Church Authority

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

Re: Church Authority

Post by Timios » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:43 am

Dwight, I don't understand why this is so important to you. Are you attempting to justify the one-man ministry that is so prevalent in Christian churches today?

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

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:41 pm

Timios,

It doesn't appear to be more important to me than any of the others posting here. I do attend a homechurch where we have one pastor and I do believe that that is based on scripture. However, I can see where others can interpret this differently. Obviously, this is not an essential doctrine. But there certainly are several here on the Bible forum who think I am simply going by my presuppositions, which I have admitted could be possible. What I do find amazing is that no one here on the Bible forum who disagrees with my viewpoint is willing to admit that they could be going by their presuppositions. That comes across as arrogance to me. Even your wording about "justifying my position" seems to imply rather matter-of-factly that I am wrong. If we were discussing an essential Christian doctrine, I could understand being so "inflexible", but we're not.

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

Re: Church Authority

Post by Homer » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:39 pm

Dwight,

You wrote:
But there is a strong possibility that the church in each city was comprised of several home gatherings, each one a church in itself, having it's own elder.
You say there is a strong possibility, but you have zero scripture to back that up. Please show one place in scripture where there is a congregation described that is led by a single elder. All the places cited read as though there are multiple elders in the churches.

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

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:48 pm

Homer wrote:Dwight,

You wrote:
But there is a strong possibility that the church in each city was comprised of several home gatherings, each one a church in itself, having it's own elder.
You say there is a strong possibility, but you have zero scripture to back that up. Please show one place in scripture where there is a congregation described that is led by a single elder. All the places cited read as though there are multiple elders in the churches.
Dwight speaking: And you say all the places read AS THOUGH there are multiple elders (in each congregation) and yet neither is there any scripture that directly says that. Both of us have indirect references to our interpretation or references that appear to say only one thing, but upon closer examination, can be taken differently.

I have already given many scriptures which I believe support my view, but you obviously don't agree. But I will bring up 2 passages again.

Matthew 24:45 - "Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time?" Jesus only mentions one slave here and this slave is put in charge of his master's household. You can't have 2 or 3 or 4 or more slaves put in charge of one household. Only one can be in charge. The others may even have some authority, but only one can be in charge.

1 Timothy 3:2-5 - "An overseer ... must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)" Just as a family only has one father and he alone is the manager of that family, so the individual gatherings of the church of God have one overseer who manages and takes care of that flock. Yes, in the family the wife also has authority, but the husband is the head of the wife and the manager of the family. There cannot be 2 or more managers in a family.

So you see, Homer, that you are very much mistaken when you say that I have "zero scripture to back that up." I have just given you 2 very clear (to me anyway) scriptures that back that up. I understand that you probably disagree with my interpretation. That's fine but
understand that I don't just pull my understanding of church leadership out of thin air, with no scriptural backing.

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

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:18 am

steve wrote:
The contradiction is (I'll try again): You disapprove of one man being in charge of a church and your disapproval seems to center around the fact that one man is elevated (in authority) above the rest of the church. But if several men (a plurality) are elevated (in authority) above the rest of the church, you don't have a problem with that. So there is the contradiction (or maybe inconsistency is a better word).

You indicate that I have no objection to multiple men being elevated above the flock. I would object to this as much as to one man being elevated above the flock. Jesus said the leaders must position themselves at the bottom rung of privilege, below the flock. I believe Jesus. So did Paul (2 Cor.1:24), Peter (1 Pet.5:3), and (apparently) John (3 John 9-10).

Dwight speaking: That's why I said elevated in authority, not in importance. The shepherd has God-given authority just like a father has over his household. A true shepherd does not lord it over the faith of his sheep. Therein lies your presupposition. You presuppose that if a home church, for example, has one pastor, that he automatically lords it over his congregation.

If one man, or many men, place themselves below all others in service to the flock, I can think of no reason to object to this. If anyone places himself above others, I see a violation of biblical church order. One can provide leadership without being in an office of authority over anyone, and Jesus said it must be so (Matt.20:25-27).

Dwight speaking: Another presupposition on your part. You presuppose that if a Christian group has one pastor, that he has "placed himself above others". That is incorrect. He no more placed himself above others as a shepherd than you have placed yourself above others as a teacher. Both a shepherd and a teacher are gifts and callings from God. God set them in the church. They didn't put themselves there.

You misread my mood. I have no emotional investment, nor preference, about these matters. Every one of my posts on this thread is simply presenting what the scriptures say, and giving my best exegesis of them. I did not come here objecting to anything. I don’t believe the Bible teaches, nor gives any positive example of, one-man leadership in a congregation. Therefore, I have said all along that the Bible teaches a plurality of elders. I see no contradiction or inconsistency here.
Dwight speaking: And I have said all along that I don't see that in the Bible. Your interpretation of all the verses and passages that we have looked at is not the same as mine. What I do object to is when you or others on the forum won't even consider the possibility that you could be wrong on this issue. I have admitted that I could be wrong. Why can't you? As I see it, if you can't admit that, then you are doing the very thing that you have condemned - i.e. elevating yourself over me or anyone who agrees with my position.

