# John Owen PCA?



## TimV (Jul 12, 2009)

I was told tonight that John Owen wouldn't be allowed to be an officer in the PCA since he was a Congregationalist. I've not read much Owen, and wonder if anyone could please comment. If Owen were alive today could he be an officer in the PCA or OPC?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## raekwon (Jul 12, 2009)

Well . . . if he was a congregationalist, it's pretty doubtful he'd even want to be an officer in the PCA or OPC.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DTK (Jul 12, 2009)

TimV said:


> I was told tonight that John Owen wouldn't be allowed to be an officer in the PCA since he was a Congregationalist. I've not read much Owen, and wonder if anyone could please comment. If Owen were alive today could he be an officer in the PCA or OPC?
> Thanks in advance.


I think that, from our perspective, the question is a bit anachronistic, but since he was a congregationalist, I think the proper question should be - would he even want to be identified with Presbyterians at all?

Remember the little anecdote about Owen when Cromwell sequestered him into his army as a chaplain and they arrived together in Glasglow, Scotland? There Owen found himself in a dispute with a young Presbyterian minister by the name of Hugh Binning, age 26, who managed to confound Owen and the other congregationalist, English divines with him.

DTK


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 12, 2009)

DTK said:


> Remember the little anecdote about Owen when Cromwell sequestered him into his army as a chaplain and they arrived together in Glasglow, Scotland?



I wish I could say I did. Any recommended reading on this subject? Sounds fascinating.

Cheers,


----------



## DTK (Jul 12, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> DTK said:
> 
> 
> > Remember the little anecdote about Owen when Cromwell sequestered him into his army as a chaplain and they arrived together in Glasglow, Scotland?
> ...


There's a brief reference to it in Thomson's _Life of Dr. Owen_ on p. XLV of the first volume of Owen's _Works_ as published by Banner of Truth Trust, as well as in Orme' _Life of the Rev. John Owen_. It's also often referenced in connection with almost any account of the life of Hugh Binning, though Owen's name is not always mentioned in particular with respect to this incident, Owen simply being among the English divines with whom Binning contended on this occasion.

DTK


----------



## TimV (Jul 12, 2009)

So as a Congregationalist of his day and type would he have objected to, say, TEs as part of their own church, or a legal structure like the GA? 

And would these objections to modern Calvinistic Presbyterianism have been such the he wouldn't have been allowed those exceptions to have become a deacons or elder?


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jul 12, 2009)

Why would this question be considered anachronistic in our day? It seems quite relevant to our churches, because the simple fact is that John Owen could not be an office bearer in the PCA or OPC. He could not, if a truly convinced Congregationalist, take his ordination vows with any measure of integrity.

OPC--(3) Do you approve of the government, discipline, and worship
of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? (FOG 25.6.a.(3))

PCA--3. Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the
Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general
principles of biblical polity? (BCO 24-6, 3).

All of this, however, is not to say that some who hold to other forms of polity are not officers in the OPC or PCA. There obviously are, but it is not proper for them to be so.


----------



## TimV (Jul 12, 2009)

The reason for asking is complex. There is a young man who has a good heart, and wants to help the struggling Reformed movement on the Central Coast of CA, but has been under the influence of a couple men who consider themselves to be apostles to the Church Universal, and won't join any local congregation since "there are only 6 people in the whole State of California who are qualified to be elders" and the feel they can't submit to any of the elders here.

A very nice young man, and one of his objections to joining a church is that the OPC and PCA are too strict. He is influenced by these men teaching the Federal Vision.

So, he's been reading Owen, and said that the PCA and OPC aren't inclusive enough, and used Owen as an example of someone who could be an officer in the the Reformed churches around here. 

So I was hoping from some people familiar with what Owen believed and what kind of exceptions are allowed in the OPC and PCA to give me their ideas. If Owen really wanted to be an elder in the PCA could he?


