Unity of the Presbyterian

Status
Not open for further replies.
Historically, the OPC/Westminster viewed the mainline church/Princeton to have been the entities to have departed from orthodox Presbyterianism.
 
But we do not have Apostles any more. Christ rules by His Word, including the authoritative Apostolic words of the New Testament, by His Spirit and in His Providence.
I'd rather say we still have the original Apostles.

They "...being dead, still speak," Heb.11:4.

They rule the church, under Christ, from heaven, Lk.22:28-30; Rev.4:4.

Good point.

I tend to forget about the Apostles' and saints' involvement from glory.

Involvement in the words that are recorded in scripture given to us in His word.
It is indirect, mediated involvement, but it is REAL involvement.

And... they have direct involvement in ruling the church, where currently the (likely?) greater number of us citizens are permanently residing already: Jerusalem the Golden, the General Assembly of the church of the firstborn registered in heaven, Heb.12:22-23.

I just mean to say: these ARE the apostles, and ever will be. And even though they have reported to their heavenly seats, and their current conversations are limited to that (ever-growing) portion of the church graduated to sharing that glorious locale with them; the written instructions they left behind perpetuate their own, same, residual authority in this locale, for those who are following them both now and into our shared future.

The apostles (and prophets) are ALIVE now, and they ARE ruling us, though for here and now that authority is mediated through the scriptures. Written scripture mediates Christ himself--which is just what we mean when we say he rules us by his Word and Spirit. We aren't at liberty to set up new rulers, with alternate ideas about what is permissible in the church, because we are accountable to defend the faith once delivered to the saints, via the apostles to whom we will personally report someday.

I'm highlighting the widest scope of this whole idea, and deliberately minimizing the temporal and mortal impacts of this transitory age. Christ is alive, his apostles are alive, his Word given to us by the apostles is living and active.
 
I'm highlighting the widest scope of this whole idea, and deliberately minimizing the temporal and mortal impacts of this transitory age. Christ is alive, his apostles are alive, his Word given to us by the apostles is living and active.

Good words Pastor Bruce. I read Richards post #27 as if the Apostles were somehow ruling from heaven directly without the mediation of scripture. Of course post #27 could be read as you clarified and I am sure you, Richard, and I are in total agreement here.
 
via the apostles to whom we will personally report someday.

Can you elaborate on this?
The faith was delivered to the church through the instrumentality of the apostles.

Mt.19:28, "...and you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Christ's kingdom is organized. After Jesus, these to whom Christ speaks are the Prime Ministers of his government, Lk.6:13, Eph.4:11. Those of us who have to give an account of our ministry (Heb.13:17) may first encounter one of these judges, on the way to see God to whom we must ultimately give account, Rom.14:12.

We ultimately report to those higher up.
 
Just like to thank brother Bruce for your posts!! Saturated with scripture, fully ripe golden apples in a most beautiful setting of silver. I always learn so much from reading you !!
 
Mt.19:28, "...and you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Is this figurative for the whole body of Christ, Jew and Gentile?


Those of us who have to give an account of our ministry (Heb.13:17) may first encounter one of these judges, on the way to see God to whom we must ultimately give account, Rom.14:12.

Wow. Never thought of this.
Are there any indications in Scripture how this occurs- is it literal judging (accounting) by the apostles?

Any thoughts on whether this applies to elders only, broadly speaking? Does that mean any church officer (deacons), etc.?
 
Hello. I think this is the first time I've ever posted on the Puritan Board before. Hopefully I will do it correctly!

I wanted to say to Sonny that I completely agree with your reasoning on this issue that you expressed in your initial post. Presbyterian church government requires that all officers be united together in sessions, that all sessions be united in presbyteries, that all presbyteries be united in national councils, that all national councils be united in an ecumenical council. There can be variation in terms of the exact steps here (is there a synod between a presbytery and a national assembly, for example), but the key is that all the church courts function inter-dependently under mutually binding councils. That's what separates presbyterian church government from independency/congregationalism.

I think that a lot of us in the Reformed world are really not clearly presbyterian, though we affirm presbyterianism historically (it is the form of government articulated in all classic Reformed creeds and confessions). Instead, we are what I call "semi-congregationalists." I define a semi-congregationalist as someone who believes that there is a duty for some parts of the church to be united, but the unity only goes up so far, and then we reach a point where courts can start functioning independently. (So, for example, imagine two denominations. In each denomination, sessions are united under presbyteries, which are united under general assemblies. But the general assemblies of the two denominations function independently.) I also call this view "clumpy congregationalism," because instead of having separate congregations functioning independently we have clumps of congregations functioning independently from other clumps.

And note that presbyterianism does not simply require that the ideal be that church courts function inter-dependently. Presbyterianism requires that church courts function interdependently per their very essence. Therefore, when two presbyterian denominations are not united, there is an implied mutual rejection of each others' de jure legitimacy and authority as churches (though at the same time this is consistent with recognizing both as de facto churches--meaning that they are truly Christian, salvation is occurring there, etc.).

