Let us hear God's word. And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles, and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and the elders came together for to consider of this matter." And then the conclusion of the consideration, we'll pick it up in verse 28, "'For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay unto you no greater burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which, if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch, and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle. which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation." There we see them returning to Antioch with the decision of the apostles and elders. Then here in chapter 16, 4 and 5, we see what they did relative to that decision as they return in their church planting efforts elsewhere. And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep. that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the faith and increased in number daily." This ends the reading of God's holy and inspired Word. This morning in our survey of systematic theology, we come to consider church government. We began looking at the church several weeks ago. We considered the church in general. And then we looked at the implications of the doctrine of the church in communion of saints. And now this week, we'll consider the government of the church specifically. Lord willing, next week we'll consider the discipline of the church. And we could say that the discipline of the church is part of the church's government as well. So, as we do look at government this morning, I want us to be reminded of the communion of saints that we looked at two weeks ago. Particularly, be reminded that God takes notice of our service for Him as we serve His people. Consider Hebrews 6.10, For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love. which ye have showed toward His name, in that ye have ministered to the saints and do minister." Here Paul encourages the Hebrews saying, God's not unrighteous. He doesn't forget your works. These works that are labors of love. They're exertions based on a love to God and a love to His people. He says, you've done them unto His name. You've showed them toward His name. So you've done them unto Christ primarily. but you've done them, you've ministered to the saints. He says, and do minister. You have and you continue to serve Christ by serving the saints. And God is not unrighteous to forget that. He certainly is mindful of that. He keeps a record of that. Consider also 1 Peter 4.10. Here Peter says, "...as every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." So here in 1 Peter 4.10, Peter says every man, and this word man here is generic. It means male or female. Every person has received a gift. So they are to minister or to serve utilizing that gift, minister the same one to another, and they're to do so as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. In other words, God has given us, God's been gracious to us in salvation, but he's also given us a gift by grace. And we are to serve using that gift as a good steward of that gift that God has given us. And so, we also see that God's grace is manifold. It's diverse. And so, therefore, Christians' service to one another is diverse. We can draw some conclusions from the doctrine of gifts that God has given gifts to prepare for office, for certain functions. And so there are also certain offices in the church which kind of lead us into this discussion of church government. So this morning we're going to use Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 31 of Synods and Councils as our help, not as our rule. but as our help, our guide. In this chapter, the Westminster divines are contrasting the biblical view of church government against independency, congregationalism, or hierarchical views of church government being Episcopal or Roman Catholic. So, seeking to make a distinction between the biblical Presbyterian view and independency, congregational, or hierarchicalism, episcopacy. What we have to realize is that at Westminster, the men that wrote these documents, there were independents or congregationalists there. There also were episcopal men there as well, but the great majority were Presbyterian and became more and more convinced of Presbyterianism as the discussions went on. A decent book on Presbyterianism from a short perspective is this book called The Apostolic Church, Which Is It? by Thomas Witherow. In this, he gives six basic principles by which he seeks to establish what is the church government of the apostolic church. These are the six principles that he contends are found in the Scriptures. The office bearers were chosen by the people. The office of bishop and elder was identical. There was a plurality of elders in each church. Ordination was the act of a presbytery or a group of elders. That is a plurality of elders. Fifthly, there was the privilege of appeal to the assembly of elders. and the power of government was exercised by them in their capacity. And then the sixth principle, which really is probably the preeminent principle, and that is the only head of the church is the Lord Jesus Christ himself. So, a good book that kind of summarizes Presbyterianism. The reason I mention that in those six principles is all of those six principles aren't even covered explicitly in this chapter. This chapter is very, very basic in its explanation of church government. We have to recognize that at the start. One reason for that is that Westminster will authorize and develop what was called the form of Presbyterian church government, which went into much more detail of what the Bible taught concerning church government. So this is just a very, very simple perspective of the fundamental issues regarding church government. So let's look at a few of these principles found here in chapter 31. We find first the divine right of presbytery. Then we find the calling of Presbyteries in Chapter 2, or Paragraph 2. Then in Paragraph 3, the purview of Presbytery. And in Paragraph 4, the fallibility of Presbytery. And then Paragraph 5, the sphere of Presbytery. In Paragraph 1 of Chapter 31, we read these words, for the better government further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils. So here the discussion is about assemblies or synods or councils. I'm just using a synonym for them, which is presbytery. And I'm using that term generally just meaning a group of presbyters or a group of elders, whether it's at a local level or whether it's at a higher level. But notice in paragraph 1, they say that these things are for the better government or the further edification. What they're making a distinction of is what's called in Latin the esse and the bene esse, the essence of the church and the betterment of the church. In other words, you still have a church even if you don't have elders. You don't need elders to have a church, but to have a healthy church, you should have an eldership. So that's their thought there. But they do say that there ought to be such assemblies. So what they're contending for is the just divinum or the divine right of Presbyteries or gatherings of elders in the government. In other words, what they're saying is the Bible tells them to do it. It's not just that the Bible says, govern yourselves any way you want, and this is the way we've chosen. So they do contend there's a principle of a government established in the Scriptures regarding the church. And where do they draw it from? Well, clearly we see that here in Acts 15, as we've just read. There's clearly a doctrinal contention between certain professing believers who appear to be teachers who have come down from Judea to Antioch. And they appear to be well taught and they're teaching and they're teaching that circumcision is required for someone to be saved. You see Paul and Barnabas trying to deal with that issue themselves, trying to provide that first and second admonition. that we see in Titus is required. But these men aren't members of the church at Antioch. They can't themselves discipline them. And this, they realize, is a big issue. This isn't just a minor issue in their own congregation. This is probably a developing issue in the then known world amongst professors and Jews who are still thinking that circumcision is required. So, they go up to Jerusalem and the elders as well as the apostles consider this matter. We see Peter speaking, we see Paul speaking, then we see James who is the moderator kind of making a conclusion, wrapping things up. and then them approving this statement regarding what's necessary. We see that circumcision isn't necessary for the Gentiles. We see that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit. They believe that their deliberations have been guided by the Word of God. and thus by the Spirit of God. And so they make these conclusions and they give them back to Paul and Barnabas and these other men that came up from Antioch. They return with this epistle, with this letter, and they read it at Antioch and were told when they read it, the church rejoiced for the consolation. This was encouraging. This was edifying to the church or the churches at Antioch. And then we find Paul and Barnabas as they move on to Derbe and Lystra and continue on in their missionary endeavors, they take these decrees and deliver them to the other churches. And the other churches, we're told in 16.5, were established in the faith and increased in number daily. So, these decrees, this clarification regarding this doctrinal issue end up being profitable for the people of God. Now one thing I think it's important to say here from Acts 15 is that I don't think Acts 15 completely itself proves Presbyterianism. And a number of independents or congregationalists do have some good questions regarding Acts 15. That is, all the churches weren't represented there. And so the decree does go out to all the churches, but all the churches weren't represented. So how does that exactly follow Presbyterianism or a hierarchy of courts? I think you have to recognize, obviously, you have communication gaps and issues in the New Testament that have to be accounted for. I think you also have a unique situation in that you do have the apostles, which we are told the church is founded on the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. So we do have to reckon with that. But I think what we have to realize is that there's a context that underlies Acts 15. And that is the Old Testament government of the church. We don't have a New Testament government that just comes on the scene by itself, but it's built on the government of the church that God has already established. In Acts 18, verses 13-27, we have the establishment of the eldership in Israel. Remember, it's Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, who gives Moses guidance, and clearly it's God's guidance through Jethro. He tells him what are the requirements for elders in verse 21a of Exodus 18. He says there are to be able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating, covetousness. So here's the most condensed qualification list of elders found in the Bible. They've got to be able. They've got to be competent. They've got to fear God. They've got to be men of truth. They've got to hate covetousness. But he goes on to say that these kinds of men that Moses appoints are to be rulers of thousands, hundreds, fifties, ten. It goes all the way down to ten. And it is interesting that that is the number that the Jews held, numbers of heads of homes that had to live in a village or city to establish a synagogue. but we see that they were to be rulers of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands. The picture is there's a hierarchy or there's an ascending court system that's alluded to here. We see it more fully established in Numbers 11, 16 and 17 where we have the establishment of the Sanhedrin where God tells Moses that there are to be at the highest