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



## Reena Wilms (Jun 5, 2004)

The true Church, (the Reformed theologians are saying) you can recognise on three marks: (1) The true preaching of the Word, (2) The right administration of the sacraments and (3) the faithful exercise of discipline. Now i have question concerning (2) "The right administration of the sacraments". I talked with a guy from a reformed church, and he said, that he believes in these marks, so his conclusion was that a (credo) Baptist Church is a "FALSE church", because they do not rightly administer the sacrament of baptism. I also believe in paedo baptism, but to say that a (credo) Baptist church is a "false church" is I think a wrong conclusion. You can believe that one Church (say the Presbyterian reformed) is more conformed to the Scripture as the other (lets say a Baptist Church). But if you say that a Baptist church is false church, than I think you are denying that this Church is not a gathering of believers who are bought with the precious blood of Christ, because it is a false church. Can someone help with this, because I believe in these three marks, but I have problems to speak that the (2) not a right use of sacraments (credo Baptist church) is than a false church!

Ralph


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 5, 2004)

I agree with you Reena. It's inappropriate to label the Baptist's congregations as &quot;false churches&quot; that kind of approach to church purity is very narrow.


----------



## VanVos (Jun 5, 2004)

Somebody said that? Well if you live long enough you get to see it all, and I'm only 22. A true church is a church that promotes and supports the truth 1 Tim 3:15.

VanVos

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by VanVos]


----------



## Reena Wilms (Jun 5, 2004)

Well the piont is that all most all the theologians like Calvin and L. Berkhof are writting that, and i understand, but iam wondering how the rest of the puritanboard members from the paedo baptism view this ? Are you all agree that these three marks are the only marks, and does that make a church who does have a different view on baptism a false church ? How must i deal with these statements like that ?

Ralph


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 5, 2004)

Well Reena for me a church can be more or less biblical, there is a point when a church becomes not a church at all.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 5, 2004)

The answer, I believe, from a paedobaptist perspective is that the baptists do not have an illegitimate administration of the sacraments, but a defective one.

What I mean is this: Rome's view of the sacraments is just plain wrong - from ex opere operato to baptismal regeneration to the resacrifice of Christ. They think that the sacrament does something other than what the Bible says. It is also substantively dangerous.

Baptists on the other hand generally (yes, generally) have the same view of the sacraments that paedobaptists do, except that they apply them in truncated fashion.


----------



## Reena Wilms (Jun 5, 2004)

Dear fredtgreco,

I think you know that english is not my first language, is it maybe possible to explain your last message in a easier explanation ?, so that i understand you better.

Thanks,

Ralph


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 5, 2004)

[quote:de48ec83b3][i:de48ec83b3]Originally posted by Reena Wilms[/i:de48ec83b3]
Dear fredtgreco,

I think you know that english is not my first language, is it maybe possible to explain your last message in a easier explanation ?, so that i understand you better.

Thanks,

Ralph [/quote:de48ec83b3]

I'll try. Here is the sum (I think)

Rome is not a true church because she actually rejects the true marks of the Church. Her sacraments are false and wrong sacraments.

Baptists have partial Biblical sacraments. They are true as far as they go (baptizing professors for example), they just do not go far enough (to baptize infants).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 5, 2004)

Fred,
But are the people distributing the sacraments -proper-? I am basing this upon a few items. One being, our last conversation or two on the phone.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 5, 2004)

[quote:ce6c3a3f4f][i:ce6c3a3f4f]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:ce6c3a3f4f]
Fred,
But are the people distributing the sacraments -proper-? I am basing this upon a few items. One being, our last conversation or two on the phone. [/quote:ce6c3a3f4f]

I'm not sure I follow, Scott. If the sacraments are being dispensed by ministers of the gospel lawfully called (and keep in mind our previous thread on that issue), then the answer is yes.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean. Feel free to email me offline.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 6, 2004)

Correct me if I am wrong - baptists have a far different view of who is adminsitered baptism, and what baptism actually means. Do credos believe that baptism is an ordinance or a sacrament? What would be the difference between a defective view and a wrong view? One is just more wrong than the other, right? However, both are wrong.

What did Calvin say about these kinds of groups? What would he say now about these kinds of groups? Would he be tolerant of them or not? (That goes for Lefevere, Farel, Bucer, Beza, and the rest...)

Then, in terms of lawfully called, we already went over that little problem, and the Baptists on the board stayed far away from that one (and rightly so), except for one, and that one did not deal with the issue. So in terms of being lawfully called, that would settle the matter immediately that any independent church is not lawfully founded. much less has the right to administer the sacraments at all.

