Presbyterianism and our devotion to proper ecclesiology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brian,
Pigeon-holing me is fruitless, after all i'm 'ignorant' right? Don't argue with me, argue w/ Calvin.

All I'm asking for is consistency, which is what this thread asked for. And my name is Bryan.
 
Mea cupla if that is true. However, the fact of the matter is, is that one's devotion to Presbyterian ecclesiology has nothing to do with if a Presbyterian minister preaches in a non Presbyterian church. Is it a sin for him to do so? No one has proved that. Does doing so somehow make him inconsistent with his Presbyterian beliefs? Nope; not proved either. That sound is the air escaping from a non argument; and while the proponent will bluster on, we all know what the score is.
 
Mea cupla if that is true. However, the fact of the matter is, is that one's devotion to Presbyterian ecclesiology has nothing to do with if a Presbyterian minister preaches in a non Presbyterian church. Is it a sin for him to do so? No one has proved that. Does doing so somehow make him inconsistent with his Presbyterian beliefs? Nope; not proved either. That sound is the air escaping from a non argument; and while the proponent will bluster on, we all know what the score is.
:amen:

Cheers. :cheers:
 
"If Knox took an Anglican pastorate, and Calvin took an Erastian one, and Zwigli was arguably friendly with Anabaptists, then I dare say that the Magisterial Reformers would have preached in an independent church."

This is certainly speculation. Since they never did preach in any independent churches, we could only speculate here. What we do know, is that the church pastorates they were rescuing from darkness were transformed by the Gospel, I would indeed say they took those pastorates to rescue those people from darkness. That seems to be plain by that little movement we call "The REFORMation". So if the arguments runs that way, then sure, Presbyterian ministers should preach in independent churches to rescue those there from darkenss! ;) "wink wink"

This thread should turn the corner.
Because eccumenicalism has so entrenched modern Presbyterianism in more ways than one, I think this will be a "go round and round" thread.

Maybe just to ask a side question - and turn the corner... :pilgrim:

Were the magisterial reformers eccumenical, and how?

I think this would be a more fruitful discussion.

Maybe we could talk about how Luther and Melancthon sat with Oecolampadius and Zwingli to iron things out and came pretty close on thier theological views. Or do you think that either Luther or Zwingli would switch pulpits easily? (Honestly, from thier writings, I don't see that happening too quickly in thier day.)

How close should these parties come before they can minister together?

What I have found, is that the "back to the sources" movement within the Reformation took individualized countries back to the bible, and by faithful exegesis brought men together to minister across great regions.

I think ministers in general take thier pulpits too happy go lucky and let whoever want to come in to preach.
I've sat in Presbyterian churches, with some BIG named Pastors who allowed ARminians to spout ARMINIANISM in thier pulpit, knew they would, and let them come for "cordialities" sake.

The reformers and puritans were VERY protective of thier pulpits and what was preached.
 
Mea cupla if that is true. However, the fact of the matter is, is that one's devotion to Presbyterian ecclesiology has nothing to do with if a Presbyterian minister preaches in a non Presbyterian church. Is it a sin for him to do so? No one has proved that. Does doing so somehow make him inconsistent with his Presbyterian beliefs? Nope; not proved either. That sound is the air escaping from a non argument; and while the proponent will bluster on, we all know what the score is.

Chris,
Please tell me why Calvin ran the independants out of Geneva? You never answered my question: Would calvin, Luther or Zwingli preach in an independant church in their day?
 
Scott,

Your answer is really not going to be given because it runs on speculation.
No one knows what Calvin "would or might do".
What we do know what he DID do. He did not exchange pulpits willy nilly with the guy down the street.

Even after they booted him from Geneva, and Sadoleto began writing them, we have Calvin giving a great defense of the Gospel in his "Letter to Sadeleto."

He was very protective of the church and the pulpit.

See my post above.
 
Fine. Of course it is; saying what anyone now dead would do in our day is speculation. Nearly 100 posts for this. Put this puppy to bed.
Scott; I simply do not need to play your game.
"If Knox took an Anglican pastorate, and Calvin took an Erastian one, and Zwigli was arguably friendly with Anabaptists, then I dare say that the Magisterial Reformers would have preached in an independent church."

