C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
That would be a good time frame, though we would not ignore anything said "ex cathedra" as equally absurd.
A Questions for Baptists on Ordination
- Thread starter C. Matthew McMahon
- Start date
- Status
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:2a3dbd54aa][i:2a3dbd54aa]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:2a3dbd54aa]
Would the Catholic Church have been false in Luther's day while Luther, as a monk and priest, was teaching Justification by faith? it could not have been unless you beg the question. Rather, as Fred pointed out, it was not until AFTER they left the church to itself, and Gospel teaching was removed from its midst, that it remained in error, and rejected the truth. [/quote:2a3dbd54aa]
OK, I guess it was historical ignorance on my part, because even though I knew there were other teachers of the true Gospel before Luther and during Luther's time, I just didn't think they made up [i:2a3dbd54aa]nearly[/i:2a3dbd54aa] a great enough portion of the Roman Church to constitute it as a true church. I was basically thinking of it as analogous to calling a modern church like the Church of Christ (which often denies Sola Fide and Christ's divinity while on earth) a true church just because there are a few good teachers in it. But now I realize that the difference is that the Roman Church had not [i:2a3dbd54aa]officially[/i:2a3dbd54aa] denied those essential tenets until [i:2a3dbd54aa]after[/i:2a3dbd54aa] the Reformation, even though there were individual priests who denied them. Thanks for clearing that up, Fred and Matt.
In Christ,
Chris
Would the Catholic Church have been false in Luther's day while Luther, as a monk and priest, was teaching Justification by faith? it could not have been unless you beg the question. Rather, as Fred pointed out, it was not until AFTER they left the church to itself, and Gospel teaching was removed from its midst, that it remained in error, and rejected the truth. [/quote:2a3dbd54aa]
OK, I guess it was historical ignorance on my part, because even though I knew there were other teachers of the true Gospel before Luther and during Luther's time, I just didn't think they made up [i:2a3dbd54aa]nearly[/i:2a3dbd54aa] a great enough portion of the Roman Church to constitute it as a true church. I was basically thinking of it as analogous to calling a modern church like the Church of Christ (which often denies Sola Fide and Christ's divinity while on earth) a true church just because there are a few good teachers in it. But now I realize that the difference is that the Roman Church had not [i:2a3dbd54aa]officially[/i:2a3dbd54aa] denied those essential tenets until [i:2a3dbd54aa]after[/i:2a3dbd54aa] the Reformation, even though there were individual priests who denied them. Thanks for clearing that up, Fred and Matt.
In Christ,
Chris
Ianterrell
Puritan Board Sophomore
Chris,
I was suprised to learn not long ago that Luther's teaching was not exactly unpopular with many of the Catholic Clergy but the hostility was much personally directed towards him! This is not too different from the Puritan's break with the Church of England. Both the Puritans and the Church of England were Calvinistic theologically.
I was suprised to learn not long ago that Luther's teaching was not exactly unpopular with many of the Catholic Clergy but the hostility was much personally directed towards him! This is not too different from the Puritan's break with the Church of England. Both the Puritans and the Church of England were Calvinistic theologically.
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
That surprises me too, Ian. I had always thought that Wycliffe, Luther, etc. were just a few needles in the haystack of Rome.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
[quote:a04a8189d0]Yep...sounds good to me! [/quote:a04a8189d0]
So would you then say that the Westminster Assembly was "miserably corrupted" and find warrant for Independency?
So would you then say that the Westminster Assembly was "miserably corrupted" and find warrant for Independency?
The WA is not the ENTIRE church in and of itself.
When we get tunnel vision and start thinking that the WA was IT, and there was no other "branch" or "member" of the Body anywhere else on earth then we fall for the notion that the WCF IS orthodoxy itself and anything that disagrees is unorthodox. The WCF is not THE faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nor did the "divines" speak for the whole body.
Phillip
When we get tunnel vision and start thinking that the WA was IT, and there was no other "branch" or "member" of the Body anywhere else on earth then we fall for the notion that the WCF IS orthodoxy itself and anything that disagrees is unorthodox. The WCF is not THE faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nor did the "divines" speak for the whole body.
