Yes, that was it. Thanks for the correction.
Congregationalism vs. Presbyterianism
- Thread starter Backwoods Presbyterian
- Start date
- Status
Yes, that was it. Thanks for the correction.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
You have no exegetical basis on which to substantiate your claim. While your theory may be correct, we have no way of finally knowing. The simple fact is that Paul addresses his letters, "to the church at..." not "churches." He employs the singular for church, not plural.
However, Paul (and others) do address church officers in the plural (e.g. "bishops and deacons" Phil. 1:1) while employing the singular of church. This has been the biblical basis for a plurality of elders in the local church for Presbyterians and Baptists alike.
Conjecturing that the plurality of elders was due to multiple congregations within one city (e.g. Ephesus) has been the primary argument against a plurality of elders and for a single elder in each church. But the fact is that such an argument is entirely from silence and without any biblical support.
Your interpretation of the singular noun "church" in the Epistles as actually being multiple churches threatens to undo the very foundation of presbyterian polity, namely, government by a plurality of elders in each local church.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
May God grant us peace. My apologies again to those I have offended. I count this a disagreement among brethren. I am convinced of my own position, but I understand that those who disagree are fully convinced as well. That doesn't diminish their value to me in the love for them Christ has planted in my heart, and seeing no probability of edification from it, I am disengaging from the discussion.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Wayne, I was aware of both instances but only from afar. My only first hand experience with a school still holding to its founding is MBI. Frankly, my "dis" was directed at a variety of schools personally familiar to me (e.g., Westmont, Wheaton, APU, Eastern, Central, ABSW, a certain So. Cal. seminary in my educational background
, etc.)
Actually I do not believe the passage you posted was a very good reference to the situation. A person can be very self sufficient (and I use the term loosely) and not be a fool. Many would use this charge, that you have used, against Luther and Calvin I believe. Maybe you might need to clarify what you mean by independency. Congregationalism is not Independency or it would be a man standing on an island all alone. As I mentioned before, we were made interdependent as a matter of creation.
There are basically four forms of Church Government. Hierarchy, Presbyterian, Plural Elder Congregationalism, and Congregationalism. All forms of these Goverments require that a body of people relate to a level of authority and Camaraderie. The passage you quote...
... really doesn't apply in my estimation.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
For those interested in a simple, brief, and biblical explanation of plural-elder congregationalism, I would encourage you to read this little book:
A Display of God's Glory: Basics of Church Structure Deacons, Elders, Congregationalism & Membership
Here are some other good resources:
Historical Documents of Congregationalism - This book contain three famous Congregationalist documents: 1) The Savoy Declaration of Faith, 2) the Cambridge Platform, and 3) The heads of Agreement. The book carries a forward by David F. Wells, and each of the three documents receives a brief introduction. The book will be of interest to those who are committed to or interested in the “Congregational way” of English Puritans such as John Owen and Thomas Goodwin, and New England Puritans such as John Cotton and the Mathers.
Visible Saints - This is the standard academic work of the origins of Congregationalism in England.The author has included an appendix in which he has added further material that he has gathered since it was first published in 1956.
A Display of God's Glory: Basics of Church Structure Deacons, Elders, Congregationalism & Membership
Here are some other good resources:
Historical Documents of Congregationalism - This book contain three famous Congregationalist documents: 1) The Savoy Declaration of Faith, 2) the Cambridge Platform, and 3) The heads of Agreement. The book carries a forward by David F. Wells, and each of the three documents receives a brief introduction. The book will be of interest to those who are committed to or interested in the “Congregational way” of English Puritans such as John Owen and Thomas Goodwin, and New England Puritans such as John Cotton and the Mathers.
Visible Saints - This is the standard academic work of the origins of Congregationalism in England.The author has included an appendix in which he has added further material that he has gathered since it was first published in 1956.
Are you suggesting one congregation per city? What do you do with verses such as Col. 4:15 which indicate multiple congregations?
Regarding the singular use of "church," I believe this supports the Presbyterian view. I view the church not primarily as a collection of independent (more or less) congregations, but as a whole that is divided into congregations for primarily geographical reasons, not because it is the fundamental nature of the Church. Most leadership needs to take place at the local level for pragmatic reasons, and this is why local churches have elders making most of the important decisions. However, the unitary nature of the Church permits broader governance where prudent, such as the city organization of churches (which I believe is implied in Paul's letters) and the Jerusalem Council as an extraordinary case where even broader leadership was necessary.
I am not going to have time to continue this, so I promise I will read and consider your reply, but I will let you have the last word.
timmopussycat - I believe my response addresses what you brought up in your reply as well, so please feel free to respond to this as well if you like.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Are you suggesting one congregation per city? What do you do with verses such as Col. 4:15 which indicate multiple congregations?
Regarding the singular use of "church," I believe this supports the Presbyterian view. I view the church not primarily as a collection of independent (more or less) congregations, but as a whole that is divided into congregations for primarily geographical reasons, not because it is the fundamental nature of the Church. Most leadership needs to take place at the local level for pragmatic reasons, and this is why local churches have elders making most of the important decisions. However, the unitary nature of the Church permits broader governance where prudent, such as the city organization of churches (which I believe is implied in Paul's letters) and the Jerusalem Council as an extraordinary case where even broader leadership was necessary.
I am not going to have time to continue this, so I promise I will read and consider your reply, but I will let you have the last word.
No, but I am suggesting one church for every group that Paul addresses as a "church."
In Col. 4:15 Paul instructs the recipients of his letter to greet the brethren in neighboring cities. There is no explicit statement that these groups were apart of the "church" which Paul is addressing. Secondly, He does explicitly state that the brethren meeting in Nymphas' house are a church in their own right, and distinct from the church being addressed.
If anything, this verse provides clear evidence that Paul saw each local congregation of saints as a distinct church.
As far as the Jerusalem Council is concerned, the presence of extraordinary officers (i.e. The Apostles) makes viewing this instance as normative for the church today quite difficult. Beyond that, there is no evidence that the ordinary officers of the New Testament (i.e. elders and deacons) exercised any authority outside of their own congregations.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
And this ignores the fact that there was a transition in the NT from the Apostles to elder leadership, that elders were also present at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, that it was decree of both Apostles and elders that was deemed authoritative (Acts 16:4), and that this authority extended beyond the bounds of a local congregation.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Thanks for the clarification. For future reference, utilizing what sounds like a loaded term ("Presbyterian cocoon") is going to generate misunderstanding. But I will concede that "mob rule" (not my phrase) is no better.
For what it's worth, I will also admit that my wife and I have attended a local Reformed Baptist church from time to time (Reformed Baptist as the "denomination" or association; not a Baptist church that happens to be Reformed). We have friends in that congregation, I have met with the pastors there (one is a PBer), and I have a tremendous amount of respect for them. As an outside observer, I see a well-ordered local church that does not have a "mob rule" mentality. I do not know enough about RB churches, however, to know how closely linked they are with one another. The RB form of gov't, which is very similar to the Presbyterian model at the local level (something Randy points out above, I believe), works well. However, it is the connectional nature of the church and general church (in the plural sense) oversight which is in question here, I believe.
Note that I am here contrasting the group that calls itself Reformed Baptist from Baptist churches that happen to have a Reformed pastor. The former works well on a local level; the latter, as I'm sure many of you can attest, does not always do so. There are plenty of stories about congregations calling a Reformed man and becoming hostile to that fact once it became known, and then the majority got rid of him. In a similar way, one of the quickest ways for a Presbyterian (and RB too, for that matter) church to fall apart is for bad elders to be elected/appointed to the Session.
Last edited:
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Actually, Paul writes Galatians to the churches (plural) in Galatia (Galatians 1:2).
I agree, as is the phrase that Hierarchial government ultimately leads to a papist view. I am not so sure that David Gay might have implied that ultimately, but the inference was definitely there and historically the actions did happen.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Indeed he does. Galatia not being a city but rather a large region, Paul necessarily addresses the letter to multiple churches. This fact militates against interpreting the singular form of "church" in other epistles as applying to all of the local churches within any designated geographical area (e.g. Ephesus, Thessalonika, Rome). If there were multiple churches in Ephesus or Philippi, it stands to reason that Paul would have also addressed them as "churches" as he does when addressing the Galatians. But he does not. This leads us to conclude that when Paul addresses his letter to a "church" that he is referring to one, local body of believers. This does not account for the size of a singular church, but that it was one church and not several churches in an area.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Of course Galatia is a region; I was simply pointing out a very minor error in your previous post. Keep in mind as well, however, that Paul does not always reserve the word "church" (even when singular) to refer a single individual congregation of believers; he sometimes uses it in a much broader sense (e.g., Galatians 1:13; Ephesians 5:23ff; Philippians 3:6; etc.).
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Part of the disagreement here is over the nature of the church itself. If one holds to a certain view of the visible and invisible church, then that will necessarily affect one's ecclesiology (and not just polity, but the nature of the sacraments as well -- we may be starting the conversation too late in the game, w/o analyzing our own presuppositions in this discussion). And I'm not sure Dever is the one I would go to as the point man on this, as many of the Reformed Baptists on this thread would disagree with him here (this is from his church's Statement of Faith, found here): We believe that a visible church of Christ is a congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel; observing the ordinances of Christ; governed by His laws; and exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His word; that its only scriptural officers are Bishops or Pastors, and Deacons, whose qualifications, claims, and duties are defined in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus." If I am reading that correctly, Dever's congregation does not hold to a plurality of elders (unless they are equating a plurality of pastors/bishops as exactly the same thing). This is in part because Capitol Hill Baptist Church follows the New Hampshire Confession of Faith rather than the LBC; the LBC says "bishops or elders, and deacons" instead. Maybe I am reading too much into that, or am not understanding the Baptist distinctions here, so please forgive me and correct me if I am in error here.
One more consideration as far as presuppositions go: how much do secular governing principles factor into our presuppositions in this area? For example, when monarchial forms of government reigned supreme, the episcopal form of polity was the only game in town. Presbyterianism developed (at least in part) as a reaction against this (one could say the same about the English Baptists). Presbyterianism flourished in the early history of this country at a time in which representative forms of government were enthusiatically pursued. But even though the form of government in the U.S. is technically a constitutional republic (a representative form of gov't), the common perception is that the U.S. gov't is a democracy, and that the "majority rules." Under such a view, Baptistic forms of church gov't seem to flourish.
These are just observations, and they probably deviate from accuracy. And we all live in our own cocoons to some degree or another (although this is less true about the PB brethren). For instance, I always find it fascinating to speak with those from a Baptist tradition who assume that church government has always been congregational in nature and are surprised to find out that other denominations do things in different ways. Some might have experienced Methodism, and they then assume that Presbyterians do things just like Methodists. I guess this is one good thing that results from these sorts of discussions -- we can all learn something from one another.
One more consideration as far as presuppositions go: how much do secular governing principles factor into our presuppositions in this area? For example, when monarchial forms of government reigned supreme, the episcopal form of polity was the only game in town. Presbyterianism developed (at least in part) as a reaction against this (one could say the same about the English Baptists). Presbyterianism flourished in the early history of this country at a time in which representative forms of government were enthusiatically pursued. But even though the form of government in the U.S. is technically a constitutional republic (a representative form of gov't), the common perception is that the U.S. gov't is a democracy, and that the "majority rules." Under such a view, Baptistic forms of church gov't seem to flourish.
These are just observations, and they probably deviate from accuracy. And we all live in our own cocoons to some degree or another (although this is less true about the PB brethren). For instance, I always find it fascinating to speak with those from a Baptist tradition who assume that church government has always been congregational in nature and are surprised to find out that other denominations do things in different ways. Some might have experienced Methodism, and they then assume that Presbyterians do things just like Methodists. I guess this is one good thing that results from these sorts of discussions -- we can all learn something from one another.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Dever's church does indeed have a plurality of "bishops or pastors." The New Hampshire Confession is consistent with that form of polity even though it isn't explicit. But neither is government by a plurality of elders explicitly stated in the BCF 1689. It is rather assumed. Dever is a strong advocate of a plurality of elders in the local church. However, they are not elder rule. They are as the Cambridge Platform says it "a mixed administration." Here is there Constitution.
Additionally, I would caution one from assuming or implying that Congregationalism was birthed primarily out of an American rugged individualistic idea of pure democracy. This simply isn't the case. If anything, many of our ideas about civil government found there genesis in New England Congregationalism. But I digress. Suffice to say that the Congregationalism historically advocated by Baptists (and here in PB) is not one of "pure democracy."
Additionally, it should be noted that Congregationalism was birthed in an environment entirely adverse to its principles by godly men of the highest degree of biblical learning who were convinced from Scripture that it represented the purest representation of Apostolic polity. To say that it is merely the product of American individualism is both disparaging to Congregationalists and historically inaccurate.
I feel we would do better to focus on the Scriptural and theological arguments for either system than theorizing what social or political conditions influenced the church and its polity in different periods of history.
Additionally, I would caution one from assuming or implying that Congregationalism was birthed primarily out of an American rugged individualistic idea of pure democracy. This simply isn't the case. If anything, many of our ideas about civil government found there genesis in New England Congregationalism. But I digress. Suffice to say that the Congregationalism historically advocated by Baptists (and here in PB) is not one of "pure democracy."
Additionally, it should be noted that Congregationalism was birthed in an environment entirely adverse to its principles by godly men of the highest degree of biblical learning who were convinced from Scripture that it represented the purest representation of Apostolic polity. To say that it is merely the product of American individualism is both disparaging to Congregationalists and historically inaccurate.
I feel we would do better to focus on the Scriptural and theological arguments for either system than theorizing what social or political conditions influenced the church and its polity in different periods of history.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
I did not state that "Congregationalism was birthed primarily out of an American rugged individualistic idea of pure democracy," nor did I state anything like "it is merely the product of American individualism" (for example, I referenced the English Baptists above -- obviously not American "rugged individualists"). Rugged individualism can wreak havoc with any system of church gov't (Presbyterianism included). I know that Dever laments the fact (and thank you for reminding me of this with your last post) that expansion on the American frontier actually precipitated the move away from a plurality of elders in Baptist churches (he writes about this in Nine Marks of a Healthy Church). It was rugged individualism that helped lead to such a move; we can all be thankful for a move back from that, I suppose.
This is an interesting statement: "If anything, many of our ideas about civil government found there genesis in New England Congregationalism." I've heard the same thing said about Presbyterianism. If anything, the model for our federal government more closely resembles Presbyterianism, if for no other reason that it is federal in nature.
I appreciate the fact that "Congregationalism was birthed in an environment entirely adverse to its principles by godly men of the highest degree of biblical learning who were convinced from Scripture that it represented the purest representation of Apostolic polity." I would not disagree (I was only questioning the rise of popularity in the U.S. long after its development). But could not the same thing we said of Presbyterianism? It was not my intention to disparage Baptists/Congregationalists in any way, and you have my apologies if I came across that way.
I appreciate the call to examine these things in light of Scripture. But we cannot be unwilling to examine our own traditions and presuppositions in these matters either. The episcopal advocate might make the same claim that he is being entirely Scripture, and he may have the verses to prove it (in his own mind). But if his basic assumptions are faulty from the start, that is going to affect the way he interprets Scripture.
This is an interesting statement: "If anything, many of our ideas about civil government found there genesis in New England Congregationalism." I've heard the same thing said about Presbyterianism. If anything, the model for our federal government more closely resembles Presbyterianism, if for no other reason that it is federal in nature.
I appreciate the fact that "Congregationalism was birthed in an environment entirely adverse to its principles by godly men of the highest degree of biblical learning who were convinced from Scripture that it represented the purest representation of Apostolic polity." I would not disagree (I was only questioning the rise of popularity in the U.S. long after its development). But could not the same thing we said of Presbyterianism? It was not my intention to disparage Baptists/Congregationalists in any way, and you have my apologies if I came across that way.
I appreciate the call to examine these things in light of Scripture. But we cannot be unwilling to examine our own traditions and presuppositions in these matters either. The episcopal advocate might make the same claim that he is being entirely Scripture, and he may have the verses to prove it (in his own mind). But if his basic assumptions are faulty from the start, that is going to affect the way he interprets Scripture.
"The church in thy house" in Philemon 2 is acknowleged by commentators to have been a part of the Colossian church. There is also Paul's reference in 1 Corinthians 14 to your (Corinthian church) women keeping silence in the churches. Taken together it demonstrates that the house churches were part of larger churches.
It is as plain as day that an early church regularly consisted of multiple single churches. One only has to look at Jerusalem. Multiple languages, 3000 converts, 12 ministers, meeting in the temple and from house to house, and the Lord adds to "the church" such as should be saved. A little later the number of the men was about 5000, and still it is considered "the church which was at Jerusalem," when Saul sought to squash it. Eventually it reached a stage of having many myriads of converts, all the while being known as the church which was at Jerusalem. Ephesus undoubtedly consisted of numerous converts where the word of God grew mightily and prevailed to such an extent that fifty thousand pieces of silver used in curious arts was burned in public. Such a numerous gathering could not possibly have met each Lord's day in one place. Antioch likewise demonstrates a multitude of believers as well as many different ministers; yet it is considered to be the church. Noteworthy also is the fact that this church at Antioch was responsible for sending forth Paul and Barnabas on their missionary journey. The fact is, all the evidence points towards multiple single congregations functioning as one church in each locality. One would have to presuppose Independency and possess a sophisticated bent of mind in order to be able to explain away every particular which points towards non Independency. And even then it is impossible to explain the historical rise of diocesan episcopacy on the premise that Independency prevailed from the start.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
You have assumed that much of what I said was directed toward you, it wasn't. Its just a tendency I've noticed on this and other threads.
You have also assumed that my highlighting the Congregational heritage was meant in some way imply that the same things could not be said of Presbyterianism, it obviously wasn't.
As for which form of church polity was most influential in the formative years of American government: I could care less. I mention the role of congregationalism because of its strong influence in New England during that time. That's all.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
And was this last comment directed at me? Or shall I assume it was not?
Thank you for the clarification. I am the one who asked the question, and the answer seemed very much directed at me. I am sorry that I read too much into it. But we see in this how important assumptions are, and how faulty ones need to be corrected.
Rev. Winzer, thank you for your (as always) insightful comments.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
And was this last comment directed at me? Or shall I assume it was not?
Thank you for the clarification. I am the one who asked the question, and the answer seemed very much directed at me. I am sorry that I read too much into it. But we see in this how important assumptions are, and how faulty ones need to be corrected.
Rev. Winzer, thank you for your (as always) insightful comments.
Of course it was. It was in response to your last post that I included in quotation. So, that might be a little more than assuming.
This conversation is unfortunately advancing nowhere. I feel as though I've spent the beter part of my time clarifying trivialities in speech than actually discussing the topic. If all we intend to do is tit-for-tat than I see no reason to continue.
For me this topic is a secondary issue that I don't get too fired up about. I am a convinced Congregationalist but I recognize the difficulty in arriving at a system of polity when relatively little is given to us in Scripture on the topic. Suffice to say, if I were to become convinced of infant baptism (and I certainly don't see that happening), I'd have no quandaries with ministering under a presbyterian system of government.
I was perhaps naive to think that others are ready to lock horns over it. Some of the rhetoric in this thread (on both sides) has surprised me. And any attempt to discuss the subject in a remotely systematic, and productive way seems to escape us all.
I am still very interested in having this conversation. Ecclesiology is my favorite area of theology and church polity is perhaps my favorite area within ecclesiology. After all, it is the Church which is the primary means of grace in the world. And the accomplishment of its purpose is predicated upon its being ordered according to the mind of Christ.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
If matters of rhetoric are important, I would also recommend, Rev. Sheffield, that you consider the tone of the last two posts that were in response to me. I will also add that if you were indeed interested in continuing the discussion without engaging in trivialities, then perhaps interacting with my responses in posts 70 and 75, or Rev. Winzer's in post 79, would have been a better use of time. But I understand and also grow weary of the discussion.
As I stated before, it was not my intention to offend you nor any Baptist/Congregationalist. If I have, please accept my apologies.
As I stated before, it was not my intention to offend you nor any Baptist/Congregationalist. If I have, please accept my apologies.
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
One may recognize that it is highly likely that the NT writers used the word “church” for both house churches and the entire body of Christians in a given city. But that recognition, in itself does not solve the Congregational / Presbyterian debate in this thread in which three questions are at issue namely
a) The relationship of house churches of such and such city to the larger “church at such and such city.” We may logically infer that each house church had their own teaching elders, but that is an inference that may not be correct. All we know is that the church in such and such city had a plurality of elders, not all of whom laboured in teaching. Did each house church have its own teaching elder or did one elder cover two or more churches? Or did they rotate among the churches in some way? We just don’t know the answers to these questions.
b) While one may propound theological rationales for Presbyterian polity, (i.e., deductions believed to be GNC of other Scriptural teachings), there is As far as I know but one incident recounted in Scripture that suggests that one city church had authority over the churches that were not its own daughter components and that is the one we find in Acts 15-16:4. Consequently it is not “nonsense” to claim that this is the “but one attempted Scripture proof” (David Gay) that can be offered for the point. If someone is going to claim that Gay’s contention is “nonsense”, that someone owes it to the rest of us to provide the Scripture that describes such incident or incidents in which Scripture directly references such a situation.
c) While we know that Acts 15-16:4 documents the example of one church, Jerusalem, being involved in issuing a decree that other churches were expected to observe, we cannot be certain that the grounds on which that expectation rested were an already extant and explicit Presbyterial structure. Four points will bring this out:
i) From John 16:13 we know that the Apostles would be the infallibly guided students of the Holy Spirit. A direct consequence of that statement is this: if any Apostles participated in a council, their contribution would inevitably have been seen by the churches as determinative: for on hearing the Apostolic view, of united Apostles, genuine believers would have experienced “the inward witness of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with this [Apostolic] word in [their] hearts”(WCF I:v) in response.
ii) When James agreed with Peter’s statement, he committed the Jerusalem church to a disavowal of its members who had been preaching the necessity of Gentile circumcision and Mosaic law-keeping.
iii) At the same time it is clear that the Apostles felt it would not compromise this principle if the Gentile brothers were encouraged, for the sake of peace and unity between Jewish and Gentile believers, to refrain from a couple of Mosaically prohibited behaviours. In addition the Apostles and elders agreed also reminded to remind their Gentile brethren observe one prohibition (sexual immorality) which they were already being taught to avoid because it was a violation of the moral law. This compromise too would have been received by the believers as from the Holy Spirit as in point i) above.
iv)The churches to which the letter was delivered (Acts 16:4) were those churches that lay between Jerusalem and Antioch. These churches had already been visited by Judaizing brethren from Jerusalem. For them to observe the letter would mean two things: to cease giving credence to Judaizing teachers from Jerusalem and to refrain from behaviours that would provoke strain in Jew / Gentile relations in the church. These churches too would have received the Council’s instructions as in point i).
Anyone who wants to affirm Presbyterianism It seems to me, must do so from Scripture where Apostles are not present since attempting to build the doctrine on a situation where they are present presents us with the above outlined possibity which is not capable of being disproven on Scriptural evidence.
Today, with Apostles not present in the church, no council of men can carry an authority equivalent to the Jerusalem council. Interestingly the early church seems to have recognized that the absence of Apostles meant something for church authority: in Igatius’ epistle to the Romans we find this “I do not command you as did Peter and Paul: they were Apostles.”
With the absence of Apostles today, no council of men can claim for its decrees the authority of the Holy Spirit in the way that would have been experienced by those who read the decree of the Jerusalem council. The only authority today is that of plain Scriptural statements that are directly applicable to the case, or deductions from not directly applicable statements that are demonstrated to be applicable to the situation by means of GNC.
Presbyterians may wish to argue for their system on the basis of theological deductions from other Scriptures that don’t speak directly to the point. Yet if one wishes attempt to make the case for Presbyterianism on the basis of
“two fundamental doctrinal points which are consistently made throughout the New Testament. First, the sole headship of Christ over the Church. Secondly, the unity of the body of Christ in the world”
. . . said writer ought to at least reference where such a case may be found. And when it is cogently pointed out that such an attempt may run afoul of category confusion, as what is at issue is the means by which Christ exercises His headship to achieve that unity with neither the headship of Christ nor the unity of the body are being questioned in the debate but are accepted by all sides, may I also suggest that to respond that concern with only the claim that it is . . .
“only . . . disconnected, rash, and prejudiced criticism, which shows a distinct inability to follow through the chain of reasoning which establishes an argument”
. . . is to resort to an ad hominem attack that is neither responsive to the criticism nor in line with WCF 1 x’s instructions about settling religious disagreements, nor calulated to keep tempers down in a discussion of this most volatile of subjects.
Anyone who takes the time to consider the literature involved in the discussion between Presbyterianism and Independency will see at once that you have already conceded everything Presbyterians contend for, and hence you yourself have shown the nonsense of Gay's comment. You acknowledge that there is a "relationship of house churches of such and such city to the larger 'church at such and such city;" and you accept this on the basis of evidence which did not even mention the Jerusalem council. Independents reject the conclusion which you have conceded. What that particular relationship consisted of might be an interesting sidelight on New Testament polity, but there can be no doubt that the relationship existed, and that is all that is necessary to establish the claim of Presbyterianism.
As for your valiant attempt to explain away Acts 16:4, the fact remains, as Tim Phillips has already shown, that the New Testament polity moves from apostleship to eldership, and that the ordinary eldership was involved in the authoritative process. Hence the evidence of non-inspiration in the words, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us;" as well as the binding of men's conscience in a matter later said to be indifferent, i.e., meat sacrificed to idols. But, as already noted, how Acts 15 is interpreted only gives us the manner how churches should be inter-related; the fact remains, as you have conceded, the relationship exists, and that settles the disputed point in contention between Presbyterians and Independents on the Presbyterian side.
reformedminister
Puritan Board Sophomore
To my understanding, historic congregationalism from the standpoint of government within the local church wasn't any different than a presbyterian church because they were governed by elders elected by the congregation. The main difference is that the local church was autonomous and not under the authority of presbyteries, synods, or a general assembly. Many true congregational churches still follow that model. In many senses, a "congregational" church in this manner isn't much different than an "independent" reformed or presbyterian church. The local church government is the same, without the oversight of any other ecclesiastical authority. To my knowlede, R. C. Sproul's St. Andrews Chapel is not officially affiliated with the PCA. Is it then a "congregational" church or a "presbyterian" church?
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
With all due respect, you are ignoring two relevant portions of my post. I asked for a reference to the extended arguement on the Presbyterian side; you did not provide it. I showed that we lack crucial information about how the elders of a church in a city related to the house churches and how the house churches related organizationally to the broader city church: you ignored the problem this creates for your view and my challenge to provide other Scriptures that provide the city house church relationship information not supplied in Acts 15-16:4. Whatever the Independents' argument may have been at the time of the Westminster Assembly, without biblical evidence on these points, Presbyterianism simply remains a logically possible inference and not a biblically necessary certainty.
(BTW and somewhat off topic, some here may not know that some congregationalist and baptist denoms do have structures in which the broader denom may advise, but not order member churches on occasion, and I am a member of a church in one such denom. The only authority such advice has is the inherent authority of truly GNC applications of relevant Scriptures.)
Mr. Phillips has shown no such thing. Since he presence of the Jerusalem elders at the conference is not sufficient to prove that they either had received or were about to receive a share of Apostolic authority (and the quote I provided from Ignatius to the Romans is sufficient to show that the early church recognized that there was an element of Apostolic authority that was not passed on), Mr. Phillips has fallen into the old logical error of attempting to derive conclusions in the imperative from premises in the indicative.
More to the point, the presence of the elders in the conference cannot be shown to invalidate the GNC consequence of Apostolic participation. Apostolic participation was, as I have shown, going to be recognized as the voice of the Holy Spirit and would be accepted by the conference participants and by other Christians on His authority, not the authority of any organizational structure.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
Acts 16:4 -- "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."
The Scriptures seem to indicate that some sense of authority was being passed along to the second generation. Cf. Acts 6:6 and 1 Timothy 4:14, for instance. Also consider Peter's self identification 1 Peter 5:1.
I would also appreciate being addressed as "Pastor" or "Rev.", since we are talking about issues of authority and Scripture.
Last edited:
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
Rev. Phillips,
I think I was fair in saying that the rhetoric was coming from both sides. Your eagerness to highlight my faults is only demonstrative of the aforementioned problem. I would like very much to move beyond this and discuss the topic at hand.
---------- Post added at 01:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------
Rev. Phillips,
If what you say is true, how are we to understand exactly what kind of authority was passed to the office of elder and does this not seem to tend in the direction of Apostolic succession?
I would feel more comfortable with understanding the power and authority given to the office of elder as unique and distinct in itself. A separate office with its own power derived from Christ, and not passed down from the Apostles.
Acts 15 and Acts 16:4 are not necessarily and endorsement of Councils in my estimation. I do believe that since the New Testament had not been written at this time that the things that the Apostles and Elders were putting forth were of great significance. As I mentioned before this was not an endorsement of a General Assembly in my estimation. This meeting was not set up as a normal system of gathering but was born out of necessity due to the fact that a heresy and false teaching was disseminated from the Covenant Community at Jerusalem. Had it been a false doctrine being propagated from Rome then the meeting would have taken place and confronted in Rome. In fact if we look at the book of Romans Paul does confront the same situation there in the beginning chapters also. But it isn't done with a meeting of a council that places judgment and pronouncements. Does the issue addressed in Romans apply to the whole Church? Of course it does because it is scripture and truth that has the authority as it is also illuminated by Paul from referring to and drawing truth from the Old Testament writings.
Why is it important that the Elders are included? I believe it is very important that the Elders from congregations are included as the scriptures point out that we are suppose to submit ourselves to our local Elders. They are gifts from God to help us mature and live at peace and in the love of Christ.
Why is it important that the Elders are included? I believe it is very important that the Elders from congregations are included as the scriptures point out that we are suppose to submit ourselves to our local Elders. They are gifts from God to help us mature and live at peace and in the love of Christ.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
The reason I raised the issue of Acts 16:4 is because the assertion keeps being put forth that it was only Apostolic authority that was present in the passage. It seems that the mention of the elders as a part of the decision keeps getting pass over because that does not fit with certain presuppositions. It has been done repeatedly on this thread. I simply wanted to clarify the mention of elders (and the innate authority as well) included in what the word actually says (see Acts 15:23 as well).
I would agree, btw, that the office of elder is derived from Christ, not from the Apostles. However, we see an overlap between Apostles and elders at the Council of Jerusalem and its aftermath. No, there are not the same office, but the office of elder also cannot be ignored in the passage.
Rev. Sheffield, let me say to you that I have tremendous respect for you, as I would anyone who faithfully preaches the word of God. I am seeing on this thread, though, a tendency of both sides to engage in rhetoric that is beneath that which Christian brethren should exhibit toward one another. I have also seen a couple of Presbyterian brothers who, when it became clear that they had offended others, very humbly and graciously apologized. I have also stated in previous posts my apologies to any brothers who I may have offended. These comments have been largely ignored, and I will admit that this is both striking and confusing to me. Even if brothers disagree, these things should not be. In the meantime, I will pray for your ministry in my old stomping grounds of Vidalia, give praise to God for sending someone Reformed to that area, recommend your church to others who may be there, and ask him to give you much fruit in your ministry there.
I would agree, btw, that the office of elder is derived from Christ, not from the Apostles. However, we see an overlap between Apostles and elders at the Council of Jerusalem and its aftermath. No, there are not the same office, but the office of elder also cannot be ignored in the passage.
Rev. Sheffield, let me say to you that I have tremendous respect for you, as I would anyone who faithfully preaches the word of God. I am seeing on this thread, though, a tendency of both sides to engage in rhetoric that is beneath that which Christian brethren should exhibit toward one another. I have also seen a couple of Presbyterian brothers who, when it became clear that they had offended others, very humbly and graciously apologized. I have also stated in previous posts my apologies to any brothers who I may have offended. These comments have been largely ignored, and I will admit that this is both striking and confusing to me. Even if brothers disagree, these things should not be. In the meantime, I will pray for your ministry in my old stomping grounds of Vidalia, give praise to God for sending someone Reformed to that area, recommend your church to others who may be there, and ask him to give you much fruit in your ministry there.
Last edited:
- Status
