Jus Divinum again

[JohnV]

I just received my copy of Jus Divinum, and I've started reading it. I'm on David Hall's summary introduction of the text.

There are a few things that spring out, causing red flags and questions, but some of that, I admit, is from my approach from the other end of things. Some of those things are getting answered as I read. Though I do need to read them between the lines somewhat, yet they are certainly there. Some questions yet remain, and I hope these get answered as I continue to read.

There is a lot in this that we could discuss on this Board, going by the outlines presented in the book, and going by a quick skimming over of the contents. If we hold to the limited instructive authority of this book, as being from the same source as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and the Forms of worship and of government, then this book could be very helpful in many ways.

Just thought I would acknowledge receipt of the book. I'll hold my questions for the time being. But if you haven't ordered the book from Chris, I would recommend to you to do so, if you are able.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I have also started reading it. Just in the first part also. So far it has been a defense in that it is what the divines thought. I have also picked up on the fact that independents are not justified in their ordinations. I just started it so let's discuss it John.

 

[Peter]

Here's an outline of JDRE as an Open Office file. Not all that helpful as the book itself is virtually an o/l however it is searchable.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Peter
Here's an outline of JDRE as an Open Office file. Not all that helpful as the book itself is virtually an o/l however it is searchable.

What is this Peter? I can't seem to get it opened.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

What a great beginning. I am and have been persuaded that the Presbyterian's got it correct in the Westminster understanding of Ecclesiology. I have been foggy on the details though. This is clearing up some of my suspicions.

John Owen and Thomas Goodwin were, in my estimation, trying to avoid Erastianism but helping it along with their friendship of Cromwell. While seeking autonomy for the church they were destroying it. The evidence I see in this is the fact when Cromwell died so did what they were fighting for. The center of authority was still placed in the Civil Magistrate who claimed authority over the Church and it's divine right of government under Christ. The Divines had it correct in their understanding of the two Kingdoms.

Let's start a discussion thread in Ecclesiolgy. And set up some points of discussion. While I still contend that Acts 15 was a reaction instead of an ordered form of Government, it's implications and illumination on what Church government ought to be is still important. Authority is more than just declarative or recommended policy. It is much more and I do believe independency is something Christ never intended. A congregation is not and should not be autonomous in rule. There are foundational truths to be gleaned.

What do you guys think?

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Peter]

You have to download open office. I'll see if I can get it in word or as a .doc but the formating will probably be messed up.

 

[JohnV]

R. Martin:

I like the idea of a Jus Divinum discussion thread. I started this thread with some red flags raised, some alarm bells sounding about what Hall was asserting. I just don't trust that kind of approach to any subject, much less to something as pivotal as church government. But I don't have to appreciate Hall to appreciate what I've read so far in the text of the book itself.