Jerusalem: Independent or Presbyterial?

[Dan....]

Thanks for the replies.

Let me first say that I, at this time am unsure which governmental system is best.

It seems to me that those who argue for Presbyterianism argue more from the inferences which they glean from the book of Acts concerning what appears to be the structure of the church in Jerusalem; while those who argue for Congregationalism (and I refer more specifically to the Congregationism of the London Confession, as that is what I am accustom to) argue more from the pastoral epistles and approach the book of Acts with caution, as they see the church in the book of Acts as being primarily a church undergoing much transition. The pastoral epistles were written several years after the chronology of the book of Acts, and hence there would be much less transition thereafter. (Not only, but also, the apostles who wrote to the churches in later years had experience of many years of church leadership behind them, and thence were more educated in saying, "This is how things should be done&quot.

If we side with the Presbyterian and seek to glean church government from the book of Acts, then we not stop gleaning at the relationship of the elders to the Church at large, but must also glean the releationship of the deacons to the church at large.

If the elders in the church in Jerusalem exercised collective authority in all the congregations in Jerusalem (as appears to be the argument of the Presbyterian) and hence, we are to follow such a structure today, then we must also, by gleaning from the relationship of the appointed deacons to the church in Jerusalem at large, and say that such should be the relationship of the deacons to the church today.


John,

[quote:6d9e6c507b]
I'm not really sure what you're asking. But I don't think that seven is the limit of deacons that there were.
[/quote:6d9e6c507b]

Herein lies a problem with inference. What we know of the church in Jerusalem (or Antioch, or Corinth) is extremely limited. It appears that Presbyterianism is seeking to infer a whole governmental system from the limited inferences that we have. If we are so limited by the lack of clear information that we can glean, then why would we be dogmatic and say, "this is how we ought to do things because the tidbit of info we know seems to lean in this direction." ? Would not admitting that we don't really know much about the governmental structure of the church in Jerusalem be a step away from dogmatizing a specific governmental system by inferences?

Question for you: Would you glean that this is the first deacon appointment in New Testament history?

If you answer yes, then why did the apostles only appoint seven? Why not 50ish (i.e., one for each congregation)? Why not 300? Why only seven?

If you answer, no, that you think there may have been deacons appointed before this time, then why did this become a big issue at this time? If there were already deacons, then why the big deal? Why would they have needed to "[i:6d9e6c507b]summoned the multitude of the disciples[/i:6d9e6c507b]" together when the easily could have responded by saying, "Let's just have the people choose more deacons that we can appoint over this task." This seems to be a pretty exagerated event if they already had the office of deacon set up. The answer would have been easy...just appoint more deacons.

[quote:6d9e6c507b]
I don't think that today's characteristics can be superimposed into that setting at all.
[/quote:6d9e6c507b]

Bingo! Hence, why say, as it seems the Presbyterians are saying, "the way the church in Acts did it is the only way we should do it"?... as you say, today's characteristics are not the same.

Patrick,

[quote:6d9e6c507b]
Dan, if I remember right, those deacons were appointed to serve the Hellenistic Jewish converts because they were being neglected. So, there may have been more deacons to serve the "hebrews" as well as the "hellenists."
[/quote:6d9e6c507b]

Why then would it be necessary to "[i:6d9e6c507b]summon the multitude of the disciples[/i:6d9e6c507b]"? Could they not have just summoned the Hellenistic disciples? The choice of seven men were made by the multitude, not just the Hellenists.


Ruben,

[quote:6d9e6c507b]
There were about 120 in the upper room, so perhaps we could expand the size of the congregation a little (Acts 1:15).
[/quote:6d9e6c507b]

Granted. So all we need is 10 other houses that same size or larger and we might be able to cut down the number of congregations a bit. But for them to cut it down to maybe 7 or less (one deacon per congregation) doesn't seem likely.

[quote:6d9e6c507b]
About the deacons, as I understand it, the apostles comprehended in themselves all other offices.
[/quote:6d9e6c507b]

I agree. I know I read this idea somewhere recently (I'll have to try to remember the source). In the article I read, the author was contending that each of the higher offices included all the authority of the lower offices. In other words, elders have the authority to perform the tasks of the deacons. Evangelists have the authority to perform the offices of elder and deacon. The apostle had the authority of the offices of prophet, evangelist, elder, and deacon.


[Edited on 6-25-2004 by Dan....]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

What was the governmental structure of the church before the reformation, from the time of the early church? Was it congregational or other?

What elements did the Reformation draw into church government that were not there before, and what things did they exclude that should not have been there in the first place?

Obviously we don't need to reinvent the wheel. What then do these other conclusions draw for us?

 

[Dan....]

[quote:3f8b41ca55]
What was the governmental structure of the church before the reformation, from the time of the early church? Was it congregational or other?
[/quote:3f8b41ca55]

You mean Rome? It wasn't Presbyterian. From what I've read,the Roman church appears to have started with elders of churches in the larger congregations becoming bishops over multiple congregations (hence Episcopal) until the bishop of Rome excomunicated the Eastern half and became the chief potentate of "the" church. I'm sure you can't mean that we are to mimic Rome in this.

