5/17/07he
One objection commonly lodged against the (FPCS) regards the way she avoids fraternal relations with different denominations. To many, this is un-loving. But, in reality, it is loving. It would be un-loving to imply by one’s actions that another denomination is justified in her existence, when she in fact is not justified in her existence. The very reason for separate denominational status is due to sin, generally owing to some heresy. It is not good for a church to send mixed messages to schismatics and heretics.
Recently, on the r-f-w list, there was the following discussion on the topic of denominational relations:
Rev. Winzer:
… they [the FPCS – PM] have a policy which fails to properly recognise biblical ministries outside of their denominational boundary, which is the sure way to missionary failure. In Gal. 2, the Jewish presbytery recognised the ministry of Paul to the Gentiles. There was no pre-requirement to make him "one of us," a requirement which would have inflicted the death-wound on the Gentile mission…
Me:
I do not accept your
argument because I deny that the Apostles Peter and Paul were in 2 separate
denominations. I think, for example, Acts 15 evidences that they were in the
same denomination and answering to the same highest level synodical church
court.
Rev. Winzer:
…You would perhaps be
the only person I have heard of, who holds that the council of Jerusalem was a
standing court. Yes, they were in the same church, but it is not correct
to say they were in the same denomination. The simple fact of the matter
is that there weren't any denominations. Shame on the apostle Peter when
he created an artificial barrier between the people of God! And we are to
be blamed if we do likewise…
Me:
Several comments:
1. I do not believe I ever stated that the council of Jerusalem was a
standing court, nor does the term highest level synodical church court
necessarily imply it. As the
Westminster Form of
Presbyterial Church-Government notes, “Synodical assemblies may lawfully be of
several sorts, as provincial, national, and oecumenical.”
2.
Yes, shame on the Apostle Peter, but it has nothing to do with how
different denominations should relate, for the Apostles Peter and Paul were in
the same denomination.
3. There were different Christian
denominations/sects in the Apostolic era, but the Apostles Peter and Paul were
in the same denomination – the Apostolic church. There were Christian heretics and schismatics in the Apostolic
era, no doubt some of which had to be excommunicated from the Apostolic church,
or withdrew from the Apostolic church of their own accord, as evidenced by I
Corinthians 11:19. Any who refused to
heed the synodical decision of Acts 15 and withdrew from the Apostolic church,
albeit professing Christianity, would have been a different denomination. I John 2:19 (“They went out from us,
but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have
continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that
they were not all of us.”) implies there were those of a different
Christian sect/denomination. And the
Nicolaitans were a separate sect/denomination, some of which sought to
infiltrate the Apostolic church, but the Apostles directed the Apostolic
churches to excommunicate them (Revelation 2).
Mr. Greg Griffith:
I have sometimes
wondered whether Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50 are examples of Jesus Christ
Himself allowing and authorizing the existence of separate church
organizational bodies (denominations)
"And John
answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we
forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him,
Forbid him not: for he that is not
against us is for us." (Luke 9:49-50).
Me:
If by ‘denomination’
we mean “a body of
persons adhering to a particular religious faith”, then ideally there should
not be different denominations , according to God's preceptive will. There should not be one church that is
credo-baptist instead of paedo-baptist.
There should not be one church that rejects the Establishment Principle
instead of accepting it. There should
not be one church that says it is all right for close relations to marry
instead of forbidding it. After all,
there is to be “one Lord, one faith, one baptism”. And the word of God is univocal on these issues, not multivocal. And the body is to be one as well.
Matthew Vogan, in
another context, supplied this helpful information:
“Although in our day some people have little time for the unity
of the Church and don't worry about questions of schism, they are vitally
important. The New Testament does not speak of lots of competing denominations.
As Thomas McCrie put it: “The unity of the Church is implied in the most
general view that can be taken of its nature, as a society instituted for
religious purposes. True religion is essentially one, even as God, its object,
is one.” “The unity of the Church, in profession, worship, and holy walking,
was strikingly exemplified in the primitive age of Christianity”. "The
original word in the New Testament translated schism or division, signifies any
rent or breach, by which that which was formerly one is divided; and when applied
to the Church, it is always used in a bad sense. Christians are reprehended for
giving way to schism, and exhorted to avoid those who cause it. It is a
relative term, and cannot be understood without just views of that unity and
communion of which it is a violation." "a principle of difformity
which, however congenial to the system of polytheism, is utterly eversive of a
religion founded on the unity of the divine nature and will, and on a
revelation which teaches us what we are to believe concerning God and what duty
he requires of us."
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/unity_00.htm
McCrie reflects the historic Scottish biblical position also found in James
Durham and James Walker in his book Scottish Theology and Theologians.”