Only Historic Churchmen Need Respond

[Robert R. Higby]

This will be a limited and special thread.

1. Only those who believe in the institutional, organized church on earth as the EKKLESIA that Christ founded may respond (except for facilitators).

2. Responses are limited only to answering my question, not to any further discussion beyond that. Discussion takes place in other threads. If this rule is broken, the post in violation will either be edited to delete the text in violation (no changes to posted text) or deleted entirely.

Question: Which of the following listed church institutions are included in the EKKLESIA founded by Christ and which are excluded?

Restrictions:

a) There is no need to explain why (unless a contributor wants to with a brief comment), only list. I can conclude simply by what is chosen what the basis of a contributor's ecclesiology is.

b) If a contributor believes that only part of the entity named belongs to the church, please explain briefly. I realize that some of the institutions in the list are broad groupings and not individual organizations.

c) A response must include every named group or institution. If one of them is not known, perform a web lookup for information.

My rationale:

1. One who believes in the traditional church should have to name it specifically. Otherwise it is a mystical 'something' without clear identity.

2. The list is chosen for a reason: almost every single sect has some variation from the others that might potentially qualify it for inclusion or exclusion in the mind of a historic churcman.

3. I recognize that the list does not include all churches (which would be impossible), however, it is complete enough for me to understand the basis of what a contributor believes the church is.

In future Ecclesiology discussions, I will be pointing contributors who believe in the traditional church back to a need to respond to this post before I can interact with them.

And now, the list:

Roman Catholic Church
Nonconformist Catholic churches (all)
Eastern Orthodoxy
Nonconformist Orthodox churches (all)
Episcopal Church
Reformed Episcopal Church
United Methodist Church
African Methodist Episcopal Church
Free Methodist Church
Church of the Nazarene
Fire Baptized Holiness Church
Christian and Missionary Alliance
Apostolic Christian Churches of America
Moravian Church
Mennonite Church
Old Order Amish Mennonite Church
General Conference Mennonite Church
New Apostolic Church of North America
Advent Christian Church
Seventh-day Adventist
Messianic Judaism
Worldwide Church of God (evangelical, post-Armstrong)
Lutheran Church in America
Lutheran Church MO Synod
Lutheran Church WI Synod
Church of the Lutheran Brethren
Free Lutheran Churches
Church of the Brethren
Plymouth Brethren
River Brethren
United Brethren
American Baptist Churches
Southern Baptist Convention
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
Baptist General Conference
Reformed Baptist (1689 Confession)
Reformed Baptist (1644 Confession)
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
Primitive Baptists (all variations)
Seventh Day Baptists
General Baptists
Free Will Baptists
Pentecostal Free Will Baptists
Landmark Baptists
Evangelical Free Church
Evangelical Covenant Church
United Church of Christ
Conservative Congregational Christian Conference
Free Presbyterian Church
Bible Presbyterian Church
Independent Christian Churches (Campbellite)
Church of Christ
Disciples of Christ
Church of God (Anderson, IN)
Church of God (Cleveland, TN)
Church of God of Prophecy
Church of God Seventh Day
Church of God and Saints in Christ
Church of God in Christ
Assemblies of God
Vineyard Christian Fellowship
Calvary Chapel
Pentecostal Holiness Church
Pentecostal Fire-Baptized Holiness Church
United Pentecostal Church
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World
The Salvation Army
United Presbyterian Church U.S.A.
Presbyterian Church in America
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Bible Presbyterian Church
Free Presbyterian Church
Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America
Nonconformist Presbyterian Churches (Richard Bacon, John Robbins, etc.)
Christian Reformed Church
Reformed Church in America
Protestant Reformed Church
United Reformed Church
Nonconformist Assemblies in the Alternative Church Movement (house churches, etc.)

--Bob

Added Note: Those of us who teach that the body of Christ equals only the company of all elect in Christ believe that the EKKLESIA overlaps some of these entitites-- but is not identified by a list of them and includes persons outside of any 'list' that man may come up with. So there is no point in non-institutionalists responding to this post with a list.

[MCoving]

b. The church local - a company of saved people in a
geographical area who work and worship together as a local
congregation

Well right I think thats what Bob is curious about is what local churches would someone recommend as having Truth. Like would one recommend the Catholic church, would you Joe? Pry not.. but I think You'd recommend OPC, Reformed Baptist, etc. I think that is what Bob is wondering.. but I'm sure he'll get back to you and others. As for me I dont know... there are many on the list I wouldn't recommend some I not sure of..

Mary

ps: I dont know if I am really "historic churchmen" so I pry shouldn't be responding.. if one wants to delete this and explain more thats fine.. I just find this thread interesting... background info I guess from people.