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 » Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:00 pm

dwight92070 wrote:It doesn't appear to be more important to me than any of the others posting here.
You've expressed a willingness to have blind spots pointed out, so I trust you'll receive this with the same humility and desire for mutual edification in which it's offered.

I'd agree with Timios; it does seem like the issue, or maybe something about the discussion, must matter to you more than you're letting on. I trust you're unaware of how unchristlike some of your behavior in this discussion has been; hence the connection to blind spots.

Do you believe it's not possible to draw one's opinions and beliefs from Scripture, and avoid reading one's presuppositions into Scripture? Is that why you wouldn't answer my question about how you'd recognize one who does that? If that's your belief, and you believe it's normal for followers of Jesus, I can see how it could cause a negative reaction toward those who do it. I'm only guessing, of course, as I've been unable to enlist your help in getting to the root of the differences in this discussion.

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

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:54 am

backwoodsman wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:It doesn't appear to be more important to me than any of the others posting here.
You've expressed a willingness to have blind spots pointed out, so I trust you'll receive this with the same humility and desire for mutual edification in which it's offered.

I'd agree with Timios; it does seem like the issue, or maybe something about the discussion, must matter to you more than you're letting on. I trust you're unaware of how unchristlike some of your behavior in this discussion has been; hence the connection to blind spots.

Dwight speaking: Let's say that you Timios and you are right, that this issue really matters to me. Is there a problem with that? Can a person be overly concerned or preoccupied with a Bible issue? Steve brought this whole issue up and I'm simply responding to him and others and I just happen to believe otherwise. Many Bible issues matter to me. Just because I had a different opinion and defended it, does that mean I am unchristlike? Please don't beat around the bush and show me my unchristlike behavior.

Do you believe it's not possible to draw one's opinions and beliefs from Scripture, and avoid reading one's presuppositions into Scripture?

Dwight speaking: I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying that everyone reads the scripture with presuppositions? Or are you saying that we take our opinions and beliefs first, and then try to find them in the scripture? Your question can be taken different ways, so I really can't answer it until I know what you're saying. I will admit anger over the idea that only I have presuppositions and that all of you on the other side of the issue have none. If that is unchristlike, then I'm guilty. To me, it's hypocrisy. I was also angry over what I called a game on your part. The reason for my anger here was and is the same. You won't answer a straightforward question without some sort of analysis of me first.

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

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 7:26 pm

To all concerned:

I do apologize to all here that I may have offended because of my anger. Please forgive me.

Dwight

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

Re: Church Authority

Post by Homer » Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:07 pm

Hi Dwight,

No apology needed as far as I am concerned; I haven't been offended.

There is on thing that you haven't mentioned as far as I can recall in this discussion. In Acts 14:23 we read:

Acts 14:23 (NASB)

23. When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

Here we find the word "appointed" as a translation of the Greek cheirotonesantes. The word is sometimes translated "ordained". Most exegetes who have written concerning this passage appear to favor the idea that the appointment was done by a sort of election overseen by Paul and Barnabas, as the literal meaning of the Greek is that of a show of hands (from cheir, "the hand" and teino, "to stretch"). Other commentators disagree and believe that the Greek word as used here came to mean no more than to appoint or ordain. Regardless of which is correct, here, and in the case of Paul's instruction to Titus to appoint elders, we find no case of any elder appointing himself to the position. You say your home church has a person I understand to be a sort of pastor/elder who has the final and sole authority. From your description it sounds as though he is a good man, but I would ask how he came to be in the position he is in. Is he associated with some other church or group who appointed (ordained) him?

I might add that my view of being ordained as is popularly practiced today is that it is not biblical because the word simply refers to being appointed to a position and when a person leaves that position he is no longer ordained to anything. I do not see it as an indelible mark, as though stamped on someone's forehead. When someone is appointed as police chief in a city and he leaves or is terminated, he is no longer appointed or ordained.

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

Re: Church Authority

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:58 am

Homer,

I did not know Dan back when he was "ordained" or appointed but I asked him about it. I don't recall all the details, but I believe it was after he graduated from seminary, Iliff School of Theology, and had served as an intern at a local Presbyterian church, that they had some sort of ceremony to ordain him.

I tend to agree with Steve here. That is, that there is an "indelible mark" on a person put there by God, and that Dan was gifted and called by God as a shepherd even before this ordination, but this was simply a recognition of it by man.

Dan is not a Presbyterian now, however, and I'm not sure he was back then. At some point, he felt God was leading him to start a church in his home. I believe that was over 20 years ago.

Post Reply

Return to “Ecclesiology”