Donations for the month of March


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 14,450
Joined: April 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,781
Posts54,881
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,447
Tom 4,516
chestnutmare 3,320
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,865
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
1 Cor. 6:9-11
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:02 PM
Change in NRSVue text note on 1 John 5:7
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:07 AM
Is the church in crisis
by John_C - Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:52 AM
Jordan Peterson ordered to take sensitivity training
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:00 PM
Should Creeds be read in Church?
by Pilgrim - Mon Mar 25, 2024 6:30 AM
Do Christians have Dual Personalities: Peace & Wretchedness?
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:15 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
Robin Offline OP
The Boy Wonder
OP Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/leithart-on-justification-and-baptism/

It's long past time that members of PCA churches held their leaders to account, and to the Westminster Standards.

If there is still any doubt about the danger at the door of the PCA, here is further proof of it.

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
I would HIGHLY recommend Paul M. Elliott's book, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism which deals mainly with the OPC but is certainly directly applicable to the PCA, which IMO is further down the road to destruction than the OPC.

The Leithart case isn't paradigmatic of how the PCA has handled such heretics however, because most of those who are teaching and preaching this heresy have never been brought up on charges but have been ignored.

Let's not forget Church history in such matters because it is simply that which has gone on for centuries. Error, both minor and major have been mainly introduced into the Church by its leaders and NOT the laity. It's the Elders/pastors and professors/teachers who have infected the Church and who with few exceptions have been given a free pass to do so. Denominations/churches come and go. It's one thing to read about such tragedies but definitely another to live in the day when such things are happening among us and especially within one's own denomination/church.

This is not to suggest that these things should be ignored. nono They should be exposed and dealt with expediently. On those rare occasions when a man is charged the process is extremely slow and rarely is the accused disciplined. One of the major hindrances is what I prefer to call "Ecclesiastical Correctness", i.e., there is an unwritten "Fraternity of Elders" which tends to overlook sins of life and doctrine committed by those within the fraternity. There is also academic pride that predominates the Eldership in most churches out of which comes these heretical teachings. Seminaries exacerbate the situation by demanding that a man write his thesis or dissertation on something NEW. And these "new" ideas are often lauded as a good thing. The "old paths" are too often disdained and ridiculed under the guise of scholarship.

Okay enough of the rant... giggle


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
Robin Offline OP
The Boy Wonder
OP Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
How cool would it be if "ruling" elders actually ruled! I propose that teaching elders NOT rule. Let's start a new denomination! RERPC, the Ruling Elders Rule Presbyterian Church. giggle

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Originally Posted by Robin
How cool would it be if "ruling" elders actually ruled! I propose that teaching elders NOT rule. Let's start a new denomination! RERPC, the Ruling Elders Rule Presbyterian Church. giggle
Here's my take... I believe that there is but one office of elder vs. the current bifurcation of that one office into essentially two offices; teaching elder and ruling elder. This is practiced by both Presbyterians and Continental Reformed churches. The latter try to justify that bifurcation by asserting that Christ held three offices: Prophet, Priest and King. The "Prophetical Office" = preaching/teaching elder, the "Priestly Office" = Deaconate, and the "Kingly Office" = ruling elder. However, I find no biblical warrant for such a view. When I read the qualifications for Elder, Paul states that the Elder must "be apt to teach" and that he must "rule his household well" (1Tim 3:2,4,5). Thus, an Elder must possess BOTH the gift/ability to teach/preach and rule.

Among the Eldership some are more gifted in the responsibility of preaching and they are to be recognized for that gift and given the bulk of the responsibility of preaching. But as far as the responsibilities of teaching and ruling, ALL are to be active in fulfilling those roles.

Thus, the authority among the Elders is equal; no single man is to have more power than any other. This totally eliminates the current designations of "Senior Pastor", "Associate Pastor" or "Assistant Pastor". Each Elder is held accountable equally and without prejudice.

Lastly, without diminishing the responsibility of "ruling", let me state that I believe that this responsibility of an Elder far exceeds in practice what Christ intended. What I have concluded from studying this issue is that the primary characteristic of an Elder is that of an under-shepherd, a servant of Christ and to the people he serves. And the primary virtue necessary for a man to serve as an Elder is HUMILITY. I would assert that this attribute is sadly lacking, either in part or totally from the vast majority of men who have been ordained. Pride dominates among the Eldership today. Oh yes, they often are able to feign humility for many adopt a phony and condescending "pastoral voice", but behind that facade there is a clandestine ego.

