Denomination Discipline?

[Scott]

Let's take a closer look at Acts 15 and see whether the Presbyterian form of government or the independent form of government is more consistent with the teaching of this chapter.

Certain believers of the group of Pharisees were teaching in the church of Antioch that gentiles needed to be circumcised and observe the other ceremonies of the Law of Moses in order to be saved. Paul and Baranabas opposed them in the local congregation of Antioch. Local debate did not resolve the issue. Now, in an independent form of government, there would be no appeal to another authority. That is where the debate would end - either with some people splitting off to form a new church or with one party to bearing with a doctrine they disagree with.

But that is not what the apostles did. They appealed to an ecclesiastical authority outside the local congregation (whic, according to independecy, would not exist). The church of Antioch appointed Paul, Barnabas and some elders to travel to Jerusalem to convene a council composed of representatives of several congregations to resolve the issue. There a council of elders and apostles met and appears to have been headed by James. After debate, the council and came to the judgment that gentiles do not need to be circumcised or follow Mosaic ceremonies. They drafted a letter to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia explaining that gentiles need not be circumcised. The letter and the biblical text mentions that the Holy Spirit approved of their decision.

The council´s decision had binding authority on the churches. Acts 16:4 mentions, for example that as Paul traveled he "œdelivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey." The biblical method of resolving doctrinal disputes calls for the Holy Spirit to work through the collective mind of the collective covenant community, which extends beyond one local congregation. This is contrary to independency, which would have left the dispute at the local congregation level.

So, it seems to me that independency is not consistent with Acts 15. Presbyterianism (and other forms of government for that matter) are.

 

[Scott]

Jenson: Acts 15 describes a debate, with one side presenting their position, another theirs, and with discussion.

As to your other point, we all recognize that scripture is the highest revelatory authority. The question is whether the individual or the council is the highest interpretive authority. Acts 15 demonstrates that at least sometimes it is the council.

Paul first tried debate and persuasion. He was not able to persuade his opponents. It is interesting to me what did NOT happen at that point. Under an indepedent model, the parties to the dispute would have either had to split off into separate and competing sects / congregations or simply agree to disagree. Paul did not do this. Instead, he appealed to conciliar authority, which had a binding effect that everyone was obligated to obey. Acts 16:4.

We should follow the Bible's model.

[Edited on 5-27-2005 by Scott]

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Randy,
This is schismatic at best and in my opinion flat out wrong.

Well, I have a thought, there are many competing denominations in the US that bear the marks of the true visible church, however, either all should join the purest or only a certain degree of purity is revelent and all that have attained thereto should join the oldest church thereof - and all other denominations are schismatics. By my reckoning the PCA is neither the purest or the oldest therefor the PCA is schismatic.

Jenson, (Btw is that a danish name? my middle name is Jensen)
"All that you have mentioned is purely your opinion as seen through' the WCF..."

All that youre doing is purely asserting your opinion Scott Roberts is purely mentioning an opinion as seen through WCF. Actually he quite ablely explained his opinion as seen through the Bible Acts chapter 15.

""He was not able to persuade his opponents." - "Opponents"? You mean fellow elders and Apostles?"

Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

hmm sounds like a debate to me. His opponents were the pharisees btw.

"Poor Paul, in that case, why should anyone read the letters he wrote (i.e. majority of NT)? He cannot seem to handle such a simple case..."

Paul was not acting under the extraordinary office of apostle but the ordinary office of Elder. Indeed as an apostle he could have just received direct revelation and resolved the issue infallibly, but as we see from v7 that was not the case- they met in a synod and debated.

"- So which "conciliar authority" (whatever that means) do you and I need to obey? "

Good question.

 

[Scott Bushey]

By my reckoning the PCA is neither the purest or the oldest therefor the PCA is schismatic.

Peter,
I must admit, you are sadly correct.

 

[Preach]

For those who may be struggling with the issue of Church government, sometimes when we struggle, it's easier just to hold to our present position than to honestly, openly, and as objectively as possible seek to enter into the mindset and view point of the other person.

I recently (about two months ago) changed my mind regarding Church polity. For those who may be wrestling with the issue, or just interested in why someone would change his position, you can u2u me. I have set down my thoughts in approx. 5-6 lines of argumentation and would be happy to email you a copy.

May God grant us the grace to humble down and really seek the truth. Most of us come into a debate like this with "a dog in the fight". In other words, we have presuppositions. One of the most liberating times of my life is when I find myself moving to a new theological position (but not yet there, a middle ground) or honestly do not know what to think.

How many times were you afraid to look at a verse or passage of Scripture because you thought it may prove your present position wrong? We ought not do that. But sometimes we do.

Again, if anyone is interested in reading my 1-2 page, brief argumentation on the reasons why I changed my position, please do not hesitate to u2u. Any correspondence will be confidential.

"In Christ",
Bobby

 

[Scott]

"All that you have mentioned is purely your opinion as seen through' the WCF..."

Jensen: Actually I am using a conventional hermeutical principle of using biblical precendent as a model for our practice. Do you agree with this principle and, if so, why do you not apply it to Acts 15?

I have given you my understanding of Acts 15. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to sketch out your understanding of what happened and explain its modern application for faith and practice.

[Edited on 5-31-2005 by Scott]

 

[Scott]

""He was not able to persuade his opponents." - "Opponents"? You mean fellow elders and Apostles? Poor Paul, in that case, why should anyone read the letters he wrote (i.e. majority of NT)? He cannot seem to handle such a simple case..."

Jensen: This is a strange comment. Have you had a chance to read Acts 15 yet?

 

[Scott]

Ok, I will take a shot at answering your question. I would just ask that you explain to me exegetically how Acts 15 can support the idea of autonomous local assemblies.

You asked: "He was not able to persuade his opponents." - "Opponents"? You mean fellow elders and Apostles?"

By opponents I meant the Judaizing party, who was represented at the council. See Acts 15:5.

"Poor Paul, in that case, why should anyone read the letters he wrote (i.e. majority of NT)? He cannot seem to handle such a simple case..."

Paul had the right answer but he did not succeed in convincing everyone. He was not able to persuade the Judaizers by himself. That is why the Council was called. If he had succeeded in persuading the Judaizers there would not have been a need to call the Jerusalem Council in the first place. Let me reframe your question and pose it to you. If Paul had "handled" the situation alone then why was there a Council at all?

Now, could you also address how autonomy in local assemblies is consistent with Acts 16:4? Here we see a decision from outside the assembly that has authority over the assembly. One ecclesiastical organization, the Jerusalem Council, issued a decision with binding authority over the various local assemblies in the region. The local assemblies had a duty to "obey" the decision. This is inconsistent with idependency, which vests all ecclesial power in the local assembly.