local church v Acts 15

[Darron Steele]

...First of all, Acts 15 was when the Lord's Personally-commissioned Apostles were in charge.

When the apostle Paul was about to die, he told his protege Timothy an authority to follow: Scripture. This is at 2 Timothy 3:16-7. There is no indication that a new generation of people with similar authority was to arise.

There is no situation where people Personally-commissioned by Jesus Christ are in charge in the present era.

Second, anytime a few people get too much power or influence, bad things happen. The proto-Orthodox/proto-Catholic church leadership is a good illustration. The Vatican is another good illustration.

The Presbyterian Church USA I believe does not have congregational autonomy. In positions of the authority, they have left-wing radicals pushing their own agendas. The same is true of the United Methodist Church, although not to the same extent. Both denominations are in decline.

Other illustrations where autonomy is preserved, but a few are abusing their positions: denominations known for being liberal because the wrong people are in position to talk too much, and they do. The United Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ have autonomous congregations, and do not have to listen to the unsolicited advice they get from denominational leaders. If they did, those denominations would not only be in decline -- they would be totally trashed.

Between congregational autonomy or overlordship by people not Personally-commissioned by Jesus Christ, I will take the former.

James is using scripture when he makes a decision. You bet. This is not a discussion of Sola Scriptura though. Instead, it is the framework in which the churches operate I am discussing. There are denominations that support Sola Scriptura and there are independent churches that do as well.
However, why do you say that James was acting in his capacity as in apostle; instead of his capacity as pastor of the Jerusalem church(es)? We also have no evidence that James was personally commissioned by Christ. It is generally thought that he became a believer after the resurrection but scripture does not speak of it.

Very well and good -- except that I never said that `James was acting in his capacity as an apostle' or anything of the sort. James was not an apostle. Nonetheless, James did not give the final word without consulting with Jesus Christ's Personally-commissioned Apostles. We do not have that opportunity.

I do not consider every recorded event of Acts to have a timeless command concealed within it. You would need to prove that Acts 15 has a hidden prohibition against congregational autonomy forever.

Even though congregations were not entirely autonomous when the Apostles were in ministry, it does not mean they should not be that way now. Furthermore, history suggests that this is a decent to good safeguard from abuses of power that can hurt the church.

I tend to be more comfortable with what has been shown to be safe, as opposed to what has been shown to be risky. This is especially the case if Scripture does not directly command the risky course of action or directly prohibit the safe course of action.

It is one thing to criticize something but have little to no idea of a better way. It is another thing to criticize and to suggest workable alternatives.

If you want to suggest that congregational autonomy is wrong, I want your specific solutions. Whom are we going to place in charge? On what criteria would you have that decision made? Remember, if we goof, history shows the results can be awful. With that in mind, let us see your specifics.

 

[Bro. James]

A quick kibbitz: the term local church is a misnomer. There is only one church; she is local and visible. This teaching has been lost in the world of universalism, visible and invisible.

Whenever authority is delegated to an outside entity, autonomy is forfeited. The details of missionaries and their support are determined by outside committees, not necessarily accountable to their constituents. Then comes the holy(?) see.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[BRIANH]

Very well and good -- except that I never said that `James was acting in his capacity as an apostle' or anything of the sort. James was not an apostle. Nonetheless, James did not give the final word without consulting with Jesus Christ's Personally-commissioned Apostles. We do not have that opportunity.

I do not consider every recorded event of Acts to have a timeless command concealed within it. You would need to prove that Acts 15 has a hidden prohibition against congregational autonomy forever.

Even though congregations were not entirely autonomous when the Apostles were in ministry, it does not mean they should not be that way now. Furthermore, history suggests that this is a decent to good safeguard from abuses of power that can hurt the church.

I tend to be more comfortable with what has been shown to be safe, as opposed to what has been shown to be risky. This is especially the case if Scripture does not directly command the risky course of action or directly prohibit the safe course of action.

It is one thing to criticize something but have little to no idea of a better way. It is another thing to criticize and to suggest workable alternatives.

If you want to suggest that congregational autonomy is wrong, I want your specific solutions. Whom are we going to place in charge? On what criteria would you have that decision made? Remember, if we goof, history shows the results can be awful. With that in mind, let us see your specifics.

Acts 15 does not contain a prohibition against congregational autonomy because for one reason I am not sure it existed at that time. That is precisely the kind of evidence I was asking if someone could present.
I am not criticizing, I find that an odd choice of words, but instead I am wanting to discuss whether or not Acts 15 is the biblical pattern and if not; why?

The crux of your view seems to be that Acts 15 is no longer germane because apostles attended or in the case of James, an apostle presided?