[Robert R. Higby]

I will be discussing this with Brandan for his approval--but I'm convinced that we need to start enforcing these policies at p-net:

1. Posts accusatory of facilitators without just cause will be deleted (or the accusing comments purged).

2. Posts acusatory of 'those who believe such and such' without cause, when the group being addressed is those who are of like mind to the facilitators, will be deleted or the accusing comments purged.

3. Off-topic posts will be deleted entirely.

I have made it clear what the purpose of this thread is.

1. For those who believe that the EKKLESIA of the New Testment is the community of the ELECT ONLY, whether universal in eternity or gathered locally in any form, this thread is not intended for your response.

2. For those who believe that the EKKLESIA of the New Testament is an external, visible institution dating back to the apostles whose appointed leaders have the God-ordained authority to legislate doctrine that men must believe, this thread is here for us to have an understanding of what you propose the scope of this institution consists of at the present time.

This is a most reasonable request and not based on meanness. When contributors in their posts keep referring to 'the church' as an institution as authoritative in doctrine, it is only just and right that we ask such contributros to identify this church by name.

--Bob

[wildboar]

Although many of the churches may be falling churches or apostate churches, I would consider all of those listed that adhere to the regula fideia as summarized by the Nicene Creed and definition of Chalcedon whether implicitly or explicitly to be churches. The rest are not.

[Robert R. Higby]

WB: I would consider all of those listed that adhere to the regula fideia as summarized by the Nicene Creed and definition of Chalcedon whether implicitly or explicitly to be churches. The rest are not.

This does not nail the issue. As T. Zahn stated (http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/e...v.vii.cxix.htm):


REGULA FIDEI (" RULE OF FAITH "): A term used so frequently in early Christian literature from the last quarter of the second century that an understanding of it is necessary to a correct idea of the religious conceptions of that period. Different forms with more or less the same meaning occur. Ho kanon tes aletheias ("canon of truth "), regula veratatis (rule of truth), probably the oldest form, was used apparently by Dionysius of Corinth (c. 160), then by Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Novatian; ho kanon tes pisteos, regula fidei, by Polyerates of Ephesus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and by the later Latin writers. The equivalent use of these two expressions is important for the determination of the original significance attached to them. The truth itself is the standard by which teaching and practise are to be judged (cf. Ireneeus, H沼/i>, II., xxviii. 1; ANP, i. 399). It is presupposed that this truth takes for the Christian community a definite, tangible form, such as the law was for the Jews (Rom. ii. 20), in a body of doctrine not merely held and taught by the Church, but clearly formulated. Besides the expressions already discussed, another is worth mentioning, found only in Greek writers and the versions from them?ho ekklesiastikos kanon or ho kanon tes ekklesias (Clement of Alexandria and Origen).

The ante-Nicene church never considered as the Rule of Faith the Bible or any part of it. Certain expressions of recent writers show that it is not unnecessary to point out that the word kanon, with or without qualifying additions, is never used until after Eusebius to designate the Bible, and that even after the word had begun to be applied to the collection of Scriptural books, the sense mentioned
446

above is never given to it by the Greeks. This is explained by the fact that the early Church used this word for something else-the baptismal formula. It is quite evident that in the oldest and most explicit witnesses for the use of the word, Iren浳 and Tertullian, this was known primarily as the rule of faith. When the former (I., ix. 4) says "he who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism," the expression "rule of truth" can not mean any sum total of truths as to which instruction has been conveyed before or after baptism, but only a formula which the neophyte has made his own by a profession of faith made at the time of baptism. This was "the faith," which the convert received from the teaching Church and was to keep as the standard for his subsequent life and for the testing of all doctrines presented to him. With Tertullian the regula fidei is identical with the sacramentum fidei, the rule of faith with that which he so often designates as the oath of allegiance of the soldiers of Christ (Ad martyras, iii.). The prevalent view in both these authors is the same as that expressed by Augustine when he says to the catechumens at the traditio symboli, "receive, sons, the rule of faith which is called `the symbol' " (Serm., ccxiii.; Serm. i., ad catechumenos de symbolo). That similar expressions are occasionally used of the Nicene creed shows at least that the Rule of Faith was a formulated confession, and thus that in the ante-Nicene period it could not refer to anything but the baptismal creed, the only one then existing. In a word, the early Fathers considered Christ himself as the giver of the Rule, though they admitted freely that its actual words were an expansion of the nucleus recorded in the Gospels, regarding it as only a development of the baptismal formula; and, on the other hand, the whole body of teaching current in the undisputed Catholic Church was to them but an expansion of the creed, and thus the term " Rule of Faith " could be, as it is occasionally found, applied to this whole body.

