I have a question: How should members of a Presbyterian church be in submission to unlawfully ordained elders? In what sense or any should they submit to their leadership as elders in Christ's church? I've always been confused on this.

What do you mean by "unlawfully ordained elders" in the context of Presbyterianism? What presbyterian denomination allows for "unlawfully ordained elders"?

Please clarify. Thanks.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Dan....]

__________________
Dan Harris. -member of Westminster OPC, Indian Head Park, IL

Looking for piano lessons in the Plainfield, Shorewood, Joliet, IL area?
Contact: Mrs. Jennifer Harris. Visit web site here:
http://www.harrispianostudio.com

I mean Baptist elders, Pentecostal elders, Methodist elders, etc. . . . In other words, any church that is not confessionally Reformed in ecclesiology (along with all other -ologies) in a broad sense. Do I, as a communicant member of a historical, confessional, Reformed Church, have obligation to submit to a Southern Baptist elder?

Gabe -

Couple of things to consider:

1) Presbytery has jurisdiction over its offices and members. Thus, members of a local church are under the authority and jurisdiction of their Presbytery. They have relinquished all other ecclesiastical affiliations, and all memberships in any secret societies to be under the authority of the elders of their session nd presbytery.

2) Members of a given congregation vow to: receive their elders, their preaching, encourage them, and to provide for them. In this, their vows for our church cover the following:

They must meet at least weekly on the Lord´s Day for worship and be organized with elder(s) and members.

They must have had the Westminster Standards read to them and be willing to submit to them.

Members must relinquish all membership with any other ecclesiastical group or denomination. Its membership in any broad-based councils of churches or pastoral associations must be agreeable to presbytery.

The particular congregation must agree not to tolerate any teaching from an elder which is contrary to the teachings of the Bible as understood by the Westminster Standards and the BCO.

The particular congregation must be instructed in the sacraments and agree to abide by such instruction in accordance with the Westminster Standards and the BCO.

The congregation must agree to have the Westminster Standards taught in their congregation on a frequent and regular basis.

The particular congregation must be willing to submit to the government and discipline of the presbytery according to the Book of Church Order.

The particular congregation must agree to conform its present and future practices to the Westminster Standards and the Book of Church Order to the best of its ability.

So, in light of that, anyone who is part of our church is under the authority of the Westminster Presbytery and no others. A PCA pastor has no jurisdiction over the members. That kind of affiliation should seem obvious.

No one, at any time, is required to be submissive to a jurisdictional authority they have not vowed to, except as it pertains to Christian humility in esteeming others better than ourselves. If a man who is unlawfully ordained, or not ordained at all, attempted to espouse political or jurisdictional authority over a member in our church, we would confront them biblically, not only with the wrongfulness of thier oppression, but with the biblicalness of how government works in the church.

At the same time, all the elders of Westminster Presbytery have rights over all its officers and members.

__________________
C. Matthew McMahon, Ph.D.
John 5:39, "...search the Scriptures..."

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon.com, www.apuritansmind.com and www.puritanpublications.com
Member - Christ Presbyterian Church, Professor at WTS for Puritan History & Theology.

Suggested Tag: "I'm not user friendly."

Life Maxim: Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
Like Card Magic? Check out: www.cardconjurer.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Gabe,
Your submission would only be to those whom are in actuality 'watching over your soul' i.e. your church where you have membership, not to those of the periphery.

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

Gabriel, I might add that if you are visiting a Southern Baptist church, you should submit (in the sense of deferring to them in matters of order) to the elders there or withdraw.


Vic

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

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

The reason I ask is b/c I'm a member of an RPC church in Indiana, but I went to a bible study with my roommates who are all Baptist and they go to an independent calvinistic baptist church started by a un-ordained, un-seminary trained 'pastor'.. and I wasn't very comfortable there. Not only that, I questioned whether or not I should even be around that or sit under such teaching. God ordains pastors and plants churches, not man. *shrug*

Gabriel, and with respect, in the context of a Bible study, I disagree that an "un-seminary" trained 'pastor' is something inherently to be feared. But if you think that way, you might want to be careful reading anything by Spurgeon.

I don't see Bible study the same as being a member of a church. If you find the doctrine unscriptural, by all means it is good to feel uncomfortable. If your roommates are intolerant of your ecclesiology, again, there is nothing wrong in avoiding the fellowship. But simply because the Bible study is with Baptists (calvinistic ones at that) does not seem to bring in the issues you first raised, that is, one of submission.

Vic

Vic

Gabe: You have no more duty to an elder outside your congregation than a child does to a father who is not his own.

