Lawful calls

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott, okay..but I do not consider the Roman church lawful whatsoever, and in all honesty do not consider it lawful at any time in history. It was a government started church (constantine) not part of the actual true churches in existance at the time. It was also heretical and compromising from the start. Therefore why should one insist upon roots in it...to me this would be the last thing we would want. The only good I see Calvin, Luther, and a few others having been in it was that they actually had access to the scriptures and were able to be educated and studied...which God used to bring ppl OUT of the heresy.
 
The Waldensians or Waldenses...were sometimes communal in property. But in the aspect that if a place were needed for someone to live you should be willing to sell or give a part of your property to assist them. It was a manner of meeting needs not total negation of personal property (you are thinking too much of the hutterites). They also were messianic in that some of them held to the kosher dietary laws (how an animal should be killed if it were to be eaten). Most were non-resistant...some were not. I do not believe that any of this places them outside the bounds of orthodoxy and they are listed as a Reformed church if you were to look online.

We should put them in a different thread though as this deviates from the actual question at hand...I was merely using them as an example, which I believe I have done.
 
Ahh, but he did so more for his own material and political benefit than anything...whether or not his faith was real has been a major question throughout history.
 
The relevance is whether or not calls are lawfull outside the stream of the church's official lineage-no?

Scott presented:
Turretin said that the calls of the first reformers were lawful on one of two grounds.

Turretin's stament implies that there is such a thing as an 'unlawful call". During that time frame, who would have been unlawfully called? All those outsied of those two examples.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Rome was a lawful church up until it became unlawful. It didn't start out in the mess it ended up in. Constantine actually made Christianity a religion of the state when Christianity was under severe persecution.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
http://www.shsu.edu/~eng_wpf/con-hist.html

Rome was apostate from the beginning. Again, This is what God decreed through Pauls prophecy would happen. And it did nto take long for the result...


Joe
 
Joe,
Prove it. When Constantine made Rome a state religion, they were plucked from the world. I assume you mean then that the church was corrupt prior to coming to Rome then?

[Edited on 1-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
But you would have to agree with Turretin that the Roman Church was lawful and Biblical. To determine lineage you have to agree to which is considered a lawful lineage and which was not and why.

If the Roman church has always been heretical (not that there weren't actually some Christians within it) then it is not lawful...just paganism in disguise. This is how many of us view the RCC and it's history and why we do not accept it's authority past or present.

here's part of an article on the "conversion of constantine":

Galerius was strongly anti-Christian, and believed that since Rome had a uniform currency, and political system, it should also have a uniform religion. Christianity was simply in the way of this perfect society to take place.

Although Galerius made a death bed conversion to Christianity, it was in this setting in which Constantine rose to power.

The Interesting Point: Although Constantine had previously rejected polytheism, he had never came to an understanding that Jesus Christ was God. His first encounter with Jesus was more of a military "good-luck" charm, than a spiritual awakening.

Because of the conversion of Constantine, Christianity started on the road to becoming the official religion of Rome, where eventually it would evangelize all of Europe and move to the rest of the world. This was all done because a selfish general wanted to win a battle and God showed up.
 
okay, let me get back to you with more on the matter...try reading "the bad popes" it gives good insight to the first popes (including a female one). Also it should be considered that not all of Christianity accepted Constantine. Therefore it seems that Constantine CREATED a "christian" church...used the term christian...added christian themes (in the wrong context)...blended it with all kinds of paganistic practices...and wha-la "the Roman Catholic Church". This is NOT Christianity. This is a wolf in sheep's clothing. And therefore, unlawful.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
okay, let me get back to you with more on the matter...try reading "the bad popes" it gives good insight to the first popes (including a female one). Also it should be considered that not all of Christianity accepted Constantine. Therefore it seems that Constantine CREATED a "christian" church...used the term christian...added christian themes (in the wrong context)...blended it with all kinds of paganistic practices...and wha-la "the Roman Catholic Church". This is NOT Christianity. This is a wolf in sheep's clothing. And therefore, unlawful.

Constantine adopted the Christian church. Upon Adoption, the church was not immediately heretical. It took time for the church to go bad; it didn't happen overnight. Those whom broke away from the church at the time were disenters and were ultiamtely deemed apostate (and rightly so).

Therefore it seems that Constantine CREATED a "christian" church...used the term christian...added christian themes (in the wrong context)...blended it with all kinds of paganistic practices...and wha-la "the Roman Catholic Church". This is NOT Christianity. This is a wolf in sheep's clothing. And therefore, unlawful

This resembles our age. Every Tom, Dick and harry says they are Christian. I told Matt over lunch that if Arminius were alive he would be casting the masses out as heretical, never mind Calvin.

