worthy of the Gospel to Endeavor Union not Division nor Toleration Opened. By Mattehw Mewcomon, London, 1645

The Schismatic sifted, or the picture of Independents, by John Vicars. London, 1646

The Anatomy of Independency, William Asheton, London, 1644.

A Breif History of Presbytery and Independency, Theodorus Verax, London, 1691

The Grand Debate Concerning Presbytery and Independency, By the Assembly of divines, by the order of parliament, Printed by Anthony Williamson, 1652

Two Conferences Between some of that that are called Separatists and Independents, London, Printed by John Clowes, 1650.

Independency Further Proved to be Schism, by Daniel Cawdry, London, 1658

The Independency on Scriptures, by master Herle, London 1643.

A Brief Refutation of the Errors of Toleration, Independency, Erastianism, and Separation by James Fergusen, Edinburgh, 1642

Independency Stripped and Whipped, Author Unknown, 1648.

Independency Accused, author Unknown, London 1645.

The Apostolic Church, Which is it? By Thomas Witherow, Magee college, Derry, 1881.

An Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland in the Points of Ruling Elders, and of the Authority of Presbyteries and Synod, by George Gillespie, From the Presbyterians Armoury, volume 1, 1846, reprinted from the 1641 Edition.

Discussions on Church Principles, Popish, Erastian and Presbyterian, William Cunningham, 1863.

The divine Right of Church Government, by Sundry Ministers, R. Martin and Co. New York, 1846.

The divine Right of the Gospel Ministry, London, 1654.

An Historical Vindication of the Government of the Church of Scotland, by Robert Ballie, London, 1646.

A Humble Attempt to Exhibit A Scriptural View of the constitution, order, Discipline and Fellowship of the Gospel Church, by Archibald Hall, London, 1755.

Ordinance for Settling Presbyterian Government in the church of England, English Parliament, London, 1646.

A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul's Presbytery in Scotland, by Samuel Rutherford, London, 1642.

Propositions Concerning Church Government and Ordination of Ministers, Edinburgh, 1647.

A Protest Against the Unlawful, Unfree and Unjust Assembly of the Resolutioners, by Samuel Rutherford, james Guthriw, William Guthtrie, Robert Trail, James Nisbet. Edinburg, 1652.

The Reasons Presented by the Dissenting Brethren Against Certain propositions Concerning Presbyterian Church Government, together with an Answer from the Assembly of divines, London, 1648.

Satan, the Chief Leader in the Separation of Zion, by Robert Ballie, London, 1643.

A Survey of the Survey of that Summa of Church Discipline penned by Mr. Thomas Hooker, by Samuel Rutherford, London, 1658.

A Vindication of the Presbyterial Government and Ministry, by the Ministers, and Elders, London, 1649.

The True Form of Church Government First Instituted by Christ, by John Udall, London, 1641.

Jus, Divinum Eccles. or The Divine Right of Church Government, by sundry Ministers of Christ, London, 1646.

Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, or the Divine Right of the Gospel Ministry, by Sundry Ministers, London, 1654

The Divine right of Presbytery, or a treatise Evidently proving by Scr4ipture all true Ministers or Ambassadors of the Gospel to be rightly called Divines, 1646.

An Answer to the Questions Propounded by the Parliament to the Assembly of divines Teaching Jus Divinum, in matter of Church Government, London, 1646.

 

[Dan....]

[quote:1edee226a3]
I agree with you, considering the nature of the sentence, it seem to make that implication. But then, when we read the other part I asked you to post, it says, "and submitting to the lawful government of Christ's kingdom." That is contradictory if they is what they meant in the first section.
[/quote:1edee226a3]

It would matter on how "lawful government" is properly interpreted.

As an uneducated observer (who has thouroughly enjoyed reading through the BOC), I can see at least two possible interpretations of "lawful government". By it, they could mean (as you have aparently interpreted it) to include the governing of the collection of elders in a plurality of congregations (e.g., the decisions of a "church court" or a General Assembly of elders being binding on the particular congregation). Yet, also I see that "lawful government" could possibly be interpreted as the rule of the elders. In other words, "[i:1edee226a3] submitting to the [b:1edee226a3]authority of their elders[/b:1edee226a3][/i:1edee226a3]". Now, being a Presbyterian order, I could see how the authority of a General Assembly could very well be presupposed in the term "lawful goverment", yet I find it odd that the writers would allow the passage of what would be a clear contradiction if they had presupposed in such manner.