As far as James not being an apostle, he was.

Gal 1:19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. (KJV)

 

[DHK]

Acts 15 does not contain a prohibition against congregational autonomy because for one reason I am not sure it existed at that time. That is precisely the kind of evidence I was asking if someone could present.
I am not criticizing, I find that an odd choice of words, but instead I am wanting to discuss whether or not Acts 15 is the biblical pattern and if not; why?

The crux of your view seems to be that Acts 15 is no longer germane because apostles attended or in the case of James, an apostle presided?

As far as James not being an apostle, he was.

Gal 1:19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. (KJV)

There are two ways in which the word "apostle" is used in the NT. One is simply the literal meaning "one sent with a message." Some of the ones called apostles in the Bible are Barnabas, Sylvanus, James, Timothy, etc. There are many more than just "The Twelve." However the word "apostle" is used in a very specific way as in referring to "The Twelve Apostles." The reference is made in Acts one, where the eleven disciples are choosing the twelfth apostle to take the place of Judas Iscariot. The credentials are given there. He had to be one who was a follower of Christ and a witness of the Resurrection. Matthias was chosen to be the twelfth apostle. That was God's choice--a God-directed choice.

We see in Revelation
Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
--12 foundations; 12 names; 12 apostles.
Who are the 12, and who are names of those 12 which are written on the foundations of the new Jerusalem:

Revelation 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

There are only 12. But there are far more than 12 mentioned in the Bible. James was not an apostle in this sense. James was not even saved until after the resurrection. That is why Jesus, when on the cross, committed Mary into the hands of John, and not one of her own sons. The spiritual bond between Mary and John was greater than the physical or genetic bond than Mary and her own children. In such dangerous times it was better for John, a trusted born again Christian, a follower of Christ, could better take care of Christ, than for the unsaved half-brothers of Christ. They could not be trusted. It was only after the resurrection that James was saved. He became an apostle in the sense of a follower of Christ, one who is a missionary, or one who is sent with a message. But he was not one of the "Twelve."

The autonomy of the local church is taught throughout the Scriptures.

 

[billwald]

In Paul's real letters he describes local churches who elect their leadership which includes women. In the "Pastorals," probably written after Paul's death, a top down organization is described and women are second class members.

 

[Zenas]

In Paul's real letters he describes local churches who elect their leadership which includes women. In the "Pastorals," probably written after Paul's death, a top down organization is described and women are second class members.

You don't think Paul wrote the Pastorals? If not Paul, who? If after Paul's death, when and where? I find it simply amazing that some will deny the truth of scripture if it demonstrates the fallacy of their unscriptural beliefs.

As for women occupying elected positions of leadership, please demonstrate this by chapter and verse. I don't think you can.

 

[BRIANH]

DHK
You asserted that it was taught throughout scripture but did not give anymore than that ( and perhaps it was not a topic you wish to delve into for any number of reasons..sometimes I just flat get bored of certain topics myself). What is your take on Acts 15?
Nice post on James.

 

[DHK]

DHK
You asserted that it was taught throughout scripture but did not give anymore than that ( and perhaps it was not a topic you wish to delve into for any number of reasons..sometimes I just flat get bored of certain topics myself). What is your take on Acts 15?
Nice post on James.

Start at Acts 2. The church in Jerusalem was a local church. People were added to it on a daily basis. This was not a universal church here, but a visible entity, albeit a large one. It had pastors, elders. In the beginning the apostles were the leaders, but it was not the will of God that they remain at Jerusalem. It took persecution for believers to go and spread the gospel. The Great Commission was not for them to remain in Jerusalem.
However, they were there for a reason. James was the pastor. As far as authority was concerned it was James, not the apostles, that had authority in that particular church. The apostles came to give advice and that is all. After considering both sides--the Judaizers, and the gospel of grace as presented by Paul, they came together. The ultimate decision was in the hand of James. He was the pastor. Here is how it reads:

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

Note that the decision of James pleased the apostles and elders.
This church was autonomous apart from the apostle and apart from other churches. The apostles were involved that other churches might realize that the decision that was made on such an important subject would have ramifications elsewhere. This was apostolic teaching, not because it was James decision, but because James made the decision with the input and advice on the apostles. They were there in agreement of James decision.

Paul went on three different missionary journeys and established about one hundred churches, all of them independent of each other. They each had their own government. Their only means of contact was by the occasional letter or traveler. The modern day concept of a denomination would have been impossible in that day. The church was first and foremost a light for the community. Then they would consider areas further away from their own community, and then even farther, as Acts 1:8 teaches.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

 

[BRIANH]

Start at Acts 2. The church in Jerusalem was a local church. People were added to it on a daily basis. This was not a universal church here, but a visible entity, albeit a large one. It had pastors, elders. In the beginning the apostles were the leaders, but it was not the will of God that they remain at Jerusalem. It took persecution for believers to go and spread the gospel. The Great Commission was not for them to remain in Jerusalem.
However, they were there for a reason. James was the pastor. As far as authority was concerned it was James, not the apostles, that had authority in that particular church. The apostles came to give advice and that is all. After considering both sides--the Judaizers, and the gospel of grace as presented by Paul, they came together. The ultimate decision was in the hand of James. He was the pastor. Here is how it reads:

Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Acts 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

Note that the decision of James pleased the apostles and elders.
This church was autonomous apart from the apostle and apart from other churches. The apostles were involved that other churches might realize that the decision that was made on such an important subject would have ramifications elsewhere. This was apostolic teaching, not because it was James decision, but because James made the decision with the input and advice on the apostles. They were there in agreement of James decision.

Paul went on three different missionary journeys and established about one hundred churches, all of them independent of each other. They each had their own government. Their only means of contact was by the occasional letter or traveler. The modern day concept of a denomination would have been impossible in that day. The church was first and foremost a light for the community. Then they would consider areas further away from their own community, and then even farther, as Acts 1:8 teaches.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Clarify some if you will on the letter as it was sent to Antioch
and specifically this passage

Act 15:28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

thank you ahead of time

 

[DHK]

Clarify some if you will on the letter as it was sent to Antioch
and specifically this passage

Act 15:28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

thank you ahead of time

Paul and Barnabas were missionaries. Their home church was Antioch. From there they were sent out. Each missionary started and ended at Antioch.

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
Acts 13:2-3 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

This is where it all began--in the church at Antioch. This is where God called both Paul and Barnabas, and it was from here they were sent out.

Acts 14:26 And thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled.
--It was their custom to return to the same church from whence they were sent out.

Acts 14:27-28 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles. And there they abode long time with the disciples.
--If any rest was needed it was taken at their home church, the church at Antioch. They reported there, gathered with the believers there, and spent their time there.

The very next verses say this:
Acts 15:1-2 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 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.
--This was an important question regarding salvation and called into question the work that Paul and Barnabas had been doing. From Antioch they went down to Jerusalem to report what they had been doing--the gospel they had been preaching.
James gave the decision.
Here is what the decision was:

Acts 15:25-29 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ....
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 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.

Acts 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
--Again, from Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas come back to their home church, Antioch. This is where it all begins and starts. They then decide to go on a missionary journey. This time there is some contention--not uncommon among Baptists.
Paul does not want John Mark to come, for he had previously left them.
Barnabas doesn't have a problem with it. The contention is great enough that it divides the two great men, and Paul takes Silas, while Barnabas goes with John Mark. But note that both parties leave again from Antioch, their base of operation. Later on they will return there.

Acts 18:22 And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch.
--During that time he had been all throughout Greece, parts of Asia, and had established many churches. He had been thrown in jail more than once. He had suffered much at the hands of the Jews, but he had seen much fruit as well. The churches that were established were not connected with each other in any denominational way. How could they be? What would be their connection? How could any hierarchy, structural organization could have been put in place when each of the churches were so remote from each other with little means of communication?

 

[billwald]

>You don't think Paul wrote the Pastorals?

No


> If not Paul, who? If after Paul's death, when and where?

Don't know. It was common practice back then for disciple to write in the name of his deceased master.

> I find it simply amazing that some will deny the truth of scripture if it demonstrates the fallacy of their unscriptural beliefs.

I find it simply amazing that some people confuse scriptural authority with authorship. Doesn't matter who wrote them as long the Holy Spirit included them in the Bible. Do you reject "Hebrews" because the authorship is unknown? No one knows which "John" wrote "Revelation."

 

[Zenas]

> I find it simply amazing that some will deny the truth of scripture if it demonstrates the fallacy of their unscriptural beliefs.

I find it simply amazing that some people confuse scriptural authority with authorship. Doesn't matter who wrote them as long the Holy Spirit included them in the Bible. Do you reject "Hebrews" because the authorship is unknown? No one knows which "John" wrote "Revelation."

It appeared you were downplaying the authority of the pastoral letters by saying they were not authored by Paul. These letters clearly portray a church that is run from the top down. There is not a single verse that suggests the congregational model of church governance and it appeared that you wanted to reject these books because of this. Otherwise why would you mention that their authorship was dubious?

