Responses to Objections and Questions Regarding the Claims of the "End Denominationalism" Facebook Page

As the "End Denominationalism" Facebook page receives more and more responses, questions, objections, arguments, etc., I would like to keep track of important questions and objections and responses to them in defense of the basic ideas of the page.  This blog entry will be the place to store these objections, questions, and responses.

OBJECTION #1:  "Is it not an overreaching of the proper jurisdiction of the FPCS for them to claim that people should unite with them in formal membership outside of Scotland?  Wouldn't it rather be right for each nation to develop its own national church rather than members and churches in other nations to be under the oversight of the FPCS?  Also, are not ecumenical councils simply occasional rather than standing councils?"

Response:  An excellent set of questions! I've thought about these issues a lot, and I definitely see your points.

There are a number of (related) reasons (or perhaps rather an ongoing argument-string) why I think we ought, for now, to join the FPCS, and why I don't think it is a breach of the limits of their jurisdiction to have churches and members outside of Scotland:

1. The FPCS has no formal communion with any other denomination. This implies a rejection of the de jure authority of all other denominations. The practical implications of this are that all other denominations are schismatic and lack de jure authority in the opinion of the FPCS, and I agree with their separate stance. Therefore, the situation we have is one de jure church centered in Scotland and no de jure denominations elsewhere. We ought not, normally, to join in membership with illegitimate churches; and we ought to be in communion with the proper de jure church.

2. Because there are no de jure denominations in other nations, the FPCS represents the totality of the de jure visible church at this time. (Again, that is the clear implication of denominational division in a presbyterian system.) Therefore, its situation is analogous in relevant ways to a situation where the church has not sent missionaries into a foreign land, such as in the days of the early church. The church of Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas out as missionaries to plant new churches. Was this an overreach of their jurisdiction? No, because it is the responsibility of the de jure church to spread itself to places where there is no de jure church. It would not have been appropriate for the church in those early days to have said, "Well, there's no proper church in, say, northern Italy, but we won't do anything about it. They can start their own church independently from us, and then once they get established they can join with us in formal communion."

3. The church is at all times to be joined in formal communion around the world. It would therefore be inappropriate for churches in various nations to have to grow to be sufficiently established (ten years, twenty, thirty, more?) before establishing formal communion with the already-existing de jure church. Therefore, the church, say, in the US, should begin in formal communion with the FPCS rather than wait to have that in the future. But this implies starting out under the oversight of the FPCS.

4. In order for church officers to enter into formal communion with the FPCS, the FPCS will need to examine them in some way to be sure they are fit for communion and recognition as officers. Why not then start out with ministers ordained in the FPCS rather than ordaining them in some home church (or in a schismatic denomination) in the hope that someday they will be recognized by the FPCS as legitimate? It would be more efficient to start in full communion and recognition. It would also ensure agreement from the beginning rather than risking unnecessary differences growing up that become a barrier later.

5. The FPCS already has quite a few churches (and even entire presbyteries) in different nations. If this is going beyond their proper jurisdiction, they have crossed this line long ago. It is evident that, practically speaking, they do not see having churches in other nations as beyond their jurisdiction.

6. I agree with you that, ideally, the FPCS should remain only in Scotland. The best way to achieve that is to grow up churches which begin under the oversight of the FPCS and then attain eventually their own national councils which will then be joined with the FPCS in formal communion under an ecumenical council. Of course, one way this could happen is by an already-existing church (say, the RPCNA in the US) reforming enough to join in full communion with the FPCS. If that would happen, it would be great. But we cannot in the meantime do nothing towards unity and ending denominationalism in the (rather far-fetched, humanly speaking) hope that various denominations are going to do this. We have a duty right now to be in full communion with the FPCS and to leave illegitimate denominations. This may take time, and it must be done in an orderly manner, and it may be for some it is practically impossible, but if it is practically possible we should not refrain from doing it in the hope that our whole denomination will do it in the near future (or more likely hundreds of years from now, if ever).

I agree with you that the ecumenical council should probably be a far more infrequent gathering than the lower councils. But the practical reality and possibility of it must always exist so that national churches will be accountable to each other. At any time, any national church ought to be able to call an international council to deal with some problem in another national church, etc., so as to preserve full unity in doctrine and practice, etc.

I'm really glad you raised these questions, because they are extremely important.

Response from Objector:  I think that firstly, I need to study more ecclesiology before I'm able to argue my position persuasively, but that's why I asked those questions: to see what areas I needed to study up on. But anyway, a few brief thoughts, though they mostly follow from applications of this first point...

1. Jurisdiction in Presbyterianism arises from churches joining together under a common court: provincial, national, and ecumenical. No church constituted in one area may simply take jurisdiction over a church constituted in another area. They may only be constitutionally joined (which is what I understand you to mean by "formal communion") with a church in another area by one of those appropriate higher courts. The FPCS is constituted in Scotland. The only way for it to constitutionally join with a church in another nation is by an ecumenical court. This also means that a churches constitutionally joined as a national church step outside of their jurisdiction if they wish to act authoritatively outside of their nation without going through the ecumenical court--even as a Presbytery would be stepping outside its bounds to take authority over another Presbytery without going through the national court (after all, the higher courts then Presbyteries are the same in nature as a single Presbytery. They're just larger and have more power. Though the ecumenical court is different in that it is not a regularly meeting court.).

2. You raise the point of missions. I grant that a church may send missionaries into another land. But the congregation planted must have its own elders ordained so that it is not under the government of the sending church, but is self-ruling. As further congregations are constituted in the mission land, these congregations will organize themselves into a Presbytery, and eventually a national church, but all the way up never being under the immediate power of the sending body. To do otherwise seems to be against the principles mentioned above. One may plant a new church in Italy, but that church in Italy must actually be a church in Italy--constituted in Italy--and so not under the government of the sending body outside of that ecumenical court.

3. You raise the point that the FPCS is already in other lands. Given that the FPCS is constituted in Scotland, it technically doesn't exist outside of Scotland. It may have a congregation in America, but that congregation is not an American church but a foreign one that accordingly answers to a foreign court. As an American citizen visiting Scotland remains an American still, so the FPCS visiting in America remains a foreigner confined to Scotland still. As such, it has no jurisdiction over American churches, and so no American church must feel obligated to constitutionally join with that FPCS congregation except through an ecumenical court. Further, this means none outside of Scotland is obligated to join the FPCS. The church being determined by locality, those individuals have no obligation to join a church in Scotland.

4. You mention that all denominations in all other lands are schismatic. Have you personally investigated the history of each and every denomination of each and every land? Because if a de jure national church may have jurisdiction outside of its nation, how do you know that some other church in some other nation is actually the de jure visible church relative to which the FPCS is schismatic? I also find it odd that the de jure church would happen to be a Reformed one. Why is some less pure church not de jure? It seems to me that the reason the FPCS has de jure status is not merely because of not being schismatic but because its doctrine best reflects the apostles teaching.

5. What does it mean for a denomination to be schismatic? It should be noted that not all denominations have broken away from another. Some have very independent histories, and especially in nations like America that were once the target of missions from church of all sorts of nations. It seems to me then, that the mere existence of two denominations does not necessarily mean one or the other are schismatic. Paul and Barnabas separated, but the Scriptures say nothing about whether one or the other or both were schismatic. They certainly divided, but that division is neither commended nor condemned. Surely too, we would not think that one of them lacked de jure authority (or de jure church-planting authority) from here on out until they were reconciled. So it also seems, that not all separations are necessarily schismatic either. Certainly though, by definition, all denominations are divided from each other where they are not constitutionally joined in the appropriate manner for their locality and extent. And I would further note, that it is impossible for a denomination outside of Scotland to be schismatic relative to the FPCS, since they never were initially joined with it and they furthermore exist outside of the jurisdiction of the FPCS (the FPCS doesn't even exist in those nations and so can't have other denominations schismatic relative to it, as noted earlier). And since the rules for denominations joining (e.g., the denominations must agree) are different from separating, they cannot be claimed to be schismatic for not joining constitutionally with the FPCS via the ecumenical court.

6. That raises the question of: What gives a denomination the right to exist? Iirc, the FPCS website mentions nothing about schism but merely says that it has a right to exist because it reflects the apostles' teaching. Surely, the right to exist comes from the head of the Church. You would probably say here that churches are schismatic (or divisive) for not agreeing with the FPCS so they can constitutionally join it via the ecumenical court. This seems to presuppose that churches that do not reflect the apostles' teaching as purely as another church have no right to exist. But along with the wild hunt one would need to go on to find the purest church on earth, Presbyterian principles see churches with a true profession as being lawfully constituted and with which we are obligated to join; the false church being the only church from which we are obligated to leave. So perhaps it is merely a true profession that gives a denomination a right to exist (in the sense of being legitimate). Perhaps the only case where one may have a question then is where there actually was schism: namely, when a group unlawfully separates from another church's courts but retains a true profession. Does the unlawfully separated group have a right to exist? I'm not sure myself yet, but even if it doesn't, as noted earlier, it is impossible for a denomination to be schismatic relative to a denomination in another nation.

