The Local Church - Baptist theology's weakest link?

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Matt,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Whilst this [ecclesia] had a local meaning in the Greek Gentile world of the time (eg: town meeting), the actual word Jesus is likely to have used would have been the Hebrew 'qahal' (or its Aramaic equivalent), which had more universalist connotations, and was frequently used in the OT and elsewhere to refer to either the Israelite encampment gathered together (as in the Exodus narratives) or the entire Jewish nation as a faith community, not merely a local part of it.

Of course the "congregation" of Israel had "universalist connotations" because there was only one center of worship - Jerusalem - where the whole nation congregated. On the day of Pentecost the Jews from all over the whole world congregated there. That does not change the fact that when it was gathered it was a local congregation.

Also, He states that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it".....So, Jesus cannot have meant merely the Jerusalem church

To start with you have no idea what happened to the Jerusalem church beyond what is stated in the Bible. We know it was scattered abroad and for all you know the church I pastor may be it. A church's existence is not tied to a location - it is tied to a continuence of the truth by it's membership wherever they may be.


Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]'Qahal' is not limited to Jerusalem; it refers to any gathering together of the Israelite nation, wherever situated. Thus it is used in Ex 16, Num 1:16; 4:34; 14:27; 16:2; 31:26 to describe the entire Israelite community in the desert

We do know what happened to the Jerusalem church from historical records eg: Eusebius' Hist Ecc and others

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Matt,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This thread has already amply demonstrated the pluriformity that existed.

No, it hasn't.

Some brief examples: at Lystra, Iconium and Antioch (Pisidia) in Acts 14: 22, Paul and Barnabas appoint (not the congregation!) elders

First of all, it is mere conjecture that the "they" who ordained the elders was Paul and Barnabas. But even if it were, it does not prove that they did so without the consent of the churches. I have many times heard Baptist preachers say "we ordained" so and so. They don't mean that they were the ordaining authority, but simply that they participated in an ordination service.

in Early Ephesus Paul speaks to the elders (Acts 20:17) and refers to bishops and guardians (Acts 20:28); I Cor 12:28 lists the ministries in the church at Corinth ( apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle-workers, etc ); Early Pauline Ephesus has apostles prophets evangelists pastors & teachers (Eph 4:11); Late Pauline Ephesus has bishops & deacons (I Tim 3:1-13)

All of which proves what I stated above - that the New Testament churches had a plurality in the ministry. It does not prove that the ministry exercised authority over the churches.

while Titus' Cretan church(es) had bishops & elders (Titus 1: 5-9) appointed by him, not their congregations.

As above, the fact that Titus ordained elders does not mean he did so without the consent of the churches.

We know of a certainty that John commanded Gaius not to follow evil leaders. If the elders of the church rule by fiat, then this Scripture could not be obeyed. They whole idea of hierarchial, presbyterial, or one man rule binds the people that they must be subject to men that may well be ungodly men.

We can see the fruit of such wicked doctrine in the scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic church and the recent ordination of an impenitent sodomite in the Episcopal church, as well as the numerous occasions where dominating pastors have led their congregations into cultic practices and doctrines.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Agree with your last para, but the rest is an argument from silence; you are assuming the consent of the church to ordination in each case where the text is in fact silent. There is evidence from church practice to suggest some of what you assert, but as it is from Eastern Orthodox sources, I'm not sure whether you would regard this as admissible: from the late 4th century onwards, the records show that the citizens of a city in the late Roman Empire had the right to approve or otherwise the ordination/ consecration of the bishop or metropolitan of that city by assembling at the place of consecration and shouting "axios! " ("worthy!") or "anaxios " ("not worthy") before the bishop could take up his office. This may therefore reflect the practice of some or indeed all the NT churches, but it's progeny is dubious and the NT itself doesn't tell us.

Yours in Christ


Matt

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Matt,

'Qahal' is not limited to Jerusalem; it refers to any gathering together of the Israelite nation, wherever situated. Thus it is used in Ex 16, Num 1:16; 4:34; 14:27; 16:2; 31:26 to describe the entire Israelite community in the desert.

Thank you for making my point very well. The "church in the wilderness" was just like the "church which was at Jerusalem." It wandered about from place to place but it was still a cohesive "gathering."

We do know what happened to the Jerusalem church from historical records eg: Eusebius' Hist Ecc and others.

You have no idea if these historians were tracing the history of the true Jerusalem church or the schisms that had gone out from it. And whereas they invariably trace these movements into the Roman Catholic church, we have a pretty good idea that they were not tracing the history of the true saints of God.

