B. B. Warfield, Thomas Witherow, and Presbyterian Polity
Among the various puzzling questions that concern the organization of the local churches, Dr. Witherow threads his safe way with his usual judiciousness and sound exegetical tact. The nature of the eldership as an undifferentiated ruling-teaching office, the nature of the diaconate as essentially an office of service rather than of “ministry” in its higher sense, the nature of the local presbytery and its functions, the ground and mode of association of the Churches (one of the best chapters), are all judiciously investigated. The only criticism of any moment which we could bring against the findings of this whole half of the volume, would be that the nature of the work of the apostles and the relation to them of their travelling companions do not seem to be exactly realized. Paul was not only a divinely appointed and divinely inspired missionary, he was a travelling missionary-society, and his companions were his helpers in this work.
In 1889, Thomas Witherow, a Presbyterian minister in Ireland, published, The Form of the Christian Temple: Being a Treatise on the Constitution of the New Testament Church, to promote and defend Presbyterianism as the divinely ordained polity (jure divino) taught in the New Testament. Witherow’s preface expressed his purpose.
The main design of the following treatise is to bring distinctly under the eye of the inquirer those passages of the Holy Scriptures, which are supposed to bear directly or indirectly on the subject of Church Polity; to find out the principles or facts which these passages underlie; and to combine such facts and principles, with the view of ascertaining whether they do, or do not, contain the outlines of a form of Church government.
In the review of Witherow’s book by B. B. Warfield that follows this introduction there are a few things to notice. Warfield readily defended Bishop of Durham Joseph B. Lightfoot (1828-1889) who evaluated the early Greek epistles of Ignatius to be authentic while Witherow questioned them. Warfield maintained great interest in patristics and New Testament studies after leaving Western Seminary even though his work at Princeton was in polemic theology. He said Lightfoot was “the greatest Patristic scholar of the England of our generation,” and in his later years, said Warfield, Lightfoot defended the apostolicity of presbyterianism (TP&RR, 1891, 2:8, 692). Warfield wrote very little about church polity, so his comments in this review are helpful. In the case of graduated levels of church courts (sessions, presbyteries, synods, and assemblies) he thought it was inappropriate to appeal to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:2-35).
Let us confess that the New Testament gives us no example of other than congregational presbyteries; and rest our higher courts on the legitimate application in their formation of the same principle of association which was divinely enacted in the congregational government.
Warfield agreed with Witherow’s comment on page 187.
Association, whether of Churches or of rulers, is a Scriptural principle. The association of elders in the government of a local Church—that is, the congregational presbytery, is a divine institution; the association of the rulers of different congregations for managing matters in common—that is, the district presbytery, is simply a matter of agreement and consent, but is the outcome of a principle that has received divine sanction again and again.
With authority from the lower to the higher judicatory, congregation to presbytery, and then to the assembly. Does this make Witherow and Warfield grassroots Presbyterians?
Barry Waugh
The Form of the Christian Temple: Being a Treatise on the Constitution of the New Testament Church. By Thomas Witherow, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Church History in Magee College, Londonderry. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; New York: Scribner & Welford, 1889. Pp. xii., 468. 8vo.
We welcome this valuable treatise the more heartily that we fear there is a tendency among us to undervalue the study of Church polity. It may serve to remind us, in the wise words of its author (p. vii.), “that Church polity is an important portion of Christianity.” “Its main principles,” he justly continues, “are divinely revealed; its design is to conserve and to perpetuate truth, as well as to secure decency and order in worship, in instruction, and in administration; while it is often on the side of Church government, and generally under cover of indistinct and uncertain notions regarding it, that minute changes have crept into the Church which have in the course of centuries blossomed out into serious error.” Led by so just a conception of its importance, he has made a careful study of the constitution of the New Testament Church, the conclusion of which may be expressed in these words (although they are not put forward as such): “Presbyterianism has the true bishop, the true episcopal ordination, the true Apostolic Succession, the true commission, and the true ministry” (p. 386).
