Which form of church government is more scriptural?

[Jon 316]

Baptists will defend the autonomy of the local church. Presbyterians will seek to safeguard the unity of the churches preserved through presbyterian government.

Both are convinced that theirs is the scriptural pattern.

Can you provide a short summary demonstrating your position theologically and biblically?

 

[Wannabee]

The example we have in the early church shows apostolic oversight, which would in some ways resemble the Presbyterian perspective. However, with the end of the apostles came the close of the canon and their oversight continues via Scripture.

The prescription we have is for elders to lead/rule/govern the local church. This is mandated, as I think all here will agree. As to how that is done, other than the biblical requirements, it seems to be left to each church to decide. We have no command or clear instruction in regard to churches combining leadership or submitting to a core group of elders who oversees a group of churches. That doesn't mean that it is in any way wrong to pursue such means of ministering, but that is simply is not mandated. Within these bounds, either form could be Scriptural. What is unscriptural is for men to attempt to bind men based on preferences and philosophies.

 

[Steve Curtis]

The concept of "autonomy," in and of itself, seems antithetical to the organic nature of the Body of Christ.

 

[dudley]

I believe Presbyterian rule by Elders is biblical church government

I am a Presbyterian and I will summarize here why I believe the Presbyterian form of church government is biblical. Today few know why the word "church" was used in the King James Bible instead of the word "assembly" or "congregation." When King James authorized the translation of the Bible in 1611 he made a number of rules which the translators were to use. Following are the two rules imposed on the KJV translators that dealt with this matter:
1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.
3. The old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation etc.

The King James Bible translators were under obligation to use the English word "church" even though it was not a proper translation. The reason for this is apparent. The word "assembly" or "congregation" did not support the founding of a hierarchical form of church government such as the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant churches had set up. King James was a theologian and fully understood the ramifications of properly translating the word "ekklesia" into assembly or congregation. If the word "ekklesia" was translated "assembly or congregation" it would expose the unbiblical hierarchy of the Church of England and undermine its authority. Historically, during this time, Baptist churches were being established and the hierarchal system of church government was being attacked as being unbiblical.

THE EARLY CHURCH ELECTED ITS OWN OFFICERS
Acts 6:1-7, records that the early church elected special men to do a particular task. These men were the first deacons. They were not officers or leaders in the church, but men chosen by the congregation to perform a particular administrative menial task that needed to be done. The apostles and pastors were the leaders of the church

THE LOCAL CHURCH IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY IN DISCIPLINE.
In Matthew 18:15-17 the Lord Jesus taught that the local church had the final authority in disciplining an erring member. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, and 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, teach that it is the local church that has the responsibility to discipline members.

God established the New Testament churches to be a vital part of the life of the believer therefore it is important for Christians to have a proper understanding about what a true New Testament church is and what is its function. Most Christians learned what they believe about the church from the practices and teachings of the churches they attended.
The question is this: "Can we rely on what we have been taught as being Biblical? Are the beliefs and practices of our churches what God established them to be in the New Testament?" It should be every believer's responsibility to know "what saith the Lord" on the matter of Christ's church. We need to scripturally determine what is a true biblical church, how it began, what is its importance and function, what is its organization, who is its Head, who are its leaders and members?
An initial question we must ask ourselves is "what is the authority for what we believe about the church?" The problem is that you can go to ten denominations and you will get ten different answers. How then can you know if the beliefs of your church are correct and what God intended them to be?

The New Testament speaks of the rulers in the church by the designations of elders, overseers, and shepherds. While these different terms are used, they all refer to the same office: that of the elder.

Presbyterianism takes its name from the Greek word presbuteros, which means elder. Presbyterians uphold government of the church by elders.
The people of God have been ruled by elders since early times recorded in the Old Testament. When sent by God to deliver the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, Moses was told to "gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, 'The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me ....'" (Exodus 3:16)

At the time of Christ's advent, references are found to the "elders," "rulers," and "rulers of the synagogue"(Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:3; John 3:1; 7:26, 48; Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41; cf. Acts 18:8,17). Although the Jewish leadership was quite corrupt at this time, it is important to note that the Jews had not become so apostate as to allow the biblical office of elder to fall into disuse.

These scriptural references are important because they establish a continuity of government within the church in both the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament and the gospels provide crucial background information about the church government erected by the apostles. The apostles did not create something radically new; they built upon the foundation of previous biblical revelation. When the apostles described church officers, their hearers recognized much of the governmental framework which was found in the Old Testament. Therefore, a Presbyterian rule (rule by elders) is not simply New Testament church government; it is biblical church government.

 

[MLCOPE2]

There is more than one?

 

[Herald]

Talk about a thread that will come down along party lines...

 

[dudley]

Talk about a thread that will come down along party lines...

Very true Herald! Amen! I am a Presbyterian so obviously I support the Presbyterian form of church government. But I do very much believe it is biblically correct.

Having been a Roman Catholic at one time and than an Episcopalian for a while I do not believe or support the Hierarchical forms of church government. However I do respect the Baptist position.

 

[Ivan]

Talk about a thread that will come down along party lines...

Very true Herald! Amen! I am a Presbyterian so obviously I support the Presbyterian form of church government. But I do very much believe it is biblically correct.

Having been a Roman Catholic at one time and than an Episcopalian for a while I do not believe or support the Hierarchical forms of church government. However I do respect the Baptist position.

Not speaking for Bill, however, I respect the Presbyterian form of government as well.

 

[Herald]

Talk about a thread that will come down along party lines...

Very true Herald! Amen! I am a Presbyterian so obviously I support the Presbyterian form of church government. But I do very much believe it is biblically correct.

Having been a Roman Catholic at one time and than an Episcopalian for a while I do not believe or support the Hierarchical forms of church government. However I do respect the Baptist position.

Not speaking for Bill, however, I respect the Presbyterian form of government as well.

Okay, everyone. Group hug.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Talk about a thread that will come down along party lines...

Very true Herald! Amen! I am a Presbyterian so obviously I support the Presbyterian form of church government. But I do very much believe it is biblically correct.

Having been a Roman Catholic at one time and than an Episcopalian for a while I do not believe or support the Hierarchical forms of church government. However I do respect the Baptist position.

Not speaking for Bill, however, I respect the Presbyterian form of government as well.

Okay, everyone. Group hug.

Yes, but what will constitute the group? Will it be several little groups or one big, interconnective group?

 

[Ivan]

Talk about a thread that will come down along party lines...

Very true Herald! Amen! I am a Presbyterian so obviously I support the Presbyterian form of church government. But I do very much believe it is biblically correct.

Having been a Roman Catholic at one time and than an Episcopalian for a while I do not believe or support the Hierarchical forms of church government. However I do respect the Baptist position.

Not speaking for Bill, however, I respect the Presbyterian form of government as well.

Okay, everyone. Group hug.

Yes, but what will constitute the group? Will it be little groups or one big group?

Sorry, I'm busy.

 

[Jon 316]

An initial question we must ask ourselves is "what is the authority for what we believe about the church?" The problem is that you can go to ten denominations and you will get ten different answers. How then can you know if the beliefs of your church are correct and what God intended them to be?

The couple of books I have read on Presbyterianism recently have made a similar claim, that is, presbyyerianism doesn not seek to follow the example of the early church in every matter and example. They do not believe that you have to or that it is possible. Instead they observe principles which form the basis for church government. This is unlike the later denominations i.e baptist, brethren, pentecostal, restorationists etc who all split over a desire to return to what they considered to be 'the new testament pattern'. These 'patterns' where a return to various practices and examples found among the early church.

My point if presbyterians are right- then perhaps there is room for present day diversity on some matters, providing they do not conflict with the core biblical principles?

 

[KMK]

I don't see them as drastically different. Both are led by men who meet Scriptural requirements. Both have a group where 'the buck stops'. Both provide leadership and accountability for church goers.

I reject the idea that Presbyterian government is any less 'autonomous' than Baptist government. For some Presbyterian denominations the GA oversees less people overall than the elders of some Baptist churches.

 

[Jon 316]

I don't see them as drastically different. Both are led by men who meet Scriptural requirements. Both have a group where 'the buck stops'. Both provide leadership and accountability for church goers.

I reject the idea that Presbyterian government is any less 'autonomous' than Baptist government. For some Presbyterian denominations the GA oversees less people overall than the elders of some Baptist churches.

Interesting point.

Can you really compare a single local church with a denomibation though?

The autonomous nature of the baptist churches is surely reflected by the fact that the said elders above have no 'leadership' over other baptist congregations. Hence one baptist church can have instruments and the other can forbid them. Presbyterian local churches on the other hand have no such autonomy unless the presbytery make this an 'open' issue i.e each church can decide as they see fit. However even in this situation such autonomy is determined by the presbytery.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Depends on what day of the week it is and what I had for breakfast. I am a Presbyterian with strong Congregational leanings.

 

[Ivan]

Depends on what day of the week it is and what I had for breakfast. I am a Presbyterian with strong Congregational leanings.

I'm a Baptist with strong Congregational leanings. Perhaps we could meet in the middle.

 

[KSon]

Then when you fellas are done, come counsel me as I am a Baptist with very strong Presbyterian leanings...

 

[Ivan]

Then when you fellas are done, come counsel me as I am a Baptist with very strong Presbyterian leanings...

We'll never be done in this life.

 

[Herald]

Then when you fellas are done, come counsel me as I am a Baptist with very strong Presbyterian leanings...

We'll never be done in this life.

Amen to that!

 

[KMK]

I don't see them as drastically different. Both are led by men who meet Scriptural requirements. Both have a group where 'the buck stops'. Both provide leadership and accountability for church goers.

I reject the idea that Presbyterian government is any less 'autonomous' than Baptist government. For some Presbyterian denominations the GA oversees less people overall than the elders of some Baptist churches.

Interesting point.

Can you really compare a single local church with a denomibation though?

The autonomous nature of the baptist churches is surely reflected by the fact that the said elders above have no 'leadership' over other baptist congregations. Hence one baptist church can have instruments and the other can forbid them. Presbyterian local churches on the other hand have no such autonomy unless the presbytery make this an 'open' issue i.e each church can decide as they see fit. However even in this situation such autonomy is determined by the presbytery.

My point is that some Baptist churches have more members than entire Presbyterian micro denominations. In those cases, the elders of Baptist churches are acting in much the same capacity as members of a Presbytery when it comes to the lives of individual church members.

Besides, if Presbyterians truly believe, as Steve says above, that "The concept of "autonomy," in and of itself, seems antithetical to the organic nature of the Body of Christ." Then how do you explain so many Presbyterian denominations and even independent churches? Shouldn't the RPCNA subject itself to the OPC and the OPC subject itself to the PCA etc. etc.?

It is not my intent to slam Presbyterians, but simply to demonstrate that the divide between the two camps is not as deep as some try to make it.

 

[Zenas]

Judging by the poll results, Baptists lose. Repent.

 

[Steve Curtis]

I don't see them as drastically different. Both are led by men who meet Scriptural requirements. Both have a group where 'the buck stops'. Both provide leadership and accountability for church goers.

I reject the idea that Presbyterian government is any less 'autonomous' than Baptist government. For some Presbyterian denominations the GA oversees less people overall than the elders of some Baptist churches.

Interesting point.

Can you really compare a single local church with a denomibation though?

The autonomous nature of the baptist churches is surely reflected by the fact that the said elders above have no 'leadership' over other baptist congregations. Hence one baptist church can have instruments and the other can forbid them. Presbyterian local churches on the other hand have no such autonomy unless the presbytery make this an 'open' issue i.e each church can decide as they see fit. However even in this situation such autonomy is determined by the presbytery.

My point is that some Baptist churches have more members than entire Presbyterian micro denominations. In those cases, the elders of Baptist churches are acting in much the same capacity as members of a Presbytery when it comes to the lives of individual church members.

Besides, if Presbyterians truly believe, as Steve says above, that "The concept of "autonomy," in and of itself, seems antithetical to the organic nature of the Body of Christ." Then how do you explain so many Presbyterian denominations and even independent churches? Shouldn't the RPCNA subject itself to the OPC and the OPC subject itself to the PCA etc. etc.?

It is not my intent to slam Presbyterians, but simply to demonstrate that the divide between the two camps is not as deep as some try to make it.

I am speaking optimally. The OP says "the NT church should be..." (my emphasis) and I maintain that autonomy - whether in the essential Congregational form or in the defective, fractional Presbyterian form - is not the way it should be.

 

[KMK]

I don't see them as drastically different. Both are led by men who meet Scriptural requirements. Both have a group where 'the buck stops'. Both provide leadership and accountability for church goers.

I reject the idea that Presbyterian government is any less 'autonomous' than Baptist government. For some Presbyterian denominations the GA oversees less people overall than the elders of some Baptist churches.

Interesting point.

Can you really compare a single local church with a denomibation though?

The autonomous nature of the baptist churches is surely reflected by the fact that the said elders above have no 'leadership' over other baptist congregations. Hence one baptist church can have instruments and the other can forbid them. Presbyterian local churches on the other hand have no such autonomy unless the presbytery make this an 'open' issue i.e each church can decide as they see fit. However even in this situation such autonomy is determined by the presbytery.

My point is that some Baptist churches have more members than entire Presbyterian micro denominations. In those cases, the elders of Baptist churches are acting in much the same capacity as members of a Presbytery when it comes to the lives of individual church members.

