Church Authority

[blhowes]

The two recent threads about landmarkism and the one about Calvinists converting to catholicism are interesting and they made me wonder about church authority.

If a church can't trace their authority from the Apostolic times to the present, what criteria must be met for a church to claim that it has authority?

 

[Rich Koster]

The truth contained in scripture gives the body it's authority. There is much that flows from Jesus' commission that comes from holding to the truth rather than just generational succession.

 

[blhowes]

The truth contained in scripture gives the body it's authority. There is much that flows from Jesus' commission that comes from holding to the truth rather than just generational succession.

What's the difference between a church and a parachurch organization when it comes to authority? If both hold to the same truth, would both be considered to have the same authority? Why/why not?

 

[jwithnell]

The proper preaching of the word, administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline show that a body is functioning as a true church and are activities that should only be conducted within the church.

 

[Rich Koster]

The truth contained in scripture gives the body it's authority. There is much that flows from Jesus' commission that comes from holding to the truth rather than just generational succession.

What's the difference between a church and a parachurch organization when it comes to authority? If both hold to the same truth, would both be considered to have the same authority? Why/why not?

Parachurch ministries usually do one or maybe a few given functions, but do not possess the 9 marks of a true church. The people who work within them are usually submissive to different elders and may cross denominational lines.

 

[blhowes]

The proper preaching of the word, administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline show that a body is functioning as a true church and are activities that should only be conducted within the church.

Parachurch ministries usually do one or maybe a few given functions, but do not possess the 9 marks of a true church. The people who work within them are usually submissive to different elders and may cross denominational lines.

Just so you know my train of thought, I'm not advocating parachurch ministries. I was trying to think of a scenario that resembles how those in the catholic church or the Landmark group might view those that don't have a direct line to the apostolic church. A church that was somehow started without the "blessings" of an established church, and how that group received their authority.

 

[Rich Koster]

The proper preaching of the word, administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline show that a body is functioning as a true church and are activities that should only be conducted within the church.

Parachurch ministries usually do one or maybe a few given functions, but do not possess the 9 marks of a true church. The people who work within them are usually submissive to different elders and may cross denominational lines.

Just so you know my train of thought, I'm not advocating parachurch ministries. I was trying to think of a scenario that resembles how those in the catholic church or the Landmark group might view those that don't have a direct line to the apostolic church. A church that was somehow started without the "blessings" of an established church, and how that group received their authority.

I believe RC & L would both claim that any congregation that didn't get planted by them is usurping authority and is not a true church.

 

[Webservant]

My oldest son and I were talking about just this subject today because of the YouTube video. He brought up a good point: if they're going to point to us and state that we do not have the proper authority, then what are we to do with them? They have 2 big branches that have broken off, both of which deny the authority of Rome, and many times in history the pope has been a political figurehead. If we don't have an unbroken chain of authority back to Peter, do they?

 

[Rich Koster]

My oldest son were talking about just this subject today because of the YouTube video. He brought up a good point: if they're going to point to us and state that we do not have the proper authority, then what are we to do with them? They have 2 big branches that have broken off, both of which deny the authority of Rome, and many times in history the pope has been a political figurehead. If we don't have an unbroken chain of authority back to Peter, do they?

They make a "claim" to have authority by succession, but that claim seems a little shaky, doesn't it? Rome has authority because Rome says so.

 

[Webservant]

My oldest son were talking about just this subject today because of the YouTube video. He brought up a good point: if they're going to point to us and state that we do not have the proper authority, then what are we to do with them? They have 2 big branches that have broken off, both of which deny the authority of Rome, and many times in history the pope has been a political figurehead. If we don't have an unbroken chain of authority back to Peter, do they?

They make a "claim" to have authority by succession, but that claim seems a little shaky, doesn't it? Rome has authority because Rome says so.

Egg-zack-ly.

 

[Wayne]

A little afternoon reading: One of the fullest expositions on the subject of apostolic succession, from a Presbyterian vantage point, is by Thomas Smyth, titled The Prelatical Doctrine of Apostolical Succession Examined

While you might not want to read the whole thing, look through the Table of Contents and you might be able to hone in on specific sections that answer some of your immediate questions.

 

[Pergamum]

The proper preaching of the word, administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline show that a body is functioning as a true church and are activities that should only be conducted within the church.

Preaching often occurs outside of the church, especially in efforts to plant new churches. And, too, sometimes as new movements begin among unreached groups, leaders spontanously emerge to preach the Gospel to those around them.