7. You then raise a bunch of practical arguments. The FPCS being foreign in principle means that we are not even in practice obligated to join the FPCS or come under its oversight in other nations, because to give it that much unjustified power is not good in practice. However, if the FPCS were actually to plant real congregations in other lands (rather than simply visiting other lands) that are not under the immediate jurisdiction of the FPCS, I have no disagreement in principle (though obviously, then one isn't joining the FPCS but another denomination), though I would disagree in principle that all within that nation are obligated to join that denomination (rather, I would see it as I would any other denomination: work for reform in the purest church in your locality, and if Providence allows, then go ahead and join a purer church if you wish--perhaps even by encouraging a church plant in your area; this seems justified by Ephesians 4, in which the catholic church grows into confessional unity, and by the particular churches in one's area being local expressions of the catholic church). However, practically, that would mean the creation of yet another denomination in a land, and the FPCS which struggles to take care of its own would have practical difficulties with doing such. And then there's the problem of the denomination possibly departing from the doctrine of the FPCS. Given these considerations, whatever route one takes, it will probably take a long time for particular churches to confessionally agree, and it may take a combination of both routes for such to take place.

But the practical considerations weren't my main concern anyway, and I hardly consider myself an expert in such matters; it was only the claim that those outside of Scotland are obligated (morally or practically) to join the FPCS and it operating outside its jurisdiction that I was concerned with.

Response:  I appreciate your willingness to think through these issues. Unfortunately, it seems that they are rarely thought through these days in Reformed circles, and so we have a mass of confusion on them. But these are important issues, and they need to be dealt with carefully and thoroughly. I am grateful to interact with those who wish to deal with them and who can challenge me and all the church to do better in thinking about them.

1. I entirely agree with your sentiments here, provided that we are dealing with a situation where there are multiple de jure, legally constituted national councils in different nations that recognize a mutually-binding ecumenical council (or the possibility of calling one--which is really what I mean when I talk about it as existing). So, for example, if the FPCS had formal communion under a binding international council with a Reformed church in the US which claimed national jurisdiction in the US, then it would be a violation of the limits of FPCS jurisdiction for them to have congregations in the US or for people in the US to join them.

However, this does not accurately describe the current situation. The FPCS has no formal communion with any other denomination. This implies a rejection of the de jure authority of all other denominations. Assuming they are right to take this stand (and it is my position that they are), they are not intruding on the jurisdiction of any other de jure church by having congregations outside of Scotland or for accepting members in other nations, any more than the church in Jerusalem in the earliest days of the church was violating its jurisdiction when it watched over members outside of Jerusalem before distinct city churches with distinct elders could be formed.

2. Your thinking here seems to be based on a principle like this one: There is something inherently wrong with having churches in one nation be under the oversight of a higher presbyterian body in another nation. What is your basis for this idea? I am not aware of any basis for it. I see no hard and fast rule here at all.

While I grant that it is good to have distinct national councils, i think this is good simply for logistical purposes, not because there is some kind of sacrosanct boundaries between nations. In fact, nations are often in flux--dividing into separate parties, forming from unions of previously divided parties, changing boundary lines, etc. In the NT, we see no national churches in the modern sense at all. We see city churches--the church in Rome, the church in Antioch, etc. That was no doubt because division by city made more sense in a vast Roman empire. Today, dividing along national lines makes a lot of sense, but such divisions are human-made and are not sacred. While it makes sense under normal circumstances to have distinct national councils and not have congregations under foreign national councils in another nation, yet I see no hard and fast rule that says that things must always be this way no matter what the pros and cons in the specific situation.

In fact, if we take your principle to its logical conclusion, I think it leads to some absurd practical conclusions. If congregations can never be under councils in other nations, then sending churches can never exercise any oversight over mission works in other countries. So if the FPCS were to send a missionary team to, say, the Congo, the team would (by God's grace) convert people to the faith, but then it would have to tell these converts that they are on their own since oversight cannot be exercised over them by a foreign church. The missionaries would have to say, "Well, you guys are Christians now. Go ahead and appoint elders. We hope you do it right. Good luck! We can't exercise oversight over you, so if you go wrong, oh well! After a few decades, perhaps, when you've built up a full-fledged national council, we'll unite with you under an international council." But I don't think that really makes sense. It makes much more practical sense, and is better consistent with the unity and purity of the church, to have the small group be under the oversight of the foreign church until they are mature enough to have their own "self-sustaining" national church. Since there is no hard and fast rule regarding churches being under councils in other nations, this seems to me to make the most sense.

In the case of those of us outside of Scotland, since there are no de jure churches other than the FPCS, it makes sense for us to try to join the de jure church rather than simply remaining in schismatic denominations until our dying day--provided that it is practical for us to try to join the de jure church. We are commanded to be in formal communion with God's de jure people and under the oversight of de jure shepherds, so we should seek to be in that state if we can.

3. I think the points here have already been sufficiently addressed above. I would agree that it makes sense to be part of a more local church if possible, all other things being equal; but if the more distant church is de jure while the local church is not, then in that case we ought to try, if we practically can, to be part of the de jure church.

4. Your statements about doctrine being important in determining which churches are de jure suggest that you do not understand core aspects of my overall position. If you go to the About tab on the Facebook page, then click on the link that takes you to the description, you will see links to articles that will explain my point of view more fully. In particular, this article - http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-i-favor-claim-of-free-presbyterian.html - will be helpful. In it, I explain why I think the FPCS is the de jure church. You might also look at this article - http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2012/10/one-holy-catholic-and-apostolic-church.html - where I lay out my overall position.

It is not so impossible as you might think to evaluate the legitimacy claims of different denominations, and doctrine plays a crucial role in doing so.

5. Again, part of what you are saying here shows a lack of familiarity with my overall perspective. See the article on why I favor the FPCS, as it will explain further how I define splits and schisms, etc.

All churches have split from all other churches, because the church of Christ started out as one. Each time a split occurs, we must ascertain which side was right as much as we can. The American Presbyterian tradition (at least the mainline tradition) started in the early 1700s and was schismatic from the beginning, as it did not seek to maintain the covenanted uniformity of the Solemn League and Covenant but instead veered off in unbiblical directions from the start. It thus started out schismatically.

Your comment that not all separations are sinful shows a lack of a full presbyterian concept of church government. In presbyterianism, all churches must be one in formal unity throughout the world. There is only one visible church, and so all de jure churches must be united in mutually-binding councils. It is sinful schism when something comes in the way of that (except for things beyond the control of man's will, such as a church being lost in the Amazon rainforest for centuries without the ability of outside communication, etc.). All separation implies sin on the part of somebody, if not everybody.

Your comparison of denominational separation to the split between Paul and Barnabas is not valid. Paul and Barnabas did not form distinct denominational churches; they simply decided not to continue to be a single missionary team. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that (whether or not that particular decision was right). If Paul had decided to start a distinct church, that would have been an entirely different matter. 1 Corinthians 1, among other places, makes clear that Scripture (and Paul in particular) did not sanction denominational division. It is sinful to divide Christ. Your idea that not all separation is sinful reflects the very semi-congregationalist attitude towards the unity of the church that this Facebook page was created to confront. We've got to get back to pure presbyterianism.

6. Here you get into the question of what constitutes the proper basis of church unity. Your comments reflect what I would call "latitudinarianism." This position holds that churches need not agree on all Scripture teaching to be unified. Rather, we can separate out from Scripture things that are "essential" and other things that are not, and church unity need only be on the basis of the "essential" teachings of Scripture.

If we apply latitudinarian thinking consistently along with a consistent presbyterian view of the church, what we end up with is the idea that there should be one worldwide denomination agreed only on the "essentials," while allowing diversity on "non-essentials." Of course, everyone's list of "essentials" differs somewhat. Let's say that infant baptism is not considered essential. In that case, the one denomination will tolerate diversity on infant baptism, and not allow members or officers to be disciplined for diverse views on it.