Phillip
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:c757db153b][i:c757db153b]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:c757db153b]
The WA is not the ENTIRE church in and of itself.
When we get tunnel vision and start thinking that the WA was IT, and there was no other "branch" or "member" of the Body anywhere else on earth then we fall for the notion that the WCF IS orthodoxy itself and anything that disagrees is unorthodox. The WCF is not THE faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nor did the "divines" speak for the whole body.
Phillip [/quote:c757db153b]
Of course the WA was not the whole church by itself - but at that time it [i:c757db153b]did[/i:c757db153b] reasonably (though not perfectly, of course) [i:c757db153b]represent[/i:c757db153b] the entire Presbyterian church. And that's actually how Matt had worded the question earlier in the thread: "The question then arises - was the Presbyterian Church at the time and the Westminster Assembly "miserably corrupted"?"
Furthermore, the issue of to what extent one considers the WCF to be a reasonable summary of orthodoxy itself is another issue altogether.
In Christ,
Chris
The WA is not the ENTIRE church in and of itself.
When we get tunnel vision and start thinking that the WA was IT, and there was no other "branch" or "member" of the Body anywhere else on earth then we fall for the notion that the WCF IS orthodoxy itself and anything that disagrees is unorthodox. The WCF is not THE faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nor did the "divines" speak for the whole body.
Phillip [/quote:c757db153b]
Of course the WA was not the whole church by itself - but at that time it [i:c757db153b]did[/i:c757db153b] reasonably (though not perfectly, of course) [i:c757db153b]represent[/i:c757db153b] the entire Presbyterian church. And that's actually how Matt had worded the question earlier in the thread: "The question then arises - was the Presbyterian Church at the time and the Westminster Assembly "miserably corrupted"?"
Furthermore, the issue of to what extent one considers the WCF to be a reasonable summary of orthodoxy itself is another issue altogether.
In Christ,
Chris
Webmaster,
Well, that does seem to settle it. Since the Solemn League & Covenant says that they will preserve Scotland's church government, and seek to reform England's and Ireland's, while at the same time bringing them into as much uniformity and conjunction as possible, once the debate as to what government was according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches was decided, that should have been the end of it.
As a follow-up question, does Independency contain a similar safeguard against secession as Presbyterianism? Or does strict Independency necessarily lead to a free-for-all? For instance, if the Westminster debate had been settled in favor of Independency, would it have been schismatic for the losing party to form another church? Obviously it would have been with regard to the Solemn League and Covenant --but under Independency's paradigm is schism possible?
Well, that does seem to settle it. Since the Solemn League & Covenant says that they will preserve Scotland's church government, and seek to reform England's and Ireland's, while at the same time bringing them into as much uniformity and conjunction as possible, once the debate as to what government was according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches was decided, that should have been the end of it.
As a follow-up question, does Independency contain a similar safeguard against secession as Presbyterianism? Or does strict Independency necessarily lead to a free-for-all? For instance, if the Westminster debate had been settled in favor of Independency, would it have been schismatic for the losing party to form another church? Obviously it would have been with regard to the Solemn League and Covenant --but under Independency's paradigm is schism possible?
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
This is just my :wr50:, but I don't see why not. I mean hey, if they hold that secession from the Church and ordination of new elders without the consent of current elders is acceptable even when the Church is [i:34e2366252]not[/i:34e2366252] miserably corrupted, they no longer really have any grounds for preventing free-for-all schism of any kind.
[quote:055ab258eb]
I mean hey, if they hold that secession from the Church and ordination of new elders without the consent of current elders is acceptable
[/quote:055ab258eb]
That is exactly what I am asking. Is leaving the church (when not miserably corrupted) acceptable under the Independent model?
I mean hey, if they hold that secession from the Church and ordination of new elders without the consent of current elders is acceptable
[/quote:055ab258eb]
That is exactly what I am asking. Is leaving the church (when not miserably corrupted) acceptable under the Independent model?
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
[quote:dc1ed48a11]
but under Independency's paradigm is schism possible?
[/quote:dc1ed48a11]
In one respect, this is EXACTLY the point of the whole thing. The answer would be "no" and that brings into question the idea of intention and polity according to Christ and His apostles for the church in general - is it a free for all, or is He a God of order? The appointment of elders in this regard is also the "cruciality" of the issue too. Free for all, or order?
