Originally posted by doulosChristou
Matt,
How many years separated your own conversion and the point at which you attained to a state in which you could be considered admittable into the visible church according to the bar you set forth above?
dC
Again, I think you are misunderstanding. Let me rephrase - first you would need a uniform definition of the visible church and waht that means. I will assume you are talking about the Presbyterian / Reformed Church. After that is established, then we would ask the question: "How many years separated your own conversion and the point at which you attained to a state in which you could be considered admittable into the Presbyterian / Reformed church according to the bar you set forth above?" That is a different question. If you asked me, "Matt, do you think I am in a true chruch?" I would ask whether your church meets the requirement of the 3 marks of the church (doctrine, sacraments, discipline). If "yes" then I would say you are in a true church, though your church is not "well" as in "the well-being" of the church. Now the question progressed further, or rather jumped fruther, toward having a Credo-baptist as a member of a Presbyterian or Reformed Church. As I answered with the BCO, we would not allow it for the reasons already explain in my above post. That does not mena that the person was not part of a true church (though schismatic) or is not a beleiver. Rather, I think you are confusing, or medling together, how ecclesiology and soteriology relate in admission into the church.
To answer your question based on that clarification, I would say that I was a member of a true church, but I repented of my schismatism and have embraced a well-ordered ecclesiology. Did that take some time? Certainly. But that should never be used as an excuse. If you have elders that know what they are talking about, then this is a completely moot point because EVERY admission or communicant member allowed into the church would be taught correctly about these matters first off. It is a sad thing it is not taught today. In one of our old churches, you did not even need to believe in the doctrines of grace to get into the church. The doors were WIDE open. They thought that by allowing "anything in" so long as they "professed Christ" that it was admissable.
Jospeh, as you can see, it has little to do with how many Puritans one reads. Rather, it is a matter of juridictional and ecclesiastical authority of the session and presbytery and the Divine Right of Christ as One that places a certain ordering and authority over the church.
If a Baptist wanted to join a Presbyterian church, then they would need to repent of their old views, give up any jurisdiction that once was laid on them by a faulty form of government, and embrace the new views, even if they did not fully understand everything.
In Piper's church, if he is allowing Paedos to join, then 1) those peados are Congregationalists, not Presbyterians, and 2) they remain schismatic. Switching to "covenant theology" does not make one ecclesiatically sound. It may make one partially covenatally sound, but that is only a portion of the battle.
I hope that is more clear.
Also, by way of clarity, you said, "according to the bar you set forth above?" I'm not actually setting that bar. That is the polity of Presbyterianism / Reformed Government based on exegetical work. I'm just parroting the message and the messenger (who is often shot).
[Edited on 9-16-2005 by webmaster]
