# Some Questions on Reformed Church Government



## A.J. (Jun 4, 2009)

Greetings,

I am doing a study on Reformed church government and I have already seen the case for the session/consistory, the presbytery/classis and the general assembly/synod, and quite convinced of the Biblical evidence. I have already seen as well the basis for the ruling elder from texts like Rom. 12:6-8, 1 Cor. 12:28 and especially 1 Tim. 5:17. Little did I know that there is a vast amount of literature that has been written on this subject (many of which can be read online) until last year. And I have been benefiting from the links in this forum provided by some of the members of the Puritan Board.

But I would like to clarfiy some issues though. 

1. People who reject the existence of a ruling elder as a separate office point to Acts 20:17, 28 and 1 Peter 5:1-4. They argue that since the elders/overseers in these texts are commanded to _shepherd_ the church of God, then it follows that both Paul and Peter do not see any distinction among elders who both rule and preach on the one hand, and elders who rule only. *All* the elders/overseers thus are also ministers/pastors since they are exhorted to do the work of _shepherding_. How does the case for the ruling elder fit into these texts? 

2. In 1 Tim. 3:1ff. (cf. Titus 1:5-9), it is said that one of qualifications for the office of the elder/overseer is that a man who desires to enter the office should be "able to teach." Based on this text, it is believed by some that Paul sees *all* elders _in principle_ as being involved in both ruling and teaching in public worship. I was reading a book which was written as an attempt to refute the belief that the ruling elder is a separate office from that of the teaching elder. One of the authors of that book apparently sees 1 Tim. 3:2 as a verse that should guide us in interpreting 1 Tim. 5:17. Because of 1 Tim. 3:2, he thinks that 1 Tim. 5:17 does not mean what those who believe in the existence of a ruling elder as a separate office think what it means. 

3. Do Reformed churches which subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity and confessional membership require their members to hold to the Three-Office View? In other words, will they not allow a person who sees the distinction between the minister/pastor and elder (cf. Belgic Confession Article 30) as simply a _difference in function_ and _not in office_ to be admitted into their membership? Or put differently, does the Belgic Confession require a *strict* Three-Office View? I am asking this because the Reformed congregation where I am currently attending and undergoing a catechism/membership class subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity and to confessional membership. 

4. Do Reformed churches in the Continental tradition also see the individual churches in the Bible (e.g., _the church_ in Jerusalem, Acts 8:1) as being composed of more than one congregation too (as Reformed churches in the Presbyterian tradition do)? It seems to me that the way Reformed denominations/federations are named has to do with some nuances on this issue. (Correct me if I am wrong.) Presbyterian denominations tend to go by the name "Church" (e.g., Orthodox Presbyterian *Church*) while those in the Continental tradition tend to go by the name "Churches" (e.g., United Reformed *Churches* in North America). 

5. Do American Presbyterian churches which subscribe to the American version of the Westminster Standards allow men who subscribe to the _original_ Westminster Standards to hold office? 

I am new to this very interesting subject. So please bear with me if I do not see things the way many of you (who have been Reformed believers for many years) see them. 

Thank you. 

Blessings,


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 4, 2009)

> Book of Church Order
> Presbyterian Church in America
> 
> CHAPTER 7
> ...



More-and-more I see how our Book of Church Order reflects doctrine and why it is "confessed" as part of the constitution of our denomination. It certainly has sections not based on Scripture directly or indirectly but it does reflect doctrine in some places.

For example,

7-1 shows how new authoritative revelation of God was concluded in the Apostolic age- doctrine which the explicit and implicit teachings/practices of charismatic/pentecostal communions are contrary to.

And throughout these sections reflects the understanding of "parity" between all elders- those who rule and those specially called to teach.



> *A.J*
> 
> 5. Do American Presbyterian churches which subscribe to the American version of the Westminster Standards allow men who subscribe to the original Westminster Standards to hold office?



In the PCA, the officer vows he comprehensively understands and receives each of the propositions/statements of the Westminster Standards (as adopted by the denomination), unless granted a 'minor' and peer-reviewed 'exception'. 

The question would not be substituting the "original" for the "adopted" version- it would only come into play if there were differences bearing on the "adopted" version and each of those, if any, would have to evaluated.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 4, 2009)

If a ruling elder is exactly the same as a minister (or TE), then the elder MUST be held to the SAME standards for ordination.

This would mean, in practical terms, that REs would have to be *seminary*-trained or *equivalent*, they would have to have the same competency in all the *subjects* that the church has deemed the minimum-requirements for a competent minister, _*including the original languages of the Scriptures.*_

We think that this standard is both PROPER, and yet an UNREASONABLE imposition on those whose competency in leadership and ruling are often BETTER than a younger man's--one who has pastoral gifts for the ministry and should be handling the Word and assisting the rulers of the people, but who cannot and should not be functioning as a little pope.

Indeed, it could be a decade or more before a minister has as much experience in leading the flock as he needs to be effective. Meanwhile, if he were not doing the ministry the people would be deprived of that work, and if the several elders were made to wait until or unless they achieved the minister's competency in theological matters, the church would be further deprived and likely fail due to lack of leadership.

We have arrived where we are in this form of government by 1) following the Bible's description, and 2) by a process of historical correction, that better conforms our practice to Scripture when we see the theory expressed in life.

I would also add that no study of church government can ignore the OT life of God's people, that included not only special ministers and offices, but "rulers of the people,' or elders.


----------