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 12, 2009)

TimV said:


> The reason for asking is complex. There is a young man who has a good heart, and wants to help the struggling Reformed movement on the Central Coast of CA, but has been under the influence of a couple men who consider themselves to be apostles to the Church Universal, and won't join any local congregation since "there are only 6 people in the whole State of California who are qualified to be elders" and the feel they can't submit to any of the elders here.
> 
> A very nice young man, and one of his objections to joining a church is that the OPC and PCA are too strict. He is influenced by these men teaching the Federal Vision.
> 
> ...



I will be praying for your friend. I have many friends like that too.


----------



## DonP (Jul 12, 2009)

My understanding was that owen switched to Congregationalist to accommodate Cromwell.
Sadly it was during that time when he wrote on church polity. 

Later he was persuaded back to presbyterian gvt being consistent with scriptures like Acts 15 etc. 

So it depends when in his life he would have been asked to serve as elder. 

Your friend is influenced by some pretty scary people. He has far more serious issues to contend with than the doctrine of church govt. 

As for Owen he would have been accepted as a member of the OPC and PCA as this man should do. 
And a man cannot be an elder unless he is appointed. So if it was during a time when he was in agreement with presbyterian govt, then yes he could be appointed and ordained an elder in the PCA or OPC. 

The question is like saying would the OPC let Owen be a member before his conversion. 

*How could a man who denies there is a presbyter be one?? It would be his own choice keeping him form eldership not the church!!*

*It is not the narrowness of the reformed churches that is here, a Reformed Baptist church would no doubt not let John Calvin be an elder. *

Consider that.


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 12, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> *It is not the narrowness of the reformed churches that is here, a Reformed Baptist church would no doubt not let John Calvin be an elder. *
> 
> Consider that.





Excuse my ignorance on this issue, but why not?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2009)

TimV said:


> The reason for asking is complex. There is a young man who has a good heart, and wants to help the struggling Reformed movement on the Central Coast of CA, but has been under the influence of a couple men who consider themselves to be apostles to the Church Universal, and won't join any local congregation since "there are only 6 people in the whole State of California who are qualified to be elders" and the feel they can't submit to any of the elders here.
> 
> A very nice young man, and one of his objections to joining a church is that the OPC and PCA are too strict. He is influenced by these men teaching the Federal Vision.
> 
> ...



Tim,

I don't think Owen's exception would permit him to be an officer (see Michael's comment on vows above). But at the same time I find it humorous for FVers to talk about the PCA being too strict. I wonder if it is possible for them to even say the word "Baptist" without spitting. FVers would de-church all of the Southern Presbyterians, Jonathan Edwards and any number of other non-hyper sacramentalists as "pietists."


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 12, 2009)

cecat90 said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > *It is not the narrowness of the reformed churches that is here, a Reformed Baptist church would no doubt not let John Calvin be an elder. *
> ...



Because he was not credo-baptist only.


----------



## DonP (Jul 12, 2009)

cecat90 said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > *It is not the narrowness of the reformed churches that is here, a Reformed Baptist church would no doubt not let John Calvin be an elder. *
> ...



For the same reason. If you have a different concept of church govt you can not uphold the govt of another church by agreement. 
And of course a solid presbyterian would probably not seek eldership in a church that believes is violating scripture. 

It seems it would not make sense. Presbyterians believe we are to have equality among elders and ministers and submission to higher courts not be a democracy or an independent republic or dictatorship 

A graduate of Multnomah Seminary recently told me that though it would be ideal to have a plurality of elders in a church there would still need to be one top dog. Its the onyl way to efficiently run things. 

This is a part of the reason I became so strongly convinced of the propiety of presbyterian govt. Too many demigods and autocrats running baptist churches a lording it over the people as well. 
1 Peter 5:3-4
3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock ; 
NKJV


----------



## dannyhyde (Jul 12, 2009)

TimV said:


> I was told tonight that John Owen wouldn't be allowed to be an officer in the PCA since he was a Congregationalist. I've not read much Owen, and wonder if anyone could please comment. If Owen were alive today could he be an officer in the PCA or OPC?
> Thanks in advance.