 

[DHK]

I find it simply amazing that some people confuse scriptural authority with authorship. Doesn't matter who wrote them as long the Holy Spirit included them in the Bible. Do you reject "Hebrews" because the authorship is unknown? No one knows which "John" wrote "Revelation."

Yes it matters. It comes down to questioning the authority of Scripture and thus a step toward questioning the inspiration of Scripture. Was the Holy Spirit inspired, or did He inspire Paul to write these words:

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Either they are true or not. Did Paul lie?
In almost all of Paul's epistles he clearly identifies himself. Clearly his authorship cannot be disputed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes it matters. It comes down to questioning the authority of Scripture and thus a step toward questioning the inspiration of Scripture. Was the Holy Spirit inspired, or did He inspire Paul to write these words:

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Either they are true or not. Did Paul lie?
In almost all of Paul's epistles he clearly identifies himself. Clearly his authorship cannot be disputed.

What does this statement have to do with Biwald's quote? Who wrote the book of Hebrews? Do you know? What gives authority to scripture? And give me your referrences. Thank you.

 

[Darron Steele]

Thinkingstuff: I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Hebrews makes no claims to its authorship. It does not matter if Paul wrote it, or did not.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus all state that they have Paul for author. If Paul did not write these epistles, then Scripture's reliability and authority are compromised.

Therefore, yes it matters. To deny that Paul wrote 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus is to deny that Scripture is to be believed.

 

[DHK]

What does this statement have to do with Biwald's quote? Who wrote the book of Hebrews? Do you know? What gives authority to scripture? And give me your referrences. Thank you.

Scripture gives authority to Scripture. If Paul says he wrote Romans then he wrote it, and it is not to be questioned. If Christ claimed to be deity then we are to believe it and it is not to be questioned. If the Bible says that he rose a literal resurrection, then we are to believe it without question. Either you believe what the Bible says or you don't. That is what makes the difference between an "unbeliever" and a "believer."

There is only the occasional book in the Bible where the authorship is actually in question. Hebrews is one of those books. To question the authorship of the book of Hebrews is not to question the authorship of all 66 books. Yes it does matter. It matters whatever the Bible speaks and howsovever clearly he chooses to reveal some doctrines to us. If there are some things that he chooses to keep hidden from us there must be a reason. It is His book, and His choice. He is sovereign.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff: I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Hebrews makes no claims to its authorship. It does not matter if Paul wrote it, or did not.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus all state that they have Paul for author. If Paul did not write these epistles, then Scripture's reliability and authority are compromised.

Therefore, yes it matters. To deny that Paul wrote 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus is to deny that Scripture is to be believed.

But those weren't the books quoted in the quote. Which John wrote the book of Revelation? John the Apostle or John the Revelator? Who wrote the book of Daniel. Is Daniel really one book or a compilation? Does that lessen its impact on the Scriptures? I wonder if it really was Nebucanezzer that went mad or was it Nabonius; Belshazzar's father? And for DHK what about the books that aren't directly referred to in scripture? By the way thats circular reasoning but I'll accept it for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[Tom Butler]

But those weren't the books quoted in the quote. Which John wrote the book of Revelation? John the Apostle or John the Revelator? Who wrote the book of Daniel. Is Daniel really one book or a compilation? Does that lessen its impact on the Scriptures? I wonder if it really was Nebucanezzer that went mad or was it Nabonius; Belshazzar's father? And for DHK what about the books that aren't directly referred to in scripture? By the way thats circular reasoning but I'll accept it for the purpose of this discussion.

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone raise a doubt that they were the same person.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone raise a doubt that they were the same person.

Really? I'm supprised. With all the scholarly material out there?

From the letter, we know the person who wrote the contents, was named John. (Rev: 1:1, 4, 9; 21:2:22:8) Prior to the third century, there was no dispute of apostolic authorship. The bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius (200-265 A.D.), was the first to raise questions about the apostle John being the author. He claimed based on the writing style and the lack of an apostolic claim in the book, John the Elder (Presbyter) was the author not John the apostle.

 

[Darron Steele]

Thinkingstuff: I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Hebrews makes no claims to its authorship. It does not matter if Paul wrote it, or did not.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus all state that they have Paul for author. If Paul did not write these epistles, then Scripture's reliability and authority are compromised.

Therefore, yes it matters. To deny that Paul wrote 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus is to deny that Scripture is to be believed.[

But those weren't the books quoted in the quote. ....

Thinkingstuff: you just made it harder for me to believe you are not just pulling stunts.

The "Pastorals" = 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus WERE EXACTLY what was being discussed when you brought up Hebrews. Anyone can look up and see that.

Please do not waste my time with games. I am too busy for that.