Congregationalism vs. Presbyterianism

Status
Not open for further replies.
And, of course, that is not true. Did Edwards leave Congregationalism? No, he did not.

Though it is of little consequence to the larger issue, the following statement of Edwards might be of interest. It has been brought up on the PB a few times; here is one post with his sentiments on the Presbyterial system:

You are pleased, dear Sir, very kindly to ask me, whether I could sign the Westminster Confession of Faith, and submit to the Presbyterian form of Church Government; and to offer to use your influence to procure a call for me, to some congregation in Scotland. I should be very ungrateful, if I were not thankful for such kindness and friendship. As to my subscribing to the substance of the Westminster Confession, there would be no difficulty; and as to the Presbyterian Government, I have long been perfectly out of conceit of our unsettled, independent, confused way of church government in this land; and the Presbyterian way has ever appeared to me most agreeable to the word of God, and the reason and nature of things; though I cannot say that I think, that the Presbyterian government of the Church of Scotland is so perfect, that it cannot, in some respects, be mended. Works of President Edwards I, 412 (copied from this post)

I've read the quote many times; I could say something similar, yet Edwards still did not change in reality. Edwards could have been pastor of a Presbyterian-style church yet he did not become one. He remained a Congregationalist.

---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 PM ----------

Man can corrupt any system, I suppose.

Indeed.
 
What is in question is the means by which Christ exercises His headship and aims to achieve the unity of His church. Is that means Presbyterial or something else. If that means is Presbyterial it must be so demonstrated and that demonstration must be by GNC from Scripture.

There is the explicit teaching of Scripture. I have already stated the fact that the churches of Jerusalem and Ephesus acted as one church, and thereby presbyterianism is shown to have precedent in the practice of the New Testament Church.

In stating the two fundamental principles of the sole headship of Christ and the unity of Christ's body I was drawing attention to the fact that Acts 15 is not the only Scripture adduced, contrary to the posted article -- that there are general principles which Presbyterianism seeks to take seriously and which constitute a part of the argument for it. If you would like to calmly discuss that argument I am more than willing to take you through it. If, on the other hand, you are only willing to offer disconnected, rash, and prejudiced criticism, which shows a distinct inability to follow through the chain of reasoning which establishes an argument, I decline.
 
In Elder Ruled Congregational Churches I have not seen a mob rule mentality. It is closer to the Prebyterian model without the over hang of a GA. They can deal with stuff more quickly than with a GA.

Randy, this is part of the problem I had with some of Gay's comments earlier, I see them being carried over by others on this thread. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about how Presbyterianism functionally works. For example, on a thread many months ago, there was the comment by someone operating from a a congregational mode who did not think that Presbyterian congregations called ministers. Here, you almost make it sound like a church session cannot get anything done without first having a meeting of GA (or General Synod in our case). That is simply not the case. In many ways, the Presbyterian model would function very much like the Reformed Baptist model you described on the local level. The Presbytery becomes involved in things such as examining/approving candidates for ministry or ministers who have been called by a particular congregation, or matters which involve the enter presbytery as a whole (admitting churches into fellowship, planting churches, organizing joint events for churches, etc.). The GA/GS oversees matters that pertain to the entire denomination (our mission boards for example, function under the oversight of GS), but understand that Presbyteries and Synods are still made up of those same ministers and ruling elders who make up local sessions; they are sent as representatives to Presbytery meetings and Synod meetings. It is not some imposed top-down hierarchical structure which Mr. Gay seems so confused about.
 
Fathers and Brothers,

I posted a comment yesterday that I meant as a joke. I am told that it caused offense to some of my Baptist brethren. I sincerely apologize.

One of my best friends is a Calvinistic baptist pastor and a graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He fills my pulpit when I can't be there (and even preached for me last Sunday.) He thought it was funny, and so I assumed others would as well. Bad assumption. I didn't mean to offend sensibilities.

I have more in common with you LBC type guys than I have in common with many men in my own denomination and will often seek out a Calvinistic Baptist church to attend worship when I'm traveling if I'm not satisfied with the paedobaptistic options available to me. That has included instances when those options were churches in my own denomination.

I am mortified that I caused offense. Please forgive me.