Also, what is meant by,
1-7. [i:1edee226a3]This scriptural doctrine of Presbytery is necessary to the perfection of the order of the visible Church, but is not essential to its existence.[/i:1edee226a3]

Would this imply that congregations within the visible Church who do not practice the "scriptural doctrine of Presbytery" are regardless viewed as a part of the visible Church, because the visible Chruch still exists regardless of whether proper government exists?




[quote:1edee226a3]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you admit that your view of what constitutes a true church may indeed be in opposition to the established position of your denomination?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes Dan, I am disagreeing with the PCA's BCO if that is what they mean.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if we were to presume your definition of "lawfully called and lawfully ordained", (so far as I have correctly understood your use of the terms) then, "true branches" would be inclusive of those "lawfully called" and "lawfully ordained", but would not be exclusive to those alone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, that would be right.
[/quote:1edee226a3]

Matthew,

I have not read the volumes of documentation on this topic, nor do I have a desire to do such. I only am concerned that if you arrive at the conclusion that Congregationalists are "false churches" that you tread carefully.

You have admitted that your position is contrawise to the publicized, established position of your own denomination. You have said, "[i:1edee226a3]Its probably just me. I have not seen many others becoming more narrow. [/i:1edee226a3]" and, "[i:1edee226a3]What I am finding is that information like this (all the stuff I have been reading on this era in history) is SORELY lost by the seminaries of today. I heard no hint, nothing at all, about any of this. [/i:1edee226a3]"

In my opinion, this is a scary position to take. Has God only enlightened you to this error in our generation? Are you a lone voice on this? Are you really willing to say that "all of the Reformed seminaries, your own denomination, and possibly many other Presbyterian denominations have all missed the mark on this issue? Are you really willing to say that all Congregationalistic churches throughout the existance of Congregational church goverment, those Congregations through whom our Lord has been willing to accomplish His work, (even though they have been short of the mark, He has been faithful) have all been "false churches"? This is a rather serious charge, and, in my opinion, a scary position to take with the overwhelming majority of not only the Reformed community, but of the visible Church at large being in opposition to your position. God does not lead to differing truths. Either you are right, and the vast majority of the Reformed community are wrong, or visa-versa. Do you really think that God would enlighten so very few of His people to this truth????

[Edited on 6-8-2004 by Dan....]

 

[fredtgreco]

Matthew,

Might I suggest that you contact Dr. Morton Smith and get his views of polity on this issue?

He is perhaps one of the most significant Reformed thinkers on polity.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Fred, thanks, I will check his systematic and see where he stands on that.

Dan -


[quote:0918fb76ac]
Would this imply that congregations within the visible Church who do not practice the "scriptural doctrine of Presbytery" are regardless viewed as a part of the visible Church, because the visible Chruch still exists regardless of whether proper government exists?
[/quote:0918fb76ac]

Yes. That is the position of the Confession as well. Again, that does not mean men are thus lawfully called to those "groups" but rather, the issue of "particular churches" arises out that question and how they are formed.

[quote:0918fb76ac]
I only am concerned that if you arrive at the conclusion that Congregationalists are "false churches" that you tread carefully.
[/quote:0918fb76ac]

Treading Carfully. I do not like the term "fasle churches". That has connotation of "false teachers" and that is not what we are talking about.

[quote:0918fb76ac]
Has God only enlightened you to this error in our generation?
[/quote:0918fb76ac]

Is that out of the realm of possibility?


[quote:0918fb76ac]
Are you really willing to say that "all of the Reformed seminaries, your own denomination, and possibly many other Presbyterian denominations have all missed the mark on this issue?
[/quote:0918fb76ac]

If the documentation is there to prove it, and Scripture says it, absolutely, and without reservation, or regret.