Agree with your last para, but the rest is an argument from silence; you are assuming the consent of the church to ordination in each case where the text is in fact silent.

But the text is not silent. John said in his third letter, speaking of ungodly leadership, "follow not that which is evil but that which is good." That makes the validity of the ministry dependent on the consent of the people.

Furthermore, we have the example of the church at Jerusalem casting lots to replace Judas. And we have the command of Jesus that, though the princes of the Gentiles exercise authority over the people,

"it shall not be so among you."

Here we have an explicit statment of Jesus that the ministry of the New Testament church is not to follow the authoritarian model of the heathen; and yet that is exactly what the heirarchial, prebyterial, and "one man rule" Baptists do.

The only authority given to the New Testament ministry is the word of God. When they preach and teach the word of God the people are duty bound to obey them to the letter; when they depart into the area of personal opinion and outright heresy, the people owe them no allegiance at all. As it is written:

"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever."

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Matt Black]

Replies in italics:-

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Matt,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />'Qahal' is not limited to Jerusalem; it refers to any gathering together of the Israelite nation, wherever situated. Thus it is used in Ex 16, Num 1:16; 4:34; 14:27; 16:2; 31:26 to describe the entire Israelite community in the desert.

Thank you for making my point very well. The "church in the wilderness" was just like the "church which was at Jerusalem." It wandered about from place to place but it was still a cohesive "gathering."

But it still encompassed the entire Chosen People, not just a local part of them

Agree with your last para, but the rest is an argument from silence; you are assuming the consent of the church to ordination in each case where the text is in fact silent.

But the text is not silent. John said in his third letter, speaking of ungodly leadership, "follow not that which is evil but that which is good." That makes the validity of the ministry dependent on the consent of the people.

Or it could mean that the congregation are to follow John's ruling on the subject.

Furthermore, we have the example of the church at Jerusalem casting lots to replace Judas. The only authority given to the New Testament ministry is the word of God. When they preach and teach the word of God the people are duty bound to obey them to the letter; when they depart into the area of personal opinion and outright heresy, the people owe them no allegiance at all.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]But how to determine this though: one of the reasons we have so many divisions even among Baptists is that two men can interpret the same passage of Scripture in a two different ways. Which is correct and how do we determine that?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Matt,

But how to determine this though: one of the reasons we have so many divisions even among Baptists is that two men can interpret the same passage of Scripture in a two different ways. Which is correct and how do we determine that?

Are you suggesting that religions which have hierarchy, presbytery, or "one man rule" enjoy more Christian unity than those who practice congregational rule? Surely you jest!

The reason we have divisions is because some people love God and some don't. Those who love God are always in harmony; those who don't aren't. It will always be this way and all the heirarchy in the world will not stop it.

If we follow the heirarchial, presbyterial, or "one man rule" philosphies, I guess the solution is to just blindly follow the leader. Then we can all just be a bunch of spiritual lemings, intrusting the spiritual care of our children to a pack of child rapists and their protectors, sitting under the pastoral care of an impentient sodomite, or picking up and moving to Waco to be burned alive by the Feds.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Matt,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But how to determine this though: one of the reasons we have so many divisions even among Baptists is that two men can interpret the same passage of Scripture in a two different ways. Which is correct and how do we determine that?

Are you suggesting that religions which have hierarchy, presbytery, or "one man rule" enjoy more Christian unity than those who practice congregational rule? Surely you jest!

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Certainly I agree that hierarchies, presbyteries, 'apostolic' leadership models are no more unified than congregationalists, but that doesn't answer my question: what is the right interpretation of Scripture and how do we determine that? I take on board what you say about "if we all love the Lord, we will all be singing from the same theological hymn sheet", but unfortunately that does not take into account the weaknesses of human nature and human error.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Matt,

what is the right interpretation of Scripture and how do we determine that?

You determine the right interpretation of the Scripture by interpreting the Scripture right. Once you have done that you will be in fellowship with others who have done the same and out of fellowship with those who wrongly interpret the Scriptures.

It seems to me what you want is an iron clad mechanism to gaurantee that all will interpret and apply the Scripture correctly. That, my friend, will simply never happen. Every effort at a universal ecumenism between all who claim to follow Christ is a pipe dream.

I take on board what you say about "if we all love the Lord, we will all be singing from the same theological hymn sheet", but unfortunately that does not take into account the weaknesses of human nature and human error.

So what's your point? The Bible says that till the end of time there will be divisions and, in fact, that they will grow worse and worse. When the Lord comes then there will just be two divisions - the redeemed and the damned. Till then we must do the best we can to rightly interpret the word of God and seek out the fellowship of like-minded brethren.

