# Independancy defined



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2005)

> Amen again! That's why I don't belong to a denomination, but to an independent evangelical church.
> 
> Martin



Christs church have no lone rangers; independancy is akin to schisms.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 19, 2005)

And of course, there have NEVER been any presbyterian schisms, have there, Scott?

C'mon guys, stop your mud slinging, its not becoming!

JH


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

*And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matt 16:18)

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt 18:17)

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. (Acts 15:22)

Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you. (Romans 16:16)

That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church. (1 Cor 4:17)

... if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)*

Independency among God's people within the Church is a concept foreign to the New Testament.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> And of course, there have NEVER been any presbyterian schisms, have there, Scott?
> 
> C'mon guys, stop your mud slinging, its not becoming!
> ...



Jonathan,
At the base of 'mud slinging' is either pride, hate or anger; I have none of these corrupting my statement. _Schism_ defined along the lines that I mention is a horse of a different color than what you level against the presbyterian church. The presbyterian churches do not function independantly.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> _Schism_ defined along the lines that I mention is a horse of a different color than what you level against the presbyterian church. The presbyterian churches do not function independantly.



Scott, I don't want to change the focus of this thread, but I disagree. Well, unfortunately I disagree. I've seen a couple - and heard of several - instances in which a church will come into presbytery and bully their agenda by basically conveying the message that they'll just leave the denomination if they don't get their will. Now, that my friend is FUNCTIONAL independency. Think about all these little splinter "reformed/presbyterian" denominations that are springing up because they're just a bunch of malcontents who will only be presbyterian as long as they get their way... I do agree that in principle a presbyterian should not be functionally independent. I'm just saddened by the apparent fact that American individualism has infiltrated even our presbyterian circles making the ideal simply an option.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Ben,
I agree. It is sad. There are degree's in regards to the subject of schisms; some are worse than others. An good example of this might be the congregationalists -vs- a presbyterian form of church government. Obviously, it would seem as if these types of schisms are unavoidable. However, independancy as defined through presbyterain lenses and that which are reflective of the baptist congregations are entirely different.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> ...



They do to. The independency is just at a larger level. The RPCNA, OPC, PCA, and others are independent of each other. The local congregations just have a smaller circle to work with.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

What do you think about the Auburn Avenue thing being schismatic Scott. It would seem that your Union is at a compromise. I am not against you Scott. I love the PCA and wish for it to stay homogenous. But there is always a level of Independency this side of Heaven. Your congregations are actually independent also. They can leave the denomination if the local Elders and congregation decide they want to. The binding is loose. You alls congregations just agree to hold to the WCF and that is your union basically, as long as a congregation agrees with it. 

That is the same as Reformed Baptist's is it not? The ARBCA churches hold to the LBCF as a unifying principle. But if a congregation doesn't want to belong they can bow out.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Randy,
Not like the independancy that is practiced within the realm of Baptist churches. The independancy in Baptist churches IS at a larger level; they are solely singular ships floating in an ocean of churches. The groups you cite ARE independant of each other; however, as a group, i.e. The PCA, they are not functioning independantly from each other. The pastor is responsible to the session, the session to the local presbytery, the local presbytery to the local region and the region to the general assembly. In this way, all the groups you cite, cannot be compared to the independancy that is evident within the realm of the baptist rank and file.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

The ARBCA is not as independant as say F.I.R.E is. It has disciplinary principles as a denomination. I would agree with you concerning 99% of the Baptist Churches. I am not a fan of such independency. There ought to be more of a union factor. 

By the way. I like the hold the OPC has on congregations that want to leave. It isn't as willy nilly. It takes longer and is more reflective in principle. You just can't get mad and leave. Yet the local congregation still has it's power.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

Scott,

This is a quote from another thread by Adam McMurry. I asked if the GA was addressing the issue of the Auburn Ave. stuff.



> I am not even sure a statement by GA would change things at all, since there is not even agreement as what authority those declarations carry. The GA spoke on paedocommunion and that hasn't stopped TE's and RE's from openly advocating that contra-confessional practice. Why would the FV be any different?



