00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
Paul, a servant of God, and an
apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect,
and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness,
in hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised
before the world began. But hath in due times manifested
his word through preaching, which is committed unto according to
the commandment of God our Saviour, to Titus, mine own son, after
the common faith, grace, mercy and peace from God the Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. For this cause left
I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that
are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed
thee. If any be blameless, a husband
of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot
or unruly, for a bishop must be blameless, as the steward
of God, not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine,
nor striker, not given to filthy lucre, but a lover of hospitality,
a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate, 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.
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially
they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert
whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy
lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a prophet
of their own said, The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts,
low bellies. This witness is true, wherefore
rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith, not
giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men that
turn from the truth. Unto the pure all things are
pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing
pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled. They profess
that they know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable
and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Amen. Thus far we read the Word
of God. Our theme this evening is John
Knox and Church Government. John Knox and Church Government. I'm speaking in a way, in a setting
that I assume some knowledge of who John Knox was and some
knowledge of his life. In the providence of God, Knox,
through the influence of George Wishart, the martyr and others,
discovered the teaching of the Word of God, the Bible, the Gospel
of Christ taught therein. He was a significant figure in
the European Protestant Reformation and you can tell that in Geneva
the Reformation wall has a prominent place for Knox's statue and that
indicates the significance of Knox in the Reformation throughout
Europe. But he was the foremost figure
in the Protestant Reformation in Scotland. That Reformation
entailed, first and foremost, a rediscovery of the biblical
message of salvation, that salvation is by grace, through faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ and the scriptures are the exclusive
word of God. It included, however, a return
to the biblical teaching on a whole range of issues, not least that
of how the church was to be governed. So our subject then is what Knox
and those with him concluded about church government. To many
in our day the question of how the church should be governed
is simply a matter of expediency. that it doesn't really matter,
that the church can be treated in similar fashion to the golf
club or the horticultural society or some other grouping of people
with common interest and we work out what works best. And even among Christians, the
question of church government hardly seems worth all the commotion
and the convulsions that have taken place over it in Church
history and in Scottish Church history in particular. It seems
to many that this is much ado about something that's not really
very important. But our Reformers and their successors
took the matter very seriously indeed. They maintained that
the Church is Christ's Church and that he has the right to
say in his word how it should be governed. And they were willing
to hazard their lives for the sake of the form of church government
that they believed was taught in the Word of God. So the question
of church government was not one that Knox let pass. It's not something that he had
no real conviction about and Scotland just happened to end
up Presbyterian. He did have definite views on
church government. We consider this evening four
things. Knox's view on church government in general. Secondly,
church government in the first book of discipline. Thirdly,
differences between superintendents and bishops. And fourthly, refinements
after Knox in the second book of Discipline. First of all,
Knox's view on church government in general, leaving aside the
first book of Discipline, that great manual of order, a blueprint
for church and state which was drawn up by Knox and his colleagues. But leaving that to one side
for the moment, let's look more generally at Knox's views on
church government. And we can break it down into
periods. First of all, before Geneva, it has been supposed
by many that Knox only developed hostility to episcopacy when
he travelled to Geneva. Prior to that he was quite happy
to have what are known as diocesan bishops, a hierarchy with a bishop
having authority over various ministers in different churches
and parishes. And the assumption is that Knox
was quite happy with that arrangement until he traveled to Geneva and
came under Calvin's influence. For example, an example of this,
P. Hume Brown In John Knox, Volume
1, he says, As we shall see, Knox was himself offered a bishopric
during his residence in England, and though he refused it, this
was from no conviction of the sinfulness of episcopacy. Quote,
What moved me to refuse, he says, and that with displeasure of
all men, even of those that best loved me, those high promotions
that were offered by him whom God hath taken from us for our
offences, assuredly the foresight of trouble to come. At a later period, indeed, he
set down this refusal to his disapproval of bishops, but this
was after he had passed under the influence of Calvin and had
seen that in Scotland as in Geneva the Presbyterian form of church
government was the best safeguard of religion. Now what Hume Brown
is saying is that he only added the objection to bishops on principle
as a reason later and that at the time he didn't object to
diocesan bishops it was just that he thought there would be
problems and the sheer biblical principle didn't come into it. That's his argument. But there
is reason to question this and there is evidence that Knox had
anti-Episcopalian sentiments before he ever went to Geneva
and met Calvin. It is well known that Knox was
offered the bishopric of Rochester and it would seem Also, he was
offered a bishopric of Newcastle and he declined both times. Why was this? Was it just that
he had other plans? Was it just that he didn't like
the way episcopacy was run in England, but he had no objection
to it in principle? Well, we believe there is evidence
to show that even at this stage, He was against episcopacy in
principle, even though he preached within the Church of England.
