Congregational Polity and Being Reformed

[Scott Bushey]

Just for the record:

I am befuddled over father & sons congregational position in the body. Someone PLEASE help me to understand this.

[Edited on 11-15-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

"Islands in the stream, that is what we are, nothing in betweeen, ......."

 

[Irishcat922]

Be nice! :bigsmile:

 

[Scott Bushey]

Sean,
That is everyone's answer to the issue; 'be nice'.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Sean,
Is RC's congregational position a help to the reformed cause or a hindrance? How does it ser historically? Is this not a form of disention?

 

[Irishcat922]

Personally I find broad evangelicalism offensive and a hinderance, but Sproul is about the only thing we get that is reformed in this area.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Sean,
Sproul is not reformed; he is a congregationalist.

 

[Irishcat922]

I guess I meant reformed in a broader sense, Like MacArthur. I thought he was P.C.A.?

 

[Scott Bushey]

MacArthur is not reformed; he's dispensational. RC is not PCA. He left the PCA about 5 years ago.

 

[Irishcat922]

Yes I meant soteriologically, and I did not know Sproul had left the Presbyterian Church. I guess I should pay better attention.

[Edited on 15-11-2004 by Irishcat922]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I gather that RC Sproul, Jr. is part of the Reformed Presbyterian Church (General Assembly). I'm not still clear on Sproul, Sr.'s church affiliation.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I'm not still clear on Sproul, Sr.'s church affiliation.

It's made clear right at his church's website. Click on "Staff" then click on his name.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Sean,
Sproul is not reformed; he is a congregationalist.

Scott,

So John Cotton, John Owen, and Jonathon Edwards were not reformed, then???

Paul,
What is your definition of 'reformed'?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I'm not still clear on Sproul, Sr.'s church affiliation.

It's made clear right at his church's website. Click on "Staff" then click on his name.

Very helpful. Thanks. It appears that his church is completely independent (unaffiliated, congregational) and does not have a session; therefore, if I understand it correctly, it would be safe to say that Sproul, Sr. and his church are not (although they hold to the Westminster Confession) Presbyterian -- correct?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I'm not still clear on Sproul, Sr.'s church affiliation.

It's made clear right at his church's website. Click on "Staff" then click on his name.

Very helpful. Thanks. It appears that his church is completely independent (unaffiliated, congregational) and does not have a session; therefore, if I understand it correctly, it would be safe to say that Sproul, Sr. and his church are not (although they hold to the Westminster Confession) Presbyterian -- correct?

Agreed - especially when the word is considered in light of its very etymological definition and roots! Furthermore, that calls into question whether or not his church is a true church or a schism, since he did not leave the PCA over issues that could render it apostate in nature.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Good job Chris! You are following!!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I'm not still clear on Sproul, Sr.'s church affiliation.

It's made clear right at his church's website. Click on "Staff" then click on his name.

Very helpful. Thanks. It appears that his church is completely independent (unaffiliated, congregational) and does not have a session; therefore, if I understand it correctly, it would be safe to say that Sproul, Sr. and his church are not (although they hold to the Westminster Confession) Presbyterian -- correct?

Agreed - especially when the word is considered in light of its very etymological definition and roots! Furthermore, that calls into question whether or not his church is a true church or a schism, since he did not leave the PCA over issues that could render it apostate in nature.

Yes, that's a good point. I don't know the history there, but when an ordained officer leaves a denomination I think that due process must be followed, there must be Scriptural warrant to separate, and the goal in leaving should not be to start a new, unaffiliated church with oneself as the sole leader. As I say, I don't know the specifics of what happened in Sproul's case, but to go from the PCA to congregational-style church government does not bode well, In my humble opinion.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Yeah, this issue is especially fresh in my mind right now, as I was recently talking to Paul Martin (i.e. Rembrandt) about this issue of lawful calling and ordination, schism and authority. And while we of course need to be wary of Rome's hyper-viewpoint, modern evangelicalism has reacted with the very opposite, which is even infiltrating otherwise Reformed ministry like Sproul's.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by joshua
Has no one taken St. Andrew's to task?

Good question.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I'm not still clear on Sproul, Sr.'s church affiliation.

It's made clear right at his church's website. Click on "Staff" then click on his name.

Very helpful. Thanks. It appears that his church is completely independent (unaffiliated, congregational) and does not have a session; therefore, if I understand it correctly, it would be safe to say that Sproul, Sr. and his church are not (although they hold to the Westminster Confession) Presbyterian -- correct?