In either case, that would mean they cannot administer the sacraments, nor do they, when they do administer them, administer them in a proper capacity.

I would agree that Independents of all kinds are false churches, unlawfully founded, but that does not eman I do not think them to be lost. Not at all. Don't get me wrong, I love my independent Christian friends. But digging through historical works, and comparing them to the pastoral epistles have clinched it for me personally. 

I would agree on a basic level with Ralph's friend's statement. There is more to it, but I cannot deny it based on my understadning of biblical church government and ordination, and ecclesiastical polity of all sorts.


----------



## Reena Wilms (Jun 6, 2004)

Dear Math,

I understand your seal and passion for the reformed truth, but how can you say that baptist churches are &quot;false churches&quot; ?. Please explain me, because forexample iam (paedo baptism believer) still member of a baptist church. Iam not agree with there vieuw on baptism, but i stay there because in my town there is not one reformed church, which is orthodox in their theology, they are liberal, but this baptist church has good preaching, and it is a godfearing congracation, and i believe that this is assembely of godfearing believers who worship in the Lord God, through the fellowship of the Gospel. So if other reformed believers claim that this is a false church than iam very shocked to hear this!

Ralph


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 6, 2004)

Ralph,

The answer to your question lies here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4894


----------



## pastorway (Jun 6, 2004)

Matt,

Are you saying that I pastor a [i:715ccc532a]false[/i:715ccc532a] church?

uzzled:

Phillip


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 6, 2004)

Phillip,

I love you brother, don't forget that.

You would have to define &quot;false&quot;, but yes.


----------



## pastorway (Jun 6, 2004)

So then, in your opinion, I am not even duly ordained to the ministry am I?

That is the logical conclusion that you must draw. I cannot be ordained by a false church and be duly ordained, can I?

Then I am a divisive false teacher and should be warned, shunned, and put out of the church......


Phillip :no:


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 6, 2004)

[quote:ee963aff90][i:ee963aff90]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:ee963aff90]
Phillip, 

I love you brother, don't forget that. 

You would have to define &quot;false&quot;, but yes.[/quote:ee963aff90]

I would disagree. If baptist churches were false churches, their baptism would not be accepted by the Wesminster divines, which it was.

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.

Remember the difference between [i:ee963aff90]esse[/i:ee963aff90] and [i:ee963aff90]bene esse[/i:ee963aff90]. I think you have conflated the two Matt.


It would help to read Cunningham on the subject - [i:ee963aff90]Church of Christ[/i:ee963aff90], 59ff. and to review WCF 25.2.


[Edited on 6-7-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Craig (Jun 6, 2004)

[quote:85237feeff]
You would have to define &quot;false&quot;, but yes. 
[/quote:85237feeff]

:no:

I find that one difficult to accept....and I'm paedo. 

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 &quot;true&quot; 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 

It really seems that this is getting to the point of splicing hairs...maybe even double splicing. Paul wrote to the Corinthian church as a CHURCH. They didn't exercise church discipline, they were becoming drunk at the Lord's Table, they abandoned the gospel for the teaching of the Super Apostles....c'mon! 

Is it just me, or have the last few months been months of people becoming really, really narrow? I hate saying that because I generally don't care for people being too broad...but this seems extreme. I don't know of Scripture to even supporting your ideas on how you define a true church. Seems Paul was most interested in the Gospel, the Lord's Table, and discipline. The Reformed Baptist churches I've encountered approached all three soberly and biblically. They must be a true church. If they're not, would you consider my marriage valid? I was married by my Reformed Baptist pastor. Obviously he's not a true minister of God...in fact, I probably ought to forget the counselling he gave myself and my wife and throw out the counselling book he used (which was written by a Presbyterian).

I love being Paedo...I love being Presbyterian. I love Calvin's understanding of the sacraments...but that isn't the standard.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by Craig]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 6, 2004)

That's why I said, you must define &quot;false.&quot; Do you mean apostate? Do you mean schismatic? Do you mean in error? What does false mean?

Fred, you may want to check the Assemblies thoughts on what they meant. It is a bit different in terms of what lines you are thinking. They wrote HEAVILY on Independents as being schismatic, and without any warrant whatsoever to have &quot;ordained ministers&quot;. That is why Phillip asked if I thought he was lawfully ordained. It comes down to who ordained him, and who ordained him, and who ordained him all the way back to first &quot;independent&quot;. Who ordained the first one?

