# Recommendation for Baptist/Independent Polity books



## fredtgreco (Nov 28, 2014)

I am looking for recommendations for books that treat church polity from a baptist or independent perspective. I already have resources for Presbyterianism, so I do not want suggestions for that. Which books would outline best the view of polity expressed (for example) in the 1689 confession?

Also, I am looking for books NOT internet articles or blog posts.

Thanks!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 28, 2014)

I'm unfamiliar with later works but as far as early works, the forthcoming NP title The Grand Debate has at least the Congregationalist objections to Presbyterianism as debated at the Westminster Assembly. You might check out volume 11 of Goodwin's works for his works on congregational polity, several of which reflect his contributions to The Grand Debate. He did the lion's share of work on the congregationalist side at the Westminster Assembly debates.


----------



## Jake (Nov 28, 2014)

The True Nature of a Gospel Church and Its Government written by John Owen


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 28, 2014)

Thanks. Any more modern suggestions? For example, what does Southern Seminary use in their class on church government?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Nov 28, 2014)

fredtgreco said:


> For example, what does Southern Seminary use in their class on church government?


Fred, you might consider contacting Dr Jim Renihan who has done extensive research in this area Westminster Seminary California - Academics - Degrees and Programs - Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies:: Westminster Seminary California. I would be careful of those at Southern Seminary etc who do not link their Baptist polity into a Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology. Reformed Baptists historically adopt John Owens Covenant Theology and their view of the church arises from this.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 28, 2014)

Is there a Book of Church Order (or the like) for ARBCA or FIRE churches?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 28, 2014)

Here are some of John Cotton's works that are currently on-line:

https://archive.org/details/keyeskingdomhea00cottgoog

http://www.digitalpuritan.net/Digit... of the Churches of Christ in New England.pdf

http://www.digitalpuritan.net/Digit...nstitution of a Particular Visible Church.pdf


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 28, 2014)

Here is Thomas Hooker's book on the subject, which was endorsed by John Cotton and Thomas Goodwin:

A survey of the summe of church-discipline: Wherein the way of the churches ... - Thomas Hooker - Google Books


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 28, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > For example, what does Southern Seminary use in their class on church government?
> ...



Whether here or privately, I'm interested in learning more about the kind of distinction you are trying to make here. While there are certainly debates over congregational government, elder-led congregationalism and elder rule among baptistic independents, I'm missing what one's conception (or rejection) of covenant theology has to do with it. You can find everyone from Semi-Pelagians to hyper-Calvinists and holding to all of those positions. From what I understand, what Pastor Greco is looking for is something akin to a book of church order and not various nuances and disagreements between "20th Century Reformed Baptists" "1689 Federalists" "Southern Seminary Progressive Covenantalists" or whatever.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 28, 2014)

Although probably wider in scope than what you are looking for, (and perhaps a little dated with all of the attention paid to Saddleback, although quite timely when it was published) Dr. John Hammett's Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches is an excellent resource. John MacArthur's Master's Plan for the Church seems to have been very influential although most Baptists (i.e. capital "B") do not follow him totally on elder rule. (The same could be said for A. Strauch's works.) Mark Dever's The Church: The Gospel Made Visible may perhaps be a (the?) new standard. (And the Kindle edition is currently $2.99) I'd be surprised if Southern, Southeastern and perhaps other Baptist institutions don't use it. From a more dispensational perspective, (and arguably its relevance is not limited to that) Robert Saucy's The Church in God's Program should be on the list. 

With regard to the 1689 specifically, it does not go into great detail on polity compared to the Savoy, and it would seem that (perhaps as with the confession's silence on marriage and divorce) this was by design. There have been debates or discussions over the past generation with regard to the kind of associationalism that appears to be described in the confession. Tom Chantry's recent book on the history of the modern RB movement delves into that in some detail.

With regard to the covenant theology of the 17th Century Particular Baptists, Pascal Denault's The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology is evidently the go-to book. There is much ferment in this area and there are probably some books I'm forgetting. But I am not aware of anything that is self-consciously "1689er" that is similar to Dever's "The Church." And Dever himself appears to agree with most if not all of the 1689 regardless.


----------



## Narthex (Nov 28, 2014)

http://www.amazon.ca/Elders-Congregational-Life-Rediscovering-Leadership/dp/0825433312

http://www.amazon.ca/Nine-Marks-Hea...TF8&qid=1417215012&sr=1-2&keywords=mark+dever


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Nov 28, 2014)

Pilgrim said:


> Whether here or privately, I'm interested in learning more about the kind of distinction you are trying to make here. While there are certainly debates over congregational government, elder-led congregationalism and elder rule among baptistic independents, I'm missing what one's conception (or rejection) of covenant theology has to do with it. You can find everyone from Semi-Pelagians to hyper-Calvinists and holding to all of those positions. From what I understand, what Pastor Greco is looking for is something akin to a book of church order and not various nuances and disagreements between "20th Century Reformed Baptists" "1689 Federalists" "Southern Seminary Progressive Covenantalists" or whatever.