level of court 70 men. There's going to be 70 elders at the Supreme Court level. That's it. Now children, have you ever heard of the Septuagint Bible or the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament? And you've probably seen it If you've read about it, you'll see it as Sept. It looks like September. It's a Septuagint. But you might also see it as Seventy. Right? In Roman numerals, it's the Seventy. What that's referring to is the Sanhedrin or the Seventy that approved it. That's why it's called the Seventy. And so the Sanhedrin is the Supreme Court. So the Jewish people would have recognized this ascending court system all along. We don't see it dismantled, but we see it just carried over in the New Testament. The one thing I do think is important to mention is there's no mention of the officers of the church here. in this paragraph. Clearly, as I said, the form of Presbyterial government that was developed by Westminster covers that and discusses what they call assemblies of presbyters, which are, they say, congregational, classical, Synodical, and they represent what we call today's sessions at the local level, Presbytery at the next level, Synod at the next level, which would be provincial, and then a General Assembly. Now most denominations in our nation do not have those four levels, just don't have quite enough churches. Even in the PCA there's not a Synod level between the Presbytery and the General Assembly. And then oftentimes, We'd also have what could be called an ecumenical synod or an international synod. The Canons of Dort were international where the government in the Netherlands invited representatives from reformed churches in all the other nations to attend, to participate in that kind of council. And obviously there were earlier councils post-apostolic times like Nicaea and Chalcedon and the like. But so we've looked at the divine rite of presbytery. Now let's consider the calling of presbyteries in paragraph 2. In paragraph 2, the Westminster Assembly talks about how presbyteries may be called. I think they're making a lot of effort to explain the rationale for them being called by the civil magistrate. So that's really the focus is why could they be called. So they say that civil magistrates can call church courts. How do they justify that? They justify it by Isaiah 49.23 where we read a prophecy concerning the health of the church in the latter days that kings shall be thy nursing fathers and their queens thy nursing mothers. They also justify it by Paul's exhortation for the church to pray for civil magistrates in 1 Timothy 2, 1 and 2, that there might be peace and that there might be piety or godliness in a nation. So they say here it's clear that civil magistrates have a right to be concerned about godliness. Not just about peace and tranquility in terms of the moral law being followed uh... in the second table but also at the first people worshiping properly They also refer to the practice of Jehoshaphat in 2 Chronicles 19 or Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 29 and 30. And they say that magistrates can call synods or they can also call ministers to advise them about matters of religion. They give an example there of Herod calling the Pharisees to ask them about the place that Messiah would be born. Obviously, Herod was doing it for the wrong motive. But the point is that he had a right to seek advice from the leaders of the church. They also refer to Proverbs 11, 14, which is just a general exhortation about the need for counsel, to obtain counsel. But clearly this section is mainly to justify what they are currently doing. that they are currently seeking to establish uniformity in Christian religion in the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, could also say Wales as well. So that was their goal, to promote that. And so when the Church of Scotland actually adopted the Westminster Confession in 1647, They say this, They say, lest our intention and meaning be in some particulars misunderstood, it is hereby expressly declared and provided that the not mentioning in this confession the several sorts of ecclesiastical officers and assemblies shall be no prejudice to the truth of Christ in these particulars to be expressed fully in the directory of government. So they say, just because they haven't mentioned officers and the types of assemblies doesn't mean there's not a biblical view of that. That's covered in the form of government. They go on to say it is further declared that the assembly understand that some parts of the second article of the 31 chapter. That's the way they said it 31 chapter 31 chapter. only of churches not settled or constituted in point of government." So what they say is this paragraph that we're looking at is written mainly for churches who have yet to be formally established and have sessions and presbyteries and the like. Once that's done, it's really not appropriate for the church, I mean the civil sphere to be guiding and directing the state or the church, excuse me. So at that point the state really should not be intruding into the church's business and calling its assemblies for it. And so that's why those that held to those principles eventually found themselves having to come out of the Church of Scotland and be part of the Free Church of Scotland because By that point in history, the civil magistrate was seeking to lord it over in the church. There weren't two equal spheres, church and state, but the state was seeking to lord it over the church. Even in 1647, the Scots could see the problem, if you just understood that paragraph as though complete and full orbed. They said that only applies if the church is not established. Once it's established, the church ought to be left alone. But they did believe that the church should be established by the civil magistrate originally. Remember, the church is moving out of the medieval period And the churches in Western Europe are very nationalistic. And so, they see themselves