Presbyterianism and our devotion to proper ecclesiology

[Scott Bushey]

The idea came up in regards to Presbyterian ministers preaching in independant churches. Is it me or does anyone else see a problem w/ this picture? I know that Pastor Ted Donnely frequents preaching here in S. Florida @ Emmanuel Baptist. Alex mentioned that Dr. Reymond is preaching @ Boyton Community Church. RC is independant! Is it me or is it all falling apart at the seams? How can we cry Reformation if in fact we can be taken to task in regards to our consistency?

 

[Herald]

Gee Scott, as a credo I don't feel that way when the opposite happens. While baptism is our historical point of separation, there are many things we do agree on. I can't speak for other credo's accept for myself. I have made the following statement many times: "Accept for the issue of baptism, I would probably be Presbyterian." Having a paedo speak in a credo church or vice versa does not call into question either church' consistency. It does unite us on the doctrines of sovereign grace. I don't see where the problem is.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Gee Scott, as a credo I don't feel that way when the opposite happens. While baptism is our historical point of separation, there are many things we do agree on. I can't speak for other credo's accept for myself. I have made the following statement many times: "Accept for the issue of baptism, I would probably be Presbyterian." Having a paedo speak in a credo church or vice versa does not call into question either church' consistency. It does unite us on the doctrines of sovereign grace. I don't see where the problem is.

Bill,
See, thats the point. It is not an issue of baptism. It's ecclesiology and the covenantal perspective, to name a few.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

How does ecclesiology determine where an ordained minister can preach?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Is the position of the RPCGA that their ministers may not preach in RB churches when given the opportunity?

 

[Scott Bushey]

How does ecclesiology determine where an ordained minister can preach?

Well, to begin with, is independancy at odds with reformed principles and if it is, it should determine where an 'ordained' refomed minister preaches. Thats my point.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Is the position of the RPCGA that their ministers may not preach in RB churches when given the opportunity?

Chris,
I don't know if it is officially the position of the RPCGA; I can almost promise you that their ministers would not make themselves available for such a situation.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Well, to begin with, is independancy at odds with reformed principles and if it is, it should determine where an 'ordained' refomed minister preaches. Thats my point.

Why should a prebyterian minister not be allowed to preach in an independent church?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

[FONT=&quot]Well, that would be rather surprising to me, but if you say so. I know Dr. Crampton pretty well so I'll ask him if he in principle never preaches or would never preach if asked by any RBs. If I would be so bold as to say, Scott, you seem to be wanting to lay out some sort of official position for Presbyteria ministers. But you own denomination has no official position. Why would you want to play the provocateur on a public board if so? See if you can get an official position in your own house first.[/FONT]

Chris,
I don't know if it is officially the position of the RPCGA; I can almost promise you that their ministers would not make themselves available for such a situation.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Why should a prebyterian minister not be allowed to preach in an independent church?

It's not whether they are allowed; the issue is does it undermine the consistency.

 

[Scott Bushey]

[FONT=&quot]Well, that would be rather surprising to me, but if you say so. I know Dr. Crampton pretty well so I'll ask him if he in principle never preaches or would never preach if asked by any RBs. If I would be so bold as to say, Scott, you seem to be wanting to lay out some sort of official position for Presbyteria ministers. But you own denomination has no official position. Why would you want to play the provocateur on a public board if so? See if you can get an official position in your own house first.[/FONT]

Chris,
You are correct, I do not actually know the RPCGA's official position; So in that regard, lets just remove them from the equation.

Scott, you seem to be wanting to lay out some sort of official position for Presbyteria ministers

Should there not be a position consistent with our ecclesiology? What does it say for our position when we waffle?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Scott,
But you as an individual are presuming the inconsistency without any public position of your own church. Now, just who is being inconsistent with Presbyterianism here? You don't want to speak for the RPCGA but you will presume to speak for Presbyterianism in general?

Chris,
You are correct, I do not actually know the RPCGA's official position; So in that regard, lets just remove them from the equation.



Should there not be a position consistent with our ecclesiology? What does it say for our position when we waffle?

 

[Arch2k]

This reminds me of the days when the bible study I leaded reasoned from the scriptures that we shouldn't have one.

Oh the irony.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

It's not whether they are allowed; the issue is does it undermine the consistency.

So would street preaching undermine consistency? Or preaching in homeless shelters? How about special invitations to preach at secular or community events?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

So what did you do? Westminster Presbyterianism, and particularly Scottish Presbyterianism of the same period that produced the Westminster Directory for Family Worship, is a bit more restrictive than what most of us are used to in our egalitarian culture.

This reminds me of the days when the bible study I leaded reasoned from the scriptures that we shouldn't have one.

Oh the irony.

 

[ADKing]

Scott,
But you as an individual are presuming the inconsistency without any public position of your own church. Now, just who is being inconsistent with Presbyterianism here? You don't want to speak for the RPCGA but you will presume to speak for Presbyterianism in general?

If Scott is asking the question about whether it is inconsistent with the principles of presbyterianism to preach in baptist (or other for that matter) churches I do not understand how this criticism applies. Scott's church may or may not be consistent with presbyterian principles--that is not the issue about which he is asking. The questions seems like a legitimate one.

It is also a question with some pretty important ramifications to ecclesiology. Ought a minister to preach in a church if he cannot agree to its doctrinal standards? What would this say about what he believes about the propriety of such a church's standards, officers and even existence? In theory, one could say that he believes his baptist friends are true christians but that they have no right existing as a separate church. I am not necessarily saying these are my opinions, but I think they are worthwhile questions to ask.

It seems to me that the safest position to take is somewhere between the Steelites with their occassional hearing views (it is sinful to even visit a church other than our own!) and the view that seems to have become more popular in a post-Lloyd Jones era as represented in the evangelical unity idea of Iain Murray et. al. Where is that line...?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Was Paul inconsistent with his ecclesiology for preaching in Jewish synagogues? Or Mars Hill?

 

[Scott Bushey]

From the RPC site:

A proper structure in church government is essential to preserve good order and to maintain the purity and peace of the Church. Three main forms of organization are found in the visible Church :- Prelacy, Independency and Presbyterianism.

Prelacy, represented by Anglicanism, holds that there are different orders such as deacons, priests, canons, deans, bishops and archbishops. These orders are of an ascending nature and form a hierarchy. Prelacy makes a clear distinction between 'clergy' and the 'laity'.

Independency, on the other hand, sees no difference in rank among ministers, but holds that each congregation is autonomous and subject to no higher ecclesiastical authority.

Presbyterianism is that form of Church government exercised by presbyters or elders, among whom there is no distinction of rank or order. It is of the essence of Presbyterianism to recognise the authority of ascending courts, that is, Session, Presbytery, Synod, etc. The Reformed Presbyterian Church believes that this is the form of church government outlined in Holy Scripture.

Matt McMahon says:

his is where I believe Independency and Toleration break down. If Presbyterianism is correct in its ecclesiology, then Independency is not correct, and thus, it is schismatic and dividing Christ’s Church.

Richard Bacon states in his paper, "The Visible Church & the Outer Darkness.":

he author of that monograph, Mr. Reed, quotes Thomas M`Crie's The Unity of the Church [E.T., p. 4, citing Thomas M`Crie, The Unity of the Church (Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1989)] to the effect that it is not always the departing party that must bear the guilt of schism. That is obviously true, and one need look no further than the Reformation to see that it was the Popish party and not the Reformers who were guilty of apostasy and thus brought about the separation involved in the Reformation.

Particular congregations are not free to walk alone any more than individual Christians are free to act (judicially) on their own. The church in which M`Crie was a Minister had formulated some specific testimonies when they seceded from the Church of Scotland. During M`Crie's lifetime the Secession Church's synod changed those documents so that the character of the church itself changed. Those few Ministers who continued to hold to the testimonies were required by conscience to form a new synod in order to maintain the same and continuing testimony of their former church. Neither M`Crie nor the other Ministers associated with him attempted to gather new congregations out of their former church. M`Crie states on page 19, “But as individual Christians are not at liberty to walk and act singly, so neither are particular congregations at liberty to act as independent and disjointed societies.”[M`Crie, op. cit.] Dr. M`Crie abhorred independency and would not have condoned for one instant the sort of so-called Presbyterianism set forth in “Extraordinary Times.”