[Edited on 1-20-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
(starting to feel like Queen Jane Grey and the Priest...next Scott will be seeing me to the chopping block...off with 'er head!)
 
Maybe we should look into why they dissented? Seems like those that stuck with Rome were the ones that became apostate. I'll have to look into those dissenters before I can agree or disagree...based upon what they became. But the point is we know what Rome became and when it started. It started with Constantine. If the church split then why can't the dissenters be considered lawful lineage...Calvin and Luther split and were considered lawful out of Rome. So the question remains...who is right, who is lawful...where does it truely begin and end...and quite honestly does the physical lineage really matter...or should it be a spiritual matter?
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
okay, let me get back to you with more on the matter...try reading "the bad popes" it gives good insight to the first popes (including a female one). Also it should be considered that not all of Christianity accepted Constantine. Therefore it seems that Constantine CREATED a "christian" church...used the term christian...added christian themes (in the wrong context)...blended it with all kinds of paganistic practices...and wha-la "the Roman Catholic Church". This is NOT Christianity. This is a wolf in sheep's clothing. And therefore, unlawful.

Do you think that the early "roman Church" just happened to get doctrine dealing with the nature of God and man right? For example, the Nicene creed, The Athanasian Creed, The Definition of Chalcedon, and the canons of orange?
 
Scott:

Originally posted by Scott
John: The Reformers recognized that the ordinations of Roman clergy were done incorrectly but not to such an extent that they were void. Similarly, a believer who marries an unbeliever makes a sinful mistake, but that sin or mistake does not void the marriage.

My point was that there is more to it than apostolic succession. We're talking about two things, namely one who is lawfully called to the office, and one who lawfully holds the office. I am supposing that we are concentrating on the latter, but the former is also a consideration in the latter as a prerequisite.

So, going back to your point about the office not being made void, at what point does an office become void. For example, (perhaps a bit extreme) do we still have to respect the pope as a duly appointed officer of Christ, even though he is apostate? What about a Catholic bishop who has recently broken with the RCC to start a new reformation in the RCC, if he holds to the basis Reformed principles?

(What I am thinking of in the long run is the appointed officers in our own denominations who abuse the office. What respect is due them as duly appointed officers? In other words, should reformation become necessary again, that the Reformation churches become so corrupt that there is no remedy and they are unwilling, may we too take the steps the Reformers took and oppose the officers? )

[Edited on 20-1-2005 by JohnV]
 
Scott said:
This resembles our age. Every Tom, Dick and harry says they are Christian. I told Matt over lunch that if Arminius were alive he would be casting the masses out as heretical, never mind Calvin.

:lol::lol::lol: A sight to behold if any of them were to see us now! But, yet, nothing is new under the sun. And exactly my point as to how Constantine used the the term Christian and used some of the unsuspecting Christians. However, I believe that there were Christians that saw the handwriting on the wall in regards to Constantine. Christianity was never meant to be a state religion (and God's ordaining it so was probably seen as a judgment on ppls willingness to compromise for comfort...thus why the dissenters had no part of this state church)
 
Originally posted by raderag
Do you think that the early "roman Church" just happened to get doctrine dealing with the nature of God and man right? For example, the Nicene creed, The Athanasian Creed, The
Definition of Chalcedon, and the canons of orange?

Again...I do believe that there were Christians within the Roman church...but their Creeds had nothing to do with many of their actual practices. Why were these practices not mentioned in the creeds? Because they weren't scriptural? The corruption began in practice, not theological creeds.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Originally posted by raderag
Do you think that the early "roman Church" just happened to get doctrine dealing with the nature of God and man right? For example, the Nicene creed, The Athanasian Creed, The
Definition of Chalcedon, and the canons of orange?

Again...I do believe that there were Christians within the Roman church...but their Creeds had nothing to do with many of their actual practices. Why were these practices not mentioned in the creeds? Because they weren't scriptural? The corruption began in practice, not theological creeds.

So, do you know of "dissenters" that accepted all of these creeds? How did all of these leaders of this false Church understand such pure doctrine?
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Maybe we should look into why they dissented?

See, this is the point of this thread. If they disented prior to the church apostasizing then they abandoned their right to the keys also. Hence, they apostasized.


Seems like those that stuck with Rome were the ones that became apostate.

Rome became apostate; Gods elect did not. Remember, Augustine was of RC descent......


I'll have to look into those dissenters before I can agree or disagree...based upon what they became.

Colleen, this is the point of the thread; it is not what they became, but what they did. If Christ gave the keys to the apostles, the apostles then handed them down. This lineage is of the utmost importance. To abandon the lineage is to abandon the faith.....