as one great ecumenical reformed church in one sense. But at the same time, they're so nationally oriented that they see that each branch of that reformed church will have its own branch in its own nation. and so that the civil magistrate should establish that church, provide a way to support that church, but then they shouldn't be micromanaging that church on a day-to-day, week-to-week basis. Having looked at the divine right and the calling of Presbyteries, let's look at the purview of Presbyteries in paragraph 3. Here they tell us what presbyteries ought to be involved in. They say it belongs to synods and councils ministerially. That word is very important. What they're trying to say there is that elders in sessions, presbyteries, assemblies act ministerially. They act as conduits of Christ's authority. They have no original authority. but they only serve on the behalf of their Lord. So they are under shepherds, but they're not the supreme shepherd. It belongs to synods and councils ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience. That's clearly what they were doing in Acts 15. It's clearly a controversy of the faith. Someone was adding to the requirements for salvation. that circumcision must be added. Secondly, they are to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of His church. That's what presbyteries and assemblies do when they have directories of worship, forms of government, and documents called books of discipline. And I don't know a Presbyterian denomination that doesn't have those types of documents. Now, they sometimes differ in what those documents say. But they set down rules and directions for better ordering of government and worship. And what you have to remember is paragraph 6 of chapter 1 has told us that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the church common to human actions and societies which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence according to the general principles of the Word which are always to be observed. So what they say there is there's some things that you're only going to get basic principles from Scripture. You're not going to be able to have a proof text that tells you everything. And consider, like in church government, there's got to be some kind of statute of limitations. Can you charge someone for a crime that you knew they were guilty of 30 years ago and you have continue to know it for 30 years, and numbers of people have known it for 30 years, and now you're going to lay it on a tape. Or how about the time length between having a decision reached and an appeal being brought by the one who doesn't like the decision. So if a session makes a decision, how long should a person have to appeal that decision to the next court before it can be assumed that that decision is done? There are things that you can't go to one passage of Scripture and find a certain number of days or a certain number of hours, but there are things that have to be put in so there can be some kind of order. So clearly, they're saying that those things need to be factored in, but that the church is to provide some rules and directions in these regards. They also say that synods and councils are to ministerially receive complaints in case of maladministration and authoritatively to determine the same. In other words, they have a judicial function And they also have an ascending or an appeal process for that judicial process. And that's the beauty of Presbyterian church government, rather than congregationalism, is that you have a right of appeal. And so do sessions have a right of appeal as well as individuals, and so do presbyteries then have a right of appeal to the higher court. They go on to say these things that sessions have a right and church government has a right to be involved in. They say, which decrees and determinations, that's exactly what in Acts we have Luke calling the decision of the synod at Jerusalem, which decrees and determinations if consonant to the Word of God are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word." Now, this is a beautiful section that deals with the fifth commandment and how it should rightly be interpreted. Which decrees and determinations, if consonant with the Word. So that says, even though some church court that has authority may speak, if they speak contrary to the Word of God, it's not to be received. Because they speak ministerially. They should only be speaking the Word of Christ and applying it. If consonant to the Word, they are to receive with reverence and submission. But notice, if it's consonant with the Word, Why is it to be received? They give two reasons why it's to be received. Not only for its agreement with the Word, but also for the power or the authority whereby they are made as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. So, in other words, I'm only to receive it if it's God's Word, consistent with God's Word. But if it is consistent with God's Word, I'm to receive it because it's what God says, and because it's what God says through an authority that God has established in His Word to speak to me. In other words, that's why you're to obey your parents, children. Not just because they tell you to do what God's Word tells you to do, but also because they're your parents and God has placed them there. And God has established the institution of the family for that very purpose, for your good. So, what they say is, you don't accept your authority if they tell you to do something contrary to the Word because they're your authority. They don't say that, but they say if you do accept what your authority said because it is consistent with God's Word, then you accept it for both reasons. Because it's God's Word, and because they are God's authority over you. It's basically the Reformed principle, the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura. Think about how that was worked out with Luther, children. Remember Luther at the Diet of Worms? He was shown by Roman Catholic