Ok, I was thinking that your assertions of accountability, right of appeal, etc, were those things not specifically covered by Scripture. I recognize that some of this comes down to simply a matter of interpretation.

Since these are matters of interpretation, I don’t think we can absolutely say one side or the other is absolutely wrong (i.e., in sin).

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

You can intransigently maintain that our interpretation is wrong — many godly men have done so. But don’t brush away the position of many other godly men who are trying to base their position on scripture not practicality alone with the label of pragmatism.

That’s all

Well, Keith, you may think this is conclusive, but I do not.

Acts 15 doesn’t indicate that the church in Antioch had any quarrel with the apostle Paul. The problem appeared to originate in Jerusalem:

NAU Acts 15:1 ¶ Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

So Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to see if something had gone wrong in Jerusalem. Along the way, they reported to Phenice and Samaria and brought great joy to the disciples. They were received by the apostles. The meeting revealed problems in Jerusalem, the Jerusalem council proved the orthodoxy of the men in Jerusalem and announced it to the other churches. They repudiated the men who had claimed authority from Jerusalem. End of story.

NAU Acts 15:24 “Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls,

Anyway, you can see that we are both quite intransigent in our positions. I wonder that you persist.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Come on now, we aren’t talking about schedules here (annual meetings). And even if we were, independents have schedules just like presbyterians, so by that standard you’re not “mirroring” any better.

Also, you know as well as I do that there is more to the Bible than historical narrative. There is more to obeying the Bible than immitating historical passages.

In this discussion, the Biblical principles which teach humility, submission, accountability, fellowship, unity, discipline, etc. must be allowed. They should not be minimized and brushed off with words like “pragmatism.”

Beyond that, however, there are sessions and presbyteries in the Bible. Presbytery is literally a biblical word.

The best example of all this is, of course, Acts 15. You wish to dismiss it or explain it away. Nevertheless, several things are clear from this text. Here’s how Thomas Witherow put it back in the 1800s:

“Let it be remarked that, in the simple narrative, the following facts stand noticeably out:— 1. That Barnabas and Paul had a dispute about circumcision with certain false teachers who came down from Judea. 2. This dispute was not settled in the Church of Antioch, where it originated. 3. The matter was referred to an external ecclesiastical assembly, consisting of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. 4. This assembly met publicly to deliberate on the question. 5. They pronounced a decision. 6. To this decision the Church of Antioch and the Churches of Syria and Cilicia yielded submission.

These facts are on the face of the narrative, and cannot be denied. That they were permitted to take place, and that a record of them is inserted in the Holy Scriptures, seems strange if these things did not happen for an example to us.

Were it enough for the Church of Antioch to be made certain of the mind of God upon the point in dispute, Paul who was present could have declared this with infallible accuracy; for he was one, who not only spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost, but who often decided matters equally important by a word from his lips or a stroke of his pen. A single sentence from the very apostle who was then at Antioch, is admitted by the Church of God to be decisive on any point of Christian faith or Christian duty; so that if an infallible decision was the only thing required, one does not see why the matter was ever carried farther.

When the case did come up to Jerusalem, had the appeal been to inspiration only, one does not see what business the elders had to meet with the apostles to consider the matter; surely the apostles were competent to declare the mind of God without the aid of uninspired men. If nothing was necessary but for the apostles to pronounce an infallible deliverance, why was there such a thing as disputing in the assembly, or even the semblance of deliberation, or why should one apostle after another state his opinion? We would suppose the deliverance of a single inspired man quite sufficient.

If the disputing that occurred in the assembly was only among the elders, the elders must have been very silly to dispute about a matter that inspiration was to settle, and with which they, as uninspired men, could have nothing to do, but to listen to the voice of God; and why did the apostles permit them to dispute, when a word from the infallible expounders of the divine will could have decided the question? And when the decree went forth, why was it in the name of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem?

There is one way of accounting for this satisfactorily, and only one so far as we can see. These events were permitted to take place, and are recorded for our guidance under all similar circumstances. Should any difference arise, which cannot be settled within the limits of the congregation where it occurs, it is to be referred for settlement to the rulers of the Church in their assembled capacity.