The ordinances are often given outside the church to the sick. At inter-church fellowships, sometimes the Lord's Supper is shared.

What is your definition of "within the church?"

 

[johnbugay]

The two recent threads about landmarkism and the one about Calvinists converting to catholicism are interesting and they made me wonder about church authority.

If a church can't trace their authority from the Apostolic times to the present, what criteria must be met for a church to claim that it has authority?

Bob -- from the Roman Catholic perspective, recent historical studies have debunked what Rome formerly taught about the early history of the papacy. (I.e., "Peter founded the church at Rome, ruled there 25 years, named his next successor, and there has been a chain of Christ-ordained leadership since the beginning.")

They have now modified this story to state that "Peter was the head of the college of the Apostles. The apostles named successors, and now Popes and Bishops have ruled in a Christ-ordained succession since the beginning."

On the flip side of this, they say that the churches of the Reformation, Protestant churches, "do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense.

Catholic Culture : Library : Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church


In support of this, they often quote Irenaeus, from "Against Heretics" 3.3.1.

Thus the tradition of the apostles, manifest in the whole world, is present in every church to be perceived by all who wish to see the truth. We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors even to our time, men who taught or knew nothing of the sort that they [the gnostics] madly imagine. If however the apostles had known secret mysteries that they would have taught secretly to "perfect," unknown to others, they would certainly have transmitted them especially to those whom they entrusted to the churches.

Unfortunately, they fail to cite the very next line:

For they [the apostles] wanted those whom they left as successors, and to whom they transmitted their own position of teaching, to be perfect and blameless (1 Tim 3:2) in every respect. If these men acted rightly it would be a great benefit, while if they failed it would be the greatest calamity.

In fact, they ignore both this and the requirements for "overseers" in 1 Tim and Titus, and instead they create what is known as a "sacramental succession," for which there is no scriptural warrant.

The issue of succession, according to Turretin, is a "digression," "through which they wish to draw us away from the chief matter … that they may avoid an examination of doctrine." (v. 3, p. 235)

That is, you have to look further to consider that there is a difference between how Rome argues and how Protestants argue. Protestants will begin with Scriptures, and derive doctrines from there. Rome "presupposes" that its own story of authority is the correct one, and then they claim that they have the authority to establish the faith. (i.e., they get to say what is doctrine and what is not). But he says (vol. 3. pg. 3):

Now although the knowledge of the church is especially necessary to us, still it must not be supposed that it ought to precede the examination and knowledge of doctrine, so that the faith or doctrine ought to be known from the church rather than the church from the doctrine and faith.

In other words, the church arises from those who accept doctrine and faith (the Gospel); it is not given from the top-down, as they suppose, with Jesus ordaining Peter, Peter ordaining his successor, and on and on.

Paul Johnson, the Catholic historian, relates the difficulties that Catholics simply gloss over in citing this “authority:

By the third century, lists of bishops, each of whom had consecrated his successor, and which went back to the original founding of the see by one or the other of the apostles, had been collected or manufactured by most of the great cities of the empire and were reproduced by Eusebius…

Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.

Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop.

In Egypt, Orthodoxy was not established until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus.

Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list; “When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria. -- “A History of Christianity,” pgs 53 ff.)

At the end of the day, the only "succession list" that they have for the early church is the "list" provided by Irenaeus. But that list of 12 Roman presbyters fails because it's been fairly well established that there was no such thing as a "bishop" in Rome until approximately the middle of the second century, 100 years after the death of Peter. There was, according to scholars, merely a "presbyterial" style of government ruling a network of house churches. The list that Irenaeus provides merely repeats the names of presbyters who were known to have been at Rome during that time. But the first 8 or 9 of them could not have been "bishops" in the sense that Rome wants them to be "bishops."

In short, there was no "succession" early on, (neither "sacramental" or otherwise). It was simply an apologetic device, first to counter the gnostics, and later on as a clever device adopted by Romans to affirm themselves in authority. ("They argued among one another as to who was greatest.")

You said:

I was trying to think of a scenario that resembles how those in the catholic church or the Landmark group might view those that don't have a direct line to the apostolic church. A church that was somehow started without the "blessings" of an established church, and how that group received their authority.

As you can see, there really is no "direct line to the apostolic church." As for "receiving authority":

The Belgic Confession - The PuritanBoard

Scroll down to articles 29 and 30, for example.

 

[blhowes]

A little afternoon reading: One of the fullest expositions on the subject of apostolic succession, from a Presbyterian vantage point, is by Thomas Smyth, titled The Prelatical Doctrine of Apostolical Succession Examined

While you might not want to read the whole thing, look through the Table of Contents and you might be able to hone in on specific sections that answer some of your immediate questions.

Thanks. Interesting reading.

"there be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel, that is to say, baptism and the Lord's supper, neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the word lawfully ordained" (pg 37).

We do not, therefore, reject ordination as a proper and necessary service. We set apart, by the public and solemn imposition of hands, such as give credible evidence that they have been already called of God to the work of the ministry.(pg 41)

There's a broken link in my understanding.

I assume that a lawfully ordained minister is ordained by others who'd previously been lawfully ordained. Going back in time, there's a chain of leaders who were ordained by ordained leaders. So then, if that chain of ordained leaders is broken and doesn't reach back to the time of the apostles, how did that first link in the chain get lawfully ordained?

 

[Pergamum]

Some churches spontanously generate as the Gospel enters a region or a new people-group. Some leaders rise up on their own accord and begin preaching the Gospel. Thus, churches and church leaders (preachers/evangelists/pastors) just appear sometimes without any link or chain reaching them.

And this is how the Gospel often spreads throughout a new region of the world.

If we encounter these situations, are we going to work, considering them to be real pastors and churches, or will we try to invalidate them and convince them that they are not true churches because they came into existence without our authority?

 

[Rich Koster]

Some churches spontanously generate as the Gospel enters a region or a new people-group. Some leaders rise up on their own accord and begin preaching the Gospel. Thus, churches and church leaders (preachers/evangelists/pastors) just appear sometimes without any link or chain reaching them.

And this is how the Gospel often spreads throughout a new region of the world.

If we encounter these situations, are we going to work, considering them to be real pastors and churches, or will we try to invalidate them and convince them that they are not true churches because they came into existence without our authority?

I would encourage them, offer them books/material that ground them in the DoG. I would associate with them until they tried to distance themselves from Reformed theology.

 

[Pergamum]

What if the word "Reformed" never entered their vocab, but Christian only?

 

[Rich Koster]

What if the word "Reformed" never entered their vocab, but Christian only?

No problem. It is a label on the package. As long as the content is the real deal, they may just call it Biblical.

Added comment: My concern arises because there is so much out there masquerading as Christianity, that it often takes a while to find out where someone is at, especially if there is a language barrier. I know theological perverts such as Hinn, Browne, and their ilk cruise the globe looking for some more "seed sowers". The cults are very busy.

 

[A.J.]

I assume that a lawfully ordained minister is ordained by others who'd previously been lawfully ordained. Going back in time, there's a chain of leaders who were ordained by ordained leaders. So then, if that chain of ordained leaders is broken and doesn't reach back to the time of the apostles, how did that first link in the chain get lawfully ordained?

There are some answers in the thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/lawful-ordination-8252/. Dr. McMahon also deals with this also in his article, Lawful Ordination and examines the Reformers' response to the Roman Catholics after the two groups separated.

 

[blhowes]

If we encounter these situations, are we going to work, considering them to be real pastors and churches, or will we try to invalidate them and convince them that they are not true churches because they came into existence without our authority?

Given those two options, the correct answer would be to work with them. Are there other options?

 

[Pergamum]

If we encounter these situations, are we going to work, considering them to be real pastors and churches, or will we try to invalidate them and convince them that they are not true churches because they came into existence without our authority?

Given those two options, the correct answer would be to work with them. Are there other options?

I have heard of several cases where local believers of a spontanously-generating church raised up their own pastor who was uneducated, but then the outside established church (led by Western missionaries) came in, and un-installed the local pastor and shipped in an outsider to be the official pastor. This local, uneducated man then lost face, but was really the trusted leader, and the outsider, who had official status but none of the people's trust could - for all of his education - not lead the people into greater obedience to spiritual truth, and also the missionaries were resented.


In short, the outsiders attempted to invalidate the pastor who was voted on and approved by the local congregation because the outsiders did not consider the local asssembly of believers to be a valid church, nor their pastor to be legitimately exercising any spiritual authority.

 

[blhowes]

I have heard of several cases...

Thank-you for your response. Very thought provoking.

...the outsiders did not consider <snip> their pastor to be legitimately exercising any spiritual authority.

From the details you gave, it sounds like their actions were incorrect. Was their assessment of the local pastor's spiritual authority incorrect as well?