The Rule of the Gospel Needs an Explicit Definition in Terms of Biblical Propositions. The creeds of Nicene and Chalcedon are subject to various interpretation; if one stands by those as a rule then a doctrinal list explaining the true and false interpretation is necessary (as well as adding anything central to the biblical message that these creeds may have missed).

[wildboar]

Nicea and Chalcedon had an original intent and that is how they should be interpreted. From reading the primary source material there is a great deal of certainty as to what is intended. The phrase "Regula Fidei" is used in various ways by various people. I've already explained what I mean by it so I won't bore anyone again. Theological development is healthy for the life of the church but if a church decides to remain immature it does not cease to be a church. The church of Laodicea was still a churc. Dogmatic assertion by Zahn doesn't prove anything. Give me the historic church as it has

[Robert R. Higby]

Only by classifying my list of denominations will I know from anyone what their view of the rule of faith is.

To illustrate with one point; I included both what are labeled 'high-church' and 'low-church' sects from multiple denominations. I can only tell what an organizational EKKLESIA contributor believes on 'one baptism for the remission of sins' by how he/she classifies these as inside or outside. Ditto for many, many other points.

[wildboar]

I really don't have the time or the information available to determine who is in and who is out on the list and to be honest I don't find the exercise helpful. Unity has to start at home. I intend to work within my own church for unity. Unity would then have to develop within those churches which subscribe to common confessional standards. More difficult questions about those who are on the fringe will not even need to be asked until unity with those in closer agreement are achieved. As for the, "Is there a church which is faithful enough for me to attend?" question, I believe that for most the answer is yes. Although I am not a member, I believe that the LCMS for instance would be faithful enough for me to attend if other options were not available and you can find an LCMS church in most places in the country.

[lionovjudah]

I found this article to be 100 % accurate.

http://www.spindleworks.com/library/..._thechurch.htm

Now it is remarkable that already in the confessions of Strasbourg and Basel (the Tetrapolitan Confession of 1530, the First Confession of Basel of 1534, and the First Helvetic Confession of 1536), we find a stress on the church as communion or community, or fellowship of believers. The concept of the gathering comes to the fore, and the church is described as being gathered by the triune God and as coming together in the unity of true faith. This element of gathering is of utmost importance in the doctrine of the church in Reformed confessions. The First Confession of Basel (1534) states in Article 5: "We believe one holy, Christian Church, the fellowship of the saints, the spiritual assembly of believers which is holy and the one bride of Christ . . . ." And we read in the First Helvetic Confession (1536) about the holy, universal church as "the fellowship and congregation of all saints which is Christ's bride and spouse" (Art. 14; the Latin text speaks of a "sancta sanctorum omnium collectio"). This First Helvetic Confession characterizes the church as not only seen and known by God but "also gathered and built up by visible signs, rites and ordinances, which Christ Himself has instituted and appointed by the Word of God as a universal, public and orderly discipline" ("non solum cernitur cognosciturque, sed . . . constituitur"). In the present tense constituitur we see the church as an earthly, empirical assembly that is not finished yet, but is in the process of being gathered and built. At the same time the church itself is God's instrument in this ongoing process; there is a constitutum and there is a constituendum. The church's ministers are in these German, Swiss Reformed confessions time and again called God's co-workers (cooperarii), [5] and this striking epithet underscores the dynamic nature of the ongoing work of the gathering of the church. In the period of Calvin and Bullinger, we find a similar stress on the church as a company of the faithful. The Geneva Confession of 1536 even stresses that this description is valid for each and every local congregation: "While there is one only Church of Jesus Christ, we always acknowledge that necessity requires companies of the faithful to be distributed in different places. Of these assemblies each one is called Church" (Art. 18).
The Second Helvetic Confession-that beautiful confession of Bullinger-puts the question, "What is the church?" and answers as follows: "The Church is an assembly of the faithful called or gathered out of the world; a communion, I say, of all saints . . ." (The Latin text says: "Ecclesiam, id est, a mundo evocatum vel collectum coetum fideli um."). The headings in Bullinger's confession are evidence of the Scriptural character of his doctrine of the church. The church is called the assembly of citizens of one commonwealth, the temple of the living God, and thereare special paragraphs about the church as bride and virgin, as a flock of sheep, and as the body of Christ.


