Hi Hblair,
I'm guessing that this conversation is going to get a little on the esoteric side for some of the readers, but hopefully it will remain more intelligible than the British Political system.
Originally posted by hblair
I agree in that the eldership of the congregation should be governing the body. I take it you are a member of the presbyterian church. I'm not very familiar with presbeteryians. Do you practice church discipline and disfellowship if necassary? This is unfortunately a rarety in todays religious world.
Yes, the Presbyterian Church in America or PCA practices church discipline - they view it as the "third mark" of the true church after the right preaching of the gospel and the proper administration of the sacraments as they were instituted by Christ. For an overview of how this takes place in the PCA
you can click here The synopsis though is that the following order is:
Scriptural law is the basis of all discipline because it is the revelation of God’s Holy will.
Proper disciplinary principles are set forth in the Scriptures and must be followed. They are:
a. Instruction in the Word;
b. Individual’s responsibility to admonish one another (Matthew 18:15, Galatians 6:1);
c. If the admonition is rejected, then the calling of one or more witnesses (Matthew 18:16);
d. If rejection persists, then the Church must act through her court unto admonition, suspension, excommunication and deposition (See BCO 29 and 30 for further explanation). This can only happen after investigation and trial, and the accused if found guilty at the sessional level has two further courts of appeal (the Presbytery and the GA). Excommunication can only occur for "contumacy" in the case of serious charges, i.e. a stubborn unwillingness to repent after being proven guilty.
If I can address your last questions first, yes I am a minister (Teaching Elder in the PCA). I was converted in 1993 from being a practicing occultist, crass sinner, and an all-around shnook. At the time I was converted I was in the computer industry, trying my hardest to work my way up the food chain, and taking seminary courses in my spare time to find out as much as I could about the Christian faith. Eventually, just when I was finally getting into a position where I could move on from Sys Admin. to head of I.T., I finally gave in to the conviction in 1997, that I had a call to the ministry. After receiving visiting several seminaries, my wife and I decided on
Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. During that time I served as a Ruling Elder in a wonderful Korean/American church and eventually earned an M.Div in 2001 after 4 years and received a call to be a church planting Pastor in Fayetteville, NC and was ordained that year. My wife and I will probably never earn as much money as we were in the 90s, but we are richer by far today.
I suspected that you might belong to one of the permutations of the Church of Christ from your doctrinal statements. Its a funny old world, but in a sense the origins of your denomination lie in mine. Let me explain what I mean. In the early 1800s during the period of Revivals that came to be called "The Second Great Awakening" there were a series of "Camp Meetings" took place at Cane Ridge in Kentucky in 1801. Among the preachers there were 2 Scottish Presbyterians, Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone. Both of these men, as a result of their experiences at the meetings came to reject Presbyterianism, Reformed theology and indeed the idea of denominations. Stone, Campbell and a group of other ministers from various denominations, started a movement they called "Restorationism" designed to restore the purity of the Apostolic church. The movement became known variously as the Campbellites, Disciples of Christ, and eventually just Church of Christ. While they took much orthodox Christian doctrine with them. The movement definitely bore the stamp of the distinctive theological beliefs of Campbell and Stone, including a denial of the necessity of regeneration, and the belief that holiness was a "moral quality" rather than the work of the holy spirit in sanctifiying the believer.
An excellent review of the roots of Restoration movement in historical and theological context can be found in Church Historian Iain Murray's excellent
Revival and Revivalism which gives a great overview of both of the "great awakenings." Mark Noll also tackles the period very well (although far more generally in his History of Christianity in the United States and Canada.
This period of American church history was an interesting one to say the least. The denominations and creeds of the old world were clashing with the new American spirit, especially out on the wild frontier (which at the time was Kentucky, Tennessee and the like). Denominationalism was rejected in favor of independency, Creeds were rejected in favor of the principle that each man had the right to frame his own creed, common sense was viewed as far more valuable than "book larnin'" and universities and seminaries were viewed with greater and greater suspicion. Calvinism and the Sovereignty of God in Christian theology particular were falling prey to the "each man his own king" spirit of the frontier and the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" approach to life. To say that this new spirit was incompatible with a belief that Salvation was
monergistic i.e. entirely the gracious work of God would be a major understatement. Enlightenment rationalism was also having a profound effect on theology, heightening the emphasis on the moral dimension of Christianity while deemphasizing the mystical components, especially in regards to soteriology. It was during this period of religious and social upheval and change, that the majority of distinctively American religions and sects, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and Mormons got started, as men and women left the major denoms to found their own movements.
Interesting points seagoon. I will look further into what you are talking about. It is my understanding that calvinism was when the belief in "original sin" really took off. So what you are saying is that it was actually 300 years after the inspired word was penned. A serious question, Why do you think something like this is not be mentioned clearly in the inspired scripture, but actually comes about hundreds of years later from men?
You ask a good question, and are definitely working from the right principle, i.e. that scripture alone must form the foundation for all our doctrines, but this is a doctrine that predates Augustine, being explicitly stated in the writings of both Tertullian and Cyprian in the 2nd Century. But I would hold that the reason for that is because it is taught in scripture. Take a look at universal statements of Ephesians 2:1-3 and the consequent necessity of regeneration in verses 4-10. Also take a look at Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-21, there he speaks specifically of the universal imputation of Adam's Sin to all mankind, and links sin to death ("just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" v.12). Paul even extends the extent of this sin and resulting death to those who have not "sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam" i.e. those who have not actively sinned themselves, a verse Christian expositors have traditional held as logically referring to infants dying in infancy. Paul's entire argument in these verses breaks down if Adam's Sin is not imputed in manner somehow coordinate to the imputation of Christ's righteousness. The actual formula of these verse - in nutshell, is that all are born in Adam, sinful (evidence: Condemnation, Death) and that in Christ many will be made righteous (evidence: Justification, eternal life).
- SEAGOON
