# Matt and Scott - What is your justification?



## Arch2k (Sep 27, 2005)

I have some questions for Matt and Scott. I only ask these because I am in a very similar situation as yours, and am struggling with them myself.

How would you answer the charge of being schismatic? Being a member in the PCA and transferring due to the bene esse of the church, and not the esse?

I have been reading 
Rutherfurd Against Separatism and near the end of part I, he makes this comment (emphasis mine):



> There is no just cause to leave a less clean church (_*if it is a true church*_), and to go to a purer and cleaner, though one who is a member of no church has liberty of election, to join to that church which he conceives to be purest and cleanest.



This seems to be a good summery of what Rutherford says about the sin of schism.

I myself am being convinced of EP, and am aware of the struggles the PCA is having. The worship of God is not pure. However, Gerstner waited for the PCUSA to ordain a man who denied the deity of Christ (thus absolving it as a true church) before leaving. This seems to imitate what Rutherford says.

Please realize that I am in no way charging you with schism, but asking how you would answer this charge hypothetically. Help a brother out, I am trying to understand! 

Again congradulations! I am excited to hear about your church.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 27, 2005)

I would disagree in that I firmly believe, along with Calvin, that worship is the esse of a true, sound, church.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I would disagree in that I firmly believe, along with Calvin, that worship is the esse of a true, sound, church.



This is essentially true. However it is not the Benne esse. The 3 marks can be present, yet the church in question could be blowing it to a degree when it comes to the RPW.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I guess what I mean is, more specifically, a church cannot be so far from the RPW and remain a true, sound church. For example, they cannot serve orange juice in the Lord's Supper and remain a true church. Agree or disagree?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 27, 2005)

Jeff,

There is no need for justification. The Presbyterian Church today, regardless of the branch you are in (unless it reflects an apostate church) is still the Presbyterian Church. Whether a local meeting house (not what Rutherford was talking about) is more or less pure, that is a different question all together. If we were, for example, going from THE Presbyterian CHURCH to THE Baptist Church, that would be a problem - Rutherford is fighting against that. That is a vertical move. We made a horizontal move from one Presbyterian Church that we recognize as a true church, to a more pure Presbyterian church that sits with our convictions on worship, and other things.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Most serve Wonderbread and grape juice, though, both of which gall me.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I definitely hear what you are saying, and under normal circumstacnes, OJ would violate the RPW. What if you were on a desert island, and only had Coconut Milk? How far or less far will someone go? For example, the wine you use is NOT the same kind of wine the Apostles used. Thiers was 27 parts water and one part wine, if one wants to be technical. Some more or less fermented than others. Others use pita bread, some use matza bread - which is better? is the "commonality" that Turretin argues for what should be used? or is there another standard that pops up that tells us how far or not far to go? Just some things to think through.

Personally, under all normal circumstances - I would use common wine, and common unleavened bread.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 27, 2005)

On that note, am I wrong for leaving the Southern Baptist Convention and joining the Reformed Presbyterian Church?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 27, 2005)

Not remotely. Moving from a church without lawful government to one in accordance with "the best Reformed Churches..." is not what Rutherford was talking about. In his day, the "baptist" issue was not an issue (which is why no baptists were invited to Westminster).


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 27, 2005)

Matt,

Does the PCA have any relations with the RPCGA?


----------



## JohnV (Sep 27, 2005)

When I left the Dutch Reformed and looked at the Presbyterian system, it is actually the RPCGA that I was looking at, with their rigorous qualifications for office. That's a lot of what attracted me to Presbyterianism from where I was. 

I also went through self-examinations concerning justification. I would agree with Matt about this. Basically, you're just moving from the pastoral care of one to the pastoral care of another. And in most such cases your really moving from a lack of pastoral care to having pastoral care. That overshadows the question of schism. In the end such accusations just turn into a choice between two schism-making schemes: either you choose to stay with the denomination but work for division from the declining influences, or you choose to go with a denomination that is separate from those divisions already. You can't avoid schism by staying. What they're really asking is for you to bend with them, justifying their differences under a larger umbrella and necessity of unity in faith. But you cannot be one with those that bend and turn Scripture to their particular temporal bent. 