This is certainly speculation. Since they never did preach in any independent churches, we could only speculate here. What we do know, is that the church pastorates they were rescuing from darkness were transformed by the Gospel, I would indeed say they took those pastorates to rescue those people from darkness. That seems to be plain by that little movement we call "The REFORMation". So if the arguments runs that way, then sure, Presbyterian ministers should preach in independent churches to rescue those there from darkenss! ;) "wink wink"

This thread should turn the corner.
Because eccumenicalism has so entrenched modern Presbyterianism in more ways than one, I think this will be a "go round and round" thread.

Maybe just to ask a side question - and turn the corner... :pilgrim:

Were the magisterial reformers eccumenical, and how?

I think this would be a more fruitful discussion.

Maybe we could talk about how Luther and Melancthon sat with Oecolampadius and Zwingli to iron things out and came pretty close on thier theological views. Or do you think that either Luther or Zwingli would switch pulpits easily? (Honestly, from thier writings, I don't see that happening too quickly in thier day.)

How close should these parties come before they can minister together?

What I have found, is that the "back to the sources" movement within the Reformation took individualized countries back to the bible, and by faithful exegesis brought men together to minister across great regions.
 
Fine. Of course it is; saying what anyone now dead would do in our day is speculation. Nearly 100 posts for this. Put this puppy to bed.
Scott; I simply do not need to play your game.

Chris,
Thats because if you answer, you shoot yourself in the foot..........:cheers:
 
Fine. Of course it is; saying what anyone now dead would do in our day is speculation.

Exactly.

What one could do is find out if he ever did with the churches of his day. Historically speaking, in his day, that didn't happen. :cheers:
 
No Scott; I'm pretty sure whose feet are bleeding and they are not mine. If this is a sin issue, take it up with your Presbytery like the Presbyterian you claim to be. Cheers.

I never said it was sinful. I said it was inconsistant. You got a bleeder there brother. Put some pressure on that will ya!:D
 
Right.
a23.gif
Like you proved that either.:rolleyes:
I never said it was sinful. I said it was inconsistant. You got a bleeder there brother. Put some pressure on that will ya!:D
 
Chris,

Why do you hate Scott's position?

Come out and say "Why" specifically.

In other words, why is Independency OK? And why should Presbyterian minister's acquiesse to it?
 
For anyone who cares...... How would a Presbyterian preacher display inconsistency by preaching in an independent church? No, strike that question. Let's use a real life example. If my church extended an invitation to Matt to preach from our pulpit (with no restriction as to content), where would the inconsistency be? Matt is not endorsing Baptist polity. Matt is not embracing credobaptism. Matt would be proclaiming God's word to part of the visible church. Would this displease our Lord? Of course not. But I digress. It is not addressing the question raised in the OP. Would it be inconsistent with Presbyterian polity? No. Why? Because it would have nothing to do with Presbyterian polity. Matt would be a Presbyterian preaching in an independent church. It would have no effect on his church's polity.
 
For anyone who cares...... How would a Presbyterian preacher display inconsistency by preaching in an independent church? No, strike that question. Let's use a real life example. If my church extended an invitation to Matt to preach from our pulpit (with no restriction as to content), where would the inconsistency be? Matt is not endorsing Baptist polity. Matt is not embracing credobaptism. Matt would be proclaiming God's word to part of the visible church. Would this displease our Lord? Of course not. But I digress. It is not addressing the question raised in the OP. Would it be inconsistent with Presbyterian polity? No. Why? Because it would have nothing to do with Presbyterian polity. Matt would be a Presbyterian preaching in an independent church. It would have no effect on his church's polity.

Brother, tread carefully. By preaching there I endorse "the church" there. That would go against my vows as a Presbyterian. I would not see independency anything other than schism from the church. In other words, independents are excommunicating themselves via their own ecclesiology. I can't endorse it.

If a Baptist church asked me to preach in there church (they won't), I would make it known and a point to go in with the express desire to teach them something they need.

How about Covenant Theology and Paedo Baptism?

I'd imagine it would be the first and last time I'm invited. :D
 
In other words, why is Independency OK? And why should Presbyterian minister's acquiesse to it?

Matt, why does it have to come to this? Is it really about whether Presbyterianism or Independency is right or wrong in regards to this thread? Do not extrapolate from my comment that I am lessening the importance of proper ecclesiology. I am simply asking how preaching at an independent church would equate to acquiescing?
 
I never said it was sinful. I said it was inconsistant.

Scott, throughout the entire thread you have been looking down upon the practice and discouraging it as unbiblical - yet now you do not seem to be willing to directly call it sin. I would humbly submit that you can't have it both ways.

As with any belief or act, if the act is not sinful, then is there any biblical basis on which to judge those who commit that act? No - and thus if not sinful, then it cannot be looked down upon or even ultimately discouraged as anything more than a difference in preference or style; correspondingly, if it can biblically be looked down upon or always discouraged as such, then it must be recognized as sin.
 
Scott, throughout the entire thread you have been looking down upon the practice and discouraging it as unbiblical - yet now you do not seem to be willing to directly call it sin. I would humbly submit that you can't have it both ways.

As with any belief or act, if the act is not sinful, then is there any biblical basis on which to judge those who commit that act? No - and thus if not sinful, then it cannot be looked down upon or even ultimately discouraged as anything more than a difference in preference or style; correspondingly, if it can biblically be looked down upon or always discouraged as such, then it must be recognized as sin.

Wise words Chris. You are correct on that.
 
Does Independency "matter?" or does God grade on a curve?

Matt - I meant no disrespect to you. Please accept my apology if you were offended. I am not knowledgeable about your vows as Presbyterian. If those vows specifically state that you are not allowed to preach in a Baptist (or similar) church, then you must adhere to those policies or resign. Of course I would hope that if you did preach at my church it would not be to rebuke our view of ecclesiology or baptism. But I suppose that is neither here nor there.

I wonder why Scott started this thread? It is not leading to an amicable end among those that disagree. In fact it only serves to underscore what is wrong between us.
 
Bill, Westminster came to this.

Thier vote, against all other forms, was Presbyterianism.

How could my preaching there not endorse it unless, again, I went specifically to correct them on something I thought was a grave error?

The Late Schismatic Petition For a Diabolical Toleration Of Several Religions Expounded
by Reverend, Doctor Holdisworth
http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/Hol...icPetition.htm

Reformation of Church Government in Scotland, 1643
by the Scottish Commissioners
http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/Ref...otland1643.htm

Against The Independent's Catechism
by Rev. John Bernard
http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/Ber...tCatechism.htm

An Answer Jure Divino
by the London Ministers
http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/AnA...ivinum1646.htm

Are you Presbyterian's Diabolically Tolerating things?

If Scott is wrong on Presbyterian ministers being inconsistent (and from this thread we see they are), then what is one to do?

Throw up your hands and say its ALL ok. Open those doors wide and let it all come in. You can't say its not OK and say it is OK at the same time.
 
Matt - I meant no disrespect to you. Please accept my apology if you were offended. I am not knowledgeable about your vows as Presbyterian. If those vows specifically state that you are not allowed to preach in a Baptist (or similar) church, then you must adhere to those policies or resign. Of course I would hope that if you did preach at my church it would not be to rebuke our view of ecclesiology or baptism. But I suppose that is neither here nor there.

I wonder why Scott started this thread? It is not leading to an amicable end among those that disagree. In fact it only serves to underscore what is wrong between us.

True, it unscores what wrong and not what is in common.

I think what started it is why Dr. Reymond consistently goes to Baptist churches and preaches there. Don't they have their own pastors to teach them thier own doctrines? Maybe not. Maybe so?
 
Matt - I meant no disrespect to you. Please accept my apology if you were offended. I am not knowledgeable about your vows as Presbyterian. If those vows specifically state that you are not allowed to preach in a Baptist (or similar) church, then you must adhere to those policies or resign. Of course I would hope that if you did preach at my church it would not be to rebuke our view of ecclesiology or baptism. But I suppose that is neither here nor there.

I wonder why Scott started this thread? It is not leading to an amicable end among those that disagree. In fact it only serves to underscore what is wrong between us.

No disrespect taken at all.

I hope you didn't take it that way.
 
Matt - I would expect a pastor, whether independent or Presbyterian, to act like a rabid dog in defense of what is taught from his pulpit. This thread has invariably lead to "what ifs." "What ifs" are hard to argue against because they exist in the abstract or the theoretical. I respect your view and do not advocate blurring the lines of distinction between our opposing views of ecclesiology. And as a Baptist, it really is not for me to say if Presbyterians who disagree with Scott and you are inconsistent to Presbyterian polity. What is clear is that there are more than a few Presbyterians in this thread that DO disagree. Why do you think that is?
 
No disrespect taken at all.

I hope you didn't take it that way.

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

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.
 
Wise words Chris. You are correct on that.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top