Professor Murray alerts us to the danger of what I call a polarization of the so-called "invisible" and the so-called "visible" church. Some, who are disobedient to the obligation to foster unity and fellowship in the church of God, escape to the idea of the "church invisible." Also within this International Conference, there could be the danger that we meet one another in a faraway place, yet pass one another by in our own country, and in the meantime soothe our consciences with a distinction between visible and invisible church. In the contacts between the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Canadian Reformed Churches, the deputies of the latter have warned against a polarization of the visible and invisible church. It results in a low esteem for what is called the visible church, a weakening of church-consciousness, a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the calling to separate from the false church, and the rise of the theologoumenon of the pluriformity of the church, which is taught neither by the Scriptures nor by the Reformed confessions. This theologoumenon of the pluriformity of the church has proved to be an undermining factor in the fight against the sins of the church and for its reformation.

[Robert R. Higby]

WB: really don't have the time or the information available to determine who is in and who is out on the list and to be honest I don't find the exercise helpful. Unity has to start at home. I intend to work within my own church for unity. Unity would then have to develop within those churches which subscribe to common confessional standards. More difficult questions about those who are on the fringe will not even need to be asked until unity with those in closer agreement are achieved. As for the, "Is there a church which is faithful enough for me to attend?" question, I believe that for most the answer is yes. Although I am not a member, I believe that the LCMS for instance would be faithful enough for me to attend if other options were not available and you can find an LCMS church in most places in the country.

The issue here has NOTHING to do with where it is fit to attend worship services at a denominational church. I have stated again and again that I attend services at a local PCA church (and I still do).

Although some may not find the exercise helpful, I find it essential.

To define orthodoxy strictly on the basis of Nicea and Chalcedon would allow the most outrageous and heretical soteriology to be accepted--if only the sect teaching it agreed with standard formulations on the Trinity.

[Robert R. Higby]

LOJ, I agree fully with John Murray's position IN OPPOSITION to that of Charles Hodge. I abhor the strictly invisible view of the universal EKKLESIA and always have.

You need to decide whether you agree with the historic Protestant confessions--which WERE RIGHT on this issue (including the Belgic Confession which you did not quote)--or the deviant position of the current time that equates the EKKLESIA with one or many organized institutions with the power to enforce their dogma against dissenters.

[wildboar]

To define orthodoxy strictly on the basis of Nicea and Chalcedon would allow the most outrageous and heretical soteriology to be accepted--if only the sect teaching it agreed with standard formulations on the Trinity.

I never said orthodoxy should be defined exclusively on these creeds. I said whether or not a church is actually a Christian church should be determined by these creeds. As I've already said, certain churches are more mature than others, certain churches are falling churches, etc. Don't try to pretend that I'm saying that nothing else matters.

[lionovjudah]

LOJ, I agree fully with John Murray's position IN OPPOSITION to that of Charles Hodge. I abhor the strictly invisible view of the universal EKKLESIA and always have.

You need to decide whether you agree with the historic Protestant confessions--which WERE RIGHT on this issue (including the Belgic Confession which you did not quote)--or the deviant position of the current time that equates the EKKLESIA with one or many organized institutions with the power to enforce their dogma against dissenters.

Here you go Bob;

Let me end my list of quotations with the description of the church in the Belgic Confession of 1561: "We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church, which is a holy congregation and assembly of true Christian believers, expecting all their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by His blood, sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit" (Art. 27).
The original French text has two nouns, "congrégation et assembleé,'' a fact which is neglected in most English translations. Festus Hommius rendered in his Latin translation "congregatio seu coetus." Dr. Klaas Schilder saw in congregatio -related to the noun grex, flock -the divine act, and in coetus -from co-ire, to come together-the human act. God in Christ brings us together and we in faith come together. 'this explanation may be deficient in historical and symbological respects, for "congregation" and "assembly" are used interchangeably in the French original of the Belgic Confession. Nevertheless, it is Scripturally and dogmatically sound reasoning, and in line with the Reformed confessions.
But the main point in my characterization of the contents of Reformed confessions in their description of the nature of the church is this: in line with the Scriptural terms for the church as congregation or assembly, Reformed confessions have emphasized the fact that the church is a gathering, and that this gathering is an ongoing, dynamic work of the triune God, which divine action should evoke our human response, so that, by the grace of God, we become co-operarii Dei, co-workers of God. I will not now make an application of what this means for this International Conference of Reformed Churches and its members, but I only express the conviction that this Scriptural confession is and remains a timely one.




Bob: I do not know if you are trying to pigeon hole me or chuck into becoming an adherent of landmarkism or the rcc asserions of the one true church/denomination. This I cannot nor will not do. Nor will I make the mistake of defining ellesia so narrow, noone can walk on the road other than 5 people at a time.