Sounds like the Independent spirit is alive and well in the PCA. It isn't working as it should. It makes me admire the RPCNA more. They seem to just stay the course. If you don't like it get out.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2005)

I hear you. We are part of the problem. Complacency has reared it's ugly head. 

Amo 6:1 "Woe to those who are at ease in Zion, and to those who feel secure on the mountain of Samaria, the notable men of the first of the nations, to whom the house of Israel comes!


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 19, 2005)

Scott-
How do we respond to those who are independent and "reformed" that say they affirm connectionalism through the visible working together with other likeminded churches, but deny that there is to be any constitutional connectionalism? I am personally familiar with a local situation like this and when I questioned it it was implied that connectionalism is to be a voluntary practice between administratively independent churches and that this was the model of the Puritans in New England. This was stated in opposition to complete independency and presbyterianism.

Thanks.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

I believe he is correct. One the Mathers published a book that John Owen used heavily to form his view of Church Polity.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 19, 2005)

I've always thought of "Independent Presbyterian" as an oxymoron. I believe in the organic unity of Presbyterianism _jure divino_ and stand with Rutherford against Congregationalism. Yet, I note that there is a PCA church in Memphis with the interesting name of Independent Presbyterian Church. There is also a well-known, independent church by that name in Savannah, Georgia.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

I think I was mistaken. It was John Cottons The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. John's daughter became the wife of Increase Mather I believe. But New England was one of the seats of independent congregationalism.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I think I was mistaken. It was John Cottons The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. John's daughter became the wife of Increase Mather I believe. But New England was one of the seats of independent congregationalism.



John Cotton was really the leading New England Puritan advocate of Congregationalism. He wrote the following:

_The Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven_ (1644). Cotton's religious treatise became the standard guide of the New England Congregational Church until the acceptance of the _Cambridge Platform_ (1648). (John Cotton wrote the preface to the _Cambridge Platform_.)

_The Way of the Churches of Christ in New-England_ (1645). One of Cotton's most important works is a full-scale description and justification of Congregational Church government and the "New England Way" of cooperation between church and state. Included is a valuable, detailed description of how the church operated in its earliest days in New England.

_The Way of the Congregational Churches Cleared_ (1648). Cotton compared Congregationalism with Presbyterianism in order to differentiate the New England church from the radical nonconformists.

The Scottish/Westminster Divines debated the New England Puritans much over this issue. I would recommend: _Aaron's Rod Blossoming, or the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated_ (1646); _Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici_ (1646); _The Works of George Gillespie_; The Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government; and for some historical insights into the controversy I would recommend Hetherington's History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

I have Hetheringtons book. You can also download it and listen to it.History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Scott-
> How do we respond to those who are independent and "reformed" that say they affirm connectionalism through the visible working together with other likeminded churches, but deny that there is to be any constitutional connectionalism?



Are they _truly_ reformed? This type of thinking is not. 
_ Visibly_ "working together" is not the same thing as being connected governmentally. 




> I am personally familiar with a local situation like this and when I questioned it it was implied that connectionalism is to be a voluntary practice between administratively independent churches and that this was the model of the Puritans in New England. This was stated in opposition to complete independency and presbyterianism.



Exactly, and in that, the Puritans were erring.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 19, 2005)

Scott-
I agree with everything you said, I was just wondering how we answer them. The discusssion I had in my situation seemed to hinge on who controlled/defined the word "connectionalism" properly/biblically.

Also, was this one of the reasons for the disappearance of the puritans. Did their view on this lead to their absence, or was it mostly other factors?

And how should we view those today who hold this form of independency? I suppose calling them a schismatic to their face would not be out of order?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I have Hetheringtons book. You can also download it and listen to it.History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines



You can also buy it soon here:

http://www.puritanpublications.com/Books/HistoryWestminster.htm


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)




----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 19, 2005)

> Also, was this one of the reasons for the disappearance of the puritans. Did their view on this lead to their absence, or was it mostly other factors?



Other factors by the "name" Oliver Cromwell. Go figure - the Puritans at the Westminster Assembly vote IN Presbyterianism to follow "the best Reformed Churches." So, at the time, the best Reformed Churches were Presbyterian (such as the Scottish Covenanter's). Then, AFTER they finalize the church governmental structure of England, Ireland and Scotland, Cromwell, the Independent, waltzes in with the ARMY and by CIVIL power oppresses the Assembly's and Parliament's decision. So, Independency is advocated - you can hear Thomas Goodwin and Phillip Nye give a huge sigh of relief.