Samuel Miller, in his work The Primitive and Apostolic Order
of the Church of Christ Vindicated, says this, It may be supposed
by some, however, that Knox opposed prelacy because a participation
in its honour was not within his reach. But the truth is,
a bishopric was offered him, which he refused, because he
considered prelacy as unlawful. Accordingly, when John Douglas
was made tulcan, or nominal bishop, of St. Andrews, Knox utterly
refused to induct or install him. And when this refusal was
imputed to unworthy motives, he publicly declared from the
pulpit on the next Sabbath I have refused a greater bishopric than
ever it was, and might have had it with the favour of greater
men than he hath this. But I did and do repine for the
discharge of my conscience that the Church of Scotland be not
subject to that order." So Miller is saying that the evidence is
that Knox was against I hope we're all clear as to what Episcopacy
is, the hierarchical view of church government. He was against
it in principle before he ever went to Geneva. Likewise, Thomas McCree in his
Life of John Knox, he has this to say, he again takes issue
with the idea that Knox only became opposed to episcopacy
through contact with Calvin. He says, scruples which had resisted
the force of authority and argument have often been found to yield
to the more powerful influence of lucrative and honorable situations. But whether with some we shall
consider Knox's conduct on this occasion as indicating the poverty
of his spirit, or shall regard it as a proof of true independence
of mind, even the prospect of elevation to the Episcopal bench
could not overcome the repugnance which he felt at a closer connection
with the English Church. Edward VI, with the concurrence
of his privy council, offered him a bishopric, but he rejected
it, and in the reasons which he gave for his refusal, declared
the Episcopal office to be destitute of divine authority in itself
and its exercise in the English Church to be inconsistent with
the ecclesiastical canons. This is attested by Bezer, a
contemporary author. Knox himself speaks in one of
his treatises of the high promotion offered to him by Edward, and
we shall find him at a later period of his life expressly
asserting that he had refused a bishopric. So again, McCree
is saying Knox didn't just become anti-episcopal when he had contact
with Calvin. And then David Buchanan in his
Life of Knox, published in 1644, he states, at this time When a bishopric was offered
to him by King Edward VI, with whom he was then in no small
reputation, he refused the same and declared in a grave and bold
manner that the proud title of Lordship and that great state
having quid commune antichristo, somewhat common with Antichrist,
was not lawful to be in the Church of God. So all of this indicates
that Knox was against episcopacy and in favor, essentially, of
Presbyterianism even before he ever met John Calvin. Then the second period we can
consider is Knox at Geneva. There is no doubt that Knox was
confirmed in his Presbyterian views by visiting Calvin in Geneva. Though we maintain that he had
such views before, they were confirmed and embedded by his
visit to Geneva. McCree tells us again, this influence
of Knox in recommending this establishment to his countrymen,
that is Presbyterianism, is universally allowed. But as he officiated
for a considerable time in the Church of England, and on this
account was supposed to have been pleased with its constitution,
it has been usually said that he afterwards contracted a dislike
to it during his exile on the continent, and that having then
imbibed the sentiments of Calvin, he carried them along with him
to his native country and organized the Scottish Church after the
Geneva model. This statement is inaccurate.
His objections to the English liturgy were increased and strengthened
during his residence on the continent, but they existed before that
time. His judgment respecting ecclesiastical
government and discipline was matured during that period, but
his radical sentiments on these heads were formed long before
he saw Calvin or had any intercourse with the foreign reformers. At Geneva he saw a church which
upon the whole corresponded with his idea of the divinely authorized
pattern, but he did not indiscriminately approve nor servilely imitate
either that or any other existing establishment." And he goes on
a bit more on that theme. What he's saying is Knox was
essentially Presbyterian before he met Calvin. He was indeed
impressed with the church order in Geneva but even then he didn't
follow everything that happened in Geneva and he actually mentions
the fact that in Geneva after initially rejecting the church
calendar, special festivals, that Geneva then went on to practice
the observance of Christmas, Easter and so on, whereas Knox
did not and he didn't have it in Scotland. So that what he's
saying is Knox could think for himself and he didn't just say,
oh well Geneva's got it right, we'll bring the thing wholesale
into Scotland. He did admire the Genevan pattern
and felt very much at home with Calvin and the Genevan church. You remember his famous words,
speaking of Geneva, where I neither fear nor ashamed to say is the
most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since
the days of the apostles. So Geneva strengthened his views
but he was essentially Presbyterian before he went there. And then
the third period, Knox after Geneva, after 1559. We'll look at the first book
of discipline in a moment, but this will clearly show that Knox
was committed to all the main points of Presbyterianism. We shall see that Presbyterianism
was established Though new threats arose even in 1572, the year
of Knox's death, there was a considerable attempt to undermine Presbyterianism
in Scotland. Episcopal titles in that year
were reintroduced as the nobility, and this is the low reason for
it, the nobility wanted to obtain the revenues that went with them. They wanted the money that were
attached to the bishops' diocesan titles. And they appointed what
were known as the Tolkien bishops. The word Tolkien is a term for
a calfskin stuffed with straw in order to induce a cow to give
more milk. And the idea was that they'd
have these Tolkien bishops to get the money that belonged to
the title. Knox refused to take part in
the installation of one of these Tolkien bishops. David Catherwood,
in his True History of the Church of Scotland in 1678, he says,
Mr. Knox refused to inaugurate the
bishop. Yea, in open audience of many,
then present, he denounced anathema to the giver and anathema to
the receiver." Then he goes on, when Mr. John Rutherford, provost
of the Old College, alleged Mr. Knox's repining proceeded from
malcontentment, Mr. Knox purged himself the next
Lord's Day saying, I have refused a greater bishopric than ever
it was which I might have had with the favour of greater men
than he hath his, I did and do repine for discharge of my conscience."