I had in mind those who hold to New Covenant Theology which impacts on the Sabbath and Moral law. Reformed Baptists link their covenant theology to the sacraments (the sacraments are a 'church issue'). Church membership is covenantal (the New Covenant theology people in my country generally reject church membership). In other words I am suggesting that your view of Covenant theology will impact your view of the church.


----------



## MW (Nov 28, 2014)

Has Dagg been mentioned? His name was often dropped in discussions on this subject.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Nov 28, 2014)

MW said:


> Has Dagg been mentioned? His name was often dropped in discussions on this subject.



Yes, Dagg was the first one who sprang to mind for me.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 28, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > Whether here or privately, I'm interested in learning more about the kind of distinction you are trying to make here. While there are certainly debates over congregational government, elder-led congregationalism and elder rule among baptistic independents, I'm missing what one's conception (or rejection) of covenant theology has to do with it. You can find everyone from Semi-Pelagians to hyper-Calvinists and holding to all of those positions. From what I understand, what Pastor Greco is looking for is something akin to a book of church order and not various nuances and disagreements between "20th Century Reformed Baptists" "1689 Federalists" "Southern Seminary Progressive Covenantalists" or whatever.
> ...


No, not church government. Polity is typically independent of covenant theology.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Nov 28, 2014)

MW said:


> Has Dagg been mentioned?


Not sure. But one of your countrymen confused me with Dag http://www.puritanboard.com/f52/science-now-supports-reformed-baptist-position-84433/#post1056139


----------



## Tyrese (Nov 28, 2014)

fredtgreco said:


> I am looking for recommendations for books that treat church polity from a baptist or independent perspective. I already have resources for Presbyterianism, so I do not want suggestions for that. Which books would outline best the view of polity expressed (for example) in the 1689 confession?
> 
> Also, I am looking for books NOT internet articles or blog posts.
> 
> Thanks!



Hi Fred,

I know your looking for books only, but I thought I'd recommend three resources that may be helpful to you. One is a book, but the other two are online articles (Unfortunately). The topic/debate is Reformed Baptist Associations. So while these resources are not on polity per se, they have much to say about congregational Church polity.

1.Denominations or Associations? Essays on Reformed Baptist Associations- Renihan

2. David Chanski Herald of Grace | Reformed Christian Magazine – Associations

3. Allan Dunn Grace Covenant Baptist Church


----------



## whirlingmerc (Nov 29, 2014)

Polity on Church Discipline: A User’s Guide : 9Marks

Polity, a collection of ten Baptist polities from the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, together with three contemporary essays, pulled together by Mark Dever.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 29, 2014)

When I was at Southern I asked Dr. Tom Nettles if there was a Baptist equivalent to *Jus Divinum. * he said he wasn't aware of one.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 29, 2014)

I would recommend "Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches" by John S. Hammett. Christianbook.com: Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology: John S. Hammett: 9780825427695


----------



## reaganmarsh (Nov 29, 2014)

At SBTS we read Hammett (mentioned above), Dever's 9 Marks volume, the Counterpoints book on this subject, and the appropriate portions of various systematics texts. Dr. Nettles introduced us to Polity (ed. by Dever) and Dagg. It seems like I found that Gill had written on independency/congregationalism but I'll have to hunt later for the document.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 29, 2014)

Very helpful! Thanks all!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Nov 29, 2014)

Fred - you want "Edification and Beauty" by Dr Jim Renihan.

It is specifically an historical and theological expansion upon the 1689, and it is deeply edifying and beautiful!!

http://www.amazon.com/Edification-B...288854&sr=8-1&keywords=edification+and+beauty


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2014)

Chapter 39 of A Puritan Theology is a helpful Chapter. In part it reads:


> The Key of “the Keys”
> 
> Though Cotton was far from being Congregationalism’s only spokesman, he was indeed an influential figure for the articulation of that form of church polity in the 1640s.47 Owen is a case in point. More than once he insisted that Cotton’s Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven (1644) was uniquely persuasive for his own move to Congregationalism.48 He also took up Cotton’s defense after the latter’s death.49 Unfortunately, Owen never provided details as to what parts or arguments of Cotton’s Keyes were most persuasive to him as he converted to Congregationalism. But those arguments that distinguish Presbyterianism from Congregationalism and addressed recurring questions in debates between the two parties must have played no small role in Owen’s reevaluation of his own ecclesiology.
> As the title indicates, Cotton’s work seeks to cut the Gordian knot by addressing the question of the recipients of the “keys of the kingdom” (Matt. 16:19) and the extent of the power they represent. This had become a central battleground for debates about church government in mid-seventeenth-century England. Indeed, Powell has demonstrated that the matter of the keys occupied the main part of the Assembly’s discussion and writing in October 1643.50 All sides agreed that Christ gave the keys to Peter in Matthew 16. The question was whom Peter represented. Did Peter simply represent Peter, as Rome alleged? Or did Peter represent all of the apostles and, by extension, ministers of the Word and ruling elders as their successors? According to Powell it “was a central tenet of some English presbyterians that [quoting Samuel Rutherford] ‘the proper subject wherein Christ hath seated and intrusted all Church-power, and the exercise thereof, is only his own Church-officers.’*”51 The Dissenting Brethren, on the other hand, argued that Peter represented the communicant membership of the church. The keys were given to Peter “considered as a believer, having made his confession of faith, that Christ was the Son of God and therefore representing the Church of Believers, as unto whom all Church power should be first given.”52 As such, they meant that the keys had been given to the church “not as an Institution Political [… but] representing both Saints and Minister, to be divided into several bodies” or particular assemblies.53
> ...



Cotton's Book: http://quintapress.macmate.me/PDF_Books/The_Keys.pdf


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 29, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm unfamiliar with later works but as far as early works, the forthcoming NP title The Grand Debate has at least the Congregationalist objections to Presbyterianism as debated at the Westminster Assembly. You might check out volume 11 of Goodwin's works for his works on congregational polity, several of which reflect his contributions to The Grand Debate. He did the lion's share of work on the congregationalist side at the Westminster Assembly debates.



I was also going to point out that The Grand Debate will be a good resource to see how these arguments were presented at teh Assembly.

Naphtali Press Â» Blog Archive Â» #####Prepublication, The Westminster Assembly’s Grand Debate, $19.95 +s/h


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 29, 2014)

Yes; the only caveat is an historical context one; the questions arose in the context of the assembly's work and only what the assembly had agreed to as far as a Presbyterian consensus could be argued at that point and the Independents limited their presentations to avoid their underlying principles for political reasons. But the assembly did its best to point them out. Thus their papers ultimately were not and could not be a systematic treatment of the question of biblical polity. That being said; they are official documents of the assembly and give the majority's and minority's mind on the subject as far as they could go in the context of a hot politically charged debate. 


Semper Fidelis said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > I'm unfamiliar with later works but as far as early works, the forthcoming NP title The Grand Debate has at least the Congregationalist objections to Presbyterianism as debated at the Westminster Assembly. You might check out volume 11 of Goodwin's works for his works on congregational polity, several of which reflect his contributions to The Grand Debate. He did the lion's share of work on the congregationalist side at the Westminster Assembly debates.
> ...


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 30, 2014)

Among older writers, J.L. Dagg and the pertinent part of A.H Strong's ST text are classic works. Arguably, the same could be said for Grudem's systematic in our day. 

For what it's worth I had a copy of Phil Newton's "Elders in Congregational Life" (noted above) for sale here a couple of months ago but had no takers. But I think Pastor Greco is probably looking for something more comprehensive.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Dec 3, 2014)

Had a free moment to look up the passage from Gill I was so vaguely remembering, and have pasted it here below. Hope this helps! 

This is taken from Gill's Body of Practical Divinity, and may be accessed in context here: 1. Of a Gospel church, the Seat of Public Worship.

2b1b4. As the original constitution of churches is by consent and confederation, so the admission of new members to them, is upon the same footing: the primitive churches in the times of the apostles, "first gave their own selves to the Lord," as a body, agreeing and promising to walk in all his commandments and ordinances, and be obedient to his laws, as King of saints; "and to us," the apostles, pastors, guides, and governors, to be taught, fed, guided, and directed by them, according to the word of God; and to one another also, "by the will of God," engaging to do whatever in them lay, to promote each other's edification and the glory of God: and so all such who were added to them, it was done by mutual consent, as it always should be; as no man is to be forced into a church, or by any compulsory methods brought into it, so neither can he force himself into one; he has no right to come into a church, and depart from it when he pleases; both the one and the other, his coming into it and departure from it, must be with consent: a man may propose himself to be a member of a church, but it is at the option of the church whether they will receive him; so Saul assayed to join himself to the disciples, that is, he proposed to be a member with them, but they at first refused him, fearing he was not a true disciple, because of his former conduct; but when they had a testimony of him from Barnabas, and perceived that he was a partaker of the grace of God, and was sound in the faith of Christ, they admitted him, and he was with them going out and coming in: and it is but reasonable a church should be satisfied in these points, as to the persons received into their communion; not only by a testimony their becoming lives, but by giving an account of what God has done for their souls, and a reason of the hope that is in them; as well as by expressing their agreement with them in their articles of faith.