What you probably advocate, on the other hand, is one visible church divided into different legitimate denominations, where the denominations have fellowship with each other on the basis of the "essentials" but allow diversity between themselves on the "non-essentials." But this position simply adds the error of semi-congregationalism to the error of latitudinarianism. The de jure church is to be unified throughout the world. There is no presbyterian basis for churches to recognize each others' de jure legitimacy but not be in formal communion under mutually-binding councils.

On the other hand, what I would advocate is the anti-latitudinarian point of view. I explain my views here - http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2013/07/what-is-involved-in-profession-of-true.html. My position is that the bond of unity should be all of what Scripture clearly teaches, not merely some list of proposed "essentials."

7. I think what I have already said above adequately deals with these points.

Feel free to follow up further! This is a very important conversation. If we are ever to attain unity and purity in the Body of Christ in this world, we have to tackle these issues head on, clarify our thinking, and come to agreement on the same basic principles. There is simply no shortcut.

OBJECTION #2:  "Undo market competition by shopping at Wal-Mart."

Response:  I would like to analyze this comment further, as it is intended as an argument against the purpose of this site--promoting ending denominationalism by joining the FPCS.

The argument depends on there being a similarity between competition among denominations and competition among shopping institutions. The idea of undoing market competition by shopping at Wal-Mart is considered absurd for these reasons:

1. There is actually nothing wrong with competition among shopping institutions, so the very goal and premise of the idea is flawed.

2. It is arbitrary (and self-serving) for Wal-Mart to put itself forward as the one place people should shop at. Other shopping places are good as well.

So the alleged similarity between shopping competition and denominational competition perhaps assumes some kinds of propositions like these:

1. There is actually nothing wrong with competition among denominations. Multiple denominations are just fine, so the very goal and premise of the idea is flawed.

2. It is arbitrary (and self-serving) for the FPCS to put itself forward as the one denomination people ought to join. Other denominations are just fine as well.

The problem with this argument is that shopping competition and denominational competition simply aren't relevantly similar. Shopping competition is fine, but denominational division and competition is a violation of the ideal of church unity and results from sin. Also, it is not arbitrary or inappropriately self-serving for the FPCS to put itself forward as the proper denomination to join if in fact it does have the best claim to a right to separate existence--as it and I claim it does. 

So the argument doesn't hold up. But it is a good example of how denominational thinking has greatly infected our common-sense intuitions regarding the nature of the church, and how a more careful analysis can help dispel fog in this area. Unfortunately, sometimes we Christians selectively adopt the same sort of latitudinarian and relativistic love of diversity that characterizes the broader western culture, but on a smaller scale. Evangelicals lament relativism and the celebration of diversity in western culture while embracing that attitude in calling Calvinists arrogant for saying they are right and Arminianism is wrong. Calvinists often complain about latitudinarianism and indifferentism in broad evangelicalism while practicing it among themselves by getting angry with people who make assertions that "exclusive psalmody is right and hymn-singing is wrong," etc. And confessional, original Westminster Presbyterians often lament latitudinarianism in the broader Reformed world while practicing it within the narrow range of more confessional denominations. The problem is that latitudinarianism is a bad thing no matter how narrow the spectrum. We should be concerned to have full unity in the whole truth among the churches of Christ.

See here for more on this. 

OBJECTION #3:  "Wait, I took logic a few years ago. I can help end denominationalism by joining a denomination?"

Response:  I would like to examine this comment more closely. The argument is that the premise of this page is committing a basic logical error by advocating at the same time 1. the end of denominationalism and 2. the promotion of a particular denomination.

When accusing the arguments of others of violating basic logic, it is good to be sure first of all that it is not oneself that is violating rules of basic reasoning.

That is the case here. The above argument is nothing more than a semantic trick hinging on ambiguity in the word "denomination." It is much like the classic Atheist argument that asks the question, "Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?" In that argument, a rhetorical trick is being played with the word "can't". "Can't" is assumed to imply a lack of power, but the fact is that "can't" doesn't always imply a lack of power. Sometimes it actually implies the opposite. In this case, God "cannot" make something more powerful than himself not because he lacks power but because he is all-powerful. Once the rhetorical trick is exposed, the argument vanishes.

The same sort of thing is happening in this argument. The assumption is being made that "denominationalism" is the existence of any denominations at all. In that case, to end denominationalism would require the elimination of all denominations. But this assumption is incorrect. "Denominationalism" (see the definition in my long description of the page) refers to the acceptance of the existence of multiple denominations all as true de jure churches. Once we clarify the meaning of the word, the objection vanishes. If everyone were to join in formal full communion with the FPCS, there would only be one denomination. There would therefore in that case no longer be multiple denominations, thus ending denominationalism.  The promotion of one denomination as being right to join is not the promotion of "denominationalism," but rather the opposite.

So the premise of this page makes perfect sense and is not at all illogical. Let's be careful not to have our views and practices in this important area derailed by simple un-thought-through fallacies.

UPDATE 10/21/14:  I've ended up not really adding to this page all that much, as I originally thought I would.  Rather, I just keep publishing new articles that deal with these issues.  So for more positive analyses and responses to various objections, see the articles under the label "Presbyterian church government."  There's a lot of stuff there!

Facebook Page Description for "End Denominationalism by Joining the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland"

"Denominationalism" today dominates much of the thinking and practice of Christians, including Reformed Christians.  It can be defined as the idea that it is acceptable (either permanently or for a limited period of time) for the one true church of Jesus Christ to exist in the form of multiple divided denominations.

Denominationalism is contrary to the nature of presbyterian church government.  In a presbyterian system, all the churches of Christ have an obligation to be in formal communion with each other under mutually-binding councils.  Local congregations are to be overseen by a body of elders (typically referred to as a "session" or a "kirk-session").  Individual sessions are to be united together in common presbyteries, which (typically) are councils made up of representatives of all the sessions in a given region.  Presbyteries are to be united in yet higher common councils.  This pattern is to continue until we reach the highest council, the ecumenical or general council of the whole church, which is over all the churches of Christ in the world.  No de jure true churches are to be left out of this interconnected web of churches.  (See here for a classic description of this form of church government.)

Denominationalism violates presbyterian church government by endorsing a situation where there are multiple acknowledged true churches which accept no obligation to be united to each other in a presbyterian system.  Many Reformed people today seem to advocate what I call a semi-congregationalist form of church government, which insists that local congregations must be united together in higher councils in a presbyterian manner but that this process can stop at some arbitrary point before it includes all the churches of Christ in the world, leaving "clumps" of independent denominational churches.  One of my goals for this site is to raise awareness of this deviation from presbyterianism and encourage Reformed and other Christians to embrace a fully consistent presbyterianism.

In a presbyterian system, when denominations are divided from each other, the implication is that these denominations are rejecting each others' de jure legitimacy and authority.  They may accept each others' de facto existence as churches, but they do not formally recognize each other as having legitimate authority.  If they did recognize each other, they would unite in mutually-binding councils and thus be in full communion with each other.  Therefore, if we take the authority of the church seriously (in accordance with Westminster Confession of Faith 31:3), we must be concerned to be united to the proper denomination.  We cannot just choose any "sufficiently" orthodox denomination we come across or happen to like.  If two denominations have rejected each others' authority, either they are both wrong to have done so, or one of them is right and the other is wrong.  There are valid and invalid reasons to refuse to unite.  If one of those denominations is correct in refusing to unite with certain other denominations, proper respect for the authority of de jure church courts requires us to abstain from union with the rejected denominations (as much as possible, all other things being equal) and to unite with the proper denomination.

I would like to put forward the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland as being the proper denomination to be united with.  An outline of my reasons for this claim can be found here.  A major part of my reasoning, of course, is my set of doctrinal and practical convictions as a historic Presbyterian with full subscription to the original Westminster Confession of Faith (as well as the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and other documents of the Westminster Standards).  I do not think that the FPCS is perfect or that it is in no need of reform, but I think that its claim to have a right of separate existence from other denominations is justified.  This is my conviction from my evaluation of the evidence.

The other main purpose for this page, then, is that I would like to invite all Christians (and particularly Reformed Christians) to investigate the claims of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and to consider helping to end the proliferation of denominations in the world by joining her.  I encourage all people to consider whether or not the denominations they are currently members of have a valid claim to separate existence from the FPCS.  If they do not, then the next moral duty, inasmuch as it is practical to do so, is to begin a process of coming into full communion with the FPCS.

This page can be used for dialogue and debate relating to my claims about the FPCS and about denominationalism and presbyterian church government.  Please feel free to post questions, comments, arguments, etc., relating to these issues, and we can try to establish a productive and respectful dialogue.  My ultimate goal in this dialogue is to convince others to abandon denominationalism and to join the FPCS.  If it turns out I am wrong about any of these things, then you are welcome to try to show me where I have gone wrong and to set me straight.  All I ask is that the conversations are conducted efficiently, productively, and respectfully.  If you are a member of the FPCS, of course I welcome and invite your input as well, and I will try to solicit involvement from others who are favorable towards the FPCS.