[quote:3f8b41ca55]
What elements did the Reformation draw into church government that were not there before,[/quote:3f8b41ca55]

Ruling elders per chance??? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never read of a distinction between teaching elders and ruling elders prior to the Reformation.

[quote:3f8b41ca55]
and what things did they exclude that should not have been there in the first place?
[/quote:3f8b41ca55]

In government - Bishops, Popes, and the infalibility of thereof.


[quote:3f8b41ca55]
Obviously we don't need to reinvent the wheel.
[/quote:3f8b41ca55]

Not reinventing the wheel.... just trying to get the Presbyterians to explain some things for me. It doesn't appear that Congregationalism is any much "newer" than Presbyterianism as the Roman church didn't hold to either. ([i:3f8b41ca55]I wonder what Owen wrote on Congregationalism? I might need to check out his work from the church library and see what he said. Do you know off hand what volume of his works I will find his view of church government in?[/i:3f8b41ca55])

[quote:3f8b41ca55]
What then do these other conclusions draw for us?
[/quote:3f8b41ca55]

Not very much yet. I'm still firmly perched on the fence on this one.

[Edited on 6-25-2004 by Dan....]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I did not mean that we should go with Episcopal Church government. We are on the same page there. But there was a bit more to church government than what you replied with. Do you have Mathison's book, "The Shape of Sola Scriptura?" It has some good things to say that way in terms of how the church advanced.

I would tend to take a step back and look at the overall picture of the church. One church? Five churches? fifty churches? Congregationalism? Something else?

Does ordination play a part here? I think that has huge implications.

Can we say that before the Reformation there were no elder controversies going on? How did the church view elders?

Remember, Rome does not become "Rome" until hundreds of years down the pike. What was going on before that? How many churches were there? etc. etc.

I definitely think the pressure was on the Reformation, and the second reformation to create a "precisionist" view of the formularies on church government. That was the whole thing with the Reformed Church - they wanted to follow the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, and stick to one common type of government - thus the Solemn League and Covenant.

 

[Dan....]

[quote:582acb16fa]
I did not mean that we should go with Episcopal Church government. We are on the same page there. But there was a bit more to church government than what you replied with. Do you have Mathison's book, "The Shape of Sola Scriptura?" It has some good things to say that way in terms of how the church advanced.
[/quote:582acb16fa]

Yes I do. - Excellent book, by the way :thumbup::thumbup:

[quote:582acb16fa]
Remember, Rome does not become "Rome" until hundreds of years down the pike. What was going on before that? How many churches were there? etc. etc.
[/quote:582acb16fa]

On page 51 Mathison says, "[i:582acb16fa]...the historic evidence indicates that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until sometime between A.D. 140-150. Instead of a single bishop, it ppears that the Roman church was organised under a college of presbyters or presbyter-bishops.[/i:582acb16fa]" -hence, Episcopal church government existed early on in the 2nd century.

According to Mathison, the bishop of Rome developed into the papacy somewhere between A.D. 257-590, and the Eastern half of the church was excommunicated in A.D. 1054.

[quote:582acb16fa]
I would tend to take a step back and look at the overall picture of the church. One church? Five churches? fifty churches? Congregationalism? Something else?
[/quote:582acb16fa]

Hard to say. We know that Episcopal church government existed early on in the second century (or, at least, this is what Mathison indicates). How are we to know of what structure existed prior thereunto (except from New Testament scripture?). We know somewhat of the church in Jerusalem. Yet we also know that at that time the church was in transition. In Acts, we have an historical account of the church, but no mandates as to church governmental structure. Except for the teachings of Jesus, all New Testament mandates concerning church structure are given several years after the account of the Jerusalem church, by well experienced church leaders, who, after many years of church leadership, laid down the ground rules of church government in the epistles.


[quote:582acb16fa]
Does ordination play a part here? I think that has huge implications.
[/quote:582acb16fa]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. We have historic account of the apostles ordaining elders, and Paul's letters to the evangelists, Timothy and Titus, wherein these evangelists ordained elders. In episcopal, presbyterian and congregational (at least the Reformed Baptists, as I'm not sure what other congregationalists do) churches elders ordain elders. Wherein does this have implication to one specific form of church government?

[quote:582acb16fa]
Can we say that before the Reformation there were no elder controversies going on? How did the church view elders?
[/quote:582acb16fa]

elders/priests....as the low men on the totum pole...underneath popes and cardinals and bishops.


[quote:582acb16fa]
I definitely think the pressure was on the Reformation, and the second reformation to create a "precisionist" view of the formularies on church government. That was the whole thing with the Reformed Church - they wanted to follow the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, and stick to one common type of government - thus the Solemn League and Covenant.
[/quote:582acb16fa]

How does their desire invalidate the other forms of church government? How is this applicable?

 

[pastorway]

A NEW book just out will be a good resource for studying models of church government. It is titled [i:9037c8d651]Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity[/i:9037c8d651] from Broadman/Holman publishers is edited by Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman.

James White posted on his blog about it:

[quote:9037c8d651][i:9037c8d651]by James White at http//:aomin.org [/i:9037c8d651]
It comes in at 350 pages, and presents the viewpoints of Daniel Akin (Single Pastor Model), James Leo Garrett, Jr., (Congregationalism), Paul F. M. Zahl (Anglicanism), Robert Reymond (the Presbyterian Form), and yours truly. I presented the Plurality of Elders view. We each wrote a 2,500 (max) word review/response to each of the other presentations. For those of you who have wondered about how Reformed Baptists could believe in a plurality of elders while at the same time not believing in a presbytery/hierarchy, well, here's your chance to find out. I think the interaction between myself and Dr. Reymond is most useful for those examining this issue.[/quote:9037c8d651]

The book is available through James White's site.

Phillip

[Edited on 6-25-04 by pastorway]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

If church government grew into a sense of convenience (which is what I get out of Mathison if he is right), then the church started well (Presbyterian) and flaked out rather early on going from a presbytery to a "presbytery-bishop" as you quoted.

In terms of ordination, think through this - but let's not go to far in this thread with it.

Apostles ordain elders, elders ordain elders, elders ordain more elders, etc, etc, etc. When schism happens, and "Joe" starts a new church, who ordains him? If he is ordained, does he retain his ordination? If he does not retain his ordination, then he is no longer ordained and is no longer in "the church." He has started something new. (This, by the way, was THE debate of the Assembly with the Erastian and Independents producing more than 30,000 books, tracts and pamphlets in the years of the Assembly. So let's not go down this path right now, but it is something to keep in the back of our mind.)

If there was no "quarrel" on this issue, and the Assembly, let's say, was put together to create a more orderly church and define this a bit more, and they, not straying too far from the model already given (which they did not), could we say that the church ever experienced a congregational model of any kind in its history?

Only by schism. Then that goes back to ordination issues.


[quote:4a2dd4fd7b]
How does their desire invalidate the other forms of church government? How is this applicable?
[/quote:4a2dd4fd7b]

I don't see this as invalidating something that could not have exited prior (congregationalism or Independent churches). Its applicable based on the reality of such actually existing without the idea of schism attached to it.

 

[BrianLanier]

Matt,

This ordination debate has been on my mind ever since you brought it up a while ago. So far, it makes sense about 'who ordained the first independent?'. However, I do have a question that has been bothering me. How does this apply to the Reformers, especially those that were excommunicated from the church (i.e. Luther) therefore losing their ordination? I am having trouble with this, could you please help? Thanks

Brian

 

[JohnV]

[quote:af9ce95313]John,

[quote:af9ce95313]I'm not really sure what you're asking. But I don't think that seven is the limit of deacons that there were. [/quote:af9ce95313]

Herein lies a problem with inference. What we know of the church in Jerusalem (or Antioch, or Corinth) is extremely limited. It appears that Presbyterianism is seeking to infer a whole governmental system from the limited inferences that we have. If we are so limited by the lack of clear information that we can glean, then why would we be dogmatic and say, "this is how we ought to do things because the tidbit of info we know seems to lean in this direction." ? Would not admitting that we don't really know much about the governmental structure of the church in Jerusalem be a step away from dogmatizing a specific governmental system by inferences?

Question for you: Would you glean that this is the first deacon appointment in New Testament history?

If you answer yes, then why did the apostles only appoint seven? Why not 50ish (i.e., one for each congregation)? Why not 300? Why only seven?

If you answer, no, that you think there may have been deacons appointed before this time, then why did this become a big issue at this time? If there were already deacons, then why the big deal? Why would they have needed to "summoned the multitude of the disciples" together when the easily could have responded by saying, "Let's just have the people choose more deacons that we can appoint over this task." This seems to be a pretty exagerated event if they already had the office of deacon set up. The answer would have been easy...just appoint more deacons.

[quote:af9ce95313]I don't think that today's characteristics can be superimposed into that setting at all. [/quote:af9ce95313]

Bingo! Hence, why say, as it seems the Presbyterians are saying, "the way the church in Acts did it is the only way we should do it"?... as you say, today's characteristics are not the same. [/quote:af9ce95313]

Dan:

To your first question, can we agree that I only need to answer to the one possibility? I would hold that Acts 6 is the first appointing of deacons. So I only need to answer the question, "Why only seven?" The answer I give is my own opinion on this, as I am not an expert in early church history.

The fact is, as far as I can tell, the church did not have a universal problem among all its constituency concerning the need expressed by the Hellenist widows. We learn from the Antioch incident that there was still, within the church at the time of the Apostles, a kind of prejudice against non-Jewish converts. There were some who still thought along the old lines of physical lineage from Abraham. But the popularity of Stephen and others makes it clear that this was by no means the norm in the church. So there seems to be a pocket in the church where the problem existed, and which needed to be answered. One could also ask, in return, "Why seven; why so many?" in relation to the problem being addressed. However, I think that the Apostles discerned that the office of deacon was not made to answer the need in the area of teaching, but of equitable distribution of the growing community's common share, so that this pocket of need was addressed. We do not know the logistics of that scenario, but for the most part, with the growth that took place, and the contributions that came in (thinking of Ananias and Sapphira, for instance) the abundance was there, the distribution was there, but the equitability was not only in relation to a small section. Later we find that Paul is taking collections from the wider churches to Jerusalem because of their dire need. The Dispersion had a devastating effect on the church in Jerusalem, so that now there was a need in the abundance of goods, in the distribution of it to the whole, and we no longer hear about the equitability of it. So the deaconate's role has changed, evolving into an office with a wider duty.

So, though it began with the seven, it must have grown from that. But the initial seven are important for the precedents set in place.

In answer to your second concern, about the differences between today's churches and the one in Jerusalem in Acts, Let me say that the difference is historical, with commensurate ramifications to structure, and not of the kind that they cannot be compared for the sake of applying principles of government. Matt has given us much to think about in that area. Whatever the state of the church at the time of the Apostles, what is written in Acts is written for our benefit. Principles were put in place then which we apply today. The Epistles do not negate any of those principles. It is not the case that the Presbyterian form of government relies upon principles set in Acts, but not ones found in the Epistles. But Acts is important, in that the basic principles are set in place as the church forms into an organization. What is written there is for our edification, and not just an historical account only.

As you are unfamiliar with the Presbyterian system, so I am unfamiliar with the Independent system. In time I would like to read that book Phillip referred to. But right now I am interested in how the Presbyterians are breaking their own rules.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:81bb600ba5][i:81bb600ba5]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:81bb600ba5]
A NEW book just out will be a good resource for studying models of church government. It is titled [i:81bb600ba5]Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity[/i:81bb600ba5] from Broadman/Holman publishers is edited by Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman.

James White posted on his blog about it:

[quote:81bb600ba5][i:81bb600ba5]by James White at http//:aomin.org [/i:81bb600ba5]
It comes in at 350 pages, and presents the viewpoints of Daniel Akin (Single Pastor Model), James Leo Garrett, Jr., (Congregationalism), Paul F. M. Zahl (Anglicanism), Robert Reymond (the Presbyterian Form), and yours truly. I presented the Plurality of Elders view. We each wrote a 2,500 (max) word review/response to each of the other presentations. For those of you who have wondered about how Reformed Baptists could believe in a plurality of elders while at the same time not believing in a presbytery/hierarchy, well, here's your chance to find out. I think the interaction between myself and Dr. Reymond is most useful for those examining this issue.[/quote:81bb600ba5]

The book is available through James White's site.

Phillip

[Edited on 6-25-04 by pastorway] [/quote:81bb600ba5]

Phillip,

What is White's view? Isn't he Congregational? I'm having difficulty seeing a another position between Presbyterianism and Congregationalism.

After all, Prebyterianism is plurality of elders. Have you read the book? Can you explain here?

Thanks! I hope the job is going well.

 

[Dan....]

Matthew,

[quote:797d4cb7bd]
If church government grew into a sense of convenience (which is what I get out of Mathison if he is right), then [b:797d4cb7bd]the church started well (Presbyterian)[/b:797d4cb7bd] and flaked out rather early on going from a presbytery to a "presbytery-bishop" as you quoted.
[/quote:797d4cb7bd]

How do you know that the church did not start Episcopal? How do you know that the churches to whom Paul wrote were not Congregational? All that has been established thus far is that churches in the early second century were episcopal. Can you demonstrate that this is not just your (and other's) opinion of the data that we have?

[quote:797d4cb7bd]
Apostles ordain elders, elders ordain elders, elders ordain more elders, etc, etc, etc. When schism happens, and "Joe" starts a new church, who ordains him? If he is ordained, does he retain his ordination? If he does not retain his ordination, then he is no longer ordained and is no longer in "the church."
[/quote:797d4cb7bd]

As Brian pointed out, following that logic, the Reformers were outside the camp. They lost their ordination and were ostricised from the church. Hence, those whom they ordained were not lawfully ordained.

You seem to be saying that there must be an unbroken line of succession in the eldership which extends back to the apostles. Yet in your recent article on the Westminster assembly you state:

[quote:797d4cb7bd]
The Presbyterians never denied that a company of true believers might be a true church, though destitute of pastors. [b:797d4cb7bd]They did not deny that they might select the most grave and pious of their number, and set him solemnly apart to the office of the ministry, without the presence of any ordained pastor, if in circumstances where that could not be obtained.[/b:797d4cb7bd] This was extraordinary though, not ordinary. They agreed that the Church must possess in itself the power of all that is necessary to the continuation of its own existence. But they held, also, that Christ himself at first chose and appointed office-bearers, and gave to them authority to ordain others. This fact was a matter of precept, and to be regularly obeyed in every instance where that was possible, because it had been so commanded. [b:797d4cb7bd]They regarded the Congregational mode as a matter of necessity, which was only justifiable in cases where without it the enjoyment of Christian sacraments and ordinances could not be obtained.[/b:797d4cb7bd] The error of the Independents consisted in adopting as the ordinary rule the case of necessity, instead of the method of precept.
[/quote:797d4cb7bd]

Can we not deduce from this quote that the assembly would agree that, though the elders in such circumstances were not ordained by elders (hence not "lawfully ordained&quot, they were still elders and that the elders that they ordain would indeed be elders? If they say that the "Congregational mode" (which is not the mode of any Reformed Baptist. church that I know of, as in R.B. circles elders ordain elders) is valid as a matter of necessity, then would it not follow that those who are not ordained "lawfully" are still, in their view, ordained, and able to administer the sacraments?

John,

Would you agree that the deacons appointed in the book of Acts are
1. appointed by a conglomeration of a number of congregations and not just within one congregation;
2. and that their responsibilities reached across congregational boundaries.
???

If, by the example we have in Acts, which was given for our edification, the deaconate was appointed across congregational boundaries, and their responsibilities extended beyond congregational boundary, then why today does not the church follow the same practice?

It would be like this...

The Presbytery of Northern Illinois....
The body of elders preside over all of the congregations in the Presbytery.
The deacons (however many there be) are appointed by the collective assembly of the congregations within the presbytery at large and their responsibilty extends over multiple congregations within the presbytery...

Is this how the Presbyterian system sets up the office of deacon? If not, why not? If we are to glean the extent of the office of elder from the example of the church at Jerusalem, then why stop there? Should we not do the same with the office of deacon? If we do not, then is this not inconsistent?

 

[JohnV]

[quote:30ac4c52bd]John,

Would you agree that the deacons appointed in the book of Acts are
1. appointed by a conglomeration of a number of congregations and not just within one congregation;
2. and that their responsibilities reached across congregational boundaries.
??? [/quote:30ac4c52bd]
I would say that Jerusalem was probably considered as one church. At least that is how it is referred to every time in Acts and in the Epistles. But they could have met in enclaves within that church. But the elders and deacons, I would think, would be deemed as elders in every one of those enclaves. So the deacons as well would take their position into whatever congregation they came.

[quote:30ac4c52bd]If, by the example we have in Acts, which was given for our edification, the deaconate was appointed across congregational boundaries, and their responsibilities extended beyond congregational boundary, then why today does not the church follow the same practice? [/quote:30ac4c52bd]
In a way, we do. We have elders acting as ruling elders in other congregations by agreement or appointment. As such they also hold the office of deacon in those situations. A deacon in one congregation is to be respected as a deacon in another congregation, but does not carry the office with him if he moves to another congregation. A minister carries the same authority and respect wherever he goes in the denomination, and even beyond. But the restrictions of the offices to the immediate congregation has to do with oversight and accountability.

[quote:30ac4c52bd]It would be like this...

The Presbytery of Northern Illinois....
The body of elders preside over all of the congregations in the Presbytery.
The deacons (however many there be) are appointed by the collective assembly of the congregations within the presbytery at large and their responsibilty extends over multiple congregations within the presbytery...

Is this how the Presbyterian system sets up the office of deacon? If not, why not? If we are to glean the extent of the office of elder from the example of the church at Jerusalem, then why stop there? Should we not do the same with the office of deacon? If we do not, then is this not inconsistent?
[/quote:30ac4c52bd]

What you are referring to may be more the mindset that many have of the offices in the church. People in general tend to see the offices as being strictly an administrative office in a particular congregation, and not necessarily as a calling from Christ Himself. An office-bearer in a church is an office-bearer. He may not have the authority in one congregation that he has in his own, but that is because he may not impose himself in any unwarranted way, not because he is not rightfully and elder or deacon. He can still be sought out for advice or input. But the administration of the office must be carried out within the jurisdiction of the immediate congregation; and that is to be mutually respected among the elders and deacons.

That's my off-the-cuff try at it Dan. We can point at a lot of things that we are doing wrong, whether we do it from accrued tradition or whatever. But we shouldn't confuse that with the basic principle itself.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Brian and Dan,

Check this article:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretincallingreformers.htm

The Reformers were ordained, were legitimately ordained, and excommunicated those (perse) who did not believe the Gospel - Rome. That is why the reformers made the essential marks of the Christian church surrounding true doctrine and the preaching of the Word and the right adminsitration of the sacraments.

[quote:ad860e305e]You seem to be saying that there must be an unbroken line of succession in the eldership which extends back to the apostles.[/quote:ad860e305e]

Correct. Otherwise, 1 Timothy 4:14 is wrong.

In terms of the Assembly, Dan you missed the point there. The Assembly specifically added what you quoted based on the extraordinary circumstacnes of the Reformation (see their mintes on this). This is the differecne between method and precept. That is why they were upset witht he Independents who wante dto make the extraordinary calling of the Reformers something that is the "norm." Its not. There has never been a time in history other than that instacne where this would take place. (None that I know of).


[quote:ad860e305e]
How do you know that the church did not start Episcopal? How do you know that the churches to whom Paul wrote were not Congregational? All that has been established thus far is that churches in the early second century were episcopal. Can you demonstrate that this is not just your (and other's) opinion of the data that we have?
[/quote:ad860e305e]

Yes, but not in this post. I will in a paper I am going to work on.


[quote:ad860e305e]
Can we not deduce from this quote that the assembly would agree that, though the elders in such circumstances were not ordained by elders (hence not "lawfully ordained&quot, they were still elders and that the elders that they ordain would indeed be elders?
[/quote:ad860e305e]

No. Not even our modern BCO for the OPC or PCA allows this. The Assembly's documents around how all this went down is enlightening. That is also a matter of another paper.

[Edited on 6-25-2004 by webmaster]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Sorry, fixed it.

1 Timothy 4:14 ...which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

 

[sastark]

Am I missing something about the congregational form of government?

I have seen it hinted at that in a congregational church, the church ordains the elders. I do not believe this is correct. The elders are still ordained by other elders (by the laying on of hands - I'm having a tough time visualizing a whole congregation laying hands on a new elder).

Is this what was being said or did I just misunderstand?

 

[Dan....]

John,

Thank you for your responses. I have enjoyed our discourse (though I still remained firmly perched on the fence).

Matthew,

I'm reading through Turretin's article. As it appears to be a lengthy article, it might take a little time for me to get back to you.

Seth,

I do not know what most congregationalists do. I do know that in all of the Reformed Baptists churches that I know of, elders are ordained with the laying on of the hands of other elders.

I believe, if I have understood him correctly, that Matthew is contending that any church that does not maintain direct succession of its elders from the apostles are not valid churches. Hence, although as Reformed Baptists, we do appoint elders by means of the laying on of hands by elders, Matthew contends that we do not constitute valid churches as we do not claim unbroken apostolic succession.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Seth,

That seems to be the whole problem.
For instance, congregational church 1 ordain "Bob" as an elder. Who rodained them? Congrgational church -1. Thwo ordained them? CC -2, -3, -4, -5, all the way back. We would need, in essence, to see who ordained the first "congregationalist." This is what we are talking about.

 

[Scott]

Matthew:

Please hurry up with the paper - I can't wait to read it!

Scott

 

[Scott]

Matthew:

Which churches or denominations do you think can demonstrate apostolic succession?

Scott

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

That, my friend, is the quintessential question.

Think through it this way - the church was the church all the way through up until the Reformation, as good or bad as it was. Schism in 1054, but that is explainable. It is once we hit the Reformation and subsequent to that in which we have to investigate, and where we get the major breaking points go on.

It is after that, in the Reformed vain from the Reformed churches, apart from Lutheranism for certain reasons, that I think we will find things going the right way.

[Edited on 6-25-2004 by webmaster]

 

[sastark]

[quote:379452f887][i:379452f887]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:379452f887]
Seth,

That seems to be the whole problem.
For instance, congregational church 1 ordain "Bob" as an elder. Who rodained them? Congrgational church -1. Thwo ordained them? CC -2, -3, -4, -5, all the way back. We would need, in essence, to see who ordained the first "congregationalist." This is what we are talking about. [/quote:379452f887]

Matt,

Help me think this through: Why is it wrong to assume that a congregational elder can [b:379452f887]not[/b:379452f887] trace his ordination all the way back to the apostles?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think that the shift of the church away (generally) from presbyterial/elder rule was significantly led by a capitualtion to culture. In a way that is analogous to our "democratic" churches today, the reigning ideology in the political sphere has often had an unfortunant impact on ecclesiology and polity. In days of yore, the tendency was to ape the imperium, eventually turning the whole church into a massive apparatus that mirrored the Roman Empire. What helped save the church from having all roads lead to Rome was 1) the existence of a number of other dominant sees predating Rome's; and 2) the moving of the secular capital to Constantinople just as Rome was beginning to assert herself.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Seth,

Who ordained the first Independent not associated with the established church?

Tis' the sticking point.

Remember, congregationalism is not an old invention, it is a new baby.

You have to do two things: 1) establish the validity of the calling of the first reformers. That's not hard to do. 2) establish from that point a continual line, else you have schism. Think about the reformation, and the church at that time. There was the Catholic church, the Reformers and the schismatics. That was it.

When the Westminster Assembly dealt with this issue, thomas Goodwin, that great divine, definitely saw thier argument and did everything he could to slow down the process of making a final decision because he KNEW he would lose the battle. (And he did).

Independecy was overruled by exegesis.

That is why Dan is asking for exegesis around the Jerusalem church. Its an important issue.


[quote:614104ba31]
I think that the shift of the church away (generally) from presbyterial/elder rule was significantly led by a capitualtion to culture.
[/quote:614104ba31]



[Edited on 6-25-2004 by webmaster]

 

[pastorway]

Fred -

James White is an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, as I am sure that you know. Most RB churches are not congregational. They are ruled by a plurality of elders.

The book I referred to has just come out and I do not have a copy yet. But White presents an RB view of elders as opposed to the Presbyterian form of church government. The difference is in structure and heirarchy.

I am looking forward to the book as I am sure it will provide a valuable presentation of both of the elder views (both Presbyterin and Baptist).

Phillip

 

[sastark]

[quote:573c2fb671][i:573c2fb671]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:573c2fb671]
Seth,

Who ordained the first Independent not associated with the established church?

Tis' the sticking point.
[/quote:573c2fb671]

Sticky indeed. What I'm wondering is: Why does congregationalism equal Independent?

[quote:573c2fb671]
Remember, congregationalism is not an old invention, it is a new baby.

You have to do two things: 1) establish the validity of the calling of the first reformers. That's not hard to do. 2) establish from that point a continual line, else you have schism. Think about the reformation, and the church at that time. There was the Catholic church, the Reformers and the schismatics. That was it.
[/quote:573c2fb671]

This is more of a side note, but possibly an important one. Wasn't Jonathan Edwards the pastor of a Congregational Church in Connecticut?