Hi Tim,

Research in Owen's ecclesiology is still a need. That said, you can read in vol. 15 his "Brief Instruction in the Worship of God" (1667) for as well as "An Inquiry Into the Original, Nature, Institution, Power, Order, and Communion of Evangelical Churches." You should also read the Savoy Declaration.

In my reading of Owen, I have found that "Owen's Congregationalism" is not like "Modern Congregationalism." I think Owen may be called a small "p" presbyterian.


----------



## DonP (Jul 12, 2009)

dannyhyde said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > I was told tonight that John Owen wouldn't be allowed to be an officer in the PCA since he was a Congregationalist. I've not read much Owen, and wonder if anyone could please comment. If Owen were alive today could he be an officer in the PCA or OPC?
> ...



Surprisingly he was not clear in his mind on the subject and I think it is because he had to write in support of something he was not fully convinced of for the sake of peace and unity in his time. 
Thus the later return to the preferably teaching. 

It is an anomaly in Owens body of work. It manifest the need for the grace of god in all of us lest we fall into error. If Owen could fall, who is exempt. Father help us by your Spirit, Save and preserve your church for your glory!


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 12, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> > PeaceMaker said:
> ...





Thanks.
Thats what I was thinking right after I posted.


----------



## DonP (Jul 12, 2009)

Se we Presbyterians are no worse than our baptist brethren. 
We are equally fallible sinners and are all dependent on Him alone. 

One glorious day and forever after we will all agree and meet together as one for worship 
Even so come Lord Jesus Come

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 12, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> > PeaceMaker said:
> ...


----------



## bookslover (Jul 12, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> My understanding was that owen switched to Congregationalist to accommodate Cromwell.
> Sadly it was during that time when he wrote on church polity.
> 
> Later he was persuaded back to presbyterian gvt being consistent with scriptures like Acts 15 etc.



As far as I can tell (as Danny Hyde says, much more research needs to be done regarding Owen's ecclesiology), Owen was a convinced Congregationalist. The rumor that he became a presbyterian on his deathbed is probably just that - a rumor.


----------



## DonP (Jul 12, 2009)

bookslover said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > My understanding was that owen switched to Congregationalist to accommodate Cromwell.
> ...



It wasn't his deathbed. 

And what was he before he joined Cromwell? So I would not say he was a "confirmed" Congregational.


----------



## Wayne (Jul 12, 2009)

TimV said:


> The reason for asking . . . a young man . . . under the influence of . . . ["]apostles to the Church Universal,["] . . . "there are only 6 people in the whole State of California who are qualified to be elders" . . . he is influenced by these men teaching the Federal Vision.



Forget the anachronistic question of Owen, what's up with these guys and their teaching? There's a million errors out there, but Tim's story raises some interesting questions.

Are these guys recognizably FV [names?] 

-- or is their teaching merely FV-like?

And if the former, is this where at least a portion of the FV is heading?


----------



## uberkermit (Jul 12, 2009)

Perhaps it would be helpful to split this thread in order to continue the two lines of thought found here. 

As to Owen's thoughts on Presbyterianism and Congregationalism, he made some revealing statements in the second chapter of _A Review of the True Nature of Schism etc,_ found in Volume XIII of the Banner of Truth edition of his works, pp. 222-223.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Jul 12, 2009)

The Reformed tradition, what with confessionalism and rampant denominationalism, is full of ironies like this.


----------



## Edward (Jul 12, 2009)

Wayne said:


> Forget the anachronistic question of Owen, what's up with these guys and their teaching? There's a million errors out there, but Tim's story raises some interesting questions.
> 
> Are these guys recognizably FV [names?]
> 
> ...