That's part of the same extract we had earlier. But what Calderwood
is saying is that when he was accused of really just being
jealous that he wasn't a bishop himself and therefore he refused
to take part in the installation of a bishop, next Lord's Day he said that's
not the reason. He'd been offered a bishopric,
a better bishopric than this one and he refused it and he
refused it on conscience grounds. So Knox was against episcopacy
to the end. Secondly, church government in
the first book of discipline. After the six Johns, the Knox
and five other ministers, all called John, produced the Scots
Confession of Faith, the secret council, the provisional government
at that time, on August 29th, 1560, instructed Knox and his
brethren to draw up a book of discipline, a book of order for
the church and the nation. So they drew on an earlier document,
the Book of Reformation, which they had already sent to Calvin,
Vire, Biser, Peter Martyr and Bullinger for approval. The first
Book of Discipline itself was approved by the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland in 1560. Some things are very clear in
this book. First of all, the church has a government appointed
by Christ distinct from and independent of the civil magistrate. The distinction between church
and state may not be as clear as it became later on, but it
is clear enough that the civil power and the government of the
church in its discipline are distinct. The seventh head on
this distinguishes crimes with which the civil sort ought to
deal and those sins which warrant church discipline. When it comes
to officers in the church, head four deals with ministers, and
says the admission of ministers to their offices must consist
of the people and Kirk where unto they shall be appointed
and in application of the learned ministers
appointed for their examination. Says the ministers should only
be admitted with the consent of the church and of the ministers
of the district. Elders and Deacons, it appoints
ruling elders, as the scriptures do, 1 Timothy 5, 17, that the
elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially
they that labour in the word and in doctrine. It distinguishes
between elders who rule and rule well and those elders who labour
in the word and in doctrine. And there's a distinction within
the eldership between those who are simply ruling elders and
those who are ministers of the Word. But in the Book of Discipline,
ruling elders are envisaged joining with the minister in the government
and discipline of the Church. This in itself stands in contrast
to the whole Episcopal idea of the threefold office. In an Episcopalian
Church, I think those of us not familiar with it, we tend to
be a bit bamboozled by all the titles of deacons, archdeacons,
and deans, and all the rest of it. But it basically boils down
to threefold ministry. Bishops, priests or presbyters,
if they're more evangelical, and deacons. And they are three
orders of clergy. in the Episcopal system. Ruling elders, appointed in the
Book of Discipline, the existence of ruling elders has always militated
against episcopacy because in episcopacy the bishop exercises
authority over a number of local ministers who govern the local
congregations. And the idea of ruling elders
joining with the ministers doesn't actually fit very well into that
idea. And then in the Book of Discipline,
the deacons aren't the lowest order of clergy. They are local
men from the congregation elected by the people, like the ruling
elders, and have their distinctive function in the church. We'll
come back to superintendents later. Synods and General Assemblies. Synods are implied in the First
Book of Discipline. There is a possibility of a body
to discipline the superintendents and so the Book of Discipline
envisages wider assemblies of ministers and elders. Gordon Donaldson in the Scottish
Reformation confirms that his book, the Scottish Reformation,
confirms that the first book of discipline envisages the existence
of synods and General Assembly. The General Assembly of 1562
declared that synods were to meet twice a year. Presbyteries
developed and are noted by name as presbyteries in 1578. Then
the third thing, bishops and superintendents. A great deal has been made of
the fact that the church of 1560 and the first book of discipline
appointed a number of ministers to act as superintendents as
if this were some concession to episcopacy. They say that
They allowed superintendents to cover an area, not a particular
congregation, and that this was in fact a concession to episcopacy. Now, there's no doubt that there
would have been those who would have liked it to be a concession,
but the reality is otherwise. The reality is that the superintendents
were in no way comparable to diocesan bishops. It says here,
because we have appointed a larger stipend to those that shall be
superintendents than to the rest of the ministers, we have thought
good to signify unto your honours, the writing to the government.