In terms of history, to say that the WA was not "the church" is really to side step the whole issue brother.
Even if we were to trace the historical church during this time, you have the:
Roman Catholic Chruch
Division into Lutherans and Reformed
Division of the Reformed into Reformed and Church of England (combination of Catholic and sundry other ministers at the time).
Then that covers about the time period until the puritans, OUT OF WHICH you have the Independents, and the Presbyterians.
I've over simplified it a bit, but even the splinter groups right before the Reformation (Lollards, Moravians, etc) are part of the RCC of the day. The only exception to that would be the Anabaptists, which demonstrated a blatant schismatism, of which defines the very point at hand.
If we look at the Assembly itself, it houses Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Erastians, Independets, etc. It was by the state (Long Parliment) that this "assembly" came together on behalf of the Reformation Church, the Lutherans excluded as following Melancthon at the time and still holding to much of Rome.
[quote:dc1ed48a11]
if they hold that secession from the Church and ordination of new elders without the consent of current elders is acceptable even when the Church is not miserably corrupted, they no longer really have any grounds for preventing free-for-all schism of any kind.
[/quote:dc1ed48a11]
Correct. Which is the danger of the position, and I think on that grounds alone demosntrates it error. You would have to say that God is up for a free for all, and wanted it that way. That is a far cry from the OT!
but under Independency's paradigm is schism possible?
[/quote:dc1ed48a11]
In one respect, this is EXACTLY the point of the whole thing. The answer would be "no" and that brings into question the idea of intention and polity according to Christ and His apostles for the church in general - is it a free for all, or is He a God of order? The appointment of elders in this regard is also the "cruciality" of the issue too. Free for all, or order?
In terms of history, to say that the WA was not "the church" is really to side step the whole issue brother.
Even if we were to trace the historical church during this time, you have the:
Roman Catholic Chruch
Division into Lutherans and Reformed
Division of the Reformed into Reformed and Church of England (combination of Catholic and sundry other ministers at the time).
Then that covers about the time period until the puritans, OUT OF WHICH you have the Independents, and the Presbyterians.
I've over simplified it a bit, but even the splinter groups right before the Reformation (Lollards, Moravians, etc) are part of the RCC of the day. The only exception to that would be the Anabaptists, which demonstrated a blatant schismatism, of which defines the very point at hand.
If we look at the Assembly itself, it houses Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Erastians, Independets, etc. It was by the state (Long Parliment) that this "assembly" came together on behalf of the Reformation Church, the Lutherans excluded as following Melancthon at the time and still holding to much of Rome.
[quote:dc1ed48a11]
if they hold that secession from the Church and ordination of new elders without the consent of current elders is acceptable even when the Church is not miserably corrupted, they no longer really have any grounds for preventing free-for-all schism of any kind.
[/quote:dc1ed48a11]
Correct. Which is the danger of the position, and I think on that grounds alone demosntrates it error. You would have to say that God is up for a free for all, and wanted it that way. That is a far cry from the OT!
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
[quote:ba5db8eae6][i:ba5db8eae6]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:ba5db8eae6]
The WA is not the ENTIRE church in and of itself.
When we get tunnel vision and start thinking that the WA was IT, and there was no other "branch" or "member" of the Body anywhere else on earth then we fall for the notion that the WCF IS orthodoxy itself and anything that disagrees is unorthodox. The WCF is not THE faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nor did the "divines" speak for the whole body.
Phillip [/quote:ba5db8eae6]
Phillip,
They did speak for the majority of Romans opposers -no?
[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Scott Bushey]
The WA is not the ENTIRE church in and of itself.
When we get tunnel vision and start thinking that the WA was IT, and there was no other "branch" or "member" of the Body anywhere else on earth then we fall for the notion that the WCF IS orthodoxy itself and anything that disagrees is unorthodox. The WCF is not THE faith once for all delivered to the saints. Nor did the "divines" speak for the whole body.
Phillip [/quote:ba5db8eae6]
Phillip,
They did speak for the majority of Romans opposers -no?
[Edited on 6-3-2004 by Scott Bushey]
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Good thread. Tis Done.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