[quote:573c2fb671]
When the Westminster Assembly dealt with this issue, thomas Goodwin, that great divine, definitely saw thier argument and did everything he could to slow down the process of making a final decision because he KNEW he would lose the battle. (And he did).
[/quote:573c2fb671]

Well, Lord willing, this weekend I'll get to read through the Form of Church Governement in the Westminster Standards.

You see, I consider myself Presbyterian, but I hate bureaucracy. I think that Presbyterianism has a tendancy towards a centralized, top heavy bureaucracy. I've seen it in the RCUS. History demonstrates it in the PCUSA. I believe there are those in the PCA who think the PCA is leaning this way.

So, I am a Presbyterian. I just don't like centralized government. And that leads me to wonder what's so wrong with congregationalism (and what's so right about Presbyterianism)?

 

[Dan....]

Matthew,

I read the article by Turretin that you suggested.

A while back you had suggested another article by Turretin which I found to be excellent (that being the one in which he distinguishes between habitual faith and actual faith in how infants can be saved). Unfortunately I cannot say the same of this article.

He expends much room in defining why he considers the "extraordinary call" of some of the Reformers, yet in all of his verbiage thereon, he presents no scriptural support for the existance of an "extraordinary call" of church officers during the time of Reformation.

Anyway,

You said,

[quote:f2da400624]
The Reformers were ordained, were legitimately ordained, and excommunicated those (perse) who did not believe the Gospel - Rome. That is why the reformers made the essential marks of the Christian church surrounding true doctrine and the preaching of the Word and the right adminsitration of the sacraments.
[/quote:f2da400624]

This seems also to be the argument of Turretin. Yet herein lies what I see as a problem. If Rome was, as taught the Reformers, the Harlot church, in which the man of sin had taken his seat, and was no longer the visible kingdom of Jesus Christ upon earth, then what good is it to be ordained in this harlot church? To this Turretin attempts to give an answer (without any scriptural support) -
[quote:f2da400624]
Although we maintain that a true call was in the church of Rome, we do not on this account recognize her as a true church, because these things do not equally answer each other in turn. Where a true church is, there indeed un­doubtedly is a true call. But not vice versa. Where a true call is, there is a true church because to the truth of the call the profession of Christianity is sufficient (which can exist in a false and heretical church). The truth of a church can no more be gathered from the call than from baptism, which evidently can be true even in a heretical church. Thus the mission can be among those who are not a true church, but retain something of a church because the mission does not arise from the church as its source and principle, but from God through men (even bad men).
[/quote:f2da400624]

.... I was hoping for a better answer than that.

Also, if Rome be the the harlot church (and I agree that it is, in part), then the Biblical response of Christians must be to depart out (mandated in Rev 18:4); in other words, to be "schismatic".

[quote:f2da400624]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be saying that there must be an unbroken line of succession in the eldership which extends back to the apostles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Correct. Otherwise, 1 Timothy 4:14 is wrong.
[/quote:f2da400624]

It seems to me that you are reading into 1 Tim 4:14 more than is there.

Here we have one who was ordained to the extraordinary office of evangelists "with the laying on of the hands of the eldership". No instruction is given herein that says that all church officers must be ordained in this way else they are not actual church officers.

By the way, the congregationalists seek to follow the example of 1 Tim 4:14 also. Consider the Savoy Declaration:
[quote:f2da400624]
The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Ghost, unto the office of pastor, teacher or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself, and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of that church, if there be any before constituted therein. And of a deacon, that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands.

Savoy XXXIII:xi
[/quote:f2da400624]

...and the London Confession:
[quote:f2da400624]
The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands.

LBC1689 XXVI:ix
[/quote:f2da400624]



You said,

[quote:f2da400624]
In terms of the Assembly, Dan you missed the point there. The Assembly specifically added what you quoted based on the extraordinary circumstacnes of the Reformation (see their mintes on this). This is the differecne between method and precept. That is why they were upset with the Independents who wante dto make the extraordinary calling of the Reformers something that is the "norm." Its not. There has never been a time in history other than that instance where this would take place. (None that I know of).
[/quote:f2da400624]

Turretin argues the same. Unfortunately, he doesn't back up defining the Reformers as "extraordinarily called".

It appears that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. No matter how "extraordinary" you deem the circumstances, there is no scritural warrant to say "elders are always to be called by this one way, accept in 'extraordinary circumstances', else if the circumstances be not 'extraordinary' enough, those who are so appointed are not true ministers of the gospel". As they say, "if it's good for the goose..."

A couple of questions,

1. Did the king of England (with his subjects) when, for no other reason than that he wished to put away his wife unlawfully and marry another, separated from the Roman church, was that separation lawful? If not, then how can the framers of the Westminster Confession be considered"lawfully called"?

2. What leads you to believe that the English separatists were unlawful separating themselves from the Anglican church, when the leaders thereof were demanding that they perform that which is not lawful?

[Edited on 6-26-2004 by Dan....]

 

[Dan....]