> And how should we view those today who hold this form of independency? I suppose calling them a schismatic to their face would not be out of order?



We should view them in the same way the Assembly viewed them. 
Schismatic.

It was, of course, called "The Grand Debate" at that time because it was so volatile. The Independents knew 1) they were losing, and 2) if they lost the debates it would be the end of Independecy for the island, and for others following them.

Anyone who takes time to read any of the articles of that debate (from either side) will see the precision and importance of the question at hand for ministerial succession and the lawfulness or unlawfulness of independency. After reading jus divinum, it doth rest the case throughly. It is an amazing work.

With the PCA, I'm sympathetic to the "union" problem. As wishy washy as the denomination is across the board, you never know what you are going to get. That's because they really don't believe what they say they hold as standards, and that is a problem.

They shoudl have stood up a long time ago and condemned the AA/FV stuff. That, In my humble opinion, isn't going to happen - its been too long already.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 19, 2005)

> I am personally familiar with a local situation like this and when I questioned it it was implied that connectionalism is to be a voluntary practice between administratively independent churches and that this was the model of the Puritans in New England. This was stated in opposition to complete independency and presbyterianism.



Pilgrims who left England are called seperatists, not Puritans. Puritans stayed IN the church to fix it. Otherwise they could nto be called "pure-itans."


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 19, 2005)

> Puritans stayed IN the church to fix it. Otherwise they could nto be called "pure-itans."


Just a few quick points:-
1. The Puritans left the church in a body in 1662 because they would not conform to the new Prayer Book. A very few, like William Gurnall remained in.

2. As I've said elsewhere, the English Presbyterian church was totally apostate within two generations of the WCF. This is the constant direction of Presbyterianism, as Gresham Machen could tell you. A faithful rump have to leave to found a new church because of apostacy as he did and as has recently happened in Scotland in the case of the Free Church of Scotland and the Free Church(continuing). Doubtless within 50 years, unless the Lord returns, a remnant will be leaving the FCC.

3. I recommend a booklet by Dr Lloyd-Jones called, 'From Puritanism to Non-Conformity.' This and various other of his historical lectures lay out the problems with Presbyterianism very well.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 19, 2005)

Thanks Matt. Very illuminating.



> _Originally posted by Webmaster_Pilgrims who left England are called seperatists, not Puritans. Puritans stayed IN the church to fix it. Otherwise they could nto be called "pure-itans."



Understood and agreed. So would I be right in saying that New England Puritanism is and has been a misnomer. We should actually call them the New England Separatists? And did independency lead to their demise also, or was it the introduction of unitarianism in their case?

So should we consider Jonathan Edwards and John Owen separatists? If so, how do we then view them since they were schsimatic? Or do I have a misunderstanding of what their polity actually was?


Andrew-
Thanks for the posting of the Hetherington link. I just finished reading most of Hetherington's "History"........all I can say is wow!........It has confirmed many things/details I have reasoned out on my own, vindicates me in my discussions regarding my situation, and has opened a whole new door of light and understanding. Looking forward to buying the book. 

Some last questions- 
If a man starts his own church with the help of 3 or four friends, even though he was not officially ordained by a presbytery, even though he has an M.Div. and Th.D. from 2 prominent reformed seminaries, and even though he is thoroughly reformed except for his independency, and even though he subscribes to the WCF except for polity, do we consider this person a schismatic brother in Christ, a false apostle not in Christ, or something else? Is this something that would discount being considered a christian, or is this a tolerable error within the faith since it does not touch "salvation issues"? What exactly does "schismatic" say about the state of the person or local church? Does 1 John 2:19 apply here, or does that verse speak merely of outright denials of the faith in its essentials?

(Sorry, I feel like I have a million questions now!)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 19, 2005)

> Puritans stayed IN the church to fix it. Otherwise they could not be called "pure-itans."


