The Local Church - Baptist theology's weakest link?

[pastorjeff]

I agree with the statement on Acts 15. It has been used as a passage to promote compleat equality and authority. I agree with Elder rule, but most who modle this in their churches have that person on whom the guilt is placed if something goes wrong. James made the final decision in this matter, and the elders agreed it was a good idea. It doesn't say they voted on it, it just sais they thought it was a good idea.

 

[Lacy Evans]

It seems to me that in Acts 15, unanimity was accomplished by prayerful discussion and waiting on God. James was the last of the elders to speak, but his statement (as far as I can tell) was no more authoritative than the previous elders' opinions.

Lacy

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by MTA:
[QB] I agree that elder leadership is the scriptural model of church governance in the early church, yet there also seems to be an indication of preeminence among elders or at least an informal hierarchy.

MTA,

I agree for the most part. There does seem to be a "first among equals" principal among the NT eldership. It seems to have more to do with spiritual gifts, maturity, and the particular circumstance, rather than who was the "Big Cheese".

Lacy

 

[pastorjeff]

Acts 15:19 " My Sentence (decision) is ..."

Sounds like he decided to me. Yes they were in agreement, yes evryone spoke, and he never overruled anyone, but he did say " my decision"

 

[DeaconLew]

One would, indeed, be a fool to argue with plain scripture on the subject of plurality. I have to go back to the First Baptist Church of the widerness to get a clearer picture. Follow me please.

In Exodus Moses, the presiding Pastor over the church, was talking with his father-in-law about some of the upcoming meetings he had with the church folk. After explaining what he had to do, his father-in-law said "what thou doest is not good."

Exodus 18:18Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.
19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:
20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.
23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.

It appears that the mandate for the plurality of elders was necessitated because of NEED. The congregation that Pastor Moses was presiding over was too large to get all the work done that needed to be. As such the people would tire waiting and he would tire trying to get to all the problems.

This seems to be the only reason for more than one pastor. The pattern fits the early church in the NT. There were thousands of converts. As a result that necessitated the need for more than one elder.

I think a great Fundamentalist once said, in his book entitled "The Local Church" that a church should not be built or started within 50 miles of another church. This makes total sense. You would have pastors "competeing" for members if churches were so close together. And we can see that today. If we followed that idea, there would, certainly, be a need for more elders to "oversee" the flock. However since many of our true NT churches do not have thousands of members, the necesisty of more than one pastor becomes unreasonable.

I will say that there is prescidence, in scripture, for more than one presiding elder over a scriptural NT church. However to have them when there is no need is like having more than one car when it is not necessary.

Please advise.

-DeaconLew

 

[pastorjeff]

I agree. although I don't make it a habit to use The gov. structure of Israel to teach on church Gov. I know that it has always been God's character to use central leaders. Moses, Joshua, The judges, Prophets, Even the sanheidren was a plurality of Elders, but what did they have? A high Priest. As for the comment about compeating for members, I don't think that to be true.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I would refer you all to a nifty (but out of print) book, Overby's The Meaning and Use of Ekklesia in the New Testament.

At this point of our discussion, I find it profitable to ask the question:

What did Flavius of Troas (a NT era John Doe) or Peter and the Disciples think when he/they read/heard the word ekklesia? Was it a new word to him/them? Was it a word only used by Christians? Did ekklesia have a meaning pre-dating her use in the Gospels and Epistles?

On the basis of my answers to these questions, I hold to the following (mind you these are at best CAT2 truths). No, the following is not a logical syllogism.
</font>

• Ekklesia had a meaning predating Our Lord's life and ministry on earth. An example of one of the then contemporay meanings is found in Acts with reference to the Ephesian City Assembly.</font>
• At the time of the NT ekklesia was used for organizations we to day would call, lodges, benevolant societies, furneral clubs (think burial insurance) or any other group organized by its membership for a specific purpose.</font>
• Because of her roots in Greek politics, a ekklesia operated by definition on democratic principles. The Greek language as other words for other political systems.</font>

 

[Lacy Evans]

This seems to be the only reason for more than one pastor. The pattern fits the early church in the NT. There were thousands of converts. As a result that necessitated the need for more than one elder.

Brother Lew,

This is a highly speculative line of reasoning. Can we justify such a radical departure from scripture with (very logical and reasonable, yet unprovable) assumptions?

Christ himself set up a plurality in the 1st church (Jerusalem) as a pattern. I suppose that you could argue that Christ anticipated the "need".

But I could argue from the Old Testament that our Flesh wants a king wheras God desires us to have "judges". If it weren't so clear in the NT, I'd say that it was not a big deal. But it is one of the most consistent doctrines in scripture. Every time you see Church (Singular) and Elders (Plural).

No church pastor is ever addressed as "the Pastor. ("To the church of . . .", etc.) No one is ever referred to as "The Pastor of _______ church". (Or "The Elder", or "The Bishop", or "The Shepherd".)

I could see a situation where an assembly had only one qualified and called elder, but that would only be a temporary situation until things could be "set in order"

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: (Titus 1:5)

Lacy

 

[James_Newman]

What about the seven churches in Revelation, and their 'angels'? Isn't this speaking to the 'messenger' of the church, or the preacher? Or is it directed to a spiritual being that governs the churches? I don't have 2 cents for this matter, but I thought I'd throw in a penny!

 

[pastorjeff]

This is the way it works here. I am the Pastor, the preaching and teaching Elder. I am on payroll, but I am not the only Elder. It is tough to explain the distinction, but there is one. Not an executive, but called out for the direction and spiritual well being of the Body.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by James Newman:
What about the seven churches in Revelation, and their 'angels'? Isn't this speaking to the 'messenger' of the church, or the preacher? Or is it directed to a spiritual being that governs the churches? I don't have 2 cents for this matter, but I thought I'd throw in a penny!

The following quote comes from Mark Frees.

http://cnview.com/churches_today/is_the_one_pastoral_system_scrip.htm

Objection 6: Do not the "angels" of the churches in Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors (e.g. "To the angel of the church in
Ephesus write...," etc.), and is there not one per church?

Reply: No person reading the New Testament apart from preconceived notions would ever imagine that the "angels" of
Revelation 2-3 refer to Pastors. Although the Greek word angelos may be translated "messenger," in every other occurrence
of the word in Revelation-and it occurs 76 times!-it unquestionably refers to literal angels. If it does mean
"messenger" in Revelation 2-3, it still could hardly be stretched to mean "pastor." In every case where the New Testament
uses the phrase messenger of..." (e.g. "messenger of Satan," "messengers of John," etc.), it always describes by whom the
messenger is sent, never to whom. In other words, "the messenger of the church in Ephesus" would not likely mean a
messenger sent to the church, but a messenger sent by the church, perhaps as part of a delegation to minister to the apostle in
his exile on Patmos and to receive instructions from him.

Lacy

 

[Pastor Larry]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Please help me to understand why Paul addresses the church "at Ephesus?" They know where they are, why not just "the church?"

Because it is customary when you send a letter to a person or group to identify them, even though they know who they are. Look at your own post. You addressed it to me. Why? Did you not think I knew who I was?

Paul told Timothy that "the church" was the ground and pillar of the truth. Which one?

Exactly my point. That is why the local church only theory won't work. He did not say the churches are the pillar and support of the truth, but the church. Which one? The body of Christ. You have brought up a verse that will not work for the local church only theory.

BTW, you still did not tell me where the universal church meets, or when their set aside times for soul-winning are. I'd like to join them. [Smile]

Yes, I did. ON page 1, I said It will assemble at the great marriage supper of the Lamb. Until then, it still exists just like your church does today (Thursday) and is made up of its members just like your church is today.

As for Lacy's arguments about plural eldership based on "elders in teh church," we must remember that the church at Ephesus was not a single body, but made up of many house churches. It would be naturally understood that each house church had their own elder, while still all being one church. There is no NT mandate for plural eldership. There may be an allowance for it, provided that there is a leader among the elders as the senior pastor.

 

[DeaconLew]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This seems to be the only reason for more than one pastor. The pattern fits the early church in the NT. There were thousands of converts. As a result that necessitated the need for more than one elder.

Brother Lew,

This is a highly speculative line of reasoning. Can we justify such a radical departure from scripture with (very logical and reasonable, yet unprovable) assumptions?

Christ himself set up a plurality in the 1st church (Jerusalem) as a pattern. I suppose that you could argue that Christ anticipated the "need".

But I could argue from the Old Testament that our Flesh wants a king wheras God desires us to have "judges". If it weren't so clear in the NT, I'd say that it was not a big deal. But it is one of the most consistent doctrines in scripture. Every time you see Church (Singular) and Elders (Plural).

No church pastor is ever addressed as "the Pastor. ("To the church of . . .", etc.) No one is ever referred to as "The Pastor of _______ church". (Or "The Elder", or "The Bishop", or "The Shepherd".)

I could see a situation where an assembly had only one qualified and called elder, but that would only be a temporary situation until things could be "set in order"

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: (Titus 1:5)

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate your response.

First of all I will prove the point about need necessitating pluraily. Remember, my friend, that God declared the end from the begining (Isaiah 46:10).

What the OT never told us, the NT has said. A preacher once said that the OT is the NT concealed, and the NT is the OT revealed. I believe it. In Acts, the Holy Spirit, through Stephan, reveals to us that the "called out" of Egypt "assembly" was, indeed, the church.

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

The congregation of Jews that treked across the wilderness was a church. How many folks did God call to lead the church out of Egypt? One.
A man (Moses Father-in-law) being acted upon by God, told Pastor Moses that he needed to get help to preside over the folks. This was, indeed, the Lord's doing. The pattern is here in the OT. I will remind you, as a father, that God told Moses not to go beyond that patern that was shown him; neither should we.

What church did Christ set up? If it was with Peter in Matthew 16, said he "upon these rocks will I build my church?" Just one rock. (I do not believe that rock was Peter either as explained in a previous post). The 12 he never setup as presiding elders over any church.

Just because something is mentioned over and over does not mean that what has only been mentioned a few times is not true. We must figure out how to harmonize the scripture. I believe, and can be easily seen through this board, that if a person just looks at scripture superficially they will come up with this idea that faith = works. The idea is clearly seen. There are more verses that say you must be "doing" than there are that say you must be "believing." Does that negate the truth that all we need is simple belief? Of course not. Then why would one think that just because they see plurality where it concerns churches that God only wants plurality? Such a conclusion would mean that the majorty holy Christian churches around America are in sin in this area. Are you willing to say that?

The reason, I beleive, that we never see "to the pastor of..." in scripture is because everybody was to yield to what the Apostle had to say including the Pastor. As a result, he addressed "the church." Since I do not see the "Angel" in Revelation a stretch to be called a pastor, it is of no wonder that Jesus only addresses the Pastor, laying blame where it ought to be. This pattern, again, is shown in the OT. When Moses smote the rock instead of speaking to it, he was punished, even though the people provoked him. God said to him: Numbers 20:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.
Even for all that the people did, MOSES received the greated condemnation. God holds Pastors responsible for the spiritual well being of the flock.
Jer 10:21 For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the LORD: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered.
Jer 23:2 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD.

This is to the Pastor, i.e. the angel of the church.

As for setting things in order, if there were only five people in the church and three of them were men it would not be "in order" to have them as presiding elders, even if they were qualified.

What say ye?

-DeaconLew

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by DeaconLew:
Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

This "angel" was the same angel as in v. 30 - God himself.

The congregation of Jews that treked across the wilderness was a church. How many folks did God call to lead the church out of Egypt? One.
A man (Moses Father-in-law) being acted upon by God, told Pastor Moses that he needed to get help to preside over the folks. This was, indeed, the Lord's doing. The pattern is here in the OT. I will remind you, as a father, that God told Moses not to go beyond that patern that was shown him; neither should we.

I agree but I think that Christ himself follows the type of Moses moreso than any church pastor or apostle.

1 Corinthians 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

Hebrews 9:19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

1 Peter 5
1. The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3. Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
4. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Then why would one think that just because they see plurality where it concerns churches that God only wants plurality? Such a conclusion would mean that the majorty holy Christian churches around America are in sin in this area. Are you willing to say that?

The difference is that the Bible reveals BOTH faith and works and both rightly divided. the Bible however does not reveal a single shepherd (Other than Christ himself) ever leading a full grown assembly. As to whether or not churches are in disobedience, how many times have we been wrong before?

. . .if there were only five people in the church and three of them were men it would not be "in order" to have them as presiding elders, even if they were qualified.

I don't really see why not. The specific qualifications for an elder never mention congregation size. I wouldn't limit God. it may be that He's fixin to have a big herd of sheep show up and he needs these shepherds ready and able.

I can tell you from experience that a church of three families can be a lot of work for one man if he has to prepare three sermons, a Sunday school lesson, the bulliten, prepare and lead three song services, lead the soul winning ministry, go pick up a surburban load of kids, clean the church, mow the grass, pay the bills, raise a family, and work a full time job each week. No wonder Christ sent them out by twos (Plural)

Lacy

 

[spreacher]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
I can tell you from experience that a church of three families can be a lot of work for one man if he has to prepare three sermons, a Sunday school lesson, the bulliten, prepare and lead three song services, lead the soul winning ministry, go pick up a surburban load of kids, clean the church, mow the grass, pay the bills, raise a family, and work a full time job each week. No wonder Christ sent them out by twos (Plural)

Lacy,
Is what I've quoted above your definition of

a single shepherd (Other than Christ himself) . . . leading a full grown assembly.

Is that what the Bible defines as the ministry of elders, pastors, shepherds, bishops, etc? Then, AMEN, bring on a plurality of elders!

 

[Matt Black]

Some good points, to which I may add a few of my own.

Re 'local' or 'universal' church. Squire Robertsson is quite correct that we need to ask ourselves what the NT readers and writers understood by the term 'ecclesia'. The Squire has already alluded to the meaning that would have been understood by the Greek-speaking Gentile world - basically, any kind of assembly, meeting, group of people together for a purpose (including the Ephesian mob!). This meaning is obviously local. But the Jews would have understood a more universal meaning; in the LXX, 'eccelesia' is used consistently to translate the Hebrew 'qahal'. Now, 'qahal' has similar 'meeting' connotatations, but has a much wider meaning - it CAN be used to describe a particular group of people assembled out of the nation of Israel, but is more usually describing the WHOLE of that nation, particularly in the Exodus historical period.

So, we can find examples of 'church' as being both local and more universal in both the OT and NT, and to insist on an exclusively local or universal meaning seems to me to be unwarranted by Scripture

Re church government, within the early, more Jewish, church, there were two main models: the Jersualem temple model where you had a bocy of elders presided over by a senior, episcopal/' high priest' type figure (James) and the synagogue model, which was the same but without a head honcho. In the Pauline churches, the models were the sort of voluntary associations and philosophical schools alluded to by Keith, plus the synagogue model referred to above. A more hierarchical model emerged in the later Pauline churches (Timothy, Titus), associated with the need to preserve sound teaching in the face of gnosticism and persecution. Likewise, therefore, there is no one distinct NT form of church government

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Craigbythesea]

it part of our (unwritten and unspoken of) Tradition (which we would like to believe is based on scripture)?

It is “part of our (unwritten and unspoken of) Tradition,” but I know very well that it is not based on scripture.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Re church government, within the early, more Jewish, church, there were two main models: the Jersualem temple model where you had a bocy of elders presided over by a senior, episcopal/' high priest' type figure (James) and the synagogue model, which was the same but without a head honcho. In the Pauline churches, the models were the sort of voluntary associations and philosophical schools alluded to by Keith, plus the synagogue model referred to above. A more hierarchical model emerged in the later Pauline churches (Timothy, Titus), associated with the need to preserve sound teaching in the face of gnosticism and persecution. Likewise, therefore, there is no one distinct NT form of church government

Thank you Bro. Matt,

Is this based on church history? Early fathers writings? If so I would greatly appreciate the sources. (perhaps a PM?)

I, by no means, have exhausted my study on this issue. But just looking at scripture itself and trying my best to divorce myself of preconceptions and traditions causes me to see otherwise right now.

Lacy