2b1b5. Something of this kind may be observed in all religious societies, from the beginning, that they were by agreement and confederation; so the first religious societies in families, and under the patriarchal dispensation, it was by the agreement of families, and the common consent of them, that they met and joined together for public worship, to call on the name of the Lord (Gen. 4:26), so the Jewish church, though national in some sense, yet was constituted by confederation; God prescribed to them laws in the wilderness, and they covenanted and consented to obey them (Ex. 24:7), he avouched them to be his people, and they avouched him to be their God; and then, and not before, were they called a "church," (Acts 7:38) and so the gospel church was spoken of in prophecy, as what should be constituted and increased by agreement and covenant (Isa. 44:5, 56:6, 7; Jer. 50:5), all which agrees with New Testament language; from whence it appears to be fact, that it was by consent and agreement that the first churches were formed, as before observed, and not otherwise; and nothing else but mutual consent, can make a man a church member: not faith it, the heart for that cannot be known until a man declares and professes it; nor a bare profession of faith, which, though necessary to membership, does not declare a man a member of one church more than of another, nor entitle more to one than to another; unless he gives up himself to a church, and professes his desire to walk with it in a subjection to the gospel of Christ: nor baptism, though a prerequisite to church fellowship, does not make a man a member of a church, as it did not the eunuch: nor hearing the word; for men ignorant and unbelievers may come into an assembly and hear the word (1 Cor. 14:24), yea, persons may hear the word aright, have faith, and profess it, and be baptized, and yet not be church members; it is only mutual consent that makes them such: persons must propose themselves to a church, and give up themselves to it, to walk in it, in an observance of the ordinances of Christ, and duties of religion; and the church must voluntarily receive them in the Lord. And,

2b1b6. Such a mutual agreement is but reasonable; for how should "two walk together except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3) and unless persons voluntarily give up themselves to a church and its pastor, they can exercise no power over them, in a church way; they have nothing to do with them that are without, they have no concern with the watch and care of them; nor are they entitled thereunto, unless they "submit themselves to one another in the fear of God;" they have no power to reprove, admonish, and censure them in a church way; nor can the pastor exercise any pastoral authority over them, except by agreement they consent to yield to it; nor can they expect he should watch over their souls as he that must give an account, having no charge of them by any act of theirs. Now,

2b1b7. It is this confederacy, consent, and agreement, that is the formal cause of a church; it is this which not only distinguishes a church from the world, and from all professors that walk at large, the one being within and the other without, but from all other particular churches; so the church at Cenchrea was not the same with the church at Corinth, though but at a little distance from it, because it consisted of persons who had given up themselves to it, and not to the church at Corinth; and so were members of the one and not of the other; "one of you," as Onesimus and Epaphras were of the church at Colosse, and not of another (Col. 4:9, 12). From all which it follows,

2b1b8. That a church of Christ is not parochial, or men do not become church members by habitation in a parish; for Turks and Jews may dwell in the same parish: nor is it diocesan; for we never read of more churches under one bishop or pastor, though there may have been, where churches were large, more bishops or pastors in one church (Phil. 1:1), nor provincial, for we read of churches in one province; as of the churches of Judea, and of Galatia, and of Macedonia: nor national; nay, so far from it, that we not only read of more churches in a nation, but even of churches in houses (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 1:2), nor presbyterian; for we never read of a church of presbyters or elders, though of elders ordained in churches; by which it appears there were churches before there were any presbyters or elders in them (Acts 14:23). But a particular visible gospel church is congregational; and even the church of England, which is national itself, defines a "visible church to be a congregation of faithful men; " and, indeed, the national church of the Jews was in some sense congregational; it is sometimes called the "congregation," (Lev. 4:13-15) they were a people separated from other nations, and peculiarly holy to the Lord; they met in one place, called, "the tabernacle of the congregation," and offered their sacrifices at one altar (Lev. 1:3, 4, 17:4, 5), and three times in the year all their males appeared together at Jerusalem; and besides, as Lightfoot[13] observes, there were stationary men at Jerusalem, who were representatives of the whole congregation, and were at the sacrifices for them: the synagogues also, though not of divine institution, were countenanced by the Lord, and bore a very great resemblance to congregational societies; and is the word which answers to "congregation" in the Septuagint version, and is used for a Christian assembly in the New Testament (James 2:2), to which may be added, that such congregations and assemblies as gospel churches be, are prophesied of as what should be in gospel times (see Eccl. 12:11; Isa. 4:5). A church of saints thus essentially constituted, as to matter and form, have a power in this state to admit and reject members, as all societies have; and also to choose their own officers; which, when done, they come a complete organized church, as to order power; of which more hereafter.


----------