Besides, if Presbyterians truly believe, as Steve says above, that "The concept of "autonomy," in and of itself, seems antithetical to the organic nature of the Body of Christ." Then how do you explain so many Presbyterian denominations and even independent churches? Shouldn't the RPCNA subject itself to the OPC and the OPC subject itself to the PCA etc. etc.?

It is not my intent to slam Presbyterians, but simply to demonstrate that the divide between the two camps is not as deep as some try to make it.

I am speaking optimally. The OP says "the NT church should be..." (my emphasis) and I maintain that autonomy - whether in the essential Congregational form or in the defective, fractional Presbyterian form - is not the way it should be.

Understood.

 

[christianyouth]

Sup Jon316, You've been asking a lot of questions lately that the RCC gets Protestants to ask in hopes that they'll see Protestants don't have good answers to the questions and join themselves to the 'Church'--the problem is that these issues are SO complex that most Prots don't have solid answers these questions. The RCC just has awesome think tanks with answers that are already prepared, while Protestants don't seem to have any great collaborative efforts like that anymore(they might, but I haven't seen any responses to the RCC claims on the ECF that would be classified as 'scholarly'--just some good forum posts from some members on here).

That last thread on the ECF died out way too prematurely--you probably know that the academic community who studies that period of history classifies a lot of Christian thought as pre-Augustinian and post-Augustinian and that before Augustine pretty much everyone was a heretic by standards later agreed upon in Christendom: but you took the answers in that thread(Calvin said they weren't heretics and the REformers said they weren't heretics). That's going to give you some serious intellectual 'tensions', like unresolved questions that get pushed back in your mind and then stacked on top of each other until you finally have a belief that Protestantism exists because they don't ask the qeustions that the RCC apologists ask. If not, those unresolved questions(for which there are answers to) cause people to latch onto the poor answers the RCC and think those are the only answers that are out there--so brother I hope you're not considering the plunge and that you're just thinking through some of these issues in a leisurely fashion knowing that after 500 years and having produced thinkers of the greatest caliber in the world, there are good Protestant answers that the Catholic apologists don't want you to know.



I'll come back later and give my take on this topic + the topic in the other thread. I've just finished a pretty intense reading project of Oxford University Press books on the early church that raised a lot of the questions that you asked in the other thread--and had some indirect information that caused me to see some things in the Scriptures that could answer this post. About to put in a work day though--sorry for sounding paranoid but sometimes the smartest and most pleasant end up going over to Rome 'in the night'.

You have valid questions in both threads, if my answers are shoddy then maybe we could just do an intense brain storming session and try to each go through books that are related to this or whatever. There's definitely going to be answers out there that can take into account a heretical early church(by today's standards) and all of the other facts that the RCC bring up to disprove Protestantism.

If you're not concerning Rome, disregard my entire post.

 

[dudley]

Sup Jon316, You've been asking a lot of questions lately that the RCC gets Protestants to ask in hopes that they'll see Protestants don't have good answers to the questions and join themselves to the 'Church'--the problem is that these issues are SO complex that most Prots don't have solid answers these questions. The RCC just has awesome think tanks with answers that are already prepared, while Protestants don't seem to have any great collaborative efforts like that anymore(they might, but I haven't seen any responses to the RCC claims on the ECF that would be classified as 'scholarly'--just some good forum posts from some members on here).

That last thread on the ECF died out way too prematurely--you probably know that the academic community who studies that period of history classifies a lot of Christian thought as pre-Augustinian and post-Augustinian and that before Augustine pretty much everyone was a heretic by standards later agreed upon in Christendom: but you took the answers in that thread(Calvin said they weren't heretics and the REformers said they weren't heretics). That's going to give you some serious intellectual 'tensions', like unresolved questions that get pushed back in your mind and then stacked on top of each other until you finally have a belief that Protestantism exists because they don't ask the qeustions that the RCC apologists ask. If not, those unresolved questions(for which there are answers to) cause people to latch onto the poor answers the RCC and think those are the only answers that are out there--so brother I hope you're not considering the plunge and that you're just thinking through some of these issues in a leisurely fashion knowing that after 500 years and having produced thinkers of the greatest caliber in the world, there are good Protestant answers that the Catholic apologists don't want you to know.



I'll come back later and give my take on this topic + the topic in the other thread. I've just finished a pretty intense reading project of Oxford University Press books on the early church that raised a lot of the questions that you asked in the other thread--and had some indirect information that caused me to see some things in the Scriptures that could answer this post. About to put in a work day though--sorry for sounding paranoid but sometimes the smartest and most pleasant end up going over to Rome 'in the night'.

