Independent churches

[BaptistCanuk]

Bruce, I understand what you're saying. I agree. I was sure I wanted to say something but it's gone. God bless.

 

[Scott]

Yes, righteous and godly examples are typically seen as examples to follow. I don't know why you said that. When I was referring to what the Apostles did back in Acts 15, I meant that maybe it was just a historical event and not an example for us to follow. Wouldn't God have told us to follow it if that is what He wanted? Isn't that what the whole "Regulative principle" issue is all about? Do nothing unless specifically commanded to?

Brian: What I mean is that we should normally do what the apostles did. By righteous and godly, I mean not wicked, for some apostolic example is bad. For example, Paul condemned some of Peter's conduct in Galatians. We should not follow Peter in his wrong conduct. But there is no indication that the Acts 15 council was bad.

Think of it this way. The early church faced doctrinal disagreement. The apostles chose to resolve that disagreement by way of binding church council.

We face doctrinal disagreements today. How should we resolve them? The Acts 15 method has apostolic approval and is in the Bible.

Also, if Acts 15 is not a model for us, why is it there? How would knowledge of this history help our faith or practice?

Scott

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Hey Scott, I see what you mean. There is no indication that the Acts 15 council was bad. In fact, it was good. I guess we still need councils in dealing with false doctrine today. However, I still believe that each church is autonomous.

I guess Acts 15 could be a model for us to follow. Earlier I was saying though, that it could just be a recording of a historical event. Acts being the history of the beginning of the Church. I think we have to be careful in getting doctrine from historical narratives. I just don't understand why in many areas some of us on here believe that we have to be told to do a thing or we don't do it, and then we are given a historical narrative that doesn't tell us to copy it and we look at it as being something we should copy. I don't mean this disrespectfully at all, it's just something I am pondering.

How would everyone answer what I am pondering?

 

[Scott]

Brian: A historical event can be precedent.

"However, I still believe that each church is autonomous."

How can a church be autonomous if it is obligated to obey the result of another authority? By definition that would seem to mean that churches are not autonomous. Acts 16:4 tells us what the aposltes and elders did with the council's decision: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey."

Note that the various local church had to "obey" the decision.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Scott, those local churches had to obey the council because the Apostles were the ones writing the letters that became Scripture. The Apostles laid the foundation of Church doctrine. That foundation has been laid once and need not be laid again.

A church is autonomous in that it is under the authority of Jesus Christ Himself who appoints elders within that church to be representatives of his authority in that church. I'm not the only one who believes in this...many Baptist churches do. This statement below is taken from my church's website:

THE CHURCH
We believe that the New Testament local church is a company of immersed believers voluntarily associated together for: the ministry of the Word, mutual helpfulness and edification, observances of the ordinances, and fulfillment of the Great Commission (making disciples, baptizing, and teaching unto the ends of the earth). We believe the church is to be sovereign and under no higher ecclesiastical authority. We believe that Christians are to live in newness of life by being separated unto God from the carnal indulgences of the world.
(Matt 28:18-20; Acts 2:42, 8:36-39; Heb 10:25)

Also, since a historical event can be precedent how come many people on here don't believe we can use musical instruments in worship when historically they were used? (Rhetorical question, I don't want to take the thread off topic)

 

[Scott]

Scott, those local churches had to obey the council because the Apostles were the ones writing the letters that became Scripture. The Apostles laid the foundation of Church doctrine. That foundation has been laid once and need not be laid again.

But an apostle would not need a letter from a council. It would be superfluous. The apostle had his own authority. Apostles wrote letters when they could not come in person. But here Paul is coming in person.

The presence of scriptures does not undermine the need for councils. The NT church had the same doctrine we do, the apostolic teaching. The content of what the apostles taught and the content of our scriptures are the same. So putting them in writing does not change that.

Besides, there are still plenty of disputes over what the scriptures say. We need councils with real authority (not on par with scripture, of course, but authorized by sciprture) to resolve those.

Also, since a historical event can be precedent how come many people on here don't believe we can use musical instruments in worship when historically they were used? (Rhetorical question, I don't want to take the thread off topic)

They have different arguments, but a common one is that musical instruments were typological of the coming Christ and, like the temple and sacrifices, they have no continuing function in the New Covenant era.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

I understand what you're saying. I guess that was a different time before Scripture was complete. Now Scripture is complete. I don't really have anything else to say but it has been an interesting discussion. Thank you.

I do know though, that my church believes the church is sovereign and has no need of any other ecclesial authority.