Pastor Way said,

[quote:d2be906b22]
Most RB churches are not congregational.
[/quote:d2be906b22]
uzzled:uzzled:uzzled:

The existance of a plurality of elders does not make a church non-Congregational. Every Reformed Baptist church I know of is congregational. There aparently exists different forms of congregationalism.

[Edited on 6-26-2004 by Dan....]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

"If Rome was, as taught the Reformers, the Harlot church, in which the man of sin had taken his seat, and was no longer the visible kingdom of Jesus Christ upon earth, then what good is it to be ordained in this harlot church?"

It doesn't. That is why Turretin made the difference between the extraordinary circumstances of that particular event.

in terms of Henry VIII, that dissolution from the Catholic Church at that time puts him, and the Anglican church at risk of being schismatic. Now they are only such if it can be proved that at the time the Catholic Church was not apostate. However, the reformers did prove this by Scripture.

"What leads you to believe that the English separatists were unlawful separating themselves from the Anglican church, when the leaders thereof were demanding that they perform that which is not lawful?"

Could they be lawfully separating from a church that was not lawful to begin with. Even in the immediate historical setting this church was a big farce. Elizabeth set it up, following her father, to gain political control over the kingdom and subdue the intellect of the people to follow a "common" prayer book together. Figure this - common? Catholic and Protestant have a common book? No way! That was the tension from the beginning.

In terms of extraordinary calling - Turretin is saying that in extreme circumstance where there is no lawful church hierarchy (i.e. the time of the Reformation) god would not leave His church in such a situation as to perish. (Otherwise the kingdom of darkness would overthrow the church, and Christ would be incorrect that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.) That means that there must be some provision, making a distinction between precept and method, of establishing a church in such a providential state.

without reiterating what Turretin said (in all verbiage) Dan, how would you have rectified the situation? Here we have the apostate church, and God raises up "prophets" as Calvin says like Luther to redictate the grace of Christ our of darkness.

How would you explain the lawfulness of their calling? or would this be justifiable schism? And Why?

 

[Dan....]

[quote:54dcb6a67f]
without reiterating what Turretin said (in all verbiage) Dan, how would you have rectified the situation? Here we have the apostate church, and God raises up "prophets" as Calvin says like Luther to redictate the grace of Christ our of darkness.

How would you explain the lawfulness of their calling? or would this be justifiable schism? And Why?
[/quote:54dcb6a67f]


Matthew,

I'm not the one trying to demonstrate apostolic succession here.

I would answer that the eldership of the Reformers were lawful so long as they "[i:54dcb6a67f]be appointed thereunto by the common sufferage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of the hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein[/i:54dcb6a67f](LBC1689 XXVI:ix)".

...and yes, separating from the harlot church is justifiable schism, as per Biblical mandate, "[i:54dcb6a67f]Come out of her my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues[/i:54dcb6a67f] (Rev 18:4)".

[quote:54dcb6a67f]
Could they be lawfully separating from a church that was not lawful to begin with. Even in the immediate historical setting this church was a big farce.
[/quote:54dcb6a67f]

If the English church was not lawful to begin with, what does that say of the Westminster Assembly?

[Edited on 6-26-2004 by Dan....]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

"of the eldership of the [b:ca21e18281]church[/b:ca21e18281]..." LBC...

Which one?

Really think through this. I know what the LBC is saying, but bear with me. If everyone get's a vote in congregational church, which they do, then who runs the church? Say there are 100 people in the church. 30 men, 34 women, and 36 young men and women that are over 18 and eligible to vote as members. The men are out voted every time, or could potentially be so. Women and children woudl really run the church by thier God given right to do so according to the LBC because it places the power to [b:ca21e18281]ordain[/b:ca21e18281] in the hands of the people, not the presbytery, and then uses the elders of that church (whom they chose) to set these men to their task. Did Christ really set up His church to work this way? The nature of that kind of giovernment overthrows the entire nature of the hierarchy of the church, and the fact that we have officers at all.

[quote:ca21e18281]
If the [[b:ca21e18281]ANGLICAN[/b:ca21e18281]]church was not lawful to begin with, what does that say of the Westminster Assembly?
[/quote:ca21e18281]

(Had to fix that)

It was part of the Assembly's task to set down and answer the exact question (posed in a different way by parliment) as to what you are asking. The answer was the Solemn League and Covenant, and then Presbyterianism reconstituted as it was eclipsed by the Anglican Church. Puritanism, then, simply became Presbyterianism.

Take all this into account, most of what we have talked about is "history" and how it worked it way out. the Assembly took great pains to biblical deal with this question. I'll post things later on as I put together information.

This issue, to me, has become so personally pressing, that I am switching my doctoral dissertation to exploring its history and conclusions. There is absolutely nothing in print on this issue that I know of in contemporary church literature. (Not even in the theological journals). I never heard any of this in seminary, and from my estimation, I had the best teachers in this country, or anywhere, teaching at RTS in 1992. Sproul, Packer, Gerstner, Pratt, Nash, Nicole, Kelley, Ferguson, James, Kidd, Mawhinney, MacKenzie, Kaiser, etc. No one mentioned one lick of it - not even JI Packer in a course I took with him on English Puritan Theology. (????)

[Edited on 6-26-2004 by webmaster]