The Assembly literally wrote tomes on this, and it was labeled the &quot;Great Debate&quot; of the 17th century, of which, sorry to say, both by exegesis and argumentation, the Independents lost miserably.

The Independents used certain argumentation like this:

[quote:92d79ee90a]
Paul wrote to the Corinthian church as a CHURCH. 
[/quote:92d79ee90a]

The Assembly tore them up on this. (I'll post the answer to it later in a papaer I am working on on this subject for school).


[quote:92d79ee90a]
Is it just me, or have the last few months been months of people becoming really, really narrow?
[/quote:92d79ee90a]

Its probably just me. I have not seen many others becoming more narrow.

I really was not trying to answer Ralph's post by simply appealing tot he sacraments. It goes back further than that to the lawful polity of a given church.

Chapter 25, by the WCF's standards, is not allowing Independecy. (That I will address on a historical look at the Assembly on this issue later.

What I am finidng 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 think it is because people are afraid to actually stand up today for a narrow view of God and His church. If you read the National Covenant, or the Confession of Public Sins (hint, hint, its part of the Westminster Standards) you find them listing specifically the evils against the church of God. Think about this - they are repenting for not upholding the truth, and so list those thigns they vowed anew to reject and eradicate from the church :

&quot;Because religion is of all things the most excellent and precious, the advancing and promoting the power thereof against all ungodliness and profanity, the securing and preserving the purity thereof against all error, heresy, and schism, and namely, Independency, Anabaptism, Antinomianism, Arminianism, and socinianism, Familism, Libertinism, Scepticism and Erastinianism, ...&quot;

The Assembly did NOT believe that independent churches are &quot;sanctioned&quot; under chapter WCF 25. This whole document was ratified by the Assembly, and by Scotland at two different juntures - 1645 and 1648, one by the Solemn League and Covenant and one by teh actual profession of the sins at the time.

Everyone who is part of the &quot;professing visible church&quot; is not necessarily part of a particular church. Would you agree Fred? Just because we have a bunch of professing beleivers that get together does not mean that they suddenly become a church warranted by the &quot;laying on of hands of the elders.&quot; 

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## grace2U (Jun 7, 2004)

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!

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?

Matt wrote that, 'The Assembly did NOT believe (sic) that Independent churches are &quot;sanctioned&quot; under chapter WCF 25'. Well of course they didn't! The Presbyterian majority on the WCF (especially the Scots!) did not embrace religious liberty. The wanted one State Church under Presbyterianism and NO dissenters. 

If it hadn't been for Cromwell, the Presbyterians would have been persecutors just as much as the Episcopalians had been. That is why John Milton wrote, 'New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large!'

I've only come back to this forum for a short visit, but let each of us beware lest Gal 4:29 be found to be speaking of us.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by grace2U]


----------



## sastark (Jun 7, 2004)

Matt,

Could you please expound a little on what you mean by an &quot;independent&quot; church? Do you mean &quot;not in a denomination&quot;? Or something other than that? Thanks.


----------



## Scott (Jun 7, 2004)

[quote:0a4a525a2f]
The Assembly literally wrote tomes on this, and it was labeled the &quot;Great Debate&quot; of the 17th century, of which, sorry to say, both by exegesis and argumentation, the Independents lost miserably. 
[/quote:0a4a525a2f]

Matthew: I am very interested in researching this. Can you refer me to some sources to read?

Thanks


----------



## kceaster (Jun 7, 2004)

*All...*

As one who will be labeled narrow, I find this thread sad, too. The reason it is sad is because a principle is being ignored here that is perfectly sound and biblical.

We are to be unified, we are to be one.

By the very definition of one, in order for it to become 2 or 28,000 which is the approximate number of &quot;Christian&quot; denominations, someone has to be schismatic - and I mean schismatic in the full malevolence of that word.

But, depending on our side, we don't like that word, because it describes us. The problem is we actually think we have the right to be schismatic.

Oh, I can hear you all sitting at your computers mumbling something about the fact that the Reformation happened shows that schism is legitimate. Well, here comes the all important distinction: Is it schism to leave an apostate church? Nope. That's merely shaking the dust off.

The independents have to come to grips with this. Whether it is easily admitted or not, biblical words have meaning. And, if we are honest with these terms, we'll come to grips with what is truly going on.

We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us.

What are the barriers to unity? US. It's not a confession, as NCT advocates Wells and Zaspel say. It's not taking a hard line on biblical truth, we're supposed to do that.