Just a few quick points:-
1. The Puritans left *the church* in a body in 1662 because they would not conform to the new Prayer Book. A very few, like William Gurnall remained in.[/quote]

That's way too simplistic. You're assuming the Anglican church is THE church? Not even remotely. Some of the puritans stayed in the Anglican "faction" to turn the beast around (but we know that was going to happen.). The others, following the "best Reformed churches" continued in their Presbyterianism, which followed Westminster (which was the point of Westminster Assembly).



> 2. As I've said elsewhere, the English Presbyterian church was totally apostate within two generations of the WCF. This is the constant direction of Presbyterianism, as Gresham Machen could tell you.



I'm not following here - are you assuming that Presbyterianism is basically always apostatizing and there are not lines still to speak of? If you are, that would be bad information. If you're not, then I don't understand your comment. 



> 3. I recommend a booklet by Dr Lloyd-Jones called, 'From Puritanism to Non-Conformity.' This and various other of his historical lectures lay out the problems with Presbyterianism very well.



Have you read _jus divinum_? I think that dispels just about everything someone would want to raise against Presbyterianism in general (either that or we could use the Bible.) 

Lloyd Jones book "The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors" is also very helpful, though he is wishy washy on his ecclesiology. He says, "My contention is that true Puritanism...can never rest content with being a mere wing or emphasis in a comprehensive Episcopal Church, but must always end in Presbyterianism or Independency." This is right so far as it is understood that Westminster Puritanism was Presbyterians, and others, more of the "separatist nature" did their own thing in setting up independent churches, which Jones makes emphatic. Presbyterianism is, as Jones says, "the Classical Movement." It failed in England because of political problems, not ecclesiastical problems.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## sastark (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Thanks Matt. Very illuminating.
> 
> 
> ...



A good question. Was Edwards a schismatic? To the best of my knowledge (and I could be wrong) Edwards was congregational his entire life. I've heard it said that Owens "converted" to presbyterianism later in life.



> Some last questions-
> If a man starts his own church with the help of 3 or four friends, even though he was not officially ordained by a presbytery, even though he has an M.Div. and Th.D. from 2 prominent reformed seminaries, and even though he is thoroughly reformed except for his independency, and even though he subscribes to the WCF except for polity, do we consider this person a schismatic brother in Christ, a false apostle not in Christ, or something else? Is this something that would discount being considered a christian, or is this a tolerable error within the faith since it does not touch "salvation issues"? What exactly does "schismatic" say about the state of the person or local church? Does 1 John 2:19 apply here, or does that verse speak merely of outright denials of the faith in its essentials?



Good questions. First, no church belongs to an individual man. So, no man has the authority in and of himself to start "his own" church. And how shall they preach unless they are sent? (Romans 10:15). Preachers are sent. They do not go on their own authority. The church sends them. Any man who decides to start a church on his own, usurps the authority of the church and is schismatic, no matter how educated he is. Also, the fact that he is unordained is also a big problem. How can you have an unordained teaching elder? It is a contradiction.

I would not go so far as to call an independent christian as "not in Christ". You do not have to hold to Presbyterian polity to be saved, but it helps. :bigsmile:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 19, 2005)

> Understood and agreed. So would I be right in saying that New England Puritanism is and has been a misnomer.



Very much so. It would be better to say "New England Theology" as it has been come to be known. 



> We should actually call them the New England Separatists?



That could fly easily.



> And did Independency lead to their demise also, or was it the introduction of unitarianism in their case?



Their demise surrounded bad theology and the turn of events that stretched into the Enlightenment and Revivalistic Theology, Unitarianism among the problem.



> So should we consider Jonathan Edwards and John Owen separatists?



Congregationalists would be a better term. "Separatist" is a more specific term used for a specific tumultuous time. In the end it means the same thing - not Presbyterian, or Reformed in ecclesiology.



> If so, how do we then view them since they were schismatic? Or do I have a misunderstanding of what their polity actually was?



We view them as very intelligent and gifted men who blew it on ecclesiology. Nigel Lee has an interesting paper that talk about "John Owen Re-Presbyterianized." I've read his notes on this, and then John Owen's quotes. Its seems possible.



