First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. I am learning a lot
My pleasure, this is actually good for me as well as it is helping me better develop my communication on these matters since I'm still a student on many of these topics.
So the idea is that even though its a less severe error, tolerating it would allow for other ones?
That's part of it, and that can be observed in how much the RPCNA has changed since deciding to associate with various other groups since 1840. Some present day members of said church have been harboring some socialistic political tendencies, at least in their use of language, which betrays a creeping influence of liberation theology that most would argue is localized mostly to liberalized mainline groups like the UCC, ELCA and PCUSA.
But the main issue is that direct insubordination to valid and approved subordinate authority is an institutional species of violating the 5th commandment by not honoring the elders of the church. The insubordination of the RPCNA was specifically with a desire to participate in a secular society that had little interest in Christ being Lord. This is reflected today in unabashed hostility to even the slightest notion of incorporating the Decalogue into America's justice system.
I don't think its trivial per se, although I think I'd tolerate more errors when it comes to religion than you would (though not as many as the modern US which tolerates virtually anything...)
The Steelite position takes a stricter stance on institutional deviation, as it will affect the entire congregation, whereas an individual person committing errors will only affect those in direct communication with him. An insubordinate pastor will tend to poison a congregation, whereas an insubordinate Presbytery can poison the entire church. Both of these are extremely serious, and Presbyterian Polity has an eye towards dealing with rebellious pastors with its ascending court system, whereas it also has an eye to the potential for the whole church falling into apostasy by giving individuals in the church a final recourse of separation when all other avenues and higher or lower forms of authority have been exhausted.
OK, fair enough. But what if you were in a place that you thought agreed with you and then a pastor taught something you thought was blatantly wrong? What do you think I should do as a student who attends chapel (We have to) if they teach errors (which... considering many of the speakers are baptists... well
)
It's a tricky situation, particular as I assume that your family is part of the equation. There are modes of openly addressing these points without being disruptive that you'd probably want to employ. The issue with me is that as someone who has fully adopted the Steelite position, I'm outside of the purview of any institution that would have mixed denominational classes. Furthermore, if this is not a formal worship service being held on Lord's Day, it's a bit of a different situation, though for someone like myself, the occasional hearing issue would still apply given that I'm not an ordained minister, and if I was I'd be appearing at such a class under the disposition of being a voice of dissent, and thus not a fellow of the institution.
My biggest question here is: isn't soteriology more important than ecclesiology?
It is, but institutionally speaking, the EOC has not abandoned proper Christian soteriology. Scripture was properly understood on this point prior to Augustine, and most of the important EOC fathers like Basil The Great and the other Cappadocian fathers were in general agreement with Augustine's soteriology as they also inherited it from Paul. The EOC is hostile to Augustine largely because of the schism and Augustine being seen as a supporter of the Roman view of ecclesiastic authority, which I would argue is only partially correct. Much of what constitutes the Pelagian flavor of some EOC bishops is the consequence of communism being rampant in nations where Eastern Orthodoxy is strongest, and thus not a proper reflection of the historical soteriological views of the eastern church.
Mind you, I'm not saying that the Steelites and the EOC are on the verge of being in fellowship, only that the attitude of the Steelites, and I'd argue the majority of the original Magistrate Reformers, is that the EOC's separation is a matter of schism and not a matter of heresy. The Magistrate Reformers' viewed the early Anabaptists with about the same level of condemnation as they did Rome, and it was largely over a Pelagian tendency inherent in their insistence upon Credo-baptism, and this is still apparent even in ones that have embraced some of Calvin's views.
I have a few different questions about this obviously:
1. "Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs". I know you probably think that this refers to the Book of Psalms, which I respect and I've heard before. But, how do I know that its only referring to the book of psalms?
2. How do you explain the use of instruments in Psalm 150?
3. I know a number of covenanters who are in the OPC but do not sing. Why is this a problem even if you are correct in #1 and #2.
4. I understand why you wouldn't sing a hymn (if #1 and #2 are answered) but isn't the guilt for the instrument playing on the guy who plays it, not you?
http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/scripturalpraise.htm#.VgjUdNJViko
The link above is from the Protestant Reformed Church, which lays out much of the case for both avoiding use of musical instruments in worship and exclusive psalmody. I'll give a brief answer to each point on top of the link.
1. The New Testament does not cite Jesus, the apostles or their converts singing anything other than the psalms when at worship. Psalm singing was part of both synagogue and temple worship, and the synagogue part of it was not abrogated.
2. Instruments were used in Temple worship, when the Temple terminated, so too did this practice.
3. The mode we adhere to is that the pastor reads the psalm a verse at a time, and then he and the congregation sing it to that tune. This was the common practice of the early church and was supported by Augustine. Why any covenanter would not sing the psalms is a bit of a mystery to me unless they are using a non-covenanter hermeneutic on this particular point.
4. This dovetails with the point about a pastor saying something in a sermon regarding improper doctrine. If an Old Testament Temple practice is being introduced into worship, it draws into question whether Christ has come, it's of a similar situation as with Paul and the Judaizers in Galatians. There is greater fault on the person in charge of the church if an improper worship practice is being conducted, but the congregation is still affected by it and should resist it if able.
OK, it seems like a pretty big deal that nobody had communion for a century. I'm not superstitious about it like Rome, but still. Have you ever taken communion, ever? Should you have?
I was confirmed as an Episcopalian when I was 13 and observed the sacrament in a manner almost identical to how Rome has administered it since Vatican II for about 4 years. After lapsing into secular thought in college and being an atheist for several years, I converted to Roman Catholicism after reading works by certain medieval figures, particularly Aquinas, I then went through the RCIA process, was fully confirmed as a Roman Catholic, and took the sacrament again for a couple years before reading about the history of the Jansenist controversy and started having problems with the RCC both in terms of doctrine and practice.
To answer your question, my use of the Lord's Supper in these contexts, though done out of either ignorance or deference to my family, were always illicit, but not at all times necessarily blasphemous. I ceased in taking the sacraments when I delved deeper into my dissent with post-Trent Roman theology, and when I came to the Steelite position, I decided to join others of this position in worship while abstaining from the sacrament until a valid Presbytery was formed. Most of the other Steelites came out of other Covenanter and Reconstructionist groups, and others like me came out of Roman Catholicism/High Church Protestantism, so there are similar stories in all of our cases.
Sacraments, per the covenanter position, are of a hypothetical necessity in that they become necessary when one is qualified to give them. If there is none properly ordained to do so, family and group worship continues until the position is filled. Sacraments do not confer Justifying Grace, so they are not necessary unto salvation, though they are a necessary gift of sanctifying grace when the gifts of church officials is present.
SO why doesn't this apply if some of the two or three are not Steelites?
It does, the issue isn't being a Steelite or holding to all Steelite principles when it comes to worshiping together, the issue is how reformed one is and the nature of the gathering. People that are sufficiently like-minded can worship together without use of the sacraments and trust in the Gospel and The Holy Spirit to help them to a place where they can receive such gifts, and this is the standard recourse of dissenters when a church becomes institutionally tyrannical. Reconciliation of doctrine always comes before reconciliation of institution.
Remember, my position is not that non-Steelites or even non-Presbyterians are not saved, this is a matter of sanctification in both individual and collective circumstances. A non-Steelite can attend our meetings and learn about our positions and participate in the prayers that precede these meetings, but a fully communicant Steelite shouldn't be running around to other churches with an eye to diversify his doctrine.