[quote:0918fb76ac]
Do you really think that God would enlighten so very few of His people to this truth????
[/quote:0918fb76ac]

You know as well as I that God, in light of Contemporary Christendom has enlightened far FEWER people to tthe doctriens of grace than those who reject it. So that is a non sequitir.

If I were the only one holding a doctrine at all, yes, that would be very scary. The problem is this - today CONTEMPORARY Christendom does not want to touch this sacred cow with a ten foot pole. Why? We live in an age where Toleration is "god." What? Tell another "pastor" he is not lawfully ordained? Where did you get off the bus on that one - nobody would accept that! Can't you hear it?

If the Westminster Assembly, the churches of Scotland and Ireland, who produced the "greatest" noncanonical documents the church ever possessed beleived this, and wrote heartily on it, would it be safe to say that I am sitting in good company? and that I am not alone on the issue?

We have to think a little bigger than our contemporary backyard.

That would beg the question one of two ways: 1) All of church history was wrong, and everyone from 1900 until now was right, or 2) church history is right, and everyone today from 1900 until today is amiss. I am currently voting the latter on this one thus far.

I'm not inventing anything new. The brief Bibliography ALONE posted just a few posts above should demonstrate that. I am simply gathering information on what the Assembly already wrote, and placing it in a contemporary schematic.

Today, we would rather sing "We are one in the bond of love" to the extremem that we forget where we came from, or who we are.

Is that helpful?

 

[pastorway]

Matt,

Your position is, or will quickly lead to, landmarkism. You will conclude by saying that only churches that can trace their heritage back to the WA are sound and true churches.

Rome wants to go all the way back to Peter, but you will only have to go to 1646. The Westminster Divines have become your majesterium.

This is too narrow, too rigid, and too divisive. Suddenly only those faithful to the WCF are true churches, and the confession trumps Scripture.

You already do not believe that I am a lawfully ordained minister of the gospel. Yet as I stand and preach and lead my church, if I am not lawfully ordained to do it, and if my church is not true (however you want to define[i:d27930e212] false[/i:d27930e212]), then are you not responsible to stand against me? I am, according to your deifinition, divisive and schismatic. And the Bible is clear, "[i:d27930e212]reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.[/i:d27930e212]" (Titus 3:10-11).

So if you obey the Word of God, and are convinced of your position, then you must withdraw from fellwoship with me and every one else who is not in a true church rightly ordained by the standard you have embraced. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, "[i:d27930e212]6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us[/i:d27930e212]."

Who determines what this [i:d27930e212]tradition[/i:d27930e212] is? You have decided it is the WA. You then must withdraw from any who reject the WA in any form on any matter.

Continuing this course, sadly, will lead to the point that you will begin to believe that no one else has it right today, that only you are doing what the Scriptures teach, and then you have set yourself up to fall for the lie that your church is the [i:d27930e212]only[/i:d27930e212] true church...haven't a few other denominations done this, saying that only a handful of churches that believe EXACTLY as they do on every point of doctrine and practice are true churches?

Suddenly your ecclesiastical world is shrinking at a rapid pace. Narrow is not a descriptive enough word to describe the realm you will soon inhabit if you follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. Narrow is much more broad that ALONE.

We have to understand that differnces of opinion, and even differences of interpretation and application of the Scripture is not in and of itself divisive or schismatic. We can be unified and hold differing positions on non-essential issues. That is a mind bender, isn't it? But it is true. Unity in this world does not mean absolute uniformity. It will be that way until Christ returns and we are glorified, for it is only when we know as we are known that all differences will be laid aside.

Let us not think for a moment that any of us, or our church/denomination has monopoly on figuring God out! The downfall of systematics is that they tell us all about God instead of doing what the Bible alone can do, and that is reconcile us to Him.