For more on the various ideas expressed above, see here and here, and in general here.

Thank you!

UPDATE 7/16/13:  Some great reading on the subject of the biblical doctrine of the unity of the church can be found here, here, and here.

UPDATE 8/13/13:  I should add a brief note here to address something that wasn't articulated in the comments above:

I do not believe it is ideal that Christians in countries outside of Scotland should be members of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.  Ideally, the Church of Scotland ought to be limited to Scotland.  The current situation, however, is that the FPCS is not in formal communion with any other denomination around the world.  It remains separate from them all, and, assuming it is right in retaining this separation, this leads to a moral duty (all other things being equal) for all of us to seek as much as possible to be in communion with the FPCS and avoid communion with denominations that are not in communion with it, for reasons described above.

However, what we would like to see ultimately is each nation having its own orthodox national church in full communion with the FPCS, united under a binding, presbyterian international council.  For now, for example, it is right for there to be an FPCS in Santa Fe, TX; but ultimately, we would want to see enough churches in the USA to establish a national body that is no longer under Scottish oversight (while still being in full communion with and mutually accountable to the Scottish church).  And it is not hard to see that the more we all take these issues seriously enough to act accordingly, even to the point of joining the FPCS, the closer we will be to being able to reach this long-distance goal of having indigenous national churches in full communion with each other and the FPCS.  On the other hand, if we all wait until there is already such a national church in our own land before we leave the schismatic denominations and unite with the FPCS, how will such a church ever be built up?  It may be the case that some particular denomination in our own land will reform itself to the point that it can join in full communion with the FPCS and become a proper national church, but we cannot wait for this to happen before we consider what our own personal duties may be in these matters.

What Is Involved in a "Profession of the True Religion"?: Some Thoughts on the Unity and Purity of the Church In Light of the Historic Reformed Tradition

The Westminster Confession of Faith, along with other historic Reformed standards, defines the visible church as consisting of "all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children."  It also teaches that there is only one church, and that that one church is to be unified in formal communion throughout the world.  An essential component of the basis of this union is to be a common profession of the true religion.  But what does such a profession involve?  How much agreement must there be?  There seems to be significant confusion on this subject in Reformed and evangelical circles today.  I would like to try to contribute some clarity to this subject by looking at a few sample quotations from some important Reformed writings on the church from the past few centuries and then making some comments on them.

Let me say at the outset that I am not certain I fully know how to deal with every aspect of this subject myself, and I am not certain that my discussion below captures in its fullness or with complete accuracy the historic Reformed stance on some of these issues.  More dialogue and feedback are invited.  (Note: Since writing this, I have come to some firmer conclusions on many of these matters, and those conclusions can be read about here and here.)

I will start with a rather lengthy set of quotations.  Perhaps the lengthiness may be regarded as overkill, but I think it is important to provide a somewhat thorough foundation in these quotations for what I am going to say afterwards.

This is the Westminster Confession of Faith, 25:2-5:

2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

3. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

4. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

5. 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.

Westminster Confession, 26:2:

Saints by profession are bound to maintain a holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God; and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities, and necessities. Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.

The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government (another of the documents written up by the Westminster divines and adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second Reformation period), "Of the Church":

THERE is one general church visible, held forth in the New Testament.

The ministry, oracles, and ordinances of the New Testament, are given by Jesus Christ to the general church visible, for the gathering and perfecting of it in this life, until his second coming.

Particular visible churches, members of the general church, are also held forth in the New Testament. Particular churches in the primitive times were made up of visible saints, viz. of such as, being of age, professed faith in Christ, and obedience unto Christ, according to the rules of faith and life taught by Christ and his apostles; and of their children.

From the same document, from the section titled "Of Particular Congregations":

IT is lawful and expedient that there be fixed congregations, that is, a certain company of Christians to meet in one assembly ordinarily for publick worship. When believers multiply to such a number, that they cannot conveniently meet in one place, it is lawful and expedient that they should be divided into distinct and fixed congregations, for the better administration of such ordinances as belong unto them, and the discharge of mutual duties.

And another from the same document, from the sections titled "Of Church Government" and ""Of the Power In Common of All These Assemblies":

It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that the church be governed by several sorts of assemblies, which are congregational, classical, and synodical.

It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that the several assemblies before mentioned have power to convent, and call before them, any person within their several bounds, whom the ecclesiastical business which is before them doth concern.

They have power to hear and determine such causes and differences as do orderly come before them.

It is lawful, and agreeable to the word of God, that all the said assemblies have some power to dispense church-censures.

These quotations are from The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin (the Henry Beveridge translation, as found at the website of the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics), Book IV, Chapter 1, Sections 9-10.  Calvin speaks of the unity of the church and the marks of a true church.

But that we may have a clear summary of this subject, we must proceed by the following steps: - The Church universal is the multitude collected out of all nations, who, though dispersed and far distant from each other, agree in one truth of divine doctrines and are bound together by the tie of a common religion. In this way it comprehends single churches, which exist in different towns and villages, according to the wants of human society, so that each of them justly obtains the name and authority of the Church; and also comprehends single individuals, who by a religious profession are accounted to belong to such churches, although they are in fact aliens from the Church, but have not been cut off by a public decision.

There is, however, a slight difference in the mode of judging of individuals and of churches. For it may happen in practice that those whom we deem not altogether worthy of the fellowship of believers, we yet ought to treat as brethren and regard as believers on account of the common consent of the Church in tolerating and bearing with them in the body of Christ. Such persons we do not approve by our suffrage as members of the Church, but we leave them the place which they hold among the people of God, until they are legitimately deprived of it.

With regard to the general body we must feel differently; if they have the ministry of the word, and honour the administration of the sacraments, they are undoubtedly entitled to be ranked with the Church, because it is certain that these things are not without a beneficial result. Thus we both maintain the Church universal in its unity, which malignant minds have always been eager to dissever, and deny not due authority to lawful assemblies distributed as circumstances require.

We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot any where exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God. I say not that wherever the word is preached fruit immediately appears; but that in every place where it is received, and has a fixed abode, it uniformly displays its efficacy. Be this as it may, when the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without deception or ambiguity; and no man may with impunity spurn her authority, or reject her admonitions, or resist her counsels, or make sport of her censures, far less revolt from her, and violate her unity, (see Chap. 2 sec. 1, 10, and Chap. 3. sec. 12.) For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion. So highly does he recommend her authority, that when it is violated he considers that his own authority is impaired.

Calvin goes on to say (Section 12) that unity does not depend on agreement in absolutely everything.  Churches can have errors which do not violate the unity of the faith.  There is a distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is not.

When we say that the pure ministry of the word and pure celebration of the sacraments is a fit pledge and earnest, so that we may safely recognise a church in every society in which both exists our meaning is that we are never to discard it so long as these remain, though it may otherwise teem with numerous faults.

Nay, even in the administration of word and Sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from its communion. For all the heads of true doctrine are not in the same position. Some are so necessary to be known, that all must hold them to be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends on the mercy of God, and the like. Others, again, which are the subject of controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith; for why should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between churches, if one, without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatising, holds that the soul on quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to speak positively as to the abode, holds it for certain that it lives with the Lord? The words of the apostle are, "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you," (Phil. 3: 15.) Does he not sufficiently intimate that a difference of opinion as to these matters which are not absolutely necessary, ought not to be a ground of dissension among Christians? The best thing, indeed, is to be perfectly agreed, but seeing there is no man who is not involved in some mist of ignorance, we must either have no church at all or pardon delusion in those things of which one may be ignorant, without violating the substance of religion and forfeiting salvation.

Here, however, I have no wish to patronise even the minutest errors, as if I thought it right to foster them by flattery or connivance; what I say is, that we are not on account of every minute difference to abandon a church, provided it retain sound and unimpaired that doctrine in which the safety of piety consists, and keep the use of the sacraments instituted by the Lord. Meanwhile, if we strive to reform what is offensive, we act in the discharge of duty. To this effect are the words of Paul, "If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace," (1 Cor. 14: 30.) From this it is evident that to each member of the Church, according to his measure of grace, the study of public edification has been assigned, provided it be done decently and in order. In other words, we must neither renounce the communion of the Church, nor, continuing in it, disturb peace and discipline when duly arranged.