Your brother in Christ,
 
Fathers and Brothers,

I posted a comment yesterday that I meant as a joke. I am told that it caused offense to some of my Baptist brethren. I sincerely apologize.

One of my best friends is a Calvinistic baptist pastor and a graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He fills my pulpit when I can't be there (and even preached for me last Sunday.) He thought it was funny, and so I assumed others would as well. Bad assumption. I didn't mean to offend sensibilities.

I have more in common with you LBC type guys than I have in common with many men in my own denomination and will often seek out a Calvinistic Baptist church to attend worship when I'm traveling if I'm not satisfied with the paedobaptistic options available to me. That has included instances when those options were churches in my own denomination.

I am mortified that I caused offense. Please forgive me.

Your brother in Christ,

I'm assuming the post has been deleted. I was going to comment on it this evening. I will not now. I forgive you. Thank you.
 
Fathers and Brothers,

I posted a comment yesterday that I meant as a joke. I am told that it caused offense to some of my Baptist brethren. I sincerely apologize.

One of my best friends is a Calvinistic baptist pastor and a graduate of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He fills my pulpit when I can't be there (and even preached for me last Sunday.) He thought it was funny, and so I assumed others would as well. Bad assumption. I didn't mean to offend sensibilities.

I have more in common with you LBC type guys than I have in common with many men in my own denomination and will often seek out a Calvinistic Baptist church to attend worship when I'm traveling if I'm not satisfied with the paedobaptistic options available to me. That has included instances when those options were churches in my own denomination.

I am mortified that I caused offense. Please forgive me.
Your brother in Christ,

All is forgiven. Sorry I didn't pick up on the humor. That is something that can be problematic on discussion forums. I couldn't know the tone of voice or facial expressions your heart was implying.

I appreciate your work Pastor. Thanks for all you do.

Randy
 
In Elder Ruled Congregational Churches I have not seen a mob rule mentality. It is closer to the Prebyterian model without the over hang of a GA. They can deal with stuff more quickly than with a GA.

Randy, this is part of the problem I had with some of Gay's comments earlier, I see them being carried over by others on this thread. There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding about how Presbyterianism functionally works. For example, on a thread many months ago, there was the comment by someone operating from a a congregational mode who did not think that Presbyterian congregations called ministers. Here, you almost make it sound like a church session cannot get anything done without first having a meeting of GA (or General Synod in our case). That is simply not the case. In many ways, the Presbyterian model would function very much like the Reformed Baptist model you described on the local level. The Presbytery becomes involved in things such as examining/approving candidates for ministry or ministers who have been called by a particular congregation, or matters which involve the enter presbytery as a whole (admitting churches into fellowship, planting churches, organizing joint events for churches, etc.). The GA/GS oversees matters that pertain to the entire denomination (our mission boards for example, function under the oversight of GS), but understand that Presbyteries and Synods are still made up of those same ministers and ruling elders who make up local sessions; they are sent as representatives to Presbytery meetings and Synod meetings. It is not some imposed top-down hierarchical structure which Mr. Gay seems so confused about.

I understand how Presbyterianism works. I have been involved with two different Presbyterian congregations and I learned how it operated in the late 80's. Concerning Acts 16:4 I see that the Apostles were laying out mandates that were necessary because the New Testament hadn't been put together yet and now we have the New Testament that tells us how to function on a local level and in relationship to each other. I just am not so sure that the Presbyterian model is so set in stone as some make it sound. I think both Elder rule congregationalism and Presbyterianism are both very viable biblical ways of operating in the Lord. I do believe that one thing is for sure, Plural Eldership in a local congregation is a must. That is something many denominations lack in, in my opinion. I also think that Presbyterianism has a plus side in that it has more protection for the individual member (or Elder) if he is having problems in his local congregation such as Jonathon Edward's had. I just don't think you can state that the Presbyterian model is as set in stone as some make it out to be. I just don't think that Acts 15 is the place to say that this is where we get our Presbyterian model commanded and instituted by God. As I noted to Rev. Winzer, "Acts 15 is a record about a complaint of heresy not being addressed in Jerusalem. Paul had to confront Peter about it. That is why Paul had to go there to confront the issue and why he was moved to write the book of Galatians. The heresy was being dissiminated from Jerusalem. The decision and conclusion was binding because of the authority of Truth as recognized by the Apostles and Elders. The reason I posted the article was because so many use Acts 15 it to say this is where we get the Presbyterian formula for authority."

