Church Authority

The Church
User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:38 pm

[quote="steve"]I have been in more than one church that had no elders or pastor—or any other appointed leaders—because these groups were comprised entirely of mature Christian men and their families.

Steve speaking: The ultimate goal is that every member of the church, and the church collectively, should be following Christ as Head. The only reason for there to be recognized leaders is when Christ's instructions are unclear due to false and misleading teachers or trouble-makers. As churches grow, they ought to have new converts added to their number, at which points, it may be necessary to identify (for their sake) whose example and teaching is generally trustworthy for them to follow.

Dwight speaking: Steve, do you not acknowledge that much of Christ's instructions are unclear? If this were not true, then why do we have thousands of denominations? Even our current topic is a case in point. Also, false and misleading teachers and trouble-makers abound, both online, on TV, and in person. Even Jesus said that there would be tares living among the wheat. So, even the most mature Christian men and their families are constantly exposed to lies and deception, and none of us are immune from falling. So, in my opinion, the need for recognized leaders is always great, and will be until our lives end. "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few." It is not just the new believers who need recognized leaders. I find it hard to believe that there are any situations in which "no such danger exists", because of the maturity and biblical literacy of the entire congregation. I know the Bible speaks of new churches started by Paul and others that didn't have leaders at first, but Paul soon remedied that. I know of no church in the Bible where no leader was needed, because of their maturity.

Dwight speaking: How many elders does your church have? How long have you been a part of that church?

Dwight

Timios
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 1:57 pm

Re: Church Authority

Post by Timios » Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:57 pm

Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church...
Dwight, people seem to think that the Church at a particular city consisted of just one congregation. Could it be, for example, that the Church at Ephesus consisted of several congregations with just one overseer in each? So perhaps they appointed several elders in each church, but not more than one in each congregation.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:57 pm

Timios,

That's exactly what I have been saying all along. I am open for anyone to show me otherwise, but so far, their evidence has not been convincing. Of course they believe that my evidence has not been convincing, so it seems we are at a stalemate. If you have any evidence one way or the other, I would welcome it.

Dwight

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Church Authority

Post by backwoodsman » Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:41 am

dwight92070 wrote:None of the 6 "elders" is a new convert. But all of them are eligible, mature, humble, gracious, generous servant-leaders.

Dwight speaking: May I say that that is a recipe for total chaos and confusion.
Men of such character traits have not the slightest difficulty coexisting in close fellowship with other believers of differing viewpoints. On the other hand, if they think themselves to be spiritually mature, wise, humble, etc., but in fact are much less so than they imagine, well, such men seem to have no end of trouble getting along with others, or sharing leadership responsibilities. Those in the latter category too often do a shocking amount of damage to the body of Christ, while claiming His leading and authority for their actions. I've seen it happen more times than I'd prefer to remember, by Christian leaders both individually and in groups. Yet Christians continue to follow them because they hold the same misconception about both themselves and their leaders.
Here is one example of how you guys insert your presuppositions into the text.
You seem to imply that you don't do the same. Why would you assume your presuppositions are right and others' are wrong, when you haven't been able to answer from Scripture a single one of their points? Just writing it off to "you see it one way and I see it another way" is, I have to say, an intellectually dishonest cop-out.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:12 am

backwoodsman wrote:
Dwight speaking: Here is one example of how you guys insert your presuppositions into the text.
Backwoodsman speaking: You seem to imply that you don't do the same. Why would you assume your presuppositions are right and others' are wrong, when you haven't been able to answer from Scripture a single one of their points? Just writing it off to "you see it one way and I see it another way" is, I have to say, an intellectually dishonest cop-out.
Dwight speaking: I won't deny that I may have presuppositions on this topic or that I may have inserted them into the Bible text. What I did find irritating was that Steve quite matter of factly stated that I had presuppostions, implying that he had none. Then others seemed to jump on that bandwagon and also pointed out my presuppositions, again assuming that they had none. Will Steve or you or any of the others admit that you may have presuppostions on this topic that you are inserting into the text?
On the contrary, I think I answered EVERY point they made FROM SCRIPTURE. You (and they) obviously did not agree with my interpretation, but at least I answered it. Please tell me one point that I did not answer from scripture and I will try my best to do so (but, as I said, I think I covered each point).
Obviously, there will always be Bible topics that you will see one way and someone else sees a different way. To acknowledge that is not "writing it off", nor is it an "intellectually dishonest cop-out". Rather it is an honest and intellectual awareness that we may never agree on a particular Bible topic.
Of course I assume my opinions (which may be presupposions) are right. If I thought they were wrong, I wouldn't believe them. You do the same thing, if you are willing to admit it. If you deny that, then you are intellectually dishonest.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: Church Authority

Post by backwoodsman » Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:50 pm

dwight92070 wrote:Dwight speaking: I won't deny that I may have presuppositions on this topic or that I may have inserted them into the Bible text. What I did find irritating was that Steve quite matter of factly stated that I had presuppostions, implying that he had none. Then others seemed to jump on that bandwagon and also pointed out my presuppositions, again assuming that they had none.
When you carefully considered the possibility they may be right, what did you learn? (You did consider the possibility, didn't you?)
I think I answered EVERY point they made FROM SCRIPTURE.
I can see that you think that. But many of the verses you quoted actually prove your position incorrect, which you fail to see even though each was clearly explained to you. That's what happens when one is so convinced he's right that everything looks to him like solid proof of his position, and he simply can't or won't consider the possibility he could be wrong. That's the antithesis of seeking truth, and a good working definition of intellectual dishonesty; if one wanted to guarantee that he'll never get to the truth of a matter, it would be a very good path to take.