These quotations are from Fisher's Catechism, in the section explaining Question 95.  This catechism was written by ministers of the Secession in the mid-eighteenth century in order to provide further commentary on the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Q. 17. What is it to profess faith in Christ?
A. It is to profess a belief of the whole doctrines of the Christian religion, Acts 8:37.

Q. 21. Who are the members of the visible church?
A. They "are all such as profess the true religion, and their children."

Q. 22. What are we to understand by the true religion?
A. We are to understand by it the whole of those doctrines deduced from the holy scriptures, which are contained in our Confession of Faith, and Catechisms, as agreeing, in the main, with the Confessions of other reformed churches, 2 Tim. 1:13 -- "Hold fast the form of sound words."
 
Q. 23. What is it to profess the true religion?
A. It is openly to acknowledge, on all proper occasions, a steadfast adherence to the whole of divine truth; without espousing or countenancing any opposite error, Psalm 119:105. Rom. 10:10.

OK, one more set of quotations.  This is a bit of a lengthy set, but well worth it.  These are from Thomas McCrie's work, Two Discourses on the Unity of the Church (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1821).  This is a famous and highly respected (and justly so) work on the nature and unity of the church.  (It is one of my favorites.)  It can be found here.

The visible church considered as catholic or universal, consists of all those throughout the world who profess the true religion, together with their children. The variety of particular churches, when regularly constituted, does not imply any separation from or opposition to one another. The catholic church subsists in and is composed of the several particular churches, of larger or less extent, in the different parts of the Christian world; and none of these are to be excluded from it as long as they retain the true and distinctive characters of such a society as the word of God describes it to be (p. 14).

Christianity being intended for general diffusion through the world, must in its nature be adapted to all countries and people. It would be extreme weakness to suppose, that its being embraced by people of different garbs, colour, and language, of different manners and customs, barbarous or civilized, or formed into distinct civil communities and living under different forms of government, produces different religions, or a diversity of churches, provided their faith and practice are intrinsically the same. Their formularies of faith and religious service may be differently expressed or arranged, and they may vary from one another in different circumstances in external administrations, which are not, and could not be, prescribed by positive rule in Scripture, and which (to use a much abused word) may be called circumstantial, without marring that unity of faith and that fellowship which belongs to different Christian societies, as parts of the same general body. Nor is simple ignorance in some and knowledge in others, with respect to some things which belong to the Christian system, or greater and less degrees of advancement in different churches, or in the members of the same church, necessarily inconsistent with religious unity and peace. But there must be no denial or restriction of the supreme authority by which every thing in religion is ruled; no open and allowed hostility to truth and godliness; and no such opposition of sentiments, or contrariety of practices, as may endanger the faith, or destroy the constitution and edification of churches, or as may imply, in different churches, or in different parts of the same church, a condemnation of one another.

As there were synagogues among the Jews, so there must be assemblies among Christians for divine worship and instruction, and for the exercise of discipline. The unity of the church requires that we join in communion with our fellow Christians, in the place where providence has cast our lot, provided they are found walking by the common rule of Christianity, and as long as no sinful bar is laid in the way of such a conjunction. And our statedly holding communion with a particular church is the ordinary way of manifesting our communion with the catholic church. But as individual Christians are not at liberty to walk and act singly, so neither are particular congregations at liberty to act as independent and disjointed societies. For the ordinary performance of religious duties, and the ordinary management of their own internal affairs, they may be said to be complete churches, and furnished with complete powers. But extraordinary cases will arise among themselves from time to time; and there are, besides, duties, dangers, and interests, which do not properly or exclusively concern one congregation, or a few congregations, and which require the joint cognizance and co-operation of many. This is taught by the light of nature itself, it flows from the oneness of the Church of Christ, and is clearly exemplified in the New Testament. Being similar parts of the same general body, it is the duty of particular churches to draw together, to combine, and to co-operate, according as this may be practicable, and as providence may open a door for it, with a view to mutual help and the promotion of the common cause in which they are all engaged. They may agree in explicitly approving of the same articles of faith and rules of discipline, and in yielding a scriptural subjection to a common authority in the Lord. Such confederations, on the presbyterian plan, are fully warranted by the word of God, and are most congenial to the spirit of Christianity, which is catholic and diffusive; they may include all the churches in the same neighbourhood, in the same nation, or even in many nations; and by means of them that unity which belongs essentially to the whole church of Christ is formally recognized, and its bonds are strengthened and drawn more close.

Is it then asked, What is the bond of unity in the church? the reply may be given in one word--The true religion. Religion, as communicated by God to men in the Bible, is its grand comprehensive bond. This specificates and distinguishes it from the unity which belongs to other societies. The sacred Scriptures not only exhibit the model after which the church is to be constructed; they also furnish that which gives it substance, and stability, and order, and proportion and unity. It is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord *" (pp. 14-17).

"There is one body," because there is "one faith." A system of faith or of revealed truth, as well as of duties, has in every age formed an essential and important part of true religion. By embracing this the Church is distinguished from other societies, and it belongs to her faithfully to confess and hold it forth to the world. An owning of the whole faith is implied in her reception of the Scriptures; she is bound to obey the calls of providence in explicitly confessing and contending for particular articles of it; and there is no article of divine truth that may not at one time or another become the object of this duty, and consequently a test of her fidelity. Hence, she is called "the city of truth", as well as "the habitation of righteousness;" her gates are open to receive "the righteous nation that keepeth the truth ;" and truth is inscribed on her columns, and on the banners which float on her walls and bulwarks. When this is not the case, Christian societies are destitute of the unity of the Church of Christ, by whatever ties they may be kept together (p. 18-19).

Mournful as the divisions of the church are, and anxious as all its genuine friends must be to see them cured, it is their duty to examine carefully the plans which may be proposed for attaining this desirable end. We must not do evil that good may come; and there are sacrifices too costly to be made for the procuring of peace with fellow-christians. Is it necessary to remind you, that unity and peace are not always good, nor a sure and infallible mark of a true and pure church? We know that there is a church which has long boasted of her catholic unity notwithstanding all the corruptions which pollute her communion; and that within her pale the whole world called Christian once enjoyed a profound repose, and it could be said, "Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language." It was a union and peace founded in ignorance, delusion, implicit faith, and a base subjection to human authority; and supported by the arts of compulsion and terror. But there are other methods by which Christians may be deceived, and the interests of religion deeply injured, under the pretext or with the view of uniting its friends. Among these I know none more imposing, nor from which greater danger is to be apprehended in the present time, than that which proceeds on the scheme of principles usually styled latitudinarian.

It has obtained this name because it proclaims an undue latitude in matters of religion, which persons may take to themselves or give to others. Its abettors make light of the differences which subsist among religious parties, and propose to unite them on the common principles on which they are already agreed, in the way of burying the rest in silence, or of stipulating mutual forbearance and charity with respect to every thing about which they may differ in opinion or in practice. Some plead for this on the ground that the several professions of religion differ very little from one another, and are all conducive to the happiness of mankind and the honour of God, who is pleased with the various and diversified modes in which men profess their regard to him, provided only they are sincere in their professions; 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. But the ground on which this plan is ordinarily made to rest is a distinction made among the articles of religion. Some of these are called essential, or fundamental, or necessary, or principal; others circumstantial, or non-fundamental, or unnecessary, or less important. The former, it is pleaded, are embraced by all true Christians; the latter form the subjects of difference among them, and ought not to enter into the terms of ecclesiastical fellowship*. On this principle some of them would conciliate and unite all the Christian denominations, not excepting Papists, Arians, and Socinians; while others restrict their plan to those called evangelical, who differ mainly in their views and practice as to the worship, order, and discipline of the Church.

