Congregational Polity and Being Reformed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps our Webmaster should write a new article on the meaning of Reformed as he has done so profitably with the word Evangelical. Just a thought. (As if he doesn't have enough projects going already!).
 
"And, Martin Lurther, the father of the reformation, isn't reformed because of his views of consubstantion!"

Luther was definitely not Reformed and modern Lutherans would chafe at the idea of being called Reformed. Historically, the term "Reformed" tended to be associated with Calvinistic reformation and "Lutheran" was associated with the Lutheran churches, which were primarily in the Germanic states. There were bitter theological feuds between Reformed and Lutherans and bitter wars between Lutheran and Reformed countries. They are very different and the praise Luther get from modern Reformed people is somewhat interesting. After all, if a Catholic talks about baptismal regeneration, he is put out of fellowship. Yet, Luther taught and his descendants teach this.

Slow down there....

Lutherans DO NOT follow Luther (though they would like to think so). Lutherans follow Melancthon who followed Pelagius into Semi-Pelagianism (sadly). Melancthon also acquiesced t MUCH of Rome's theology to try and "make the reformation work" in the absence of Luther. Even Luther took issue with his compromises at Augsburg.

Luther was reformed to a point. When Calvin sent his work on the sacraments to Luther, Luther agreed with him for the most part and applauded his work over Zwingli's de-mystification of the sacraments (something Luther could not handle).

Luther and Calvin agreed on just about everything except some of the nitty gritty aspects of the sacraments.

I would say he was reformed, but one must take into consideration that it was a Lutheran Theologian AFTER Melancthon that called Calvin "Reformed".

As for an article on being Reformed, well, yes I have a brief one out there....:)

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahon-WhatDoesItMeanToBeReformed.htm

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by webmaster]
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Paul,
The term is more than a wax nose-no? Historically, it had certian ideas attached to it. For instance, historically speaking, one could not be an anabaptist and be considered 'reformed', correct? Even if this anabaptist held to the DOG"s, they were still not able to seize the title, correct?
Lets approach it from a different standpoint; who then is not reformed?

Paul,
Fred's a lawyer and you sound like one!:banana::banana::banana:

Your statements border upon relativism.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]


whatever the case according to your definition Matt (Webmaster) isn't reformed since he's not a presuppositionalist.

You're not since you're are not postmill.

WTS California isn't one of Webmaster's "6 "reformed" seminarys" since they take a framework approach to Genesis 1-3.

And, Martin Lurther, the father of the reformation, isn't reformed because of his views of consubstantion!

Who's covenant theology is "reformed?" Kline's or Murray's?! Wulp, guess one of them isn't reformed.

The PCA isn't a reformed denomination and neither is the OPC since they said Framework was not contrary to the confession!

So, you asked me who wasn't reformed? Well, Scott, may I ask you just *who* exactly *is* reformed.


p.s. Am I reformed? If so then my "relativistic" statement isn't a problem since relativism is reformed:D

Well, if we were to define the term by the Westminster Standards, most toss-ups of this nature would be clarified.

But you can't. Being reformed did not even originate in Britain, but on the Continent. So would someone be non-reformed who did not subscribe to the Westminster Confession, but does subscribe to the Three Forms?

This is not an easy question Chris.
 
Originally posted by webmaster
Here is the thing: if Owen is not reformed, who is?

Of course Owen was Reformed. He was also Presbyterian. Now don't get me wrong, he did take some time to dabble with congregationalism, but his writings in the latter years reflect a change back to Presbyterianism.

Matt,

You are skating on very thin ice here. There is very scant evidence that Owen was a Presbyterian. Lee's article is more supposition than fact. There is no other Owen scholar, including Sinclair Ferguson, Carl Trueman and Derek Thomas - all of whom have done more work in Owen and Calvin than Lee - that will say Owen was a Presbyterian.

That is too easy an out for you. You have to reject Owen as reformed if Presbyterianism is required. What about Burroughs? Thomas Goodwin? Are we saying that a guy like Frame or Keller is more reformed than them?
 
Originally posted by webmaster
"And, Martin Lurther, the father of the reformation, isn't reformed because of his views of consubstantion!"