Such reasons has moved us to make difference between preachers
at this time. as also how many superintendents
we think necessary with their bounds, office, election and
causes that may deserve deposition from that charge. We consider
that if the ministers whom God has endued with his singular
graces amongst us should be appointed to several and certain places
there to make their continual residence, that then the greatest
part of this realm should be destitute of all doctrine which
should not only be occasion of great burma but also should be
dangerous to the salvation of many and therefore we have thought
it a thing most expedient for this time for this time that
from the whole number of godly and learned men now presently
in this realm be selected twelve or ten for in so many provinces
have we divided the whole to whom charge and commandment shall
be given to plant and erect churches, to set order and appoint ministers,
as the former order prescribes, to the countries that shall be
appointed to their care where none are now. And by this means
your love and common care over all the inhabitants of this realm,
to whom ye are equal debtors, shall evidently appear, as also
the simple and ignorant who perchance have never heard Christ Jesus
truly preached, shall come to some knowledge, by the which
many that are now dead in superstition and ignorance shall attain to
some feeling of godliness, by the which they may be provoked
to search and seek further knowledge of God and his true religion
and worshipping." So there, Knox, it's a little difficult to follow,
but Knox is saying that the reason they want some ministers to be
superintendents is simply because if every minister was tied to
a single congregation at that time, large areas of Scotland
would be left without the preaching of the gospel. And so as a temporary
measure, he saw it as necessary that certain gifted men should
be made superintendents to supervise the preaching of the gospel over
a wide area and to organize churches. Calderwood is consistently adamant
that they were a temporary expedient. He says, the Book of Discipline
was accommodated to that time in some points and liberty was
reserved to the posterity to establish a more perfect as you
may see in Mr Knox's history. That which was temporary may
be discerned from that which they esteemed not to be alterable
by some reason or respect alleged and indeed we may safely say
that the whole was recommended to be perpetually observed, except
for a few things, as the office of superintendents, exhorters,
readers, whereunto they were forced, as they thought, through
necessity, the policy of the Kirk being so defaced before,
in the time of Popery, that it could not be perfectly repaired
in haste." So Calderwood is saying the superintendents, like readers,
and like exhorters were temporary until the ministry was built
up. This hasn't stopped some trying
to find episcopacy in Knox's allowance of superintendents. Gordon MacDonald, we mentioned
earlier, sorry, Gordon Donaldson, in his book The Scottish Reformation,
he tries to argue that that the superintendents were still really
bishops. And he makes appeal to the fact
that some people addressed the superintendent as Dominus superintendents,
my lord superintendent, as if they showed that the superintendents
were really prolatical bishops after all. But this argument
has been very ably answered by James Kirk in his book, Patterns
of Reform. He said, old usages die hard. The fact that some people still
addressed the superintendents as if they were bishops doesn't
actually tell you that they were, in effect, bishops. In fact, he finds that in one
place, even the Kirkcession are addressed as your lordships because
that was the terminology that some were used to. And old habits
die hard. But he says the superintendents
were not the equivalent of bishops. And he comes up with a summary
speaking of the period after Knox when episcopacy was making
inroads and a resurgence, he says, the introduction of episcopacy,
not Presbyterianism, was thus responsible for eclipsing the
work of superintendents in those areas where bishops were immediately
appointed to the ancient diocese. The elimination, not perpetuation,
of superintendents was thus the intention once this diocesan
organisation took final form. But unpredictably, the new bishops
and not the superintendents found themselves under attack and soon
superseded. By 1575, the General Assembly
reverted to its earlier position in the 1560s by again approving
at a critical juncture that the name of bishop is common to all
them that has a particular flock over the which he has a peculiar
charge, as well to preach the word as to minister the sacraments
and to execute the ecclesiastical discipline with the consent of
his elders. And this is his chief function
of the word of God. Beyond individual congregations,
supervision might still legitimately be exercised over reasonable
bounds, but not the old diocese, by any whom the General Kirk
shall appoint." We will not read any more, but you get the idea
that even after the attempt to reintroduce Episcopacy, they
said no, not bishops, superintendents appointed by the church courts
to, yes, supervise things over a wide area until a better order
is established. All the essentials of Presbyterianism
were present in Knox's views and are embodied in the first
book of discipline. So Miller tells us, with respect
to John Knox, the great reformer of Scotland, no one is ignorant
that he was a warm advocate of Presbyterianism and that he took
a leading part in establishing that form of church government
in his native country. It has been sometimes indeed
rashly asserted that the Church of Scotland was not originally
reformed upon principles strictly Presbyterian. This, however,
is a groundless assertion. The model of the Reformed Church
of Scotland, as established in 1560, appears in the first book
of discipline, drawn up by Knox and others. In that book, in
chapter 4, the ministry is spoken of as consisting of a single
order in the same language which has been common among Presbyterians
ever since, nor is there the least hint given of different
ranks or grades of ministers, much less of such a hierarchy
as was then established in England. In the seventh chapter, ruling
elders and deacons are described, and their duties pointed out,
the former to assist the minister in the government of his flock,
and the latter to take care of the poor. and in other parts
of the work the government of the church by Kirk Sessions,
Presbyteries and Synods is expressly laid down. This is the essence
of Presbyterianism. It is true in that book the appointment
of 10 or 12 ministers under the name of superintendents is recognised
and directed. But it is as true that the same
book that the same book, that this appointment was made not
because superintendence was considered as a divine institution or an
order to be observed perpetually in the Kirk, but because they
were compelled to resort to some such expedient at that time when
the deficiency of well-qualified Protestant ministers was so great
that if some of the more able and pious had not been entrusted
with much larger districts than single palaces, in which to preach
the gospel, to plant churches, and to superintend the general
interests of religion, the greater part of the country must have
been given up either to paupish teachers or to total ignorance. So the superintendents were not
bishops. They were never intended to be.
