posted by Scott Bushey
Presbyterianism is not based upon presuppositions
I thought all propositions were based on presuppositions? such as presbyerianism being based on the presupp the bible is the word of God.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
posted by Scott Bushey
Presbyterianism is not based upon presuppositions
Originally posted by Peter
posted by Scott Bushey
Presbyterianism is not based upon presuppositions
I thought all propositions were based on presuppositions? such as presbyerianism being based on the presupp the bible is the word of God.
such as presbyterianism being based on the presupposition the bible is the word of God. SP ed.
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Here is McKay's conclusion on Gillespie's defense of Presbyterianism. Just a caution that we should be careful to not take every single argument of men of Gillespie's days uncritically. Even if you disagree with Mckay, his book is a most have if one is interested in studying the writings of Gillespie.
An Ecclesiastical Republic: Church Government in the Writings of George Gillespie, by W. D. J. McKay (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1997). 269-275.
.................................................................
eliminated article. It is four pages long you can read it in a prior post.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
John Owen turned Presbyterian. See Rev. Dr. John Owen Re-Presbyteri-anized.
I have to say, as a lover of Owen, and a Presbyterian, that I found this essay pretty strained. I am also concerned that no other scholar ever has made this claim - Presbyterian or otherwise - for Owen.
I take this as wishful thinking by Lee.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by Cottonball
I'm just pointing out that you guys seem to being putting more thought into it than they did. The churches in this council were all the big Puritan ones--the Old North, the Old South, etc. I think it was smart of them to band together against George I!
Let me ask it another way, Is the church more splintered now than ever before?
Randy,Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Can you cut me a deal on the Jus book. I am a poor man who loves hardbacks. Need a hardback because I am hard on books and I also want my kids to inheret what God wants them to have. Good Books.
[Edited on 8-15-2005 by puritancovenanter]
It is either the way we see it and no other way at all. I just don't buy it. It matters not that a group of Presbyterian's throw in there vote to condemn something against what they believe based upon presuppositions put on a passage of Scripture.
I would logically assume that Scott is saying the Presbyterian form of Church government is not based on presuppositions being brought to the text about how Church government should be done, but letting God's Word speak for itself and be the only, final authority.
I think the structure of the [presbyterian church], from the local church to the general assembly has been thoughtfully implemented and adjusted to try to bring it into conformity with the apostolic polity. On Paul´s first missionary journey, we read how elders (N.B. plural) were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23) they planted. To the young church at Philippi, Paul writes addressing the saints as a whole, and their officers"”the overseers (bishops=elders) and deacons. The beginning of the framework (the cornerstone being Christ, the foundation being the apostles, Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14) is the individual church in every region. Insofar as the church cannot always meet all in one place for want of room, hearing, distance, or any other hindrance, there must be a multiplicity of meetings"”which translates ultimately into a multiplicity of individual churches. Each one needs a plurality of leaders, for Scripture teaches, "œIn the multitude of counselors there is safety (Prov. 24:6). Even in its infancy, the church was threatened with demagogues and tyrants (3 John 9-10), all the more reason for a session made up of rulers possessed of a true perception of the responsibilities and authority of their office.
The individual churches collectively make up the church-presbytery, meeting together for the business of the regional church, the saints ordinarily being represented by their elders (presbyters). It is in this church body that the ministers hold their membership. Presbyterian-church-ism, as we understand it, assumes from its inception a structured organization built and maintained for the accomplishment of the work of the kingdom of God. Because our [presbyterian] churches are so often spread over vast geographical regions, we often fail to see Presbytery as a variety of the local church. Operationally perhaps it is not, but organizationally and ideally it is very much so. And it is the beginning of a connectionalism that embraces an even wider field of the church.
"œWider" is important language to use when speaking of our vision of connectionalism. Because our church leadership sits in deliberative bodies that deal with cases of doctrine or discipline, they are properly understood as judicatories. But rather than viewing them as hierarchically arranged, together they are better seen as inclusive of that much more of the gathered minds of the church.