I am not trying to be combative. I hope you understand this. I am not saying that Prebyterianism is unbiblical. I am saying that I do not believe it is the only ordained way of Church order set up by the scriptures.

As I have asked and stated before. I really recommend that everyone read the book 'Who Runs the Church'. It is done very well. It is very edifying and everyone can gain a good understanding of each view along with the critiques of each view.
 
I appreciate that Randy. As long as everyone understands that Presbyterianism does not automatically become the PCUSA de facto, and that everyone recognizes that Presbyterian churches don't have to convene a meeting of Synod in order to buy a box of pencils, I think I can let that drop. Congregationalism is one of the reasons that a multitude of TV preachers are allowed to stay in business without any oversight, but I would never suggest that all congregational churches devolve into such insanity, either.

A couple of things to keep in mind, with regard to the discussion about Acts:

1) The meeting at Jerusalem involved both Apostles and elders. Acts 16:4 says, "Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe." Both apostles and elders meeting in Jerusalem passed decrees, and this was passed along to other churches (or congregations in other cities if you prefer) to observe (see also Acts 15:23). I plead ignorance here as I do not see how it would be possible to implement this in a congregational system.

2) Your comments on the reason (more specifically, the timing) of Galatians may or may not be correct. There are actually two theories behind the writing of the book of Galatians: a northern Galatian theory and a southern Galatian theory (i.e., whether Paul was writing to churches in northern Galatia or southern Galatia). These hinge on whether Acts 15 is the background for Galatians. Under the northern Galatian theory, it is, but here is the problem: the northern Galatian theory has actually been used to undermine the historical reliability of Acts 15. The southern Galatian theory fits better with the context of Galatians 2. In Galatians 2:2, Paul says he went to Jerusalem because of a revelation, and he met in private. That does not sound like Acts 15. Also, Galatians 2:10 says "they only asked us to remember the poor," quite a bit different from the decision of the Jerusalem council. The events of Galatians 2 actually seem to fit better with the relief trip of Acts 11-12. I am only saying this to warn that certain liberals have attempted to undermine the accuracy of Acts 15 by attempting to equate it with Galatians 2 and pointing out the supposed "contradictions." Certainly Paul wrote Galatians to combat the false teaching of the Judaizers, but the timeline which you have asserted here may or may not be correct with regard to Acts 15, and you may wish to reconsider.

3) In my humble opinion, this entire thread became derailed when you posted section from the Gay article. You even said you edited it, If I recall correctly. Yet you left in the "Papist" comment. Personally, that really offended me. Yes, I know that did not come from you, and I know you have qualified it on subsequent posts. I also appreciate the fact that you are "not saying that Prebyterianism is unbiblical." But that does not seem to be what Mr. Gay is saying at all.
 
Machen... Just because you run a presbyterian polity does not mean that good men will now be impervious to harm from their own church body.

Amen to that. Ungodly men can corrupt even a system instituted by God (Hophni and Phineas, anyone?). But I also believe (someone correct me if I am wrong) that Machen was unjustly prosecuted by his denomination. I believe charges were brought against him by a presbytery that did not have jurisdiction over him.
 
I think the Cambridge Platform does a good job of framing the Congregationalist theory of ecclesiastical polity:

The Cambridge Platform 10:3

This government of the church is a mixed government (and so has been acknowledged, long before the term of independency was heard of); in respect of Christ, the head and king of the church, and the Sovereign Power residing in him, and exercised by him, it is a monarchy; in respect of the body or brotherhood of the church, and power from Christ granted unto them it resembles a democracy, in respect of the presbytery (or elders) and power committed unto them, it is an aristocracy. (Emphasis mine)

I also like what Mark Dever has to say on this subject:

Almost every gathering of believers is congregational to some degree, whatever the formal structure of government. Even a church in which the congregation only holds title to the property is in some sense a congregationally governed church. In that case, the congregation could always decide simply to pull the plug on the whole thing if they didn’t agree with their leaders’ decisions. Even more is a church considered congregational if the congregation has the final say in issues of budget or the call of a pastor. Add to that the congregation as the final court of appeal in terms of doctrine and discipline, disputes and membership, and you begin to have a congregational church not unlike the models given us in the New Testament. How much further a congregation decides to involve itself corporately in decisions about the leadership, the staff, and the budget, is then a matter of prudence and discretion for decision within individual congregations. Neither nominating committees nor trustees are found on the pages of the New Testament. You look in vain for finance committees or small group leadership teams. Belief in the sufficiency of Scripture, however, doesn’t forbid such structures; it just relativizes their authority. It clearly demonstrates that they are not of the essence of the church, and that they must submit themselves to the wisdom of the whole congregation.

