Independency Proven in New Testament

Discussion in 'Church Order' started by John Lanier, Nov 12, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. timmopussycat

    timmopussycat Puritan Board Junior

    Everyone should note that the reason the Jerusalem council was binding is that its conclusions were propounded by Apostles. Since apostles were guaranteed by the Spirit to be led into all truth, inevitably the Spirit would have been saying the same thing to all others present. Without Apostles, we today are not only in a different situation, but also lack any indication in the NT that one church without Apostolic guidance had authority over any other. The closest thing we have is the subapostolic refusal of Clement of Rome to order the Corinthian church to restore the deposed elders. Instead he attempts to persuade.

    It was necessary, however, to associate the Jerusalem elders with the Apostles in both deliberation and letter so that the troubled churches would know that the Jerusalem church did not stand behind its traveling errorists.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2014
  2. timmopussycat

    timmopussycat Puritan Board Junior

    The principle by which the acts of one church affect another in connectionalism is this: what saith the Scripture?!

    We recognize trinitarian baptisms as valid because Scripture so teaches.

    Similarly, a necessary consequence of the reading of relevant Scriptures would mandate a refusal to accept into membership anyone out of communion with his former church. Certainly in my own church, we require letters of good standing before we accept membership transfers.
     
  3. timmopussycat

    timmopussycat Puritan Board Junior


    It is observable in the NT that Paul does not always order what ought to be but on occasion prefers to reason with people. Here, when the need was to stop errorists out of Jerusalem, it would have made very good sense to let the elders of that church work through the issue themselves not only for the sake of getting Jerusalem fully onside with the Apostolic decision, but also to eliminate the pretext "That's not what Jerusalem says!" for the errorists to hide behind.

    Given that James was both brother to Jesus and apparently a senior, if not the senior elder, of the Jerusalem church one needs only examine the subsequent split between sunni and shi moslem for a view of what could have happened had the church split split between those following Apostles and those following Jesus' earthly family had Paul and Peter not fully brought the Jerusalem elders into process of resolving the matter.

    Such a reply begs the question of whether an Assembly with Apostles present can possibly be normative for those where Apostles are absent.

    The site of the resolution is the church from whence those in error had departed.

     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page