Churchill Writes:

The problem, as Robert Churchill saw it, was that more was at stake than an immature understanding of God’s grace. Beyond a manifestation of a weak and immature faith, antipaedobaptism was also a sinful practice which displeased God. Moreover, it was a dereliction of duty that involved the Session of the church. As Churchill argued in the pages of the Presbyterian Guardian, "To bring in the doctrine of election here is beside the point. For while we may be saved with limited knowledge, we are not saved in disobedience."

The title of Churchill’s article—"Infant Baptism Optional?"—echoed a previous question in American Presbyterianism: "Is infant baptism on the decline in the Presbyterian Church?" Long before debates in the OPC, Charles Hodge raised that question in an 1857 article in the Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, on the "Neglect of Infant Baptism." Studying Presbyterian membership statistics and baptism records for the first half of the nineteenth century, Hodge drew the startling conclusion that "more than two-thirds of the children of the church [have] been ‘cut off’ from the people of God by their parents’ sinful neglect, and by the church’s silent acquiescence therein." This "work of destruction" was prompting the church in "fast deserting" its tradition, threatening to render infant baptism a "dead letter" in American Presbyterianism. Among the causes, Hodge cited these: the rise of independency among Presbyterian congregations, the failure of churches to instruct [their] people in the duties of the Christian faith, a failure to recognize baptized children as members, and the widespread neglect of family worship in Presbyterian homes.

PURITAN NEWS WEEKLY
J. Parnell McCarter writes:

By J. Parnell McCarter

The book Jus Divinum cogently lays out the case for Presbyterianism versus other models for church organization, such as Independency and Prelacy. Here is a link of an extract from the book comparing Presbyterianism and Independency : Having been a member in the past of various Independent Reformed (Baptist) churches, I think Jus Divinum rather accurately reflects what I observed in the Independent churches. I found that Independent church officers tended more than Presbyterian church officers to make subjective judgments lacking objective evidence, which would have come under more scrutiny if Independents had to report to higher church courts. But, of course, Independents lack higher church courts, so there can be a tendency to get away with decisions based upon unsatisfactory evidence. There can be an over-estimation by Independent church officers of their power to discern inward grace in prospective communicants, and a lack of sufficient carefulness in addressing observed sins of word and deed. A lack of accountability can tend to this result, in my opinion.

The Solemn League and Covenant states:

I. That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.

 

[Arch2k]

So what did you do? Westminster Presbyterianism, and particularly Scottish Presbyterianism of the same period that produced the Westminster Directory for Family Worship, is a bit more restrictive than what most of us are used to in our egalitarian culture.

Our bible study was an approx. 3 year study on the WCF. Our conclusion was largely based on the DfFW. Needless to say, there is no more bible study, although we do get together with my brother-in-law and sister-in-law (ex bible study goers) for dinner after the evening service on the Lord's day. We don't do a bible study, but it is a time of "godly conferencing." We still talk theology, but there isn't any teaching involved, that's for sure.

 

[Scott Bushey]

So would street preaching undermine consistency? Or preaching in homeless shelters? How about special invitations to preach at secular or community events?

I don't believe street preaching is a worship services; there is a difference. There are no members per se, unless of course your whole congregation goes out there for your message and you have the supper; then you would have to exclude everyone else other than your members.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Scott,
But you as an individual are presuming the inconsistency without any public position of your own church. Now, just who is being inconsistent with Presbyterianism here? You don't want to speak for the RPCGA but you will presume to speak for Presbyterianism in general?

My pastor agrees; If I may quote him, "Why would a Presbyterian minister want to preach in a independant church". I'll add, Chris, you may find it funny, to me this is serious.

 

[Scott Bushey]

If Scott is asking the question about whether it is inconsistent with the principles of presbyterianism to preach in baptist (or other for that matter) churches I do not understand how this criticism applies. Scott's church may or may not be consistent with presbyterian principles--that is not the issue about which he is asking. The questions seems like a legitimate one.

It is also a question with some pretty important ramifications to ecclesiology. Ought a minister to preach in a church if he cannot agree to its doctrinal standards? What would this say about what he believes about the propriety of such a church's standards, officers and even existence? In theory, one could say that he believes his baptist friends are true christians but that they have no right existing as a separate church. I am not necessarily saying these are my opinions, but I think they are worthwhile questions to ask.

It seems to me that the safest position to take is somewhere between the Steelites with their occassional hearing views (it is sinful to even visit a church other than our own!) and the view that seems to have become more popular in a post-Lloyd Jones era as represented in the evangelical unity idea of Iain Murray et. al. Where is that line...?