> If a man starts his own church with the help of 3 or four friends, even though he was not officially ordained by a presbytery, even though he has an M.Div. and Th.D. from 2 prominent reformed seminaries, and even though he is thoroughly reformed except for his Independency, and even though he subscribes to the WCF except for polity, do we consider this person a schismatic brother in Christ, a false apostle not in Christ, or something else?



This is where we get into what everyone hates to talk about, and that's ministerial succession. Except for times of extreme duress (giving some wiggle room for those who hate to be dogmatic) ministers are ordained by other lawfully ordained ministers. It is not only a theological importance, but an authoritative importance as well. If people just sit up one day and decide to start their own church, like many do, they are schismatics. They are in error, and are, In my humble opinion rejecting the authority of Christ to determine how sinners are to worship together, approach Him, etc.



> Is this something that would discount being considered a Christian, or is this a tolerable error within the faith since it does not touch "salvation issues"? What exactly does "schismatic" say about the state of the person or local church? Does 1 John 2:19 apply here, or does that verse speak merely of outright denials of the faith in its essentials?



I would press you to read _jus divinium_. It will answer lots of questions and help you come to some of the conclusions on your own. Honestly, when this topic arises, lots of people on the board get too edgy.

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Jul 19, 2005)

just wanted everyone to know that independent pres here in memphis was at one time exactly that; independent....though it is a bit of an oxymoron, it had no affiliation for a time (right or wrong). unless what i have understood to be the truth is false, they simply joined the pca after remaining independent for a time (agian, right or wrong). until recently, john sartelle was the pastor and he introduced me to gospel preaching..i will forever be thankful to the incredible ministry that ipc has had and their incredible bookstore (workin' on my soli deo gloria collection!) wanted to make an attempt at clearing the air...
jason


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2005)

FYI: As well, R.C. Sproul has now attached his congregation to the RPCGA!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Formerly At Enmity_
> just wanted everyone to know that independent pres here in memphis was at one time exactly that; independent....though it is a bit of an oxymoron, it had no affiliation for a time (right or wrong). unless what i have understood to be the truth is false, they simply joined the pca after remaining independent for a time (agian, right or wrong). until recently, john sartelle was the pastor and he introduced me to gospel preaching..i will forever be thankful to the incredible ministry that ipc has had and their incredible bookstore (workin' on my soli deo gloria collection!) wanted to make an attempt at clearing the air...
> jason



So really, it really was a Congregational Church but Presbyterian in name, and then changed.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> FYI: As well, R.C. Sproul has now attached his congregation to the RPCGA!



So did Don Kistler, and Soli Deo Gloria.


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> I would press you to read _jus divinium_. It will answer lots of questions and help you come to some of the conclusions on your own. Honestly, when this topic arises, lots of people on the board get too edgy.



Understood. I don't wish to open up a brawl over this. Thanks again for your teaching/guiding/correcting in relation to my questions. I'm off to read some Jus Divinum........


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> FYI: As well, R.C. Sproul has now attached his congregation to the RPCGA!



Is this senior you are referring to? Junior has been with RPCGA for I think a couple years now.


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Jul 19, 2005)

again, i have visited ipc on many occasions and have had a few people give me explanations as to what happened....as i said, if what i have been told is the truth, then we have what we have....check the website on andrews post and see......
thx...


----------



## Peter (Jul 19, 2005)

> 1 Cor 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
> 
> 1 Cor 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
> 
> ...




Lets make one point clear: Presbyterians are seperated OVER principles, independents are seperated AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...




Senior!


----------



## Myshkin (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by RAS_
> ...



Great news! I wonder how many and who will follow.

BTW, where did you get this information? My web search has turned up nothing.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by RAS]


----------



## pastorway (Jul 19, 2005)

ho hum.....here we go again....

I guess if you are in a non WCF church then you are not really in a church at all because the WCF Presbyterians are the only visible church on the face of the earth....they are...._really_.....everyone else is out.

1 Cor 12 - many members, one body....and that does not refer to a DENOMINATION.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

Does the authority to shepherd God's people come from self-appointment or from God?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ho hum.....here we go again....
> 
> I guess if you are in a non WCF church then you are not really in a church at all because the WCF Presbyterians are the only visible church on the face of the earth....they are...._really_.....everyone else is out.
> ...