They were simply men who had a wider charge to preach the
gospel where Christ was not known. And indeed Presbyterianism has
always been flexible enough to allow for ministers who have
a wider remit. Even linkages when there are
shortages of ministers, where a minister has responsible for
two or three smaller congregations or missionary work, ministers
have been appointed to a wide field without a particular congregational
location. And this has always been allowed
in Presbyterian church government. But such ministers are subject
to the courts of the church as a whole. In episcopacy, the bishop
has authority over the local ministers. In Presbyterianism,
even a missionary minister is under the government of the Presbyterian
assemblies and church courts. Finally then, refinements after
Knox in the second book of discipline. Things did progress after that
time. The second book of discipline,
drawn up in 1578 after Knox's time, for example, it restored
the laying on of hands in ordination because the first book of discipline
made no distinction between the laying on of the hands of the
apostles to convey miraculous gifts, which had now ceased,
and the laying on of hands as an act of government. The second
book of discipline recognizes the distinction. The first use
was temporary. The second is permanent. The distinction between church
and state is clearer. It's clear from the second book
of discipline that it addresses a situation where the state might
be hostile to the church and not pulling in the same direction.
The first book of discipline was asked for in a situation
where the state was ready to back the church. The second book
of discipline makes more allowance for the fact that the state might
not be in sympathy with the church. Well, some lessons and then we're
finished. Does it matter? Does it matter?
Does it matter how the church is governed? Does it matter whether
we have a hierarchy with bishops and archbishops at the top or
whether we have a series of church courts? Well, it does matter. Christ is the king of the church. He has appointed a form of church
government to be followed in love to Him. The Church is subject
to Christ in everything. We are told that in Ephesians
5. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave
Himself for it. Wives submit to your husbands
as the Church is subject to Christ in everything. We are not subject to Christ
if we invent our own form of church government. So it does
matter. It honours Christ to govern the church the way he
says. And he has appointed not a pyramid,
but an inverted pyramid. The number of men involved doesn't
get smaller as you go higher, it gets bigger as you go higher. That's why, as we've found in
practice recently in our own church, the session is the starting
point. We go to a presbytery that's
bigger and we go to a synod that's bigger still. In the multitude
of counsellors, there is safety. It's for the well-being of the
church. Not only should we do it as a sheer act of submission
to Christ, but it is for the well-being of the church to follow
the biblical pattern of church government. A form of church government,
even the right one, won't solve all problems. We know that. A form of church government will
not rise, will not offset those who are the quality or otherwise
of those, well it won't cancel out the quality or otherwise
of the men who are engaging in it. If you've got bad men in
authority in the church, if there's enough of them, Presbyterianism
won't solve that. If you think of the Church of
Scotland, it's Presbyterian, at least in theory, in its government,
but it's sanctioned homosexual marriage, or at least civil partnerships. Obviously, a form of church government doesn't
solve everything. But that doesn't mean it doesn't
matter. Presbyterianism militates against
the exalting of the individual, which is found in either episcopacy,
as someone gets to the top or even independency, which allows
an individual in a local congregation to gain the preeminence, like
deographies, and there's no accountability to anything beyond the local
congregation. So, Presbyterianism does have
a bearing on the well-being of the church. We can't say it doesn't. matter. If Christ has taken the
trouble to appoint a form of church government, it behoves
us to listen to him. Bad things can happen in any
kind of church, but Christ's appointed church government is