I wouldn't have thought of FV and inclusive as going together, either.


----------



## Wayne (Jul 12, 2009)

Edward:

To clarify, I took Tim's account:



TimV said:


> men who consider themselves to be apostles to the Church Universal, and won't join any local congregation since "there are only 6 people in the whole State of California who are qualified to be elders" and the feel they can't submit to any of the elders here.



as a classic example of _exclusivism_ -- that these supposed apostles presume to judge the Church, seeking to limit it to the few who meet their standards. It's an old story and the aim usually is to ensnare the gullible.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 12, 2009)

Does the PCA indeed require adhering to jus divinum presbyterianism? If not, Owen's a shoe in.


----------



## DonP (Jul 12, 2009)

Wayne said:


> Edward:
> 
> To clarify, I took Tim's account:
> 
> ...



Wonder how the church existed all these thousands of years and will go one with only 6 of them for the state. Wonder how many are in my state, or in Africa or So. America. Maybe we should offer to send them there to minister; yes Malasia has a need now, or Iraq, China, N Korea, Morrocco could all use some real good elders.


----------



## Edward (Jul 12, 2009)

Wayne said:


> Edward:
> 
> To clarify, I took Tim's account:
> 
> ...


 
I'd tend to agree with you as far as that goes, but I was trying to sort out this: 



> He is influenced by these men teaching the Federal Vision.
> So, he's been reading Owen, and said that the PCA and OPC aren't inclusive enough



I can't puzzle out what they might mean by 'inclusive' here. I know how it is used in the liberal church, and in society as a whole, and I have trouble fitting that in with what I understand of the FV folks. They have many faults, but 'inclusivity' isn't one which I would attribute to them.


----------



## DonP (Jul 12, 2009)

Edward said:


> > He is influenced by these men teaching the Federal Vision.
> > So, he's been reading Owen, and said that the PCA and OPC aren't inclusive enough
> 
> 
> ...



They don't include a broad enough spectrum of Christians. 
too Restrictive. 

Need to include more.


----------



## TimV (Jul 12, 2009)

> I can't puzzle out what they might mean by 'inclusive' here. I know how it is used in the liberal church, and in society as a whole, and I have trouble fitting that in with what I understand of the FV folks. They have many faults, but 'inclusivity' isn't one which I would attribute to them.



Those doing the manipulating (mostly one man who employs lots of Reformed folk) keep pointing out that the local OPC and PCA won't ordain a young man who otherwise has the qualification of deacon, as he's FV. 

So, with John Owen do we say it's "not proven" either way?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 12, 2009)

uberkermit said:


> Perhaps it would be helpful to split this thread in order to continue the two lines of thought found here.
> 
> As to Owen's thoughts on Presbyterianism and Congregationalism, he made some revealing statements in the second chapter of _A Review of the True Nature of Schism etc,_ found in Volume XIII of the Banner of Truth edition of his works, pp. 222-223.



I posted this a while back from Biblical Theology.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/john-owen-sectarianism-47909/


----------



## DonP (Jul 12, 2009)

TimV said:


> > I can't puzzle out what they might mean by 'inclusive' here. I know how it is used in the liberal church, and in society as a whole, and I have trouble fitting that in with what I understand of the FV folks. They have many faults, but 'inclusivity' isn't one which I would attribute to them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well I would at least ask him if he feels there is merit in works. 
If he says yes it has no relationship to Owen at all. He denies salvation by faith. 

Even Owen would not let him become a deacon


----------



## TimV (Jul 12, 2009)

> Well I would at least ask him if he feels there is merit in works.
> If he says yes it has no relationship to Owen at all. He denies salvation by faith.
> 
> Even Owen would not let him become a deacon



That reasoning is way too complex for these people.


----------



## DonP (Jul 12, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Well I would at least ask him if he feels there is merit in works.
> > If he says yes, it has no relationship to Owen at all. He denies salvation by faith.
> >
> > Even Owen would not let him become a deacon
> ...



hhahahaa
yes pride and stubbornness can make the simplest things complex

Isn't there a verse about shaking the dust off your feet and moving on?


