I recently found this Martin Chemnitz quote dated 1593-1603. It seems Chemnitz was presbyterian before Presbyterianism.
Hardly. The Scottish Reformer and Presbyterian John Knox died in 1572, and the church polity he instituted in Scotland was based on Calvin's church polity in Geneva.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
I think many 16th century state Protestant churches, excepting England and Sweden, adopted presbyterian polity. However, was presbyterianism defined in their confessional documents?
[/quote] Yes, it does. If a faithful Presbytery can remove a corrupt teaching elder without the consent of the congregation, I suppose a corrupt Presbytery could remove a faithful teaching elder. And the congregation could nothing about it except abandon its property and form a new church (assuming the faithful teaching elder was willing to leave his corrupt Presbytery). Correct?
Similarly, when a teaching elder can be removed by either the Presbytery or the congregation and not both, the teaching elder is being treated like an employee who can be hired and fired, not a man holding a divine office by the call of God. [/quote]
In your first theoretical situation, I congregation would not be forced to abandon their property. If they resisted and defied the Presbytery and the Presbytery demitted (removed ordination) from the pastor, the congregation would retain the property (in most of the Presbyterian systems) by withdrawing (under discipline) from the Presbytery and the denomination. A large church in Chattanooga pre-emptively did this when their pastor came under fire. In no way is this the recommended course of action and Presbyteries are slow to pursue this course of action. It would be rare that a Presbytery had real grounds for removoing a man while the congregation remained "spellbound" by him. The wisdom in this process is that a Presbytery represents the combined wisdom and discretion of all the pastors and elders in the Presbytery. That keeps arbitrary and rash decisions from being made. The Presbytery also PROTECTS the pastor from a congregation led by a small vocal resistance. They can become involved to reconcile or arbitrate difficulties. Your second proposition presumes that a good man has been unjustly removed. The system doesn't include that as a reasonable possibility. Only a man proved to be in error and unwilling to reform or remove himself would be treated in such a way and that would presume an illegitimate call. Michael Cannon
Under the Presbytery system, would it be possible for a congregation to remain in a corrupt Presbytery in a state of confessional protest (In Statu Confessionis)? Could they refuse fellowship with the Presbytery and withhold contributions from the synod without being forced to withdraw?
Under the Presbytery system, would it be possible for a congregation to remain in a corrupt Presbytery in a state of confessional protest (In Statu Confessionis)? Could they refuse fellowship with the Presbytery and withhold contributions from the synod without being forced to withdraw?
In short, yes. Much would depend on the actions of the Presbytery/Synod however. Should the Presbytery choose to bring charges against the church officers then it is possible that they could be found guilty and without repentance the officers could be excommunicated. The PCA emerged in 1973 after years of dissent and resistance to the growing liberalism in the old Southern Presbyterian Church that later merged with the PCUSA. Only after they determined the church was irreversably apostate did they choose to leave. Remember the Presbyterian system is representative. The officers are the "tip of the spear". GIVING TO PRESBYTERY: at least in the PCA this is a voluntary contribution for the ministries of the Presbytery such as missions and church planting. A lack of contribution would not warrant charges against the church.