If your scenario is changed slightly:

This local, uneducated woman then lost face, but was really the trusted leader...

should the missionaries have stepped in?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Perg,
There are two or three occasions I can think of in the NT when an "outside agent" helps better explain the truth, or establish a church on more solid footing.

1) Those baptized by John, and found in Ephesus, are corrected/assisted/incorporated by Paul.

2) Priscilla and Aqullia correct and encourage Apollos, thus strengthening/improving his ministry. He also goes from being a lone-ranger preacher of righteousness to functioning within the Christian church.

3) Paul wants to get to Rome (a church body grown up by itself), in part that he might "establish" them (which I take as a technical term), and impart some "spiritual gift" as one of the Apostles--see Rom.1:11.

The principle, It seems to me, is that the separate "body" needs to be invited (at least) to join the whole Body of Christ. I realize that my Presbyterianism/Protestantism is showing through here, but I can't help what I am.

 

[Pergamum]

I have heard of several cases...

Thank-you for your response. Very thought provoking.

...the outsiders did not consider <snip> their pastor to be legitimately exercising any spiritual authority.

From the details you gave, it sounds like their actions were incorrect. Was their assessment of the local pastor's spiritual authority incorrect as well?

If your scenario is changed slightly:

This local, uneducated woman then lost face, but was really the trusted leader...

should the missionaries have stepped in?

This is happening to several acquaintances in Asia.

They are helping new movements among unreached people groups and some of the leaders that come to be trained turn out to be women.

The missionaries then have to decide whether to refuse to teach them, make sure they voice disapproval over women pastors, or just concentrate on teaching solid theology and let the chips fall where they may.

The new movements among some of these unreached people groups is too broad and chaotic and shifting for the outsiders to rule or even to step into a small fraction of the scenerios to give oversight or more than merely passing advice, i.e., a big ship is moving and cannot be stopped, only steered to the left or right.

So, what to do? Some have mentioned what proper ecclesiology looks like, but then taught the women anyways, knowing that these would be going out to aggressively evangelize, despite their faults. This is probably what I would do. We plow with the oxen that we have got, not with the oxen that we haven't got, and soteriology is more important than ecclesiology.

 

[Pergamum]

Perg,
There are two or three occasions I can think of in the NT when an "outside agent" helps better explain the truth, or establish a church on more solid footing.

1) Those baptized by John, and found in Ephesus, are corrected/assisted/incorporated by Paul.

2) Priscilla and Aqullia correct and encourage Apollos, thus strengthening/improving his ministry. He also goes from being a lone-ranger preacher of righteousness to functioning within the Christian church.

3) Paul wants to get to Rome (a church body grown up by itself), in part that he might "establish" them (which I take as a technical term), and impart some "spiritual gift" as one of the Apostles--see Rom.1:11.

The principle, It seems to me, is that the separate "body" needs to be invited (at least) to join the whole Body of Christ. I realize that my Presbyterianism/Protestantism is showing through here, but I can't help what I am.

What we have here are God's servants strengthening the indigenous/local evangelists into greater usefulness. Priscilla and Aquilla did not disqualify and side-line Apollos but trained him and better fit him for service.

And Paul, as an Apostle, did, indeed, want to bless those in Rome, who - presumably - already planted the church there on their own without Apostolic initiative. Paul did not, however, claim that they were not a real church.

Some, I suppose, might state that the church in Rome was not yet a true church and several commentators state that perhaps it had not fully come out of the Jewish synagogues. However, it appears that the church in Rome was an assembly of believers already and Paul merely wanted to strengthen them as an existing church rather than invite them or particularize them into an official church.




Follow-up question:

The verse you allude to is here below:

(Romans 1:11-12 KJV) For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; {12} That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.

In your opinion, what is the spiritual gift Paul wanted to give? And, also what is meant by comforting or establishing those believers by means of this gift?




My view:

I see no mother-daughter churches in Scripture, each local assembly being an autonomous and independant body.

I also see that during the book of Acts, bands of missionaries and other apostolic bands/teams circulated to teach and advise during the expansion of Christianity. It was a very fluid and outward-expanding movement. III John also gives us clues as to how itinerant the whole movement was, as servants went out and used the hospitality of existing believers as launching pads to expand the faith even further.



Another question:
Would you deny that churches can spontanously form? And what sort of chain of succession would then be needed so that we know that our present churches are actually churches?