The distinction on which this scheme rests, is itself liable to objections which appear insuperable. It is not warranted by the word of God; and the most acute of its defenders have never been able to state it in a manner that is satisfactory, or which renders it subservient to any practical use. The Scripture, indeed, speaks of certain truths which may be called the foundation, because they are first laid, and others depend on them — first principles, or elementary truths, which are to be taught before others. But their priority or posteriority in point of order, in conception or instruction, does not determine the relative importance of doctrines, or their necessity in order to salvation, far less does it determine the propriety of their being made to enter into the religious profession of Christians and Christian churches. — There are doctrines, too, which intrinsically, and on different accounts, may be said to have a peculiar and superior degree of importance; and this, so far as known, may properly be urged as a motive for our giving the more earnest heed to them. It is not, however, their comparative importance or utility, but their truth and the authority of him who has revealed them, which is the formal and proper reason of our receiving, professing, and maintaining them. And this applies equally to all the contents of a divine revelation. The relations of truths, especially those of a supernatural kind, are manifold and incomprehensible by us; it is not our part to pronounce a judgment on them; and if we could see them, as God does, in all their extent and at once, we would behold the lesser joined to the greater, the most remote connected with the primary, by necessary and indissoluble links, and all together conspiring to form one beautiful and harmonious and indivisible whole. Whatever God has revealed we are bound to receive and hold fast, whatever he has enjoined we are bound to obey; and the liberty which we dare not arrogate to ourselves we cannot give to others. It is not, indeed, necessary that the confession or testimony of the church (meaning by this that which is explicitly made by her, as distinguished from her declared adherence to the whole word of God) should contain all truths; but then any of them may come to be included in it, when opposed and endangered; and it is no sufficient reason for excluding any of them that they are less important than others, or that they have been doubted and denied by good and learned men. Whatever forbearance may be exercised to persons, "the word of the Lord," in all its extent, "must have free course and be glorified;" and any act of men — call it forbearance or what you will — which serves as a screen and protection to error or sin, and prevents it from being opposed and removed by any proper means, is contrary to the divine law, and consequently is destitute of all intrinsic force and validity. — There are truths also which are more immediately connected with salvation. But who will pretend to fix those propositions which are absolutely necessary to be known, in order to salvation — by all persons — of all capacities— and in all situations; or say how low a God of grace and salvation may descend in dealing with particular individuals? Or, if we could determine this extreme point, who would say that it ought to fix the rule of our dealing with others, or the extent of a church's profession of faith? Is nothing else to be kept in view in settling articles of faith and fellowship, but what may be necessary to the salvation of sinners? Do we not owe a paramount regard to the glory of God in the highest, to the edifying of the body of Christ, to the advancing of the general interests of religion, and to the preserving, in purity, of those external means, by which, in the economy of providence and grace, the salvation of men, both initial and progressive, may be promoted to an incalculable extent from age to age? — In fine, there is reason for complaining that the criteria or marks given for determining these fundamental or necessary articles, are uncertain or contradictory. Is it alleged, that they are clearly taught in Scripture? This is true of others also. 'That they are few and simple?' This is contradicted by their own attempts to state them. 'That they are such as the Scripture has declared to be necessary ?' Why then have we not yet been furnished with a catalogue of them? 'That they are such as are embraced by all true Christians?' Have they a secret tact by which they are able to discover such characters? If not, can they avoid running into a vitious circle in reasoning, by first determining who are true Christians by their embracing certain doctrines, and then determining that these doctrines are fundamental because they are embraced by persons of that description?

Many who have contributed to give currency to this scheme have been actuated, I have no doubt, by motives which are in themselves highly commendable. They wished to fix the attention of men on matters confessedly of great importance, and were anxious to put an end to the dissensions of Christians by discovering a mean point in which the views of all might harmoniously meet. But surely those who cherish a supreme regard for divine authority will be afraid of contemning or of teaching others to think lightly of any thing which bears its sacred impress. They will be disposed carefully to reconsider an opinion, or an interpretation of any part of Scripture, which seems to imply in it, that God has given to men a power to dispense with some of his own laws. And they will be cautious of originating or countenancing plans of communion that may involve a principle of such a complexion. These plans are more or less dangerous according to the extent to which they are carried, and the errors or abuses which may prevail among the parties which they embrace. But however limited they may be, they set an example which may be carried to any extent. So far as it is agreed and stipulated, that any truth or duty shall be sacrificed or neglected, and that any error or sin shall be treated as indifferent or trivial, the essence of latitudinarianism is adopted, room is made for further advancements, and the way is prepared for ascending, through successive gradations, to the very highest degree in the scale (pp. 88-94).

Now, having read through all of these quotations, let's piece together the Reformed view of the unity of the church and the sort of profession of faith that is required for that unity.  Go back and re-read the very first quotation from the Westminster Confession, WCF 25:2-5.  It seems to me that there are a number of different interpretations of this section of the Confession that are held today in Reformed circles.

One of these interpretations is what I will call the latitudinarian, semi-congregationalist interpretation.  It goes like this:  When the Confession speaks of particular churches, more or less pure, which are members of the one visible catholic church, it is referring to (or at least one of the things it is referring to, as we use it in our day, is) all the different denominations that exist today (such as the OPC, the PCA, the FPCS, the RPCNA, etc.) which hold to the "essentials" of Christianity.  The "essentials" of Christianity include the things one must know for salvation--such as that God exists, that salvation is by grace through faith, etc.--as opposed to biblical doctrines that are not necessary to be known for salvation--such as infant baptism, the presbyterian nature of church government, what should be sung in the worship of the church, etc.  This list of essentials differs somewhat from person to person.  Excluded from the visible church are churches and denominations that violate the essential doctrines of Christianity.

But I do not think that this is the correct interpretation.  This interpretation commits two errors which the Reformed tradition has traditionally been opposed to:  1. Semi-congregationalism.  2. Latitudinarianism.

I've discussed semi-congregationalism many times (some might say ad nauseum) in this blog.  (See other articles under the label "Presbyterian church government" to see these discussions.)  In a presbyterian system of church government, the formal unity of the church throughout the world is to manifest itself in all churches being under mutually binding councils--sessions are to be united in presbyteries, presbyteries in national councils, national churches in ecumenical councils, etc.  Denominationalism is essentially foreign to the presbyterian idea of the nature of the church.  The very idea of having groups of  true churches (that is, denominations) functioning in formal isolation from other groups of  true churches without any mutual accountability is not presbyterian at all but exhibits what I call a "semi-congregationalist" view of the church.

This is evident from the various quotations above.  The Westminster Standards are quite clear that there is only one church, that communion is to be exercised not just within little cliques within the church but between all those who profess the truth faith and between all churches, that all churches are to be united in mutually-binding councils, that distinctions between churches are to be logistical only (such as having multiple congregations because there are too many people to meet in one place, etc.), not due to divisions in doctrine or practice or independent governments.  Calvin uses very strong language to emphasize the necessity of the unity of the church.  Once a church has been labeled a true church, he says it is only on pain of damnation that we can spurn her authority or violate her unity.  So semi-congregationalism is out.  We cannot regard the "particular churches" that are members of the catholic visible church as different denominations.  Some evangelicals may wish to read the words in that way, but those who are Reformed should know that the words, interpreted in their own Reformed context, cannot refer to the utterly alien idea of denominationalism.  These particular churches are parts of one single denomination of Christians.

The latitudinarianism of the above interpretation of the Confession likewise seems to be at odds with the historic Reformed perspective on such matters.  The selections from Thomas McCrie provide a very clear attack on latitudinarianism, the idea that the "profession of the true religion" that binds the church together consists only of a profession of some sub-set of the entirety of what the Bible teaches--of the "essential" as opposed to the "non-essential" doctrines.  It is interesting to compare Calvin's words on this subject with McCrie's.  At first glance, particularly to those influenced by modern evangelical thinking, it may appear that Calvin has a very different opinion on this subject than does McCrie.  It is natural for a modern evangelical to read Calvin as affirming a latitudinarian distinction between essential and non-essential doctrines.  I used to read him in that way.  For some years I believed that there was a rift between Calvin and later Reformed churches on this subject.  I understood Calvin to be saying that some sub-set of biblical doctrine is necessary for church unity (a sub-set that would include things like "there is only one God" but exclude things like "infants should be baptized"), and that there should be no denominational divisions between all churches that hold this sub-set of doctrine.  On the other hand, I saw that modern Reformed denominations keep up denominational divisions with regard to the "lesser matters" (like infant baptism) as well.  I agreed with the modern Reformed churches against Calvin (though I always felt a bit of discomfort, like I was missing something--which I was), because I felt the church ought to require of elders (though not members) in the church that they hold to the "whole counsel of God."

One thing that used to bug me when I read Calvin in that way was that when he actually gives a description of a matter deemed "not necessary," he picks what looked to my evangelical eyes like a really wimpy example--two churches, one of which holds that when believers die they go to heaven to be with God while the other holds that when believers die they go somewhere to be with God.  Why didn't he pick something more substantial, like churches teaching "soul-sleep" or rejecting infant baptism or accepting the apocrypha, etc.?  Surely true Christians might be able to be in error on these matters and still be truly regenerate, so how can these be considered necessary for salvation and so made a matter of division between churches?  It almost looked like Calvin had a much narrower view than I did as to what sorts of things should be deemed "non-necessary."  I think the reason for this is that--he did.

