ReadBavinck
Puritan Board Freshman
What is preventing the merger of such similar denominations, e.g. the URCNA and the OPC?
Dutch Reformed vs. Presbyterian
- Thread starter faydawg67117
- Start date
- Status
John-
Where can I read this understanding at? What is your source? I am interested.
Where/when did this old Presbyterian/modern Presbyterian difference occur?
Would the continental reformed version than be more technically called "congregationalism" as opposed to independency?
Thanks.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jus Divinum, compared to the Church Order, forms for ordination, and the Form of Subscription of the old CRC. These were in place before the historical events that led to her downfall, so they have to be understood in that light. Office-bearers represented their offices, not themselves or their opinions. They kept quiet during congregational meetings where matters were discussed; they did not voice their opinions. The sense of divine authorization was very palpable in the offices, just like Jus Divinum portrays it.
I don't know this, but going by Dr. Schaeffer it happened during the time preceding the liberalization of the main Presbyterian church. I don't know Presbyterian history, so I can't pinpoint the time it changed. What I do know is that what Jus Divinum is talking about does not reflect what is presently there.
NO!!! Perish the thought. They would be as much opposed to congregationalism as the ministers of London were. Independency is also out of the question. This doesn't mean that an independent Reformed church cannot exist. It means that ordinarily it would not exist.
Again, look at the old CRC documents. Mutual oversight and responsibility are intrinsic to the order of the church. This does not bespeak congregationalism or independency.
Thanks John. I still have yet to get Jus Divinum.
Regarding the ideas of mutual oversight and responsibility, I understand these to be common to reformed/presbyterian polity. What I am asking though is how is the way you described reformed polity different from congregationalism? I guess I am confused as to what congregationalism is as opposed to independency on one hand and continental reformed on the other, according to how you are defining them.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Allan:
Yes, for I am just as inclined to ask you what you mean by congregationalism.
It could be that we are each bringing into this our respective backgrounds, understanding these two polities according to our limited experiences. What do I mean by the original authority seated in the congregation, as opposed to your idea of what congregationalism is? I hope you can see that this is going to take a bit to work out for each of us.
First, the idea of congregationalism is quite foreign. The congregation does not rule on doctrine, for that is the sphere of elders. It does not rule on cases of discipline, for that too is the sphere of elders. It does not distribute the gifts of mercy, for that is the sphere of elders and deacons. What the congregation does is approve of men who show the necessary gifts of the Spirit's leading to the offices. They also listen to the Word that is preached. These do not depend on the congregation per se, but they do depend on the faithfulness of the congregation. A congregation is to blame for voting for men who are unfit for the offices. But this does not in any way reduce the oversight of the churches upon each other. In fact, this is just what that is for, to admonish and effect correction when things like that happen.
But the fact that a faithful congregation has called men to office, and that the overseeing body ordains them, is still the origination of the delegation of authority upon them. This is how the Spirit works in the churches. I believe that this is common to both the Dutch and the Presbyterian traditions. But the Presbyterians put a bit more stress on the latter, while the Dutch put a bit more stress on the former. But neither rejects one or the other. The faithfulness of the congregation is still the focus of each tradition, through the faithful preaching of the Word and the oversight of the members as to life and doctrine. The difference is in who has the responsibility of oversight of the ministers, the elders of a local church or the Presbytery. But this does not negate that both traditions exercise oversight of the faith of all believers in an official ecclesiastical manner. The rulership does not belong to the members, except for the single exception of the responsibility of each member not to follow false teachers ( 1 John 4:1. )
Yes, for I am just as inclined to ask you what you mean by congregationalism.
It could be that we are each bringing into this our respective backgrounds, understanding these two polities according to our limited experiences. What do I mean by the original authority seated in the congregation, as opposed to your idea of what congregationalism is? I hope you can see that this is going to take a bit to work out for each of us.
First, the idea of congregationalism is quite foreign. The congregation does not rule on doctrine, for that is the sphere of elders. It does not rule on cases of discipline, for that too is the sphere of elders. It does not distribute the gifts of mercy, for that is the sphere of elders and deacons. What the congregation does is approve of men who show the necessary gifts of the Spirit's leading to the offices. They also listen to the Word that is preached. These do not depend on the congregation per se, but they do depend on the faithfulness of the congregation. A congregation is to blame for voting for men who are unfit for the offices. But this does not in any way reduce the oversight of the churches upon each other. In fact, this is just what that is for, to admonish and effect correction when things like that happen.
But the fact that a faithful congregation has called men to office, and that the overseeing body ordains them, is still the origination of the delegation of authority upon them. This is how the Spirit works in the churches. I believe that this is common to both the Dutch and the Presbyterian traditions. But the Presbyterians put a bit more stress on the latter, while the Dutch put a bit more stress on the former. But neither rejects one or the other. The faithfulness of the congregation is still the focus of each tradition, through the faithful preaching of the Word and the oversight of the members as to life and doctrine. The difference is in who has the responsibility of oversight of the ministers, the elders of a local church or the Presbytery. But this does not negate that both traditions exercise oversight of the faith of all believers in an official ecclesiastical manner. The rulership does not belong to the members, except for the single exception of the responsibility of each member not to follow false teachers ( 1 John 4:1. )
Agreed John.
This is going beyond my original intent. I am basically just trying to understand the difference between the reformed and Presbyterian views on my own terms. When I ask if the reformed version may be "technically" called "congregational", I do not mean to imply that the congregations (as opposed to the elders) have the power/rule. I mean it only in the sense that in the reformed view the rule extends from the congregations towards the broader assemblies. While in the Presbyterian view, the rule extends from the higher assembly of elders towards the congregations. This format and differentiation has been explained in the thread. My question for you was in the context of your saying that the original Presbyterian view was the same as the reformed view. According to this present day difference, it seems to me that the reformed view can be considered more congregational (not congregationalism) when compared to the Presbyterian view.
Anyways, thanks for the exchange.
This is going beyond my original intent. I am basically just trying to understand the difference between the reformed and Presbyterian views on my own terms. When I ask if the reformed version may be "technically" called "congregational", I do not mean to imply that the congregations (as opposed to the elders) have the power/rule. I mean it only in the sense that in the reformed view the rule extends from the congregations towards the broader assemblies. While in the Presbyterian view, the rule extends from the higher assembly of elders towards the congregations. This format and differentiation has been explained in the thread. My question for you was in the context of your saying that the original Presbyterian view was the same as the reformed view. According to this present day difference, it seems to me that the reformed view can be considered more congregational (not congregationalism) when compared to the Presbyterian view.
Anyways, thanks for the exchange.
- Status
Similar threads