Luther was definitely not Reformed and modern Lutherans would chafe at the idea of being called Reformed. Historically, the term "Reformed" tended to be associated with Calvinistic reformation and "Lutheran" was associated with the Lutheran churches, which were primarily in the Germanic states. There were bitter theological feuds between Reformed and Lutherans and bitter wars between Lutheran and Reformed countries. They are very different and the praise Luther get from modern Reformed people is somewhat interesting. After all, if a Catholic talks about baptismal regeneration, he is put out of fellowship. Yet, Luther taught and his descendants teach this.

Slow down there....

Lutherans DO NOT follow Luther (though they would like to think so). Lutherans follow Melancthon who followed Pelagius into Semi-Pelagianism (sadly). Melancthon also acquiesced t MUCH of Rome's theology to try and "make the reformation work" in the absence of Luther. Even Luther took issue with his compromises at Augsburg.

Luther was reformed to a point. When Calvin sent his work on the sacraments to Luther, Luther agreed with him for the most part and applauded his work over Zwingli's de-mystification of the sacraments (something Luther could not handle).

Luther and Calvin agreed on just about everything except some of the nitty gritty aspects of the sacraments.

I would say he was reformed, but one must take into consideration that it was a Lutheran Theologian AFTER Melancthon that called Calvin "Reformed".

As for an article on being Reformed, well, yes I have a brief one out there....:)

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahon-WhatDoesItMeanToBeReformed.htm

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by webmaster]

Luther was definitely NOT a Presbyterian, so he cannot be reformed in this discussion.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Paul,
The term is more than a wax nose-no? Historically, it had certian ideas attached to it. For instance, historically speaking, one could not be an anabaptist and be considered 'reformed', correct? Even if this anabaptist held to the DOG"s, they were still not able to seize the title, correct?
Lets approach it from a different standpoint; who then is not reformed?

Paul,
Fred's a lawyer and you sound like one!:banana::banana::banana:

Your statements border upon relativism.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]


whatever the case according to your definition Matt (Webmaster) isn't reformed since he's not a presuppositionalist.

You're not since you're are not postmill.

WTS California isn't one of Webmaster's "6 "reformed" seminarys" since they take a framework approach to Genesis 1-3.

And, Martin Lurther, the father of the reformation, isn't reformed because of his views of consubstantion!

Who's covenant theology is "reformed?" Kline's or Murray's?! Wulp, guess one of them isn't reformed.

The PCA isn't a reformed denomination and neither is the OPC since they said Framework was not contrary to the confession!

So, you asked me who wasn't reformed? Well, Scott, may I ask you just *who* exactly *is* reformed.


p.s. Am I reformed? If so then my "relativistic" statement isn't a problem since relativism is reformed:D

Well, if we were to define the term by the Westminster Standards, most toss-ups of this nature would be clarified.

But you can't. Being reformed did not even originate in Britain, but on the Continent. So would someone be non-reformed who did not subscribe to the Westminster Confession, but does subscribe to the Three Forms?

This is not an easy question Chris.

I agree on the definition of "Reformed" not being a simple question, and hope that my previous post didn't make it seem like I thought it could be dismissed as being so. I wasn't even saying that we necessarily can or should define the term exclusively by Westminster, but was throwing the thought out mainly to make the point that many issues that are otherwise difficult to pin down (like those Paul mentioned) can indeed be clarified (even definitively) by means of confessionalism.

Furthermore, it's obvious that the Westminster Standards were not even drafted until after the lives of the Reformers and many Puritans. Thus, I was not suggesting that the documents themselves ever served as the historical standard for the term "Reformed," but rather the possibility of the theology of those documents being viewed as the confessional theology most in-line with that of the Reformers and Puritans as a whole - hence my comment on them and "Reformed."

And while I acknowledge that defining "Reformed" is not as historically or theologically simple as just pointing to Westminster, I must also admit that ever since the first time I read the Three Forms of Unity, I have never thought them to be sufficiently Reformed to a full extent. I mean, as narrow-minded as that sounds, they really barely even touch on covenant theology!
 
"so we shouldn't have "reformation day" in Oct., right?"