The volume is divided into two very different parts. The first half is a stringently inductive examination of the New Testament passages bearing on the organization of the Church, with the intention and effect of discovering exactly what the form of the New Testament Church was. Here the controversial element is relegated to the background, although a hint of it may obtrude itself in an occasional bit of dry humor (pp. 119, 167, 168, 196) or in an occasional intrusion into the inductive process of minor items of a more modern flavor. How easy it is to introduce into our speech, regarding the institutions of the first century, traits and forms of statement drawn from our present habits or training, Dr. Witherow illustrates by a quotation from the Tracts for the Times (p. 111, note). How hard it is wholly to avoid it, he illustrates by an occasional slip of his own. Examples are the repeated assertion (e.g., p. 18) that Paul was not appointed apostle until after the death of James of Zebedee; the statement that lay prophets were allowed only “occasionally” to address the Church (p. 34); the assumption that Timothy’s work in Ephesus was “exceptional” (pp. 38, 40). These are, however, rare motes on the surface of a generally successful stream of pure induction.
In the second half of the book the controversial element comes prominently forward, although everywhere kept within due bounds by Dr. Witherow’s unfailing exegetical insight and sober historical sense. Here we have not so much a historical study of the origin of the human additions to the temple, as a polemic examination of the asserted divine sanction for the chief ecclesiastical growths of later times—the priesthood, penance, prelacy, apostolical succession, and the papacy. In the multitude of details which are here brought forward, it is not to be expected that all the opinions expressed will meet universal acceptance—especially when they concern points of confessed difficulty.
-
Discard Entanglements
We receive God’s forgiveness and cleansing the moment we cry out to him in repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus. We receive them afresh when we participate in the corporate confession of sins during the worship service; and we have them confirmed and sealed to us by means of the sacraments. The proper use, therefore, of the means of grace—prayer, worship and sacrament—is how we get rid of our sin and also how we find the strength to get back up on our feet and keep running.
One of the most anticipated races of the 1984 summer Olympics was the women’s 3000m, featuring the American Mary Decker and the South African Zola Budd. Decker—who had won a 3000m at the World Championships the preceding year—was favored to win the gold medal, and Budd knew she could not beat the champion if it came to finish line sprint. She began to pick up her pace, and by the middle of the race she was able to move ahead of Decker. Yet as Budd cut to the inside lane, the two collided. Decker fell and injured her hip. She was unable to finish the race.
In a similar fashion, sin will trip us up as we run to glory. This means we need to do our utmost to avoid it. Even more, it means that when we fall into it, we must get back up quickly and keep running.
Hebrews 12:1 says that we are to lay aside “sin which clings so closely.” The idea seems to be that sin clings so closely that it entangles you, impeding your progress, tripping you up, and perhaps even keeping you from moving forward altogether. We see this in numerous biblical examples. The love of money pushed Judas down; the love of this world threw Demas to the side; covetousness tripped up Achan; adultery and murder entangled David.
The problem with sin is manifold. Discreetly and deceptively, it will harden our hearts, weaken our faith, and damage our relationship with God. The more we sin, the more we become acclimated to it, and before long we begin to call evil good. Throughout the whole process, our relationship with God will be rattled. God will become displeased with us, and we will find it increasingly hard to walk closely with him.
A Christian is sleeping with his girlfriend, and knows that God hates this. How will this influence the way that he relates to God? Assuming that his conscience is not already seared, he will find it difficult to talk to God in prayer, and even attend church. He may pray and worship, but it will not be sincere, and it will quickly become lifeless. Religious acts of worship will become perfunctory because he knows in his heart that he is actively offending his heavenly Father. Like David when he was in the grip of his sins, the sinning Christian will lose the joy of his salvation, and his spiritual vitality will be turned into the drought of summer.
Read More -
A Darkness More than Night
Those who grope around in darkness (see Deut. 28:29) cannot praise Jehovah for they see Him not. Light in the context of Genesis 1, John 1, and myriads of other verses says to believers that if they want to understand the world around them, be at peace, and receive all the goodness which comes to the those who love the Lord than they best be abiding in the light and seeking out the light wherever He may be found.
