Bookclub: Aaron's Rod Blossoming Week 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jon and I are taking a break this week and next and since we seem to be the only ones reading (aside from Winzer's comments from his notes, thank you!), I'm thinking that this shouldn't mess anyone up. I'm more than a little disappointed in how it has turned out, especially since there was such an enthusiastic initial response of people wanting to join, but it is what it is.

As to this last week's reading, Jon and I were talking face to face yesterday and were both surprised at Gillespie's claim that Christ's mediatorial kingship is for his church only and will end some day.

I was thinking perhaps I missed some subtle distinction Gillespie was making, and it had been so long since I'd read Symington's work that I wondered if I'd misremembered Symington.

So why was Gillespie arguing in this way, and was it common in his time? Was Symington the odd one out or was Gillespie? Is Christ a king in two different senses (the one temporary) or one? I'd be happy to hear any thoughts as I ponder this more myself.
 
Sorry this has been disappointing; and as I indicated and still is the case, there is now way I can keep up with this and participate in the reading; but persevere as you will have something at the end I think. This is I think a distinct difference between Gillespie and later Covenanters. I can't say whether Gillespie was unique or not among the Scots covenanters. It was important enough to Gillespie to object at the last minute to have a portion WCF 23.3 changed, and the assembly made a rare memorandum stating "this vote was not intended to determine the controversy about the subordination of the civill magistrate to Christ as mediatour." CVD, Minutes, 4.356 (session 752). Cornelius Burges, not a Covenanter and who actually was the only Westminster divine who had to be 'convinced' to sign the Solemn League & Covenant, is the only recorded objection. The Erastians generally favored this view. This would be worth some footnote or exploration, explanation in any final 'publishworthy' version of your text.
 
I have benefited from your discussion here on the board; I've found it more difficult to keep up and read as the reading is more heavy going than I expected (that's on me!) and family matters have popped up (elderly parents) that have taken up a good bit of time. But I have learned from the reading I've been able to do and from your discussions. Logan, for someone like me, a mom and grandmother and not a theologian, what are the practical implications of "where the truth lies" in this controversy? I've tended to think that it's beneficial for every Christian, no matter what station of life, to be able to think clearly about issues like this- to understand God's will. I'd love to hear a concise statement about the practical help that a clear view on Christ's kingship is to individual Christians and to the churches. And I will renew efforts to read so that I can ask a question or two, perhaps! Thanks for your work; I'm sure it will be referred to many times.
 
It is disappointing that such an important work does not receive more interaction.

As previously noted (perhaps a fortnight ago), Gillespie's position is basically the position of the 2nd Book of Discipline, chapter 1, which was fundamental to the Presbyterian framework. It is worth taking a look at the way this chapter traces civil and ecclesiastical power back to God via two different "kingdoms." It subsequently found its way into the Westminster Confession of Faith at two major points. The first related to the authority of the civil magistrate, where Gillespie was instrumental in changing the wording to ensure that it was derived from "God" rather than from "Christ." The second deals with church censures in chap. 30, sect. 1, where the power of the church is not only functionally different from civil power, but is based on its own unique foundation, which is the headship of Christ.

David McKay's article in the Wayne Spear festschrift is worth reading. As also his Ecclesiastical Republic, chap. 2.

From the Disruption perspective it is not a mere coincidence that Gillespie's Works were republished at the time. He was extensively quoted in support of the Free Church position against Erastian encroachments on the spiritual liberty of the church.
 
Sorry this has been disappointing; and as I indicated and still is the case, there is now way I can keep up with this and participate in the reading; but persevere as you will have something at the end I think. This is I think a distinct difference between Gillespie and later Covenanters. I can't say whether Gillespie was unique or not among the Scots covenanters.

Thanks Chris, the notes on Gillespie in the minutes are helpful. Now I'm even more curious as to whether Gillespie was unique. I am enjoying the book and enjoying working on it. I have no plans to stop until it's done.

As previously noted (perhaps a fortnight ago), Gillespie's position is basically the position of the 2nd Book of Discipline, chapter 1, which was fundamental to the Presbyterian framework.

I do remember you mentioning it and wondered if it was related to this case. I'm going to have to think on this. I'm many years removed from reading Symington but I remember being strongly persuaded by his case.


Logan, for someone like me, a mom and grandmother and not a theologian, what are the practical implications of "where the truth lies" in this controversy?

The most obvious reason is, who should govern the church and why? The most pressing reason for me is, what is the role of the church? What is the role of the state? I think Gillespie has laid the foundation as to why a Presybyterial form of government is in accordance with the Bible, and why the state holding the keys is not. I hope in the next few chapters we'll delve more specifically into what the biblical roles of the civil and ecclesiastical governments are. In the USA, the issue that I think is most critical, is whether the state should protect the church and punish false religions, or whether freedom of conscience is what should reign supreme.
 
Sorry this has been disappointing; and as I indicated and still is the case, there is now way I can keep up with this and participate in the reading; but persevere as you will have something at the end I think. This is I think a distinct difference between Gillespie and later Covenanters. I can't say whether Gillespie was unique or not among the Scots covenanters.

Thanks Chris, the notes on Gillespie in the minutes are helpful. Now I'm even more curious as to whether Gillespie was unique. I am enjoying the book and enjoying working on it. I have no plans to stop until it's done.

As previously noted (perhaps a fortnight ago), Gillespie's position is basically the position of the 2nd Book of Discipline, chapter 1, which was fundamental to the Presbyterian framework.

I do remember you mentioning it and wondered if it was related to this case. I'm going to have to think on this. I'm many years removed from reading Symington but I remember being strongly persuaded by his case.


Logan, for someone like me, a mom and grandmother and not a theologian, what are the practical implications of "where the truth lies" in this controversy?

The most obvious reason is, who should govern the church and why? The most pressing reason for me is, what is the role of the church? What is the role of the state? I think Gillespie has laid the foundation as to why a Presybyterial form of government is in accordance with the Bible, and why the state holding the keys is not. I hope in the next few chapters we'll delve more specifically into what the biblical roles of the civil and ecclesiastical governments are. In the USA, the issue that I think is most critical, is whether the state should protect the church and punish false religions, or whether freedom of conscience is what should reign supreme.

Yes, that's the issue I find most critical as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top