The refrmed confessions teach both a universal and a local gathering of saints. Perhaps i am missing the point of this whole thread.

In the catechism of the church of Geneva, the question is asked: "Why do you insert this article [i.e. the article concerning forgiveness] after the church?" The answer reads: "Because no man obtains pardon for his sins without being previously incorporated into the people of God, persevering in unity and communion with the Body of Christ in such a way as to be a true member of the Church" (Question and Answer 104). The following question asks: "And so outside the Church there is nothing but damnation and death?" Answer: "Certainly, for all those who separate themselves from the community of the faithful to form a sect on its own, have no hope of salvation so long as they are in schism" (Question and Answer 105). [7]

[Robert R. Higby]

All further responses to this thread will be deleted unless they answer the question that I posed to introduce it and name the 'church' in terms of which type of visible institutions or gatherings are in and out of it.

I will not be upset if a few 'unknowns' in the list are left out but my basic request stands.

[wildboar]

I already provided a criteria with which a person should be able to determine if the person has knowledge of the given denomination. However, based upon what I already know I will try to give answers of Y(es), N(o), or U(known) for those who need to have it spelled out for them. Once again, labeling a church with a Y does not imply that I don't believe the church is falling or apostate or whatever else. It only means that I consider it to be a Christian church.

Roman Catholic Church Y
Nonconformist Catholic churches (all) U
Eastern Orthodoxy Y
Nonconformist Orthodox churches (all) U
Episcopal Church U (depends which branch)
Reformed Episcopal Church Y
United Methodist Church U
African Methodist Episcopal Church U
Free Methodist Church U
Church of the Nazarene U
Fire Baptized Holiness Church U
Christian and Missionary Alliance U
Apostolic Christian Churches of America U
Moravian Church U
Mennonite Church Y
Old Order Amish Mennonite Church U
General Conference Mennonite Church U
New Apostolic Church of North America U
Advent Christian Church U
Seventh-day Adventist U
Messianic Judaism U
Worldwide Church of God (evangelical, post-Armstrong) U
Lutheran Church in America (doesn't exist since 1987, are you referring to the ELCA?, if so then Y)
Lutheran Church MO Synod Y
Lutheran Church WI Synod Y
Church of the Lutheran Brethren Y
Free Lutheran Churches U but guessing Y
Church of the Brethren N
Plymouth Brethren U
River Brethren U
United Brethren U
American Baptist Churches Y
Southern Baptist Convention Y
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches Y
Baptist General Conference Y
Reformed Baptist (1689 Confession) Y
Reformed Baptist (1644 Confession) Y
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists U
Primitive Baptists (all variations) U
Seventh Day Baptists Y
General Baptists Y
Free Will Baptists Y
Pentecostal Free Will Baptists U
Landmark Baptists Y?
Evangelical Free Church Y
Evangelical Covenant Church U
United Church of Christ Y
Conservative Congregational Christian Conference U
Free Presbyterian Church Y
Bible Presbyterian Church Y
Independent Christian Churches (Campbellite) U
Church of Christ U
Disciples of Christ U
Church of God (Anderson, IN) U
United Presbyterian Church U.S.A. N
Presbyterian Church in America Y
Orthodox Presbyterian Church Y
Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America Y
Nonconformist Presbyterian Churches (Richard Bacon, John Robbins, etc.) (Y,N, U.)
Christian Reformed Church Y
Reformed Church in America Y
Protestant Reformed Church Y
United Reformed Church Y
Nonconformist Assemblies in the Alternative Church Movement (house churches, etc.) U

If I omitted some consider them to be U on my list.

[Robert R. Higby]

I thank you for your response Charles.

Just one question, based on the number of 'U' responses, I'm going to assume that these fall into two groups:

1. Those about whom you don't who they are.
2. Those whom you don't know their teaching well enough to make a judgment.

Some of those that you responded with 'U' on are very well known denominations.

[wildboar]

I know they are well known but that doesn't mean they are well known enough by me to make a judgment. If they are well known enough by you, you should be able to plug my criteria in and figure out if I would consider them to be a church.

[Robert R. Higby]

The part I didn't get was why the whole block of Methodist denominations is 'U' and the whole block of Arminian Baptist denominations is 'Y'. By your standard of the rule of faith, how could there possibly be a difference between these two Arminian blocks of churches? It seems that since the Methodists are closer to you on baptism that they would get a 'Y' ahead of the Baptists.

[wildboar]

RH:

I'm simply not familiar enough with the denominations. I provided the criteria if you know enough about the denomination to determine. I didn't know for instance if any of these denominations were engaging in the same redefinition of the Trinity as the PCUSA is.