It seems to me that ecclesiology is probably doctrine with the most disagreement within the reformed community, and thus probably the root of many divisions. Certainly, I would expect there to be stark differences between Baptist, Presbyterians, and Anglicans, but it seems we are all over the board even within our own denominations. Now I am certainly no expert on this matter, and in fact my view has changed much over the last year. However, I am concerned that there may be some reformed people out there that have such a High view of the Church as to bind us to Trent. With that in mind, I would like some here to define some things.
What determines binding of councils, creeds, etc?
Does the Church, as the Pillar of Truth, set the standard for belief over ones personal understanding of scripture?
If the Church always supercedes understanding of scripture, then must we as Protestants use our personal view of scripture in picking sides? Or do we look for some kind of succession?
Are there differing standards for different groups of Christians, or do we take the average of the confessions (mind of the Church) as to be the definition of orthodoxy?.
If the councils bind us, aren't we forced to at least accept the 7th ecumenical council?
What is the Church?
Does authority or truth bind the Church councils?
Is it wrong for a church to decide to exclude part of a confession?
How important is original intent?
If important, can we as reformed Christians say that we believe in "baptism for the remission of sins" and yet deny baptismal regeneration? Any view of the contemporaries to the Nicene creed will show that is what they meant.
I don't know where I fall, but I wonder if some of us (me including) are not overreacting to the evangelical low church doctrine.
Consider some of these writings:
WCF:
Chapter XXV
Of the Church
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.
JC Ryle:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/RYLE2.HTM
It is a Church WHICH IS DEPENDENT UPON NO MINISTERS UPON EARTH, however much it values those who preach the gospel to its members. The life of its members does not hang upon Church-membership, or baptism, or the Lord's Supper - although they highly value these things when they are to be had. But it has only one Great Head - one Shepherd, one chief Bishop - and that is Jesus Christ. He alone, By His Spirit, admits the members of this Church, though ministers may show the door. Till He opens the door no man on earth can open it - neither bishops, nor presbyters, nor convocations, nor synods. Once let a man repent and believe the gospel, and that moment he becomes a member of this Church. Like the penitent thief, he may have no opportunity of being baptized; but he has that which is far better than any water-baptism - the baptism of the Spirit. He may not be able to receive the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper;but he eats Christ's body and drinks Christ's blood by faith every day he lives, and no minister on earth can prevent him. He may be ex-communicated by ordained men, and cut off from the outward ordinances of the professing Church; but all the ordained men in the world cannot shut him out of the true Church.
It is a Church whose existence does not depend on forms, ceremonies, cathedrals, churches, chapels, pulpits, fonts, vestments, organs, endowments, money, kings, governments, magistrates or any act of favor whatsoever from the hand of man. It has often lived on and continued when all these things have been taken from it. It has often been driven into the wilderness, or into dens and caves of the earth, by those who ought to have been its friends. Its existence depends on nothing but the presence of Christ and His Spirit; and they being ever with it, the Church cannot die.
Calvin: (remember that this is a polemic against Rome, and take that with a grain of salt).
http://www.the-highway.com/titlechurch_Calvin.html
As far as we are concerned, [b:22f825e4db] if one man, Noah, condemned all the men of his generation by his faith, there is no reason why a great crowd of unbelievers should move us from our position.[/b:22f825e4db] At the same time, I say that it is not only hardly a probable, but indeed an unjust and disgraceful, cause of a scandal when regard for men outweighs the Word of God. What then? Will the truth of God not stand unless we have been pleased to put our confidence in men? On the contrary, as Paul says, "Let man remain the liar that he is. Let those to whom God deigns to reveal himself, know that he is true" (Rom. 3:4). And we have already shown elsewhere why the majority of men are so reluctant about yielding themselves in obedience to God. Therefore, when the world shows such obstinacy it is by no means appropriate that our faith be directed according to the example of the multitude.
Anyway, I am not sure what to think yet, but would like some to weigh in on this.
[Edited on 3-1-2004 by raderag]
What determines binding of councils, creeds, etc?
Does the Church, as the Pillar of Truth, set the standard for belief over ones personal understanding of scripture?
If the Church always supercedes understanding of scripture, then must we as Protestants use our personal view of scripture in picking sides? Or do we look for some kind of succession?
Are there differing standards for different groups of Christians, or do we take the average of the confessions (mind of the Church) as to be the definition of orthodoxy?.
If the councils bind us, aren't we forced to at least accept the 7th ecumenical council?
What is the Church?
Does authority or truth bind the Church councils?
Is it wrong for a church to decide to exclude part of a confession?
How important is original intent?
If important, can we as reformed Christians say that we believe in "baptism for the remission of sins" and yet deny baptismal regeneration? Any view of the contemporaries to the Nicene creed will show that is what they meant.
I don't know where I fall, but I wonder if some of us (me including) are not overreacting to the evangelical low church doctrine.
Consider some of these writings:
WCF:
Chapter XXV
Of the Church
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.
JC Ryle:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/RYLE2.HTM
It is a Church WHICH IS DEPENDENT UPON NO MINISTERS UPON EARTH, however much it values those who preach the gospel to its members. The life of its members does not hang upon Church-membership, or baptism, or the Lord's Supper - although they highly value these things when they are to be had. But it has only one Great Head - one Shepherd, one chief Bishop - and that is Jesus Christ. He alone, By His Spirit, admits the members of this Church, though ministers may show the door. Till He opens the door no man on earth can open it - neither bishops, nor presbyters, nor convocations, nor synods. Once let a man repent and believe the gospel, and that moment he becomes a member of this Church. Like the penitent thief, he may have no opportunity of being baptized; but he has that which is far better than any water-baptism - the baptism of the Spirit. He may not be able to receive the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper;but he eats Christ's body and drinks Christ's blood by faith every day he lives, and no minister on earth can prevent him. He may be ex-communicated by ordained men, and cut off from the outward ordinances of the professing Church; but all the ordained men in the world cannot shut him out of the true Church.
It is a Church whose existence does not depend on forms, ceremonies, cathedrals, churches, chapels, pulpits, fonts, vestments, organs, endowments, money, kings, governments, magistrates or any act of favor whatsoever from the hand of man. It has often lived on and continued when all these things have been taken from it. It has often been driven into the wilderness, or into dens and caves of the earth, by those who ought to have been its friends. Its existence depends on nothing but the presence of Christ and His Spirit; and they being ever with it, the Church cannot die.
Calvin: (remember that this is a polemic against Rome, and take that with a grain of salt).
http://www.the-highway.com/titlechurch_Calvin.html
As far as we are concerned, [b:22f825e4db] if one man, Noah, condemned all the men of his generation by his faith, there is no reason why a great crowd of unbelievers should move us from our position.[/b:22f825e4db] At the same time, I say that it is not only hardly a probable, but indeed an unjust and disgraceful, cause of a scandal when regard for men outweighs the Word of God. What then? Will the truth of God not stand unless we have been pleased to put our confidence in men? On the contrary, as Paul says, "Let man remain the liar that he is. Let those to whom God deigns to reveal himself, know that he is true" (Rom. 3:4). And we have already shown elsewhere why the majority of men are so reluctant about yielding themselves in obedience to God. Therefore, when the world shows such obstinacy it is by no means appropriate that our faith be directed according to the example of the multitude.
Anyway, I am not sure what to think yet, but would like some to weigh in on this.
[Edited on 3-1-2004 by raderag]