Lawful calls
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
- Status
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
well then what makes it a dissent rather than a split...that's what I've been asking
Colleen,
Going on what I believe your definitions are for split and dissention: I'm gonna use two terms to make my point. (1)Segregations and (2) schismatics.
There are segregations (splits) within the body of Christ that are not illicit; they are not schismatic (dissention). They are segregated because there is one Church and it would be impossible for the one church to meet under one roof. Hence, they the body of Christ must be to some extent segregated. They are segregated, yet fully related. The familial line has never been broken. This is not considered a split or disention. I.e. Matt and I attend a church here in Florida, Fred Greco in Mississippi.
Dissention has clear characteristics. One is singularity. Singularity equals no government. No government equals dissention. An example of dissention would be the ananbaptists.
There are many more; I hope this gets you started.
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Okay, now THAT WAS very helpful...thank you. So, let me ask you something...can a man be ordained and sent out to start an individual church.
The reason I ask...in some cases there are no good local churches and a denomination doesn't see fit towards putting a church in the place. But a man is willing to sacrifice his time, training, and money into starting a small church in order to minister to the local area. (isn't this what st patrick did?)
Would that be wrong? And why? Should we have man's ceremonial rights prevent the gospel from being (correctly) preached?
(my head is clearer today...sorry for being pesky in the last few posts)
The reason I ask...in some cases there are no good local churches and a denomination doesn't see fit towards putting a church in the place. But a man is willing to sacrifice his time, training, and money into starting a small church in order to minister to the local area. (isn't this what st patrick did?)
Would that be wrong? And why? Should we have man's ceremonial rights prevent the gospel from being (correctly) preached?
(my head is clearer today...sorry for being pesky in the last few posts)
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Yes; the key word here is 'SENT'. Men must be ordained and sent by those whom Christ has given the keys of the kingdon to. Example: Could the anabaptists send anyone? No, they have dissented; they reject the keys, literally.
Define 'good'. Define 'good' according to Christ and the government he established.
'Willing' is irrelevent. We are all comanded to serve the body. Eldership is ordained and qualified/verified by many; not self. The 'many' is the Church of Christ; those who have the keys. Not just any Tom, Dick or Harry that comes along.
Yes; absolutely (see above)
The gospel is to be proclaimed by all; as far as preaching goes, those whom hold the keys, those whom Christ has called to this facet of the Church, again, validated by the government, are the one's whom should lawfully be leading the body, i.e. preaching, teaching etc.
You have a consistant Proverbs 31 attitude. As DOES my wife, I applaud you.
[Edited on 1-22-2005 by Scott Bushey]
...
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
by "government" I will presume that you mean church government of those churches that are considered (by you) to be legit.
In today's society, and the amount of splits, and ppl not knowing which church split from where, etc...are you saying that we need to trace the "lineage" of the church to consider it legit and be considered part of the "legitimet" church? Wouldn't it be more scriptural to attend a church based upon whether or not it accurately taught the scriptures? By your reasoning Luther and Calvin should have stayed within the Catholic church as THEY were the ones "given the keys". The Catholic church "had the authority" so shouldn't they have stayed under that authority? And if the Catholic church "dropped" the keys as you say...there are other churches that could try to claim the same for themselves. Where is "dropping" the keys scriptural? (Lord, help my woman's mind...but tis just not logical to me)
btw, I will do a study of the keys...
In today's society, and the amount of splits, and ppl not knowing which church split from where, etc...are you saying that we need to trace the "lineage" of the church to consider it legit and be considered part of the "legitimet" church? Wouldn't it be more scriptural to attend a church based upon whether or not it accurately taught the scriptures? By your reasoning Luther and Calvin should have stayed within the Catholic church as THEY were the ones "given the keys". The Catholic church "had the authority" so shouldn't they have stayed under that authority? And if the Catholic church "dropped" the keys as you say...there are other churches that could try to claim the same for themselves. Where is "dropping" the keys scriptural? (Lord, help my woman's mind...but tis just not logical to me)
btw, I will do a study of the keys...
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Yes. generally, any church whom is upholding the WCF would be a consideration.
Churches whom embrace the WCF generally are.......
Up until the time they went bad........Then Luther recaptured what Rome soured. Remember, Rome, when it went east, stalled out the church (as per Gods decree).
I assume you mean RCC. The RCC did not have the authority, the officers did. The officers made up the catholic church. When Rome went east, and the officers commited to Rome, the authority stalled. Luther was one of the officers. He recaptured what they ruined and pointed it in the correct direction again.
The reformation does just that.
I pray you are not taking me literally; It is spiritual. Dropping the keys is akin to the RCC, by erred default, handing the keys to those whom were correct in their theology.
[Edited on 1-23-2005 by Scott Bushey]
I have not read Matt's paper yet - preaching is keeping me busy enough - but I believe that the holding to the WCF does not solve this issue. If an independent congregation held to the WCF, but did not have a true successive line of ordination (i.e. were schismatic) then it would not be valid.
I think this basically kills the PCA, OPC, ARP and RPCNA, all of which would be technically schismatic - that is, they separated from bodies that they did nmot declare apostate.
I don't think there would be a legitimate church left.
I think this basically kills the PCA, OPC, ARP and RPCNA, all of which would be technically schismatic - that is, they separated from bodies that they did nmot declare apostate.
I don't think there would be a legitimate church left.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
This is true. That is why I said those whom hold to the WCF. Generally speaking, churches whom hold to the WCF would not be independant.
I don't know if that is the issue Fred. But if it is, why did they seperate then?
lionovjudah
Puritan Board Freshman
Please excuse my ignorance on this topic. I never knew the Apostolic Succession was spoken of in protty churches as this thread explains.
Where do you differ from papists in this respect? Matts article speaks of a different succession, but I believe that is just semantics.
One would believe they were in an RCC forum reading about lawfull ordination, apostoilic succesion, the power of the keys.
According to the standards set forth here, there reaaly could be no true church.
When did this become an issue? Charles Hodge for one actually spoke about not recognizing Roman baptisms? And that the ministers were not lawfully ordained? This is all new to me.
This idea of "ordination" comes close to a sacerdotal and sacramental view of ordination, which Roman Catholic Church and other highly liturgical churches employ.
Joe
Where do you differ from papists in this respect? Matts article speaks of a different succession, but I believe that is just semantics.
One would believe they were in an RCC forum reading about lawfull ordination, apostoilic succesion, the power of the keys.
According to the standards set forth here, there reaaly could be no true church.
When did this become an issue? Charles Hodge for one actually spoke about not recognizing Roman baptisms? And that the ministers were not lawfully ordained? This is all new to me.
This idea of "ordination" comes close to a sacerdotal and sacramental view of ordination, which Roman Catholic Church and other highly liturgical churches employ.
Joe
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Joe,
Why is this idea so hard to digest? Is it contrabiblical or is apostolic succesion scriptural?
We are protestants. We are fundamental, they are not. We see scripture along a whole different vista.
How is what Matt is saying any different from what I have posed?
I disagree. These fundamentals are biblical. If you relate their birth to Rome, you err.
Thats debatable.
Recently; But the concern dates back to the WCF
lionovjudah
Puritan Board Freshman
Hello Scott:
1) Apostolic Succession in regards to doctrine is biblical, not in regards to bloodline ordination.
2) I meant how does this understanding of apostolic succesion differ from the papists? This is their root for popery, and that is apostate.
3) The fundamentals are truley biblical. The power of the keys where given to the church, Christs church, not only Peter and the apostles.
Where does it end Scott? is auricular confession next? presiding bishops? patriarchs? Ruling bodies?
Each church was autonomous in the primitive church. Plurality of elders in each one, with Christ as the head. This took only 2oo years to become false, then was crucially wounded with Constantine.
Perhpas this rests in the understanding of the power of the keys Scott.
I have honestly never heard this stressed before in the churhc I attend. Bloodline sucessionism traced back to Peter is foreign to me and Scripture.
Joe
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Same here...this whole concept has been taught to me to be part of the papist belief system and non else (okay, throw in the mormons and other cults). I too was also taught and from what I have read of history that the keys were given to the entire church. His statement to Peter was symbolic as we know the terms keys was symbolic. Each church was autonomous. Isn't the idea of "lineage ordination" just one of the errors that were brought out from the Catholic church into protestantism? Isn't this why some churches that came out at the same time don't hold to it while others do?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Exactly. In the same vein is the idea of infant baptism; it comes out of the RC church..............this is error.
lionovjudah
Puritan Board Freshman
Well I am not alone then Colleen.
The whole topic of lawfull ordinations as a bloodline of hands starting with Christ to Peter and the apostles, throughout the papist church was spoken about, but not at all stressed in my readings and understandings. This is a prime example of the Roman CHurch being apostate from the beginning. Church govt, which is an oxymoron in my opinion, was nothing like it is today in the primitive church. Protties have inhereted this error directly from ROme. When you look at all the false teachers that have been "ordained" from a blood succession, this proves to me this cannot be prescribed by Christ. For one who holds the keys according to this understanding must be as inspired as Peter and the apostles. But we know Christ prophecized that there would be false teachers, so bloodline ordination is a moot point.
The tenant Should be, but obviously is not, Apostolic in teaching and doctrine, not whose hands and lineage your ordination could be traced back to. This is the ROman and Reformation error.
Again I will stress the plurality of Elders and leaders and autonomous churches in the Early Church. This was quickly perverted to give one person control over a few churches, then over areas, the dioscese. Then Constantine changed Christianity to a state religion. Calvin continued this error in his understanding as well as the Lutheran Church.
Why we "cannot just come out from her" is beyond me. To speak of ordination this way smacks of a sacramental teaching of Christ. The reformers denied the sacramental status of ordaination rightly, but taught behind the same veil.
Christ gave the servant model for the Church, not one of authority. Nowhere is it stated in Scripture who has the authority to administer the sacraments. Again, if this is what the Holy Spirit intended to teach in scripture, it would not be hidden in 2 verses of the Holy Writ.
According to this system, there would be a guarantee of Apostolic Characteristics also. Infallability on what they taught. And we know this is not the case. miracles, Prophecy, etc etc.... the apostolic lineage ended with John and was buried at Patmos. The Apostolic teachings are what is to be preserved, through the power of Christ, not "lawful ordinations."
Joe
[Edited on 1-24-2005 by lionovjudah]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
The church never worked autonomously.............how'd you come to that conclusion? Independancy is schismaticism.
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
More on Constantine
312 AD professed to have a vision of the cross. There is however no evidence that he ever spoke of such a thing before the year 322
313 AD issued the edict of Milan, stopping persecution on account of religion
321 AD March 7, issued a decree that certain classes abstain from labor on "the venerable day of the sun." This was afterwards, by his obsequious bisops, adopted as "the chief festival of the church." See Catechisms of the Catholic Church.
321 AD March 8, issued a decree for consulting haruspices--a practice purely pagan.
323 AD according to the opinion of Mosheim, made a profession of Christianity. Other writers give a later date.
324 AD murdered Licinius, in violation of his solemn oath.
325 AD convened the council of Nice, and presided over its deliberations
325 AD after teh council revoked the edict of Milan, and copied the penal regulations under which Diocletian had persecuted the Christians, and employed them in persecuting those who did not accept the Catholic faith.
326 AD murdered his son Crispus, his own nephew, and a great number of their friends
330 AD May 11, dedicated Constanople to the virgin Mary
337 AD near the close of his life, was baptized into the Catholic Church.
(You can double this up with the conversation on the sabbath...as Constantine was also the one who instituted the first Sunday law...though there were many churches outside of Rome that still held the Saturday Sabbath for centuries and was in fact a debate within the Catholic Church in various areas even through the 1500's)
312 AD professed to have a vision of the cross. There is however no evidence that he ever spoke of such a thing before the year 322
313 AD issued the edict of Milan, stopping persecution on account of religion
321 AD March 7, issued a decree that certain classes abstain from labor on "the venerable day of the sun." This was afterwards, by his obsequious bisops, adopted as "the chief festival of the church." See Catechisms of the Catholic Church.
321 AD March 8, issued a decree for consulting haruspices--a practice purely pagan.
323 AD according to the opinion of Mosheim, made a profession of Christianity. Other writers give a later date.
324 AD murdered Licinius, in violation of his solemn oath.
325 AD convened the council of Nice, and presided over its deliberations
325 AD after teh council revoked the edict of Milan, and copied the penal regulations under which Diocletian had persecuted the Christians, and employed them in persecuting those who did not accept the Catholic faith.
326 AD murdered his son Crispus, his own nephew, and a great number of their friends
330 AD May 11, dedicated Constanople to the virgin Mary
337 AD near the close of his life, was baptized into the Catholic Church.
(You can double this up with the conversation on the sabbath...as Constantine was also the one who instituted the first Sunday law...though there were many churches outside of Rome that still held the Saturday Sabbath for centuries and was in fact a debate within the Catholic Church in various areas even through the 1500's)
LadyFlynt
Puritan Board Doctor
Scott, it is shown in that that no where in scripture do you see the different churches working under one leadership other than Christ. Also that even Paul had to prove himself. Each church had it's own issues and dealt with them accordingly. Once the apostles were gone there is no where in scripture where it shows that someone took their places over the "group of churches"...no they all remained autonomous.