"Reformed" is a term of art in theological writings and is distinct from Lutheran, Anglican, or anabaptist even though all sought some sort of reform. Each has distinct bodies of theology.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott]
 
"Thus, I was not suggesting that the documents themselves ever served as the historical standard for the term "Reformed," but rather the possibility of the theology of those documents being viewed as the confessional theology most in-line with that of the Reformers and Puritans as a whole - hence my comment on them and "Reformed.""

I think you may be missing an institutional link. The goal was to "reform" institutional national churches in their government, theology, worship, and practice. Theology was not abstracted from institutions.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
And while I acknowledge that defining "Reformed" is not as historically or theologically simple as just pointing to Westminster, I must also admit that ever since the first time I read the Three Forms of Unity, I have never thought them to be sufficiently Reformed to a full extent. I mean, as narrow-minded as that sounds, they really barely even touch on covenant theology!

Chris,

With all due respect, this is evidence of the problem. You have just made an unhistorical judgment on who is reformed.
 
Originally posted by Scott
"Thus, I was not suggesting that the documents themselves ever served as the historical standard for the term "Reformed," but rather the possibility of the theology of those documents being viewed as the confessional theology most in-line with that of the Reformers and Puritans as a whole - hence my comment on them and "Reformed.""

I think you may be missing an institutional link. The goal was to "reform" institutional national churches in their government, theology, worship, and practice. Theology was not abstracted from institutions.

But Scott,

Doesn't this point out the difference in the term "Reformed" in the 16th and 17th century? After Trent, especially in Britain, there was no real attempt to Reform Rome.
 
We may say that "what does it mean to be reformed" is not a simple question but perhaps it should be.

Let's take a lesson from the Beatles and then Calvin.

The Beatles were one of the most widespread reformations of music in the 20th century. We knew what a Beatle was. Then John had to bring Yoko Ono into the mix. He insisted she be included in their gigs. Next thing you know they had lost their essence and the band broke up.

We will see similar problems when we all insist on having our Yoko's in the band.

Calvin, commenting on Titus 3:9 said,

But avoid foolish questions. "There is no necessity for debating long about the exposition of this passage. He contrasts "questions" with sound and certain doctrine. Although it is necessary to seek, in order to find, yet there is a limit to seeking, that you may understand what is useful to be known, and, next, that you may adhere firmly to the truth, when it has been known. Those who inquire curiously into everything, and are never at rest, may be truly called Questionarians."

He continues,
"For they are unprofitable and unnecessary. In doctrine, therefore, we should always have regard to usefulness, so that everything that does not contribute to godliness. shall be held in no estimation."



This is good advice in all our threads but in defining what it means to be reformed we must draw distinctions between sound and certain doctrine and those that are still open to much questioning and debate. The reformed label can still work if we are will to leave our Yokos at home. :pilgrim:

[Edited on 16-11-2004 by maxdetail]
 
Originally posted by Scott
"Thus, I was not suggesting that the documents themselves ever served as the historical standard for the term "Reformed," but rather the possibility of the theology of those documents being viewed as the confessional theology most in-line with that of the Reformers and Puritans as a whole - hence my comment on them and "Reformed.""

I think you may be missing an institutional link. The goal was to "reform" institutional national churches in their government, theology, worship, and practice. Theology was not abstracted from institutions.

Hence why I said that they never served as the historical standard for Reformed doctrine, but could perhaps be viewed today as representing a summary of the doctrine most in-line with the Reformers and Puritans.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
And while I acknowledge that defining "Reformed" is not as historically or theologically simple as just pointing to Westminster, I must also admit that ever since the first time I read the Three Forms of Unity, I have never thought them to be sufficiently Reformed to a full extent. I mean, as narrow-minded as that sounds, they really barely even touch on covenant theology!

Chris,

With all due respect, this is evidence of the problem. You have just made an unhistorical judgment on who is reformed.

The TFU are indeed recognized as being a historic expression of much of the theology of the Reformed faith, but does that necessarily mean that they contain all of the foundational elements key to the Reformed faith? Or might there be some things still missing (e.g. Presbyterian ecclesiology) that would thus render them insufficient to represent the "Reformed" faith to a full extent, even though they are certainly much more in-line with that full definition than is, say, any Arminian statement of faith?
 