If the apostles were alive upon the earth to meet with the elders, and by aid of their inspiration, to guide them to an unerring decision, and were we to refer our differences to such an assembly, this would be literal obedience to the example put before us in the Divine Word.

But when in their personal absence, we refer our differences to the assembly of the elders, and when the elders, guided by the inspired writings of the apostles as contained in the Scriptures, pronounce a deliverance on the question, and when to such deliverance we yield submission to the Lord, this is more than acting up to the spirit, it is acting up to everything but the letter, of apostolic example.

We are thus conducted to this twofold fact, that in the Apostolic Church there existed the privilege of referring disputed matters to the decision of an assembly of living men, external to the congregation where such dispute originated, and composed of the rulers of the Church; and that this ecclesiastical assembly, in the absence of the apostles, consisting simply of the rulers of the Churcb, has a right to meet, to deliberate, to decide, and to demand obedience to its decisions in the Lord.

This twofold principle we designate the privilege of appeal to the assembly of elders, and the right of government exercised by them in their associate capacity.

All that is well and good, Keith, but you really have no Biblical authority for the model. There are no sessions, no presbyteries, no annual meetings, etc. in the NT. So what you have is a kind of pragmatism. What we have is an attempt to mirror exactly what we see in the NT.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

The point — for evangelical presbyterians anyway — is that (contra Don) the Bible does not support individualism/independency. No person, and no congregation, should set itself up without (or to avoid) accountability — set itself up without checks and balances.

The point is not that connectionalism guarantees a lack of problems. As Don says, “It won’t prevent scandalous failures. Neither method does.”

However, connectionalism does provide an accountability structure — which is Biblical and good for both the one needing correction and the one having to give the correction.

It also seems like you may still not be understanding presbyterian polity. There is not a “hierarchy” apart from the local churches. The local churches come together to make the decisions. They do not have decisions handed down to them from a hierarchy of bishops. Again, whatever the “denomination” does it does by the decision and vote of the entire group of local churches (represented by their elders) which make up the denomination. The churches are deciding not being decided for.

When a majority of local churches in the denomination (we might say when a majority of congregations in the church) vote for wrong, the minority should try to get them to repent and change. If the minority determines that they cannot succeed at calling the majority to repentance, they can withdraw from the denomination.

Normally, however, there will not be just one congregation that sees the error and decides to withdraw. If it is just one congregation, that congregation should ponder very carefully whether or not it is in the right. Do they really think God has revealed the truth to them alone?

For example, when the PCA was formed a large number of congregations withdrew from the PCUS all together at the same time.

Of course there could be a case in which a single congregation determines that, within their current denomination, they are the only ones maintaining the truth. In that case, when they withdraw, they should join in accountability with some other congregation or denomination — it will never be the case that there is only one local church in the whole world that maintains the truth.

Those congregations that hold the truth together should hold one another accountable and help one anoter.

What we think is best is to set up the government of the church according to the Scriptures. It won’t prevent scandalous failures. Neither method does.

And let me say that I believe there is considerable latitude given to Christians and churches when we come to church life. A lot of things just aren’t specified, one way or another, in the Bible. But I don’t see any justification for a council of churches or a Bishop of Rome, say, having authority over any other than his own church, etc. What I see is local churches making autonomous decisions (subject to the apostles) and the only council acting in an advisory capacity rather than a dictatorial capacity (and of course the council comprised primarily apostles).

So we don’t believe denominational structures have any Biblical mandate. That isn’t to say they are condemned, or that Christians who use them are sinning, but I don’t think they are Scriptural and that they cause more problems than they solve.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

My point was that the church in Corinth — who had God’s word and knew better, even the non-Christians knew better — was not doing what it should do. Paul had to hold them accountable.

Churches today — who likewise have God’s word, even more of it — can and do mess up just as badly. However, Paul’s not around anymore. Might it not be good to have the help of some other Christian leaders?

I don’t know where you independent guys get the idea that only the apostles were allowed to speak with authority beyond a “local” congregation.

Conectivity is no guarantee of purity (as your example of the man being improperly reinstated demonstrates), but neither is independency. Therefore, it would seem like it would be best to set up the government of the church to be most helpful when we are not scandalously failing.