Brian,
Pigeon-holing me is fruitless, after all i'm 'ignorant' right? Don't argue with me, argue w/ Calvin.
All I'm asking for is consistency, which is what this thread asked for. And my name is Bryan.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Brian,
Pigeon-holing me is fruitless, after all i'm 'ignorant' right? Don't argue with me, argue w/ Calvin.
But is was not ratified until 1666 at Antwerp. And I caught the error in my post, that's why I deleted it.
All I'm asking for is consistency, which is what this thread asked for. And my name is Bryan.
Mea cupla if that is true. However, the fact of the matter is, is that one's devotion to Presbyterian ecclesiology has nothing to do with if a Presbyterian minister preaches in a non Presbyterian church. Is it a sin for him to do so? No one has proved that. Does doing so somehow make him inconsistent with his Presbyterian beliefs? Nope; not proved either. That sound is the air escaping from a non argument; and while the proponent will bluster on, we all know what the score is.
Mea cupla if that is true. However, the fact of the matter is, is that one's devotion to Presbyterian ecclesiology has nothing to do with if a Presbyterian minister preaches in a non Presbyterian church. Is it a sin for him to do so? No one has proved that. Does doing so somehow make him inconsistent with his Presbyterian beliefs? Nope; not proved either. That sound is the air escaping from a non argument; and while the proponent will bluster on, we all know what the score is.
"If Knox took an Anglican pastorate, and Calvin took an Erastian one, and Zwigli was arguably friendly with Anabaptists, then I dare say that the Magisterial Reformers would have preached in an independent church."
This is certainly speculation. Since they never did preach in any independent churches, we could only speculate here. What we do know, is that the church pastorates they were rescuing from darkness were transformed by the Gospel, I would indeed say they took those pastorates to rescue those people from darkness. That seems to be plain by that little movement we call "The REFORMation". So if the arguments runs that way, then sure, Presbyterian ministers should preach in independent churches to rescue those there from darkenss! "wink wink"
This thread should turn the corner.
Because eccumenicalism has so entrenched modern Presbyterianism in more ways than one, I think this will be a "go round and round" thread.
Maybe just to ask a side question - and turn the corner...
Were the magisterial reformers eccumenical, and how?
I think this would be a more fruitful discussion.
Maybe we could talk about how Luther and Melancthon sat with Oecolampadius and Zwingli to iron things out and came pretty close on thier theological views. Or do you think that either Luther or Zwingli would switch pulpits easily? (Honestly, from thier writings, I don't see that happening too quickly in thier day.)
How close should these parties come before they can minister together?
What I have found, is that the "back to the sources" movement within the Reformation took individualized countries back to the bible, and by faithful exegesis brought men together to minister across great regions.
Fine. Of course it is; saying what anyone now dead would do in our day is speculation. Nearly 100 posts for this. Put this puppy to bed.
Scott; I simply do not need to play your game.
Fine. Of course it is; saying what anyone now dead would do in our day is speculation.
Chris,
Thats because if you answer, you shoot yourself in the foot..........
No Scott; I'm pretty sure whose feet are bleeding and they are not mine. If this is a sin issue, take it up with your Presbytery like the Presbyterian you claim to be. Cheers.
I never said it was sinful. I said it was inconsistant. You got a bleeder there brother. Put some pressure on that will ya!
From the RPC site:
Matt McMahon says:
Richard Bacon states in his paper, "The Visible Church & the Outer Darkness.":
Churchill Writes:
PURITAN NEWS WEEKLY
J. Parnell McCarter writes:
The Solemn League and Covenant states:
Chris,
Why do you hate Scott's position?
Come out and say "Why" specifically.
In other words, why is Independency OK? And why should Presbyterian minister's acquiesse to it?
For anyone who cares...... How would a Presbyterian preacher display inconsistency by preaching in an independent church? No, strike that question. Let's use a real life example. If my church extended an invitation to Matt to preach from our pulpit (with no restriction as to content), where would the inconsistency be? Matt is not endorsing Baptist polity. Matt is not embracing credobaptism. Matt would be proclaiming God's word to part of the visible church. Would this displease our Lord? Of course not. But I digress. It is not addressing the question raised in the OP. Would it be inconsistent with Presbyterian polity? No. Why? Because it would have nothing to do with Presbyterian polity. Matt would be a Presbyterian preaching in an independent church. It would have no effect on his church's polity.
In other words, why is Independency OK? And why should Presbyterian minister's acquiesse to it?
I never said it was sinful. I said it was inconsistant.
Scott, throughout the entire thread you have been looking down upon the practice and discouraging it as unbiblical - yet now you do not seem to be willing to directly call it sin. I would humbly submit that you can't have it both ways.
As with any belief or act, if the act is not sinful, then is there any biblical basis on which to judge those who commit that act? No - and thus if not sinful, then it cannot be looked down upon or even ultimately discouraged as anything more than a difference in preference or style; correspondingly, if it can biblically be looked down upon or always discouraged as such, then it must be recognized as sin.
Does Independency "matter?" or does God grade on a curve?
Matt - I meant no disrespect to you. Please accept my apology if you were offended. I am not knowledgeable about your vows as Presbyterian. If those vows specifically state that you are not allowed to preach in a Baptist (or similar) church, then you must adhere to those policies or resign. Of course I would hope that if you did preach at my church it would not be to rebuke our view of ecclesiology or baptism. But I suppose that is neither here nor there.
I wonder why Scott started this thread? It is not leading to an amicable end among those that disagree. In fact it only serves to underscore what is wrong between us.
Matt - I meant no disrespect to you. Please accept my apology if you were offended. I am not knowledgeable about your vows as Presbyterian. If those vows specifically state that you are not allowed to preach in a Baptist (or similar) church, then you must adhere to those policies or resign. Of course I would hope that if you did preach at my church it would not be to rebuke our view of ecclesiology or baptism. But I suppose that is neither here nor there.
I wonder why Scott started this thread? It is not leading to an amicable end among those that disagree. In fact it only serves to underscore what is wrong between us.
No disrespect taken at all.
I hope you didn't take it that way.
Wise words Chris. You are correct on that.