Originally posted by maxdetail
This is good advice in all our threads but in defining what it means to be reformed we must draw distinctions between sound and certain doctrine and those that are still open to much questioning and debate. The reformed label can still work if we are will to leave our Yokos at home.

I think we would all agree with that - with respect to the Reformed faith, however, the problem is determining what exactly to define as the "Yokos" versus the key elements. In this case, we are discussing under which of those two categories Presbyterian ecclesiology belongs.
 
I know everyone would agree with that analysis Chris but I've been dying to use that Yoko illustration for a long time. ;)

And by the way, I have really been impressed with your depth of wisdom, (for such a young fellow) and the way you have conducted yourself on the board. Well done! (Even though you seem to elevate theonomy to the level of country music. in my opinion, theonomy is definitely a Yoko!)

God bless!
 
Originally posted by maxdetail
I know everyone would agree with that analysis Chris but I've been dying to use that Yoko illustration for a long time. ;)

No worries - I can relate to being annoyed at having a neat analogy for a concept and not having any opportunity to use it! And yours was good for how we're trying to differentiate between doctrines here.

Originally posted by maxdetail
And by the way, I have really been impressed with your depth of wisdom, (for such a young fellow) and the way you have conducted yourself on the board. Well done!

Thanks for the encouragement. And thanks for your regular contribution to discussions here as well.

Originally posted by maxdetail
(Even though you seem to elevate theonomy to the level of country music. in my opinion, theonomy is definitely a Yoko!)

:lol: It's funny, those were two things toward which I've had a hostility for quite some time, and that changed with both of them at about the same time! And for the record, while I personally see theonomy as biblical and confessional, I would consider it ridiculously absurd for anyone to call theonomic convictions a necessity for being considered Reformed.

Originally posted by maxdetail
God bless!

You too!
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
The TFU are indeed recognized as being a historic expression of much of the theology of the Reformed faith, but does that necessarily mean that they contain all of the foundational elements key to the Reformed faith? Or might there be some things still missing (e.g. Presbyterian ecclesiology) that would thus render them insufficient to represent the "Reformed" faith to a full extent, even though they are certainly much more in-line with that full definition than is, say, any Arminian statement of faith?

Chris, the TFU do have a presbyterian ecclesiology. They don't use teh same terms sometimes (i.e. Consistory instead of session) but the principles are still relatively the same. Note the RCUS: they hold to the TFU and yet have a persbyterian structure. See also the Church Order of Dortriecht.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
And while I acknowledge that defining "Reformed" is not as historically or theologically simple as just pointing to Westminster, I must also admit that ever since the first time I read the Three Forms of Unity, I have never thought them to be sufficiently Reformed to a full extent. I mean, as narrow-minded as that sounds, they really barely even touch on covenant theology!

Chris,

With all due respect, this is evidence of the problem. You have just made an unhistorical judgment on who is reformed.

The TFU are indeed recognized as being a historic expression of much of the theology of the Reformed faith, but does that necessarily mean that they contain all of the foundational elements key to the Reformed faith? Or might there be some things still missing (e.g. Presbyterian ecclesiology) that would thus render them insufficient to represent the "Reformed" faith to a full extent, even though they are certainly much more in-line with that full definition than is, say, any Arminian statement of faith?

Again Chris,

I think you are missing the point. To the drafters of the Three Forms, what they wrote was a sufficient representation of the Reformed Faith. To go beyond in requirements of what is Reformed would be to go too far. And they preceded Westminster.

Also, isn't it possible that Westminster represent not what the Reformed faith is, but what the Church confesses (and which may be more precise) ?
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Also, isn't it possible that Westminster represent not what the Reformed faith is, but what the Church confesses (and which may be more precise) ?

Could you elaborate some on this point? I think I have an idea of what you mean, but would like to hear more about it.
 
Chris,

What I mean is this. It is not the purpose of a Confession to define a set of beliefs, an ideology or to say who is "reformed." It is the purpose of a Confession to confess what the Church believes. In some cases, that requires compromise - like on the issue of amil and postmil in the Confession.
 
I know the Owen material on Presbyterianism is thin, but its there. When you go back and read it, you really have to wonder what he thought in comparrison of practice vs. his writings. Its odd to say the least.