I propose that Calvin and McCrie are actually on the same page on this subject.  They both make a distinction between what churches can disagree on without violating their unity and what they can't disagree on.  I had been thinking that Calvin's distinction goes right through the doctrines clearly affirmed in Scripture, but now I think he probably actually agreed with McCrie that the distinction rather lies between those things Scripture teaches clearly and those things it does not or those things it allows diversity with regard to.  In Calvin's view, the Scriptures are clear that the soul which dies goes to live with God, and so he considered that necessary to believe.  God teaches it in his Word, and so we are required (it is not optional) to believe it.  But perhaps Scripture is not so clear on exactly the mode in which souls go to be with God.  Should we think of them as being in "heaven," or simply with God in some other way?  Perhaps Scripture is not crystal clear on this point, and so a reasonable diversity of opinion may arise here.  So long as churches do not teach their own opinion with a "spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatising," the fundamental unity of the faith is not violated.  That is, these differences are in some ways like those discussed by Paul with reference to individual believers in Romans 14.  A person may feel uncomfortable eating meat for some reason or another.  Paul says that such a person should be tolerated and accepted, even though there is no real ground for his concern, provided that he does not use his concern to judge others in the church who do not share it.  Now, if he believed his concern about meat-eating to be a biblical doctrine commanded by God, how could he not use it to judge others and declare them sinful?  In that case, it would be his duty to do so.  Paul's instructions to him, then, show that he did not consider it a command of God but recognized it as a peculiar concern of his own.  The same thing can be said with regard to Calvin's descriptions here.  If a church believes some doctrine or practice to be required by Scripture, how could she avoid contending or being dogmatic about it?  But, in Calvin's mind, the doctrinal points being discussed are not clearly taught in Scripture, or they are not something that Scripture clearly pronounces commands about in terms of what must be and not be believed.  Therefore, the churches can preserve unity while disagreeing about them, neither of them domineering over or judging the other on the basis of their own opinions.

This is very much the same as what McCrie was talking about when he said, "Their formularies of faith and religious service may be differently expressed or arranged, and they may vary from one another in different circumstances in external administrations, which are not, and could not be, prescribed by positive rule in Scripture, and which (to use a much abused word) may be called circumstantial, without marring that unity of faith and that fellowship which belongs to different Christian societies, as parts of the same general body," and "But there must be no denial or restriction of the supreme authority by which every thing in religion is ruled; no open and allowed hostility to truth and godliness; and no such opposition of sentiments, or contrariety of practices, as may endanger the faith, or destroy the constitution and edification of churches, or as may imply, in different churches, or in different parts of the same church, a condemnation of one another."  Nothing that is believed to be clearly taught in the Bible could fit into this description.  However much we may wish (rightly) to be charitable to those who reject infant baptism, in terms of assuming the best we can regarding their hidden internal motives, the baptist position and the paedobaptist position cannot exist within the same visible church community, because their mutual practices would involve "a condemnation of each other," and in order to allow them both to co-exist in the visible society of the church the shepherds of the church would have to relax the standards God has set up.  When an avowed baptist (as opposed to someone struggling with thinking through some issues relating to baptism) is allowed to be a member of a paedobaptist church, in order to make this situation happen the shepherds of the church have to refrain from disciplining members for violating what they take to be a clear biblical duty.  But if God requires Christians to baptize their children, what right do Christ's under-shepherds have to grant a dispensation to any to refuse to do so and to escape discipline for this disobedience?  We may have high hopes with regard to some particular individual that this disobedience in not enacted out of the sort of ongoing conscious perverseness that would be incompatible with regeneration, and so may have strong hopes of his being right with God in an internal sense.  But we cannot actually see his motives, and so they cannot be made a basis of the formal response of the church to his professions and actions.  The church cannot judge the heart or motives; it must deal with people according to their outward professions and actions according to the rules of God's Word.

In short, I think we should take "the profession of the true religion" in the Westminster Confession not as "the profession of the sub-set of biblical doctrines that are necessary subjectively for salvation" but as "the entirety of what the Bible teaches that we are to believe."  This interpretation, I think, is further borne out by the more full description of what it means to "profess the faith" found in the Form of Presbyterial Church-Government (written by the same people who wrote the Confession):  "Particular churches in the primitive times were made up of visible saints, viz. of such as, being of age, professed faith in Christ, and obedience unto Christ, according to the rules of faith and life taught by Christ and his apostles; and of their children" (emphasis added).  The profession is not of some sub-set of doctrine thought to be subjectively necessary, but is an objective profession evaluated according to the rules of faith and life taught in Scripture.  Fisher's Catechism takes the same view, defining a profession of faith and the true religion as "to profess a belief of the whole doctrines of the Christian religion," to profess "the whole of those doctrines deduced from the holy scriptures, which are contained in our Confession of Faith, and Catechisms," and "openly to acknowledge, on all proper occasions, a steadfast adherence to the whole of divine truth; without espousing or countenancing any opposite error."

Taking all of this into consideration, our interpretation of WCF 25:2-5 would go thus:  There is one catholic visible church, which consists of all those throughout the world that profess adherence to the entirety of the true religion as it is taught in the Scriptures.  Particular churches are members of this visible catholic church (united together under formal, presbyterian, mutually-binding councils) when they, as communities, profess and practice the true religion.  These particular churches, like particular individuals in them, may be more or less pure in doctrine and practice.  That is, they may be more or less advanced or skilled in their understanding of divine truths, they may be more or less agreed with each other regarding secondary matters (i.e. those matters not clearly taught in Scripture), they may be more or less faithful in their exercise of discipline (though discipline must be fundamentally established and practiced), etc., while they all hold the same confession of the true faith without embracing errors in doctrine or practice opposed by the Scriptures.  Any churches meeting this description should be regarded and accepted formally as true churches, and the communion of the saints (WCF 26:2) should be exercised fully between them.  All other churches are to be rejected from this unity.

One more question might be raised at this point:  Calvin uses the language of "necessary for salvation" repeatedly in his discussion.  The Confession likewise says that outside of the visible church there is "no ordinary possibility of salvation."  If we interpret the idea of the visible church as narrowly as we seem to be doing above, won't that necessitate us to say that pretty much all non-confessional-Presbyterians are outside of salvation?  And can we really say that?

In order to answer that, I think we need to keep in mind the distinction between the church considered de facto and the church considered de jure (this is discussed more fully here).  The church de facto is the church viewed informally, while the church de jure is the church viewed formally by its official representatives (the elders of the church).  Informally speaking, I think the Scriptures allow us to hope that many of those who reject certain doctrines and practices of Scripture may still be regenerate, in that even regenerate persons are not morally perfect and are not free from the confusion that dominates the world of fallen man.  We can think, for example, of Apollos (Acts 18:24-28), who apparently was a true Christian even though he was not adequately instructed about some things.  And a number of other examples might be given, as well as Scriptural passages, indicating this sort of thing (such as Philippians 3:15, quoted by Calvin above).  I think we've all noticed this in our own lives as well from time to time!  So, to use again my common example on this point, Scripture, I think, allows us to have hopes that a particular baptist may be truly regenerate despite his refusal to baptize his children.  Although such a thing is sinful, Scripture does not tell us that it is impossible for confusion on this point to consist with regeneration in some ways.  Likewise, we may believe of a particular baptist church that it is functioning, by the grace and providence of God, as a true church de facto (i.e. a society where salvation is being attained, spiritual gifts are being administered, the Word of God is being taught, etc.).

However, such a judgment can only be informal, as it deals with unseen inward motives.  It is a matter of hope rather than clear evaluation.  Dealing with things more formally, we must evaluate persons and actions according to their outward professions and actions according to the rules of God's Word.  The church ought not to receive into formal membership an individual who maintains a dogmatic commitment to credo-baptism, because the Scriptures require the church to teach against and to censure that view.  Likewise, the church ought not to join in formal union with a credo-baptist church.  Looking at things formally and de jure, such individuals and churches must not be allowed to be received into the recognized formal society and union of the church, however much we may have good hopes that there is regeneration there.  It is in light of this that I think we ought to see Calvin's language of "necessary for salvation" and the similar language of the Confession.  Is the belief and practice of infant baptism necessary for salvation?  Yes, if we mean that God requires it of us and therefore we cannot reject it with impunity.  God does not allow us to disregard any of his commands, and so they are all necessary.  However, we can also in a sense answer no, if we mean simply to say that we are unwilling to say that any individual who rejects infant baptism must be in fact unregenerate.  In short, speaking formally and de jure, the belief and practice of infant baptism (at least once it is known about) is necessary for salvation.  But speaking informally and de facto, a judgment of charity allows us to hope that a person who rejects infant baptism may be truly regenerate (though, of course, we cannot know this).  Perhaps this is what the Confession is getting at when it says that out of the visible church "there is no ordinary possibility of salvation" (emphasis added).  That is, in the due order of things (speaking de jure), there is no possibility of salvation.  But outside of that due order (de facto), we can have some hope.  (Of course, this hope cannot be stretched too far.  There are some things that Scripture indicates clearly as being in essence incompatible with regeneration because it is impossible to hold or do them with any real degree of "innocence," such as being an atheist, etc.)

