Posted on 08/26/2006 1:17:19 AM PDT by alpha-8-25-02
As a subscriber to Ligonier's ministry I would agree with the first part of your statement but disagree with the second part. Ligonier does far more than make material available for churches publishing a monthly devotional, a CD, and financing their ministry through their radio broadcast and other means. In fact, RC Sproul is establishing a new bookstore to make Reformed material available but not through Ligonier.
I think B-D has some valid points and (while albeit important) you are making too much out of church government. There are many ways churches of all groups are getting the message out besides the "established" church. I would add that some of the greatest Protestant heretics arose through the established Presbyterian government-and the Presbyterians didn't do much about it. That being said, I think today one has to really discern the word more than ever. There is just too much noise. Good sound teaching is very hard to come by.
That's not to say church government isn't important; just that you have to keep the perspective. If it was so important the PCA would never be in a position of breaking away from the PCUSA.
Your argument sounds pretty good, but I'll like to point out that when Jesus gave the command there were no organized Churches. Though you could argue though that Jesus gave the command to disciples that would become leaders of a Greater Church that is far greater then Churches with walls and physically locations and physical congregations. Never the less Para-Church organizations would under this thinking would more fit in line with the definition of churches with walls, locations, and congregations.
Church officers in Reformed denominations can be deposed from office. This is a form of church censure. Teachers who are ordained in these denominations do not take such process lightly, nor do the folks in the pew who also happen to support the ministries. It's unlikely that a minister who is deposed, say, for legitimate theological reasons could continue to prosper in that "independent" ministry.
From my experience, students attend seminaries on their own, not because a particular church sends them.
Are you familiar with the way Reformed denominations generally operate wrt seminary and their students? For example, sticking with Westminster Seminary, each applicant must submit a church reference form to be filled out by the leadership which states (in part) "The Admissions Office takes very seriously the evaluation that you will give below. Our primary concern is to admit those who are deemed by their spiritual mentors to be called by God to ministry." Generally seminary students must be "under care" by their respective church body, usually a presbytery or classis. I believe this is the rule in most Reformed seminaries.
The church might recommend a seminary that is close to them theologically, but ultimately it is the student who decides and pays for the education.
Having been a member for many years of my presbytery's theological examination committee, I can tell you that students who do not attend "approved" seminaries have a very hard time making it through the process. The content of the courses they take is carefully inspected, and their examinations tend to be much longer and more intense. A student from the PCA would be advised of the task should they attempt to go off to some unapproved seminary and then try to come back into the PCA as a teaching elder.
Of course it does happen. We get students all the time who attend Dallas Seminary or Fuller Seminary who later "see the light" on Reformed and covenant theology and then wish to come into the PCA. We may give them a hard time, but if they can demonstrate a suitable level of competence in theological matters they can get in.
All of which clearly points to accountability.
I believe BD is limiting such to the direct hiring/firing and control of the financial purse strings. Ours is more deliberative and inferred.
I think we are getting off subject. The question is are the gifts of evangelist, preaching/teaching (Eph. 4:8-13) given by the Holy Spirit as an office to the institutional church or are they given to individuals (like the charisma in 1 Cor. 12:4)?
In other words can an individual have these gifts and operate as an itinerant teacher, evangelist or church planter or are the gifts given by the church "with the laying on of hands (ordination)" and removed by the church as it wills? We are not speaking now of over sight or accountability but the actual gifts themselves, (individual or institutional?).
Why do you wish to divorce the two? What compels you to do that other than a fondness for certain independent "preachers"?
Clearly the gifts are spoken of in terms of the church, the visible church that is. The letters where these ideas are developed by the apostle were written to real, "institutional" (I prefer the term "visible") churches. They were not written to individuals. In fact they were written to churches who had identifiable leaders responsible for oversight within the body. And the body by its leaders was to exercise control and authority over all the gifts.
So back to my question, why the need to distinguish "individual" from "institutional"?
Oh, like that never happens around here! ;-)
I think there should be accountability within the broader context of the church. I think it provides credibility and a safety net to insure sound doctrine is preached.
I think both. (How's that for being diplomatic?)
There is biblical evidence of both the individual operating as an itinerant teacher and with the authority resting with the formal church. Apollos and Paul both started their ministries without the formal approval of the church. People had to take Apollos aside and correct his doctrine but he was teachable even in enjoying a thriving ministry. They certainly didn’t have to do that with Paul. Timothy and Titus, OTOH, were bought up in a more formal setting being properly instructed.
Topcat is correct that a very formal, structured approach is the best approach. Otherwise you have 10,000 Apollos running around creating all sorts of confusion. There are areas for doctrinal disputes to be sure but look at all the doctrinal confusion on this board. I don’t know a great deal but there are certainly traditional doctrines that I’ve always thought ALL Christians believed. I’m shocked to see people denying the atonement, claiming clear verses are “mysteries”, and believing God favors just about anyone who says they love God. Many Christians simply tossed traditional doctrine out the window simply to suit their fancy. I’m just beginning to understand that people really need to have a structured, methodical approach in being brought up in the faith.
To be perfectly blunt, b-d, I never really felt like I grew in any bible study by the Navigators, Campus Crusade, or any other similar group. Usually you go through a 20 page book with maybe a hundred scriptures to think about, and, POOF, you now can witness to others. Just memorize the word using the handy memorization pack, which you can purchase at a reasonable price, and start sharing the Four Spiritual Laws at the mall. If you’re fortunate to have someone pray with you (if not, what’s wrong with you), then you go through a 20 page book with them. Hit the big topics (prayer, witnessing, tithing, memorizing) and you’ve got it (oops, go to church too). I’ve only learned late in life this isn’t what it’s all about.
Apollos was teachable and this is a sign of a true Christian; being able to discern truth. He knew what they were stating was true. God can and does rise up individuals to do His will. But if He does, that person isn’t going to be spouting things like “God wants to make you rich.” and (at the risk of sounding judgmental) true Christians should recognize it.
A question arises here: Were the evangelists always Apostles or church officials directly commissioned for such work? That is, did God require a succession under formal church authority? Or were the evangelists merely identified as anointed, thus going about God’s business on His terms, with the corresponding blessing of their fellows? I do not pretend to answer the question authoritatively. This is an honest difference between Presbyterians and historic Reformed Congregationalists, such as the American Pilgrims and later their neighbors the Puritans. Acts 6:8 declares, “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.” Did he receive this power from the church, or did the church merely recognize Stephen’s gifts when they called him to the deaconate? We know that Stephen’s great power to witness of Christ became manifest after his ordination as deacon. Then there is Philip. After Philip evangelized Samaria, the church sent Peter and John to them (Acts 8:14). Nothing in the text indicates the church specifically sent Philip, but rather, “Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them” (Acts 8:5). The language seems to indicate personal volition.Authority to Establish a Work of God by Ronald Kirk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.