a safeguard against some tendencies in the heart of man towards expressing
his pride in the church. Our forefathers saw episcopacy
as a backdoor to popery, the elevation of one man. They looked
at church history, they saw it to be unscriptural, but they
also saw that where did the Pope come from? Well, the church became,
after the apostles, Episcopalian. with diocesan bishops in various
places. And then in time, those bishops
appointed a supreme pontiff, the Bishop of Rome, and that
became the Pope. When the emperors were out of
the way, the Pope assumed not only control of the church, but
control of the state as well. He filled the vacuum left by
the emperors. Our forefathers did see Episcopal
church government as something of a Trojan horse for the reintroduction
of Roman Catholicism, of the papacy. That's not to say that
everybody who's an Episcopalian is a secret Roman Catholic or
papist. It's simply saying that it is
a concession to the hierarchy idea which in turn gave rise
to the papacy, the elevation of one man. The scriptures teach
that the word bishop and elder refer to the same office. We
saw that in Titus 1 which we read at the beginning or in Acts
chapter 20 verse 17 The elders of the church at Ephesus
are called together, and in verse 28 the apostle refers to them
as overseers, which is the same word translated elsewhere as
bishops, the episkopoi. But it's referring to the elders,
and so elder and bishop mean the same thing, or at least refer
to the same office in the Bible. In Philippians 1 verse 1, the
apostle greets the church at Philippi with the bishops and
deacons. There were several bishops because
the bishops were simply local elders. And it's clear from the
scriptures that every congregation should have elders and deacons
and that at least one of those elders will be a minister of
the word. And the scriptures teach that
there is one body and that the gifts are given for the good
of the whole body. So in 1 Corinthians 12, at the
end of verse 12, the gift of the governments is as much for
the whole body as it is for an individual congregation. So the
gifts are given for the whole of the body of Christ. And Presbyterianism
expresses that fact, that just as ministers have a particular
responsibility in a particular congregation, but they also have
a wider preaching ministry in the whole body, so likewise the
ruling elders. They govern in the local congregation,
but they also govern in the wider body, in the higher courts of
the church. This is not the time to give
a full defense of Presbyterianism, but our forefathers understood
these things and they considered them important. They honored
Christ by submitting to what he taught in his word about the
government of the church and they considered it to be for
the benefit of the church also to do so. At the end of the day,
It comes down to this. Do we think that Christ has appointed
a form of church government for nothing? Is it ever in the interests
of the church to ignore what the Lord has given in his word? Do we trust the Lord to give
us what is the best form of church government in his word? Does
Psalm 1 apply to church government? And the answer is, it does. Blessed
is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor
standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the
scornful, but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and therein
does he meditate day and night. That's true even of how we govern
the church. We trust that what the Lord has
appointed is the best and for the good of the church. To say
that it doesn't matter is to say that Christ is not looking
after his church. Christ is a loving husband to
his bride and he has appointed a form of church government and
it must be good for us to embrace it and to submit to it. Christ is head over all things
to the church, which is the fullness of him that filleth all in all. Amen.
John Knox And Church Government
Series Fellowship Meeting
Knox's view of church government in general
Church government in the First Book of Discipline
Bishops and Superintendents
Refinements after Knox in the Second Book of Discipline
Lessons
| Sermon ID | 42814151332 |
| Duration | 52:50 |
| Date | |
| Category | Sunday - PM |
| Bible Text | Titus 1 |
| Language | English |
Documents
Add a Comment
Comments
No Comments
© Copyright
2026 SermonAudio.