You have valid questions in both threads, if my answers are shoddy then maybe we could just do an intense brain storming session and try to each go through books that are related to this or whatever. There's definitely going to be answers out there that can take into account a heretical early church(by today's standards) and all of the other facts that the RCC bring up to disprove Protestantism.

If you're not concerning Rome, disregard my entire post.

I am the opposite of Scott Hahn , I am a former Roman catholic who became a Protestant in 2006 and became a Presbyterian in 2007. I had some of the same thoughts expressed by Christianyouth and would have the same concerns. If you have any questions I have written many papers supporting my renunciation of Roman Catholicism and why I became a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. I am as much a staunch defender of Protestantism and the Reformed faith now as Scott Hahn is on Roman Catholicism. I would be willing to share any of my papers and thoughts with you if you have any questions at all about defecting to Rome.

"After all, there is a Protestantism still worth contending for, there is a Calvinism still worth proclaiming, and a gospel well worth dying for" (CH Spurgeon)

 

[Jon 316]

Don't worry guys, I have no intentions of heading over to Rome!

Any RCC polemics you percieve in my posts are purely coincidental- they have emerged through my own present study of ecclessiology, soteriology and church history. I guess these are the questions that have naturaly arisen, teh fact that others have raised then is a good sign in that I'm obviously exploring areas in which Christians have held in tension for hundreds of years.

I was raised RC (nominal), only when I heard Christ truly preached was I saved.

Shalom

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I don't see them as drastically different. Both are led by men who meet Scriptural requirements. Both have a group where 'the buck stops'. Both provide leadership and accountability for church goers.

I reject the idea that Presbyterian government is any less 'autonomous' than Baptist government. For some Presbyterian denominations the GA oversees less people overall than the elders of some Baptist churches.

Interesting point.

Can you really compare a single local church with a denomibation though?

The autonomous nature of the baptist churches is surely reflected by the fact that the said elders above have no 'leadership' over other baptist congregations. Hence one baptist church can have instruments and the other can forbid them. Presbyterian local churches on the other hand have no such autonomy unless the presbytery make this an 'open' issue i.e each church can decide as they see fit. However even in this situation such autonomy is determined by the presbytery.

My point is that some Baptist churches have more members than entire Presbyterian micro denominations. In those cases, the elders of Baptist churches are acting in much the same capacity as members of a Presbytery when it comes to the lives of individual church members.

Besides, if Presbyterians truly believe, as Steve says above, that "The concept of "autonomy," in and of itself, seems antithetical to the organic nature of the Body of Christ." Then how do you explain so many Presbyterian denominations and even independent churches? Shouldn't the RPCNA subject itself to the OPC and the OPC subject itself to the PCA etc. etc.?

It is not my intent to slam Presbyterians, but simply to demonstrate that the divide between the two camps is not as deep as some try to make it.

They'd love to, but not at the expense of sound doctrine.

 

[Porter]

The concept of "autonomy," in and of itself, seems antithetical to the organic nature of the Body of Christ.

I think there are problems with "cultic autonomy" (I choose not to further define that now ), and an autonomy characterized by unbiblical "lording over" the congregation. However, the argument above is one that is also offered by Roman Catholics (I am a former one) against sola scriptura. I believe the scriptural witness to Christ and His ability to rule and reign, as the head of the church, over His [autonomous] local churches, and the Holy Spirit's ability to sanctify His people by the Word, contribute well to the [Reformed] Baptistic approach to ecclesiology.

 

[bookslover]

Talk about a thread that will come down along party lines...

That's our Bill, always looking for parties! Party on, dude!

 

[DMcFadden]

I just finished reading a stack of books on the Westminster Assembly (Mitchell, Hetherington, Barker, Gillespie, Mitchell & Struthers, Warfield, A. A. Hodge, and Reid). A couple of things stood out to me.

John Cotton (invited to the Assembly but did not make it) won over Davenport, Goodwin, and Nye to nonconformity. Non Westminster Assembly guy (and certifiable genius) John Owen came to Congregationalism by means of reading Cotton's The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven evidently without any face-to-face conversations with anyone.

On the other hand, the process of studying church government in the company of the other Westminster divines won over a number of them to the Presbyterian cause or strengthened them in their resolve. I was struck by how many of the Divines started out only mildly Presbyterian or undecided, only to be convinced by the power of the arguments in the Assembly. Of course, if I had been forced to listen to the obstructionistic tactics of Goodwin, Bridge, Burroughs, Nye, and Simpson I might be more tempted to become a Presbyterian too.