There is a historical distinction between Lutherans after Luther and the Reformed. But there is not a very large distinction between Luther and Calvin.

In terms of Prebyterianism, yes, Reformed is the label placed on the theology of the sacraments of Calvin, and his theological stance in general or more particular in the Institutes.

Would I say Burroughs or Good win were Reformed? Not really. Yhey were Independents. Manton was an Anglican. So, no, they are not following Calvin, or the WCF on those points (i.e. that is why they were called "dissenting brethren" by the Westminster Assembly).
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Seriously guys, not everyone can say they are reformed. Since every Tom, Dick and Harry are ascribing to the title, it brings reproach to that which should not suffer the slander. So, for the sake of ewveryone, I believe we should implement a new descriptive. The term reformed has become convoluted to the point of no return. It is much like thew term 'evangelical'. I will not have anything to do with it as the full boat of the Arminian camp is floating in it.

Guys:

This thread has gotten away from me. This Quote comes from page two; that's where I am in reading these. But I just have to cut in. So I'm sorry if this is out of turn, or has already been said.

I think we are confusing things here. The term 'Reformed' should equal the term 'Christian' in an individual sense. It's not what level of understanding they or we have gotten to, but are they or we refroming toward the D's of G, that is, to the Bible's true teachings. No one really has it down pat, and we can't put arbitrary lines in the sand. But when it comes to churches and to denominations we have to look at it differently. Are they up to snuff? They can't be doing whatever is right in their own eyes. No church is ever competely up to snuff, because we all fail sometime, even as a body. And it is a rather high standard. But are we upholding what we believe God is teaching, or are we replacing these teachings with our spiritual points of view?

But isn't the issue here not whether and which millennial or apologetic view a person takes, nor whether and which of these views a pastor of elder takes, or whether they completely understand what they are supposed be defending; but rather whether or not they are doing everything they can to uphold what they do understand, and trying to keep up to snuff? And that because they are respectful that it is God's message they are entrusted with?

Like Fred said, there are some non-Reformed churches that we would prefer to some Reformed churches in the interest of our own being Reformed. But that's because everyone is making themselves the standard of faith. They have no interest in indentifying themselves (I mean really) with the historical Reformed Church. Look at the CRC, a classic case. Did they condemn their previous history, and the Reformed Churches, before adopting their own Confessional Standard in their new confession? No! Somehow they still think that they deserve the name Reformed, and don't know why they are shunned by churches like the OPC. They are openly and blatantly lying to themselves, with impunity mind you, if you catch my drift; impunity to their own forefathers and themselves. If you were in that denomination it would tear you apart, if you were sensitive to your responsibility to your brothers.

Certainly the neighbourhood Pentacostal church is preferable to that kind of facade. But they, the Pentacostals, don't even know what the word 'church' means, much less 'Reformed'. That's the mess we're in. And it's all because, I am convinced, people have a hold of this neboulous office of their own making that makes them their own Super-Apostle, taking a licence to make decisions way out of their league. Such as decisions that "I think that the church ought to allow women to hold office." (improper) instead of, "I believe that the church ought to condemn the past church decisions about excluding women from office (proper; just talking about propriety here), and then making it a personal point of orthodoxy for others (now I'm going way beyond propriety. This is becoming the judge of faith in others, by drawing their own line in the sand. This isn't even just ignorance anymore. )

Do you see what I am getting at. There are two different standards. The individual's faith is to be nurtured into maturity; but the ecclesiastical standard is determined by its ministering the Word of God, and none other. That means that millennial eschatology or apologetics might come out of Scripture alone, and and be the subject of a real holy man's thoughts, but it is NOT the Word of God. And as such has no place in the objective of the offices and the Standards of the Church.

Look, I'm A-Mil, OK? But it would irk me to no end if my pastor got up on the pulpit to say that A-mil is the standard of the Reformed faith. The subject of A-mil has very little to do with it. He is misrepresenting the office; he is misrepresenting the church, and he is misrepresenting God, by putting words in God's mouth. I would consider it a false teaching. And I am A-Mil. Yet churches everywhere are allowing this licence of Super-Apostle everywhere.