Mark Dever
A Display of God's Glory (pp. 38-39)

In closing, I would encourage brethren on both sides of this debate to avoid highlighting the failiures of the opposing systems as proof of their unsoundness. The most biblical form of church governance is not infallible in the execution of its power (e.g. Johnathan Edwards' dismissal).
 
Mark Dever thinks that the congregation is the final court of appeal in terms of doctrine, and he thinks this is the NT pattern? I find that extremely problematic.
 
Mark Dever thinks that the congregation is the final court of appeal in terms of doctrine, and he thinks this is the NT pattern? I find that extremely problematic.

You need to read this quote within its context to best understand what he is saying. This statement fits within a larger framework:

Matters of Doctrine.

All of the letters of the New Testament (except Philemon and the pastorals) were written to churches as a whole, instructing them as a whole on what their responsibilities were. Even in matters of the fundamental definition of the gospel, the congregation seemed to be the court of [earthly] final appeal. So in Galatians 1, Paul calls on congregations of fairly young Christians to sit in judgment of angelic and apostolic preachers (even himself! Gal. 1:8) if they should preach any other gospel than the one which the Galatians had accepted. He doesn’t write merely to the pastors, to the presbytery, to the bishop or the conference, to the convention, or to the seminary. He writes to the Christians who compose the churches, and he makes it quite clear that not only are they competent to sit in judgment on what claims to be the gospel, but that they must! They have an inescapable duty to judge those who claim to be messengers of the Good News of Jesus Christ according to the consistency of their new claims with what these Galatian Christians already knew to be the gospel.

Paul makes this point again in II Timothy 4:3 when he counsels Timothy and the church in Ephesus on the best way to handle false teachers. When he describes the coming tide of false teachers in the church, he particularly blames, in 4:3, those who “to suit their own desires… gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” Whether in selecting them, or paying for them, or approving of their teaching, or in simply consenting to listen to them repeatedly, the congregation here is culpable. They are held as guilty for tolerating false teaching, as are the false teachers themselves. In basic doctrinal definition, the congregation as a whole is the final court held out in Scripture.

Mark Dever
A Display of God's Glory (pp. 34-35)
 
Mark Dever thinks that the congregation is the final court of appeal in terms of doctrine, and he thinks this is the NT pattern? I find that extremely problematic.

You need to read this quote within its context to best understand what he is saying. This statement fits within a larger framework:

Matters of Doctrine.

All of the letters of the New Testament (except Philemon and the pastorals) were written to churches as a whole, instructing them as a whole on what their responsibilities were. Even in matters of the fundamental definition of the gospel, the congregation seemed to be the court of [earthly] final appeal. So in Galatians 1, Paul calls on congregations of fairly young Christians to sit in judgment of angelic and apostolic preachers (even himself! Gal. 1:8) if they should preach any other gospel than the one which the Galatians had accepted. He doesn’t write merely to the pastors, to the presbytery, to the bishop or the conference, to the convention, or to the seminary. He writes to the Christians who compose the churches, and he makes it quite clear that not only are they competent to sit in judgment on what claims to be the gospel, but that they must! They have an inescapable duty to judge those who claim to be messengers of the Good News of Jesus Christ according to the consistency of their new claims with what these Galatian Christians already knew to be the gospel.

Paul makes this point again in II Timothy 4:3 when he counsels Timothy and the church in Ephesus on the best way to handle false teachers. When he describes the coming tide of false teachers in the church, he particularly blames, in 4:3, those who “to suit their own desires… gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” Whether in selecting them, or paying for them, or approving of their teaching, or in simply consenting to listen to them repeatedly, the congregation here is culpable. They are held as guilty for tolerating false teaching, as are the false teachers themselves. In basic doctrinal definition, the congregation as a whole is the final court held out in Scripture.