What do we do? Lie down and act like we don't care? Aren't we called to be a pillar and ground of truth? Do pillars step out of the way when someone disagrees with them? Do they roll over and allow any subjective truth to override them?

Just because people stand firm does not make them evil. Paul told us to. Did he mean that we are only to stand firm as long as we agree with those who would muddy the waters of theology? I don't think he did and I don't think he suggested that we should.

Ecumenicity is a fine thing for some, but its just plain wrong. We only have union between us when we agree to what the Bible teaches. We can't really have fraternal relations when about the only thing we can agree on are the 5 points against the Remonstrants. Are we still brothers? Yes, but estranged. Now are we estranged because of our fault or theirs? Something has to give. One group has to submit to the other. We can't make concessions or compromises with the truth of the Reformation unless all of us agree that it errs on a point. 

The Baptists have been trying to show that it erred on the point of Baptism. What? Should we fold up our tents and all become Baptists when it is clearly a minority opinion? When it can't be shown from Scripture that our infants are excluded? When Baptists do dry dedications? (Pastor Way, I am not talking about you because I understand you do not do these.)

For those to come out of the Reformed churches, the best Reformed churches, is schism. These churches weren't apostate, there was merely a difference of opinion.

Sure Presbyterians have split many times, but over what? Eroding adherance to the Standards. There are always going to be those who want a looser subscription or they don't want to take a stand for the tenets of our faith. They want to take in more numbers of those who do not agree with the starting point. Every disaster in the Presbyterian church can be traced to an attack on the standards.

The defence is always made for these because the church mistreated them or martyred them or whatever. That is not the standard's fault. The fault lies squarely on the shoulders of men who were sinners. Yet, should we fault them for upholding the truth? Should we fault them for their adherance to the Bible and what it teaches?

We look at our own government and we see them abuse this principle time after time. They are completely dualistic because the claim the right of religious freedom but only if it is a religion besides Christianity.

The same thing happens within the church. Tolerance should be allowed for every sect except for Presbyterianism. Their strong stance is not allowed because it infringes on the rights of others. Do we get this from the Bible? No. We get it straight from our own democracy.

What am I saying? Are Baptist churches schismatic? Yes, because they have not joined with churches that are not apostate. Do they rightly administer the sacrament of baptism? Even though they do not call it a sacrament, they still perform water baptism in keeping with the Scriptures on those who profess faith in Christ, and it is obvious to me, that God blesses this sign they perform with the thing signified. They may have a skewed view with their eyes so much on the sign, but that does not make their baptism invalid.

Are their pastors duly ordained? This is a tough one. Would we say that for all the other 28,000 &quot;Christian&quot; Denominations? Again, if we can't say it for all of these, then what is the criteria? Calvinism? True Calvinism touches the Sacraments the way Presbyterians practice. But, I would say in the final analysis, that God ordains and calls. If a man is called of God from a schismatic church, who are we to stand against him? If we do not ordain him, shame on us, because he is God's man. Are God's men perfect? Do they understand every point of doctrine when they are ordained? Because I believe this, I cannot say that only the Presbyterian church can ordain a true minister of the gospel. I think to say such a thing places a sacerdotal slant on it.

Are schismatic churches true churches? This gets even more convoluted, but we have to apply the principle that every church is a mixture of truth and error. How much error, then, makes them a false church? I can't say that of Pastor Way's church because I know what he believes and what he teaches. His church is a mixture of truth and error, but I know in my heart of hearts, truth wins the day in his church.

Again, do we call? Do we ordain? Do we establish a local body of believers? No. God does. We should, therefore, not stand against these churches and call them false, who believe on the Lord Jesus even though they may err on points. We should exhort and rebuke, though, and work on these guys to see these points where they err.

It really boils down to submission, though. I would feel much better about the independents if they had more submission to the larger body of Christ. I think Christ calls them to this and wants them to repent of their schism. But we all have this to deal with.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Reena Wilms (Jun 7, 2004)

Dear KC Easter,

Thank you so much for your clear explication on this difficult subject. I found it very helpfull!

For everybody on the Board:

Concerning the definition of a false church I have a question:
Is a false church a synagogue of satan, yes or no? And those who say that it is, do you then believe that baptist churches (which have true believers) are synagogues of satan?

Ralph


----------



## Craig (Jun 7, 2004)

KC,

I agree with everything you said, as far as I understand it. That is why I'm Presbyterian and paedo, etc.