Matt, I am also interested in the particulars concerning relations between the RPCGA and the PCA and OPC. One of the problems that you'll face is that its a small denomination, and you cannot expect much financial help; nor will oversight be easy. We had to leave because we had no support from them. It was quite understandable, and actually, in our case, commendable that they took this stand with us. They saw the writing on the wall, and made wise though hard choices, just by playing by the rules. But it'll be hard on you. That's why I am interested in relations, because that's a possibility for support. Any new church needs that.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 27, 2005)

Do the RPCNA and RPCGA have any positive relations? I have a feeling they wouldn't, since the GA exists in the first place (i.e. they didn't join with the RPCNA).


----------



## Scott (Sep 27, 2005)

Under the old school model of catholicity, the objective was to have one orthodox church per region. While this model does not directly apply in an age of ecclesial fragmentation, you should give geography some weight in terms of choosing among available reformed churches with lawfully called ministers.

The Westminster The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government gives some of reasoning behind this prudential consideration:



> The ordinary way of dividing Christians into distinct congregations, and most expedient for edification, is by the respective bounds of their dwellings.
> 
> First, Because they who dwell together, being bound to all kind of moral duties one to another, have the better opportunity thereby to discharge them; which moral tie is perpetual; for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. [33]
> 
> ...



Scott

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 27, 2005)

I was under the impression that the RPCGA left the PCA, correct? Can there be justification for that at present? Or wouldn't that be considered schism?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Matt,
> 
> Does the PCA have any relations with the RPCGA?



Not that I am aware of. The break occured over ecclesiastical issues and purity of doctrine back in 1983.

John,

Honestly, I am not worried about financial help from them at all. God has placed Scott and I in a job where, if He wanted, He could provide funding for things very easily. Case in point - this month Scott has a huge number of onboards, and I met my quota which gives me a large bonus. God's timing is impeccable.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 27, 2005)

Thanks for your responses all, I will continue to study.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 28, 2005)

Jeff,
Rutherford's contemporary James Durham addresses the last resort of moving one's membership to another congregation; understanding of course he is writing from an established church environment. He has just finished addressing the objection Whether the ordinances of Christ be any way polluted by corrupt fellow worshippers. James Durham, _A Treatise Concerning Scandal,_ (Dallas: Naphtali Press, 1990) 123-125. In this environment we live where the reformed church is divided into so many separate denominations, I trust the same option would be viewed as reasonable, i.e. moving to another local church if things are simply too intolerable to our consciences in our present congregation where we belong. Note too though that he still is very cautious in allowing this having in view that our aim should be to have the ordinance of discipline faithfully exercised to avoid this and obviously not to make such moves for anything but the most intolerable and otherwise un-resolvable corruptions.


> *SHOWING IF ANYTHING FURTHER IN ANY IMAGINABLE CASE IS ALLOWED TO
> PRIVATE CHRISTIANS.*
> 
> 2. It may be yet further moved, .Can there be no more allowed in any supposable case?. ANSWER. It is most unsuitable, in a matter of practice, when folks are not contending for curiosity, but for direction, to suppose cases hardly or rarely possible in a constitute church which is worthy of that name, or upon that ground to found a contest in dispute, or schism in practice, in cases palpably different; at least, union should be kept till such cases come about. And is it likely, where the order formerly laid down is observed, that there can be habitual admission of notoriously or grievously scandalous persons, though, it may be, there are lesser failings of several sorts? Yet, supposing that any, out of infirmity or affection, not having such knowledge, or otherwise, should stick to join in the ordinances at some times, or in some places, upon such an account, who yet do not love separation, or the erecting of a different church, we say further:
> ...


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 28, 2005)

Good grief. All this nuancing and subterfuge trying to show how Scott and Matt aren't violating the "sacred" opinion of Rutherford.
Phooey.
I'd sooner say that Rutherford was wrong and be done with it.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 28, 2005)

> In this environment we live where the reformed church is divided into so many separate denominations, I trust the same option would be viewed as reasonable, i.e. moving to another local church if things are simply too intolerable to our consciences in our present congregation where we belong.



I think this about sums it up. Its not that one moves from one "Church" (Capital "C") to another, but a horizontal move within the Reformed Church at large.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Good grief. All this nuancing and subterfuge trying to show how Scott and Matt aren't violating the "sacred" opinion of Rutherford.
> Phooey.
> I'd sooner say that Rutherford was wrong and be done with it.



Ben,

This has nothing to do with violating what Ruthorford says, but everything to do with MYSELF learning about schism. Because I am in such a similar situation as Matt and Scott, I am trying to use their experience as a springboard to learn what the reformed/biblical view of schism is. It is not something that is widely taught today (even in reformed circles

Chris....thanks for the article. Your website has been most helpful in my study.

Matt, thanks again for your comments.


----------

