Ecumenicism and Church discipline.

Status
Not open for further replies.

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
Has there ever been an attempt in modern conservative ecumenical thought to have denominations recognize Church discipline from another denomination? What about historically?

What if we could couple something like the cambridge declaration (restatement of 5 solas) with recognition of Church discipline?
 
Brett:

There is no good solution to this problem. Excommunication, which is clearly taught in the Bible, only makes sense in terms of a institutionally unified church, as we had for about 1,000 years (and still largely so for 1500 years). Denominationalism and congregationalism (at least as seen today) virtually destroy the possibility of excommunication being meaningful for purposes other than cleansing a congregation.

I am not aware of any interdenominational agreements regarding discipline. There may be some. I don't think that the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (http://www.naparc.org/) has any.

Scott
 
[quote:856116b123][i:856116b123]Originally posted by Scott[/i:856116b123]
Brett:

There is no good solution to this problem. Excommunication, which is clearly taught in the Bible, only makes sense in terms of a institutionally unified church, as we had for about 1,000 years (and still largely so for 1500 years). Denominationalism and congregationalism (at least as seen today) virtually destroy the possibility of excommunication being meaningful for purposes other than cleansing a congregation.

I am not aware of any interdenominational agreements regarding discipline. There may be some. I don't think that the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (http://www.naparc.org/) has any.

Scott [/quote:856116b123]

I think a good start would be that all conservative reformed denominations recognize the Church disclipline of another. It is my understanding that this is done on at least an informal basis in the OPC and PCA. Perhaps next, Lutherans and reformed baptist could agree? I am just saying this would be an ecumenicism worth persuing. In fact, this type of recognition would be a sign of a more unified church.

Perhaps I am too idealistic, but I think at least all reformed should recognize other reformed discipline.
 
The majority of churches are [i:15ec8344c9]unlawfully constituted[/i:15ec8344c9] because they were not originally planted by a pre-existing correctly established Church. It is a shame to see a body of "believers" think they can just start up a new congregation any time they want to. The only reason why the Reformation was even justified, was because it arose out of necessity of excaping papal tyranny.

For a group of poeple to not even care about a good doctrinal church down the road, when they are planting, is for them to despise the unity and structure of the Church (churches are to establish churches, not a group of random people). So, that itself is a lack of respect for Church authority and discipline. This kind of undermining of Church authority must be attacked before the practical issues of excommunication are dealt with.

Once the Reformed community grows large enough, I say we should shut the doors on all churches that do not want to submit to the unified Catholic Church. For example, Pentecostals. Many new Christians end up in denominations like that because they just don't know any better. We must put the rod of discipline down, proclaim true doctrine, and point out who is a false group of bethren and unsubmissive to orthodoxy. This is the absolute right of the Church. Protestants have a way messed up understanding of this. I say we do away with the name "Protestant" and "Evangelical" and proclaim the faith of one, holy, catholic, apostolic church AGAIN!

Paul

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by rembrandt]
 
[quote:5be15a5fe6][i:5be15a5fe6]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:5be15a5fe6]
The majority of churches are [i:5be15a5fe6]unlawfully constituted[/i:5be15a5fe6] because they were not originally planted by a pre-existing correctly established Church. It is a shame to see a body of "believers" think they can just start up a new congregation any time they want to. The only reason why the Reformation was even justified, was because it arose out of necessity of excaping papal tyranny.
[/quote:5be15a5fe6]

I agree with you in one sense, but what about it the case of an excommunication for teaching good doctrine. If memory serves me correctly, the OPC did not leave the PC North, but was thrown out. So, I guess you could say they were not planted by a pre-existing established Church. Perhaps the same could be said of Luther. On the other hand, Wesley pleaded for loyalty to the Church of England, but was wrong on much of his theology.


For a group of poeple to not even care about a good doctrinal church down the road, when they are planting, is for them to despise the unity and structure of the Church (churches are to establish churches, not a group of random people). So, that itself is a lack of respect for Church authority and discipline. This kind of undermining of Church authority must be attacked before the practical issues of excommunication are dealt with.

