Presbyterianism and our devotion to proper ecclesiology

[C. Matthew McMahon]

It would get them in trouble with their other peers, the majority of the presbyteries they are involved with, and their congregations, to plant that flag.

For the sake of teaching people about Jesus, it easier to be ecumenical than not.

They would lose thier jobs.

Some ministers I know have even said that - "What would I do if I lost the job - I have to provide for my family."

That's why I enjoy, so much, Westminster, and thier extracurricular writings.

Jus Divinum RADICALLY transformed my own thinking because of its structured argumentation and appeal to Scripture that was so dense and coherent, that I can't even acquiese the other way.

Its like being a Calvinist. I have NO toleration for Arminianism. I can't. It would bother my conscience far to greatly.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Matt - when you said "tread carefully" I thought you were offended. You said you weren't so all is well!

Matt - trust me brother. I am battling with these issues more than you can possibly imagine. My personal theological crisis is more deep then I let on about. I don't take any thread like this lightly because it is hitting on a raw nerve.

We are always in theological crisis"es". (Is that a word?)

Calvin was in a theological crisis, and he said that at least 30 percent of our theology is wrong at any given time. That's a 70!

We are a basic C- on the ricter scale of God's truth.

That should always press us to feel like we are in crisis, and that every truth we begin to understand is the last hill on which we die.

Christ died for me, and what I need to know about Him is exceedingly important, above all else, including being ecumenically friendly. Its funny the way sanctification works. God presses us in various ways to consider things, and then tries us to see if we 1) really considered them, and 2) persecutes us to see whether we really will hold to them.

Doing theology is hard work!

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I think that issue of consistency regarding your viewing it as sinful is what Chris Coldwell had in mind in pressing the issue of your Presbytery's apparent allowing of it (and even practicing of it, as Pastor King noted), which is thus a sin issue by your view. Would you (or Matt) then raise this issue before your Presbytery and work for reform on it any less so than you would for any given sin you perceived to arise in your denomination?

If you would raise the issue for reform as such just like any other sin, then that is what would seem natural to actually do in the coming days.

If, on the other hand, you would not feel comfortable (and indeed, even compelled to do so) raising it before Presbytery just as much so as any other sin, then perhaps you should reconsider whether it actually belongs in that category of sin. I think this is what Chris may have had in mind when he pushed this aspect of the issue earlier.

Let's say Scott raised the issue.

They said, "Ok noted."

They disgree.

What then?

Is the hill a high enough hill to throw away everything else the RPCGA would benefit him to remian in common with them? No.

I would say not. It would not affect his vows as a member of the church, nor of the Presbytery.

I've had some talks with some brothers, and they are content to see some churches that I would not even consider a church, as having enough of the Gospel there to be a church. So we disagree.

We still hold to the same confession. And myabe we might even get a little heated. And in the end, we will see each other's views as "not strong enough" or "too strong." I'm OK with that. They are too.

That does not make them and me eccumenical, though I would argue they have a little bit of that blood in them. They would probably say I'm not being charitable. I'm OK with that. They are too.

One of our RPCGA churcehs uses an organ. Calvin says that's of the devil.
I agree with....Calvin. So we disagree. But there is far more we AGREE on in our vows together, that have 99% overlap, than the 1% that might rub us the wrong way. I'm OK with that. Guess what - they are too.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

History is a tricky thing and the ignorant are in danger of getting cut.

That's pretty interesting considering the Belgic Confession was completed in 1567 and Calvin died in 1564. __________________​

Just so we are not all ignorant of church history, I thought this might be of interest - keeping of course, Calvin in Calvin's timeframe...

LISTEN to what Calvin is saying.

"Many in the present day, who seem to have recieved some serious impression, are far from acting up to what they profess..."

Sound familier? Calvin is speaking in some of the same viens as Scott here.

Ther reformer makes it CLEAR that obedience to the Word of God requires of believers an outward practice consistent with an inner commitment to truth. If we hold to Presbyterianism, we don't wink at Independency.

This was Scott's contention with Reymond.

Amos 5:10 They hate the one who rebukes in the gate, And they abhor the one who speaks uprightly.

Hmmmm.

Reread the attitude of some in this thread.

Calvin was saddened by those who fought against him, "It grieves me therefore, that these poor people insist so on fighting with me, that they think it is kist a question of dealing with a man. They do not consider they are up against God."

Seems to me, using Calvin's words, "Preachers who, instead of risking death to raise up the true service of God by abolishing all form of idolatry, desire to make Jesus Christ thier chef, so He can prepare them fine meals."

Ouch!

The ones I have a tough time with, like Calvin, are the "waiters". Those that "wait without doing much of anything, to see if there will be some sort of nice reformation...this group is made up of entirely educated people."

"Well, if there has been wrongdoing heretofore, let each one plan on reforming himself. And, if there are some who are simply inccorrigible, let the children of God arm themselves with this teaching, so as not to be infected by thier bad life."

These came from "Come Out from Among them: Anti-Nicodemite Writings of John Calvin."

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Stick a fork in it.....I think this one is too volitile.

We don't want anyone losing their jobs over this.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Matt,

I could hot agree more that regardless of which side one is on in this case (the case of your Presbytery and denomination), it is certainly not a hill on which to die (abandon fellowship). But there is still of course room for always continually trying to reform such disagreements from within; and since both you as a minister and Scott as a member in the RPCGA are willing to debate the other view here (the PB), I'm sure you already heartily agree that it is only consistent to also continually try to do that (with an ultimate goal toward persuasion and in turn reform) within your church as the opportunity presents itself day by day (even if the coming together of the roads isn't exactly foreseeable).