Mark Dever
A Display of God's Glory (pp. 34-35)

His fundamental premise is wrong. Paul's letters were not written to single congregations, but to "the church at" <such-and-such city>. This implies, at the least, a certain degree of unity and co-leadership among the elders over the churches in a given city.
 
Independency comports with the human heart.

Not necessarily. All humans know we are made interdependent. We all need each other in some form and in some capacity. "No man is an island," is a famous saying that even pagans understand. At the same time we all do stand before God as individuals. Therefore there is some recognition of the individual in theology and in mans standing before God.
 
Independency comports with the human heart.

Not necessarily. All humans know we are made interdependent. We all need each other in some form and in some capacity. "No man is an island," is a famous saying that even pagans understand. At the same time we all do stand before God as individuals. Therefore there is some recognition of the individual in theology and in mans standing before God.
......
Pro 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
 
Independency comports with the human heart.

Not necessarily. All humans know we are made interdependent. We all need each other in some form and in some capacity. "No man is an island," is a famous saying that even pagans understand. At the same time we all do stand before God as individuals. Therefore there is some recognition of the individual in theology and in mans standing before God.
......
Pro 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

Simply incredible.
 
Independency comports with the human heart.

Not necessarily. All humans know we are made interdependent. We all need each other in some form and in some capacity. "No man is an island," is a famous saying that even pagans understand. At the same time we all do stand before God as individuals. Therefore there is some recognition of the individual in theology and in mans standing before God.
......
Pro 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
Simply incredible.
Clarification: Not inferring foolishness on the part of Randy's comments, but intended as a counterpoint to them. Independency can be foolish. Apologies for the lack of further explanation.
 
I would strongly recommend that we cease commenting any further on this thread because of the Lord's Day. It has developed the tendency of becoming heated in some of the exchanges. If there are further comments, perhaps the discussion can continue on Monday.

And my apologies if any of my posts have offended any of the brothers.
 
Agreed, as I will contemplate my continued participation on this board.

Brother, if my comments have caused you offense, please accept my sincere plea for forgiveness. My anger was over the unwise use of the word "Papist" (from someone not even on the PB), and it was not intended for any of the brethren. If my words and actions have caused offense, then I will leave this thread post haste.
 
The thread and wandered into a conflation of issues: the exegetical/theological arguments for particular forms of polity AND the endemic practical weaknesses perceived to attach to various forms of polity.

Folks, let's all admit that Presbyterianism does not automatically result in the PCUSA any more than the ABCUSA is the logical conclusion of congregational polity. Frankly, NO polity has proven to serve as a fail safe against heresy. Notice how many American colleges and denominations have drifted shockingly from their original founding documents and ethos.

Ironically, just about the only Christian academic institution I know of that has "kept the faith" for more than 100 years without substantial erosion is Moody Bible Institute, the dispi school where two of my children graduated and where one of my kids serves as an adjunct professor. Interestingly, MBI still holds to inerrancy, the view which historian Harold Lindsell named as the watershed doctrine in his Battle for the Bible and the Bible in the Balance, in the controversy three decades ago.

In fact, just about the only "hero" in Lindsell's book, again ironically given this thread, was the Southern Baptists. And, here, the ecomiums were directed at a conservative resurgence that used Baptist polity to effect the transformation but was not particularly "Baptist" in its core methodology. Frankly, I see inerrancy pretty much as Lindsell does. If you modify it or temporize it, you will go liberal, regardless of your polity. If you hold firmly to inerrancy, you will tend to remain orthodox, regardless of your polity.

Whatever the anecdotal data you can adduce to "prove" the weaknesses of Presbyterian or Baptist polity, I can come up with even more hair raising stories to undermine the "other" side. If we want to discuss polity, perhaps it would be more constructive to stick to the biblical and theological arguments and not attempt to prove that adopting one of them or the other will inevitably result in heinous and pernicious consequences.

Frankly, taking a couple of liberties with Mama Boucher's famous line in Adam Sandler's Waterboy, "That's Nonsense, my polity is the right one; your polity is the Devil!" :lol:
 
I would like to see a discussion from proponents of both types of ecclesiology.