----------



## DTK (Jul 12, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> My understanding was that owen switched to Congregationalist to accommodate Cromwell.
> Sadly it was during that time when he wrote on church polity.
> 
> Later he was persuaded back to presbyterian gvt being consistent with scriptures like Acts 15 etc.



I guess I'd like to know your sources. Owen was ordained in the Anglican Church during his time at Oxford, but later he refused to go along with William Laud's high church discipline. He left Oxford in 1637, spent a stint as a as a private chaplain for six years, became a Presbyterian and went to Fordham, Essex in 1643. He was called to a Presbyterian congregation as its pastor, and very soon thereafter introduced and advocated independent church government. He preached before the Long Parliament around 1646 clearing proclaiming his independent and Parliamentarian views. In fact he preached there in 1649 the very day following the execution of Charles I. In 1658 he took an active role in the Savoy Assembly from which came an Independent Church Confession. He became a leader of the Independents, became a pastor in 1673 of a large Independent congregation at Leadenhall Street Chapel and remained there until his death in 1683.

In 1680, toward the end of his life when he wrote his work, Union Among Protestants, he stated at one point therein: “Those who are for the Presbyterian form of an authoritative national church-state do, indeed, cut off and cast away most of those things which are the matter of contest between the present dissenting parties, and so make a nearer approach towards a firm union among all Protestants than the other do; yet such an authoritative church-state, in that form, is neither proper nor possible unto this nation, nor consistent with that pre-eminence of the crown, that liberty of the subjects, and freedom of the consciences of Christians, which are their due.”

Now, to be sure, I'm most willing to have any ignorance of mine concerning him corrected, but if he was ever persuaded back to Presbyterian polity, I know nothing of it.

DTK


----------



## MW (Jul 12, 2009)

On some points I consider John Owen more Presbyterian than modern presbyterianism, especially in his views of worship and discipline. Where the order is biblical I doubt he would have found difficulty in communing with a parochial church. But Owen maintained the fundamental tenet of Independency, that constant communion contains virtual approbation of the church order, so that when the order contained unbiblical elements conscience required separation. Regrettably some Presbyterian bodies have incorporated this principle to the great detriment of the church and her witness. On the other side, some larger presbyterian bodies have become so idiosyncratic that it is likely Owen would have objected to their congregational independency under a superficial union.


----------



## DAW (Jul 12, 2009)

As a Congregationalist (CCCC) I am amused at my Presbyterian brethren trying to claim John Owen as one of their own. Please brothers, you have so many noble saints such as Knox, Calvin, Dabney, etc. I would implore you to let us Congregationalists continue to claim Owen as one of our own.

Having traveled in Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist circles, I have detected a tendency for these brethren to exempt a plurality of elders from Congregationalism. It is not so. See The Cambridge Platform, Ch. 7. "Of Ruling Elders and Deacons", Ch. 8. "Of the Election of Church Officers", Ch. 9. "Of Ordination and Imposition of Hands", and Ch.10. "Of the Power of the Church and Its Presbytery". I would point out that the term "Presbytery" here refers only to the session composed of teaching and ruling presbyters. Hence the word "Presbytery".

On the local level, there is very little difference between a Congregational church and a Presbyterian church. Each has a session composed of teaching and ruling elders. In the Congregational church, the elders have no judicial authority outside of the local congregation. Additionally, we Congregationalists tend to have more congregational meetings. Other than these distinctives, we Congregationalists share the same Calvinistic doctrines with Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, Reformed Anglicans and Dutch/German, etc. Reformed churches.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## beej6 (Jul 14, 2009)

Isn't a better question, "Would (your church) allow John Owen in the pulpit?" And wouldn't we all allow him? At least occasionally??


----------