There is a call to love the light that reverberates throughout the Bible. The marking out of darkness as the realm of evil is an image which is meant to evoke for us the vanity of seeking after wicked things, for they lead us astray from the good and they actively take us away from the truth. Darkness has always, in every culture, been the domain of the dead. Your grandaddy’s old saying that nothing blessed happens after midnight has been shared by old men to their progeny in Romania as much as Mongolia. It is a universal knowledge. It is part of the reason why the color black is the shade chosen by those who which to be seen as transgressive, non-conformist, and those who wish to let everyone know they mean trouble. The silver and black of the Raiders was chosen on purpose.
In the beginning (no pun intended) when we are first introduced to our God it is mentioned that darkness was on the face of the deep. The Holy Spirit is seen hovering over the waters. Then God makes light which comes neither from the sun nor the moon, but from the command of His voice. Why was it made? It is not as if the Third Person of the Holy Trinity needed it to see. Our God does not have eyes like men. Also darkness isn’t meant to imply the absence of God, and light the presence of God (more on that in a minute). It can seem as if there is a deeper thing going on here that we are not quite ready to comprehend completely, especially if you are coming to Genesis with preconceived notions of what to expect. However, as we think about what the Lord is doing we need to remember that as the patriarchs gave us testimony, they knew that one was to come who would give light to the answers we seek.
The Apostle John as he writes his gospel will mimic these opening words of Genesis and apply them directly to Jesus Christ. He writes:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Read More
Related Posts: -
On Consorting With Theologians of Mean Reputation
One of the worst things about the contemporary reformed is the inability to distinguish friends from enemies. It’s a primary facet of biblical wisdom but we don’t have it.
Taking a little heat recently for hanging around people with bad theological reputations. Geez…they have no idea what kind of people I’m known to hang with…I have a history of consorting with heathens, heretics and reprobates. Theologians are often worse and sometimes better.
This word “Reformed.” We use it when it when, if and how it is helpful. It’s used so often it often means nothing. Tellingly, if it’s not right out of the heart of the Reformational thought forms it is not Reformed in any way that means anything very important.
When I’m using it seriously I can barely use it at all. It’s a serious word and people apply it like frosting at a birthday party. It can mean almost anything. We say George Whitfield was “reformed”. And Jonathan Edwards. And Charles Spurgeon. On Spurgeon, I’ve said it myself; does that really mean anything intelligible? He wasn’t “reformed” in any obvious sense. He was barely an anything if you’re trying to nail him down to a specific category – and I love him very much. The Prince of Preachers and all that.
Was Martin Luther Reformed? It’s a silly question. Maybe no one is if Martin Luther isn’t but he could never be ordained in my very reformed denomination, not at any level (and we have three offices). We love him from afar like a hero of the Greek poets, pretending he was not a real man and so we don’t have to make a judgment as to his orthodoxy on very important matters.
Could John Knox have been ordained in the contemporary Reformed churches (he started the Presbyterian church)? I don’t think so, he was too forthright a personality. I’ve been to a lot of ordinations in the PCA and I can tell you, I don’t think it’s possible he could make it through committee in most. Can you imagine them sending him off to one of their “ministry suitability workshop” and having him come back approved for winsome ministry by their psychologists and trainers?
And JOHN CALVIN. Really, It’s been a long time since I’ve met a minister that has read him (at least more than the famous footnotes version). Everyone claims him, no one reads him. I know everyone loves Tim Keller and John MacArthur and the other stalwarts of contemporary evangelical calvinistic culture but can you imaging him ordaining any one of them? More likely he would have had them arrested. Maybe, he would have been more serious than that… Anyway, I think he was Reformed.
That’s not to criticize those guys, they do noble and beneficial work but “Reformed”? It’s not even close, right? I mean, we could easily call John MacArthur a “Calvinist” but at that point we are winnowing down what we mean by following Calvin to such a skinny extreme its really lost its temper.
Read More
Related Posts:
