Lawful calls

[Scott]

Colleen: Also, For what it's worth, the Reformers insisted that the Roman Church was real and this was required of their ecclesiology. They believed that the papacy was the antichrist who sat in the temple of God, which temple they interpreted to mean the Christian Church.

Also, the Reformers did not require rebaptism for those baptized in Roman churches. They did require rebaptism for those from heretical groups.

Also, the Reformers denounced the Donatists as schismatics, who were leaving the true Church.

Now, these are historical observations but should give you a flavor of Reformed thinking.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

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??? (Sorry, but you opened the door) hahahahahahahahahapukehahahahahahasnothahahahahahaha

Yeah, I saw that one coming! by passed on physically I DO mean ordination!

My point is I don't think it should be a situation

 

[Scott]

Colleen: Actually, I would trust in the process. The nature of the organic unity of the church ensures this kind of continuity, with the exception of congregations or denominations who start off from scratch.

Your church could join a denomination with lawful calls (PCA, OPC, or whatever) and have the minister ordained in that context.

[Edited on 1-20-2005 by Scott]

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by raderag
Lineage implies singularity, which would mean that the keys are only held by the OPC, PCA, or PCUSA.

This right here is my whole issue...I don't think it is a singularity or a requirement of physical ordinational lineage...at least not a spotless one...don't see it as possible.

 

[Scott]

"This right here is my whole issue...I don't think it is a singularity or a requirement of physical ordinational lineage...at least not a spotless one...don't see it as possible. "

Actually, it only applies to the licitness of the congregation's minister's not to the validity of their action.

There is a theological distinction between licitness and validity. The analogy to the copyrighted materials I gave embodies that distinction. A minister's role can be valid and illicit.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Scott
"This right here is my whole issue...I don't think it is a singularity or a requirement of physical ordinational lineage...at least not a spotless one...don't see it as possible. "

Actually, it only applies to the licitness of the congregation's minister's not to the validity of their action.

There is a theological distinction between licitness and validity. The analogy to the copyrighted materials I gave embodies that distinction. A minister's role can be valid and illicit.

Scott, do you agree that abondoning the lineage is apostasy?

If so, can you explain that to me and how all of the Preby denoms are legit?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by Scott
Colleen: Actually, I would trust in the process. The nature of the organic unity of the church ensures this kind of continuity, with the exception of congregations or denominations who start off from scratch.

Your church could join a denomination with lawful calls (PCA, OPC, or whatever) and have the minister ordained in that context.

[Edited on 1-20-2005 by Scott]

you see...now we come to other things. My teaching pastor would never be accepted. He has a seminary degree unfortunately he got it in the wrong thing. (theology instead of divinity, I think) Needless to say it is a technicality, but an expensive one. I know he is ordained, but by whom I do not know. But either way, I do not believe a seminary degree should be the only acceptable education of a minister. I do believe in pastorally trained ministers also. Though I admit an advantage of those fortunate enough to have been able to afford college and seminary. The advantage of those that have lived life first though have the advantage of understanding more of the "real life" issues many parishioners face...or should I say "working class"?

He does have respect from the pastor at the PCA we attended briefly before this church and still attend on Wednesday nights.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by Scott
"This right here is my whole issue...I don't think it is a singularity or a requirement of physical ordinational lineage...at least not a spotless one...don't see it as possible. "

Actually, it only applies to the licitness of the congregation's minister's not to the validity of their action.

There is a theological distinction between licitness and validity. The analogy to the copyrighted materials I gave embodies that distinction. A minister's role can be valid and illicit.

okay, this lady's brain is completely racked! Could you simplify that for me in plain Colonial English? I think I get you, but want to make sure...

 

[Scott]

"you see...now we come to other things. My teaching pastor would never be accepted. He has a seminary degree unfortunately he got it in the wrong thing. (theology instead of divinity, I think)"

A seminary degree is not an absolute requirement, especially in the OPC. I had an OPC pastor who did not have a seminary degree. I imagine the PCA would make exceptions too. The infant baptism thing would be a problem. . .

 

[Scott]

"Scott, do you agree that abondoning the lineage is apostasy?"

No. I agree with the standard Reformed view that you evaluate whether a congregation is a "true church" on the basis of Word and sacrament. Churches allot more error than some independent churches have can still met this rather low standard.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Infant baptism...maybe, maybe not...our church prefers one way, but isn't adamant about it. Though some of the congregation might have something to say on it.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Scott
"Scott, do you agree that abondoning the lineage is apostasy?"

No. I agree with the standard Reformed view that you evaluate whether a congregation is a "true church" on the basis of Word and sacrament. Churches allot more error than some independent churches have can still met this rather low standard.

Ok, then we probably agree. That was the statement that Scott Bushey made. I questioned it as I thought it was probabaly hyperbolic. I'm still not sure what he meant by that.

 

[Scott]

"okay, this lady's brain is completely racked! Could you simplify that for me in plain Colonial English? I think I get you, but want to make sure..."

Ok.

"Valid" means something is the real deal. An independent church's adminstration of the sacraments may be "valid."

"Licit" means right to peform. An unlawful/illicit church has not been given the right to perform the administration of the sacraments.

So, an indepdent true church can be dispensing the real deal, just without the right to do so.

An analogy. A Beatles CD is copyrighted. The copy you buy from the store is valid and licit. It is valid b/c it is real Beatles music. It is licit, because you paid for it and the copyright license allows the purchaser to have an play it.

You make an illegal copy for resale. The copy is the real deal. It is real Beatles music, not some band trying to fake the music. Yet, the copy is illicit, or illegal, b/c the copyright does not permit you to make copies for resale.

 

[LadyFlynt]

is it dead yet?

you all have given me alot to chew on and look up.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I said English...not imprudent-child-listen-to-me-one-more-time...

 

[LadyFlynt]

So you are saying that an independant church is leavened?

 

[Scott]

I don't understand what you mean by "leavened." I think independent churches can be true churches and are often in many ways better than many churches that have licit ordinations. That does not mean I don't think the lack of lawful calls is serious error.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Scott
I don't understand what you mean by "leavened." I think independent churches can be true churches and are often in many ways better than many churches that have licit ordinations. That does not mean I don't think the lack of lawful calls is serious error.

Scott,
How did Calvin view disention? Also, if the ordination is not licit, and the keys not officially passed, are the sacraments being administered rightfully? Is this not blasphemy? There has got to be some sort of positive idea attached to thsoe whom Christ administered the keys to and a negative one to those whom have rejected the organized church. Is this not logical? Ultiamtely, it either matters or it doesn't; if it doesn't, we are opening the largest can of worms yet.

 

[pastorway]

if a church is a true church then it has the power and authority to ordain its ministers. Go back and read JohnV's excellent posts on the subject in this very thread.

The elders ordain men acting upon the authority of the church of which Christ is the Head. Everybody is involved. Christ, elders, congregation - the whole CHURCH from the top to bottom!

And by the Way, it seems that some here are confusing the visisble and invisible church. The "keys" that everyone is looking for are not held in the pocket or purse of only one local assembly, no matter how noble their lineage. The keys have been given to the Body of Christ, His bride, THE Church.

Phillip

[Edited on 1-20-05 by pastorway]

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by pastorway
if a church is a true church then it has the power and authority to ordain its ministers. Go back and read JohnV's excellent posts on the subject in this very thread.

The elders ordain men acting upon the authority of the church of which Christ is the Head. Everybody is involved. Christ, elders, congregation - the whole CHURCH from the top to bottom!

And by the Way, it seems that some here are confusing the visisble and invisible church. The "keys" that everyone is looking for are not held in the pocket or purse of only one local assembly, no matter how noble their lineage. The keys have been given to the Body of Christ, His bride, THE Church.

Phillip

[Edited on 1-20-05 by pastorway]

Pastor Way, where in Scripture does Christ give the church authorirty? Christ made is officers the first receptacle of power (Mt 16:19; 2 Cor 10:8). Only officers may ordain officers, in some circumstances the multitude may designate officers (such as deacons), but the power of ordination belongs to the officers alone (1 Tim 4:14 &c).

