Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
[quote:cd48aa780b][i:cd48aa780b]Originally posted by Craig[/i:cd48aa780b]
I thinkly only some Reformed churches actually hold to Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper...I think we'd be left with only Dutch Reformed churches and certain Presbyterian churches as "true" churches if that's the conclusion. BTW- my church holds to a Zwinglian view of the Lord's Supper.
Don't worry Pastorway, I'm in a false church too [/quote:cd48aa780b]
Craig, in the case of this discussion, the grounds Matt is using for determining the "validity" of a church is not the issue of the sacraments, but that of ecclesiology. Actually, he didn't even make the distinction based on paedo- or credo-baptism, but rather on Presbyterian or Independent church polity. It has to do with whether or not ministers and elders have biblical warrant to consider their ordination valid, and whether the Bible really gives them "permission" to be ordained as they were. Go here for a full discussion of that issue: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4894.
[quote:cd48aa780b][i:cd48aa780b]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:cd48aa780b]
I find this thread almost unbearably sad. Surely it should be possible for Christians to debate vigorously with one another without calling one another a false church. As one who began his Christian life in the Brethren, this sounds to me much too much like the Exclusives![/quote:cd48aa780b]
Labeling a church a false church need not be made a personally offensive issue, for it is purely doctrinal. The Bible sets certain standards for the external, institutional church in terms of representing the invisible, eternal church, and it is perfectly valid (indeed, necessary) to discuss whether or not certain church forms and doctrines today fulfill those standards. I get annoyed when people on this Board take statements that are [i:cd48aa780b]purely doctrinal[/i:cd48aa780b] in nature and try to personalize them.
[quote:cd48aa780b][i:cd48aa780b]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:cd48aa780b]
Obviously, it would be possible for Baptists to throw the charge right back at the Presbyterians. From our point of view Paedo-baptists do not administer the ordinances correctly. But what is the value of this sort of abuse? How does it advance the cause of the Church?
[/quote:cd48aa780b]
Indeed, Baptists can (and I would say [i:cd48aa780b]should[/i:cd48aa780b]) rightly put us Presbyterians to the same test that we put them, and discuss whether or not our order and doctrine fulfill the biblical requirements for a true church as they see it. We should not compromise our beliefs for the sake of theological "political correctness," but should take our beliefs with their necessary implications. And in terms of church form and doctrine, this includes the analysis of the "validity" of other churches based on our paradigm of biblical standards.
In Christ,
I thinkly only some Reformed churches actually hold to Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper...I think we'd be left with only Dutch Reformed churches and certain Presbyterian churches as "true" churches if that's the conclusion. BTW- my church holds to a Zwinglian view of the Lord's Supper.
Don't worry Pastorway, I'm in a false church too [/quote:cd48aa780b]
Craig, in the case of this discussion, the grounds Matt is using for determining the "validity" of a church is not the issue of the sacraments, but that of ecclesiology. Actually, he didn't even make the distinction based on paedo- or credo-baptism, but rather on Presbyterian or Independent church polity. It has to do with whether or not ministers and elders have biblical warrant to consider their ordination valid, and whether the Bible really gives them "permission" to be ordained as they were. Go here for a full discussion of that issue: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4894.
[quote:cd48aa780b][i:cd48aa780b]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:cd48aa780b]
I find this thread almost unbearably sad. Surely it should be possible for Christians to debate vigorously with one another without calling one another a false church. As one who began his Christian life in the Brethren, this sounds to me much too much like the Exclusives![/quote:cd48aa780b]
Labeling a church a false church need not be made a personally offensive issue, for it is purely doctrinal. The Bible sets certain standards for the external, institutional church in terms of representing the invisible, eternal church, and it is perfectly valid (indeed, necessary) to discuss whether or not certain church forms and doctrines today fulfill those standards. I get annoyed when people on this Board take statements that are [i:cd48aa780b]purely doctrinal[/i:cd48aa780b] in nature and try to personalize them.
[quote:cd48aa780b][i:cd48aa780b]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:cd48aa780b]
Obviously, it would be possible for Baptists to throw the charge right back at the Presbyterians. From our point of view Paedo-baptists do not administer the ordinances correctly. But what is the value of this sort of abuse? How does it advance the cause of the Church?
[/quote:cd48aa780b]
Indeed, Baptists can (and I would say [i:cd48aa780b]should[/i:cd48aa780b]) rightly put us Presbyterians to the same test that we put them, and discuss whether or not our order and doctrine fulfill the biblical requirements for a true church as they see it. We should not compromise our beliefs for the sake of theological "political correctness," but should take our beliefs with their necessary implications. And in terms of church form and doctrine, this includes the analysis of the "validity" of other churches based on our paradigm of biblical standards.
In Christ,