Colleen,
This is a completely different issue than that of successionism. And you are wrong. Acts 15 proves you wrong. Paul's letters prove you wrong.
Christ is the head of His Church; but he has apointed undershepherds (1 Peter 5)
Agreed.
This in my opinion is where judgements become mostly arbitrary about which schism is ok and which schism is unlawful thereby making a call invalid.
Was the North - South Presbyterian split schismatic? The gospel certainly wasn't at stake and neither body declared the other apostate, so why wouldn't that separation invalidate the ability of one or both bodies to make lawful calls going forward? The same questions could be asked about the PCA/PCUS split and the OPC/UPC split. There was never any large scale movement to declare the older bodies apostate, just packed up and started a new denomination. Seems to me our conservative Presbyterians simply did on a bit larger scale what the independents did on a small scale. I just can't see how this "log" in our eye can be ignored.
lionovjudah
Puritan Board Freshman
The acocount in Acts 15 was specific and not in regards to the churches in different areas Fred.. This cannot be used as a proof of Authority of ordained ministers. The issue is the same, it is was of authority to do this or that.. Preach, Teach, etc etc. There is nothing written in the first 150 years of Christiandomb that supports lawful ordination. The focus was on their teachings. This was quickly perverted after John died.
Pauls letters speaks of the laying of hands, but in know way speaks of this being a bloodline ordination. Agagin, if this was the case, we would still have apostles now.
Apostolic in Doctrine, not any way connected to bloodline of hands from Christ to Paul...Each body was autonomous, they did nto answer to one ruling person or govt body. The council at Jeruselem was a one time event and specifically in regards to teh gentiles.
Joe
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
Joe: Do you have a Baptist background? Your interpretation of history sounds like the Trail of Blood theory that some Baptists hold.
Colleen: Fred is right that Acts 15 does indiciate that the local congregations are not completely autonomous. They do have some autonomy, in terms of electing their own ruling elders. The relation of the various churches to the larger institutional church is like the relation of the states to the federal United states. States each of local jurisdiction over state law issues, but they also have federal obligations for federal issues. Federal law trumps state law too.
Churches are likewise supposed to be part of a larger institutional confederation. Acts 15 demonstrates this. All of the congregations in the region were subject to the ruling of the General Council. The basic outline of Acts 15 is:
[1] There was a controversy of faith (whether to apply circumcision to the gentiles)
[2] The Council as a whole debated and a judgment was rendered.
[3] The conciliar judgment was transmitted to the various local congregations, who were obligated to obey the Council's decision. See Acts 16:4: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey."
This is a model for resolving controvesies. Independent congregations cannot do this.
Scott
[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott]
Colleen: Fred is right that Acts 15 does indiciate that the local congregations are not completely autonomous. They do have some autonomy, in terms of electing their own ruling elders. The relation of the various churches to the larger institutional church is like the relation of the states to the federal United states. States each of local jurisdiction over state law issues, but they also have federal obligations for federal issues. Federal law trumps state law too.
Churches are likewise supposed to be part of a larger institutional confederation. Acts 15 demonstrates this. All of the congregations in the region were subject to the ruling of the General Council. The basic outline of Acts 15 is:
[1] There was a controversy of faith (whether to apply circumcision to the gentiles)
[2] The Council as a whole debated and a judgment was rendered.
[3] The conciliar judgment was transmitted to the various local congregations, who were obligated to obey the Council's decision. See Acts 16:4: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey."
This is a model for resolving controvesies. Independent congregations cannot do this.
Scott
[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott]
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
Affirming ministerial succession does not imply that there is no true church or that true churches cannot be found. As far as I am aware, the people proposing it are simply saying that bodies that trace their calls through the established church and circumstances relying on the extreme emergency exception are valid. This would include many churches, including historical Reformed (not indepdent) and even others. This would include common presbyterian churches (PCA, OPC, etc.), Lutheran, Anglican, probably Methodist, etc.
A Reformed view of succession is also very different from Catholic views (which Joe mentioned). Catholics teach that succession must come through the ordination of bishops. Reformed teach minsiterial ordination. Bishops are, of course, a sort of super-presbyter, or president of the region's presbyters. So, even with bishops you have ordination through prebyters.
[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott]
A Reformed view of succession is also very different from Catholic views (which Joe mentioned). Catholics teach that succession must come through the ordination of bishops. Reformed teach minsiterial ordination. Bishops are, of course, a sort of super-presbyter, or president of the region's presbyters. So, even with bishops you have ordination through prebyters.
