@DracoReformans @redeemed_zoomer @ehenes Cited from “Theology and Theologians of Scotland” by James Walker (1888).
English
Ryan Scott
41 posts
Ryan Scott
@Ryan_Scott22_
Husband, Father, Presbyterian
Katılım Temmuz 2026
15 Takip Edilen12 Takipçiler
@Ryan_Scott22_ @redeemed_zoomer @ehenes Alright so then who makes a better judge of what historical orthodox Presbyterian view of schism is… YOU or Charles Hodge and R.L. Dabney? Because Hodge wrote a whole article in the 1844 Provincetown review lauds them and their actions not as schismatics but HEROS
English
How about the free Church of Scotland in 1840’s?
Was that a schismatic and sinful separation?
@redeemed_zoomer @ehenes
Ryan Scott@Ryan_Scott22_
@ehenes Maybe you should provide a counter example and demonstrate that it backs up your stance? I could be the worst cherry-picker on earth, but you still haven’t demonstrated that your stance is correct and historical. Demonstrate that 1936 met the historic criteria for lawful schism.
English
@ehenes @DracoReformans @redeemed_zoomer “Ball is regarded as one of the founders of Presbyterianism in England; he was known scornfully as The Presbyterians Champion.”
anneyoungau.wordpress.com/2024/07/07/joh…
English
@Ryan_Scott22_ @DracoReformans @redeemed_zoomer Calvin's fine. Ball was not a Presbyterian. He was an English Nonconformist who remained in the Church of England and argued (in the quote) against Brownist separatists. If we're arguing historic Presbyterian standard for schism, we should keep it within that family.
English
@ehenes @DracoReformans @redeemed_zoomer John Ball literally argued for a presbyterial system of government over-and-against independency and episcopacy. Are you saying he wasn’t a Presbyterian merely because he belonged to the Church of England?
English
@ehenes @DracoReformans @redeemed_zoomer Who did I cite that isn’t Presbyterian? Also, can I not cite Calvin, since he wasn’t a “Presbyterian” in the proper sense?
English
@Ryan_Scott22_ @DracoReformans @redeemed_zoomer If you give me actual Presbyterians, I'm happy to engage with them. Don't try and slip in a non-Presby. That's not helpful to the discussion of "historic Presbyterian Standard"
English
@ehenes You asked for my favorite quote, not my favorite “guy.” I think Calvin might be my go-to guy, but Ball definitely said it wonderfully and as well
English
@Ryan_Scott22_ I'm working through this, and I'm happy to do so. But I want to understand correctly: your favorite go-to guy on schism for the "historic Presbyterian standard" is an English Nonconformist who remained writing against the Brownists separating from the Church of England?
English
I can keep showing you what you’ve missed every time, but it would be easier for both of us if you at least tried to do *all* the reading and not just the part you think agrees with you.
English
@ehenes @DracoReformans @redeemed_zoomer How about Westminster Divine Daniel Cawdry; can we add him to the list too?
English
@Ryan_Scott22_ @DracoReformans @redeemed_zoomer So we're not talking about "historic Presbyerian" position at all then? We're talking about a couple of Westminster Divines and an English Nonconformist in the Church of England (Ball)?
English
@ehenes You said my favorite, that’s pretty tough… 😂
But I’m going with early Presbyterian divine John Ball, and his treatise titled “An Answer to Two Treatises of Mr. John Can” (1642)
English
@Ryan_Scott22_ But give me your favorite "schism bad" quote. I'll show you that it's not applicable and precisely why, both from that author and from the 1936 context. It'll take more than 240 characters so you'll have to be patient.
English
@LZaring28 I’d say it’s valid. Augustine considered Donatist baptisms valid
English
I’m unsure about the validity of schismatic’s sacraments. They divide the visible body of Christ, unsure still if they divided the invisible body of Christ.
English
@AlchemicRaker @LZaring28 This is true, but this says nothing specifically about sacraments being administered outside the bounds of the visible Church, in a state of schism. Paul seems to say in 1 Cor. 11 that they don’t have a true Supper because of their divided condition
English
@LZaring28 The spiritual element of it depends on the one receiving it, not the one physically presenting it. Spiritually it is conferred by the Holy Spirit, per Augustine, not bound by the worthiness of the minister.