We are the redheaded stepchild that is left handed Phil.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

Gabe,
Go read Messiah the Prince. It will tell you that it comes by the laying on of Hands by men already ordained. That is the order that God gave.

[Edited on 7-20-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

I agree, brother. That's why I was asking why independents/schismatics seem to ignore this practice ... or begin a "new line" of ordained ministers, having no authority in and of themselves to claim ordination.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I agree, brother. That's why I was asking why independents/schismatics seem to ignore this practice ... or begin a "new line" of ordained ministers, having no authority in and of themselves to claim ordination.



I don't know of any unless you are talking about getting a sheep skin through the mail. The Baptist Churches I have attended are very sticky about ordination. You have to give your own systematic theo doc to profs and Pastors. Be able to defend it. Have lots of experience at ministry and be recommeneded. Plus you have to have the education. And knowledge of the original languages.


----------



## pastorway (Jul 19, 2005)

is the authority passed down from person to person or from church to church? where is the authority? INDIVIDUALS, or the CONGREGATION OF THE LORD?

If it really is a matter of being passed down instead of authority inherent in the Body of Christ, then prove to me that your church goes back to the Apostles. Prove it, or prove yourself all to be the very illegitimate schismatics you accuse others of being.

Or, as the Word of God so clearly states:



> 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body? 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body? 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? 18But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. 19And if they were all one member, where would the body be? 20But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. 21And *the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you.*" 22No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. 23And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, 25that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. 27*Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually*.





Phillip


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I don't know of any unless you are talking about getting a sheep skin through the mail. The Baptist Churches I have attended are very sticky about ordination. You have to give your own systematic theo doc to profs and Pastors. Be able to defend it. Have lots of experience at ministry and be recommeneded. Plus you have to have the education. And knowledge of the original languages.



This type of thing is foreign to my Baptist background. Completely foreign. *shrug*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



I am sorry to hear that. It ought to be very hard. Pastoring is one of the hardest jobs on the earth. Especially since one has to live and know what they are talking.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 20, 2005)

Going to Seminary was looked DOWN upon at my home church, for those seeking to do ministry. Being in Seminary made a person "out of touch with reality" and "too uncreative" for modern ministry.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 20, 2005)

Once more, Gabe, it is clear that your southern baptist experiences were a far cry from those of most of us Calvinistic Baptists here on the PB.

Very sad indeed.

JH


----------



## Philip A (Jul 20, 2005)

Here is a most necessary comparison to keep in mind:

The SBC is to the 1689 as the PCUSA is to the WCF.
Of course there are exceptions, but you get the picture.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 20, 2005)




----------



## Scott (Jul 20, 2005)

> I guess if you are in a non WCF church then you are not really in a church at all because the WCF Presbyterians are the only visible church on the face of the earth....they are....really.....everyone else is out.



I don't think this is what people are saying. I can't speak for Matt and Scott B, but I am sympathetic with their concerns over polity and agree with what they have written so far. My understanding is that there is a difference between a "true church" and a "lawfully called minister." These are separate issues that require separate analysis.

The standard reformed test to determine whether a church is a "true church" is whether the body meaintains the essentials of the Word and Sacraments. Occasionally discipline is added as a third prong of the test. Under this test, many independent churches would certainly qualify as "true churches." Certainly the reformed baptist churches and other conservative independent churches we know of would easily pass this test and be considered true churches.

A separate issue is whether the ministers are lawfully called and ordained. As you mention, there two common sources are offered for ministerial authority: (1) previously ordained elders or (2) the congregation. We (ecclesial presbyterians) believe (1) and independents often (but not always) believe (2). 

Further, we do not believe that only those holding the WCF in line with presbyterian denominations hold ministerial succession. in my opinion at least there are many denominations that do, most presbyterian denominations, most Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, etc. I would perhaps agree that congregationalists could claim ministerial succession if they had other previously ordained ministers ordain them (and that sort of line traces back - which is my understanding of how American congregationalists operated).

Scott


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 26, 2005)

Correction:

I apologize for disseminating erred information but apparently the RPCGA website has RC Sproul Jr. listed as RC Jr. in one spot and RC in another. 

http://www.rpcga.org/index.php?p=churches&sub=no

My mistake.

[Edited on 7-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------

