Presbyterianism and our devotion to proper ecclesiology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would Calvin, Luther or Zwingli ever consider preaching in a credo church? If they would have, why? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

With respect, why ask that question in the first place? Why not ask if any of the apostles ever refused to preach at a church or seperated from a church due to their lack of 'proper' government?
 
satz said:
With respect, why ask that question in the first place? Why not ask if any of the apostles ever refused to preach at a church or seperated from a church due to their lack of 'proper' government?
Click to expand...

Mark,
Indulge me..........
 
Scott Bushey said:
Mark,
Indulge me..........
Click to expand...

Sure...

On hindsight, I may have been a little hasty in my posting. I do not agree with you, but I ought to have posted when I had something substantial instead of resorting to flippant one-liners. I apologize.


Back to the thread then...
 
satz said:
Sure...

On hindsight, I may have been a little hasty in my posting. I do not agree with you, but I ought to have posted when I had something substantial instead of resorting to flippant one-liners. I apologize.


Back to the thread then...
Click to expand...

So you disagree w/ Calvin, Luther and Zwingli as well?
 
Knox served a pastorate in the Anglican church; so I guess he was inconsistent with his Presbyterian beliefs? Would the Reformers have preached in any church of our denominations today? They certainly would not want to be seen as inconsistent with their views against schism or establishment, would they?
 
Well, at the moment I do not agree that the presbyterian system of church government is the one mandated in the bible. Which is not to say I think that it is wrong. Just that I do not see how independency is an error.
 
satz said:
Well, at the moment I do not agree that the presbyterian system of church government is the one mandated in the bible.
Click to expand...

Mark,
In their day, would Calvin et al. have been inclined to preach in one of your independant churches?
 
Scott Bushey said:
Mark,
In their day, would Calvin et al. have been inclined to preach in one of your independant churches?
Click to expand...

Scott, I really don't know. I think if we go further we will be getting into which one is right arguments on church government, which was not the purpose of your thread. Prehaps it would be better to see what those who agree with you on ecclesiology think.
 
satz said:
Scott, I really don't know. I think if we go further we will be getting into which one is right arguments on church government, which was not the purpose of your thread. Prehaps it would be better to see what those who agree with you on ecclesiology think.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark, fair enough.
 
Brian,
I have no problem w/ Presbyterian ministers preaching in Presbyterian congregations. What I have an issue w/ is Presbyterian ministers who say out one side of their mouth, "To hell with Independancy-it is a scourge" and then preach in independant churches with the other side of their mouths.
Click to expand...

That does not at all address my question, except if you mean to imply that independent churches are not part of the Visible Church.

Would Calvin, Luther or Zwingli ever consider preaching in a credo church?
Click to expand...

How is that relevant? Is the issue baptism or polity?
 
theologae said:
That does not at all address my question, except if you mean to imply that independent churches are not part of the Visible Church.



How is that relevant? Is the issue baptism or polity?
Click to expand...

I'll rephrase the question for you Brian: During their day, would Calvin et al. preach in an independant church?
 
Scott Bushey said:
I'll rephrase the question for you Brian: During their day, would Calvin et al. preach in an independant church?
Click to expand...
If Knox took an Anglican pastorate, and Calvin took an Erastian one, and Zwigli was arguably friendly with Anabaptists, then I dare say that the Magisterial Reformers would have preached in an independent church.

Scott, in your view, are independent churches part of the Visible Church?
 
theologae said:
If Knox took an Anglican pastorate, and Calvin took an Erastian one, and Zwigli was arguably friendly with Anabaptists, then I dare say that the Magisterial Reformers would have preached in an independent church.

Scott, in your view, are independent churches part of the Visible Church?
Click to expand...

Though they err in regards to ecclesiology, I believe that they are part of the visible church.

So, your feeling is that the historic reformers were essentially the same as our day. They took independancy with a grain of salt? People didn't actually face civil persecution and even death? This is all false rumor?
 
So, your feeling is that the historic reformers were essentially the same as our day. They took independancy with a grain of salt? People didn't actually face civil persecution and even death? This is all false rumor?
Click to expand...

I said nothing of the sort.
 
Though they err in regards to ecclesiology, I believe that they are part of the visible church.
Click to expand...

Than the answer to your original question is no, it is not inconsistant. To go to another part of the visible church to proclaim the Gospel of the true religion even to those who disagree with one's ecclesiology is not inconsistent with Presbyterianism per WCF 25.2
 
theologae said:
Than the answer to your original question is no, it is not inconsistant. To go to another part of the visible church to proclaim the Gospel of the true religion even to those who disagree with one's ecclesiology is not inconsistent with Presbyterianism per WCF 25.2
Click to expand...

I suggest you read Jus Divinum; You will see that that is not what the divines meant. They were not referring to the independants.
 
And here's what you extrapolated from that:

People didn't actually face civil persecution and even death? This is all false rumor?
Click to expand...

My point was that the Reformers preached in churches that did not agree with their ecclesiology. That is just a little different from saying that "civil persecution and even death" is a false rumor.
 
theologae said:
My point was that the Reformers preached in churches that did not agree with their ecclesiology.
Click to expand...

Calvin et al. held to the belgic confession.
Here is what the Belgic confession states:

Article 36: The Civil Government

* We believe that because of the depravity of the human race our good God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers. He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that everything may be conducted in good order among human beings.

For that purpose he has placed the sword in the hands of the government, to punish evil people and protect the good.

And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God's law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship.

They should do this while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them, with the means belonging to them.

And the government's task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.

Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God's Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency.

And on this matter we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings.
Click to expand...
How do you come to the conclusion that Calvin would willingly preach in independant churches when in fact he persecuted them?
 
No; I was interacting with the thread in general; and you, not surprisingly, seem to be a moving target. That’s an easy way to avoid difficult questions and responses but in the end folks see through that. What I want to know is if you have the integrity to follow through with mere internet blather and file complaints in your presbytery against any ministers that preach in non Presbyterian churches? If you are not willing to do that, just how consistent are you with the principles you seem to believe?
:think:

Scott Bushey said:
Chris,
I was the one who posed the question. If you refuse to interact with it it is your choice; I won't play this game w/ you though........:cheers:
Click to expand...
 
History is a tricky thing and the ignorant are in danger of getting cut.
That's pretty interesting considering the Belgic Confession was completed in 1567 and Calvin died in 1564. __________________
​
 
NaphtaliPress said:
History is a tricky thing and the ignorant are in danger of getting cut.
That's pretty interesting considering the Belgic Confession was completed in 1567 and Calvin died in 1564. __________________
​
Click to expand...

Actually Guido de Brés wrote the Belgic Confession in 1561; essentially it was a compilation of Calvins works. So, when I said that Calvin held to it, I was implying this.

History is a tricky thing and the ignorant are in danger of getting cut.
Click to expand...
Anymore novel ad homs you wanna throw Chris? Real classy and mature. Is that all you have?
 
Actually Guido de Brés wrote the Belgic Confession in 1561
Click to expand...

But is was not ratified until 1666 at Antwerp. And I caught the error in my post, that's why I deleted it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Federal Vision and Ecclesiology
Replies
3
Views
2K
R. Scott Clark
R. Scott Clark
Dieter Schneider
  • Locked
Ecclesiology
Replies
2
Views
2K
MW
M
Puritan Sailor
  • Locked
Baptist Ecclesiology
Replies
24
Views
5K
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Sailor
R
  • Locked
Reformed Ecclesiology
Replies
18
Views
4K
Scott
Scott
K
  • Locked
I'm New to Presbyterianism
Replies
14
Views
5K
kstachewicz
K
Back
Top