So what would it look like if someone were to manage to draw his opinions and beliefs from Scripture, rather than reading them into Scripture? How would you, personally, Dwight, recognize such a man were you to encounter one? Would it be because he agrees with you? Or would there be some way more objective and reliable than that?

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Church Authority

Post by Homer » Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:10 pm

I may be a bit old and slow, but it seems to me that if the practice was one elder per assembly (congregation) we would have "elder" in the singular. Part of the reason this can be confusing is the transliteration of ekklesia into "church" rather than assembly or congregation. In each of these places just substitute assembly for church and the meaning seems plain:

Acts 11:30--elders at the church of Antioch

Acts 14:23--Paul and Barnabas appoint "elders in every church"

Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4--elders at the church in Jerusalem

Acts 20:17, 28--elders/bishops at the church of Ephesus (v. 17--"elders of the church")

Acts 21:18--elders at the church in Jerusalem

Phil 1:1--the church at Philippi has bishops and deacons

1 Tim 5:17--elders at the church of Ephesus

Titus 1:5--Titus is to appoint elders in every town

Jas 5:14--"the elders of the church"

1 Pet 5:1-2--"the elders among you"

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Church Authority

Post by steve » Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:03 pm

Hi Dwight,

You express this concern:
So, even the most mature Christian men and their families are constantly exposed to lies and deception, and none of us are immune from falling. So, in my opinion, the need for recognized leaders is always great, and will be until our lives end.
I agree with the first sentence, but do not see how the second one follows logically from it.

All men are prone to fall, but how is this prevented by having recognized leaders? What power do recognized leaders have over souls to prevent a man from going astray?

I can imagine two tentative answers:

1) If we answer, "The leaders can and should teach proper doctrine so that the false teachers cannot deceive the flock," I agree. However, might a man teach sound doctrine without being a "recognized leader" in the church? What if he is simply recognized to be a sound teacher?

Wouldn't proper teaching be a better defense against false doctrine than the mere presence of official leaders? A church officer can mandate what doctrines should be accepted, but there is no shortage of such leaders who fail to teach good doctrine. Wouldn't the effective education of the congregation be a more effective strategy in maintaining doctrinal purity than any top-down mandate from a leader?

If a man is already teaching and equipping the church as a teacher, what is added to the church's security by making this man an official leader? Elders should teach, to be sure. But must a teacher "eld"?

2) If we answer, "Recognized leaders can go after the straying sheep, and seek to bring him back!" I would reply, what prevents anyone who is not a recognized leader from doing the same? Men who are backsliding are more susceptible to the influence of people with whom they are in relationship, I would assume, than to appeals from ecclesiastical officials.

Paul believed that the members of the church were competent to "admonish one another" (Rom.15:14). In Galatians 6:1, he envisions a case where a brother needs to be restored, and encourages "you who are spiritual" to take on that responsibility (not necessarily those who are recognized elders, though they might also do so). James seems to indicate that the pursuit and recovery of a straying brother might be any believer's task (James 5:19-20).

Leadership is a spiritual function (a gift of the Holy Spirit—Rom.12:8—like teaching or other gifts) that any number of people in the church may provide, as needed—with or without official ordination to leadership office.

You asked how many elders are in my church. I don't know. I am in the church of Temecula, California, and I have not had occasion to identify all the elders in this city. The home group I attend has no appointed leaders, though I teach there regularly. I follow the lead of spiritual men, not people who hold church offices. Paul said, "Imitate me, as I imitate Christ" (1 Cor.11:1). As I mentioned earlier, there are times when such official recognition of leaders may be needed. However, the church's existence does not necessarily depend upon such, in every case.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:06 am

Homer, thanks for all those verses, but you are missing the point that both Steve and I made. That is, that the word "church" in the Bible does not always refer to the local assembly. It can mean that, but other times it refers to the universal body of Christ, and thirdly, it can refer to the whole church in a particular city. The context dictates which meaning to use. So to simply insert "assembly" wherever the word church is used is misleading, because it implies that the local assembly is the meaning in each passage, which is incorrect.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:20 am

backwoodsman,

So can I assume that your unwillingness to answer my question means that you are also unwilling to admit that you may have interjected your presuppositions in the text?

Your post is quite clear: i.e. if I disagree with your interpretation of the verses covered, which you have definitively declared to be the correct interpretation, then I am intellectually dishonest.

Post Reply

Return to “Ecclesiology”