Common statement: "One man and God make a majority." Not quite correct: God is a majority by Himself; those on God's side are automatically in the majority, "where two or three are gathered together" in His Name, that is, under His authority. Speaking of authority: Philip gladly recognized the authority of the Lord expressed through the Jerusalem church, of which he was a member and by which he was sent out. Note Acts 8:
14-16; he did not tell Peter and John, who were sent by the Jerusalem fellowship, "This is my ministry; no help wanted"; instead, he recognized the need for good church continuity and order. No way to phone or telegraph back when he baptized the eunuch; but how did the account get in the Bible if he did not report it back to his home church? Is not Peter's question at the home of Cornelius a form of "voting"? "Can any man forbid water that these should be baptized . . .?"
Does this not imply that a negative "vote," if sustainable by reason, would have prevented the baptism? No, we should seldom see a negative; but if we do not in some fashion receive members by mutual agreement, Me4Him's point is just one aspect of what might happen. Romans 14:1 is an authorization to receive or reject members, on a doctrinal basis. Some form of vote was taken in Acts 6, for "the saying pleased the whole multitude." How else would that be known?
My wife's brother (now with the Lord) was a minister in a group that refused to have a
"church roll." I once told him, in Christian friendship, that since there were more Baptists in the family living close than he had total people in his group, we might all show up in one business meeting, vote him out, vote me in and make it a Baptist church. He was quite put out, and said "You can't do that! You're not members!" And my obvious question was - how do you know we're not? Not all Greek authorities would agree here, but the language is accurate whether my translation is or not: Acts 1:15;
"The number of names [not people - RCB] upon the it were about a hundred and twenty." It is an idiom, of course, but would it not bear the idea
"upon the list" since it is "names"? This was a business meeting, and the action was based directly on 3 OT Scriptures (all from Psalms).
'
On a slightly related notion; is there any record of a successor to any other apostle except Judas?
The qualifications set forth here preclude any after the death of those who saw the risen Lord,
and actually any not baptized by John the Baptist (v. 22). Paul acknowledged the irregularity of his apostleship, I Cor. 15:8-9 - "out of due season." Whatever else that may mean, it is clearly not a claim to be a "successor" to any of the other 12. Aren't today's "apostles" even more irregular?
Well, this topic has already covered "a multitude of sins," so let's put on our nightcaps and pray for great days in the Lord tomorrow. Best to all - Charles - Ro. 8:28
