Clark-Tillian
Puritan Board Freshman
AA Hodge: A church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation.
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.
Has this always been the case, particularly with regard to Presbyterianism?
Has this always been the case, particularly with regard to Presbyterianism?
Historically speaking, Presbyterianism did not maintain "explicit" particular church membership. This was the invention of Independency and has only arisen in Presbyterian circles because of denominationalism. The Presbyterians of the 17th century argued that the sacraments were signs of church membership, and therefore admission to the sacraments was an "implicit" form of membership.
Has this always been the case, particularly with regard to Presbyterianism?
Historically speaking, Presbyterianism did not maintain "explicit" particular church membership. This was the invention of Independency and has only arisen in Presbyterian circles because of denominationalism. The Presbyterians of the 17th century argued that the sacraments were signs of church membership, and therefore admission to the sacraments was an "implicit" form of membership.
Has this always been the case, particularly with regard to Presbyterianism?
Historically speaking, Presbyterianism did not maintain "explicit" particular church membership. This was the invention of Independency and has only arisen in Presbyterian circles because of denominationalism. The Presbyterians of the 17th century argued that the sacraments were signs of church membership, and therefore admission to the sacraments was an "implicit" form of membership.
Were the requirements for receiving baptism different from the requirements for coming to the Lord's Table?
The Ross-shire fathers held, that though in general, the two sacraments were equally seals of the covenant of grace, they do in some respects differ, even as sealing ordinances; that baptism, being the door of admission into the visible Church, a larger exercise of charity is required in dealing with applicants for that sacrament, than is called for in ad ministering the other, which implies a confirmation of those who were members before; that the lessons of baptism are more elementary than those of the sacrament of the Supper; that the connection of the child, and of both the parents, with an ordinary case of infant baptism, calls for peculiar tenderness on the part of church rulers; and that the rule of Scripture requires baptism to be given, on an uncontradicted profession of faith, while an accredited profession is required to justify the church, in granting admission to the table of the Lord. The result of carrying these views into practice is well known; the number of members in full communion is comparatively small, and parents who have never communicated, receive baptism for their children.
Yes. But I do not recall the details beyond vowing to send their children to the local schools.It seems that I read somewhere that the Genevan Christians under Calvin were required to sign off on some sort of confession. Is this true?
AA Hodge: A church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation.
Were the requirements for receiving baptism different from the requirements for coming to the Lord's Table?
For some reason this piqued my interest. What sources can you point me to for further study?
Matthew, I am also interested in any historical sources you might provide.
Has this always been the case, particularly with regard to Presbyterianism?
Historically speaking, Presbyterianism did not maintain "explicit" particular church membership. This was the invention of Independency and has only arisen in Presbyterian circles because of denominationalism. The Presbyterians of the 17th century argued that the sacraments were signs of church membership, and therefore admission to the sacraments was an "implicit" form of membership.
How does that work with non-communicant members who move or are moved to a different area? Communicant members would need to be received to the table at the new church, but non-communicant members cannot be rebaptized.
How is it established that the officers of the new church have care over the non-communicant member, and the member duties to the officers of that church?
Also, if ecclesiastical vows are not Scripturally warranted for members, how are they warranted for officers?
Are we talking about a baptised non-communicant member?
His valid Trinitarian baptism formally brought him into the catholic church visible, and as every particular church is a member of the catholic church visible, so every member of the catholic visible church should be received as such. That is, the baptised member of one church would be a baptised member in any church. The only way it could be otherwise would be if a particular church broke off from the catholic church by requiring something additional for membership.
The gracious and glorious Head of the church has so constituted it.
Then again, you mentioned earlier that the change in practice among Presbyterians arose partly due to denominationalism, which may be sufficient to answer my question. Under a nationally established church, the nearest church would obviously have jurisdiction of non-communicant members in its own area.
Then again, you mentioned earlier that the change in practice among Presbyterians arose partly due to denominationalism, which may be sufficient to answer my question. Under a nationally established church, the nearest church would obviously have jurisdiction of non-communicant members in its own area.
Yes, there would be some sort of a parish system in place. Without a national church everyone is left to their own choice; and so the office-bearers are bound to recognise personal choice as affecting parish limits, and not simply geography. But even in the national church system there was evidence of people preferring one congregation over another and going outside their own parish. This sparked a debate at one stage which gave rise to a division over the validity of fellowship meetings.
Now I am wondering whether the Independents appealed to passages such as Joshua 21, the covenants under Hezekiah and Josiah, etc. to establish membership vows, and if so, whether Rutherford addressed those arguments? How would you briefly answer a use of those sort of passages to build a case for membership vows?