Pastor Lance Johnson wrote to me this week in a conversation we are having and said:

[quote:d27930e212]He wants us to know him, not just know about him. The best systematic is a human understanding of the divine revelation. It is limited because the finite nature of man cannot define the infinite character of God. ". . . the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see." (1 Timothy 6:15b-16) The Scripture is our sufficient revelation of God, but it does not tell us all there is to know. Some things we simply cannot comprehend and do not need to know. They are so far beyond us that we cannot endure them. God would only let Moses see his back as he passed by the cleft in the rock. I do not advocate rejecting all systematic theology, but we must recognize it cannot answer every question and for us to force the issue always leads to error.[/quote:d27930e212]

His ways are above ours, His thoughts higher than ours. Let us not think that THE faith once for all delivered to the saints can be contained in any man made fallible document. To do so limits an infinite God, cramming Him into a very narrow box constructed by fallible, finite minds. Our attempts to rightly interpret the Word are not the Word itself!

Phillip

 

[A_Wild_Boar]

[quote:ca35d9a03a][i:ca35d9a03a]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:ca35d9a03a]
Matt,

Your position is, or will quickly lead to, landmarkism. You will conclude by saying that only churches that can trace their heritage back to the WA are sound and true churches.


Phillip [/quote:ca35d9a03a]

Phillip I am in 100percent agreement with you on this subject. Looking at the above quote would make one wonder if one can have a false church with legal ordination. I know no one here believes that, but see how far can we take this "legal" ordination argument and how it applies to whomever seeks to justify themselves.

If tracing their heritage back to the WA made a church legit, then if that were true, would PCUSA churches be "true" churches. Or can one be a "false" church under legal ordination?

Many can claim all kinds of authority and proper ordination. Sure we would all agree the PCUSA is apostate, but how far back can they claim their ordinations. I am sure one of them somewhere was originaly part of the "true" Presbyterian church. Somewhere in that chain or command it leads back to the WA. So then could they be a true church? (of course their very actions are apostate) but wouldnt their ordination be correct and legal in their eyes?

I had better stay out of this as its entirely out of may arena. Just showing my ignorance :blah1::blah1: hey at least I admit it

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Phillip, believe me, I understand what you are saying.

However, let's not use Rome's fallacy to overthrow what we are talking about. We are not talking about the first pope, just those lawfully called and ordained by the successive institution of the church.

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the [b:dadbd6b5f2]hands of the eldership.[/b:dadbd6b5f2]

or if you like KJV

1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the [b:dadbd6b5f2]hands of the presbytery.[/b:dadbd6b5f2]

Let's deal with that. With a text. though the WCF states all this nice a succinctly, we don't need the WCF to understand the problem that this text raises for Independency.

Christ gave the keys to the apostles.

Matthew 16:19 "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

They in turn ruled with the elders at the church at Jerusalem.

Acts 15:2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, [b:dadbd6b5f2]to the apostles and elders[/b:dadbd6b5f2], about this question.

Nowhere in the NT have I found a church acting independently of another. (Not in terms of a geographic locale, which would be obvious as the ONE church grew and divided for conveniency).

Apostles ordain elders, [then time moves on] elders ordain other elders [time moves on] elders ordain other elders, [etc. etc.] through history. Where do you and I fit on the ecclesiastical lineage of the apostolic church? THAT, my brother, is the question (at least in terms of what we are talking about).

Where do people have the right of schism? Where do they have the right to say that the line of the eldership of the church should be broken, and they have the right, in and of themselves, or with a supposed group, to ordain apart from and besides the eldership of the church? They do not. They do it because of sin. And that does not give them the right to say all is OK anyway.

That would fly right in the face of 1 Timothy 4 and the grounds of Christ's authority over the church in giving the church a specific order to its health and government.

Its not that we are advocating landmarkism, rather, quite the opposite. I would simply press that the text itself is not going to allow us any other kind of ordination than that [b:dadbd6b5f2]of the eldership.[/b:dadbd6b5f2]

Question is, who's eldership?

Hopefully we would both agree that we are after "landmarking the apostolic church!!"

Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine

I'm guessing you are a landmarkist on this issue as well brother?

We then have to lead back into a discussion of whether or not we follow the teaching of the apostles on GOVERNMENT.

That will lead us to determine whether the church was wrong for 1650 years before the Independents came upon the scene, or that a Presbyterianism was used through the history of the church (and I do not know anyone who would say it was not, even though Rome ultimately corrupted it and the WA sought to return to it with Scotland and Ireland.)