[quote:5be15a5fe6]
Once the Reformed community grows large enough, I say we should shut the doors on all churches that do not want to submit to the unified Catholic Church.
[/quote:5be15a5fe6]

That sounds kind of arbitrary as you are making the standard for fellowship the number of people that adhere to reformed theology.

I think a better standard would be to start a Biblically sound ecumenical movement. Once it was accepted by reformed, present it to others (i.e. Lutherans and reformed Baptist). Then we could aproach any other evangelical who would wish to affirm it, and define the Catholic Church in that way. I don't even think many reformed are ready for this now, but we should try to move towards it.

[quote:5be15a5fe6]
For example, Pentecostals. Many new Christians end up in denominations like that because they just don't know any better. We must put the rod of discipline down, proclaim true doctrine, and point out who is a false group of bethren and unsubmissive to orthodoxy. This is the absolute right of the Church. Protestants have a way messed up understanding of this. I say we do away with the name "Protestant" and "Evangelical" and proclaim the faith of one, holy, catholic, apostolic church AGAIN!
[/quote:5be15a5fe6]


I agree with you, and I say we capitalize Catholic as it is a proper noun even when it isn't Roman Catholic.


Paul

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by rembrandt] [/quote]
 
raderag, check the quotations on your last post.

[quote:709468cc34]So, I guess you could say they were not planted by a pre-existing established Church. Perhaps the same could be said of Luther. On the other hand, Wesley pleaded for loyalty to the Church of England, but was wrong on much of his theology.[/quote:709468cc34]

If necessity prevails...

[quote:709468cc34]That sounds kind of arbitrary as you are making the standard for fellowship the number of people that adhere to reformed theology.[/quote:709468cc34]

Possibly. I'm just saying that we shouldn't go make an ex cathedra on everybody if we are (in your words) "not ready for it." The reason why I wouldn't think we are ready to do such a thing is because I doubt our effectiveness, since we are a smaller theological camp. We would definitely be looked upon as "dividers of the flock." But perhaps I am a pansy, and we should actually begin declaring these things more loudly. I guess you are right that the "standard of fellowship" doesn't depend upon numbers. But universality has always been a qualification for the Church. But again, if necessity prevails...

[quote:709468cc34]I think a better standard would be to start a Biblically sound ecumenical movement. Once it was accepted by reformed, present it to others (i.e. Lutherans and reformed Baptist). Then we could aproach any other evangelical who would wish to affirm it, and define the Catholic Church in that way.[/quote:709468cc34]

Okay, thats true. But as you said, there are many things we need to deal with in our own denoms: including our eccesiological structures, rampant unlawful church planting, etc. Once we get these things right we can be an example.

[quote:709468cc34]I say we capitalize Catholic as it is a proper noun even when it isn't Roman Catholic.[/quote:709468cc34]

Amen!

Paul

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by rembrandt]
 
Brett:

I think your ideas are good. While certain doctrinal matters would not be open (ex. baptism b/t reformed baptist / presbyterian), many other practices or beliefs would (ex. adultery, anti-trinitarianism, etc.). I envision that the agreements among denominations would be modeled after treaties between independent countries. That is how denominations view themselves jurisdictionally. Treaties like this would be a good step.

The North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council would probably be a good organization to draft something like this up.

BTW, for the ecumenically minded, some might be interested in watching the video series "What is the True Church," which is available through the PCA video library. It was a symposium sponsored by Covenant Seminary. Representatives from Reformed, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches make presentations. Douglass Kelly represents the Reformed and does a good job.

Scott
 
[quote:60ac3c6eb3][i:60ac3c6eb3]Originally posted by Scott[/i:60ac3c6eb3]
Brett:

I think your ideas are good. While certain doctrinal matters would not be open (ex. baptism b/t reformed baptist / presbyterian), many other practices or beliefs would (ex. adultery, anti-trinitarianism, etc.). I envision that the agreements among denominations would be modeled after treaties between independent countries. That is how denominations view themselves jurisdictionally. Treaties like this would be a good step.
Scott [/quote:60ac3c6eb3]

Right. If disclipline was based on a doctrine that was not considered unorthodox in another denom, then they wouldn't have to accept it. That wouldn't be ideal, but it would be a start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top