I am quite &quot;narrow&quot;. The problem for me lies in defining Reformed Baptists as having a &quot;false church&quot;. You're right that there must be a way of defining what is false, but I believe they got the essentials and then some correct. I don't believe in the ecumenical movement. I believe we need to define who are enemies and who is not our enemy. While I find their doctrine on baptism faulty, I don't think that error should lead us to conclude they're a false church. I find baptismal regeneration to be far more dangerous and undermines the gospel.


----------



## Dan.... (Jun 7, 2004)

Mr McMahon,

The PCA BOC Section 2-2 says,

[quote:013d7ed079]
2-2. This visible unity of the body of Christ, though obscured, is not destroyed by its division into different denominations of professing Christians; but all of these which maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity are to be recognized as true branches of the Church of Jesus Christ.
[/quote:013d7ed079]

Do you agree?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 7, 2004)

Again, to all, that is why I said you have to define &quot;false.&quot;

I don't like the word. Maybe &quot;in error&quot; would be better.

In defining those, then, who are lawfully or not lawfully ordained is really, as said, the crux of the matter.


[quote:4b6ff1569f]
The problem is we actually think we have the right to be schismatic. 
[/quote:4b6ff1569f]

Correct.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 7, 2004)

Dan.

What does &quot;true branches&quot; mean?

Do they mean those lawfully called?

Do they mean those lawfully ordained?

Do they mena a true church both lawfully called together and having the ability of a non-presbyterian form of givernment?

Seems a bit vague depending upon what questions you ask of the text written.

Its sounds to me, though, that they are advocating tolerance, and independency by the statement.

I do think that a group of Christians who come topgether and profess Christ are part of the visible church (just as Fred pointed out in WCF 25). But I do not believe that they can suddenly, inherently in an dof themselves, become schismatic and say that they are now a &quot;particular church.&quot;

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.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 7, 2004)

Scot,


[quote:5505b38e3d]
Can you refer me to some sources to read? 
[/quote:5505b38e3d]

Here is the problem with that: no one is publishing much nowadays on the confession in this regard because the documents themselves cause hearty divisions (like this thread) between brothers. Its just not ecclesiastically politically correct to publish such things. So, instead, you have to read the original documents. That can be problematic. I must say, I am exceedingly thankful that I have the CD set by Still Waters Revival Books. Though I disagree with SWRB as a church entity in their view on the Solemn League, they still have put together an excellent bibliography of original resources. If you have or can obtain the disks before their time runs out, then much info is there.

You can also read Hetherington's book on the Assembly which gives a bit of background on this debate. Also, if you own Warfield's set he has a volume on the assembly as well.

I will try to put together a bibliography for you later on (I am going to need it anyway for my own research and it would be handy to have.)

This is a really heated topic, and it was a heated topic in their day as well. Men I admire (like Jeremiah Burroughs, Thomas Goodwin, and Phillip Nye) were on the losing side of the debate, however, their writings and work in church history have affected me for the better than most (Burrough's works and sermons exegetically considered fromt he bible for example have profoundly affected my views of worship, sin, contentment, and godly fear. Goodwin's understanding of justification is well documented in his works and very helpful.) But the topic at hand is more akin to the idea surrounding schism and church polity rather than some of the foundational doctrines that we all believe. For example, Phillip's church (Pastorway) is probably more sound in theology than many Presbyterian ministers I have met in the past. Disagreeing then on church polity should not cause an exclusivistic rift between us, but it should press us to consider the Scriptures more carefully.

I am very glad we are having this conversation on the board. Its a bit spicy, a bit heated, and bit tough to swallow in many ways, but it stretches us to consider thing even if some of us are a bit more extreme in their views than others would like.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 7, 2004)

[quote:3205b3d0d7]
Is a false church a synagogue of satan, yes or no? And those who say that it is, do you then believe that baptist churches (which have true believers) are synagogues of satan? 
[/quote:3205b3d0d7]


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


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 7, 2004)

[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 &quot;true&quot; 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 &quot;validity&quot; 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 &quot;permission&quot; 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 &quot;political correctness,&quot; but should take our beliefs with their necessary implications. And in terms of church form and doctrine, this includes the analysis of the &quot;validity&quot; of other churches based on our paradigm of biblical standards.

In Christ,


----------



## Dan.... (Jun 7, 2004)

[quote:41e84168c2]
What does &quot;true branches&quot; mean? 
[/quote:41e84168c2]


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


[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 &quot;lawfully called&quot; and &quot;lawfully ordained&quot;?