Today, Elders, especially the so-called "Teaching Elders" are on the same level as a politician. They can't be trusted and they deem themselves to be 'above the law'. Doubtless there are a few here, perhaps many, who have had conversations with their "pastor" over some issue which they disagreed with and it didn't take long before that pride reared its ugly head. Am I not right? How many pastors today wrestle with fear in regard to preaching or teaching? I'm not referring to the fear of standing before a congregation of class of students, aka: stage fright, but rather that healthy, spiritual fear that is present due to the realization that you are responsible for expounding the truth of God to others and that an error could lead someone astray or even result in that person's eternal damnation. Preaching is probably the most important thing any man on this earth could do, surpassing any other act one could ever do. Who is worthy of such a privilege? And what man has within himself the courage to take on that responsibility?

Okay, enough of yet another rant! rolleyes2


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
Robin Offline OP
The Boy Wonder
OP Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
Rant on, my friend.

ranton I too find nothing in scripture to justify any distinction between "ruling elders" and "teaching elders the way Presbyterians do, especially in practice much less "on paper."

While I can appreciate the "first among equals" sort of thing as "moderator of the Session" or "spokesperson" for the group of elders, I have yet to see Presbyterian polity actually work in practice as I think it was intended, and certainly not in accordance with Jesus' description of the office as "servant of all." rantoff


Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 330
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Today, Elders, especially the so-called "Teaching Elders" are on the same level as a politician. They can't be trusted and they deem themselves to be 'above the law'. Doubtless there are a few here, perhaps many, who have had conversations with their "pastor" over some issue which they disagreed with and it didn't take long before that pride reared its ugly head. Am I not right? How many pastors today wrestle with fear in regard to preaching or teaching? I'm not referring to the fear of standing before a congregation of class of students, aka: stage fright, but rather that healthy, spiritual fear that is present due to the realization that you are responsible for expounding the truth of God to others and that an error could lead someone astray or even result in that person's eternal damnation. Preaching is probably the most important thing any man on this earth could do, surpassing any other act one could ever do. Who is worthy of such a privilege? And what man has within himself the courage to take on that responsibility?

Pilgrim, I agree 100% with you on this! I posted a question on another thread which also relates to preaching. I am not sure that some pastors really understand the enormous responsibility they have to stand in front of the congregation and say "Thus says the Lord".

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,865
Permanent Resident
Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,865
Its wrong to make that broad of a statement. Most PCA Presbyteries would not ordain or receive any FV pastors. If you remember a few years ago, Steve Wilkins left the PCA in order to keep from being discipline. He took an entire Presbytery with him as that Presbytery was disbanded.

The Pacific NW and the presbytery around St. Louis are two trouble spots.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Originally Posted by John_C
Its wrong to make that broad of a statement. Most PCA Presbyteries would not ordain or receive any FV pastors. If you remember a few years ago, Steve Wilkins left the PCA in order to keep from being discipline. He took an entire Presbytery with him as that Presbytery was disbanded.

The Pacific NW and the presbytery around St. Louis are two trouble spots.
The statement is intentionally broad because it is based upon FACT. Most presbyteries may not ordain or receive someone who openly advocates FV, NPP, Shepherdism or any of its variations. But the fact is, there are quite a number of men who preach/teach these heresies who HAVE BEEN ordained in the past and not one has been disciplined. Further, do you really think that these heretics would be so stupid to make known to an examining board that they embrace these errors? I'll give you but one example from my own personal experience to demonstrate how most, if not all of such men operate. When at WTS in the late '70s - early 80's I had a classmate who confessed that he was a Barthian and detested orthodoxy. However, he had kept all this to himself and only confided in me just before final exams. I asked him what he was going to do during the oral exam and he said without hesitation... "I am going to lie. I am going to tell them what they want to hear. It's that simple." I then asked him why he would want to potentially be ordained and pastor a church in the OPC or PCA? His answer was, "Because I will then have the freedom to teach what I really believe and the people will doubtless believe me because I am a pastor."

The point should be obvious, yes? There are those men who are pastors in the PCA, OPC, EPC, and other alleged "Reformed" denominations who embrace, preach and teach damnable heresy and lesser heresies who are never questioned, never charged and never disciplined. On the very rare occasions when the "Fraternity of Elders" actually question such men, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they deny any allegations that they are teaching error. After all, what do the 'sheep' know? And who would ever take the word of a lowly 'sheep' vs. that of an esteemed PASTOR? <-- rhetorical question!! And in the even more extremely rare cases where a man is charged, and after the years of studies by countless committees, either the man simply leaves the denomination or he is exonerated of any charges. Backroom deals abound in the 'higher up' deliberations. But of course you know that, right? It's all ecclesiastical politics my friend. It's always been that way and I seriously doubt it will ever be any different.

Do yourself a HUGE favor and get a copy of Paul M. Elliot's book, Christianity and Neo-Liberalism, published by The Trinity Foundation and have your eyes opened wide as to how things are done in the OPC and PCA and what heresies have been given the "Stamp of Approval" by their respective "General Assembly" decisions. wink


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
Robin Offline OP
The Boy Wonder
OP Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 6
That illustrates the built-in weakness of splitting the office of Elder into "teaching elder" and "ruling elders." The "ruling" elders tend to defer to "the esteemed Pastors" because, after all, "they've been to seminary and know a lot more."

It isn't just the major Presbyterian denominations who do this. I am finding it among Reformed Baptists as well, even some who make no distinction between "teaching" and "ruling" elders. While FV is not as much of a threat to Reformed Baptists (because their view of covenant theology is incompatible with FV), there is no less danger of other false teachings poisoning the flock as long as The Esteemed Clergy is allowed to run roughshod over the Confessions due to their "superior knowledge."

It is the responsibility of "ruling elders" to study theology at least to the point that they can spot heresy; and it is their responsibility to stand up against the Esteemed Pastors who foist it upon the people. The "ruling elders" who have failed in their responsibility are no less liable for the departure from orthodoxy than the Esteemed Pastors are.

-Robin

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,865
Permanent Resident
Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,865
Let me bring this up. Are you sure what you are proposing will solve the problems. It seems that doing away with the separation of teaching vs ruling elders will only make the new elder (which will be in all likelihood trained seminary ordained pastors) even stronger in their position, not weaker. Layman who has been trained via sitting under good pastors teaching, SS, bible studies, reading commentaries, personal study, etc will in all likelihood not be included in the new elder. Although I agree with your assessment about the RE often acquiescing to the TE, doing away with the system will hold the pastors less accountable to anyone except to fellow pastors.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
John,

What Robin and I and a host of others are advocating is what we believe to be the "equality of elders" based upon the biblical requirements for that office. I personally don't find any bifurcation of the one office based upon a man's formal education or lack of it. Nor do I find anywhere a separate category of elder based upon a man's ability and/or desire to teach/preach. What I do find is that among the elders some are more gifted to preaching/teaching than others and thus they are given the majority of that responsibility.

However, again I must stress that one of the major requirements for a man being ordained into the Eldership is that he must be, "apt to teach" (1Tim 3:2; 2Tim 2:24) and "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." (Titus 1:9). There are no exceptions. If a man does not have this ability, then he cannot be considered for the office of Elder.

The "one man" view not only has no biblical support, it practically is unsuitable for there is little to no accountability. The modern error of bowing to the "professional" has led to more problems in the church than one could count. For the sake of argument, IF there was a legitimate bifurcation between preaching/teaching elders and ruling elders, it would logically mean that the ruling elders would have more power/authority than a preaching/teaching elder for the area of discipline naturally falls upon them. The desirable standard of a "plurality" of elders is well founded and theoretically should work well. But again, because of this bifurcation and the "esteem" afforded preaching/teaching elders and the fallacious idea that a seminary-trained man is far more capable and knowledgeable than a man who hasn't been professionally trained, the churches who advocate and/or practice this view are highly susceptible to serious problems... and history justifies that assessment.

Iain Murray has an excellent article on this issue which you can read HERE.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 84 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,506,457 Gospel truth