Furthermore, the word of God even tells us that there is a fring benefit to divisions, namely, they give us a means of judging who is approved of God and who isn't. This is exactly what Paul meant when he said,

"There must also be heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

And John said,

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by Matt Black:

in Acts 14: 22, Paul and Barnabas appoint (not the congregation!) elders ;

Matt

Before the 1611 KJV, many English-speaking
believing translators understood Acts 14:23
differently:

"ordained them elders by election in every congregation" (Tyndale's, 1537 Matthews's,
1539 Great, 1539 Taverner's)
"ordained them elders by election thru all the congregations" (1535 Coverdale's)
"ordained them elders by election in every church" (1557 Whittingham's, 1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops')
"having appointed to them by vote elders in every assembly" (1860's Young's Literal Translation)

The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible has a marginal note at Acts 14:23 that observed that the apostles "chose and placed them [pastors] by the voice of the congregation." THE DUTCH ANNOTATIONS as translated into English by Theodore Haak in 1657 presented the first part of the text of Acts 14:23 as follows: "And when they in every church with lifting up of hands had chosen them elders."

Edward Hiscox quoted Matthew Tindale as follows:
"We read only of the Apostles constituting elders by the suffrages of the people, Acts 14:23, which is the genuine signification of the Greek word, cheirotoneesantes, so it is accordingly interpreted by Erasmus, Beza, Diodoti, and those who translated the Swiss, French, Italian, Beligic, and even English Bibles, till the Episcopal correction, which leaves out the words, 'by election'" (PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES FOR BAPTIST CHURCHES, p. 351).

 

[rufus]

The Local Church is the only kind of church you will find in the NT.

Rufus

 

[Matt Black]

Care to elaborate on that bold statement?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[rufus]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Care to elaborate on that bold statement?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Yes, but later.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Yes, but later.

Good Luck!

 

[Matt Black]

Some further points re structure, beyond the Jerusalem church and synagogue models. Another type of structure encountered is the small group or cell (Acts 2:42-47) whose members met in each others' homes. This was particularly true of towns other than Jerusalem. It should be noted here that homes then tended to be much larger than those today and therefore they would have had more people than an average small group in modern times. This was a model that persisted during the years of persecution.

For further study, I have already referred to Richard Ascough's commentary 'What are they saying about the formation of the Pauline churches?' in which he draws from a variety of sources. His study concentrates on four pre-Christian insitutions/ belief systems which, to a greater or lesser extent formed the basis of Pauline ecclesiology: the synagogue, the philosophical school (eg; Paul teaching in the schole of Tyrannus in Acts 19:9), the ancient mysteries (for example the baptismal theology of Rom 6:1-11) and the voluntary associations that existed in the Greek world at the time from which it is likely that the concept of the cell or house church described above was derived. It is important of course that we do not take Paul as compromising with the world in this way but rather that he possibily adopted/ adapted elements of these pre-Christian models so as to be relevant and speak into the socio-religious milieu of the period. We do well to remember that Christianity and the church did not spring ex nihilo, from a vacuum; words such as ecclesia/ qahal and baptism had meanings before they became Christian.

Disputes in the church seem to have been settled by church council (Acts 11,15). Splits were discouraged, the minority fell into line. At the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, a very interesting picture emerges of church government, responsibility and functions; Peter and James represented the Twelve, James Silas and Jude the local elders; Paul and Barnabas correspond to Peter and James, Titus to Silas and Jude on a missionary level. The Twelve were in overall control. There appear to have been two parallel leadership groups: local and static (elders) (modal) and missionary (apostles prophets and teachers) (sodal).

We also have an obvious difference between Acts 14:23 and the Pastorals (appointment of elders to the office of oversight with the Eph 4 'five-fold ministries' and I Cor 12:28 ministries (apostles prophets teacher etc). This is explained by the different circumstances of the churches but there is a ref to elders at Ephesus (Acts 20:17) so the twin concepts of ministry and office exist side by side, although it is fair to say that the idea of elders in Acts was probably different from that in the Pastorals. There is also the problem that the Philippian church had overseers-bishops and deacons (episkopoi and diakonoi - Phil 1:1). A further muddying of the waters is that Acts 13:1 has prophets and teachers at Antioch; prophetic 'office' seemed to follow the ministry here - prophets were people who prophesied.