 

[pastorway]

Do the officers represent the church or are they separate from it? I believe that separating the officers from the body itself creates a false division and leads to the elevation of elders into a super class of believers. What Christ gave the Apostles He gave His church as a unit. The Apostles are its foundation and He Himself is the cornerstone. But it is "one body" (Eph 4:5), one church that the gates of hell will never prevail against, one bride, one inheritance, one faith, one salvation, and yes, even one baptism!

Giving the keys to the Apostles is the same as giving the keys to what they have founded, His church.

Probably the best know use of the keys would be discipline and excommunication, would it not? And according to Matthew 18 the final step involves the whole church! In fact, in the article titled "Church Discipline and Excommunication" in the New Geneva Study Bible, we find written:

(emphasis added)
The "keys of the kingdom", first given to Peter and defined as power to bind and loose (Matt 16:19), have usually been understood as authority to oversee doctrine and impose discipline. This authority was given by Christ to the church in general and to its ordained leadership in particular.

The ultimate act of authority then is the censure of the church on a member who has sinned and remained unrepentant.

Matthew 18
if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

It does not say tell it to the elders and let the elders put him out. It says tell it to the church and the church will deal with him - if he refuses to hear the church, then authority is to be exercised in excommunication. The elders may very well speak on behalf of the church in carrying out the sentence, but nevertheless, the church is in the process before it is final, nit just as an afterthought to be informed of what the elders have already done. That bypasses the way God designed the whole process.

The authority of the keys does not rest only in the hands of those who rule in the church. They belong to the church as a whole.

Phillip



[Edited on 1-21-05 by pastorway]

 

[Scott Bushey]

The officers DO represent the church. Local sessions are an expression of the body of Christ as is the general presbytery.

CHAPTER 11. PCA Book of Church Order

Jurisdiction of Church Courts

11-4. For the orderly and efficient dispatch of ecclesiastical business, it is necessary that the sphere of action of each court should be distinctly defined. The Session exercises jurisdiction over a single church, the Presbytery over what is common to the ministers, Sessions, and churches within a prescribed district, and the General Assembly over such matters as concern the whole Church. The jurisdiction of these courts is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution.



Every court has the right to resolve questions of doctrine and discipline seriously and reasonably proposed, and in general to maintain truth and righteousness, condemning erroneous opinions and practices which tend to the injury of the peace, purity, or progress of the Church. Although each court exercises exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters especially belonging to it, the lower courts are subject to the review and control of the higher courts, in regular gradation. These courts are not separate and independent tribunals, but they have a mutual relation, and every act of jurisdiction is the act of the whole Church performed by it through the appropriate organ.




http://www.pcanet.org/BCO/BCO11-15.htm

[Edited on 1-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[LadyFlynt]

The question then becomes...WHICH presbytery?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
The question then becomes...WHICH presbytery?

The PCA is local and national. All presbyteries fall under the PCA as a group. As far as other presbyterian groups outside of the PCA, as long as one stayed within the orthodoxical & historical vein created in the reformation, then it wouldn't matter. Example, PCA or OPC; both generally follow the same historic vein. Both ascribe to the WCF, etc. Both generally follow the mindset established by the historic church as seen in the scriptures.

 

[LadyFlynt]

But if both split...then which on picked up the keys? (hehe)

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
But if both split...then which on picked up the keys? (hehe)

Define split.

 

[Scott]

Phillip: I don't see your point. A church acts through its representatives, the officers. Every corporate entity acts through its agents. When the agent acts, the entity acts. So, saying that the church must do something does not apply Athenian democracy.

 

[LadyFlynt]

well, back with constantine the church split...or do you not consider it a split if the majority is on one side...so is it a majority rules thinking?

 

[Scott Bushey]

What do you mean the church split? You mean, when C. took over the church members left? Who were they? And if they left, they abandoned the faith. They are known as disenters

[Edited on 1-22-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[LadyFlynt]

well then what makes it a dissent rather than a split...that's what I've been asking