Second, if we were to presume your definition of &quot;lawfully called and lawfully ordained&quot;, (so far as I have correctly understood your use of the terms) then, &quot;true branches&quot; would be inclusive of those &quot;lawfully called&quot; and &quot;lawfully ordained&quot;, 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 (Jun 7, 2004)

Dear Math,

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


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 ; &quot; Yes it is synagoge of satan, but in that synagoge of satan are true believers &quot;. 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 (Jun 7, 2004)

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, &quot;and submitting to the lawful government of Christ's kingdom.&quot; 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 &quot;lawfully called and lawfully ordained&quot;, (so far as I have correctly understood your use of the terms) then, &quot;true branches&quot; would be inclusive of those &quot;lawfully called&quot; and &quot;lawfully ordained&quot;, 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 &quot;lawfully called&quot; and &quot;lawfully ordained&quot;? 
[/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 (Jun 7, 2004)

[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 ; &quot; Yes it is synagoge of satan, but in that synagoge of satan are true believers &quot;. 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 &quot;disciples&quot; a synagogue of Satan unless they are denying the cardinal doctrines of the faith (i.e. deity of Christ, Trinity, etc).


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 7, 2004)

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 (Jun 7, 2004)

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 (Jun 7, 2004)

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 (Jun 7, 2004)

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 (Jun 7, 2004)

Schism basically means &quot;separation.&quot; 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 &quot;X&quot; so they depart from the Christian church to continue propagating &quot;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 &quot;Church&quot; (capital &quot;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 (Jun 7, 2004)

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 (Jun 7, 2004)

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.... (Jun 7, 2004)

[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, &quot;and submitting to the lawful government of Christ's kingdom.&quot; That is contradictory if they is what they meant in the first section. 
[/quote:1edee226a3]

It would matter on how &quot;lawful government&quot; is properly interpreted.

As an uneducated observer (who has thouroughly enjoyed reading through the BOC), I can see at least two possible interpretations of &quot;lawful government&quot;. 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 &quot;church court&quot; or a General Assembly of elders being binding on the particular congregation). Yet, also I see that &quot;lawful government&quot; could possibly be interpreted as the rule of the elders. In other words, &quot;[i:1edee226a3] submitting to the [b:1edee226a3]authority of their elders[/b:1edee226a3][/i:1edee226a3]&quot;. Now, being a Presbyterian order, I could see how the authority of a General Assembly could very well be presupposed in the term &quot;lawful goverment&quot;, 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 &quot;scriptural doctrine of Presbytery&quot; 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 &quot;lawfully called and lawfully ordained&quot;, (so far as I have correctly understood your use of the terms) then, &quot;true branches&quot; would be inclusive of those &quot;lawfully called&quot; and &quot;lawfully ordained&quot;, 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 &quot;false churches&quot; that you tread carefully. 

You have admitted that your position is contrawise to the publicized, established position of your own denomination. You have said, &quot;[i:1edee226a3]Its probably just me. I have not seen many others becoming more narrow. [/i:1edee226a3]&quot; and, &quot;[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]&quot;

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 &quot;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 &quot;false churches&quot;? 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 (Jun 7, 2004)

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 (Jun 7, 2004)

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 &quot;scriptural doctrine of Presbytery&quot; 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 &quot;groups&quot; but rather, the issue of &quot;particular churches&quot; 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 &quot;false churches&quot; that you tread carefully. 
[/quote:0918fb76ac]

Treading Carfully. I do not like the term &quot;fasle churches&quot;. That has connotation of &quot;false teachers&quot; 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 &quot;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 &quot;god.&quot; What? Tell another &quot;pastor&quot; 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 &quot;greatest&quot; 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 &quot;We are one in the bond of love&quot; to the extremem that we forget where we came from, or who we are.

Is that helpful?


----------



## pastorway (Jun 8, 2004)

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, &quot;[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]&quot; (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, &quot;[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].&quot;

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. &quot;. . . 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.&quot; (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 (Jun 8, 2004)

[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 &quot;legal&quot; 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 &quot;true&quot; churches. Or can one be a &quot;false&quot; 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 &quot;true&quot; 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 (Jun 8, 2004)

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 &quot;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.&quot;

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 &quot;landmarking the apostolic church!!&quot;

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 &quot;too narrow&quot;, 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, &quot;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.&quot; 
[/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 &quot;Great Debate&quot; 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 &quot;shunning a brother&quot;. 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 &quot;elders&quot; 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 (Jun 8, 2004)

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 (Jun 8, 2004)

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...


----------