But the point is we know what Rome became and when it started. It started with Constantine. If the church split then why can't the dissenters be considered lawful lineage...


The reformation created a direct change. The lineage turned away from Rome. Not a few, but vast numbers. That means that after Rome became corrupt, the line sort of stalled. The reformers recaptured that which Rome stalled, and hence, the line continued. It would all depend upon where the disenters went.


Calvin and Luther split and were considered lawful out of Rome. So the question remains...who is right, who is lawful...where does it truely begin and end...and quite honestly does the physical lineage really matter...or should it be a spiritual matter?

Luther and Calvin left Rome because Rome was corrupt. (see my statement above) Lawful? Obviously as Rome stalled from corruption, the reformed picked up the keys and ran with them. Here the line continues even till today. Those whom abandoned the organized line themselves were apostate.
 
To abandon the lineage is to abandon the faith.....

Then how do we know that the PCA is legit? Perhaps they have abondoned the "lineage"?

Scott, this statement seems to be the same error that Rome makes, in placing ones faith in the right succussion of ministers. Can you show me where this statement is a confessional truth in reformed doctrine?

Here is Westminster:


II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; the house and family of God, through which men are ordinarily saved and union with which is essential to their best growth and service.


Here is the Belgic COnfession: (I didn't find anything)


Article 29: The Marks of the True Church

We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church-- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."

We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."

The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.

As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.

Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.

As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

Article 30: The Government of the Church

We believe that this true church ought to be governed according to the spiritual order that our Lord has taught us in his Word. There should be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God and adminster the sacraments. There should also be elders and deacons, along with the pastors, to make up the council of the church.

By this means true religion is preserved; true doctrine is able to take its course; and evil men are corrected spiritually and held in check, so that also the poor and all the afflicted may be helped and comforted according to their need.

By this means everything will be done well and in good order in the church, when such persons are elected who are faithful and are chosen according to the rule that Paul gave to Timothy.^75

^75 1 Tim. 3

Article 31: The Officers of the Church

We believe that ministers of the Word of God, elders, and deacons ought to be chosen to their offices by a legitimate election of the church, with prayer in the name of the Lord, and in good order, as the Word of God teaches.

So everyone must be careful not to push himself forward improperly, but he must wait for God's call, so that he may be assured of his calling and be certain that he is chosen by the Lord.

As for the ministers of the Word, they all have the same power and authority, no matter where they may be, since they are all servants of Jesus Christ, the only universal bishop, and the only head of the church.

Moreover, to keep God's holy order from being violated or despised, we say that everyone ought, as much as possible, to hold the ministers of the Word and elders of the church in special esteem, because of the work they do, and be at peace with them, without grumbling, quarreling, or fighting.

Article 32: The Order and Discipline of the Church

We also believe that although it is useful and good for those who govern the churches to establish and set up a certain order among themselves for maintaining the body of the church, they ought always to guard against deviating from what Christ, our only Master, has ordained for us.

Therefore we reject all human innovations and all laws imposed on us, in our worship of God, which bind and force our consciences in any way.

So we accept only what is proper to maintain harmony and unity and to keep all in obedience to God.

To that end excommunication, with all it involves, according to the Word of God, is required.
 
Okay, explain dissent from split.

The "dissenters" as YOU call them perhaps saw the joining of church and state as apostacy...and therefore THAT was the split. How can you call that wrong or dropping the keys? Instead it would be those joining Rome that were abandoning and compromising, yes?

This does not mean that God didn't work within Rome though. I've seen God work within cults to bring about his will and bring ppl out. Therefore the creeds. (note to self...read creeds...lol...sorry I'm coming from what I know of history and actions, not creeds and suchlike...a person or group can say the right things and yet do all the wrong things)

So given that those that stayed with Rome were heading down the wrong path, wouldn't that cause the "dissenters" to fall under T's exception?
 
Originally posted by raderag
To abandon the lineage is to abandon the faith.....

Then how do we know that the PCA is legit? Perhaps they have abondoned the "lineage"?

Scott, this statement seems to be the same error that Rome makes, in placing ones faith in the right succussion of ministers. Can you show me where this statement is a confessional truth in reformed doctrine?

Here is Westminster:


II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; the house and family of God, through which men are ordinarily saved and union with which is essential to their best growth and service.


Here is the Belgic COnfession: (I didn't find anything)


Article 29: The Marks of the True Church

We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church-- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."

We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."

The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.

As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.

Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.

As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

Article 30: The Government of the Church

We believe that this true church ought to be governed according to the spiritual order that our Lord has taught us in his Word. There should be ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God and adminster the sacraments. There should also be elders and deacons, along with the pastors, to make up the council of the church.

By this means true religion is preserved; true doctrine is able to take its course; and evil men are corrected spiritually and held in check, so that also the poor and all the afflicted may be helped and comforted according to their need.

By this means everything will be done well and in good order in the church, when such persons are elected who are faithful and are chosen according to the rule that Paul gave to Timothy.^75

^75 1 Tim. 3

Article 31: The Officers of the Church

We believe that ministers of the Word of God, elders, and deacons ought to be chosen to their offices by a legitimate election of the church, with prayer in the name of the Lord, and in good order, as the Word of God teaches.

So everyone must be careful not to push himself forward improperly, but he must wait for God's call, so that he may be assured of his calling and be certain that he is chosen by the Lord.

As for the ministers of the Word, they all have the same power and authority, no matter where they may be, since they are all servants of Jesus Christ, the only universal bishop, and the only head of the church.

Moreover, to keep God's holy order from being violated or despised, we say that everyone ought, as much as possible, to hold the ministers of the Word and elders of the church in special esteem, because of the work they do, and be at peace with them, without grumbling, quarreling, or fighting.

Article 32: The Order and Discipline of the Church

We also believe that although it is useful and good for those who govern the churches to establish and set up a certain order among themselves for maintaining the body of the church, they ought always to guard against deviating from what Christ, our only Master, has ordained for us.

Therefore we reject all human innovations and all laws imposed on us, in our worship of God, which bind and force our consciences in any way.

So we accept only what is proper to maintain harmony and unity and to keep all in obedience to God.

To that end excommunication, with all it involves, according to the Word of God, is required.

Brett,
Thinking logically, (Stay out Paul :D ) the keys went with whom after Rome was corrupted?
 
Brett,
Thinking logically, (Stay out Paul :D ) the keys went with whom after Rome was corrupted?

According to the confession, those that profess the true faith. I am not saying that there is no argument for succession, but I am saying that lack of succession does not indicate apostasy. Otherwise, either the OPC, PCA, or maybe both are apostate. Did the northern and southern branch of the PCA both retain the keys when they split?
 
Brett: I think you are mixing up the concept of lawful calls and a congregation's status as a true church. Or perhaps, that was your understanding of what Scott B was saying. In any event, I think you can have a true without without lawful calls. It is just out of order and in error on that point.

It is like someone making an illegal copy of a copyrighted Beatles CD. The person has real Beatles music even if the process he went about getting it was illegal. The illegal copy has real Beatles music and is different from say, someone besides the Beatles recording a work and attaching the Beatles name to it. This would be fraud and the work would not even have real Beatles music on it.
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
the keys are a spiritual thing...given by God...not neccessarily passed physically by man.

Colleen,
You mean they were not an actual set of keys with a chain and all??? :banana: (Sorry, but you opened the door) hahahahahahahahahapukehahahahahahasnothahahahahahaha
 
Originally posted by Scott
Brett: I think you are mixing up the concept of lawful calls and a congregation's status as a true church. Or perhaps, that was your understanding of what Scott B was saying. In any event, I think you can have a true without without lawful calls. It is just out of order and in error on that point.

It is like someone making an illegal copy of a copyrighted Beatles CD. The person has real Beatles music even if the process he went about getting it was illegal. The illegal copy has real Beatles music and is different from say, someone besides the Beatles recording a work and attaching the Beatles name to it. This would be fraud and the work would not even have real Beatles music on it.

Scott, I am not objecting to the idea of "lawful calls", although I still don't think we have rightly defined it.

I am objecting to Scott Bushey's statement, "To abandon the lineage is to abandon the faith.....".

Lineage implies singularity, which would mean that the keys are only held by the OPC, PCA, or PCUSA.
 
Colleen: Saying that the Roman church was never real places one in a bad predicament. Remember, the Roman church was one of the leading churches in doing the hard work of recognizing the canon of scripture and sifting out the countless forgeries (many of which were in use in various congregations) and other uninspired works. The collective Church, including Rome, recognized and approved the canon of scripture that we have today. It is not our obligation as believers to go back and rehash out whether the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Thomas, the Apolcolypse of Peter, and countless other documents belong on the canon. We are not even equiped to do so if we wanted to. We must rely on this inherited decision.

If we simply write off the first 4 centuries of the Church, then we undermine our own ability to use the Bible.

I think it is important to remember that Acts 15 provides a model of how religious controversies should be decided, by recourse to the collective church.
 
So say we were a true church "without lawful calls" do we need to go around looking for someone...wow this is kindof the jewish boy meeting the parents!

"Yes, I was ordained by *, who was ordained by *, who was ordained by *.........who was ordained by pope so and so of the RCC in 16 something or other, who was ordained by *......" :D

I would like to see that, Scott (just a little comic relief, I'm racking my brain!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top