Thank you! It's not that odd to try and understand my concern.

 

[Arch2k]

Would a fraternal relationship with a church be requisite for preaching there?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I don't believe street preaching is a worship services; there is a difference. There are no members per se, unless of course your whole congregation goes out there for your message and you have the supper; then you would have to exclude everyone else other than your members.

But if we want to get real technical (just for the sake of argument): according to presbyterian polity, a baptist church is not a true church, hence there are no members, therefore it would be considered street preaching or perhaps evangelical outreach. So it could still be perfectly consistent to preach in other churches while being faithfully presbyterian.

 

[ADKing]

But if we want to get real technical (just for the sake of argument): according to presbyterian polity, a baptist church is not a true church, hence there are no members, therefore it would be considered street preaching or perhaps evangelical outreach. So it could still be perfectly consistent to preach in other churches while being faithfully presbyterian.

I do not think this is an accurate understanding of what presbyterians believe consititutes a true church. Proper polity is necessary for the well being of a church but not its very being. Baptist churches may be true churches but they may also be churches that have separated on unbiblical grounds in defense of unbiblical doctrines (from a presbyterian perspective).

 

[Scott Bushey]

Would a fraternal relationship with a church be requisite for preaching there?

Fraternal as in Presbyterian.

Gentlemen,
On one hand we say independancy is wrong; the rejection of the little one's getting the sign is a 'great sin' and credo ordination is contra biblical and then on the other hand we stomp all over our convictions and hang them out to dry all for a moment in a pulpit. This is part of the problem. Everyone says, RC! RC! But he has no oversight. Is this correct? Is it Good for Presbyterianism? Is this what Christ had in mind? When Christ said that we should be one, did he mean something else? If it is just a spiritual statement, then again, as I have said on many occasions, I will just go back to Calvary Chapel and can all the piety as my flesh was fed there in a greater abundance.

 

[Scott Bushey]

But if we want to get real technical (just for the sake of argument): according to presbyterian polity, a baptist church is not a true church, hence there are no members, therefore it would be considered street preaching or perhaps evangelical outreach. So it could still be perfectly consistent to preach in other churches while being faithfully presbyterian.

Your above statement is a red herring.

I'm gonna quote you Pat:

according to presbyterian polity, a baptist church is not a true church

Is that true?

 

[Herald]

Bill,
See, thats the point. It is not an issue of baptism. It's ecclesiology and the covenantal perspective, to name a few.

Scott - but here is where I am coming from:

Covenantally speaking, I am either there or almost there with my Presbyterian brothers. How much agreement does there have to be regarding the covenants? Starting with the covenant of works and moving right through, many of my Baptist brethren are there. Not all, but many. Baptism does come into play because I am sure you will say it has covenantal ramifications. Does it not? Even within Presbyterianism there is disagreement.

I am not looking to hijack your thread (and forgive if it looks like that). But for the life of me I cannot understand what seems like an insular attitude of Presbyterians towards Baptists and Baptists toward Presbyterians. And when I refer to Baptists, I am referring to Baptists of the Spurgeon perspective. I am not calling for a blurring of the lines of our doctrinal distinctives. They are what they are. Certainly there are times when we put on the gloves and duke it out. Maybe the real issue from you OP is what are the covenantal differences (perceived or real) between us. That may be a tangent off of your OP, but it is a worthwhile discussion in its own right.

 

[brymaes]

WCF 25.2

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion,a and of their children;b and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,c the house and family of God,d out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.e a. Psa 2:8; Rom 15:9-12; 1 Cor 1:2; 12:12-13; Rev 7:9. • b. Gen 3:15; 17:7; Ezek 16:20-21; Acts 2:39; Rom 11:16; 1 Cor 7:14. • c. Isa 9:7; Mat 13:47. • d. Eph 2:19; 3:15. • e. Acts 2:47.

What in your Standards leads you to believe that a Presbyterian minister may not, for the sake of consistency, occasionally minister in another part of the Visible Church?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Your above statement is a red herring.

I'm gonna quote you Pat:


Is that true?

I'm just asking questions and trying to understand how you think. I'm not certain where I stand on the issue yet, hence the questions. It's how I think these things though. I didn't intend it any other way.

So what does traditional presbyterian polity consider an independent congregation?