Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 530.
79. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 584.
80. Reymond, “Presbytery-Led Church,” 95. See also Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 582.
81. Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 530.
82. Reymond, “Presbytery-Led Church,” 123–24. See also Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 588–89.
83. Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 531.
84. Needless to say, the texts nowhere explicitly state anything about local presbyteries, but that does not stop Presbyterian scholars like R. L. Reymond, in whose opinion theologians must wean themselves away “from reading Scripture texts in an unnatural, wooden, literalistic way,” (quoted in Brand and Norman, Perspectives on Church Government, 81, emphasis mine). From a more objective perspective, Berkhof admits that “Scripture does not contain an explicit command to the effect that the local churches of a district must form an organic union. Neither does it furnish us with an example of such a union. In fact, it represents the local churches as individual entities without any external bond of union” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 590). Berkhof then proceeds to argue for Presbyterian connectionalism from the “essential nature of the church . . . a spiritual organism in which all the constituent parts are vitally related to one another” (ibid.).
85. Reymond, “Presbytery-Led Church,” 108. Reymond notes the presence of the apostles in the council (Acts 15:4), but dismisses the uniqueness of that element by deducing that the apostles were acting as elders in the church. He also speculates that the Jerusalem Council included some Antioch elders/overseers meeting as delegated commissioners with the Jerusalem presbytery in a general assembly (ibid.). See also Taylor, “Presbyterianism,” 80.
86. Ibid., 109.
87. Ibid., 110. The “visible Christian unity” and the spiritual gifts that teach the interdependent nature of the body seem to make much better sense when applied on a local church level rather than a denominational level. Furthermore, Reymond may find himself far out on a limb in making such a statement, considering Berkhof’s affirmation of the autonomy of the local church: “Every local church is a complete church of Christ, fully equipped with everything that is required for its government. It has absolutely no need of it that any government should be imposed upon it from without. And not only that, but such an imposition would be absolutely contrary to its nature . . . The idea that a classis (presbytery) or synod can simply impose whatever it pleases on a particular church is essentially Roman Catholic” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 589–90).
88. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1077.
89. Ibid.
90. 1 Tim 5:17 reads: “The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” The Presbyterian understanding of this passage is that “the elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor [namely, both ‘honor’ and ‘honoraruim’]” (Reymond, “Presbytery-Led Church,” 121). As Knight observes, Paul is speaking here of “a subgroup of the ‘overseers’ that consists of those who are especially gifted by God to teach, as opposed to other overseers, who must all ‘be able to teach’” (Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 233, emphasis Knight’s).
91. Reymond, “Presbytery-Led Church,” 121–23.
92. Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 531.
93. Ibid.
94. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 600, emphasis Berkhof’s.
95. Ibid. Public sins encompass not merely sins that are committed in public, but also sins that give public and general offense.
96. Ibid., emphasis Berkhof’s. One would naturally wonder how many Presbyterian churches today still practice a disciplinary process that is similar to the one outlined by Berkhof in the first part of the twentieth century.
97. Ibid.
98. Clowney, “Presbyterianism,” 531.
99. Ibid. It is noteworthy that this concept of later Presbyterianism is quite divergent from the actual practice in Calvin’s Geneva.
100. Garrett, “Congregation-Led Church,” 157.
101. Akin, “Single-Elder-Led Church,” 27.
102. Saucy, Church in God’s Program, 114.
103. Kern, Christianity as Organized, 376.
104. Ibid.
105. Ibid., 377. It was Browne, who, due to the violent reaction to his severe opposition to the Establishment, was forced to flee, along with his whole congregation, to the town of Middleburg, Holland, where he wrote a well-known tract in defense of the congregational views named “Reformation without Tarrying for Any.” To be fair, a man called Richard Fitz formed the first Separatist church in Britain in 1567 London, but it had a very checkered and short history. D. Martin Lloyd-Jones considers the first real Congregational church to be the one established by Henry Jacob in Southwark, London, in 1616. For more on Lloyd-Jones’ logic, see Lloyd-Jones, “First Congregational Church.”
106. Kern, 380.
107. This style of government can be seen most often in Baptist churches.
108. These varieties are most common within the congregational model. Grudem adds a few others, such as leadership by a corporate board, pure democracy, and “no government but the Holy Spirit” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 935–36). Additionally, a staff-led model seems to have gained popularity in the last decade among