Sharon (Texan Rose) in an earlier post linked to some articles I have written on this subject (that's how I knew this conversation was going on--Puritan Board showed up in my blog stats). That first dialogue article on there, plus the article linked to in it, articulate my above reasoning. Also, in this article I spell out the thinking more systematically.

Here are a couple more good articles articulating these ideas:

Denominations

Biblical Principles of the Unity of the Church

Here is a classic statement of presbyterian church government:

The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government

I was happy to see that this conversation was occurring. I've been wanting to get on here and discuss this for some time, but I didn't want to start a new conversation myself, since I hadn't posted before.

Mark
Member
Christ Presbyterian Church
OPC
Salt Lake City, UT
 
Mark
Member
Christ Presbyterian Church
OPC
Salt Lake City, UT

Hi Mark! Apropos of nothing, I visited your church last October while I was visiting family in SLC. It was a great experience! You guys have a great church there.

I know return you to the topic at hand.
 
Very interesting and provoking thoughts Mark. Much food for thought there (especially for someone like myself that supports a national established church).
 
Mt.19:28, "...and you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Is this figurative for the whole body of Christ, Jew and Gentile?
Jesus is talking to the Twelve; we know they ruled the church on earth; it sounds to me like Christ here indicates they have eschatological responsibilities coming as well. Is it reasonable to think that Jesus means that everyone who follows him will judge (i.e. rule) over the church, over everybody else? If everyone is a chief, what happened to the indians?


Those of us who have to give an account of our ministry (Heb.13:17) may first encounter one of these judges, on the way to see God to whom we must ultimately give account, Rom.14:12.

Wow. Never thought of this.
Are there any indications in Scripture how this occurs- is it literal judging (accounting) by the apostles?

Any thoughts on whether this applies to elders only, broadly speaking? Does that mean any church officer (deacons), etc.?
It isn't my purpose to affirm progressing through a hierarchy on the way to the final Judgment throne. Connecting my above words with my final clarifying sentence in the original post, I emphasized that "we report to those who are above us," that is in rank.

My point is this: heaven is an orderly place, and we will be clear on the lines of authority as we "report" in person before the Ultimate Judge. I'm not saying that I answer to James, and you answer to John, or the Papists answer to Peter (μὴ γένοιτο!). My comment is more general than that. The apostles are still above the whole church, unless they were demoted!

I have no crystal-clear apprehension whether those who have proved "faithful with little" will, in actual historic fact, be entrusted with "much" (more than the ordinary) in the eschaton, but it seems like a reasonable inference; see Lk.19:17. Jesus said that to the man who had made "the most" of the same mina that all the servants received. In the parable of the talents, Mt.25, he gave to the servant who had the largest of three charges the greatest duties afterward.

The men who were named "apostles" in this world, were (if he did not have "another take his place") still apostles when they left here, and presumably are still the apostles in heaven. I get the sense from what is said in Scripture that our labors will be scrutinized hereafter, not for the sake of determining our entrance into heaven, but for confirming our roles in the world-to-come.

We will no doubt encounter promotions and demotions in Heaven's kingdom and government of Christ. And who is to say what kinds of movements and rearrangements will take place throughout eternity? But this much I am sure of: heaven is an organized place. I do not conceive of heaven in one-story terms. Jesus, and then everyone else in one rank of humanity. It was organization that led God to say (not without some irony) "nothing will be impossible for them." Organized cooperation is what gets great work done, if you are not the Infinite. Leadership and accountability (of some kind) is indispensable for organization. Even the angels have some organization.

Will not Abraham--the first in faith below (not the first-to-have-faith, of course)--continue to hold our utmost regard forever, who have followed him? Lazarus is said to rest in "Abraham's bosom," Lk.16:22. Some of that parable is figurative, but it is Abraham who replies, yes? I don't think we shall forget the command to honor our parents in the hereafter. In the present age, that command encompasses the reverence we owe to those in authority. Is.8:18 "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me," cf. Heb.2:13. Heaven will I believe contain orders of authority, not simply one order.
 
All I can say, Reverend Buchanan is wow!
Food for biblical thought.

Thank you.
 
Chris,

John Frame wrote a book with the premise raised in your OP. It is entitled Evangelical Reunion and I believe is available on his website. That book and the responses to it may be helpful for you to think through the issue more deeply.
 
Scott,
Chris nowhere claimed to be an "ordained church planter." He is a member in good standing of a church plant that has since particularized (maybe it is time to update your signature, Chris).

Chris,
I don't understand why you address your questions to Presbyterians in particular. Congregationalists are divided by definition, and those that practice hierarchical church government are about as divided as Presbyterians. I agree that we ought to be striving for unity--unity in true government and unity in true doctrine in a worldwide church. In the meantime we have to deal with multiple churches that are more or less pure, and this will certainly be the case this side of glory. I think your frustration is that many don't even see organic union an ideal. Some want options for when things go bad, others dislike the idea of a worldwide church, and still others actually like the diversity disunity brings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top