# Should the local Church be autonomous?



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 1, 2010)

What are your thoughts on the autonomy of the local Church? Should local Church bodies be subject to any power outside of the local congregation?

I include God as the participating head of the local congregation if this is indeed a Christian Church.


----------



## JML (Apr 1, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> What are your thoughts on the autonomy of the local Church? Should local Church bodies be subject to any power outside of the local congregation?
> 
> I include God as the participating head of the local congregation if this is indeed a Christian Church.



Baptists - No

Presbyterians - Yes


----------



## Herald (Apr 1, 2010)

What John said. Really, after all the cases are made that's what it comes down to.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 1, 2010)

The presbyterian system is set up so that there are checks and balances. There are positives and negatives to both systems.

---------- Post added at 07:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------

Let me add that even though there is a body of authority outside each local church in the presbyterian systems, the general assembly and the presbytery, the congregation chooses its own pastor and elders. The church is represented at both the general assembly and the presbytery.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 1, 2010)

No. Indepenency is a great error and a decline from the principles of the Reformation.


----------



## JML (Apr 1, 2010)

Kevin said:


> No. Indepenency is a great error and a decline from the principles of the Reformation.


 
Spoken like a true Presbyterian.


----------



## Edward (Apr 1, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Should local Church bodies be subject to any power outside of the local congregation?


 
That's the Biblical model.


----------



## JML (Apr 1, 2010)

Edward said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Should local Church bodies be subject to any power outside of the local congregation?
> ...



Biblical references please.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 1, 2010)

Jesus Rules. Enough said.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 1, 2010)

Four views of church government are well-presented here, including that of presbyterian by Dr. Roy Taylor:

CEP Bookstore - WHO RUNS THE CHURCH? 4 VIEWS ON CHURCH GOV'T




> From the back cover of the book....
> 
> In Who Runs the Church? Four predominant approaches to church government are presented by respected proponents:
> 
> ...


----------



## Kevin (Apr 1, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > DD2009 said:
> ...


 
uhmm...Acts?


----------



## dudley (Apr 1, 2010)

I am a Presbyterian and for Presbyterians I say Yes!


----------



## JML (Apr 1, 2010)

Kevin said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> > Edward said:
> ...



I take it you mean the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Correct me if I am wrong.

Two things:

1. Are there apostles around today with apostalic authority?
2. In Galatians 2, Paul didn't seem too interested in making sure he checked with the council before he did anything. It was 14 years before he met with them.

---------- Post added at 08:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

I don't think we are going to get anywhere arguing about it though. Baptists will be Baptists and Presbyterians will be Presbyterians.


----------



## Edward (Apr 1, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > DD2009 said:
> ...


 
Acts 15.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 1, 2010)

There is not Autonomy if Christ is King. I am aligned with the Presbyterian system for the most part but can hang with the Congregational Plural Elder thingy also.

BTW, I do not believe Acts 15 is a place to go for such. It seems to refute it in my eyes.

You can see that here. 


> http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/new...aptists-updating-confession-53674/#post695999


----------



## JML (Apr 1, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There is not Autonomy if Christ is King. I am aligned with the Presbyterian system for the most part but can hang with the Congregational Plural Elder thingy also.
> 
> BTW, I do not believe Acts 15 is a place to go for such. It seems to refute it in my eyes.
> 
> ...


 
I thought you were a Baptist. I see you are RPCNA now. I guess I'm the lone Baptist on this one. Oh well.


----------



## Edward (Apr 2, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> BTW, I do not believe Acts 15 is a place to go for such. It seems to refute it in my eyes.


 
Heading for work, so I can't discuss it in detail this morning, but I would refer you to the proof texts for the Westminster Confession.


----------



## JennyG (Apr 2, 2010)

Thanks for another interesting question, David - you're so often asking just what I'd like explained too


----------



## TimV (Apr 2, 2010)

> Spoken like a true Presbyterian.



Or Catholic, or Orthodox, or Lutheran, etc.... Only Baptists start over at Matthew. If you take the Bible as a seamless story, then the most natural thing in the world would be to base the true Israel's structure on Israel's structure.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 2, 2010)

TimV said:


> > Spoken like a true Presbyterian.
> 
> 
> 
> the most natural thing in the world would be to base the true Israel's structure on Israel's structure.


 
Before or after they asked God to give them an earthy king?


----------



## JML (Apr 2, 2010)

TimV said:


> > Spoken like a true Presbyterian.
> 
> 
> 
> Or Catholic, or Orthodox, or Lutheran, etc.... Only Baptists start over at Matthew. If you take the Bible as a seamless story, then the most natural thing in the world would be to base the true Israel's structure on Israel's structure.


 
Do Presbyterians have priests then? Do you perform animal sacrifices? Do you have a temple? Do you celebrate passover? The feast of tabernacles? Are there Levites in the Presbyterian church? I don't remember presbyteries or synods in the OT either.

Not everything carries over.

Also, the common denominator of all the denominations that you gave is Catholicism. Lutherans and Greek Orthodox came out of Catholicism. The Church of England came of out Catholicism. Presbyterians came out of the Church of England. Baptists have been around since the ministry of John. 

I was trying to play nice because I know how these discussions can go south pretty quickly. But I think your post was a little bit of a cheap shot. Can't we all just get along.


----------



## TimV (Apr 2, 2010)

> Do Presbyterians have priests then?



We're all Priests now, so yes.



> Do you perform animal sacrifices?



Christ's sacrifice was sufficient: that's not a distinctive between us. I think you're typing faster than you're thinking 
We're talking distictives!



> Also, the common denominator of all the denominations that you gave is Catholicism. Lutherans and Greek Orthodox came out of Catholicism.



Interesting! The Greek Orthodox came out of the Roman Catholic church.



> Presbyterians came out of the Church of England. Baptists have been around since the ministry of John.



You truly need to take every book of the Trail of Blood genre in your library and sell them to the used book store.


----------



## JML (Apr 2, 2010)

Whoa Tim. I think you are taking my post a little too seriously. There was some joking going on in my post. I was trying to lighten the mood a little bit. Didn't you see the smiley.


----------



## TimV (Apr 2, 2010)

Ach, man...


----------



## JML (Apr 2, 2010)

Presbyterians  Baptists


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 2, 2010)

Whatever his stripe, I doubt anyone who participates in PB would accept any head of the church other than Christ. However, the idea of any one entity going off on its own seems very American, but very foreign to the scriptures. The OT order has already been mentioned but you also have the multiple apostles and multiple churches submitting to their authority. In Timothy and Titus, you again have a multiplicity in officers.

The Presbyterian system is routed not only in these examples of multiplicity, but also in the understanding that fallen man does not lead himself very well. We are to submit to one another in love, and that includes those multiple men leading a local church as well as those coming together for the regional church. 

In churches whose prelacy is independent, you typically end up with either the congregation being ruled by the 51 percent, or a strong, single figurehead. Even with multiple elders on the local level, accountability is needed as seen by the federal vision mess that is invading churches that _have_ the regional church. (Right now, I am praying that this will prove to be the necessary check.)

I find the colonial American congregational churches an interesting attempt to deal with these issues. The churches sided with the idea of multiple leadership at the local level, but even that could be discontinued as happened at Solomon Stoddard's church. Various associations were formed with varying level of authority. The publishing of sermons and essays for discussion allowed some checks and balances, at least in what was preached. Overall, it seemed to me that there was never a full resolution.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 2, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > > Spoken like a true Presbyterian.
> ...


 
I believe this order goes all the way back to Moses when he appointed elders to help rule.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Apr 2, 2010)

The Bible says no. Jus Divinum.


----------

