John Owen PCA?
- Thread starter TimV
- Start date
- Status
I think that, from our perspective, the question is a bit anachronistic, but since he was a congregationalist, I think the proper question should be - would he even want to be identified with Presbyterians at all?
Remember the little anecdote about Owen when Cromwell sequestered him into his army as a chaplain and they arrived together in Glasglow, Scotland? There Owen found himself in a dispute with a young Presbyterian minister by the name of Hugh Binning, age 26, who managed to confound Owen and the other congregationalist, English divines with him.
DTK
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
There's a brief reference to it in Thomson's Life of Dr. Owen on p. XLV of the first volume of Owen's Works as published by Banner of Truth Trust, as well as in Orme' Life of the Rev. John Owen. It's also often referenced in connection with almost any account of the life of Hugh Binning, though Owen's name is not always mentioned in particular with respect to this incident, Owen simply being among the English divines with whom Binning contended on this occasion.
DTK
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
So as a Congregationalist of his day and type would he have objected to, say, TEs as part of their own church, or a legal structure like the GA?
And would these objections to modern Calvinistic Presbyterianism have been such the he wouldn't have been allowed those exceptions to have become a deacons or elder?
And would these objections to modern Calvinistic Presbyterianism have been such the he wouldn't have been allowed those exceptions to have become a deacons or elder?
Michael Butterfield
Puritan Board Freshman
Why would this question be considered anachronistic in our day? It seems quite relevant to our churches, because the simple fact is that John Owen could not be an office bearer in the PCA or OPC. He could not, if a truly convinced Congregationalist, take his ordination vows with any measure of integrity.
OPC--(3) Do you approve of the government, discipline, and worship
of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? (FOG 25.6.a.(3))
PCA--3. Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the
Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general
principles of biblical polity? (BCO 24-6, 3).
All of this, however, is not to say that some who hold to other forms of polity are not officers in the OPC or PCA. There obviously are, but it is not proper for them to be so.
OPC--(3) Do you approve of the government, discipline, and worship
of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? (FOG 25.6.a.(3))
PCA--3. Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the
Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general
principles of biblical polity? (BCO 24-6, 3).
All of this, however, is not to say that some who hold to other forms of polity are not officers in the OPC or PCA. There obviously are, but it is not proper for them to be so.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
The reason for asking is complex. There is a young man who has a good heart, and wants to help the struggling Reformed movement on the Central Coast of CA, but has been under the influence of a couple men who consider themselves to be apostles to the Church Universal, and won't join any local congregation since "there are only 6 people in the whole State of California who are qualified to be elders" and the feel they can't submit to any of the elders here.
A very nice young man, and one of his objections to joining a church is that the OPC and PCA are too strict. He is influenced by these men teaching the Federal Vision.
So, he's been reading Owen, and said that the PCA and OPC aren't inclusive enough, and used Owen as an example of someone who could be an officer in the the Reformed churches around here.
So I was hoping from some people familiar with what Owen believed and what kind of exceptions are allowed in the OPC and PCA to give me their ideas. If Owen really wanted to be an elder in the PCA could he?
A very nice young man, and one of his objections to joining a church is that the OPC and PCA are too strict. He is influenced by these men teaching the Federal Vision.
So, he's been reading Owen, and said that the PCA and OPC aren't inclusive enough, and used Owen as an example of someone who could be an officer in the the Reformed churches around here.
So I was hoping from some people familiar with what Owen believed and what kind of exceptions are allowed in the OPC and PCA to give me their ideas. If Owen really wanted to be an elder in the PCA could he?
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
I will be praying for your friend. I have many friends like that too.
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
My understanding was that owen switched to Congregationalist to accommodate Cromwell.
Sadly it was during that time when he wrote on church polity.
Later he was persuaded back to presbyterian gvt being consistent with scriptures like Acts 15 etc.
So it depends when in his life he would have been asked to serve as elder.
Your friend is influenced by some pretty scary people. He has far more serious issues to contend with than the doctrine of church govt.
As for Owen he would have been accepted as a member of the OPC and PCA as this man should do.
And a man cannot be an elder unless he is appointed. So if it was during a time when he was in agreement with presbyterian govt, then yes he could be appointed and ordained an elder in the PCA or OPC.
The question is like saying would the OPC let Owen be a member before his conversion.
How could a man who denies there is a presbyter be one?? It would be his own choice keeping him form eldership not the church!!
It is not the narrowness of the reformed churches that is here, a Reformed Baptist church would no doubt not let John Calvin be an elder.
Consider that.
Sadly it was during that time when he wrote on church polity.
Later he was persuaded back to presbyterian gvt being consistent with scriptures like Acts 15 etc.
So it depends when in his life he would have been asked to serve as elder.
Your friend is influenced by some pretty scary people. He has far more serious issues to contend with than the doctrine of church govt.
As for Owen he would have been accepted as a member of the OPC and PCA as this man should do.
And a man cannot be an elder unless he is appointed. So if it was during a time when he was in agreement with presbyterian govt, then yes he could be appointed and ordained an elder in the PCA or OPC.
The question is like saying would the OPC let Owen be a member before his conversion.
How could a man who denies there is a presbyter be one?? It would be his own choice keeping him form eldership not the church!!
It is not the narrowness of the reformed churches that is here, a Reformed Baptist church would no doubt not let John Calvin be an elder.
Consider that.
Tim,
I don't think Owen's exception would permit him to be an officer (see Michael's comment on vows above). But at the same time I find it humorous for FVers to talk about the PCA being too strict. I wonder if it is possible for them to even say the word "Baptist" without spitting. FVers would de-church all of the Southern Presbyterians, Jonathan Edwards and any number of other non-hyper sacramentalists as "pietists."
Because he was not credo-baptist only.
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
For the same reason. If you have a different concept of church govt you can not uphold the govt of another church by agreement.
And of course a solid presbyterian would probably not seek eldership in a church that believes is violating scripture.
It seems it would not make sense. Presbyterians believe we are to have equality among elders and ministers and submission to higher courts not be a democracy or an independent republic or dictatorship
A graduate of Multnomah Seminary recently told me that though it would be ideal to have a plurality of elders in a church there would still need to be one top dog. Its the onyl way to efficiently run things.
This is a part of the reason I became so strongly convinced of the propiety of presbyterian govt. Too many demigods and autocrats running baptist churches a lording it over the people as well.
1 Peter 5:3-4
3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock ;
NKJV
dannyhyde
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi Tim,
Research in Owen's ecclesiology is still a need. That said, you can read in vol. 15 his "Brief Instruction in the Worship of God" (1667) for as well as "An Inquiry Into the Original, Nature, Institution, Power, Order, and Communion of Evangelical Churches." You should also read the Savoy Declaration.
In my reading of Owen, I have found that "Owen's Congregationalism" is not like "Modern Congregationalism." I think Owen may be called a small "p" presbyterian.
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
Surprisingly he was not clear in his mind on the subject and I think it is because he had to write in support of something he was not fully convinced of for the sake of peace and unity in his time.
Thus the later return to the preferably teaching.
It is an anomaly in Owens body of work. It manifest the need for the grace of god in all of us lest we fall into error. If Owen could fall, who is exempt. Father help us by your Spirit, Save and preserve your church for your glory!
I still like the Reformed Baptist way.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
As far as I can tell (as Danny Hyde says, much more research needs to be done regarding Owen's ecclesiology), Owen was a convinced Congregationalist. The rumor that he became a presbyterian on his deathbed is probably just that - a rumor.
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
It wasn't his deathbed.
And what was he before he joined Cromwell? So I would not say he was a "confirmed" Congregational.
Wayne
Tempus faciendi, Domine.
Forget the anachronistic question of Owen, what's up with these guys and their teaching? There's a million errors out there, but Tim's story raises some interesting questions.
Are these guys recognizably FV [names?]
-- or is their teaching merely FV-like?
And if the former, is this where at least a portion of the FV is heading?
uberkermit
Puritan Board Freshman
Perhaps it would be helpful to split this thread in order to continue the two lines of thought found here.
As to Owen's thoughts on Presbyterianism and Congregationalism, he made some revealing statements in the second chapter of A Review of the True Nature of Schism etc, found in Volume XIII of the Banner of Truth edition of his works, pp. 222-223.
As to Owen's thoughts on Presbyterianism and Congregationalism, he made some revealing statements in the second chapter of A Review of the True Nature of Schism etc, found in Volume XIII of the Banner of Truth edition of his works, pp. 222-223.
Reformed Thomist
Puritan Board Sophomore
The Reformed tradition, what with confessionalism and rampant denominationalism, is full of ironies like this.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I wouldn't have thought of FV and inclusive as going together, either.
Wayne
Tempus faciendi, Domine.
Edward:
To clarify, I took Tim's account:
as a classic example of exclusivism -- that these supposed apostles presume to judge the Church, seeking to limit it to the few who meet their standards. It's an old story and the aim usually is to ensnare the gullible.
To clarify, I took Tim's account:
as a classic example of exclusivism -- that these supposed apostles presume to judge the Church, seeking to limit it to the few who meet their standards. It's an old story and the aim usually is to ensnare the gullible.
Does the PCA indeed require adhering to jus divinum presbyterianism? If not, Owen's a shoe in.
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
Wonder how the church existed all these thousands of years and will go one with only 6 of them for the state. Wonder how many are in my state, or in Africa or So. America. Maybe we should offer to send them there to minister; yes Malasia has a need now, or Iraq, China, N Korea, Morrocco could all use some real good elders.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I'd tend to agree with you as far as that goes, but I was trying to sort out this:
I can't puzzle out what they might mean by 'inclusive' here. I know how it is used in the liberal church, and in society as a whole, and I have trouble fitting that in with what I understand of the FV folks. They have many faults, but 'inclusivity' isn't one which I would attribute to them.
DonP
Puritan Board Junior
They don't include a broad enough spectrum of Christians.
too Restrictive.
Need to include more.
- Status