You might do better with the sources - Goodwin and Cotton on the Congregational side, Jus Divinum and Daniel Cawdrey (originally typed Featley by mistake) on the Presbyterian. Or, Westminster vs. Savoy.
 
Last edited:
You may mean Daniel Cawdrey. Featley was one of the few Episcopalians that attended [the Westminster Assembly] for a time before he was arrested and put in prison.
 
Last edited:
One wonders how many of the Presbyterian contributors to this thread have spent enough time outside the Presbyterian cocoon to experience a well ordered congregational church.

Before throwing epithets around, may I suggest that it will be more fitting to do so after you have supplied a demonstration that Presbyterian policy is in fact the GNC outcome of the sole headship of Christ over the church and the unity of the church in the world.

With all due respect, suggesting that Presbyterians favor a particular polity because they live in a "Presbyterian cocoon" is quite a substantial bit of epithet tossing in its own right. It's not quite up there with the "Papist" post, but it is sufficient well-poisoning. Perhaps you could concede, however, that many Presbyterians (myself included) may have grown up in a Baptist context, took congregationalism as granted because that's all we'd ever known, and actually found the Presbyterian form to be the more biblical one. More like a butterfly than a cocoon, actually.

With all due respect, you are misunderstanding my points. I was not charging that all Presbyterians prefer that polity because of limited experience: I was wondering whether limited experience of well run Congregationism (which is what my "Presbyterian cocoon" was meant to imply) is what lies behind the previously occuring mischaracterizations of Congregationalism, especially that which described it as "mob rule". Given the appropriate use of church constitutions (trust deeds in England) and well thought out church or membership covenants "mob rule" simply will not happen easily if it happens at all. The equivalent mischaracterization in reverse would be to sum up Presbyterianism as "ecclesiastical tyranny," something the system may unfortunately descend to in particular cases, but not justly characteristic of the system as a whole.

---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

Mark Dever thinks that the congregation is the final court of appeal in terms of doctrine, and he thinks this is the NT pattern? I find that extremely problematic.

You need to read this quote within its context to best understand what he is saying. This statement fits within a larger framework:

Matters of Doctrine.

All of the letters of the New Testament (except Philemon and the pastorals) were written to churches as a whole, instructing them as a whole on what their responsibilities were. Even in matters of the fundamental definition of the gospel, the congregation seemed to be the court of [earthly] final appeal. So in Galatians 1, Paul calls on congregations of fairly young Christians to sit in judgment of angelic and apostolic preachers (even himself! Gal. 1:8) if they should preach any other gospel than the one which the Galatians had accepted. He doesn’t write merely to the pastors, to the presbytery, to the bishop or the conference, to the convention, or to the seminary. He writes to the Christians who compose the churches, and he makes it quite clear that not only are they competent to sit in judgment on what claims to be the gospel, but that they must! They have an inescapable duty to judge those who claim to be messengers of the Good News of Jesus Christ according to the consistency of their new claims with what these Galatian Christians already knew to be the gospel.

Paul makes this point again in II Timothy 4:3 when he counsels Timothy and the church in Ephesus on the best way to handle false teachers. When he describes the coming tide of false teachers in the church, he particularly blames, in 4:3, those who “to suit their own desires… gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” Whether in selecting them, or paying for them, or approving of their teaching, or in simply consenting to listen to them repeatedly, the congregation here is culpable. They are held as guilty for tolerating false teaching, as are the false teachers themselves. In basic doctrinal definition, the congregation as a whole is the final court held out in Scripture.

Mark Dever
A Display of God's Glory (pp. 34-35)

His fundamental premise is wrong. Paul's letters were not written to single congregations, but to "the church at" <such-and-such city>. This implies, at the least, a certain degree of unity and co-leadership among the elders over the churches in a given city.

Do we know that there were individual "churches" in the modern sense of " separate congregations that did not meet together but were linked by leadership" in NT times and if so how do we know it? Or are we reading later church structures into the NT evidence?
 
Dennis:

To expand your view a bit, and before one of the RPCNA boys chimes in with deserved pride, other examples of schools that have kept the faith include Geneva College (1848) and the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary (1810 !)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top