Also Phillip, your texts on being a divisive man (a heretic) do not apply in the same way. False teachers and schismatics are not the same thing as I posted earlier.

Its not that I want to be "too narrow", rather, its that I want us to be united. That would render any who desire to divide the body schismatic, and those who want the body united under one form of Government would be Presbyterian.

[quote:dadbd6b5f2]
then are you not responsible to stand against me?
[/quote:dadbd6b5f2]

As with any error, it would be my job to exhort you while it is still called today to godliness. That's what Christians do.

[quote:dadbd6b5f2]
So if you obey the Word of God, and are convinced of your position, then you must withdraw from fellowship with me and every one else who is not in a true church rightly ordained by the standard you have embraced. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, "6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us."
[/quote:dadbd6b5f2]

Would this already be true of you being in a baptist church and I in a presbyterian church? don't take this further than Paul did.

so we still have to reconcile the fact as to whether God instituted a presbyterian form of Government, or not.

What needs to happen by Independents of all stripes, is they need to refute the teaching of the Confession, and demonstrate that the position held by Presbyterianism is wrong. Now, as a Baptist, formally, I must say, I listened to much and read much on that issue. Even then, I was not convinced the baptists had that down very well at all.

A contemporary Baptist, or any Independent, needs to take the "Great Debate" and do better than Burroughs, Goodwin, Nye, Bridges and others who wrote in that day, on this issue. I would be willing at any point to read that rebuttal. What else could one possibly dream up that they did not speak about or write about AGAINST the Assembly on this issue? They would be hard pressed. What I think is that people are too tied to their roots, wherever they are, and are not willing to repent or change their mind on VERY HARD issues like these. When they do, their world changes. And it is hard when your world changes. The God you thought you had a bit of a grip on, becomes much bigger than you thought.

In any case, I would rather see Independents deal with the issue, and rebut it better than the Independents of the Assemblies day (and it does not matter what day we talk about because the issue remains the same at any time with the infinite word).

I am not in the practical necessity of having to worry about any relationship with any Independent anywhere. I do not go to a congregationalist church. I do not have to worry about "shunning a brother". They are not in my church, and I am not in theirs. (Thats about as far as shunning could go!)

Rather, I would hope to see more of the text dealt with and how it could be adversely seen. Maybe some of the Independents on the board could write a rebuttal paper to the Confession for us? That's asking too much though. Lots of reading, lots of extra study. Who has time for that?? So instead, we go round a bit, but nothing is ever resolved this way.

I think that again demonstrates the nature of the Contemporary church. We are too busy with too many other things to deal with issues like this, that is why they are not resolved, or brought up. I mean, what issue today (besides justification) do we find hundred and hundreds of tracts, pamphlets and booklets written, and sermons preached, that argue about one issue between godly men on a national or international level? None that I know of. What book publisher has done this in the last 100 years?? None that I know of. Are we going to say James White and Dave Hunt???? Ha! Not even close. At least they made a few bucks on the books.

I do not think that the church can handle the Confessional ideas today. My church is a perfect example of this. How can we gut the Confession and say we still believe it in the same breath? How can we leave "elders" in charge of the church, and yet they can deny the confession outrightly, AND NO ONE DOES A THING ABOUT IT, EVEN AFTER SOMEONE TELLS THEM THEY NEED TO!!!!??? We do not want reformers today. We want ecumenical ambassadors that make us all feel good. My good brother asked me to change my church from the inside. I told him no. Why? My church does not want to change. They hate the confession. People join the church every week and they do not even have to believe the doctrines of grace to get in. And we are going to hash out important confessional points and biblical texts? My O My! I await the day that something changes. I would imagine on that day the Lord will return.

 

[Scott]

Matthew: Are the items listed in the biblography available on the SWRD CDs or just referred to in them? If in the CDs, which CD or CDs are they on?

Thanks

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

They are on a few of the CDs - Puritan CD #18 (Definitely)and Reformation CD #13 (I think).

Let's move on to some other topics...