[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott]
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
"One would believe they were in an RCC forum reading about lawfull ordination, apostoilic succesion, the power of the keys."
Actually, in Reformed history the debate between independents and others was common. The nature of church government was one of the more controversial issues at the Westminster Assembly and is commonly called the "Independent Controversy."
I think this issue comes down to this. What is the source of authority for the ministers of the church?
Some hold they have no authority. This is a very egalitarian view held by anabaptists and has certainly become more popular with the advent of the anti-authoritarian 1960s. This is contrary to the express biblical teaching that church officers have the authority to command the laity, who has a commensurate duty to obey.
Another view is that there is solely an internal call and that this is all that is needed to make one a minister. Many people who were labled "fanatics" during the Reformation claim this. There is certainly no evidence for the in the Bible. Every immediate call is accompanied by an outward manifestation of God's revelation. Examples include Moses, the original apostles, Gideon, etc.
Another view teaches that ministerial authority comes through established church. There is an inward call that is confirmed by an external call from the visible church. Except in emergency circumstances, only someone who has been preivously ordained in the visible church may ordain another. This is the model presented in the Bible with the ordained Timothy going to ordain new elders in the various local congregations. This biblical model by necessity leads to a form of ministerial succession.
Another view is that each congregation has the independent power to issue calls and ordain. If a group of people assemble to create a church, the ability and power to call and ordain inheres in that assembly. There is no evidence for this in the scriptures.
In any event, someone claiming the prerogative of speaking as Christ's minister should make sure the call and ordination are valid. Only Christ has the power to call ministers. The traditional Reformed understanding of the Bible is that Christ issues these calls through the established Church.
Scott
[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott]
Actually, in Reformed history the debate between independents and others was common. The nature of church government was one of the more controversial issues at the Westminster Assembly and is commonly called the "Independent Controversy."
I think this issue comes down to this. What is the source of authority for the ministers of the church?
Some hold they have no authority. This is a very egalitarian view held by anabaptists and has certainly become more popular with the advent of the anti-authoritarian 1960s. This is contrary to the express biblical teaching that church officers have the authority to command the laity, who has a commensurate duty to obey.
Another view is that there is solely an internal call and that this is all that is needed to make one a minister. Many people who were labled "fanatics" during the Reformation claim this. There is certainly no evidence for the in the Bible. Every immediate call is accompanied by an outward manifestation of God's revelation. Examples include Moses, the original apostles, Gideon, etc.
Another view teaches that ministerial authority comes through established church. There is an inward call that is confirmed by an external call from the visible church. Except in emergency circumstances, only someone who has been preivously ordained in the visible church may ordain another. This is the model presented in the Bible with the ordained Timothy going to ordain new elders in the various local congregations. This biblical model by necessity leads to a form of ministerial succession.
Another view is that each congregation has the independent power to issue calls and ordain. If a group of people assemble to create a church, the ability and power to call and ordain inheres in that assembly. There is no evidence for this in the scriptures.
In any event, someone claiming the prerogative of speaking as Christ's minister should make sure the call and ordination are valid. Only Christ has the power to call ministers. The traditional Reformed understanding of the Bible is that Christ issues these calls through the established Church.
Scott
[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott]
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Not to disagree with you, Scott, but sometimes schismaticism is justified. John Huss started that way, and so did Luther; that is, as independent of the churches in their understandings of Scripture. In the end it resulted in schism in the church. But it was right to do so. Rome had the direct descendency and succession, but it was in error.
What I am saying, and maybe this is Colleen's point too, at some point righteousness in theology takes precedence. Not that I am taking sides, its just that I know personally that there is a time when a person has to say to himself, "OK, this is NOT church anymore." no matter how authoritative their supposed lineage of any sort. In such a case one would prefer a real man of God, whether or not he has apostolic succession, to one who does have it but makes a mockery of Christ's church.
On the other hand, Colleen, that is not the same as recognizing ordination of office. There are all kinds of men of God who are not ordained to any office, but are just members in Christ's church. That doesn't make them ordained, even if the people decide to vote them into an office. This violates the regulation of the office, and merely opens the door for more of the same as what was left behind.
This is the difficulty with the Dutch Reformed method of ordination. They just choose men out of the congregation to serve a three year term. There are no qualifications. Even 1 Tim. 3 becomes a vague description of ideals but not of reality. All you really need is to be a member in good standing. But they have apostolic succession.
