Bible Study = "going to Church" aka Corporate Worship

[Greektim]

For Tim:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/baptist_1689.html

Confession 26:9

The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself;16 and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein;17 and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands.18
16 Acts 14:23
17 1 Tim. 4:14
18 Acts 6:3,5,6

I actually identify mostly with the 1st London Baptist Confession of 1644. Even still, their citation of Acts 14:23 just means people aren't reading the context nor their GNTs. However, the 1st confession does indicate that elders and deacons are still appointed by the congregation but the emphasis is that an outside entity cannot force a church to accept elders and such, so there is wiggle room. It could also be taken that the way the church chooses for itself is through elders. So even more wiggle room. But I don't adhere to this confession strictly. Just generally.

Further, the paragraph previous to the one you cited states, "A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members" which is consistent with what I have been saying.

 

[Van]

REally? No meat? The fact is, words change over the years... as in your argument is queer. Just like the one you want to mean "vote" so badly. But your problem isn't just a lexical fallacy. You made a grammatical error.

Did anyone deny words change meaning over time? Nope. So yet another non-germane strawman. I did not want G5500 to mean select by vote, that is what the lexicons said way before I ever looked up the word. Again the bogus charge is repeated, yet Robertson agrees with me. So a spurious charge. And I made no grammatical error, so yet another spurious charge.

This is the grammatical error. The subject of the verb performs the actions. So if we were to push the meaning of hand raising, it would be limited to the subject. In this case, that is Paul and Barnabas.Meaty enough for you?

I was addressing the empty charge (lexicon fallacy) and now you attempt to provide the meat by showing a supposed error in grammar. Irrational nonsense.

see you neglected to deal with this above. Sounds like I got all the meat and you are the fruit in this basket.

Now that is a queer argument. Here is my actual rebuttal: No meat, just the charge. If the action of Paul and Barnabas is to select by a show of hands, then the whole body of believers would be included.

Or... you are trying to alter the meaning again and imply that the action is not the raising of hands but the choice based on the raising of hands (leaving the final appointment not in the hands of the vote but the leaders). Either way, you still have a subject/object issue.

I did not alter the meaning, select by a vote, so yet another bogus charge.

If you read carefully, you would see I didn't deny that Christians are to care for other Christians. But I did say that they are not all charged w/ watching over each others' souls. I quoted Scripture from Hb. 13:17. Those leaders are held to a higher standard thus implying a higher duty beyond the basics to which you are referring.

Anyone acting as leader is accountable, and so if I teach at one or two meetings, then I will give an account, and woe is me if I lead others astray.

By the way, I'll let the evidence speak for itself and let the reader decide. The fact that I cite a legit lexicon as well as extra outside sources in which this word was used generally whereas Van relies on Strong's is telling in and of itself.

Well we agree on that, we should let the evidence speak for itself, and not dictate what the reader takes away.

My view is supported, not just by Strongs, but by many sources, such as Thayer's and Robertson's word pictures.

 

[Revmitchell]

This is not just a passage from Acts that can be difficult to determine if it is prescriptive or descriptive. This is from a letter from Paul. You go in this direction, and where do you stop? Titus 1:5 is sufficient for me.

Well for me you begin and stop with is it a direct command "Thus says the Lord".

 

[Jerome]

Even still, their citation of Acts 14:23 just means people aren't reading the context nor their GNTs.

Oh really?

What do you think they meant by "See the Original"?:

 

[Van]

Thanks Jerome for affirming the orthodox view of Baptist polity.

 

[Jerome]

From Nehemiah Coxe's A Sermon Preached at the Ordination of an Elder and Deacons in a Baptized Congregation in London (1681):

[Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5]
And though these first ordinations were by extraordinary men, yet the people were not excluded from the just right of choosing their own ministers; for they were appointed to their charge with the concurrent vote and suffrage of the people.

From Benjamin Keach's Tropologia (1682):

Every member hath his peculiar vote in choosing of their officers; after election, they are to be ordained, by prayer, and laying on of hands, Acts vi. 6, and xiii. 3.

 

[Greektim]

Oh really?

What do you think they meant by "See the Original"?:

We could be wrong??? B/c this verse does not support what they want. Not grammatically anyways. See my response to Van.

 

[Jerome]

Thanks Jerome for affirming the orthodox view of Baptist polity.

Yeah, it's oh so trendy now to reject biblical congregationalism for an oligarchical 'plurality of Elders' scheme.

 

[Greektim]

I deleted the irrelevant stuff and just kept the salient points you made.

If the action of Paul and Barnabas is to select by a show of hands, then the whole body of believers would be included.

My response to this is simple. This does not work grammatically. The verb "appointed" has a very specific subject: Paul and Barnabas. So the only hands that would be involved, if your definition were correct, would be the subjects. Otherwise, Luke was not following the rules of subject and verb. If we took your definition, we would be saying, "They [Paul & Barn] selected elders by show of their hands." Thus the obvious meaning is that they were appointed by Paul and Barnabas.

My view is supported, not just by Strongs, but by many sources, such as Thayer's and Robertson's word pictures.

All 3 sources are either weak or outdated and thought to be unhelpful. However, I'm wondering if you read RWP on this. He shows his congregational Baptist bias, but does show objectively that it can mean "to appoint without regard to choice." So he is up in the air. But Strongs and Thayer are not authorities in the field of semantics.

 

[The Biblicist]

However, the 1st confession does indicate that elders and deacons are still appointed by the congregation but the emphasis is that an outside entity cannot force a church to accept elders and such, so there is wiggle room. .

This point was pointed out by the opponents of Baptists and responded to by one of the writers of the confession as a representative of the whole body of writers. Have you read it? Here is how it reads:

WE DO NOT AFFIRM, THAT EVERY COMMON DISCIPLE MAY BAPTIZE, there was some mistake in laying down our opinion, p. 14. Where it is conceived, that we hold, Whosoever Disciple can teach the word, make out Christ may Baptize and administer other Ordinances. We do not so, For though believing Women being baptized are Disciples, Acts 9:36, and can make out Christ; yea and some of them (by their experimental knowledge and spiritual understanding of the Way, Order and Faith of the Gospel) may be able to instruct their Teachers, Acts 18:26, Rom. 16:3, yet we do not hold that a woman may preach, baptize, nor administer other Ordinances. Nor do we judge it meet, for any Brother to baptize or to administer other Ordinances; UNLESS HE HAVE RECEIVED SUCH GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT, AS FITTETH, OR ENABLING HIM TO PREACH THE GOSPEL, AND THOSE GIFTS BEING FIRST TRIED BY AND KNOWN TO THE CHURCH, SUCH A BROTHER IS CHOSEN AND APPOINTED THEREUNTO BY THE SUFFRAGE OF THE CHURCH.

Hansard Knollys: The Shining of a Flaming Fire in Zion, or, A Clear Answer unto 13 Exceptions against
the Grounds of New Baptism; London, 1646, p. 9.

 

[Greektim]

Well for me you begin and stop with is it a direct command "Thus says the Lord".

So some Scripture is more authoritative than others. Gotcha.

 

[Jerome]

Why does a church have to elect elders? There is more of a NT precedent for elders appointing elders than anything else.

Calvin's Commentary:

23, 24. when they had ordained them elders—literally, "chosen by show of hands." But as that would imply that this was done by the apostles' own hands, many render the word, as in our version, "ordained." Still, as there is no evidence in the New Testament that the word had then lost its proper meaning, as this is beyond doubt its meaning in 2Co 8:19, and as there is indisputable evidence that the concurrence of the people was required in all elections to sacred office in the earliest ages of the Church, it is perhaps better to understand the words to mean, "when they had made a choice of elders," that is, superintended such choice on the part of the disciples.

 

[Aaron]

Either way, there was an established authority and structure. Calling loose, spontaneous times of fellowship "going to church" is about as far from the truth as one can get.

 

[Revmitchell]

So some Scripture is more authoritative than others. Gotcha.

OK this is where discussion breaks down. Not because of your position but because of how you discuss it. My replies have been civil. The post quoted above is arrogant and rude.

 

[Revmitchell]

Either way, there was an established authority and structure. Calling loose, spontaneous times of fellowship "going to church" is about as far from the truth as one can get.

I agree :thumbs:

 

[Greektim]

OK this is where discussion breaks down. Not because of your position but because of how you discuss it. My replies have been civil. The post quoted above is arrogant and rude.

Rude... maybe. But that is just the playful ribbing here. Arrogant? No.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Rude... maybe. But that is just the playful ribbing here. Arrogant? No.

So like a Calvinist :laugh:

 

[Van]

This does not work grammatically. The verb "appointed" has a very specific subject: Paul and Barnabas. So the only hands that would be involved, if your definition were correct, would be the subjects. Otherwise, Luke was not following the rules of subject and verb. If we took your definition, we would be saying, "They [Paul & Barn] selected elders by show of their hands." Thus the obvious meaning is that they were appointed by Paul and Barnabas.

You have got to be kidding. If Paul and Barnabas take the action to select by a show of hands, then they simply hold an election. They are not required to be the only ones involved in the selection. Good grief.

All 3 sources are either weak or outdated and thought to be unhelpful. However, I'm wondering if you read RWP on this. He shows his congregational Baptist bias, but does show objectively that it can mean "to appoint without regard to choice." So he is up in the air. But Strongs and Thayer are not authorities in the field of semantics.

I cite sources and then you claim they are inaccurate, but provide no basis. Then you misrepresent RWP! Later, after the NT was written, the word was used extra-biblically to appoint without regard to choice. But with regard to scripture it referred to selecting by vote. Same exact idea as presented in your link.

 

[Van]

Folks, take a gander at Acts 14:23, where scripture says they selected by vote Elders in every church. Thus the churches, assemblies of disciples, existed and were being organized. I submit when believers meet, assemble, for the purpose of fellowship, prayer and study of God's word, it is a church meeting even if the leader is not a paid professional and not all the activities conducted in church occur.

 

[T Alan]

Rude... maybe. But that is just the playful ribbing here. Arrogant? No.

neither rude nor arrogant. It's like pointing out that the RED LETTERS are no more God's word than the rest. Legal blow well above the belt.