Acts 15 presents the paradigm of the church-council. The church-council was a called meeting of the widest possible gathering of church representatives to deal with matters that affected the whole body. At some point in Presbyterian church history it was deemed best to schedule these meetings regularly rather than waiting for some level of broadly held consensus for determining the need to gather. These days our presbyteries´ representatives gather annually at our General Assembly to meet, discuss, and decide church-wide matters. In elder days, due to the profusion of presbyteries and the sheer difficulties of travel, smaller, more regional gatherings called synods took place. All these meetings of the church are simply extensions or contractions of the principle found in Acts 15.
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
Randy,Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Can you cut me a deal on the Jus book. I am a poor man who loves hardbacks. Need a hardback because I am hard on books and I also want my kids to inheret what God wants them to have. Good Books.
[Edited on 8-15-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Thanks for the comments. Dropping you a U2U; maybe we can work something out. The HB of Jus Divinum is approaching out of print status.
Chris
Acts 15 presents the paradigm of the church-council. The church-council was a called meeting of the widest possible gathering of church representatives to deal with matters that affected the whole body.
At some point in Presbyterian church history it was deemed best to schedule these meetings regularly rather than waiting for some level of broadly held consensus for determining the need to gather. These days our presbyteries´ representatives gather annually at our General Assembly to meet, discuss, and decide church-wide matters. In elder days, due to the profusion of presbyteries and the sheer difficulties of travel, smaller, more regional gatherings called synods took place. All these meetings of the church are simply extensions or contractions of the principle found in Acts 15
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Yippie, I am a congregationalist anarchist! If only we had the sobriety of "republican" Presbyterians.
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
John Owen turned Presbyterian. See Rev. Dr. John Owen Re-Presbyteri-anized.
I have to say, as a lover of Owen, and a Presbyterian, that I found this essay pretty strained. I am also concerned that no other scholar ever has made this claim - Presbyterian or otherwise - for Owen.
I take this as wishful thinking by Lee.
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Yippie, I am a congregationalist anarchist! If only we had the sobriety of "republican" Presbyterians.
Ryan,
Although I am a Credo I have some preferences for Presbyterianism. I have seen some stupid stuff done in Congregational Churches. I have seen congregations destroyed because they were congregational. The checks and balances that Presbyterianism offers are beneficial for the whole body. It seems to protect everyone involved. For an Historical example look at what happened to Jonathan Edwards. Here say destroyed his ministry near the end of His life. I would also say that it was in God's providence also.
The worse examples of independency I have seen are particularly in Baptist Churches that don't have a plurality of Elders. I have personally seen larger churches destroyed because of perception and unaccountablily. They have a Senior Pastor, maybe an Associate Pastor, and a line of Deacons who are voted on yearly. Sometimes it is a popularity contest. The ordination of the deacon is only effectual for a short period of time based upon the need and loyalty of the congregation to the individual. There truly is a major discipline problem since the ordinations are temporal. I think you get my point. Here say and politics have a more rampant run in these circles because of the lack of discipline and order.
I must admit that I do see a balance in congregationalism that holds to a plurality of Elders as the Presbyterian model. The one thing lacking in these churches is the 'Unity abroad issue', as I will call it. Christianity is spread out so much that it needs something to keep it unified. Larger issues do need settled on a bigger scale. Local congregations can't see the whole picture alone. That is why I believe we need to have what Calvin discovered in the scriptures.
[Edited on 8-16-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Gump said it best, "independancy is as independancy does."
Well, how about starting the first Reformed Presbyterian Baptist Church
Originally posted by Puritanhead
Well, how about starting the first Reformed Presbyterian Baptist Church
:bigsmile:
And I was born and raised North of the Mason Dixon. Still live there. Probably always will.
Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
Martin - btw...I have to drive to St. Louis on Thursday for business. I'll be taking 70 all the way from Maryland. It will be dinner time when I hit Indianapolis. Know any good places right off of 70? If not, no problem. I'll have my car pretty well loaded with mobile goodies.