Now I am wondering whether the Independents appealed to passages such as Joshua 21, the covenants under Hezekiah and Josiah, etc. to establish membership vows, and if so, whether Rutherford addressed those arguments? How would you briefly answer a use of those sort of passages to build a case for membership vows?
This is treated in "Due Right," p. 110: "Also the fallen Church of the Jews was restored to a Church-state (say they) by renewing a covenant with the Lord in the days of Asa & Hezekiah." Rutherford's reply: "Israel before this Oath, was circumcised, and had eaten the Passover, and so was a visible Church before..." If it was a church before it covenanted, it is obvious that covenanting cannot be essential to constitute a church.
I think the argument would be that membership vows are lawful and prudent, not essential, however, just as the historical covenants referenced were not essential to church constitution but nevertheless were lawful and prudent. Are they not simply a prudential way, especially in our day of buffet Christianity, of indicating and facilitating thorough understanding of the duties of church members to their officers, to one another, etc.?
I think the argument would be that membership vows are lawful and prudent, not essential, however, just as the historical covenants referenced were not essential to church constitution but nevertheless were lawful and prudent. Are they not simply a prudential way, especially in our day of buffet Christianity, of indicating and facilitating thorough understanding of the duties of church members to their officers, to one another, etc.?
The Lord's supper is an ordinance instituted by Christ. Presumably the purpose of church membership is to admit to the Lord's supper. Any additional requirements for membership would thus become additional requirements for participation in the Lord's supper. In that case Rutherford's first argument becomes pertinent: "to tie the oath of God to one particular duty rather than another, so as you cannot, without such an oath, enter into such a state, nor have title and right to the seals of grace and God's Ordinances, is will-worship, and that by virtue of a divine Law, and is a binding of the Conscience where God hath not bound it."
I think the argument would be that membership vows are lawful and prudent, not essential, however, just as the historical covenants referenced were not essential to church constitution but nevertheless were lawful and prudent. Are they not simply a prudential way, especially in our day of buffet Christianity, of indicating and facilitating thorough understanding of the duties of church members to their officers, to one another, etc.?
If membership is required for participation in the sealing ordinances, additional requirements for membership would make additional requirements for these ordinances. Is this lawful and prudent? Rutherford states, "to tie the oath of God to one particular duty rather than another, so as you cannot, without such an oath, enter into such a state, nor have title and right to the seals of grace and God's ordinances, is will-worship, and that by virtue of a divine Law, and is a binding of the Conscience where God hath not bound it."
Would the objection still obtain if the vows only entail vowing to the same things which would have been conditions of admittance to the table whether vows were taken or not?
I think the argument would be that membership vows are lawful and prudent, not essential, however, just as the historical covenants referenced were not essential to church constitution but nevertheless were lawful and prudent. Are they not simply a prudential way, especially in our day of buffet Christianity, of indicating and facilitating thorough understanding of the duties of church members to their officers, to one another, etc.?
If membership is required for participation in the sealing ordinances, additional requirements for membership would make additional requirements for these ordinances. Is this lawful and prudent? Rutherford states, "to tie the oath of God to one particular duty rather than another, so as you cannot, without such an oath, enter into such a state, nor have title and right to the seals of grace and God's ordinances, is will-worship, and that by virtue of a divine Law, and is a binding of the Conscience where God hath not bound it."
You modified your post while I was responding, but I cannot complain because I did that earlier. Looking at it again, I think this quotation from Rutherford helps clear up my latest round of questions. I had not considered the potential difficulty with "[tying] the oath of God to one particular duty rather than another." I will have to think about that, and of course read Due Right. Thank you, as always, for your patience with my questions.
Now, what about Communicant Classes for covenant children?
Were vows considered lawful for baptism but not the Lord's Supper, or was opposition to vows for admittance to sealing ordinances a somewhat later development, albeit obviously still in Rutherford's lifetime?
Has this always been the case, particularly with regard to Presbyterianism?
Historically speaking, Presbyterianism did not maintain "explicit" particular church membership. This was the invention of Independency and has only arisen in Presbyterian circles because of denominationalism. The Presbyterians of the 17th century argued that the sacraments were signs of church membership, and therefore admission to the sacraments was an "implicit" form of membership.
Were the requirements for receiving baptism different from the requirements for coming to the Lord's Table?
seems a matter of careful shepherding -- making sure someone is not joining himself to a congregation without recognizing that he is placing himself under the care of the under shepherds. I'm not aware of any form of the confession that questions the chapter of Lawful Oaths and Vows and it's wording:Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church's worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?
..whereby we more strictly find ourselves to necessary duties; or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto."