Congregationalism vs. Presbyterianism

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Randy, what is this Roman heresy you are mentioning here? :scratch: That is the first I have heard of that. Paul did not write Romans as a response letter to combat a specific heresy, but because he could not be in Rome and he desired to preach the gospel to them (Romans 1:11-17). Hence, it is the most "systematic" of his letters because of the occasion (or lack thereof) of its writing.
 
He addressed the Jew / Gentile (circumcised / uncircumcised) distinction and justification problem.

BTW, As a side note I want to address something here. There has been a notable attitude of humility expressed in this thread in the form of apology if there might be offense. I would say that the Presbyterians have expressed the attitude that they don't want to be offensive and have apologized. Those on the other side of the isle have neither acknowledged the repeated apologies nor tried to come together in resolving the possible offenses. This bothers me. The response to just move on topically without acknowledging the apologies is rather offensive to me. Let's please rectify this in brotherly love. Then moving on with a discussion would be much more acceptable in my estimation as it will render a better, more loving, humble discussion.
 
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 appreciate what you've said here. And thank you for your prayers.

I have not been personally offended by anything said in this thread though I know that some have. I have been frustrated with the amount of time spent on trivial technicalities that don't really address the topic. On more than one occasion now I have sought to discourage taking this discussion in a direction that is either unfruitful or potentially offensive to those engaged.

If I have sincerely offended you Rev. Phillips, (or anyone else unwittingly) then please accept my sincere apology.

I can say that in the past day, this thread and the content of its posts have notably improved! For that I'm thankful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you, Rev. Sheffield, dear brother. I appreciate your comments and accept the apology. I hope you have accepted mine as well.

It does seem we are tending to be straining out gnats and swallowing camels, and I am perhaps the biggest strainer/swallower of all. The thread will perhaps be better served if I bow out at this point, and the good pastor has corrected pointed out that it is becoming a time drain over relatively minor issues.

I will say in closing, however, that after thinking on this the last few days, we might be starting too close to the middle of the issue. It is indeed one of ecclesiology, and many of use are viewing the nature of the church different. Perhaps we can start a thread at some future point and discuss the nature of the church; I think that our disagreements on issues on things like polity and infant baptism probably arise out of that issue rather as independent doctrines.
 
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.

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.

To take your points in reverse order: My apologies; I had forgotten the "Tim Phillips" that armourbearer's post referred to was not a layman.
That the elders were named with the Apostles in issuing the conference's findings may signify something but exactly what is being signified is what is in question. Nothing more may be intended by their being named than to viisbly align the Jerusalem elders with the stand first outlined by the Apostles: such an alignment would be enough to stop the mouths of the Judaizing teachers who claimed the authority of Jerusalem for their error. Or their being named may or may not be a pointer to something more. But from the evidence given, it is impossible to determine what that something more may or may not have been.
 
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.

It would be a matter of practical wisdom for one to familiarise himself with the state of the question so as to be able to recognise the terms of reference which rule the discussion. The issue between Presbyterians and Independents is simply this -- Presbyterians hold that the visible church is universal whereas Independents maintain the only visible church is that which ordinarily meets in one place to worship. This is the issue. If, as I stated previousy, it can be shown from the New Testament that "the church" consisted of multiple single congregations, then the case is decided on behalf of Presbyterianism. It is immaterial to the discussion how these churches were structured or related. As soon as it is conceded that a church structure or relation existed, Presbyterianism is established. And this has been conceded without having recourse to the council of Jerusalem. It is plain, therefore, that Presbyterianism is not dependent solely upon the council of Jerusalem.

(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.)

According to the definition of "the church" as held by Presbyterians and Independents alike, such broader structures are not recognised as "the church," and hence are mere social alliances which fail to conform to the divine plan for church government.

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.

This line of argumentation would invalidate the power of congregational excommunication on the basis of the apostle Paul's participation in the excommunication of the offending brother in 1 Corinthians 5. But it is obvious that the participation existed as a part of a transition in which the congregation was assuming the regular responsibility which had been entrusted to it by the Lord. Likewise, the council of Jerusalem shows all the signs of non-apostolic authority and that the church was engaging in its ordinary responsibility of binding and loosing which had been given to it by Christ. In fact Mr. Gay's article proceeds upon this basis.

Apostolic authority consists of this: "the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord," 1 Cor. 14:37. The decree of the council of Jerusalem did not belong to this class of authority because it contained, (1.) a claim to non-inspiration -- it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us; (2.) a binding decision of something indifferent in itself -- abstaining from eating meat sacrificed to idols wherever Moses is preached.
 
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.

It would be a matter of practical wisdom for one to familiarise himself with the state of the question so as to be able to recognise the terms of reference which rule the discussion. The issue between Presbyterians and Independents is simply this -- Presbyterians hold that the visible church is universal whereas Independents maintain the only visible church is that which ordinarily meets in one place to worship. This is the issue. If, as I stated previousy, it can be shown from the New Testament that "the church" consisted of multiple single congregations, then the case is decided on behalf of Presbyterianism. It is immaterial to the discussion how these churches were structured or related. As soon as it is conceded that a church structure or relation existed, Presbyterianism is established. And this has been conceded without having recourse to the council of Jerusalem. It is plain, therefore, that Presbyterianism is not dependent solely upon the council of Jerusalem.

Once again with all due respect, you are confusing categories. If the disagreement between Presbyterianism and congregationalism was a simple historical curiosity, you would indeed be correct and one would be obliged to learn the background to discuss the issue intelligently. But both views claim to be supported by Scripture and it is what Scripture says and does not say that is what trumps any merely historical argument. And as I have shown, there are considerable problems with trying to derive Presbyterian structures as GNC deductions from the Acts data.

(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.)

According to the definition of "the church" as held by Presbyterians and Independents alike, such broader structures are not recognised as "the church," and hence are mere social alliances which fail to conform to the divine plan for church government.

Then perhaps both sides of that historical debate may have failed to recognize the necessary consequence that follows when suasion based on true GNC deductions from the Scripture is spoken into a situation. Such suasions will always be heard by true and obedient Christians as the voice of the Holy Spirit as per WCF 1:x and are by definition, the only non-Scriptural utterances that will truly carry the divine requirement for obedience. And don't underrate the potential of such suasions. An erring Christian congregation hearing suasion based on GNC from Scripture can sometimes be turned around instantly. I once saw this happen and it was a never to be forgotten experience.

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.

This line of argumentation would invalidate the power of congregational excommunication on the basis of the apostle Paul's participation in the excommunication of the offending brother in 1 Corinthians 5. But it is obvious that the participation existed as a part of a transition in which the congregation was assuming the regular responsibility which had been entrusted to it by the Lord. Likewise, the council of Jerusalem shows all the signs of non-apostolic authority and that the church was engaging in its ordinary responsibility of binding and loosing which had been given to it by Christ. In fact Mr. Gay's article proceeds upon this basis.

Not necessarily. The power to excommunicate is not the power to bind other chuches or members of the same. Rev. Phillips has pointed out that elders shared with the Apostles in the Jerusalem conference. As elders, they may have had the ordinary power of excommunication in the Jerusalem church; from the tone Paul's arguments to the Corinthians he may have acted only because the Corinthian elders had not already done so. Certainly 1 Timothy establishes that the power to excommunicate was not then held by the Apostles alone. As for Mr. Gay's article, I refer you to the following paragraph:

Gay Article said:
. . . As for the letter which conveyed the decision, it must be remembered that the apostles were still alive and resident in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2,4,6,22,23). In order that the infection of false teaching which had come out of Jerusalem should go no further, the apostles joined with the elders at Jerusalem to send out this letter to all the churches. But none of this supports the Presbyterian idea of separate congregations forming one church, following which the churches in a region submit to Councils, Synods and General Assemblies. In Acts 15 no disciplinary action by a legislative Council was threatened against 'dependent' churches. There were no dependent churches. No one church was dominant over another. There was no higher‑court mentality. Interestingly, in passages such as Romans 14 and 15, and 1 Corinthians 8, there is no appeal to this letter. Why not, if the Presbyterians are right? To read into Acts 15 the concept of a law‑making Council with powers over churches through their dele*gates, is a travesty of exposition.

While Gay does not provide the same analysis of the consequence of Apostolic intervention in the conference, he comes out at the same place. The Apostolic header on the letter would let any Christian know that anyone promoting Judaizing teachings, whether coming from Jerusalem or any other church, was not to be listened to.


Apostolic authority consists of this: "the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord," 1 Cor. 14:37. The decree of the council of Jerusalem did not belong to this class of authority because it contained, (1.) a claim to non-inspiration -- it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us; (2.) a binding decision of something indifferent in itself -- abstaining from eating meat sacrificed to idols wherever Moses is preached.

The moment "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost... to bind" something indifferent in itself, that binding decision carried Divine authority in the context to which it was addressed. (I recoil with horror at the thought – and do not impute ito you for a second the possibility that you may hold it – that any divine utterance correctly understood can ever be held as anything less than absolutely canonical, but your statement above could be so misunderstood. You may want to shut that door. ) And adding "to us" does not effect that authority in the least. It may mean nothing more than the Apostles and elders were, in this case, able to recognize why the Spirit's ruling would be of benefit to the church.
 
Once again with all due respect, you are confusing categories. If the disagreement between Presbyterianism and congregationalism was a simple historical curiosity, you would indeed be correct and one would be obliged to learn the background to discuss the issue intelligently. But both views claim to be supported by Scripture and it is what Scripture says and does not say that is what trumps any merely historical argument. And as I have shown, there are considerable problems with trying to derive Presbyterian structures as GNC deductions from the Acts data.

It would be foolish to address the Bible a-historically, especially seeing as the issue under discussion is in fact historically conditioned. An individual's choice to remain ignorant of what is at issue demonstrates a lack of serious concern to examine the matter impartially. I would also say that a repeated attempt to reduce all biblical questions to a matter of good and necessary consequence shows a failure to understand the way the Scriptures regulate theology.

Then perhaps both sides of that historical debate may have failed to recognize the necessary consequence that follows when suasion based on true GNC deductions from the Scripture is spoken into a situation.

It is equally possible that individuals are too fond of their own thought processes when they feel themselves superior to the historical process by which theological conclusions are reached.

The moment "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost... to bind" something indifferent in itself, that binding decision carried Divine authority in the context to which it was addressed.

There is an omission of the final part of the clause -- "and us." One would have to deny plenary inspiration to arrive at the conclusion that the decree of the council was the product of inspiration. Those who hold that the Scriptures are immediately inspired will be safeguarded from jumping to such an unsafe conclusion.
 
Personally, I do not think either congregational nor Presbyterian ran church governments, have a "biblical leg to stand on" in terms of a mandate. As I hope most of us already know, trying to pull binding theological commands from vague historical narrative, is not exactly a sound hermeneutical approach. This is what gets the Pentecostals into the doctrinal atrocities which they uphold as biblical truth.

Either system fits what we see in the NT.
 
So..... I've recently been doing some thinking as well on the issue of polity and my ideas on the issue are sort of a more unified congregationalism. Even though I am an ardent believer in credobaptism, I do not believe that baptism should be an issue which should bar a person from becoming a member of a local church. So, here's just some random thoughts I've had in recent days about unifying the church.

Denominational Power

1.) Personally, I would like to see a denomination that would allow pastors and churches who submit to the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the 1644 and 1689 London Confession, the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Savoy Declaration, the Theological Declaration of Barmen, and even the Augsburg Confession to join within the fold.

2.) Pastors would have to submit to one or more of these confessions in order to pastor in the denomination.

3.) Some sort of denominational authority above the local church would have the ability to listen to complaints from members of the local church who felt that the local congregation had wronged them.

4.) The denomination would have power to "kick out" any churches that began to stray from the confessional standards.

Congregational Power

1.) The issue of how baptism is treated would be subject to the jurisdiction of the local church. One thing that would qualify this power is that a church which practices credobaptism would need to accept a paedo baptized brother into membership who has been examined and can be seen to bear the fruits of a Christian life.

2.) The way in which the local church governs itself i.e. plurality of elders, single elder, three-tier system, etc.

3.) The worship style (high church, low church, liturgical, contemporary, traditional, mixture, etc.)

4.) The local church can decide the differences in qualifications for eldership and deaconship. For instance, a credo practicing church would probably not allow a paedo brother to become an elder but allow him to be a member and even reach the office of deacon.

I know there's alot of holes, any thoughts?
 
Personally, I would like to see a denomination that would allow pastors and churches who submit to
  • the Westminster Standards,
  • the Three Forms of Unity,
  • the 1644 and 1689 London Confession,
  • the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith,
  • the Second Helvetic Confession,
  • the Savoy Declaration,
  • the Theological Declaration of Barmen,
  • and even the Augsburg Confession to join within the fold.

I know there's alot of holes, any thoughts?


Wow. That's quite possibly the most ambitious thing I've ever heard of.
 
BTW, all the input has been great. I learned a lot more on this issue. At least it has opened my eyes on the distinctions a bit more. Since I'm still fairly new to the Reformed tradition, this is one of the areas I've been wanting to get a little more understanding.
 
Personally, I would like to see a denomination that would allow pastors and churches who submit to
  • the Westminster Standards,
  • the Three Forms of Unity,
  • the 1644 and 1689 London Confession,
  • the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith,
  • the Second Helvetic Confession,
  • the Savoy Declaration,
  • the Theological Declaration of Barmen,
  • and even the Augsburg Confession to join within the fold.

I know there's alot of holes, any thoughts?


Wow. That's quite possibly the most ambitious thing I've ever heard of.

Actually there is a denomination out there that does something like this. But it is full of Federal Vision theology so they really don't follow any of the Reformed Confessions they give lip service to.
 
Personally, I would like to see a denomination that would allow pastors and churches who submit to
  • the Westminster Standards,
  • the Three Forms of Unity,
  • the 1644 and 1689 London Confession,
  • the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith,
  • the Second Helvetic Confession,
  • the Savoy Declaration,
  • the Theological Declaration of Barmen,
  • and even the Augsburg Confession to join within the fold.

I know there's alot of holes, any thoughts?


Wow. That's quite possibly the most ambitious thing I've ever heard of.

Actually there is a denomination out there that does something like this. But it is full of Federal Vision theology so they really don't follow any of the Reformed Confessions they give lip service to.

Yeah, I know, but I didn't want anyone thinkin' they were a good option.
 
Well, I'm certainly not in favour of Federal Vision theology, but I do think that it is in the interests of churches to unite. I think the denomination you might be thinking of is the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, though I don't think they have many Baptists or Lutherans in their midst.
 
Once again with all due respect, you are confusing categories. If the disagreement between Presbyterianism and congregationalism was a simple historical curiosity, you would indeed be correct and one would be obliged to learn the background to discuss the issue intelligently. But both views claim to be supported by Scripture and it is what Scripture says and does not say that is what trumps any merely historical argument. And as I have shown, there are considerable problems with trying to derive Presbyterian structures as GNC deductions from the Acts data.

It would be foolish to address the Bible a-historically, especially seeing as the issue under discussion is in fact historically conditioned.

It is not addressing the bible ahistorically to begin one's quest for a the meaning of a passage of Scripture by directly analyzing what it says or implies without presuming conclusions already reached by earlier writers. For those writers too, were seeking to find out what the Bible taught by direct analysis of its teachings. But because they were human, their analyses will reach conclusions that are either good and necessary consequences of the Scriptural data, or conclusions that are not good and necessary consequences of the Scriptural data. In addition, those earlier writers may have missed relevant points noticed by a later writer. If this latter possibility is the case, then the earlier argument cannot be necessarily presumed to be valid.

So the work of the earlier writers too must be judged. The best Reformed Scholarship recognizes these problems and does not blindly accept the conclusions of earlier writers as being necessarily authoritative for us. One need only look at how the Reformers analyzed the writings of the church fathers against Scripture, utilizing the arguments of these men where they agreed with Scripture and rejecting other arguments of these same men when those arguments did not come to conclusions that were necessary consequences of Scripture. Examine for example the Reformed use of Augustine. We typically accept his his understanding of predestination as Biblical, yet we generally find him unbiblical in the area of the relationship between justification and sanctification.

Another problem that we must face is that later writers may put forth an argument for a particular view of what a passage teaches that an ealier writer has shown by GNC deduction from Scripture to be incorrect. (As an illustration cf. how the arguments of Athanasius destroy the Arianism of the Jehovah's Witnesses.)

Now we also know that an author, ancient or modern, who presents direct analyis of a Scriptural passage is not always right, so how should these arguments of men be addressed?

The WCF explictly recognizes that both ancient and modern writers can get things wrong when it debars both the "opinions of ancient writers" and "doctrines of men" from having the final say in settling religious disagreements. And when it assigns final authority "by which ALL controversies of releigon are to be determined ... [to] no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the scripture" and having earlier defined what the Holy Spirit is speaking in the scripture as that which is "either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (WCF 1 vi) and that the things "which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened . . . that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient knowledge of them" 1 vii. Taking these points together one arrives at the apparent conclusion that a GNC conseqence of these confessional statements is that all the opinions of ancient and modern writers alike must be judged by their conformity to Scripture by GNC before being accepted as authoritative interpretations of Scripture and acceptable for settling disagreements.

If we can critique a writer's work and show his errors of our own analytical technique, then we should do so. Or if it is the case that an earlier author directly addresses that analysis and shows by GNC reasoning from Scripture that the later argument is incorrect, the earlier writer's argument should be adduced either fully, in summary or by reference. If such a presentation is provided, then the earlier writer's arguments can also be tested to see whether the claims made for them actually stand up. Such an approach enables all the arguments pro and con to be tested against Scripture.

An individual's choice to remain ignorant of what is at issue demonstrates a lack of serious concern to examine the matter impartially.

You are presuming that your respondent has chosen to remain ignorant. That presumption is incorrect: your respondent has made no such choice. If their are sound reasons to reject the views put forward I want to know what they are ASAP and I have repeatedly requested you to provide the necesary support from older authors for your statements so that both I and other readers who may be presently ignorant of them my consider the cases presented. To date: you have yet to do so. How am I, or any your other readers to judge whether or not the authorities you cite have a Scripturally valid case against views presented here if you do not present the differing views of those authorities for evaluation? The WCF does not allow us to accept such.

I would also say that a repeated attempt to reduce all biblical questions to a matter of good and necessary consequence shows a failure to understand the way the Scriptures regulate theology.

Once again you argue with an ad hominem. Having abandoned the charismatic movement and the notion of women in unrestricted ministry after realizing that both were Scripturally insupportable, I think you may reasonably assume that if the arguments of earlier writers can show an error in the logic of my analysis and prove Presbyterianism by GNC, that I will joyfully follow where Scripture leads. What I ask is the Confessionally required level of evidence that Scripture does lead where you assert it does. For, as I showed above, a prima facie reading of the WCF leads to the conclusion that it was the Westminster Assembly who reduced the question of how all controversies should be settled to a matter of the use of direct Scriptural statements or GNC from the same.

I would be interested in learning exactly and in detail the reasons why any ordained man here who does not use the above described excerpts from WCF in the paragraph beginning "The WCF explicitly recognizes . . . " to determine their practice in controversy does not do so. If such reasons can be shown to be supported by direct Scriptural statement or GNC consequences thereby I will happily adopt them.

Then perhaps both sides of that historical debate may have failed to recognize the necessary consequence that follows when suasion based on true GNC deductions from the Scripture is spoken into a situation.

It is equally possible that individuals are too fond of their own thought processes when they feel themselves superior to the historical process by which theological conclusions are reached.

Or perhaps I am merely acquainted with the First Epistle of Clement and have noticed that the brotherly admonition I refer to is precisely the method Clement employed to win the Corinthian church back to sanity (cf. 1 Cl. 7:1, 9:1), rather than issuing a diktat on the basis of some interchurch authority? If the immediate sub Apostolic church used the method of moral suasion that I adduce, and they did, then any inference that my advocacy of such methd is unwise ("too fond") when compared against later historical process iremains simply unsupported unless the later argument is supplied for testing.

The moment "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost... to bind" something indifferent in itself, that binding decision carried Divine authority in the context to which it was addressed.

There is an omission of the final part of the clause -- "and us." One would have to deny plenary inspiration to arrive at the conclusion that the decree of the council was the product of inspiration. Those who hold that the Scriptures are immediately inspired will be safeguarded from jumping to such an unsafe conclusion.

No, I didn't omit the final clause. As you should have seen, I referred to it in the very next paragraph. And I hold that Scriptures are immediately God breathed. And until better instructed by either by full argument, summary or reference, I must note that it appears that the resultant letter - a response which is specifically attributed both to the Holy Spirit and to a body consisting of more than one apostle besides non-Apostles simply cannot be dismissed as less than canonical since it contained material that Holy Spirit is said to have approved of.

Finally with all due respect to all ordained men here to follow the WCF or LBC, may I suggest - if you have the care of souls in the wider world - that you simply cannot afford to do as has been done in this thread and on other places in this board. In the real world, if you descend from outlining arguments solidly based on either directly applicable Scriptures or GN consequences from Scripture to the level of browbeating your people or outsiders with a mixture of ad hominems and appeals to undocumented ecclesiastical authority, the result will be immensely counterproductive. In that world, when your people may encounter situations where someone can allege point a) to be true by direct analysis of Scripture, if the best you can do is rely on unsupported or unreferenced claims. you simply lose credibility when the someone points out that by surpressing the reasons behind your view, you make it impossible for your sheep to test the argument as is Scripturally required. For if the Apostollic principle "...test everything hold fast that which is good. Abstain from every appearance of evil" orignally applied to testing prophecies, how much more must it apply when we consider the opinions of men?
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm certainly not in favour of Federal Vision theology, but I do think that it is in the interests of churches to unite. I think the denomination you might be thinking of is the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, though I don't think they have many Baptists or Lutherans in their midst.

I would agree with you. And I think the model of polity being employed by the CREC gives us all something to think about. If they can bring paedo & credo baptists together under one united body, then surely some of our more orthodox denominations could as well. I know the Free Presbyterian Church of North America does something similar to this, though not entirely the same. And they have some fundamentalist leanings that many would not be comfortable with. But these examples do present to us the potential for such a union.
 
I think that only a unifed form of congregationalism, something between presbyterianism and congregationalism, would be the only proper governing setup for such a denomination. One thing that I personally see as being better for local congregations is the idea that you allow the congregation how their body will work in regards to baptism. I would say that credo churches should accept adult believers who were baptized as infants into the fold of membership, but should not feel that they can't preach their beliefs about the proper mode and objects of baptism. There must be a balance, so that no one's conciense is wounded.

We need a denomination that will spread the gospel with a unified passion, that does not divide the body of Christ, while at the same time allowing for differences to be tolerated.
 
I think that only a unifed form of congregationalism, something between presbyterianism and congregationalism, would be the only proper governing setup for such a denomination. One thing that I personally see as being better for local congregations is the idea that you allow the congregation how their body will work in regards to baptism. I would say that credo churches should accept adult believers who were baptized as infants into the fold of membership, but should not feel that they can't preach their beliefs about the proper mode and objects of baptism. There must be a balance, so that no one's conciense is wounded.

We need a denomination that will spread the gospel with a unified passion, that does not divide the body of Christ, while at the same time allowing for differences to be tolerated.

Any form of polity which involves least amount of decision-making outside of the local church which then is binding on that local church, ceases to be congregationalist and is rather a "loose" Presbyterianism. "lose Presbyterianism" is perhaps the description that best fits the CREC.
 
As I hope most of us already know, trying to pull binding theological commands from vague historical narrative, is not exactly a sound hermeneutical approach.

Christ is the only head of the church. The church is one body. Christ has given ministries to and for the church. There is distinct information provided as to how the New Testament church functioned according to these principles. It would be a poor hermeneutical approach which obscured these facts for the mere purpose of liberating oneself from obligation to the divine will.
 
As a cradle Congregationalist, I find that the Savoy Declaration and the Cambridge Platform provide sufficient evidences for a congregational polity. I have no problem in submitting myself to a presbytery when attending Presbyterian churches. Nevertheless, with four centuries of Congregationalism in my ancestry, I am quite comfortable in the theological defenses of this polity as enumerated in the aforementioned documents. When given the choice of attending a Bible-believing Presbyterian church and worshipping at a liberal Congregational church, my choice is obviously for the former. Live and let live.
 
Amazon.com: Which is the Apostolic Church? (9781115873512): Thomas Witherow: Books

41W-JTmYNIL._SS500_.jpg
 
According to Thomas Witherow's little book on the subject there are six main features of biblical church government to be ascertained from the New Testament.

Episcopacy has none of them. Congregationalism or Independency has three of them. Presbyterianism has all of them.

The Apostolic Church - Which is it?
 
As I hope most of us already know, trying to pull binding theological commands from vague historical narrative, is not exactly a sound hermeneutical approach.

Christ is the only head of the church. The church is one body. Christ has given ministries to and for the church. There is distinct information provided as to how the New Testament church functioned according to these principles. It would be a poor hermeneutical approach which obscured these facts for the mere purpose of liberating oneself from obligation to the divine will.


There are no commands given as to how a church should be run (in regards to government). Just because a certain church did it one way, does not make that way a requirement. Applying this same principal of "command by narrative," I suppose when I go to another state to evangelize, I am not allowed to bring a change of clothes (Matthew 10:9-10). I am not sure that anyone would be too happy with me after a couple of days...

Saying that we have to do everything the same way that it was done in the first century, is the same error that the Campellites fell into. We DO NOT have to do everything that they did in the first century. We have to obey the commands of God. Do you also speak in tongues? Heal by command?
 
Tim Cunningham,

We have now entered the stage where you multiply paragraphs needlessly in order to justify your theological method. I will answer this once in order to show the inadequacy of your method, and this will be my final response to you.

It is not addressing the bible ahistorically to begin one's quest for a the meaning of a passage of Scripture by directly analyzing what it says or implies without presuming conclusions already reached by earlier writers.

When an individual is analysing Scripture to investigate a question which is historically conditioned it is naive to look at the Scriptures without taking into account the terms of reference which dictate the historical question.

So the work of the earlier writers too must be judged.

This is beyond doubt, but the individual who is willingly ignorant of the historical development of theology is unqualified to do so.

The WCF explictly recognizes that both ancient and modern writers can get things wrong when it debars both the "opinions of ancient writers" and "doctrines of men" from having the final say in settling religious disagreements.

In debarring them from the final say, it does not forbid them from having any say, as you have done. The same document requires "a due use of the ordinary means" to "attain unto a sufficient understanding of" the Scriptures, WCF 1:7.

You are presuming that your respondent has chosen to remain ignorant.

My statement was "contextually conditioned" by the respondent's choice to ignore the historical terms of reference which rule the discussion and to make a direct appeal to Scripture. Obviously my respondent rejects his interlocutor's "contextually conditioned" statements as much as he rejects the "contextually conditioned" terms of the discussion. This just means thay my respondent is not interested in having a fair and impartial exchange with his interlocutor as well as refusing a fair and impartial examination of the issue being discussed.

I would also say that a repeated attempt to reduce all biblical questions to a matter of good and necessary consequence shows a failure to understand the way the Scriptures regulate theology.


Once again you argue with an ad hominem.

It is not ad hominem to draw attention to the inadequacy of a person's method of interpretation whereby he establishes the position he is arguing for. No reference was made to the individual's person; therefore it was not "to the man." Of course if an individual chooses to vest his personal worth in his ability to argue his position, then obviously he is going to take every rejection of his arguments as a personal detraction.

If such reasons can be shown to be supported by direct Scriptural statement or GNC consequences thereby I will happily adopt them.

It is good to recognise explicit Scriptural statement; this should suffice to put an end to your repeated calls for good and necessary consequence in order to establish any position one advocates.

Or perhaps I am merely acquainted with the First Epistle of Clement and have noticed that the brotherly admonition I refer to is precisely the method Clement employed to win the Corinthian church back to sanity (cf. 1 Cl. 7:1, 9:1), rather than issuing a diktat on the basis of some interchurch authority?

This has nothing to do with the previous statement in which you set yourself up over the historical development of doctrine, but I will answer it nonetheless. Clement was one man. Presbyterianism is not diocesan or monarchical episcopalianism. Hence the reference to Clement is irrelevant.

I must note that it appears that the resultant letter - a response which is specifically attributed both to the Holy Spirit and to a body consisting of more than one apostle besides non-Apostles simply cannot be dismissed as less than canonical since it contained material that Holy Spirit is said to have approved of.

Inspiration is not "holy Spirit approved material," but "Holy Spirit moved material," as 2 Peter 1 evinces. A confession of faith and other subordinate standards are written on the understanding that they are Holy Spirit approved. The mixture of the non-inspired elders shows clearly that the decree was not inspired.

In the real world, if you descend from outlining arguments solidly based on either directly applicable Scriptures or GN consequences from Scripture to the level of browbeating your people or outsiders with a mixture of ad hominems and appeals to undocumented ecclesiastical authority, the result will be immensely counterproductive.

In the real word people generally ask questions of pastors, listen attentively to what is taught, take it away and think about it a little, and then come back with questions or concerns. They do not usually speak dogmatically about things they obviously have not studied, or take offence and justify themselves when their opposing position is found wanting. If you would like pastoral counsel and care, you will need to present yourself as such, and not as a debating opponent. If you present yourself as a debating opponent, you should expect to have your arguments answered. When your arguments are answered, it would show a strength of character if you did not take it as a personal affront.
 
There are no commands given as to how a church should be run (in regards to government). Just because a certain church did it one way, does not make that way a requirement.

This shows your issue is more with the scope of Scripture authority than with the discussion at hand.
 
Tim Cunningham,

We have now entered the stage where you multiply paragraphs needlessly in order to justify your theological method. I will answer this once in order to show the inadequacy of your method, and this will be my final response to you.

It is not addressing the bible ahistorically to begin one's quest for a the meaning of a passage of Scripture by directly analyzing what it says or implies without presuming conclusions already reached by earlier writers.

When an individual is analysing Scripture to investigate a question which is historically conditioned it is naive to look at the Scriptures without taking into account the terms of reference which dictate the historical question.

You appear to be misunderstanding where I am coming from. I am not interested so much in the details of the Independency Presbyterian historical arguments which are historically conditioned, as much as I am interested in what we may learn from the Scriptures as they touch on what God requires of Christians in inter-assembly relationships. What God has required in Scriputure cannot be regarded as being historically conditioned in the same sense in which the C/P argument is, unless one wishes to posit a changing canon and I know you don't go there. So if you are using another meaning for the phrase "historically conditioned' you will need to define it.

Now I have never said that the later historical debate will be irrelevant to the question I bring to the table. I simply recognize that the relevant portion of that debate will be those presentations that are either direct analysis or discussions of Scriptural data. And these are what I have been consistently asking for, particularly any analyses or discussions that specifically address the formulations Gay and I have put forward. And if you fear that I would automatically reject any materials authored by those who accept concusions different from my own, I must ask you to disabuse yourself of the notion. I go where the Biblical data leads. It was reading non-charismatic author's analysis of the charismatic movement that led me out of that movement


So the work of the earlier writers too must be judged.

This is beyond doubt, but the individual who is willingly ignorant of the historical development of theology is unqualified to do so.

Sir, if you read on in the post to which you are replying you will find I ask you to address my alleged ignorance by providing clearly relevant materials. Thus your word "wilingly" is plainly inapplicable. In fact, from the fact that I have repeatedly asked you to do so in earlier posts, I can only conclude that you are ignoring what I plainly say in favour of an ad hominem attack that is only too easily refuted and I am at a complete loss to understand why you would do such a thing.

The WCF explictly recognizes that both ancient and modern writers can get things wrong when it debars both the "opinions of ancient writers" and "doctrines of men" from having the final say in settling religious disagreements.

In debarring them from the final say, it does not forbid them from having any say, as you have done. The same document requires "a due use of the ordinary means" to "attain unto a sufficient understanding of" the Scriptures, WCF 1:7.

And I nowhere deny the use of ordinary means, in fact I have been repeatedly asking you to point me to some relevant ones that I and others might consider them.

You are presuming that your respondent has chosen to remain ignorant.

My statement was "contextually conditioned" by the respondent's choice to ignore the historical terms of reference which rule the discussion and to make a direct appeal to Scripture. Obviously my respondent rejects his interlocutor's "contextually conditioned" statements as much as he rejects the "contextually conditioned" terms of the discussion. This just means thay my respondent is not interested in having a fair and impartial exchange with his interlocutor as well as refusing a fair and impartial examination of the issue being discussed.

Unfortunately your conclusion does not follow from the premises given. If your respondent has repeatedly stated that there is part of the historical debate he would accept as valid with regard to the fundamental question being posed, it is illogical to conclude that your respondent rejects a fair and impartial discussion of the issue on the table.

I would also say that a repeated attempt to reduce all biblical questions to a matter of good and necessary consequence shows a failure to understand the way the Scriptures regulate theology.

Once again you argue with an ad hominem.

It is not ad hominem to draw attention to the inadequacy of a person's method of interpretation whereby he establishes the position he is arguing for. No reference was made to the individual's person; therefore it was not "to the man." Of course if an individual chooses to vest his personal worth in his ability to argue his position, then obviously he is going to take every rejection of his arguments as a personal detraction.

It is indeed a form of ad hominem to presume the individual's "failure to understand the way the Scriptures regulate theology" without going on to explain the allegedly true way in which Scriptures regulate theology and showing how it differs from the one you object to. The course you chose to follow presumes you understand why the individual is wrong without first showing that he is wrong. Logically, one must show that a man is wrong before presuming to explain why he is wrong. I suggest you read or re-read CS Lewis' useful essay "Bulverism" from his book God in the Dock .

If such reasons can be shown to be supported by direct Scriptural statement or GNC consequences thereby I will happily adopt them.

It is good to recognise explicit Scriptural statement; this should suffice to put an end to your repeated calls for good and necessary consequence in order to establish any position one advocates.

I believe you responded too quickly to my previous post. I did not recognize explicit Scriptural statement alone: that was one of two grounds I gave: the other was "or GNC thereby."

Or perhaps I am merely acquainted with the First Epistle of Clement and have noticed that the brotherly admonition I refer to is precisely the method Clement employed to win the Corinthian church back to sanity (cf. 1 Cl. 7:1, 9:1), rather than issuing a diktat on the basis of some interchurch authority?

This has nothing to do with the previous statement in which you set yourself up over the historical development of doctrine, but I will answer it nonetheless. Clement was one man. Presbyterianism is not diocesan or monarchical episcopalianism. Hence the reference to Clement is irrelevant.

I'm afraid there is an error here. Clement is (As far as I know) the only time in the immediately sub Apostolic literature where a matter of concern in one church was addressed by another. Immediate sub apostolic practice must be regarded as indicative if not always conclusive for us, and it can only be refuted by the kind of direct analysis of Scripture that I have been repeatedly asking for.

I must note that it appears that the resultant letter - a response which is specifically attributed both to the Holy Spirit and to a body consisting of more than one apostle besides non-Apostles simply cannot be dismissed as less than canonical since it contained material that Holy Spirit is said to have approved of.

Inspiration is not "holy Spirit approved material," but "Holy Spirit moved material," as 2 Peter 1 evinces. A confession of faith and other subordinate standards are written on the understanding that they are Holy Spirit approved. The mixture of the non-inspired elders shows clearly that the decree was not inspired.

But the decree resulting from this meeting is not a subordinate standard and I hope you don't want to claim it as one. Rather it is based on a case presented by one Apostle and it is known from the existance of the Antioch debate that something similar had been previously accepted in practice by another Apostle (Paul) and the decree as a whole is specifically recorded as pleasing the rest of the Apostles then present (it seemed good to the Apostles), yes and the elders as well). If a decree based on Apostolic intervtion is seen to be "good to the Holy Spirit" we must first ask how the knowledge of the Holy Spirit's view was determined. And when we remeber that they were promised guidance into all truth by the Holy Spirit, we must provide solidly Scriptural evidence that Peter's intervention in this conference was not inspired. Can such a case be successfully made? This is a point that has not yet been addressed.

Your reply simply does not get to the essence of the problem that the presence of Apostles in this meeting poses for reasoning from it what the form of church government following the Apostolic age should be. If have additional analysis by others that goes into this point further than you have hitherto provided let me say it once again: I would like to see it.

In the real world, if you descend from outlining arguments solidly based on either directly applicable Scriptures or GN consequences from Scripture to the level of browbeating your people or outsiders with a mixture of ad hominems and appeals to undocumented ecclesiastical authority, the result will be immensely counterproductive.

In the real word people generally ask questions of pastors, listen attentively to what is taught, take it away and think about it a little, and then come back with questions or concerns. They do not usually speak dogmatically about things they obviously have not studied, or take offence and justify themselves when their opposing position is found wanting. If you would like pastoral counsel and care, you will need to present yourself as such, and not as a debating opponent. If you present yourself as a debating opponent, you should expect to have your arguments answered. When your arguments are answered, it would show a strength of character if you did not take it as a personal affront.

Sir, again with all respect, I did not present myself as a dogmatic debating opponent mired in invincible ignorance but as one who not only gave reasons for the stand he was taking, but one who also repeatedly requested materials that you claim to know of that from you assurance might reasonably be expected to speak directly to the analysis I provided. And in the real world, pastors sometimes provide answers that meet the WCF requirements for addressing issues of religious controversy and sometimes they do not. I simply make a general appeal to consider the beneifits of adopting the WCF's method rather than continuing to resort to methods that discredit anyone using them and are less than helpful to Christ's sheep.

And that is my last response to the PB for some months as it is now my turn to face a severely increased work load.
 
Last edited:
There are no commands given as to how a church should be run (in regards to government). Just because a certain church did it one way, does not make that way a requirement.

This shows your issue is more with the scope of Scripture authority than with the discussion at hand.

Not at all. The scope of scriptural authority is the answer to the discussion at hand. Where scripture is silent (and scripture is definitely silent on this one: unless you want to wander around the country with no extra clothes or money), we should be silent. The NT no more addresses (in-depth) the issue of Church government, than it does the issue of air conditioners.
 
There are no commands given as to how a church should be run (in regards to government). Just because a certain church did it one way, does not make that way a requirement.

This shows your issue is more with the scope of Scripture authority than with the discussion at hand.

Not at all. The scope of scriptural authority is the answer to the discussion at hand. Where scripture is silent (and scripture is definitely silent on this one: unless you want to wander around the country with no extra clothes or money), we should be silent. The NT no more addresses (in-depth) the issue of Church government, than it does the issue of air conditioners.

Mr. Rambo, nowhere in Scripture will you find a command for elders to bring no extra clothes or money in their travels. This command was for apostles during one specific sending of them throughout Judea. But do you really believe Christ and the Apostles, the founders of the Church, would leave us with no direction on how to be governed? That would not be very good shepherding. Furthermore, how the Church is to be governed is far more important than how its members are to be kept cool during the sermon. Church government, unlike air conditioning, has direct bearing on the peace and purity of the Church, as I'm sure you can see.

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

In spite of earlier tensions, I hope this thread will continue for a while because I am really enjoying reading it. Thanks everybody. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top