We haven't stopped being Reformed. We're putting ourselves back into slavery to our own whims. That's the problem. The Standard hasn't changed one bit since the Puritans, or the High Church of the Dutch, or since the Solemn League. We're just not willing to put on the yoke as denominations, as churches, and too often as individuals too.

There, I've had my say. Now I'm going back to read, to see how much egg is on my face.

[Edited on 17-11-2004 by JohnV]
 
posted by Fred
I think you are missing the point. To the drafters of the Three Forms, what they wrote was a sufficient representation of the Reformed Faith. To go beyond in requirements of what is Reformed would be to go too far. And they preceded Westminster.

I was brought up under the TFU, and I find a lot more between the lines in them than in the WSF. Not to disparage, and not to cause a debate between the two, because that defeats both of them. It is not a matter of preference, but one of objective. They are different statements with different objectives in mind: the same Reformed faith winessing to different historical settings. The WSF is more universal in mind, while the TFU are more personal in mind. The WCF came out of a Parliamentary calling, the BC was thrown over a prison wall; that's how they were presented to the public originally.

There are some things, like the pivotal art. II of the BC, that is overtly missing in the WCF. But, that doesn't mean that you can't get art. II of the BC out of the WCF. It's there, between the lines. And the same goes the other way around. The WCF is more detailed, but you can't say it isn't there in the BC; it's there between the lines. So the BC has more between the lines than the WCF.

Sure, there are minor differences. But has those differences ever stood in the way of being Reformed? Unfortunately, that was our own doing, not the Standards of Faith's doing.
 
OK, I'm caught up.

In reference to my second to last post:

Remember Paul's stripping down of Peter, recorded in Gal.? Doesn't that show, at minimum, that the Apostles weren't led by their best opinion on matters coming out of, but necessitated by Scripture? Even they didn't have that kind of office that so many think they have all on their own today.

And Paul's giving of his own opinion in 1 Cor., that's no excuse to exercise our own as if it is Scripture, as long as its Scripturally based. It only makes it that much more the case that even Paul felt that he did not have that kind of office. He let God do that, but inscripturating his opinion, rather than Paul inscripturating it. The Apostles held a Council, in which they sought the approval of the eldership and the membership. And this was a case in which they could have asserted God-given authority. But they respected God's Word as God's Word, and the limitations of their office as Apostles.

I don't think it's a matter of what is Reformed anymore. It's getting out the leaven. And we have to rely on truth to do it. It isn't a matter of settling the eschatology, and apologetic, and Shepherdite justification, and NPP, and all those issues. Let's just hold spokesmen of different causes to their limits. Adiaphora is Adiaphora, and no more.

I'm sorry about mixing up two threads like this, bringing the other thread about the limits of offfice into this. But I think they are virtually about the same thing, but just coming at it from two ways. Presbyterian's are more subscriptionist than they take themselves to be, I think. So there is a lot of accounting to do.
 
Old age effects everyone. I love J. I. Packer and R. C. I have had the pleasure of meeting both through mutual friends. But when these old codgers get older they seem to slip. I get creamed for liking these guys. Packer introduced me to the Puritans and of course Paul can tell you I lean a little towards Sprouls Classical apologetics. My Grandmother can't remember what she was yesterday. She's 89. So is John Owen Reformed?:banana: I'm so confused........:candle: I need a hug:banghead:
 
John Owen - is he Reformed?

Good question. I lean towards an answer, but won't revela it just yet. I think, though, there is going to be some elasticity in the answer depending on whether you want to define everything by church government or not. Many theologians are bound to many Reformed doctrines, but that does not make them Reformed. Obviously polity is important. It is, In my humble opinion, of the esse of the church because it plays directly into Christ's authority. Is Christ Lord of the Chruch, or do men get to make thier own churches based on thier own convictions? Its liek the Sabbath. Do men get to choose what Day the Sabbath is or is it the first day of the week? Is Christ really Lord of the Sabbath or not? So it is with polity. Polity is important. That is why the early church mimicked Iranaeus - "There is no salvation outside the Church." He wasn't talking about the church invisible either. They found it to be rather important. Today's church, bound up in "individualism" does not. Its too bad more has not been written on it.

You can't have God as your Father without having the Church as your Mother.

Who said that? :)

[Edited on 12-16-2004 by webmaster]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top