UPDATE 7/2/13:  Another article with some very perceptive things to say on this subject is one by Rev. John T. Pressley, a nineteenth-century Associate Reformed Presbyterian minister, titled An Inquiry Into the Principles of Church Fellowship, particularly the third section on "Ecclesiastical Communion."  Here is a selection:

But perhaps it will be objected that on this principle the Church may exclude from her fellowship one who is really united to the Lord Jesus and has communion with him, and, therefore, cannot be unworthy of the fellowship of the Church. The individual in question, it is admitted, rejects some of the doctrines of the creed; yet it is maintained that he holds all that are essential to salvation and, therefore, forbearance should be exercised, regardless of his erroneous views in relation to matters of minor importance. To this objection I would reply:—
 
1. It is founded upon a mistaken view of the ground of admission to membership in the Church; and it confounds the distinction between the visible and the invisible Church. A person may be a member of the Church invisible,—that is, he may be a true believer, and, therefore, united to Christ,—and yet may be justly excluded from the communion of the visible Church. A child of God, like David and others of whom we have the mournful record in the Bible, may fall into sin, which brings reproach upon the cause of Christ. This sin will subject him to the displeasure of his heavenly Father; but it does not dissolve his connection with the Church invisible, though it is a proper ground of exclusion from the communion of the visible Church until he give satisfactory evidence of penitence and reformation. All true believers, whatever imperfections may cleave to them, whether with regard to their faith or practice, are united to Christ, have fellowship with him, and are, therefore, members of the Church invisible. But it is not the prerogative of the Church, through her officers, to search the heart and determine whether the man is in reality a child of God. This is a matter which can be determined with certainty by Him only who knows what is in man. The Church forms her estimate of human character in the light of external evidence. And in receiving one into her fellowship, she should have such evidence as corresponds with the Christian character, and which, therefore, justifies her in regarding him as a true disciple. But whether he is in reality what he professes to be, it is not the province of the Church to determine. And, consequently, the condition on which the Church receives a person into her fellowship is not that he is certainly a Christian, which is a matter that she is not competent to decide, but that he makes a credible profession, and, therefore, in the sight of man, who looketh upon the outward appearance has a right to be regarded as a brother belonging to the household of faith. Whether the profession which he makes is such as corresponds with the requirements of Christianity, and whether his external deportment is such as becometh the gospel, the Church is competent to decide. All this is within the limits of her legitimate province. And, having satisfactory evidence on these points, she receives him into her fellowship, without presuming to determine what is the state of his heart in the sight of God.
 
Such is the principle on which the Church acted in primitive days. "Philip," the sacred historian informs us, "went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ unto them." And under the proclamation of the gospel the mind and feelings of Simon the sorcerer were so impressed that he professedly embraced Christianity. On the ground of this profession Simon was received into the fellowship of the Church. But it was afterwards made manifest that his profession was insincere, that his heart was not right in the sight of God, and that he was yet in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. The ground, therefore, on which Philip received Simon into the communion of the Church was not that he was a true believer, for this he was not,—but because he made a credible Christian profession, which, in the sight of man, gave him the right to be treated as one who belongs to the household of faith.
 
Since, then, a credible profession is the ground on which an individual has a right, in the sight of the Church, to the enjoyment of her communion, how is this profession to be made, and what is included in it?
 
To this inquiry I reply, The Church has her creed which contains a summary of the faith which was once delivered to the saints, which, as a faithful witness, she is bound to teach, and for which she is required to contend earnestly. By his professed approbation of this form of sound words, the person makes such a profession as the Church has a right to demand of those who desire to enjoy her fellowship and, this profession being sustained by a consistent deportment, he is to be received as a true disciple, even though it should afterwards appear, as in the case of Simon, that his heart was not right in the sight of God.
But, on the other hand, if he refuses to profess his adherence to that formula of faith which the Church has adopted as her testimony to the truth, he has no right to her fellowship. And in closing the door against him the Church does not presume to sit in judgment upon the condition of his heart in the sight of God and declare that he is not a child of God, which is not her province; but she pronounces judgment upon the character of his profession, and declares it to be unsatisfactory and defective. This the Church is competent to do. And so long as the man refuses to unite with her in professing to receive the summary of the doctrine of the apostles which she has adopted, he fails to make such a profession as she has a right to demand. And loyalty to the King of Zion forbids her to regard him as a disciple who has a claim to her fellowship. What may be the state of the man’s heart in the sight of God, whether he is a true believer or not, the Church does not presume to determine; but she pronounces his profession defective and treats him accordingly.
 
2. I remark, in the next place, that the objection makes an unwarrantable distinction between the truths revealed in the word of God, practically maintaining that some of them are of such importance that they must be received and held fast, while others are of so little importance that the Church may connive at the rejection of them. The individual in question professes in part his adherence to that system of faith which the Church has adopted as a summary of the doctrine of the apostles, while there are portions of it which he rejects. And the objector contends that he should be received into the fellowship of the Church on the ground of the truth which he professedly receives, and should not be excluded on account of what he rejects, it not being essential to salvation.
 
To this I reply that there doubtless does exist a distinction between the weightier matters of the law and those which comparatively are not of such high importance; and there are certain great doctrines of Christianity which, owing to the place which they occupy in the Christian system and their extensive bearing upon other truths, are relatively of greater importance than others. But who will presume to determine precisely what doctrines revealed in the Bible are essential to salvation, or what amount of error may consist with the reality of the Christian character? Our obligation to receive the truth does not depend upon the estimate which we may form of its relative importance, but upon the authority of God who has revealed it. And the Church cannot, without rendering herself liable to the charge of unfaithfulness, connive at the rejection of any one truth contained in that revelation of the will of God which has been committed to her care. The command of her exalted King is explicit and peremptory:—"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." "What things soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it." (Deut. 12:32.)
 
But perhaps some one will object that, according to this theory of communion, many of those who are babes in Christ will be deprived of the privilege of partaking of the holy supper. This ordinance was not only designed for their benefit in common with others, but they have special need of the help which it is adapted to afford as the means of their growth in grace and advancement in the divine life. It is not to be supposed, says the objector, that those who are yet in a state of infancy in the school of Christ can comprehend all the doctrines contained in an elaborate confession of faith, so as to make an intelligent profession of their approbation of them. Must they, therefore, on account of their limited knowledge, be excluded from the fellowship of the Church?
 
To this I reply that, owing to a variety of excuses, there will exist among the members of the household of faith a great diversity in the degrees of their gracious attainments. And in the treatment of different members this diversity should be taken into the account. And particularly in dealing with those who are babes in Christ, the Church should exemplify the spirit of the compassionate Redeemer, of whom it is said, "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd; he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." But who are to be regarded by the Church as babes in Christ? Not those who consider themselves wiser than the Church, and persistently reject the truth embraced in her testimony, but such as are sensible of the imperfection of their knowledge, and are willing to confess their ignorance,—such as cherish a humble and teachable spirit, and whose minds are open to receive instruction. Owing to their limited knowledge, they may as yet be unable to give an intelligent assent to some of the more sublime doctrines of the creed; but so long as they keep their minds open to conviction, manifest a disposition to have their difficulties removed and to receive instruction, while, in the mean time, they demean themselves in an orderly and peaceable manner, they should be taken kindly by the hand and assisted and encouraged in their efforts to acquire a knowledge of the truth. Towards them the Church should act the part of a kind and tender-hearted mother.
 
But the persons against whom the Church should close the door of her fellowship are of a very different character. They have embraced and hold principles which are opposed to the testimony of the Church; they claim to have made attainments in knowledge beyond those of the Church whose fellowship they desire to enjoy; and, so far from feeling their need of instruction, they consider themselves competent to instruct others. Such persons are not to be regarded as babes in Christ, and have no claim to the treatment which is due to obedient and dutiful children. They assume the attitude of opposition to that form of sound words which the Church has adopted as her testimony, and they act the part of unruly and disobedient children; and, therefore, it behooves the Church, as a prudent mother, to apply the rod, with a view to their reformation, and deprive them, for the time-being, of the distinguishing privileges of the household of faith.