The Presbyterian system also has its difficulties. The members of Presbytery get to know one another, but they don't know the members of each congregation so well. So if there is a breaking of relationship between a member of Presbytery and one of his parishioners, the burden is entirely upon the parishioner to make a case. It is, by convention, that the benefit of the doubt goes to the Presbyter, not the member, because the Presbyters know and trust the Presbyter's character, but not the member's.
I know its not supposed to be that way, but neither is the Dutch system supposed to be the way it is. Its just that it has become convention in the modern church.
Yet for all the problems that we face because of our own sins, the Church has continued from the first until today, as has the offices of that Church.
Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
"Not to disagree with you, Scott, but sometimes schismaticism is justified. John Huss started that way, and so did Luther. . . "
I think this is right. The Reformed understanding of the scriptures has been that calls must issue through the established church except in case of extreme emergency, such as the situations faced by Huss and Luther. This rebellion is an extraordianry thing, though. Independency makes it normative, not extraordinary. To the Reformers that would be like making rebellion normative.
I think this is right. The Reformed understanding of the scriptures has been that calls must issue through the established church except in case of extreme emergency, such as the situations faced by Huss and Luther. This rebellion is an extraordianry thing, though. Independency makes it normative, not extraordinary. To the Reformers that would be like making rebellion normative.
lionovjudah
Puritan Board Freshman
No Scott, I am a papist by birth, and saved from that by the grace of God 5 years ago. I am denouncing the trail of blood theory. Which is what sees to be presented here. If I am wrong than I stand corrected.
[quoteColleen: Fred is right that Acts 15 does indiciate that the local congregations are not completely autonomous.
Churches are likewise supposed to be part of a larger institutional confederation.[/quote]
This is to ensure the proper doctrines and precepts are taught. At the time of the Jer. Council, the Church had not spread into the land. This issue is specificaaly about how to include the Gentiles into the "way"....So there were no local congregations at this time.
When was the early Church part of an "institution?" This is the error that we have followed from popery. There is no institutionalized church in the first 4 centuries officially. But the Church started this around 150 AD
Acts 15 demonstrates this. All of the congregations in the region were subject to the ruling of the General Council. The basic outline of Acts 15 is:
[1] There was a controversy of faith (whether to apply circumcision to the gentiles)
[2] The Council as a whole debated and a judgment was rendered.
[3] The conciliar judgment was transmitted to the various local congregations, who were obligated to obey the Council's decision. See Acts 16:4: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey."
This is a model for resolving controvesies. Independent congregations cannot do this.
Scott
[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott] [/quote]
Let us look at the model from Christ to 150ad
1)This is the stage where what history records is identical to what we see in the Bible.
2)Each local church had a plurality of men who shared the single office which was called by two terms: Overseer (Bishops) and Elder (presbyters). The Bible refers to this office collectively as the "Eldership/Presbytery" in 1 Tim 4:14.
3)Of most importance, before 150 AD, is the fact that Bishops (Overseers) and Presbyters (Elders) were the same office and used interchangeably. Each church had more than one Elder/Bishop, all of whom were equal in power. There was no organization larger than the local church that bound local churches together. In this way, each local church was organized as a "congregational oligarchy". Not only was each Bishop in each local church equal in power, so too, each local congregation had equal power world wide.
4)practical terms, each local church had control only over itself, and over no other church. There were no organizational ties between local churches and one set of elders in a local church never had any control over any other local churches. Each local congregation was self-governing under Jesus Christ as its head.
5)The concept of a diocese (groups of local churches ruled by one bishop) and even more so "mother churches" (patriarchs), simply did not exist in the Bible.
6)Historically, it wasn't until about 150 AD that we first see a single bishop ruling over the local church. But even in 150 AD, he had no control over other local churches. It wasn't until about 250 AD, when the first diocese began to develop, that these solo bishops began to exercise power outside the domains of their local congregations.
7) "These churches, whenever formed, became separate and independent bodies, competent to appoint their own officers and to administer their own government without reference to subordination to any central authority or foreign power. No fact connected with the history of these primitive churches is more fully established or more generally conceded, so that the discussion of it need not be renewed at this place" (Lyman Coleman, Ancient Christianity Exemplified, 1853, p.95)
These confirm the practice of the primitive church in regards to lawful ordinations, and being under the "umbrella" of a centralized Govt body
I forgot to mention that the word "ordain" found in titus is properly translated to mean oversee the appointment. That is what Paul had him do. Go to the assembly and preside over the election of elders.
Joe
[Edited on 1-24-2005 by lionovjudah]
- Status
Similar threads
