Does anyone else think it is strange to speak of the Scriptures teaching more than one system of church government?

__________________
Chris Coldwell
Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• The Confessional Presbyterian, A Journal for Discussion of Presbyterian Doctrine & Practice
• The Blue Banner Archive

When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the ‘old dead orthodoxy,’ and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they ‘differ from it only in words.’ This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. Samuel Miller, Introductory essay, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (1841).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Yes, I believe it is strange and unfounded....

__________________
Michael Daniels
Reformed, RPCNA
Denton, Maryland

[i][b]As For Me And My House, We Will Serve The Lord[/i][/b]

[SIZE="1"][I][FONT="Century Gothic"]Unum Deum in Trinitate: Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus [RIGHT]Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide - Solus Christus - Soli Deo gloria - Solum psalterium - Lex talionis[/RIGHT][/FONT][/I][/SIZE]

I do not think they teach more than one, but I do think that the blue print in Scripture is more guidance than rule. For example: Is it essential for a congregation to have more than one presbyter?

Scripture cannot contradict itself, and as ecclesiology is not adiaphora, then Scripture cannot teach more than one form of church government.

Now, if we have achieved the perfected form of church government, well, that's a whole other question.

__________________
Seth Stark
Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

I don't know "It it" is?

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Yes, I believe that it is strange.

__________________
How often have you wondered why Christ should set His heart upon such a one as you! --Octavius Winslow

Lon Wadkins (Jesup, Iowa)
New Covenant Fellowship, OPC
Independence, Iowa

Yes, it's strange indeed. I think the fly in the ointment is not that people think it teaches different things, but that different people think it teaches clearly one thing (but they don't agree on what that one thing is).

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

This is why in the Presbyterian churches we say that the form of govenrment goes to the well being of the Church versus the essence of the Church.

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

It is strange. The idea of ambivilence or multiple valid positions can be traced to modern skepticism.

__________________
~Jay~
Husband of ENS, father of J II. | Indian Trail, NC
Teacher Aide, Union County Public Schools, NC
Communicant Member, Precentor | Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte, NC | Presbyterian Reformed Church

Surely then you would have to demonstrate that your form of polity provides for the greatest well being of the Church over and against other forms of polity. Does that not then wrest authority from Scripture to that of "well being"?

I think Article 20 is spot on in saying "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."

Yes one would have to demonstate that a particular form provides the greatest well being based on biblical warrant, but the point is that the marks of the Church whether looking at the marks of the true church or just simply the visible church, polity is the mark of neither (note: discipline can be performed under any existing form of governing). Therefore, church government does not go to the essence of the church.

I am in agreement with you there.

I believe Dr. Blackwood taught me that three forms of government were taught in the scriptures. Hierarchy, Presbyterianism, and Congregationalism. That is if I remember correctly.

He made a case from the scriptures for each one. He was convinced Presbyterianism was the order set from acts 15. I am not convinced that Acts 15 is the place to really plea for the cause though.

http://www.reformedbaptist.co.uk/Wha...0Jerusalem.htm

Here is an old thread where we discussed the differences a bit here and the article I linked to above.

Congregational vs. Presbyterian

I have grown more stronger in my convicition that Plural Elder rule Congregationalism is more biblical.

__________________

R. Martin Snyder
1689erPuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page
"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."William Symington

My point exactly. The law of non-contradiction prevents the Bible from teaching A and non A at the same time and in the same respect (without being in contradiction with itself). It does not, however, gurantee that what YOU or I think it teaches "clearly" is correct. We may both be wrong.

That Godly, Bible-believing, Christians can hold different views on polity with sincerity and without evident danger to their souls, does not imply that there is not ONE correct answer. It does, however, suggest to me that diversity on this issue does not bear the same implications as disagreement on the deity of Christ, for example.

[Sorry, Vic, I initially hit edit instead of quote. All fixed now.]

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Clearly the Bible only can teach one form of govt. However I voted that it is not strange because I do not think that all of the detailed expressions of presbyterianism are alike in degree of clarity.

I believe that presbyterianism is the "best system" because I think that it is the most biblical. I do not think, however that it is so clear as to rule out all other forms or expessions as being still a possible interpretation.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Mount Zion ARP
Moncton NB

Yes. Just as it is strange to allow for both paedo and credobaptism in a church for the "sake of conscience." It should be one or the other, but not both.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules-Signature Requirements-Suggestions?

What Richard said!

__________________
~etexas~

The bigger question (IMHO) is why so many great Puritan thinkers who had so much in common theologically fragmented on the issue of church government?

I suspect this tells us something about the clarity of the issue of church government in the NT.

IMHO there wasn't a blueprint given to the church. We find something of a development over the period of the NT writings.

Hence, I suspect that many approaches to church government are not unbiblical even if they may be extra-biblical.

__________________
Marty

From Creation to New Creation via Redemption