My position (right now) is this: God often raises up churches in isolation from other bodies of believers. These are true churches, even though they have not been invited to join your particular denominational body. Their authority comes from what they teach. And these local assemblies have the power to call and select their own pastors over them and to function as autonomous bodies without hierarchical control, though outside advice and counsel is certainly appreciated.


An admission:
I do admit, however, that I long for more of a connectional relationship betwen churches that many independant churches do not nurture. This lack of connectionalism is one of my biggest griefs being among calvy baptists. Missionary societies that help local churches send missionaries through them (and are governed by a board consisting of the churches which send the org the missionaries, thus ensuring accountability) seem the closest thing to an "evangelical connectionalism" (despite independancy) modeling that book of Acts. That is as connectional as I can get without becoming Presbyterian.



The 1689, article 26 (my bold) also gives us advice on how churches may interact without any intrusion of hierarchalism:

15. In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, and edification; or any member or members of any church are injured, in or by any proceedings in censures not agreeable to truth and order: it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together, do, by their messengers, meet to consider, and give their advice in or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned; howbeit these messengers assembled, are not intrusted with any church-power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any churches or persons; or to impose their determination on the churches or officers.
( Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 25; 2 Corinthians 1:24; 1 John 4:1 )

Bruce;

I really appreciate your interaction, especially regarding the methodology of missions and, in particular, as it pertains to Muslim evangelism. I would love to hear more thoughts by you about church-planting, missions, and Muslim evangelism.

 

[Pergamum]

P.s.:


Here is an article by a Landmark Baptist who believes differently about Church Authority. I would love to dissect it and interact with these Landmarkers about this more:

Church Authority: Limited and Specific

by Pastor Royce Smith
Bethel Baptist Church
Choctaw, Ok
April 2008

Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 13:34

INTRODUCTION: As you know, the Church of Rome claims for itself what belongs to Christ only: absolute authority. It is therefore especially disturbing when those who call themselves “Baptists” claim that Christ’s absolute authority has been transferred to the church. My texts know nothing of such a transfer as I shall demonstrate in this message.

I have heard some advocate what seemed to be absolute church authority for many years. There are even those who refer to the “sovereignty” of the church. The church is not and can never be sovereign if it is subject to the Headship of Christ. Nothing in the word “sovereignty “ can apply to the church. “Sovereignty” is “supreme power’ supremacy; the possession of the highest power, or of uncontrollable power. Absolute sovereignty belongs to God only.” (Webster, 1828). The church is autonomous, not sovereign. “Autonomous” means “independent in government; having the right of self-government” (Webster, 1828). I believe in the autonomy of the church, not the sovereignty of the church. Christ is sovereign; the church is autonomous under His sovereign rule.

I have not found absolute church authority advocated by any reputable and venerable Baptist writer. If such is true, why have many not written at length and demonstrated that the church has the absolute authority some preachers have claimed it to have? In his The Origin and Nature of the Church, Davis Huckabee, writing on “The Church is a Sovereign and Authoritative Assembly” qualified this heading thusly: “The Church is not sovereign in the sense that it can do anything it pleases; it is sovereign in the sense that it is authorized and empowered to do what the Lord commands, and neither needs, nor is to subject itself to any other authority.” (p.101) What brother. Huckabee is advocating corresponds with my definitions above and the exposition which follows.

ONLY Christ HAS ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY; THE CHURCH HAS BUT LIMITED AUTHORITY.

THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF OUR LORD Jesus Christ, Matthew 28:18: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

“Power” is “exsousia” which means “authoritative power.” This word is found 103 times in the Greek New Testament and is translated in the KJV 69 times as “power,” 29 times as “authority,” 2 times as “right,” and one time each as “liberty,” “jurisdiction,” and “strength” according to the Greek-English Concordance by J. B. Smith

Christ alone has absolute power. He said, “All power is given unto me. . .” His power must therefore be unlimited. If it were only limited power He has, He could not claim all power or authority for Himself. That His power and authority is not transferred to the church but remain His alone is evident from His words in Matthew 28:20: “and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Christ in and with His church is its sole power and authority. The church needs no power or authority transferred to it since it has Christ who has all authority with it to the end of the world.

Christ alone has absolute mediatorial power. When He said, “All power is given unto me,” He spoke not as God but as the Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). This power He was given as the fruit and reward of His resurrection. Romans 1:4: “And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”

Christ alone has universal power. He declared, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” This
means there is no power or authority anywhere that is not His. Jesus said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father. . .” (Matthew 11:27). He claims for Himself absolute authority everywhere, even in hell. He said, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death” (Revelation 1:18).