__________________
Scott Roberts
Ruling Elder, Lakeside Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Southlake, Texas

Scott,

Not true in a Presbyterian context. Close, but better would be "elder outside of your Church"

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

I guess what I struggled with was.. what if I strongly disagreed with what he was teaching or what my roommates now believed. Do I have the right to challenge him and his teachings? To question them? To say they are unbiblical and down right wrong?

Yes, it is proper to do that. Otherwise we could never stand for the faith - lest we be afraid of offending an Arminian elder, for example.

But we need to remember that the right to question them does not permit the jettisoning of Christian character.

For a minute, Gabe was worried that some Baptist elder might have authority to foist his "anabaptist" ways on him.

__________________
Ryan
1689 London Baptist Confession

What is a 'charitable' way to open discussion with my housemates about their schismatic church with no lawfully ordained leadership? They love this pastor and think this is the best church in the world, etc. etc. ... They belittle me for my beliefs all the time (being presby, etc.), but I never talk about theirs. I feel at a loss for words and I have no idea how I should approach this, but I really do want to defend what I believe the true Church.

Tell 'em they're wrong and stick your tongue out at 'em. :P

Ok, not really. I find that it's best to exemplify the Christian life around them..they'll get around to asking YOU the questions...that's what I've found in my experience.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

This is an excellent question, and one worth thinking about. I'll try and post something later tonight when I have time, but I would also be interested in hearing what some of the Pastors here say as well. It may be very difficult given the circumstances you describe.

Thank you, Fred.

"Not true in a Presbyterian context. Close, but better would be "elder outside of your Church""

Please explain. Thanks

Gabriel, I haven't been on this board for very long and I may have missed some background on this issue and what you are trying to say. Can you tell me what you mean by the pastor being unordained or unlawfully ordained?

I bring this up in the context of the 1689 London Confession which, I think, you'd agree is a historic confession. It provides in Chapter 26 that elders of a church are chosen by "common suffrage" of the particular church.

It might well be that the church you are talking about is nonconfessional or that the elder appointed himself. If that is the case, then I understand why you might use the term "unlawful".

As for being schismatic, a Baptist might view that differently from a Presbyterian. I know of some reformed Baptist churches that formed after their members were driven out of Arminian Baptist churches. I wouldn't call those churches schismatic at all. You haven't given enough information to tell if the church in question is actually schismatic. (I understand that from a Presbyterian point of view, leaving a denomination might be that, but Baptists have always been independent).

Otherwise, I think that you are arguing ecclesiology with your housemates, not legality. You aren't at the point where you agree on the definitions. It seems you probably are not going to get very far calling their church unlawful if in fact it did follow the procedures set out in the London confession.

Their belittling your Presbyterian views is sadly immature. By grace and patience, perhaps, you might be able to give them a bit of history about the grand tradition and reasons for your denomination's point of view. You might point out how much Calvinistic Baptists are indebted to Presbyterian scholars.

But we Baptists are an independent and sometimes ornery lot. It may take a brick or a bat to get them to behave better.

Vic

Their church was started by the 'pastor.' It is not part of a denomination and has never been. It does not abide by any Confession. I don't believe it even has "membership" just committed attenders. The pastor did not complete seminary, nor has he been ordained by any ecclesiastical body, to my knowledge (not even a baptist one).

I attended a church like that for over two years. Independent Calvinistic Baptist, "no creed but the Bible", no membership, no formal connection or association with other churches, etc. I think the two pastors were both probably ordained in the SBC years ago. At the end of this period, I found their ecclesiology lacking and their theology off-base in some surprising ways. I think Puritanhead was joking when he referred to "anabaptist ways" but I would think that churches fitting this profile (no membership, no confession, etc.) will often have some kind of anabaptist conception of the church and church history, as opposed to what you would find among most Reformed Baptists. There was some wonderful preaching and fellowship at this church at times, but looking back, I wish I had attended the OPC I'm attending now instead. But I was a confirmed credobaptist at the time, so I didn't see it as a serious option.

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by Pilgrim]

__________________
Chris
Member at Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

Beware of a religion without holdfasts. But if I get a grip upon a doctrine they call me a bigot. Let them do so. Bigotry is a hateful thing, and yet that which is now abused as bigotry is a great virtue, and greatly needed in these frivolous times. I have been inclined lately to start a new denomination, and call it "the Church of the Bigoted." Spurgeon

Hebrews 5:4 says this regarding the high priesthood: "œNo one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was."�

Part of Calvin's comments draw these conclusions:

Well then, I agree with your view, Gabriel, and with what Scott posted. No man has authority to appoint himself. Sadly, it seems that the most popular types of "preachers" do just that.

Vic