Other leadership-office-ministry pictures are found in the follwing verses and terms: Acts 20:28 -prosechete (take heed): Acts 20:28, Heb 12:15 - episkopos/episkopontous (overseers, taking care);I Cor 12:28, Titus 2:15, I Thess 5:11, I Tim 4:13 - paraklesei (encourage, exhort, comfort); Acts 20:28, Eph 4:11 - poimanein (shepherd, pastor); Col 3:16, I Tim 6:2, I Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11 - didaskontes (teaching, teacher)

So, what more evidence do you need of pluriformity?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Matt,

If you will examine the use of overseer, pastor, and elder you will find that they are used interchangably and constitute one and the same office. As for apostles, prophets, and other functionaries mentioned in I Corinthians 12, they were temporary gifts given to the church till the full revelation came (I Corinthians chapter 13 and Ephesians chapter 4).

The only other office is that of deacons; which, by the way, were explicitly said to be chosen by the people (Acts 6:3). Whereas the qualifications for deacons are given in the same context as the qualifications for elders/bishops/pastors, this weighs in as strong evidence that both offices were chosen by the people.

Beyond that, your post is empty speculation and infidel rhetoric which assumes inconsistencies where none exist and attributes New Testament ecclesiology to heathen and Judaistic origins. This is ironic considering that Jesus Christ explicitly commanded his followers not to follow the Gentile authoritarian model. He said,

"Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominon over them, and they that be great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. Even as the Son f man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for man."

Oh, how totally dissimilar is the character of modern day high-minded ecclesiastics, clerics, and "reverends" from the example of the meek and lowly Son of God!

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Matt Black]

On what basis do you say that the offices were 'interchangeable'? If they were the same, why does Scripture not say so?

Not empty speculation either, just sound scholarship, if you read my post again. And be careful who you're calling 'infidel' - you sound like a Muslim

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
On what basis do you say that the offices were 'interchangeable'? If they were the same, why does Scripture not say so?

If you trace the word for elder, pastor, and overseer (presbuteros) from the beginning of the OT through the intertestamental period and through the NT you will find that elder started with the Jewish elder and later elder in the NT and then to pastor or bishop. When the church started they borrowed the word from Judaism and applied it to pastor. However there is another word for pastor-teacher/shepherd (Eph 4:11). Then toward a later time period in the NT the words presbuteros and episkopos were used interchangably.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
On what basis do you say that the offices were 'interchangeable'?

Yours in Christ

Matt

The same men called "elders of the church" (Acts 20:17) are also called "overseers"
[same word translated bishops] (Acts 20:28).
The same men called "elders" (Titus 1:5) have
their qualifications listed under their other
title "bishop" (Titus 1:7).

In his history of Baptists, D. B. Ray noted the following about Acts 20:28 in the KJV:
"The word 'overseers' in this passage is 'episcopous' in the Greek--the word which is usually translated 'bishops'; but to have rendered it bishops in this place, would have shown that elder and bishop is the same office, which would have condemned the church of the translators" (BAPTIST SUCCESSION, p. 292).

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Matt,

You said,

On what basis do you say that the offices were 'interchangeable'? If they were the same, why does Scripture not say so?

The Scriptures do say so. See "Logos" last post. But you also said,

Not empty speculation either, just sound scholarship, if you read my post again. And be careful who you're calling 'infidel' - you sound like a Muslim.

I am being careful who I call an infidel. People who think the Scriptures speaks with an uncertain sound - which is to say, people who don't believe the Scriptures - are infidels; and your lame attempt to associate me with infidel Muslims won't change that fact nor make me quit using a perfectly Scriptural term.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Matt Black]

I in no way think that the Scriptures speak with an uncertain sound; nor do I disbelieve the Scriptures. I happen to believe that God is the author of Scripture and that if He had meant episkopos and presbuteros to mean the same thing, He would have used the same term. I do not believe that He is the author of confusion. I could equally accuse you guys of 'not believing the Scriptures', because you seem to think that the two different titles are the same and that that implies that God was double-minded or that you don't believe that God inspired the Scriptures, but I don't believe that kind of personal attack is warranted (plus it is a breach of posting rules here). So, all we have is two different interpretations of the same Scriptures - you believe yours is right. That's OK. I believe mine is right. That's OK too. Only God knows which is right (they're probably both wrong!). Let's learn to live with that and agree to disagree graciously

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Bro. James]

"The deeds of the Nicolaitans"--

is another way of describing hiearchy--i.e. bishop rule, pastor rule, board of deacon rule, pope, cardinal, archbishop, archdeacon, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

The keys of the kingdom were given to The Assembly--a pure theocractic democracy. Every member has one vote--that includes the pastor(s) and deacon(s). A New Testament Church can function perfectly well without aa bishop or a deacon.

Selah,

Bro.