THE LIMITED AND SPECIFIC AUTHORITY OF HIS CHURCH. Matthew 28:19, 20: “Go ye there- fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

The church has a commission. A commission is always limited in scope. There is a reason we refer to the Great Commission, not the Great Authority of the church. Note the contrast in the words “commission” and “authorize” as defined in Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms, p. 91: “One authorizes a person to act for oneself if when he is given the necessary legal right or power, with or without instructions of a specified character. . .one commissions a person when one not only authorizes but instructs him to perform a definite duty or office.” From the meaning of these words, it is obvious the church has a commission, not unlimited authority, for Christ not only authorized the church but instructed it to perform a definite duty.

The church has limited authority. Mark 13:34: “For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.” That the authority referenced in the passage is not unlimited is obvious by the qualifying statement, “and to every man his work.” The authority He gave was to do a specific work. This work is that which is specified in the Great Commission.

The church has only the authority given to it by Scripture. Following are specific works enumerated in the Word of God which the church has authority to do: (1) Preach the Gospel, Mark 16:15; (2) Baptize believers, Acts 10:47; (3) Receive and dismiss members, Romans 14:1; 1 Corinthians 5:5, 13; (4) Elect its officers, Acts 1:21-26; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9; (5) Send out missionaries, Acts 13:1-4; 14:27; (6) Observe the Lord’s Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; (7) Choose messengers, 2 Corinthians 8:19, 23. You will note that all of these works that the church has been authorized to do are clearly spelled out in Scripture. Where is the passage or passages that clearly explain specific authority has been given to the church to organize other churches? If such authority has been given to the church, surely it is plainly set forth in the Word of God which “throughly furnishes unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:17).

Concerning the formation of churches, John Gill wrote: “Secondly, A particular church may be considered as to the form of it; which lies in a mutual consent and agreement, in their covenant and confederation with each . . .3. This union between them is made by voluntary consent and agreement . . .4. As the original constitution of churches is by consent and confederation, so the admission of new members to them, is upon the same footing . . .and nothing else but mutual consent, can make a man a church-member . . .7. It is this confederacy, consent, and agreement, that is the formal cause of a church; it is this which not only distinguishes a church from the world, and from all professors that walk at large, the one being within and the other without, but from all other particular churches; so the church at Cenchrea was not the same with the church at Corinth, though but at a little distance from it, because it consisted of persons who had given up themselves to it, and not to the church at Corinth, and so were members of the one and not of the other.” Body of Divinity, pp. 856-858.

Furthermore, we must stress again that the Scriptures govern the church and are over the church. The church has no authority that is not specifically given to it by the Scriptures. The church is not over the Scriptures and never has authority to act contrary to the Scriptures. For any church to claim it has unlimited authority to do even what the Scriptures do not authorize is to practice Romanism.

Some have contended one must be in the church to understand the Scriptures. This assertion we deny. The Holy Spirit, not the church, is the first teacher of Scriptures, and if one is born of God, he has the Holy Spirit within him. Romans 8:9: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” John 14:26: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” See further 1 Corinthians 2:12-14; 1 John 2:27

The limited authority of the church is substantiated by all Baptist Confessions of Faith. The following excerpts from both ancient and modern confessions confirm that truth that the authority of the church is limited.

The Waldenses Confession of 1544, “The church . . .governed by His Word and guided by the Holy Spirit.”
The First London or 1644 Confession, “That every church has power given them from Christ for their better well-being.” “Christ . . .placeth some special men over the church.”
The Second London or 1689 Confession, “To each of these churches thus gathered, according to His mind declared in His Word, He hath given all that power and authority, which is anyway needful for their carrying on that order and worship and discipline.”
The New Hampshire Confession of 1833, “Exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word.

The venerable J. R. Graves wrote, “Each church is a living body, to which Christ committed both the sacred
oracles and ordinances of Christianity . . The true churches are the only authorized exponents of Christ’s revelation, and of what Christianity is; and therefore, to them is thus committed its wholeness and its symmetry.” Old Landmarkism, p. 35.

CONCLUSION: THE CHURCH HAS BUT A LIMITED AND SPECIFIC AUTHORITY; ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY BELONGS TO OUR LORD Jesus Christ ALONE!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Perg,
Paul had authority to do what he did, and frequently to demand that people shape up and listen to him. He appeals to his authority on more than one occasion in his letters, sometimes graciously, other times pointedly. The point is not to advocate for continuing apostles, but to point to the Scriptures themselves to see examples of functioning authority.

Paul clearly expects certain students/associates of his to continue to exercise (lesser) authority. This is plain in both Titus and Timothy. These are men who have oversight over church and churches in a particular place--be it Crete or Ephesus. Nor may we assume they were like little dictators; and it seems to me quite prejudicial to think that they were "over" such church/churches, and not WITHIN THE CHURCH of Jesus Christ. Even Paul was a member of the CHURCH he served. To merely see him as someone above the various churches he planted is to sever him from the authority that he himself was subject to.

I don't think we have much different opinion on Apollos, except to note that he was corrected; and then he went off again ending up ministering in the Corinthian church, which Paul planted (and not continuing to function "off the grid").


While Paul does not address Rome as "church" in his openning address, I am assuming that they at least have some right to such a designation, if not a full right. Nevertheless, I also understand that they have not had the BENEFIT of apostolic establishment.

Has there been any laying-hands by the Presbytery? Certainly none by an apostle. Do they have any "ministry" there? Perhaps they have elders, come out of synagogue (but then, all the Jews were expelled from Rome a few years back, and only recently have begun to trickle back--so the church, such as it is, is primarily Gentile representation).

My point would be: the way one views the state of that church as Paul writes to it in his letter influences how we read some of hs statements. If you think that Paul had a concern to establish them, and impart spiritual gift, then you read his comment as a desire to provide something lacking there.

The "spiritual gift" I interpret as those "signs of the apostles," whereby with the laying on of hands (in this case, not the ordination by presbytery) extraordinary gifts were imparted to the churches (before the completion of written revelation). So, he wants them to have the prophetic gift, the tongues, the healing, actually whatever gift the sovereign Spirit sees fit to bestow on them, due to the particular needs of that church.

The ability to impart such gifts was non-transferrable from the Apostles. Hence the rebuke to Simon Majus who wanted to buy that power from Peter. By such acts, and authoritative teaching, and the appointment of elders, a church was "established." And by this recognizable incorporation into A church, the church was also incorporated into THE Church of Jesus; a very comforting thing to know you are not a little bit of flotsam in the world.


I do no deny that a church can "form" all by itself, provided there is the Word. But I do not believe that such a church is long for the world (any more than a foundling can survive without assistance) without a Ministry. They need authoritative teaching by Christ's representative, and Christ's sacraments. They need connectivity to the community of faith.

We believe very much in "local church," but we have a bigger definition of "local." And we think that the church should seek unity with the widest possible "locality," where we can agree on doctrine and practice (and a common language).

So, if a church has formed, if it has (somehow, who cares how for now) a Ministry, and people in submission to the authority of the Word, if they approach us and ask for some sort of ecclesiastical fellowship--we owe them consideration. If they want our help, or if we offer it and it is accepted, as to helping to reform them better according to the Word (compare Paul with the Johannites in Ephesus), then we gladly assist them.

Perhaps they would like baptism and the Lord's Supper. Just think about it: are these the sorts of things that Christ has said, "Hey, try these out. Do them however you feel like; you don't need anyone to teach you what these things mean," etc. That's definitely not the way Paul treats the Lord's Supper, anyway.



There's no doubt in my mind that how we differently understand the connectedness of the OT/NT church, as well as the unity of the NT church-as-a-whole affects how we read Paul's church planting efforts. Like the synagogues of pre-Christian times, churches were separate, but also connected. We seem to observe various "denominations" within Judaism and the synagogues, but ultimately they were linked through rabbinic collegiality, the Sanhedrin, and especially the Temple. They admitted a unified Ministry through the Priests. They were bound together by common sacraments.

Today, in our home missions we establish particular churches. My church doesn't tell that church over there what to do. But, in our creedal, doctrinal, goernmental connectivity, we do not see ourselves as unaccountable, or undisciplinable. This body can appeal to the "wider" church for help--dealing with a truant Minister, for example.

On the mission field, we seek to establish a church (if there is none), or reform or strengthen a church that we can assist. But the form of the church we seek is a form that mirrors ours, one we think is biblical. A "local" church that can govern itself, police itself, train its own Ministry. A church comprised of many particular-local congregations, all self-governing and self-sustaining, but accountable to the church of the greater locality.