See also 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
English
@ehenes @xzaksis @redeemed_zoomer By this logic it would be totally fine for someone to split off from the “false institutional Church” even though 100% of the laity were still faithful believers. If your ecclesiology allows that, maybe you should rethink it
English
@xzaksis @Ryan_Scott22_ @redeemed_zoomer You’re still missing the point. It’s never about whether there are still faithful believers. It’s about the institution as institution condemning the faithful proclamation of the Gospel. In Machen’s case it had to do with missionaries. Have you read the 1931 report?
English
Machen was in the right and the OPC is a faithful and wonderful communion of believers.
English
English
@redeemed_zoomer @Presby1992 But does it? Even if it had a bad beginning - which I don't agree it did - does that mean it is now cursed by God? That would be like saying that since Presbyterianism in America had a good beginning, the PCUSA now is blessed by God (if it were the spiritual continuation of 1706)
English
Okay, I'll do it. I'll debate @redeemed_zoomer. I am the moderator of the OPC GA this year, so that makes me the chief schismatic or something, right?
Proposition: "The OPC is 100% cursed by God."
RZ takes the affirmative (they're his words, after all); I'll take the negative.
English
@ehenes @ShawnieTwoZero None of this has happened. Nobody has been expelled or forced into idolatry or compelled to believe fundamental errors. One can still exist in full communion with the PCUSA without complicity in any of the sins of the leadership.
English
@ShawnieTwoZero That does not automatically vindicate the OPC, but it plainly allows its argument: the PCUSA abandoned its spiritual succession, expelled faithful ministers, and made continued submission contrary to Christ.
English
I think this what the kids call "crashing out."
ShawnieTwoZero✝️👑@ShawnieTwoZero
@LutheranAnswers Yes, leaving is schism. Schism is worse than homosexuality. Schism is worse than murder. Schism is worse than genocide. Schism is as bad as heresy. If you can stay in the Church, but you don't, you have committed damnable sin. This is what the Church Fathers said. Repent.
English
Ryan Scott retweetledi
@ehenes I’ll debate the proposition “the formation of the OPC in the 1930s was justified by historic Presbyterian standards”
English
@ehenes You haven’t responded to a single quote other than just saying “you’re cherry picking!” Calvin says that the Roman Church is a false Church because they expelled the word and the faithful from their communion. Has that happened in the PCUSA? (And no, Machen doesn’t count)
English
@Ryan_Scott22_ I've responded every one that has been posted to me, putting them in context and showing that it doesn't prove what you think it does. Every one of those quotes assume schism as the leaving of a faithful body, a true church, even if it is corrupted. The point is the PCUSA wasn't.
English
I teach history. I tell students they need to learn three things when it comes to original sources: read carefully, think critically, and communicate clearly.
In that order.
Some who keep throwing snippets and quotes at me should take a class that teaches these things.
English
Ryan Scott retweetledi
@ehenes @Ryan_Scott22_ @redeemed_zoomer I think @redeemed_zoomer ‘s point has more to do with his influence toward schism. It’s like people are purposely trying to misunderstand his position.
There’s a large majority of silent onlookers who notice. I think many are afraid to speak up about it. I know I was in the past
English
@ehenes @jamesfcubie 1. Wolves in the clergy do not necessitate the personal approval of them or their errors, otherwise you make Christ guilty for telling the apostles to submit to the Pharisees.
2. I asked if you could cite a reformed divine. Do you have any that hold your view?
English
@Ryan_Scott22_ @jamesfcubie It was upheld by courts, which means every member is required to acknowledge them in good standing and every minister must acknowledge them as a brother. They institutionally denied the very foundation on which the church is supposed to be built, the Word of God and Jesus Christ.
English
If he continued to be a man of his word(s) - like Calvin - then he would have stayed and attempted reform. When Charles II came to power, he could have run away. He did not, and was only spared execution for 'treason' because he was already on his deathbed.
Timon Cline@tlloydcline
Sixteenth/Seventeenth-Century Rome never taught any of this… wonder what Samuel Rutherford would do today… 🤔
English
@ehenes Can you cite one reformed divine that would say that if the Church approves and defends heretical ministers, you can schism and start a rival jurisdiction?
English
@Ryan_Scott22_ That's to misunderstand the argument. No one has said that. The argument is, in Zoomer terms, that the mainline Presbyterians were cooked. They had *institutionally* approved and defended upholding heretical views among their ministers.
English