scholars to be out of line with decisions that other councils had made as well as other papal pronouncements. He had been shown that those in authority over him disagreed with him. And yet he could say, my conscience is held captive by the Word of God. Unless you can show me where I am wrong by Scripture, I cannot recant. I'm willing to listen to all these experts if they can show me from Scripture where I'm wrong. They can be my helps, but if they can't convince me that Scripture tells me I'm wrong, I can't say I'm wrong. And so this is basically the principle being carried out here in terms of Presbytery. And then that leads them to this consideration, the fallibility of Presbytery. We believe in the infallibility of the Word. but we believe in the fallibility of presbyteries. All synods, this is paragraph 4, all synods and councils, since the apostles' time, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred. Therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both. So, this paragraph contradicts the papal doctrine of the infallibility of the church. They say that creeds are helps, not rules. The word rule is the English word that translates the Greek word that we get the word canon from. In Philippians 3.16 we read, whereunto we have already attained Let us walk by the same rule. Let us walk by the same canon. Let us walk by the same standard. Let us mind the same thing. So, they're saying the Scripture is the standard. It is the measuring stick for our thinking and for our living. But, creeds can be held. C.S. Lewis said this regarding old books. He says, it's helpful to have the winds of the ages blow through your head, lest you be guilty of carrying the contemporary cultural baggage to the text. He's thinking about interpreting scripture or interpreting other literature. And he says, you know, it's a pretty good idea to take an interest in what your elders say about the text you're looking at. In other words, people in the past may have something very valuable to say to the passage you're looking at. And why does Lewis say that? He says because if you don't, then the only thing that's going to influence you in reading the text is the current thinking. Wherever you're at culturally, that's the baggage that you bring to the eyes when you look at the text. You can't help but bring something, some preconceived notions to the passage of Scripture you look at. So, if you choose to ignore all that God's given the church in the past, then don't be surprised if you have no stability. And isn't that why the evangelical church today has very little stability? They think they have to start from scratch. And they ignore, oftentimes, the gifts that God has given the church through the ages. So one thing I think is interesting here is the confession itself warns us about misusing it. Sometimes people will say, well, creeds are dangerous because people begin to use them like the Word of God. Well, this creed tells you don't do that. This creed tells you this is just a creed. This isn't the Word of God. This isn't your rule, but it can be a help. And then lastly, having spoken of the fallibility of Presbyteries, they speak of the sphere of Presbytery or assemblies in the church in paragraph 5. They say, Synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical, and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary, or by way of advice for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate. So here we see that there's still a distinction to be made between church and state. The two passages of Scripture to support this teaching are Luke 12, 13 and 14. There we read, "...and one of the company said unto him, said unto Jesus, Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto him, Man, who made me judge or divider? over you. Here some man is asking Jesus to step in to be a judicial judge in the civil sphere. And Jesus said, who made me to be such? Now clearly, Jesus is the Lord over heaven and earth. He's the Lord of the church. He's the Lord of the state. But He wasn't made a lower level judge in that society. He also says in John 18.36 in the upper room discourse to the disciples, He says, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews. But now is My kingdom not from hence. That's just after the Upper Room Discourse. This is actually Christ speaking to Pilate in John 18.36. So here he says, my kingdom is not of the world. There's a different kingdom here. My kingdom doesn't involve fighting. It's not physical. And so clearly we see the church is not the state. That's the point here. And if the church is not the state, then they say the church ought not to intermeddle with the state. That's why when evangelical leaders, I remember during the great, what was that called? Moral majority. The leader of the moral majority. coming up with conclusions about what type of missile defense system we needed and the evangelical right getting into deciding how many helicopters and how many bombs and what size bombs, what kind of funding we ought to have for different missile systems or different planes. That's clearly intermeddling in a business that's beyond the church. So we're not to intermeddle. The church isn't to intermeddle, yet it has a right to humbly petition. There are places and there are issues that are relative to principles that the church needs to speak to the state on. And the church has a right to humbly petition in those cases that they say are extraordinary, as well as the church has the need to advise for satisfaction of conscience if the magistrate asks. The magistrate says, what's the biblical position on this? Then the church must respond to satisfy its corporate conscience with what God has declared on the matter. So what they're saying is the church cannot take the state's duties or functions to itself, but they are saying the church is still the mouthpiece of God and it is to speak prophetically to the state as well as to the family regarding their responsibilities before Almighty God.