 

[Pergamum]

Perg,
Paul had authority to do what he did, and frequently to demand that people shape up and listen to him. He appeals to his authority on more than one occasion in his letters, sometimes graciously, other times pointedly. The point is not to advocate for continuing apostles, but to point to the Scriptures themselves to see examples of functioning authority.

Paul clearly expects certain students/associates of his to continue to exercise (lesser) authority. This is plain in both Titus and Timothy. These are men who have oversight over church and churches in a particular place--be it Crete or Ephesus. Nor may we assume they were like little dictators; and it seems to me quite prejudicial to think that they were "over" such church/churches, and not WITHIN THE CHURCH of Jesus Christ. Even Paul was a member of the CHURCH he served. To merely see him as someone above the various churches he planted is to sever him from the authority that he himself was subject to.

I don't think we have much different opinion on Apollos, except to note that he was corrected; and then he went off again ending up ministering in the Corinthian church, which Paul planted (and not continuing to function "off the grid").


While Paul does not address Rome as "church" in his openning address, I am assuming that they at least have some right to such a designation, if not a full right. Nevertheless, I also understand that they have not had the BENEFIT of apostolic establishment.

Has there been any laying-hands by the Presbytery? Certainly none by an apostle. Do they have any "ministry" there? Perhaps they have elders, come out of synagogue (but then, all the Jews were expelled from Rome a few years back, and only recently have begun to trickle back--so the church, such as it is, is primarily Gentile representation).

My point would be: the way one views the state of that church as Paul writes to it in his letter influences how we read some of hs statements. If you think that Paul had a concern to establish them, and impart spiritual gift, then you read his comment as a desire to provide something lacking there.

The "spiritual gift" I interpret as those "signs of the apostles," whereby with the laying on of hands (in this case, not the ordination by presbytery) extraordinary gifts were imparted to the churches (before the completion of written revelation). So, he wants them to have the prophetic gift, the tongues, the healing, actually whatever gift the sovereign Spirit sees fit to bestow on them, due to the particular needs of that church.

The ability to impart such gifts was non-transferrable from the Apostles. Hence the rebuke to Simon Majus who wanted to buy that power from Peter. By such acts, and authoritative teaching, and the appointment of elders, a church was "established." And by this recognizable incorporation into A church, the church was also incorporated into THE Church of Jesus; a very comforting thing to know you are not a little bit of flotsam in the world.


I do no deny that a church can "form" all by itself, provided there is the Word. But I do not believe that such a church is long for the world (any more than a foundling can survive without assistance) without a Ministry. They need authoritative teaching by Christ's representative, and Christ's sacraments. They need connectivity to the community of faith.

We believe very much in "local church," but we have a bigger definition of "local." And we think that the church should seek unity with the widest possible "locality," where we can agree on doctrine and practice (and a common language).

So, if a church has formed, if it has (somehow, who cares how for now) a Ministry, and people in submission to the authority of the Word, if they approach us and ask for some sort of ecclesiastical fellowship--we owe them consideration. If they want our help, or if we offer it and it is accepted, as to helping to reform them better according to the Word (compare Paul with the Johannites in Ephesus), then we gladly assist them.

Perhaps they would like baptism and the Lord's Supper. Just think about it: are these the sorts of things that Christ has said, "Hey, try these out. Do them however you feel like; you don't need anyone to teach you what these things mean," etc. That's definitely not the way Paul treats the Lord's Supper, anyway.



There's no doubt in my mind that how we differently understand the connectedness of the OT/NT church, as well as the unity of the NT church-as-a-whole affects how we read Paul's church planting efforts. Like the synagogues of pre-Christian times, churches were separate, but also connected. We seem to observe various "denominations" within Judaism and the synagogues, but ultimately they were linked through rabbinic collegiality, the Sanhedrin, and especially the Temple. They admitted a unified Ministry through the Priests. They were bound together by common sacraments.

Today, in our home missions we establish particular churches. My church doesn't tell that church over there what to do. But, in our creedal, doctrinal, goernmental connectivity, we do not see ourselves as unaccountable, or undisciplinable. This body can appeal to the "wider" church for help--dealing with a truant Minister, for example.

On the mission field, we seek to establish a church (if there is none), or reform or strengthen a church that we can assist. But the form of the church we seek is a form that mirrors ours, one we think is biblical. A "local" church that can govern itself, police itself, train its own Ministry. A church comprised of many particular-local congregations, all self-governing and self-sustaining, but accountable to the church of the greater locality.

Thanks! Very helpful!