Agreed - especially when the word is considered in light of its very etymological definition and roots! Furthermore, that calls into question whether or not his church is a true church or a schism, since he did not leave the PCA over issues that could render it apostate in nature.

Yes, that's a good point. I don't know the history there, but when an ordained officer leaves a denomination I think that due process must be followed, there must be Scriptural warrant to separate, and the goal in leaving should not be to start a new, unaffiliated church with oneself as the sole leader. As I say, I don't know the specifics of what happened in Sproul's case, but to go from the PCA to congregational-style church government does not bode well, In my humble opinion.

This is what the anabaptists did...............They disented from the church.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Maybe, "Reformed really isn't enough"

While I'm basically of the same mindset as Scott on this current issue, and also see where you're coming from, I have to admit I got a great laugh out of this one!

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Sean,
Sproul is not reformed; he is a congregationalist.

Scott,

So John Cotton, John Owen, and Jonathon Edwards were not reformed, then???

Paul,
What is your definition of 'reformed'?

Honestly, I don't think that's an easy answer. I could, if i wanted too, define it as many things, one of them being: postmillennial. Now, you may scoff. but what's to say I won't do the same to your definition? You may say that WCF doesn't teach postmillennialism. I may be inclined to disagree, or, at least, optamistic amill (so are pessamistic amill not reformed? ). I may say that six day creation is reformed. Does that make churches within the OPC and PCA that don't hold this view, a non-reformed church? If yes, then you would disagree with the vote against strict confessionalism; is *that* reformed? if not, then the PCA isn't refomed.

So, at the very least, I would say that Owen, Edwards, Cotton are reformed. I mean, I actually think it is absurd to say that John Owen was not reformed. Somone might say, "no, he wasn't, but he was calvinistic." But what does that mean? Do you have to hold to *everything* Calvin taught, e.g., the "doctor" is a ordained office?

98.88%

 

[Scott Bushey]

Paul,
The term is more than a wax nose-no? Historically, it had certian ideas attached to it. For instance, historically speaking, one could not be an anabaptist and be considered 'reformed', correct? Even if this anabaptist held to the DOG"s, they were still not able to seize the title, correct?
Lets approach it from a different standpoint; who then is not reformed?

Paul,
Fred's a lawyer and you sound like one!

Your statements border upon relativism.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[turmeric]

This is all news to me! Yikes, what'll he do next? WHY did he stop being Presbyterian?

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Paul,
The term is more than a wax nose-no? Historically, it had certian ideas attached to it. For instance, historically speaking, one could not be an anabaptist and be considered 'reformed', correct? Even if this anabaptist held to the DOG"s, they were still not able to seize the title, correct?
Lets approach it from a different standpoint; who then is not reformed?

I'll start.

1. Benny Hinn
2. C.I. Schoefield
3. Charles Finney
4. Pelagius
5. John Wesley

 

[turmeric]

6. Charles Stanley
7. Rick Warren
8. James Dobson
9. J. Vernon McGee (though he used to be)
10. Bishop Spong

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Paul,
The term is more than a wax nose-no? Historically, it had certian ideas attached to it. For instance, historically speaking, one could not be an anabaptist and be considered 'reformed', correct? Even if this anabaptist held to the DOG"s, they were still not able to seize the title, correct?
Lets approach it from a different standpoint; who then is not reformed?

Paul,
Fred's a lawyer and you sound like one!

Your statements border upon relativism.

[Edited on 11-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]

Scott,

I think it is impossible to talk in terms of an anabaptist that espoused the DOG. They did not, and part of being an anabaptist was just such a rejection.

Also, I think the anabaptist position is a different one from that of Owen and the Savoy Declaration. The former rejected the Church. The latter sought a different polity for the Church. The former saw the Church as illegitimate. The latter saw it in need of improvement in a secondary area (polity).

Give me a reformed baptist anyday over certain of our Reformed Catholic brethren who agree with me in polity and overturn the doctrine of the sacraments (essentially and not just administratively) and justification.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Lets approach it from a different standpoint; who then is not reformed?

Those who do not consciously (or implicitly) confess one of the Reformed Confessions (WCF, Savoy, 1689, Three Forms)

 

[Me Died Blue]

Fred, would you then consider an independent or a credobaptist both just as "Reformed" in the historical sense as a Reformed Presbyterian who held to the WCF?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Fred, would you then consider an independent or a credobaptist both just as "Reformed" in the historical sense as a Reformed Presbyterian who held to the WCF?

Yes, in the sense that for me reformed is bigger than polity. I must admit that the line gets more blurry as you go from Savoy to 1689.